Article

The Moderating Role of Neutralizers Journal of Human Values

22(3) 238–248
on the Relationship between Abusive © 2016 Management Centre
for Human Values
Supervision and Intention to Quit: SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
A Proposed Model DOI: 10.1177/0971685816650575
http://jhv.sagepub.com

Sajeet Pradhan1
Lalatendu Kesari Jena2

Abstract
This article proposes a conceptual model that explores the effect of abusive supervision on subor-
dinates’ intention to quit the organization. We refer to several justice theories like social exchange
theory and met expectations theory to strengthen our assertion that subordinates’ intention to quit
the organization is high when they perceive their supervisor’s behaviour to be abusive. This article
also strives to identify factors which might act as neutralizer in mitigating the pernicious effect of
abusive supervision on subordinates’ decision to quit. These factors are positive affect, perceived co-
worker support, emotional intelligence and meaningful work which might act as buffer in reducing the
deleterious effect of abusive supervision on subordinates, thereby minimizing their intention to
quit the organization. We offer several research propositions which can be empirically tested, and
conclude with implications of the study, limitations of the proposed model and research directions for
future investigations.

Keywords
Abusive supervision, intention to quit, positive affect, meaningful work, perceived co-worker support,
emotional intelligence

Introduction
In last two decades, research on individual behaviours considered to be deviant, counterproductive or
antisocial is on a steady rise (Robinson & Bennet, 1995). Although, most of these studies involve rank
and file employees (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006), but few have also highlighted the darker
side of those on managerial rank or in supervisory position (Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001). One such
negative supervisory construct is abusive supervision which refers to sustained dysfunctional behaviours

1
Department of Business Administration, Ravenshaw University, Cuttack, Odisha, India.
2
Department of Humanities and Social Science, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur, India.

Corresponding author:
Sajeet Pradhan, Department of Business Administration, Ravenshaw University, Cuttack, Odisha, India.
E-mail: sajeetpradhaniit@gmail.com
Pradhan and Jena 239

towards the subordinates. The examples of such detrimental behaviours include intimidating the sub-
ordinate, withholding or hoarding critical information, posing aggressive body language, humiliating or
ridiculing the subordinate in front of others and treating subordinates with uneasy silence (Keashly,
1998; Tepper, 2000). Research claims that abusive supervision is related to lower level of employee
satisfaction, job commitment, OCB and job engagement, and higher levels of role conflict, turnover and
distress (Ashforth, 1997; Tepper, 2000). Other pernicious effects of abusive supervision include, stress,
emotional exhaustion, deviant workplace behaviours and work–family conflict (Tepper, 2000). One of
the unfortunate yet common consequences of abusive supervision is employee’s (victim’s) intention to
quit the organization. Intention to quit precedes the actual quitting and is commonly referred to an indi-
vidual’s withdrawal cognitions that involve thoughts of quitting and search for alternative employment
opportunities. Although several studies have investigated the relationship between abusive supervision
and employees’ intention to quit, very little is known about potential moderators, especially the ones
which can reduce the harmful effects of abusive supervision on the victim (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al.,
2001). The study of such neutralizers become more imperative as the presence of such moderators
can provide respite to the abused and beleaguered employee. Tepper (2000) has also proposed that
some subordinates are better equipped (mentally and psychologically) than others to cope with abusive
supervision successfully, which further demands the need to investigate factors like emotional intelli-
gence, positive affect (PA), meaningful work and peer support.
The study is organized as follows: we started with a literature review of abusive supervision and its
harmful effect on various organizational outcomes especially employee’s intention to quit. Further,
we developed an exploratory model grounded in extant literature that will help us identify the possible
buffers that will mitigate the pain, trauma and humiliation of an abused employee and will dissuade him/
her to quit the organization. We also reviewed these moderators like emotional intelligence, positive
affect (PA), meaningful work and perceived co-worker support which might mitigate the harmful effect
of abusive supervision. Based on the conceptual model few propositions on causality and moderational
effect are stated, and finally the article concludes with comments on implications, direction for future
research (empirical testing of the stated propositions) and limitations of the proposed model.

Abusive Supervision
In past, leadership studies have been biased towards effective leadership behaviours, but recent years
have witnessed a steady increase in research works pertaining to abusive or destructive leadership behav-
iours (Wu, 2008). These studies include some common and overlapping negative leadership constructs
like petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1997), toxic leaders (Lipman-Blumen, 2005), workplace bullying (Hoel,
Rayner, & Cooper, 1999), supervisor undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002) and abusive super-
vision (Tepper, 2000). As discussed earlier, Tepper (2000) defined abusive supervision as ‘subordinates’
perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and
nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact’ (p. 178). Although, the differences and commonalities
between these constructs is not part of the scope of this article and can be studied from Tepper’s (2007)
qualitative review of literature, yet we highlight four important features of abusive supervision that
separates it from other similar constructs. First, abusive supervision is subordinate’s perceptual assess-
ment of his/her supervisor’s behaviour. This subjective assessment gets affected by various factors like
personality dispositions (e.g., PA, emotional intelligence) of the subordinate and the context in which
the assessment is made (e.g., meaning attached to work and perceived co-worker support). Second, abusive
240 Journal of Human Values 22(3)

supervision involves sustained displays of hostility, thereby indicating that the victim (subordinate) is
perpetually exposed to abuse and humiliation (Tepper, 2007). An abusive behaviour is one which is
frequent and regular not a chance happenstance, so if a boss scolds the subordinate for a particular
offence occasionally it wouldn’t amount to abusive behaviour. Tepper (2000) suggested that the abusive
relationship will endure until either the subordinate or the supervisor terminates the relationship, or the
supervisor changes his/her behaviour. Third characteristic of abusive supervision is that the supervisor’s
behaviour has to be wilful or deliberate (Tepper, 2007). However, it is irrelevant whether that act of
abuse is done to harm the subordinate or not. In other words, abusive supervision is not defined in terms
of the intended outcome the supervisor’s behaviour might lead to but rather is defined in terms of
supervisor’s intention: deliberate or unintentional. The fourth and final characteristic of abusive super-
vision is that the abuses should be nonphysical. These nonphysical abuses comprises of behaviours like,
to criticize publicly, to act in a rude manner, demonstrate inconsiderate behaviours and to throw tantrums
(Bies, 2000).
Since Tepper’s pioneering work, a multitude of studies have empirically tested the effect of abusive
supervision on both individual as well as organizational outcomes (for reviews, see Mackey, Freider,
Brees, & Martinko, 2015; Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013; Tepper, 2007). These studies have
reported that the subordinates’ perception of abusive supervision is positively related to emotional
exhaustion, negative affect, employee resistance, workplace deviance, low leader–member exchange,
intention to quit and family–work conflict; and negatively associated with job satisfaction, commitment,
job performance, organizational citizenship behaviour, and life satisfaction (Duffy et al., 2002; Tepper,
2000; Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004; Tepper et al., 2001; Xu, Huang, Lam, & Miao, 2012;
Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). One of the toxic effects of abusive supervision is subordinates’ intention
to quit.

Abusive Supervision and Intention to Quit

Although most organizations are concerned about actual turnover, but it is equally imperative to
understand the employee’s intention to quit as they precede the actual quitting behaviour (once they have
quitted, it is hard to get access to them) and can be changed so as to stem subordinate’s turnover. Prior
studies also suggest that the most important predictor of actual employee turnover is employee’s
withdrawal intentions (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). Also, Sager’s (1991) longitudinal study of
salespeople clearly validates the decision to study intention to quit instead of actual quitting. Several
researchers (e.g., Bluedorn, 1982; Kalliath & Beck, 2001; Saks, 1996) have attempted to find the reasons
that trigger employee’s intention to quit the organization. One of the reasons often cited in popular
employee turnover studies that lead to an employee’s intention to quit followed by actual quitting is
strained relationship between subordinate and his/her immediate supervisor. Of all the interpersonal
relationship at workplace the one most significant and meaningful is the dyadic relationship between
subordinate and his/her immediate supervisor or the reporting authority. If this relationship gets strained
because of any reason including supervisor’s abusive behaviour it will lead to several negative out-
comes. An important consequence of abusive supervision is subordinates’ decision to leave the organiza-
tion (Waldman, Kelly, Arora, & Smith, 2004). Such unfortunate employee turnover result in loss of
productivity, lower morale of remaining employees and additional cost in hiring and training of new
staff (Waldman et al., 2004). According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), subordinates may attri-
bute supervisory abuse not just to the supervisor (individual) but to the entire organization and therefore
Pradhan and Jena 241

may withdraw their organizational commitment and eventually decide to quit their job, as retaliation to
supervisor’s abuse (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008). Similar thoughts are also reflected in Porter and
Steer’s (1973) ‘met expectations’ model which suggest that employees generally have a set of job expect-
ations, one of which is healthy relationship with the supervisor. But if these expectations are not met
(having unsatisfactory relationship with the supervisor), then the dissatisfied employee may plan to quit
the organization.
Subordinates who feel frustrated, alienated and powerless at workplace because of abusive super-
vision will seriously think of discontinuing their relationship with the organization, leading to higher turn-
over intentions (Tepper, 2007). Schyns and Schilling (2013) in their meta-analysis, reported positive
relationship between abusive supervision and turnover intentions (r = 0.22). The meta-analysis also
highlighted the fact that subordinate’s turnover intention is one of the least studied outcomes in the area
of abusive supervision. In a recent meta-analysis and empirical review, Mackey et al. (2015) have
quoted only a single study (Gopalkrishnan, 2013) that has used Indian sample. In the same study, they
have also clearly stated the need for further studies with respondents from countries other than United
States. Hence, it would be interesting to explore the effect of abusive supervision on subordinate’s
intention to quit in Indian organizations.
Therefore we propose,

P1:  Abusive supervision will be positively related to subordinate’s intention to quit.

Positive Meaningful
Affect Work

Abusive Supervision Intention to Quit

Perceived Emotional
Co-worker Support Intelligence

Figure 1. Conceptual Model

Source: Authors’ own.
242 Journal of Human Values 22(3)

Moderating Abusive Supervision—Intention to Quit Relationship

As abusive supervision is a perceptual process based on subordinate’s assessment of supervisor’s behav-
iour, it varies from one individual to other in terms of type and severity. Tepper (2000) also suggested
that it is unlikely that abusive supervisory behaviours will affect all employees in the same way or
to equal extent. Although recent years have witnessed a healthy increase in studies related to abusive
supervision, yet, our knowledge of moderators that can mitigate the adverse influence of abusive
supervision on organizational outcomes especially on subordinate’s intention to quit is quite limited
(Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007). The current study of these neutralizers (moderators) will
greatly help organizations to identify and encourage individual differences and contextual factors that
will curb employee (subordinate) turnover as a result of abusive supervision. In this article, we have
identified four such factors or neutralizers: PA, emotional intelligence, perceived co-worker support
and meaningful work, which will act as a buffer in reducing the negative influence of abusive super-
vision on subordinate’s intention to quit (Figure 1).

Positive Affect as a Moderator of Abusive Supervision—Intention to Quit Relationship

Baron (1996, p. 340) defined PA as a ‘tendency to have an overall sense of well-being, to experience
positive emotions . . . and to see oneself as pleasurably engaged in terms of both interpersonal relations
and achievement’. It is also stated as a dimension of affective structure that defines the extent to which
an individual feels enthusiastic, active and joyous (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). PA has been asso-
ciated with both optimism as well as proactivity, that is, individuals with high level of PA not only per-
ceive situations in a positive way but also proactively scout for or create positive situations (Mobley,
1977). Such individual high on PA will appraise stressful situations as a challenge and will proactively
look for ways to improve the adverse situation. This optimism and proactivity help these high PA indi-
viduals to cope with undesirable and tough situations in an effective manner. May (1972) also extend
support to this assertion that individuals those who control stressful situation by proactively altering the
environmental factors suffer less distress than those who fail to exert influence. Several studies have
investigated the role of PA on positive coping of stressful events. In one such study, participants experi-
encing high PA reported to have more coping resources (e.g., physical, social, psychological and
intellectual) to deal with stress than the ones experiencing low PA (Khosla & Hangal, 2004). Our
assertion is that individuals high on PA will perceive abusive supervisory behaviours optimistically than
their colleagues who report to have low PA. These individuals armed with more coping resources will
take adverse situation like abusive supervisory behaviours as a challenge and will engage in improving
the situation than think of quitting the organization. Thus, we propose:

P2: Positive affect will moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinate’s
intention to quit.

Perceived Co-worker Support as a Moderator of Abusive Supervision–Intention

to Quit Relationship
Several researchers have explored the role of social support in promoting positive outcomes of employ-
ees (e.g., Beehr, Farmer, Glazer, Gudanowski, & Nair, 2003; Mendelson, Catano, & Kelloway, 2000).
Pradhan and Jena 243

Social support may be defined as behaviours that include offering assistance to others, showing consider-
ation, respecting others and so on. This support can be from anyone: a spouse, sibling, supervisor, friend,
teammate, neighbour, supplier, or even customer. Social support can be either instrumental support
(e.g., financial assistance, sharing of critical information and resources) or emotional support (e.g., pro-
viding emotional support, offering sympathy, supporting one’s ideas; Antonucci, Fuhrer, & Jackson,
1990). In a work setting, both supervisors as well as co-workers are often considered major sources of
social support (Ng & Sorensen, 2008). However, in the context of abusive supervision a subordinate can
only expect support from his or her co-worker which may alleviate the harmful effect of abusive super-
vision (Duffy et al., 2002). In their cross-domain buffering hypothesis, Duffy and his colleagues claimed
that social support from one domain (co-worker) can neutralize the harmful effect of another domain
(which is abusive supervisor). Social support may be vital resource for employees to cope with stress and
stressful events (Terry, Nielsen, & Perchard, 1993). Further, according to Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation
of resources theory, resource gain (support of co-workers) can compensate for resource loss (lack of
support from supervisor or abusive supervision). Hence, we propose:

P2: Perceived Co-worker Support will moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and
subordinate’s intention to quit.

Emotional Intelligence as a Moderator of Abusive Supervision—Intention

to Quit Relationship
Previously, intelligence quotient (IQ) was considered the most important factor leading to one’s career
success, but it all changed with the advent of emotional quotient (EQ). Goleman (1995) in his seminal
book ‘Emotional Intelligence’ made the concept widely popular, although the term was coined by
Salovey and Mayer (1990) who defined it as

an ability to recognize the meanings of emotions and their relationships and to reason and problem-solve on the
basis of them. Emotional intelligence is involved in the capacity to perceive emotions, assimilate emotion-related
feelings, understand the information of these emotions, and manage them. (p. 267)

Several studies have reported that emotionally intelligent individuals suffer less subjective stress,
enjoy better psychological and physical well-being and demonstrate higher job performance (Slaski &
Cartwright, 2002). Emotional intelligence has been associated with control over strong emotions and
positive coping of stressful events (Nikolaou & Tsaousis, 2002). Abusive supervision is one such
stressful event which depletes the resources of the subordinate (victim) and lead to several negative
organizational outcomes including intention to quit. Employees with high emotional intelligence are
better equipped than that of employees with low emotional intelligence in processing emotional
messages (negative messages) effectively so as to create a sense of control over self as well as over
adverse situations. Another significant fact about emotionally intelligent individuals is their ability to
build healthy relationships with other important stakeholders at workplace (for example, colleagues
or peers), this social alliance provide them support to combat stressful events like supervisory abuse
effectively. Thus, we propose:

P3: Emotional intelligence will moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and sub-
ordinate’s intention to quit.
244 Journal of Human Values 22(3)

Meaningful Work as a Moderator of Abusive Supervision—Intention

to Quit Relationship
Throughout our working life we spend a considerable amount of time at workplace, so the things that we
do or we engage in should be both enriching as well as fulfilling to us. Most of us want our career and
work to be more than just a mean to earn livelihood, we want work to be something important and mean-
ingful (Sverko & Vizek-Vidovic, 1995). Hackman and Oldham (1975, p. 162) defined meaningful work
as ‘the degree to which the employee experiences the job as one which is generally meaningful, valuable,
and worthwhile’. Generally, employees consider meaningful work to be more important than pay or
security (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway and McKee (2007) defined mean-
ingful work as to ‘finding a purpose in work that is greater than the extrinsic outcomes of the work’
(Arnold et al., 2007, p. 195). Extending the definition stated by Arnold and his colleagues to our study,
we propose that those who consider their work as meaningful develop a deep sense of commitment
towards their work and would not abandon either the work or organization despite the hardship or suffer-
ing. To substantiate our position we would refer to research on political prisoners and military psycho-
logy which reports of positive relation between ideological commitment and psychological endurance
(Punamaki, 1996). Ideological commitment is psychologically vital for those who undergo traumatic
experiences as it provides meaning to these painful events. According to this, one who is steadfast in
one’s commitment towards an ideologue or goal will experience an inner satisfaction that will compen-
sate for the negative consequences of traumatic events. Although there is no evidence to link ideological
commitment with meaningful work, yet we believe that both these constructs have a common underly-
ing feature that is to give importance to a goal, vision or ideology more than their personal welfare.
This sense of saliency is the reason why several individuals tolerate abuses, humiliation and hardship
without giving up on their goal or organization. In addition, we believe that those who derive great deal
of meaning from their work, must been more connected to their work and must have made considerable
investment in their work to leave the work because of abusive supervisor.
Hence, we propose:

P4: Meaningful work will moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinate’s
intention to quit.

Implications for Research and Practice

The model proposed in this article is exploratory and therefore the first research implication will be to
operationalize and empirically test the proposed linkages. Future investigators might like to investigate
the combined effect of two moderators instead of studying the individual effect of each moderator.
For example, the combined moderating impact of PA coupled with meaningful work will provide us
a different perspective than studying the individual effect of PA and perceived co-worker support
separately. Another research implication of this study is to investigate and confirm the role of certain
moderators like perceived co-worker support and meaningful work in influencing the relationship of
abusive supervision and subordinate’s intention to quit, as previous studies have reported mixed and
ambiguous results (Beehr et al., 2003; Harvey et al., 2007). In case of perceived co-worker effect it has
been observed that under stressful conditions, this support from co-worker (and from other sources)
has been wrongly judged by the victim and instead of having ameliorating effect on the relationship it
actually has debilitating effect on the relationship. Hence, the moderator has reverse buffering effect on
Pradhan and Jena 245

the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational outcomes. Similarly, in their empirical
study, Harris, Kacmar and Zivnuska (2007) report that high level of meaningful work will intensify the
negative effect of abusive supervision which is in contrast with what we have proposed in this article.
Our assertion is that an employee who considers his or her work as more meaningful will tolerate the
abuses of the supervisor for goals which are more important than his or her personal welfare or well-
being. Hence, this article will instigate future studies which will put to rest these debates by empirically
testing the mentioned linkages.

Limitations of the Proposed Model

Although we have identified four important factors which might act as buffer in mitigating the
pernicious effect of abusive supervision on organizational outcomes especially on subordinates’ inten-
tion to quit, our study has failed to discuss other factors mainly demographic characteristics like age,
education and time spent with the supervisor which might play equally significant role in curbing the
harmful effect of supervisory abuse on subordinates’ turnover intention. Gross, Carstensen, Pasupathi,
Tsai, Skorpen and Hsu (1997) in their study reported older employees to have more self-control and self-
regulation capacity to cope with supervisor’s abuses and ill treatment than their younger co-workers.
Similarly, Tsorbatzoudis, Travlos and Rodafinos (2013) have also stated that elderly employees get
easily habituated with situational demands, hence become more tolerant towards abusive experiences
than younger employees. Also, subordinates those who have spent more time with their supervisor will
perceive their superior’s ambiguous behaviour leniently and are more likely to interpret it as non-abusive
than the employees who have spent less time with their supervisors (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Other moder-
ators that may reduce the detrimental effect of abusive supervision on subordinates’ attitudes, and has
not been included in our study, are power distance and ingratiation. In countries with high level of power
distance, supervisory abuse is normative and acceptable as the level of trust and respect for the leader is
absolute and unquestionable (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994; Tepper, 2007). Hence employees from such
countries will be more tolerant and less reactive than employees from countries having low power dis-
tance. Similarly, ingratiation is associated with tactics to gain sense of control over others (Castro, Doug-
las, Hochwarter, Ferris, & Frink, 2003). Generally the victims of supervisory abuse feel helplessness and
lack of control over the prevailing situation; hence, those who engage in ingratiation can change the situ-
ation to their favour and will be more at ease than their counterparts those who do not indulge
in ingratiation. These limitations will definitely offer direction to future researchers in designing their
studies by incorporating the moderators excluded in our study.

Conclusion
In this article, we proposed an exploratory model suggesting abusive supervision to positively influence
subordinate’s intention to quit. The article also identifies and explains four factors that may act as
neutralizers in countering the deleterious effect of abusive supervision on subordinate’s intention to quit.
As intention to quit precedes the actual quitting our understanding of why employees quit their organiza-
tion because of their abusive supervisors and the factors that may curb such intentions by acting as buffer
will enrich our knowledge in making workplace abuse free and in arresting the loyalty of employees.
246 Journal of Human Values 22(3)

References
Antonucci, T. C., Fuhrer, R., & Jackson, J. S. (1990). Social support and reciprocity: A cross ethnic and cross-
national perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(4), 519–530.
Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review
of Psychology, 60(1), 717–741.
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and
psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
12(3), 193–203.
Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14(2), 126–140.
Baron, R. A. (1996). Interpersonal relations in organizations. In K. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences (pp.
334–370). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beehr, T. A., Farmer, S. J., Glazer, S., Gudanowski, D. M., & Nair, V. N. (2003). The enigma of social support and
occupational stress: Source congruence and gender role effects. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
8(3), 220–231.
Bies, R. J. (2000). Interactional (in) justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds),
Advances in organizational behavior (pp. 89–109). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Blau, P. (1964). Power and exchange in social life. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Bluedorn, A. (1982). The theories of turnover: Causes, effects, and meaning. Research in the Sociology of Organiza-
tions, 1(1), 75–128.
Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance, individualism collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a
culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(2), 233–257.
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of psycho-
logical attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 912–922.
Castro, S., Douglas, C., Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G., & Frink, D. (2003). The effects of positive affect and gender on
the influence tactics–job performance relationship. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(1),
1–18.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(2), 331–351.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Gopalkrishnan, P. (2013). Abusive Supervision and Group-level Perceptions: Looking at the Social Context of Abuse
in the Workplace (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Graduate College of Bowling Green State University.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee
turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management,
26(3), 463–488.
Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Tsai, J., Skorpen, C. G., & Hsu, A. Y. C. (1997). Emotion and aging:
Experience, expression, and control. Psychology and Aging, 12(4), 590–599.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology,
60(2), 159−170.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of perfor-
mance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 252–263.
Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing
effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3),
264–280.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist,
44(3), 513–524.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 195–230). Chichester, UK:
John Wiley.
Pradhan and Jena 247

Kalliath, T. J., & Beck, A. (2001). Is the path to burnout and turnover paved by a lack of supervisory support:
A structural equations test. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 30(2), 72–78.
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of Emotional
Abuse, 1(1), 85–117.
Khosla, M., & Hangal, E. (2004). Role of optimism and pessimism in coping with stress. Journal of Personality and
Clinical Studies, 20(1–2), 71–78.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2015). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and
empirical review. Journal of Management. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276514411_
Abusive_Supervision_A_Meta-Analysis_and_Empirical_Review
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 120–137.
May, R. (1972). Power and innocence. New York: Norton.
Mendelson, M. B., Catano, & V. M., Kelloway, K. (2000). The role of stress and social support in sick building
syndrome. Work & Stress, 14(2), 137–155.
Mobley, W. (1977). Immediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 408–414.
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of
support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group and Organization Management, 33(3), 243–268.
Nikolaou, I., & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: Exploring its effects on occupational
stress and organisational commitment. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(4), 327–342.
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absentee-
ism. Psychological Bulletin, 80(2), 151–176.
Sager, J. K. (1991). A longitudinal assessment of change in sales force turnover. Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, 19 (1), 25–36.
Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In K. Cameron, J. E.
Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 309–327). San Francisco: Barrett-
Koehler.
Punamaki, R. (1996). Can ideological commitment protect children’s psychosocial well-being in situations of
political violence? Child Development, 67(1), 55–69.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling
study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.
Saks, A. M. (1996). The relationship between the amount of helpfulness of entry training and work outcomes.
Human Relations, 49(4), 429–451.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership
and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158.
Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2002). Health, performance and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study of retail
managers. Stress and Health, 18(2), 63–68.
Sverko, B., & Vizek-Vidovic, V. (1995). Studies of the meaning of working: Approaches, models, and some of the
findings. In D. E. Super & B. Sverko (Eds), Life roles, values, and careers: International findings of the work
importance study (pp. 3–21). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.
———. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 33(3), 261–289.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationships between cowork-
ers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3),
455–465.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and
abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101–123.
248 Journal of Human Values 22(3)

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive super-
vision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 974–983.
Terry, D. J., Nielsen, M., & Perchard, L. (1993). Effects of work stress on psychological well-being and Job satisfac-
tion: The stress-buffering role of social support. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 168–175.
Tsorbatzoudis, H., Travlos, A. K., & Rodafinos, A. (2013). Gender and age differences in self-reported aggression
of high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(8), 1709–1725.
Waldman, J.D., Kelly, F., Arora, S., & Smith, H. (2004). The shocking cost of turnover in health care. Health Care
Management Review, 29(1), 2–7.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and
negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
Wu, T.-Y. (2008). Abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion: The mediating effects of subordinate justice
perception and emotional labor. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 50(2), 201–221.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role
of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), 531–543.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068–1076.