The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

How abusive supervision Abusive

supervision
ultimately might enhance and silent
employees
performance ratings among silent,
neurotic employees
Dirk De Clercq and Sadia Jahanzeb Received 6 January 2020
Revised 12 August 2020
Goodman School of Business, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada, and 24 September 2020
Tasneem Fatima Accepted 9 October 2020

International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract
Purpose – With a theoretical anchoring in the conservation of resources (COR) theory, this study investigates
how employees’ exposure to abusive supervision ultimately might lead to enhanced supervisor ratings of their
job performance because employees react with defensive silence. Employees’ neuroticism also might catalyze
this process.
Design/methodology/approach – Multi-source, three-wave data were collected from employees and their
supervisors in the power-distant, collectivistic country of Pakistan.
Findings – Beliefs about the presence of verbally abusive leaders, somewhat ironically, mitigate the risk of
diminished supervisor-rated performance evaluations to the extent that those beliefs prompt employees to
engage in self-protective behaviors to avoid confrontations with the abusive leaders. This mediating role of
defensive silence is invigorated to the extent that employees’ personalities make them more sensitive to
stressful work situations.
Practical implications – For practitioners, this study identifies self-protective silence as a key, potentially
worrisome mechanism that employees in power-distant, collectivistic countries may use to avoid negative
performance ratings by leaders they perceive as abusive, and it reveals how this process tends to vary across
different employees.
Originality/value – This research cites a critical, unexplored factor through which verbally abused
employees can avoid negative performance evaluations, by engaging in defensive silence, not only as a
potentially detrimental solution but also as an effective short-term solution. It further clarifies that this process
is more likely to occur among neurotic employees.
Keywords Abusive supervision, Defensive silence behavior, Job performance, Neuroticism, Conservation of
resources theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Adverse, resource-depleting work situations are critical concerns for human resource
managers because of the negative outcomes they threaten for employees’ well-being (Atwater
et al., 2016; Greenidge and Coyne, 2014; Newton and Teo, 2014; Thanacoody et al., 2014). For
example, employees treated with disrespect by other organizational members tend to feel
frustrated and suffer reduced work motivation (Cortina et al., 2017; Sliter et al., 2012). Such
feelings may be especially exacerbated when the cause is abusive supervision, such that the
verbal abuse comes from a supervisor to whom the employees report and on whom they
depend for their career success (Tepper, 2000; Yu et al., 2016). Organizational leaders who
engage in abusive supervision do not care for employees’ professional or private well-being
and instead engage in rude interactions, demeaning remarks and ridicule in the presence of
others (Harris et al., 2007; Tariq and Ding, 2018; Wang et al., 2012). People with abusive Personnel Review
tendencies who have supervisory positions pose ongoing, critical challenges to human © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
resource managers (Atwater et al., 2016; Liu and Wang, 2013), who in turn require a better DOI 10.1108/PR-01-2020-0007
PR understanding of how to help employees cope with such dysfunctional leadership
(Nandkeolyar et al., 2014; Peltokorpi, 2019).
Extant research highlights many negative behavioral outcomes of abusive supervision,
including diminished knowledge sharing (Kim et al., 2016), creativity (Gu et al., 2016) and
organizational citizenship (Gregory et al., 2013) by employees, as well as their reduced ability
to fulfill formal job duties (Harris et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2012). Such findings imply that
employees reduce their work-related efforts because they need to conserve their resources
when they confront a resource-draining situation, such as abuse from their supervisor. We
take a different perspective. In power-distant, collectivistic countries, employees exposed to
resource-draining abusive supervision might seek to reduce their risk of being subjected to
further resource losses, as might result in negative performance ratings, so they decide to
keep quiet, avoid reporting abusive leaders and try to maintain harmony in the
organizational collective, which we refer to as defensive silence behaviors (Jahanzeb and
Fatima, 2018; Kiewitz et al., 2016). Dedahanov et al. (2016b) find positive relationships of
power distance and collectivism with the likelihood that employees engage in relational
silence. For this study, we propose that verbally abusive leaders may be less likely to issue
negative performance evaluations of their employees to the extent that those employees avoid
confronting the leaders and instead remain silent in a self-protective attempt to keep the
precarious situation from getting even worse (Lam and Xu, 2019; Pinder and Harlos, 2001;
Van Dyne et al., 2003) [1].
This self-protective silence response may be especially prominent among employees with
neurotic dispositions (McCrae, 1990). Neuroticism implies a natural tendency to be emotionally
unstable, worried, anxious or depressed (Barrick and Mount, 1991). This personal trait thus has
strong relevance for predicting how employees react to stressful work conditions (Potter et al.,
2002), including resource-draining leadership (De Hoogh and Den Hartog, 2009). In particular, in
country contexts that normalize high levels of respect for people in powerful positions and
prioritize support for the collective (instead of standing out individually), employees’
neuroticism may serve as an impetus for defensive silence behaviors, in response to abusive
leader treatments, which then may prompt the abusive leader to offer more positive
performance ratings. That is, their sensitivity to stress may fuel neurotic employees’ desire to
avoid any escalation of leader-related hardships in these contexts (Kiewitz et al., 2016), with the
ultimate outcome that their leaders evaluate them less negatively.

COR theory
To anchor our arguments about the role that employees’ defensive silence may play in power-
distant, collectivistic countries, in terms of linking their exposure to abusive supervision with
enhanced job performance ratings as well as the influence of employee neuroticism in this
process, we rely on the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al.,
2018). This theory postulates that resource-draining organizational adversity steers
employees toward behaviors designed to protect their remaining resource bases (Deng
et al., 2018; Hobfoll, 2001). Similarly, we propose that the resource depletion caused by rude
treatment by powerful leaders might leave employees with little energy to fight the situation,
for fear of negative repercussions if they were to do so. In turn, it may seem reasonable to
avoid further resource losses by appeasing their powerful leaders and avoiding upheaval in
the organizational collective, through the use of defensive silence (Kiewitz et al., 2016). This
behavioral response helps employees who are verbally abused by leaders protect and
preserve their remaining resources (Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000), in that it puts them in a more
favorable light among abusive leaders, so they generate resource gains in the form of
improved (i.e. less negative) performance ratings (Pinder and Harlos, 2001; Whiteside and
Barclay, 2013).
 According to the COR theory, these resource-related processes are strengthened by Abusive
personal characteristics that increase the perceived value of limiting resource-depleting supervision
workplace challenges (Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000). Therefore, we propose that the motivation
of employees in power-distant, collectivistic countries to avoid aggravating a negative
and silent
leadership situation, using defensive silence behavior, should be stronger to the extent that employees
they tend to get nervous or upset by unfavorable work conditions (Aizzat et al., 2005; Roelofs
et al., 2008). In particular, neuroticism might trigger defensive silence behaviors in response to
the presence of resource-draining verbal abuse by powerful leaders (Beattie and Griffin,
2014), and those behaviors then might prompt supervisors to offer better performance
evaluations (Pinder and Harlos, 2001). Conversely, employees with a more relaxed
disposition, even if they live in power-distant, collectivistic countries, might not feel the
need to react to the hardships of abusive supervision with self-protective silent behaviors
(Kiewitz et al., 2016), which could lead their superiors to judge them more negatively.
Formally, we anticipate that employees’ neuroticism may be useful for enhancing the
protective, beneficial impact of their use of defensive silence in channeling abusive
supervision into less negative supervisor-rated job performance evaluations. To be clear, our
focus is on how neuroticism moderates the relationship between employees’ exposure to
abusive supervision and their defensive silence behavior, not the relationship between
employees’ silence behavior and supervisors’ ratings of their job performance. That is, we
predict that this personal resource has an important role in triggering verbally abused
employees to engage in self-protective silence, not necessarily that it exerts an influence on
how other parties (i.e. supervisors) to respond to their silence behavior.

Contributions
We aim to contribute to extant research in several ways. First, contrary to a predominant
focus on the harmful individual outcomes of abusive supervision, we pinpoint a critical
pathway by which employees’ perceptions of such negative leadership behaviors may limit
the risk of negative job performance ratings by leaders, namely by encouraging them to adopt
defensive silence (Whiteside and Barclay, 2013). Clearly, abusive supervision has severely
negative implications for employee well-being, and organizations must devote substantial
effort for sanctioning such leadership approaches (Avey et al., 2015; Whitman et al., 2014). But
we offer a novel perspective and thus practical insights into a pertinent risk that might arise in
power-distant, collectivistic countries, where employees may seek to avoid negative
performance evaluations by abusive leaders, so they lay low in the organization to protect
themselves (Dedahanov et al., 2016b). This response is unlikely to constitute an adequate
solution in the long term, for either the employee or the organization, because it perpetuates
abusive practices by powerful leaders (Kiewitz et al., 2016). Yet this study clarifies why
defensive silence may seem like an attractive option to employees in the short term: it enables
them to avoid further escalation of their resource-draining work situation and abusive
supervision (Park et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2015), while also generating potential resource gains in
the form of less negative supervisor-rated performance evaluations (Hobfoll and Shirom,
2000). By theorizing about these protective performance consequences of defensive silence
behavior, as a response to abusive supervision, we complement prior research that tends to
focus solely on short-term harms, without providing insights into how and why employees
seek to deal with this negative leadership style in ways that they believe are beneficial for
them (Zhang et al., 2019).
Second, we explicate the personal circumstances in which the translation of abusive
supervision into enhanced supervisor-rated job performance, through defensive silence, is
more likely to occur. Employees’ neuroticism might be a highly pertinent factor in this respect
because this personal trait influences the attractiveness of dealing with or limiting stressful
PR leadership conditions (Beattie and Griffin, 2014; De Hoogh and Den Hartog, 2009). People’s
neuroticism tends to make them more frustrated and impulsive in their responses to adverse
conditions (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Eissa and Lester, 2017; Shmotkin and Keinan, 2011),
though the intensity of their response may depend on the specific type of response. For
example, in their study of workplace incivility among Australian-based employees—a
country that scores relatively low on power distance and collectivism (Hofstede et al., 2010)—
Beattie and Griffin (2014) find that neurotic employees tend to respond to increasingly severe
daily incivility with ignorance or avoidance to avoid further escalation. Brinsfield (2013) also
finds a positive relationship between US-based employees’ neuroticism and their deviant and
diffident silence. In power-distant, collectivistic countries, this personality trait a fortiori may
generate feelings of personal safety if employees can avoid an escalation of abusive
leadership, through their defensive silence (Lam and Xu, 2019; Van Dyne et al., 2003), which
then may lead to better performance evaluations from those supervisors. By detailing this
invigorating role of people’s inherent neuroticism, we reveal which employees might be most
keen to protect themselves against the risk that abusive supervision will compromise their
career prospects, by staying under the radar and hoping that they can maintain positive
performance ratings.

Country context
As it is evident from this discussion, our theorizing is intricately linked to the empirical
context. From a general perspective, our focus on Pakistan addresses the established need for
more investigations of the roles of autocratic leadership styles in nonWestern contexts
(Khalid et al., 2018; Naseer et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2015). Even if this study’s arguments may not
apply to all countries, they should have great relevance for countries, such as Pakistan, that
score high on the power distance and collectivism dimensions. When power distance is high, a
self-focused leadership approach, such as abusive supervision, may tend to be relatively
common (Khan et al., 2018), and employees likely have a strong desire to avoid direct
confrontations with abusive leaders, which they can achieve by engaging in defensive silence
(Dedahanov et al., 2016b). Moreover, the collectivistic nature of Pakistan (Hofstede et al., 2010)
may encourage employees to maintain harmony, instead of creating upheaval, when they
confront difficult work situations, so defensive silence might seem more appropriate. These
dual motivations to avoid confrontation with abusive leaders and to keep the peace in the
organizational collective might be reinforced by employees’ neuroticism, which encourages
them to avoid making an already negative situation worse (Beattie and Griffin, 2014).
Questions about how and when exposure to abusive supervision might spur defensive
silence, which may then affect supervisor-rated job performance as well as the invigorating
role of neuroticism, appear particularly compelling in this country context, along with
countries with comparable cultural characteristics. A post hoc analysis, detailed in the
Results section, affirms that the invigorated, positive relationship between abusive
supervision and defensive silence behavior holds in Pakistan but not among a sample of
employees in Canada, a country with lower power distance and collectivism scores.

Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework is summarized in Figure 1. Employees’ exposure to abusive
supervision should spur their defensive silence behavior, which in turn may enhance
supervisor ratings of their job performance. Neuroticism functions as a catalyst of this
process, such that the translation of abusive supervision into higher job performance,
through defensive silence, is more likely among employees with a general disposition toward
stress. The arguments for the framework’s constitutive hypotheses are detailed in the next
section.
 Abusive
Neuroticism supervision
and silent
employees

Abusive Defensive Supervisor-rated

Figure 1.
supervision silence behavior job performance
Conceptual model

Hypotheses
Mediating role of defensive silence behavior
We predict a mediating role of defensive silence behavior, such that it links employees’
exposure to abusive supervision with enhanced supervisor-rated job performance. According
to the COR theory, employees’ work behaviors are shaped by their desire to preserve their
current resource reservoirs and avoid further resource losses, particularly in the presence of
negative work situations (Hobfoll, 2001; Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000). We accordingly expect a
positive connection between employees’ exposure to abusive supervision and their defensive
silence behavior in power-distant, collectivistic countries such as Pakistan. When employees
in these countries suffer from resource-depleting relationships with their abusive
supervisors, which undermine the quality of their professional and personal well-being
(Atwater et al., 2016; Tariq and Ding, 2018), they may feel a strong desire to avoid escalating
this leadership adversity (Whitman et al., 2014). Accordingly, exposure to an abusive leader
may motivate employees to stay under the radar and not speak up, as a form of self-protection
against powerful leaders and to avoid organizational disruptions, which further helps them to
conserve or maintain their existing resource bases (Park et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2015). In
contrast, when employees do not suffer from abusive leadership, they are less fearful of
resource losses arising from their decision to confront powerful leaders or disturb
organizational harmony, so they perceive less need to engage in defensive silence.
Previous studies similarly find empirical evidence of a positive relationship between abusive
supervision and employee silence in countries such as the Philippines (Kiewitz et al., 2016) and
China (Lam and Xu, 2019; Xu et al., 2015).
The positive relationship between employees’ exposure to abusive supervision and
defensive silence also reflect arguments that are not specifically tied to the power-distant or
collectivistic nature of the cultural environment. That is, frustration with leaders’ exhibition
of verbal abuse may generate negative emotions about the job situation in general, so
employees feel motivated to withhold information as a self-protective mechanism, even if this
information could benefit the organization (Lee et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2016). If employees
interpret the rude treatment they receive from leaders as a form of disrespect for their daily
work efforts, they may become reluctant to undertake discretionary activities and instead
prefer to stay passive and protect their own self-interests first (Atwater et al., 2016; Gregory
et al., 2013; Xu et al., 2015). Employees who perceive verbal abuse by organizational leaders as
reflective of an overall lack of care for their personal well-being (Lin et al., 2013) may respond
with an avoidant, self-focused approach (Kiewitz et al., 2016).
In the next stage of our conceptual framework, we predict a positive relationship between
employees’ defensive silence and their supervisor-rated job performance. Abusive leaders
likely form positive impressions of employees who do not challenge them and remain silent
PR about problem situations (i.e. the leaders’ abusive behaviors) (Pinder and Harlos, 2001; Van
Dyne et al., 2003), especially in countries marked by high levels of power distance and
collectivism, where respect for organizational leaders and collective harmony are highly
valued (Hofstede et al., 2010; Jahanzeb and Fatima, 2018). Therefore, employees’ propensity to
remain silent as a form of self-protection might be a critical mechanism through which their
exposure to abusive supervision mitigates the risk of poor supervisor ratings of their job
performance. This mediating role of defensive silence implies that employees who suffer
abusive supervision achieve better job performance ratings because of their self-protective,
avoidant behavior. Previous studies predict similar mediating roles of employee silence with
regard to how perceived contract breaches (Wang and Hsieh, 2014), workplace ostracism
(Jahanzeb and Fatima, 2018) or punishment (Dedahanov et al., 2016a) generate negative work
outcomes. To expand this body of research, we propose a seemingly functional role of
defensive silence, from the perspective of verbally abused employees, who believe that this
behavior might provide a conduit to help them reduce their further risk of receiving negative
performance evaluations from their abusive leaders. To avoid increased resource depletion,
they engage in defensive silence (Lam and Xu, 2019) in an effort to evoke better performance
ratings from abusive supervisors (Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000).
H1. Employees’ employee defensive silence behavior mediates the relationship between
their exposure to abusive supervision and supervisor-rated job performance.

Moderating role of neuroticism

According to the COR theory, employees’ behavioral responses to negative work conditions,
as means to counter the resource losses imposed by these conditions, intensify when
pertinent personal characteristics enhance the desirability of avoiding further resource
drainage (Hobfoll, 2001; Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000). Similarly, we propose that the motivation
of employees in power-distant, collectivistic countries to engage in self-protective silence
behaviors, as reactions to abusive supervision, should be reinforced by individual factors
that make this self-protection particularly attractive, such as neuroticism (Beattie and
Griffin, 2014). Employees with a neurotic disposition tend to feel nervous about their
organizational functioning (Costa and McCrae, 1992) and see themselves as victims when
they operate in unfavorable work conditions (Aizzat et al., 2005; Potter et al., 2002). Because
they perceive abusive supervision as deeply upsetting and experience high levels of anxiety
as a result of it (De Hoogh and Den Hartog, 2009), they may feel particularly compelled to
remain silent in its face to settle their nerves (Brinsfield, 2013). As mentioned previously,
research on instigated incivility offers a parallel prediction about this invigorating role of
neuroticism, revealing that employees “with higher neuroticism were more likely to ignore/
avoid the instigator when [incivility] incidents were perceived as more severe, while those
with lower neuroticism appeared to be less likely to do this for severe incidents, suggesting
the latter may feel more able to confront the instigator when necessary” (Beattie and Griffin,
2014, p. 637). Neurotic employees in power-distant, collectivistic countries who are exposed
to resource-draining leadership may experience an especially strong sense of personal
protection if they can avoid prompting already abusive leaders to retaliate against them,
such as if they were to speak out about how badly they have been treated (Hobfoll and
Shirom, 2000; Pinder and Harlos, 2001).
When considered together with the mediating role of defensive silence, this invigorating
role of neuroticism implies a moderated mediation effect (Preacher et al., 2007). The personal
trait may invigorate the indirect effect of employees’ exposure to abusive supervision on a
supervisor’s ratings of their job performance through defensive silence. When employees in
power-distant, collectivistic countries feel nervous about adverse work situations, the causal
mechanism of self-protective silence, linking the effect of resource-depleting abusive
supervision and performance evaluations, is stronger (Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000). Conversely, Abusive
employees who score low on neuroticism feel less threatened by adverse leader treatment and supervision
are less concerned about how they can keep from aggravating such treatment (Van Dyne
et al., 2003), so they are less likely to resort to defensive silence behaviors, and this choice may
and silent
undermine their performance evaluations, as issued by the abusive supervisor. employees
H2. The indirect relationship between employees’ exposure to abusive supervision and
supervisor-rated job performance, through defensive silence behavior, is moderated
by employees’ neuroticism, such that this indirect relationship is stronger among
employees who are more neurotic.

Method
Sample and data collection
We tested the research hypotheses with data collected from employees in two Pakistani-
based organizations that operate in different industry sectors (finance and manufacturing).
These data were collected with paper-and-pencil surveys administered in three rounds,
separated by one month each. The first survey gauged employees’ perceptions of abusive
supervision and neuroticism, the second survey assessed their defensive silence behaviors
and the third survey, completed by employees’ supervisors, measured their job
performance. The language of the surveys was English, which is the formal language of
business in Pakistan. Several design elements helped to protect the interests of the
participants and diminish concerns about social desirability. In particular, the respondents
were promised complete confidentiality, and they were told that no personal identifying
information would ever be communicated, that the study sought only to detect general
patterns and that it would be normal if different participants were to give varying
responses to the same questions.
Of the 350 surveys administered in the first round, 308 were returned. Next, 305
respondents returned the survey in the second round, and 267 surveys were received from
supervisors in the third round. After removing incomplete surveys, we retained 234
completed sets of surveys for the statistical analyses, which represent a response rate of 67%.
The final sample of participants included 40% women, 59% had a masters’ degree or higher
qualification and their average organizational tenure equaled six years. An independent-
samples t-test indicated that no significant differences were in the values of the four focal
constructs across the two organizations we studied.

Measures
The study constructs were measured with previously validated scales, using five-point Likert
scales (1 5 “very strongly disagree”; 5 5 “very strongly agree”), except for neuroticism,
which used a seven-point Likert scale.
Abusive supervision. We assessed employees’ beliefs about the presence of disrespectful
and demeaning leadership with a 15-item scale of abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000). For
example, employees indicated their agreement with the following statements: “My boss
ridicules me,” “My boss is rude to me,” “My boss puts me down in front of others” and “My
boss expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason” (Cronbach’s
alpha 5 0.95).
Neuroticism. We assessed employees’ disposition to feel nervous in challenging situations
with a ten-item scale of neuroticism, which reflects the low levels of emotional stability
associated with this personality dimension (Li and Ahlstrom, 2016) [2]. Example items
included, “I get scared easily,” “I feel as if I am facing imminent disaster” and “I can recover
from distress quickly” (reverse coded) (Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.90).
PR Defensive silence behavior. We assessed employees’ engagement in defensive silence
behavior with a five-item scale (Whiteside and Barclay, 2013). In light of our focus on how
employees react to resource-draining abusive leadership, the items were preceded with a
statement that read, “When confronting difficult work situations. . ..” Respondents then
indicated their agreement with statements such as, “I seek not to hurt my position in the
organization,” “I seek not to be seen as difficult or rude” and “I seek not to hurt my career”
(Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.87).
Supervisor-rated job performance. To measure supervisor-rated job performance, we
applied a seven-item scale (Williams and Anderson, 1991). In the third survey, supervisors
indicated whether “This employee fulfills the responsibilities specified in his or her job
description,” “This employee performs tasks that are expected of him/her” and “This
employee fails to perform essential duties” (reverse coded), for example (Cronbach’s
alpha 5 0.86) [3].
Control variables. The analyses controlled for four characteristics: gender (0 5 male,
1 5 female), education (1 5 no university, 2 5 bachelor’s, 3 5 master’s, 4 5 doctorate),
organizational tenure (in years) and industry (0 5 finance, 1 5 manufacturing).
Construct validity. To evaluate the validity of the study constructs, we performed a
confirmatory factor analysis of the four-factor measurement model (Anderson and Gerbing,
1988). The fit of this model was adequate: χ 2(521) 5 1,291.00, confirmatory fit index 5 0.86,
incremental fit index 5 0.86, Tucker–Lewis index 5 0.85, root mean squared error of
approximation 5 0.08 and standardized root mean residual 5 0.07 [4]. We also confirmed the
convergent validity of the four constructs in that each item loaded strongly (p < 0.001) on its
respective construct (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988), and the average variance extracted
(AVE) values were greater than the benchmark value of 0.50 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). In
confirmation of the presence of discriminant validity, each AVE value was greater than the
squared correlations of the associated construct pairs too (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The fit
of the models that included unconstrained construct pairs (correlations between constructs
were free to vary) was significantly better than the fit of the corresponding constrained
models (correlations between constructs were set to equal 1) for each of the six construct pairs
(Δχ 2ð1Þ > 3.84, p < 0.05; Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).

Results
Main analysis
Table 1 contains the correlations and descriptive statistics of the study constructs, and
Table 2 reports the hierarchical ordinary least square regression results. Models 1–3
predicted defensive silence behavior, and Models 4–6 predicted supervisor-rated job
performance. The variance inflation factor for each regression coefficient was below the
conservative cut-off value of 5.0 (Studenmund, 1992), which diminishes concerns about
multicollinearity.
To investigate whether employees’ self-protective, avoidant behaviors might explain why
beliefs about abusive supervision lead to enhanced performance ratings (Hypothesis 1), we
first assessed the two relationships that constitute the corresponding mediation effect. The
results indicate that abusive supervision increases defensive silence behavior (β 5 0.133,
p < 0.05, Model 2), which then spurs supervisor-rated job performance (β 5 0.178, p < 0.01,
Model 6), as expected. As a formal test of mediation, we used the bootstrapping method, based
on the Process macro. This method produces confidence intervals (CIs) for indirect effects,
thereby minimizing the statistical power challenges that come with nonnormal sampling
distributions of these effects. The CI for the indirect effect of abusive supervision on
supervisor-rated job performance through defensive silence behavior does not include
0 [0.005, 0.090], indicating the presence of mediation.
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Abusive
supervision
1. Abusive supervision and silent
2. Neuroticism 0.024
2. Defensive silence 0.141* 0.253** employees
behavior
3. Job performance 0.158* 0.519** 0.277**
5. Gender (1 5 female) 0.023 0.128 0.092 0.025
6. Education 0.071 0.030 0.141* 0.119 0.184**
7. Organizational 0.037 0.010 0.056 0.003 0.256** 0.119
tenure
8. Industry 0.088 0.077 0.099 0.049 0.196** 0.132* 0.058
(1 5 manufacturing)
Mean 2.481 4.380 3.369 3.388 1.397 2.573 6.153 0.731
SD 0.977 1.140 0.984 0.969 0.490 0.653 6.355 0.445 Table 1.
Note(s): N 5 234 Correlation table and
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 descriptive statistics

Defensive silence behavior Job performance

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Gender (1 5 female) 0.177 0.118 0.094 0.114 0.033 0.054

Education 0.270** 0.233* 0.216* 0.182þ 0.155þ 0.113
Organizational tenure 0.009 0.011 0.010 0.001 0.002 0.001
Industry (1 5 manufacturing) 0.240 0.181 0.193 0.096 0.126 0.158
Abusive supervision 0.133* 0.122* 0.146** 0.170**
Neuroticism 0.206*** 0.216*** 0.441*** 0.405***
Abusive 0.127**
supervision 3 neuroticism
Defensive silence behavior 0.178**
R2 0.047 0.118 0.145 0.018 0.307 0.336
ΔR2 0.070*** 0.027** 0.289*** 0.029**
Note(s): N 5 234 (unstandardized regression coefficients) Table 2.
þ
p < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed tests) Main analysis results

To check the moderated mediation effect by neuroticism (Hypothesis 2), we first assessed
whether this personal characteristic invigorated the positive relationship between abusive
supervision and defensive silence behavior. The interaction term, abusive supervision 3
neuroticism, is positive and significant for predicting defensive silence behavior (β 5 0.127,
p < 0.01, Model 3), indicating a triggering role of neuroticism. The interaction plot in Figure 2
depicts this effect, complemented by a simple slope analysis. The relationship between
abusive supervision and defensive silence behavior is positive and strongly significant at
high levels of neuroticism (β 5 0.249, p < 0.001) but insignificant at low levels
(β 5 0.005, ns).
The formal test for the presence of moderated mediation, as advanced by Hypothesis 2,
relies on the same bootstrapping method (Preacher et al., 2007), but the CI in this scenario
pertains to conditional indirect effects at different levels of the moderator [5]. In support of
Hypothesis 2, the conditional indirect effect of abusive supervision on supervisor-rated job
performance does not contain 0 at high levels of neuroticism ([0.035, 0.126] at the 84th
PR 4

Defensive silence behavior

3.5

3 High Neuroticism

Low Neuroticism

Figure 2. 2.5
Moderating effect of
neuroticism on the
relationship between
abusive supervision 2
and defensive silence
Low Abusive High Abusive
behavior
supervision supervision

percentile), but the CI contains 0 when the moderator is low ([0.075, 0.054] at the 16th
percentile). As a more direct test for the presence of moderated mediation, we note that the
index of moderated equals 0.037, and its CI does not include 0 [0.007, 071]. Neuroticism
strengthens the positive indirect effect of abusive supervision on supervisor-rated job
performance, through defensive silence behavior, in support of our overall theoretical
framework.

Post hoc analysis

These theoretical arguments with respect to defensive silence as a response to abusive
supervision, and the invigorating role of neuroticism, should be particularly prominent in
power-distant, collectivistic countries such as Pakistan. To determine how neurotic
employees may respond to abusive supervision in countries that score lower on these two
cultural features, we also performed a post hoc analysis with a sample of Canadian-based
employees who work in the education sector. In particular, we tasked Qualtrics, a survey
company with robust expertise in academic research projects (e.g. Nesheim and Smith, 2015;
Tews et al., 2019), to collect data from at least 300 people employed full-time in this sector. To
protect the rights of the research participants, the survey administrators were required to
emphasize the voluntary nature of their participation, mention that the goal was solely to
detect aggregate data patterns and promise each participant that no individual data would
ever be released. The final sample included 350 employees, of which 86% were women, 21%
had at least a master’s degree and they had worked for their organization for an average of
ten years.
These participants rated their experience of abusive supervision, neuroticism and
engagement in defensive silence [6]. We also collected data about overt deviant behavior,
using a 17-item scale of organizational retaliatory behavior (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997).
Similar to the defensive silence scale, this scale is not restricted to employees’ behaviors
toward leaders and includes behaviors that may cause harm in indirect ways. A total of two
sample items were “I disobey my supervisor’s instructions” and “I speak poorly about my
organization to others.”
The results in Table 3 neither reveal no significant relationship between abusive
supervision and defensive silence behavior (β 5 0.052, ns, Model 2) nor is the abusive
supervision 3 neuroticism interaction significant for predicting defensive silence (β 5 0.070, Abusive
ns, Model 3). However, the results related to organizational retaliatory behavior mirror those supervision
that we establish for defensive silence behavior in the Pakistani sample. That is, we find a
positive relationship between employees’ exposure to abusive supervision and their
and silent
organizational retaliatory behavior (β 5 0.376, p < 0.001, Model 5), especially among more employees
neurotic employees (β 5 0.086, p < 0.001, Model 6). Therefore, in less power-distant or
collectivistic countries, such as Canada, abusive supervision seemingly does not stimulate
employees to remain silent; instead, they actively retaliate, particularly when they score high
on neuroticism.

Discussion
The central premise of this study is that employees in power-distant, collectivistic countries
who are exposed to abusive supervision engage in self-protective behavioral responses,
which can then enhance the ratings of their job performance offered by their supervisors
(Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000). In particular, verbally abused employees in these countries may
limit their risk of receiving negative performance ratings if they respond with defensive
silence behaviors (Lam and Xu, 2019). Defensive silence is a form of self-protection, such that
employees deliberately lay low to diminish the threat of negative repercussions that might
arise if they chose other reactions to adverse work situations, such as complaining (Pinder
and Harlos, 2001; Xu et al., 2015). We argue that this process is invigorated by employees’
neuroticism, a personal trait that creates an unwillingness to express oneself and a desire to
avoid additional stress by defusing negative work situations (Beattie and Griffin, 2014;
Brinsfield, 2013). The empirical findings, from a sample of Pakistani employees, provide
support for these theoretical predictions.
First, organizational leaders who engage in verbal abuse drain their followers’ resource
reservoirs, by undermining the quality of their daily work functioning (Xu et al., 2015). As this
study reveals, employees in power-distant, collectivistic countries might react with behaviors
designed not to offend people in powerful leadership positions and to maintain organizational
harmony (Dedahanov et al., 2016b; Park et al., 2018). Their defensive silence accordingly helps
them to avoid the further resource losses that they anticipate to speak up and complain about
a rude leader’s treatment (Hobfoll and Shirom, 2000). In these countries, a passive approach
can shine positive light on employees because the abusive leaders reviewing their
performance may interpret silence as acceptance or confirmation of their leadership, which
prompts them to offer less negative performance appraisals (Pinder and Harlos, 2001).
Notably, we find a significant positive performance rating effect of defensive silence behavior

Defensive silence behavior Organizational retaliatory behavior

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Gender (1 5 female) 0.088 0.102 0.121 0.015 0.058 0.034

Education 0.103 0.100 0.108 0.020 0.032 0.041
Organizational tenure 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.005
Abusive supervision 0.052 0.098 0.376*** 0.319***
Neuroticism 0.167* 0.248* 0.190*** 0.090þ
Abusive supervision 3 neuroticism 0.070 0.086***
2
R 0.006 0.029 0.035 0.003 0.336 0.358
ΔR2 0.023* 0.006 0.333*** 0.022*** Table 3.
Note(s): N 5 350 (unstandardized regression coefficients) Post hoc analysis
þ
p < 0.10; *p < 0.05 and ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed tests) results
PR (β 5 0.139, p < 0.05, Model 6, Table 2) after accounting for the direct negative effect of abusive
supervision on job performance (β 5 0.109, p < 0.05, Model 6, Table 2), which culminates in
a very weak negative total effect of abusive supervision on supervisors’ job performance
ratings (β 5 0.091, p < 0.10, Model 5, Table 2). In short, this study offers the critical and
novel insight that even though the hardships of abusive supervision may compromise
employees’ ability to meet performance requirements (Tariq and Ding, 2018), their defensive
silence behavior helps them to diminish the likelihood that their abusive supervisors will
evaluate their performance negatively. The post hoc analysis also indicates that the
anticipated value of remaining silent might not apply in countries where prevailing norms
make people less passive or less concerned about the organizational upheaval they might
cause by actively speaking up (Dehadanov et al., 2016a, b; Hofstede et al., 2010).
Second, in power-distant, collectivistic countries, neurotic employees seem strongly
attracted to scenarios that limit the hardships of dysfunctional work situations (Beattie and
Griffin, 2014), such as by taking a passive approach and avoiding direct confrontations with
abusive leaders (Xu et al., 2015). This study thus reveals that deliberate, self-protective and
avoidant behavior—as a causal mechanism to explain the positive relationship of exposure to
abusive supervision with performance ratings issued by supervisors—is more prominent
among neurotic employees in these countries, who seek the comfort of avoiding further
aggravations of abusive leadership and work to keep the peace in the organizational
collective (Beattie and Griffin, 2014; Dedahanov et al., 2016b). Conversely, defensive silence is
a less important behavioral option for employees with less neurotic dispositions. This
invigorating role of neuroticism does not materialize in countries where abusive behaviors by
powerful people are unacceptable or where individual initiative is promoted though (Hofstede
et al., 2010). As the post hoc analysis reveals, this personality trait instead may trigger less
covert responses in these countries in the form of active attempts to seek revenge.
These results provide human resource management scholars with expanded insights into
the link between abusive supervision and supervisor-rated job performance. With its unique
approach and specific research setting, this study complements the focus in previous
research on the negative consequences of employees’ exposure to abusive supervision, such
as poorer job performance (Tariq and Ding, 2018; Yu et al., 2016). Kiewitz and colleagues
(2016) find that employees’ defensive silence, in response to abusive supervision, may lead to
more abusive supervision in the future, but we acknowledge its beneficial effect, even if only
in the short term. Defensive silence diminishes the chances of negative job performance
evaluations because the resource-draining situation prompts employees to find ways to
appease rather than upset their leaders (Lam and Xu, 2019). In this sense, employees can
“exploit” abusive leadership to achieve some positive outcomes by being vigilant about how
allocate their personal energy resources (Quinn et al., 2012).
Along with the negative implications of neuroticism, which tends to leave employees more
stressed and less happy about their job situation (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Zellars et al., 2000)
or more upset by adverse work conditions (Aizzat et al., 2005), we propose a nuanced
perspective that acknowledges that neurotic employees who also are victims of abusive
supervision may find personal benefit in defensive silence behaviors as a means to protect
themselves against unfavorable performance evaluations. De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2009)
find an invigorating role of neuroticism in the relationship between employees’ exposure to
autocratic leadership and their experienced burnout. With our moderated mediation
conceptual model—which shows that the indirect relationship between abusive supervision
and supervisor-provided job ratings through defensive silence behavior is stronger at higher
levels of neuroticism—we complement their study by explicitly considering the role of
neuroticism in producing behavioral and performance consequences of employees’ exposure
to resource-draining leadership. Finally, we add to research that considers the contingent
roles of other individual factors, such as assertiveness (Kiewitz et al., 2016) and perceived
work meaningfulness (Harris et al., 2007), in terms of helping employees suffer less from their Abusive
unfortunate but sometimes unavoidable exposure to abusive leadership. supervision
and silent
Limitations and further research employees
This study is not without limitations, which suggest avenues for continued research. First, we
focus on defensive silence as a behavioral mechanism, reflecting the well-established link
between employees’ exposure to dysfunctional leadership and their avoidant silence (Kiewitz
et al., 2016; Lam and Xu, 2019), such that employees’ silent compliance is a likely response to
adverse conditions (Jahanzeb and Fatima, 2018). It would be interesting to consider other
behavioral mechanisms that might underpin the relationship between abusive supervision
and job performance too, such as less passive manifestations of silence (e.g. prosocial or
opportunistic silence; Knoll and van Dick, 2013), explicit communication about leadership-
related problems and solutions through prohibitive and promotive voice (Liang et al., 2012) or
more overt retaliatory behaviors (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997)
Second, our consideration of how neuroticism invigorates the indirect relationship between
abusive supervision and job performance ratings could be applied to other personal
characteristics, such as employees’ risk aversion (Caramelli and Carberry, 2014) or introversion
(Williams and Gardiner, 2018), which also appear likely to propel defensive responses to
abusive leadership. Contextual factors could spur the perceived attractiveness of self-protective
avoidant behaviors too, especially in the presence of abusive supervision, such as low trust in
top management (Mahajan et al., 2012), perceptions of organizational injustice (Whiteside and
Barclay, 2013) or organizational climates that encourage silence (Bell et al., 2011).
Third, an empirical shortcoming of this study is its focus on one specific country, Pakistan,
which raises possible concerns about external validity. The arguments advanced herein
predict that employees react in passive ways to experienced abusive leadership styles,
instead of actively fighting it, and their neuroticism, somewhat counterintuitively, may
trigger this process as a means to avoid escalation and even more hardships (Beattie and
Griffin, 2014). In light of these arguments, our focus on this country, with its cultural values
that encourage deference to authority and efforts to maintain the collective, is highly justified.
Yet the reported post hoc analytical results also indicate the clear need for multicountry
comparisons that explicitly investigate the effects of pertinent cultural features, such as
power distance or collectivism, in terms of (1) how employees react to adverse leadership
situations and (2) how relevant personality traits inform these reactions. In a related vein, it
would be interesting to examine the roles of corresponding individual values in this process,
such as employees’ own power distance and collective orientations (Yang, 2019).

Practical implications
In power-distant, collectivist countries such as Pakistan, employees might protect themselves
against abusive supervision by engaging in defensive silence. But we cannot emphasize the
enough need to recognize the important risk attached to this finding. Employees may
wrongfully believe that their passive response will generate long-term benefits, which is
clearly incorrect. The hardships and psychological damage caused by negative leadership
approaches makes it imperative for organizational decision makers to do their utmost to
eradicate verbal abuse from their ranks (Jiang et al., 2019). Identifying abusive leaders is not
always easy though, especially when self-protective employees are reluctant to complain, for
fear that the leaders will take revenge and make their job situation even worse (Schyns and
Schilling, 2013; Van Dyne et al., 2003). The effect of abusive supervision on defensive
silence exemplifies this challenge for human resource managers, who accordingly must be
proactive and undertake targeted initiatives to identify and discourage abusive leadership.
They should work to pinpoint possible causes (e.g. excessive internal competition,
PR organizational cultures based on domination or fear and inadequate promotion procedures)
while also creating or reinforcing standards for how organizational leaders should treat
followers, emphasizing consistent respect for employees’ professional and personal
well-being.
In addition to this broad recommendation to reduce abusive tendencies among leaders, the
findings may be particularly useful for employees and human resource managers who cannot
avoid such scenarios. In no way should our findings be taken as a recommendation that
employees should avoid voicing concerns about abuse they receive from dysfunctional
leaders. Staying quiet about abusive leadership ultimately will undermine their well-being as
well as the long-term interests of the organization. Instead, human resource professionals and
employees can use these findings as a reminder and evidence of the value of taking a long-
term perspective on organizational challenges, including possibly unavoidable verbal abuse.
In power-distant, collectivistic countries, employees who can avoid painful, direct
confrontations with abusive leaders might diminish the risk that their already adverse
work situation escalates in the form of negative performance ratings, which may alleviate
their short-term hardships (Dedahanov et al., 2016b; Pinder and Harlos, 2001). More effective
measures can then focus on resolving the problem in the long term, such as creating
communication channels for employees to express their concerns. Frequent knowledge
sharing by peers, anonymous hotlines, professional human resource managers who
guarantee privacy or the appointment of a formal ombudsman or ombudswoman offer
good options (Harrison et al., 2013; Wang and Noe, 2010).
Finally, employees’ neuroticism, or natural disposition to experience stress, typically is
considered a negative personal characteristic. This study demonstrates its protective effects
to the extent that it helps verbally abused, neurotic employees to respond to verbal abuse
without initiating a negative spiral. Here again, our point is not to suggest that recruitment
and retention efforts should focus on neurotic employees; instead, we extrapolate this
somewhat beneficial role of neuroticism to a more general level. Human resource managers
should leverage this finding and commit to making employees aware of the possible long-
term dangers of passive reactions to abusive leadership, even if such reactions seem to match
their personal characteristics and preferences. In parallel, managers should identify and
encourage other pertinent personal features and competencies—such as emotional
intelligence (Pradhan and Lalatendu, 2018) or innovative propensities (De Clercq and
Belausteguigoitia, 2017)—that employees can apply proactively to deal with abusive leaders.
To encourage employees suffering from abusive supervision to apply such competencies,
managers also might offer positive examples of role models who have proactively and
successfully mitigated the harms of dysfunctional leader practices on their own career paths.

Conclusion
With this study, undertaken in Pakistani and Canadian business contexts, we contribute to
extant research by revealing the roles of defensive silence and neuroticism in power-distant,
collectivistic countries for determining the performance ratings issued by verbally abusive
supervisors. The extent to which employees choose to fly under the radar and avoid direct
confrontations with their leaders seemingly is a critical mechanism by which they can limit
the likelihood of unfavorable performance evaluations. Yet the salience of this explanatory
mechanism is contingent on how personally attractive such avoidance efforts are for
employees, as informed by their neuroticism. We hope this research provides a platform for
further cross-country investigations of how employees, exposed to abusive leadership,
respond to this destructive form of workplace adversity, as well as which responses might be
most effective, in the short and long term, as informed by pertinent cultural values and views
of what constitute acceptable leader and employee behaviors.
Notes Abusive
1. Defensive silence is one aspect of the broader concept of employee silence, which also involves supervision
acquiescent silence (informed by a sense that speaking up is pointless), prosocial silence (driven by
the motivation to help others by remaining silent) and opportunistic silence (motivated by the goal of
and silent
gaining personal advantages through silence) (Knoll and van Dick, 2013; Van Dyne et al., 2003). We employees
focus on defensive silence specifically because it is a highly pertinent response to resource-draining
work conditions and a critical mechanism for self-protection (Kiewitz et al., 2016; Lam and Xu, 2019).
2. We removed two items from the analyses (“I get anxious easily” and “I get upset easily”) because
their loadings in a confirmatory factory analysis were lower than 0.30 (Lattin et al., 2003).
3. We removed one item from the analyses (“This employee fails to perform essential duties,” reverse
coded) because its loading in a confirmatory factory analysis was lower than 0.30 (Lattin et al., 2003).
4. The fit of this model—which estimates the factor loadings of the measurement items on their
respective constructs, as well as the correlations among these constructs—was good but not
excellent, likely due to the weak, insignificant correlation (r 5 0.027, p 5 0.703) between abusive
supervision and neuroticism. This weak correlation is consistent with our theoretical argument
about the moderating role of this personal characteristic in influencing how employees respond to
abusive supervision rather than its direct relationship with abusive supervision.
5. Consistent with the logic of our proposed theoretical framework, we estimated a model that includes
a moderating effect of neuroticism on the relationship between abusive supervision and defensive
silence behavior but not the relationship between defensive silence behavior and job performance.
A post hoc analysis affirmed that neuroticism does not significantly moderate this second
relationship.
6. The measures for abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000) and defensive silence (Whiteside and Barclay,
2013) are the same as those used in the main analyses; for neuroticism, we relied on a shortened four-
item scale (Daft, 2015).

References
Aizzat, M.N., Ramayah, T. and Kumaresan, S. (2005), “Organisational stressors and job stress among
managers: the moderating role of neuroticism”, Singapore Management Review, Vol. 27,
pp. 63-79.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 1033, pp. 411-423.
Atwater, L., Kim, K.Y., Witt, A., Latheef, Z., Callison, K., Elkins, T.J. and Zheng, D. (2016), “Reactions
to abusive supervision: examining the roles of emotions and gender in the USA”, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27, pp. 1874-1899.
Avey, J.B., Wu, K. and Holley, E. (2015), “The influence of abusive supervision and job embeddedness
on citizenship and deviance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 129, pp. 721-731.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, pp. 74-94.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a
meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 1-26.
Beattie, L. and Griffin, B. (2014), “Accounting for within-person differences in how people respond to
daily incivility at work”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 87,
pp. 625-644.
€
Bell, M.P., Ozbilgin, M.F., Beauregard, T.A. and S€ urgevil, O. (2011), “Voice, silence, and diversity in
21st century organizations: strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
employees”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 50, pp. 131-146.
Brinsfield, C.T. (2013), “Employee silence motives: investigation of dimensionality and development of
measures”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34, pp. 671-697.
PR Caramelli, M. and Carberry, E.J. (2014), “Understanding employee preferences for investing in employer
stock: evidence from France”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 548-566.
Cortina, L.M., Kabat-Farr, D., Magley, V.J. and Nelson, K. (2017), “Researching rudeness: the past,
present, and future of the science of incivility”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 22, pp. 299-313.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual, PAR, Odessa, FL.
Daft, R.L. (2015), The Leadership Experience, 6th ed., Cengage Learning, CT.
De Clercq, D. and Belausteguigoitia, I. (2017), “Reducing the harmful effect of role ambiguity on
turnover intentions: the roles of innovation propensity, goodwill trust, and procedural justice”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 46, pp. 1046-1069.
De Hoogh, A.H.B. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2009), “Neuroticism and incus of control as moderators of the
relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94, pp. 1058-1067.
Dedahanov, A.T., Do, H.L. and Rhee, J. (2016a), “Silence as a mediator between organizational factors
and stress”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 1251-1264.
Dedahanov, A.T., Lee, D., Rhee, J. and Yusupov, S. (2016b), “An examination of the associations
among cultural dimensions, relational silence and stress”, Personnel Review, Vol. 45,
pp. 593-604.
Deng, H., Coyle-Shapiro, J. and Yang, Q. (2018), “Beyond reciprocity: a conservation of resources view
on the effects of psychological contract violation on third parties”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 103, pp. 561-577.
Eissa, G. and Lester, S.W. (2017), “Supervisor role overload and frustration as antecedents of abusive
supervision: the moderating role of supervisor personality”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 38, pp. 307-326.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, pp. 186-192.
Greenidge, D. and Coyne, I. (2014), “Job stressors and voluntary work behaviours: mediating effect of
emotion and moderating roles of personality and emotional intelligence”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 479-495.
Gregory, B.T., Osmonbekov, T., Gregory, S.T., Albritton, M.D. and Carr, J.C. (2013), “Abusive
supervision and citizenship behaviors: exploring boundary conditions”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 628-644.
Gu, J., Song, J. and Wu, J. (2016), “Abusive supervision and employee creativity in China: departmental
identification as mediator and face as moderator”, Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1187-1204.
Harris, K.J., Kacmar, K.M. and Zivnuska, S. (2007), “An investigation of abusive supervision as a
predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship”,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 252-263.
Harrison, T.R., Hopeck, P., Desrayaud, M. and Imboden, K. (2013), “The relationship between conflict,
anticipatory procedural justice, and design with intensions to use ombudsman processes”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 24, pp. 56-72.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44, pp. 513-524.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resource theory”, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 50, pp. 337-369.
Hobfoll, S.E. and Shirom, A. (2000), “Conservation of resources theory: applications to stress and Abusive
management in the workplace”, in Golembiewski, R.T. (Ed.), Handbook of Organization
Behavior, 2d ed., Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 57-81. supervision
Hobfoll, S.E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P. and Westman, M. (2018), “Conservation of resources in the
and silent
organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences”, Annual Review of employees
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 103-128.
Hofstede, G.H., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Jahanzeb, S. and Fatima, T. (2018), “How workplace ostracism influences interpersonal deviance: the
mediating role of defensive silence and emotional exhaustion”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 779-791.
Jiang, W., Gu, Q. and Tang, T.L.P. (2019), “Do victims of supervisor bullying suffer from poor
creativity? Social cognitive and social comparison perspectives”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 157, pp. 865-884.
Khalid, M., Bashir, S., Khan, A.K. and Abbas, N. (2018), “When and how abusive supervision leads to
knowledge hiding behaviors: an Islamic work ethics perspective”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 794-806.
Khan, A.K., Moss, S., Quratulain, S. and Hameed, I. (2018), “When and how subordinate performance
leads to abusive supervision: a social dominance perspective”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44,
pp. 2801-2826.
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S.L.D., Shoss, M.K., Garcia, P.R.J.M. and Tang, R.L. (2016), “Suffering in silence:
investigating the role of fear in the relationship between abusive supervision and defensive
silence”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101, pp. 731-742.
Kim, S.L., Lee, S. and Yun, S. (2016), “Abusive supervision, knowledge sharing, and individual factors:
a conservation-of-resources perspective”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31,
pp. 1106-1120.
Knoll, M. and van Dick, R. (2013), “Do I hear the whistle . . .? A first attempt to measure four forms of
employee silence and their correlates”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 113, pp. 349-362.
Lam, L.W. and Xu, A.J. (2019), “Power imbalance and employee silence: the role of abusive leadership, Power
distance orientation, and perceived organisational politics”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 513-546.
Lattin, J.M., Carroll, J.D. and Green, P.E. (2003), Analyzing Multivariate Data, Thomson Brooks/Cole,
Belmont, CA.
Lee, S., Kim, S.L. and Yun, S. (2018), “A moderated mediation model of the relationship between
abusive supervision and knowledge sharing”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 403-413.
Li, Y. and Ahlstrom, D. (2016), “Emotional stability: a new construct and its implications for individual
behavior in organizations”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 33, pp. 1-28.
Liang, J., Farh, C.I.C. and Farh, J. (2012), “Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive
voice: a two-wave examination”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55, pp. 71-73.
Lin, W., Wang, L. and Chen, S. (2013), “Abusive supervision and employee well-being: the moderating
effect of power distance orientation”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 308-329.
Liu, X.-Yu. and Wang, J. (2013), “Abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour: is
supervisor-subordinate guanxi a mediator?”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 24, pp. 1471-1489.
Mahajan, A., Bishop, J.W. and Scott, D. (2012), “Does trust in top management mediate top
management communication, employee involvement and organizational commitment
relationships?”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 24, pp. 173-190.
McCrae, R.R. (1990), “Controlling neuroticism in the measurement of stress”, Stress Medicine, Vol. 6,
pp. 237-241.
PR Nandkeolyar, A.K., Shaffer, J.A., Li, A., Ekkirala, S. and Bagger, J. (2014), “Surviving an abusive
supervisor: the joint roles of conscientiousness and coping strategies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 99, pp. 138-150.
Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F., Donia, M.B.L. and Darr, W. (2016), “Perils of being close to a bad leader in a
bad environment: exploring the combined effects of despotic leadership, leader member exchange,
and perceived organizational politics on behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 14-33.
Nesheim, T. and Smith, J. (2015), “Knowledge sharing in projects: does employment arrangement
matter?”, Personnel Review, Vol. 44, pp. 255-269.
Newton, C. and Teo, S. (2014), “Identification and occupational stress: a stress-buffering perspective”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 53, pp. 89-113.
Park, J.H., Carter, M.Z., DeFrank, R.S. and Deng, Q. (2018), “Abusive supervision, psychological
distress, and silence: the effects of gender dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 153, pp. 775-792.
Peltokorpi, V. (2019), “Abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion: the moderating role of power
distance orientation and the mediating role of interaction avoidance”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, Vol. 57, pp. 251-275.
Pinder, C.C. and Harlos, K.P. (2001), “Employee silence: quiescence and acquiescence as responses to
perceived injustice”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources
management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Vol. 20, pp. 331-368.
Potter, P.T., Smith, B.W., Strobel, K.R. and Zautra, A.J. (2002), “Interpersonal workplace stressors and
well-being: a multi-wave study of employees with and without arthritis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 789-796.
Pradhan, S. and Lalatendu, K.J. (2018), “Emotional intelligence as a moderator in abusive supervision-
intention to quit relationship among Indian healthcare professionals”, Asia-Pacific Journal of
Business Administration, Vol. 10, pp. 35-49.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses:
theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42, pp. 185-227.
Quinn, R.W., Spreitzer, G.M. and Lam, C.F. (2012), “Building a sustainable model of human energy in
organizations: exploring the critical role of resources”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 6, pp. 337-396.
Roelofs, J., Huibers, M., Peeters, F., Arntz, A. and van Os, J. (2008), “Rumination and worrying as
possible mediators in the relation between neuroticism and symptoms of depression and
anxiety in clinically depressed”, Behaviour Research and Therapy, Vol. 46, pp. 1283-1289.
Schyns, B. and Schilling, J. (2013), “How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of
destructive leadership and its outcomes”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 138-158.
Shmotkin, D. and Keinan, G. (2011), “Who is prone to react to coinciding threats of terrorism and war?
Exploring vulnerability through global versus differential reactivity”, Community Mental
Health Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 35-46.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), “Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural,
and interactional justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 434-443.
Sliter, M., Sliter, K. and Jex, S. (2012), “The employee as a punching bag: the effect of multiple sources
of incivility on employee withdrawal behaviour and sales performance”, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 33, pp. 121-139.
Studenmund, A.H. (1992), Using Econometrics: A Practical Guide, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Tariq, H. and Ding, D. (2018), “Why am I still doing this job? The examination of family motivation on
employees’ work behaviors under abusive supervision”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47, pp. 378-402.
Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43,
pp. 178-190.
Tews, M.J., Stafford, K. and Jolly, P.M. (2019), “The dark side? Fun in the workplace and unwanted
sexual attention”, Employee Relations, Vol. 41, pp. 1162-1182.
Thanacoody, P.R., Newman, A. and Fuchs, S. (2014), “Affective commitment and turnover intentions Abusive
among healthcare professionals: the role of emotional exhaustion and disengagement”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25, pp. 1841-1857. supervision
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S. and Botero, I.C. (2003), “Conceptualizing employee silence as multidimensional
and silent
constructs”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 1359-1392. employees
Wang, Y.-D. and Hsieh, H.-H. (2014), “Employees’ reactions to psychological contract breach:
a moderated mediation analysis”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 85, pp. 57-66.
Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010), “Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 115-131.
Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W. and Liu, J. (2012), “Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: the
mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, Vol. 50, pp. 43-60.
Whiteside, D.B. and Barclay, L.J. (2013), “Echoes of silence: employee silence as a mediator between
overall justice and employee outcomes”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 116, pp. 251-266.
Whitman, M.V., Halbesleben, J.R.B. and Holmes, O. (2014), “Abusive supervision and feedback
avoidance: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 35, pp. 38-53.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors
of organizational citizenship and in-role behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 601-617.
Williams, M. and Gardiner, E. (2018), “The power of personality at work: core self-evaluations and
earnings in the United Kingdom”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 45-60.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C.K. and Miao, Q. (2012), “Abusive supervision and work behaviors: the
mediating role of LMX”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33, pp. 531-543.
Xu, A.J., Loi, R. and Lam, L.W. (2015), “The bad boss takes it all: how abusive supervision and leader-
member exchange interact to influence employee silence”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 763-774.
Yang, J.-S. (2019), “Differential moderating effects of collectivistic and power distance orientations on
the effectiveness of work motivators”, Management Decision, Vol. 57, pp. 644-665.
Yu, K., Lin, W., WangMa, L.J., Wei, W., Wang, H., Guo, W. and Shi, J. (2016), “The role of affective
commitment and future work self salience in the abusive supervision-job performance
relationship”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 28-45.
Zellars, K.L., Perrewe, P.L. and Hochwarter, W.A. (2000), “Burnout in health care: the role of the Five
Factors of personality”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 30, pp. 1570-1598.
Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Xu, S., Liu-Qin, Y. and Bednall, T.C. (2019), “Why abusive supervision impacts
employee OCB and CWB: a meta-analytic review of competing mediating mechanisms”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 45, pp. 2474-2497.

Corresponding author
Dirk De Clercq can be contacted at: ddeclercq@brocku.ca

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com