Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (2012) 50, 43–60 doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2011.00004.

Abusive supervision and workplace deviance:

the mediating role of interactional justice
and the moderating role of power distance
Wei Wang Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Jiye Mao School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Weiku Wu School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Jun Liu School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

This study replicates previous studies by examining the effects of abusive supervision on employee
deviant behaviours in the Chinese organisational context. It extends the existing research of abusive
supervision by investigating the mediating role of the perception of interactional justice and the
moderating role of individual-level power distance in the link between abusive supervision and
workplace deviance. Regression analyses on data of 283 employee–supervisor dyads revealed that the
perception of interactional justice mediates the link between abusive supervision and workplace
deviance. We also found that abusive supervision has a stronger negative relationship with the
perception of interactional justice for employees low in power distance than for employees high in
power distance. These findings provide both replications of and extensions to western theories of
abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Practical implications of this study include hints for
reducing both financial and psychological costs of deviant behaviour.

Keywords: abusive supervision, negative reciprocity, perception of interactional justice, power

distance, workplace deviance

Key points
1 Employees subjected to abusive supervision may displace their deviant behaviours
and target the organisation (organisational deviance) and individuals other than the
supervisor (interpersonal deviance).
2 The perceived injustice stemming from abusive supervision is likely to be translated
into workplace deviant behaviours.
3 Employees with low power distance react more negatively to abusive supervisors than
do those with high power distance.

Correspondence: Dr Jun Liu, Associate Professor, Department of Organisation and Human

Resources, School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, China; e-mail: junliu@
ruc.edu.cn
Accepted for publication 20 April 2011.

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

In the last decade, a growing body of literature has focused on employees’ deviant behaviours
in the workplace. Bennett and Robinson (2003) defined workplace deviance as a purposeful
behaviour that violates organisational norms and is intended to harm an organisation, its
employees, or both. Typical workplace deviance, such as theft, aggression toward supervisors,
or bullying of subordinates, has a negative impact on organisations, both financially and
psychologically (Robinson and Greenberg 1998). As a member of an organisation, the
employee significantly relies on organisational resources such as pay, social status, informa-
tion, and trust (Foa and Foa 1974, 1980) to fulfil his or her personal and career goals. Such
being the case, why would he or she engage in deviant behaviours and risk losing the
abundant resources provided by the organisation, either by damaging the organisation
irreparably or by losing his or her job? The literature shows that workplace experiences like
frustration, injustice, and threats are antecedents of employee deviance (Bennett and Rob-
inson 2003), and interpersonal mistreatment are primary predictors of workplace deviance
(Robinson and Greenberg 1998). In addition, Bies (1999) found that employees perceive
their supervisors as the primary sources of interpersonal mistreatment.
Abusive supervision, defined by Tepper (2000) as a type of destructive leadership,
refers to subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in sustained
display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviours, excluding physical contact. Abusive
supervision describes a key aspect of interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace that
employees receive at the hands of their supervisor. For instance, Ashforth (1997) found
that abusive supervision triggers employee feelings of frustration, helplessness, and alien-
ation. From the social interactionist perspective (Tedeschi 2001), abusive supervision may
cast employees into negative self-identity, making them weak and ineffectual. However,
people who suffer from abusive supervision often manage to restore their personal iden-
tities (Bies and Tripp 1998), by countering abusive supervision, which shows subordi-
nates’ strength, courage, and competence (Tedeschi 2001). To restore their personal
identities, employees may seek retaliation to save their face and maintain their personal
honour (Bies and Tripp 1998), taking revenge on their supervisors by engaging in deviant
behaviours (Mitchell and Ambrose 2007; Tepper et al. 2009; Thau and Mitchell 2010;
Thau et al. 2009).
The present study attempts to replicate and extend research on abusive supervision and
employee deviance in the Chinese organisational context. Consistent with previous
research, we replicate examining the relationship between abusive supervision and
employee workplace deviance. Using this as a foundation, we extend previous work by
developing a moderated mediation model of leader abuse and employee deviance. Specifi-
cally, we propose that abusive supervision depresses employee psychological state (such as
undermining interactional justice perception) and leads to deviant behaviours directed
towards the organisation, the supervisor, and/or non-supervisory co-workers. Our second
objective is to examine the cultural context that facilitates or hinders the effects of abusive
supervision. Specifically, we examine the moderating role of individual power distance,
which is a cultural conception embedded by a person regarding the degree of power that
authorities should have over employees (Hofstede 1980), on the relationship between
44 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
 Wei Wang et al.

Individual-level
power distance Organisational
deviance
+
Perception of Supervisor-directed
Abusive deviance
_ interactional _
supervision
justice Non-supervisory
interpersonal
deviance

Figure 1 Theoretical model

abusive supervision and employee perceptions of justice. Our research model is illustrated
in Figure 1.
By examining the model, our study contributes to the research on abusive supervision
and workplace deviance in two major ways. First, we should note that depressing the
negative impact of abusive supervision has become not only more important but also
increasingly challenging, for managers in both developed and developing countries.
However, cultural factors may lead to abusive supervision’s being more or less favourable/
acceptable (Tepper 2007), thus these factors may have moderating effects on the relation-
ship between abusive supervision and its outcomes. Therefore, because of cultural
differences, the western findings may not be generalizable to the Chinese context in which
the present study is conducted. Our study is timely in applying the cultural approach to the
investigation of abusive supervision and workplace deviance by including power distance as
a contingent factor in the framework. Indeed, China has been a focal interest for recent
management research because of increasing foreign investment in China. Chinese culture
and society have been characterized as having a high level of power distance (Hofstede
1991; Hofstede and Bond 1988). Our effort to investigate the moderating role of power
distance not only deepens the understanding of the nature of Chinese employee–supervisor
dynamics, it also offers a more comprehensive picture of abusive supervision and workplace
deviance association, thereby enriching existing western theories and validating their gen-
eralizability. The second major contribution of our study lies in its design. Most studies in
the field of abusive supervision and deviance have been limited by their correlational
designs – that is, the use of cross-sectional and single-source data. In this study, we examine
the moderated mediation model using a multi-wave, multi-source design, which provides
methodological implications for other studies.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Abusive supervision and workplace deviance
Individuals heed the interpersonal treatment that they receive from organisational author-
ities (Lind and Tyler 1988). Fair and respectful interpersonal treatment leads people to be
satisfied and to believe they are valued (Judge, Scott and Ilies 2006; Skarlicki and Folger
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 45
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

1997). According to the social exchange theory, people reciprocate the benefits they receive
in the workplace (Blau 1964; Gouldner 1960). A meta-analysis provided evidence that
interactional justice is positively related to organisational commitment and organisational
citizenship behaviours directed toward individuals (Colquitt et al. 2001). However, the
social exchange theory also suggests that individuals who perceive harm are more likely to
return negative reactions. Abusive supervision often involves rudeness, hostility, public
criticism, and loud and angry tantrums. This supervisory mistreatment can cause low levels
of perceived organisational justice, leading to higher levels of turnover and psychological
distress, and less favourable attitudes toward the job and the organisation (Tepper 2000). In
addition, abusive supervision has been found to trigger retaliatory and counterproductive
work behaviours in organisations (Jones 2009).
Workplace deviance is a purposeful behaviour that violates organisational norms and is
intended to harm the organisation, its employees, or both (Bennett and Robinson 2003).
Robinson and Bennett (1995) developed a widely accepted typology of workplace deviance,
categorising it into two basic types: organisational deviance and interpersonal deviance.
Organisational deviance refers to deviant behaviours directed toward the organisation (e.g.,
shirking work, purposefully extending overtime). Interpersonal deviance refers to deviant
behaviours directed toward individuals (e.g., verbal abuse, sexual harassment). Recent
research suggests that it is meaningful to distinguish between deviant behaviours targeted
toward supervisors and those aimed at other individuals, such as colleagues (Hershcovis
et al. 2007). This research investigates organisational deviance and both types of interper-
sonal deviance as reactions to abusive supervision.
Interpersonal mistreatment is a central component of abusive supervision and a driving
factor in deviant behaviours (Robinson and Greenberg 1998). Ample empirical evidence
suggests that employees respond quite negatively to supervisor mistreatment by engaging in
behaviours that are harmful to the organisation and its members (Aquino, Tripp and Bies
2006; Bies and Tripp 1998; Folger 1993; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007). For example, Folger
(1993) found that supervisors who fail to meet an acceptable standard of demeanour
promote employee retaliation. Bies and Tripp (1998) found that victims of abusive leaders
undermine their supervisors in private as well as openly. Moreover, Aquino, Tripp and Bies
(2006) demonstrated that individuals at the lower level of the organisational hierarchy are
more likely to seek revenge than are higher level individuals.
Social exchange theory (Blau 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005; Gouldner 1960)
provides a useful lens for examining the relationship between abusive supervision and
workplace deviance. One of the basic tenets of social exchange theory is reciprocity, or
repayment in kind. Reciprocity is usually thought of positive reciprocity, but negative
reciprocity is also possible. Negative reciprocity refers to negative treatment being returned
or repaid with negative treatment (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). From the social
exchange perspective, employees may repay an abusive supervisor by engaging in deviant
behaviours. According to Mitchell and Ambrose (2007), employees may respond to abusive
supervision by different types of deviant behaviours: retaliating directly against their super-
visor and engaging in displaced deviance by targeting the organisation or other individuals.
46 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
 Wei Wang et al.

In this research, we consider all types of deviant behaviours that employees may conduct
towards supervisors, the organisation, and non-supervisory co-workers.
Supervisor-directed deviant behaviour is a kind of retaliation by employees who seek to
‘make the wrongdoer pay’ for a transgression (Skarlicki and Folger 2004). From the social
exchange perspective, when individuals suffer unanticipated punishment, they may become
angry and engage in aggressive behaviours. Prior research also provides evidence that
employees who are subjected to abusive supervision will seek revenge against those who
have harmed them and engage in destructive behaviours that target those whom they
perceive as threatening (Bies and Tripp 1996). A recent meta-analysis demonstrates that,
when individuals attribute responsibility for harm to someone, they respond with anger
and retaliation (Rudolph et al. 2004). Furthermore, empirical evidence has demonstrated
that individuals retaliate against perceived injustices (Greenberg and Alge 1998; Skarlicki
and Folger 1997; Skarlicki, Folger and Tesluk 1999), threats to identity (Aquino and Douglas
2003), violations of trust (Bies and Tripp 1996), and personal offense (Aquino, Tripp and
Bies 2001). Following this discussion, we propose:
Hypothesis 1a: Abusive supervision is positively related to supervisor-directed deviance.

Employees may also direct their deviant behaviour toward the organisation (organisa-
tional deviance) or non-supervisory co-workers (interpersonal deviance). According to
Dollard et al. (1939), individuals may displace their deviant behaviours to non-supervisory
targets if it is not possible to retaliate against the abusive supervisor or if the victim fears
further retaliation from the abusive supervisor. The social exchange perspective could also
offer explanations regarding why employees do not engage in direct retaliation against their
abusive supervisors. Employees with normal self-consciousness engage in deviant behav-
iours that are self-serving and benefit themselves unless the anticipated cost exceeds the
anticipated benefits. If the targeting abusive supervisors cannot bring benefits, they turn to
other targets. Thus, retaliation against the source of abuse is not the only deviant behaviour
in which the abused employees may engage: they may vent their retaliation for perceived
abuse from the supervisor on other targets. We assume that individuals subjected to abusive
supervision may displace their deviance behaviour and target the organisation (organisa-
tional deviance) and individuals other than the supervisor (interpersonal deviance). There-
fore, we propose:
Hypothesis 1b: Abusive supervision is positively related to organisational deviance.

Hypothesis 1c: Abusive supervision is positively related to interpersonal deviance.

The mediating role of perception of interactional justice

Tepper (2000) found that abusive supervision negatively influences perceptions of justice,
including interactional, procedural, and distributive justice. In the present study, since we
take a social exchange perspective to build our framework, we regard interactional justice,
which deals with interactional fairness and reflects the quality of social exchange, as par-
ticularly relevant to this analysis.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 47
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

According to Bies and Moag (1986), interactional justice refers to the quality of
interpersonal treatment that employees experience when procedures are enacted. More
specifically, Colquitt (2001) defined it as the extent to which employees perceive that they
are treated with dignity in their interpersonal interactions, such as spoken to politely,
without improper remarks or prejudicial statements. From the social exchange perspec-
tive, interactional justice, which generally reflects the quality of the exchange between the
individual and his/her supervisor, has been found to be strongly and consistently asso-
ciated with supervisor-directed workplace aggression (Baron, Neuman and Geddes 1999;
Dupré and Barling 2001). In addition, Jones (2009) found that interactional injustice
from an authority was significantly related to supervisor-directed retaliation. When
employees experience interactional injustice, they will be motivated to resolve this
injustice.
The uncertainty management theory (Lind and Van den Bos 2002; Van den Bos and
Lind 2002) offers both explanations and solutions for employees’ motivation to retaliate.
According to the theory, one of an individual’s life challenges is to cope with uncertainties
in social relationships. Because uncertainty threatens the individual’s general sense of self
(Hogg and van Knippenberg 2003), the person must either make it more cognitively
manageable (Van den Bos and Lind 2002) or tolerate it. Within a work context, when an
employee has an abusive supervisor, he or she perceives a high level of uncertainty due to
the loss of personal control. The uncertainty management theory suggests that, when
uncertainty is coupled with unfair treatment like supervisor abuse, employees will respond
negatively against the organisation (Van den Bos and Miedema 2000) because doing so
allows them take personal control of the situation. According to Lind and Van den Bos
(2002, 196), ‘harming the organisation is as much as a goal as protecting the self ’. The
uncertainty management theory also suggests that, in the organisational context, fairness-
related information from authorities provides a means to cope with uncertainty (Tangirala
and Algae 2006). Thus, the perceived injustice stemming from abusive supervision is likely
to be translated into workplace deviant behaviours, such as organisational theft, aggression
directed toward the supervisor, or bullying of subordinates. Based on this discussion, we
propose:
Hypothesis 2: Employees’ perception of interactional justice mediates the relationship between
abusive supervision and employees’ deviant behaviours in the workplace.

The moderating role of individual-level power distance

Although Hofstede (1980) claimed that studies of cultural values were meaningful only
on the societal level, researchers have found that each of Hofstede’s value dimensions
vary significantly among individuals within a specific society (Clugston, Howell and
Dorfman 2000; Kirkman and Shapiro 2001). In a review of previous empirical research
that has incorporated Hofstede’s cultural values, Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson (2006)
found that more studies examined these values at the individual level than at the
societal level. Since we focus on the moderating effect of power distance on the relation-
ship between abusive supervision and the perception of interactional justice (two
48 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
 Wei Wang et al.

individual-level constructs) in organisational settings, we define and operationalise power

distance at the individual level. According to Clugston, Howell and Dorfman (2000),
individual-level power distance refers to the extent to which an individual accepts the
unequal distribution of power in institutions and organisations. In the organisational
context, high power distance prescribes that an important role of employees or subor-
dinates is that of following the orders of the superior. As Kirkman and Shapiro (1997)
stated, employees with high levels of power distance are more willing to allow authorities
to make decisions in the absence of employee participation and are less likely to attempt
to influence the decision-making of authorities than are those with low levels of power
distance.
We argue that, because of their strong deference to authority figures, employees with
high power distance are likely to be more reliant on the positive (rather than the negative)
reciprocity norm than are their counterparts with low power distance. This notion is
consistent with the rationales of power dependence theory (Emerson 1972). For instance,
according to the power dependence theory, in a relationship characterised by power imbal-
ance, such as the employee–supervisor relationship in the Chinese context, the employee
party is more dependent on the supervisor party for valued resources. When there is abusive
supervision, the employee’s dependence and lack of power constrain his or her capability
and purposeful motivation to seek revenge (Tepper et al. 2009). In this case, the employee
copes with the abusive supervisor without the perception of interactional injustice. Simi-
larly, the deterrence theory suggests the powerless party in a relationship will likely with-
hold retaliation toward the powerful party when the cost is prohibitive. In this case,
employees tolerate supervisor abuse and react less negatively to abusive supervision when
they are characterised by high power distance. Meanwhile, because of their strong belief in
egalitarianism (Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson 2006; Lee, Pillutla and Law 2000), employees
with low power distance are more likely to perceive themselves as being unequally treated
when they are faced with abusive supervision. These employees are sensitive to unequal
interpersonal treatment by their supervisors, thus they tend to perceive interactional injus-
tice more often than those higher in power distance do and react more negatively to abusive
supervision.
Hypothesis 3: Individual-level power distance moderates the relationship between abusive
supervision and employees’ perception of interactional justice such that the relationship is
stronger for those individuals who are lower, rather than higher, in power distance.

Method
Sample and procedure
Survey instruments were distributed to employees and their supervisors in six mid-sized
electronic manufacturing enterprises in Beijing. In order to avoid common method vari-
ance (CMV), we conducted two waves of survey with a nine-month interval. Data collec-
tion was implemented with the assistance of the companies’ human resource departments.
Prior to the survey, researchers and human resource professionals established a list of survey
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 49
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

participants. We administered separate questionnaires to 338 employees and their 128

supervisors. Each supervisor was required to report on two to a maximum of six employees.
In the first wave of surveys (Time 1), employees provided information on demography,
abusive supervision, and perception of interactional justice. In the second wave (Time 2),
employees provided information on organisational deviance and interpersonal deviance
while supervisors provided information on supervisor-directed deviance. We ultimately
gathered feedback from 300 employees and 128 supervisors. After matching employee
questionnaires and supervisor questionnaires in the two waves, we obtained 283 employee–
supervisor dyads for hypothesis testing, with valid response rates of 83.7% and 87.5%,
respectively.
For supervisors, 72.3% of them were male. Thirty per cent were 31 to 35 years old, and
29.5% were 36 to 40 years old. The average period of work experience of supervisors was
12.8 years. For employees, 67.1% of them were male. Twenty-eight percent were 25 to 30
years old and 23.3% were 31 to 35 years old. The average period of work experience of
employees was 7.7 years.

Measures
Abusive supervision
We used a 15-item scale developed by Tepper (2000) to measure abusive supervision. A
sample item was ‘My supervisor tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid’. Aryee et al.
(2007) used this scale to measure abusive supervision in the Chinese organisational context.
In our study, Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.95, indicating satisfactory measuring
reliability.

Interactional justice
We used a 9-item scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) to measure interactional
justice, which was reported by employees at Time 1. A sample item was ‘My supervisor
treats me fairly’ (reverse coded). Cronbach’s Alpha of the scale was 0.94.

Power distance
We used a 6-item scale developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) to measure power
distance, which was reported by employees at Time 1. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was
0.85.

Workplace deviance
We used Mitchell and Ambrose’s (2007) 12-item scale to measure organisational deviance,
their 7-item scale to measure non-supervisory interpersonal deviance, and their 10-item
scale to measure supervisor-directed deviance. A sample item was ‘I said something harmful
to my supervisor at work’ (supervisor-directed deviance). The Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cients were 0.84, 0.79, and 0.89, for organisational, non-supervisory interpersonal, and
supervisor-directed deviance respectively, indicating satisfactory measuring reliability.
50 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
 Wei Wang et al.

Control variables
Previous research indicated that individuals’ demographic variables (age, gender, seniority
and organisational level), as well as positive affectivity and negative affectivity influence
their perception of social interactions (e.g., perception of interactional justice) and deviant
behaviours (Harvey et al. 2007). Therefore, we controlled these variables as Harvey et al.
(2007) did in their research. We used Watson, Clark and Tellegen’s (1988) scale to measure
positive and negative affectivity. The Cronbach’s alphas were 0.95 and 0.91 respectively,
indicating satisfactory measuring reliability.
All of the discussed multi-item variables were measured using 7-point scales. Workplace
deviance was rated on the anchors from 1 standing for ‘never’ to 7 representing ‘daily’; other
variables were rated on the anchors from 1 standing for ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 representing
‘strongly agree’.

Discriminant validity
Using LISREL 8 (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993), we conducted confirmatory factor analyses
(CFAs) to test the psychometric properties of all independent, dependent, mediating,
moderating, and multi-item control variables. In total, 79 items measured our eight latent
constructs (15 items for abusive supervision, 9 items for interactional justice, 6 items for
power distance, 29 items for three types of workplace deviance, 20 items for positive and
negative affectivity). In order to prevent problems arising from including too many indi-
cators in structural models, we reduced the number of indicators via a combination method
creating item-parcels (Landis, Beal and Tesluk 2000). For example, we randomly selected
five items measuring abusive supervision and combined them to a parcel, so that in our CFA
models, the abusive supervision construct had three ‘parcel indicators’. Using this process,
we retained three parcel indicators for each of eight latent variables. The combination
method is accepted and used by management researchers when employing structural equa-
tion modelling (SEM) to conduct analyses (e.g. Li, Liang and Crant 2010; Mathieu and
Taylor 2006). In the examined CFA model, there were eight latent factors with 24 corre-
sponding indicators. The eight-factor model fit the data well (c2 = 612.90, d.f. = 224; CFI =
0.93; TLI = 0.90; IFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.08). Against this baseline model, we tested a model
that loaded all the 24 indicators to a ‘grand’ latent factor. The model did not generate
satisfactory fit to our data (c2 = 1641.39, d.f. = 252; CFI = 0.63; TLI = 0.59; IFI = 0.63;
RMSEA = 0.14). Thus, there is evidence for the construct distinctiveness of the studied
variables.

Results
Table 1 reports means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations among studied vari-
ables. Hierarchical regression modelling (HRM) was employed to test our hypotheses (see
Tables 2 and 3). To test the mediating role of interactional justice perception, we applied
Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedures. Baron and Kenny (1986) argued that the mediating
effect should meet the following requirements: 1) the independent variable (i.e. leader
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 51
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations of main variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Agea
2 Genderb -.04
3 Seniority .70** .01
4 Organisational .28** -.07 .26**
levelc
5 Negative affectivity -.06 -.11 .05 -.08
(T1)
6 Positive affectivity .10 -.04 .02 .04 -.43**
(T1)
7 Abusive -.08 .06 -.14* -.13* .20** -.18**
supervision (T1)
8 Power distance .01 .04 .05 -.03 -.06 .11 -.04
(T1)
9 Perception of .12* -.10 .11 .05 -.27** .34** -.47** .16**
interaction justice
(T1)
10 Organisational -.12* -.08 -.14* -.13* .11 -.08 .23** -.01 -.30**
deviance (T2)
11 Interpersonal -.11 -.01 -.07 -.10 .18** -.08 .22** -.06 -.29** .55**
deviance (T2)
12 Supervisor-directed -.18** -.04 -.12* -.13* .15* -.13* .24** -.11 -.33** .46** .47**
deviance (T2)
Mean 2.85 1.33 7.71 1.52 2.45 5.22 2.63 4.36 5.00 2.36 2.28 2.25
Standard deviation 1.47 .47 7.05 .64 1.12 .86 .95 1.00 1.00 .60 .62 .72

n = 283 **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

a
Age: 1. 25 [25] and below; 2. 26–30; 3. 31–35; 4. 36–40; 5. 41–45; 6. 46–50; 7. 51 and above.
b
Gender: 1. Male, 2. Female.
c
Organisation levels: 1. Frontline employees; 2. Frontline supervisors; 3. Middle-level supervisors.

political skill) is significantly related to the mediator (i.e. team communication); 2) the
independent variable is significantly related to the dependent variable (i.e. team per-
formance); 3) the mediator is significantly related to the dependent variable; and 4) when
the independent variable and mediator are simultaneously included in the regression
model, the mediator’s influence is still significant while the independent variable’s influ-
ence disappears (full mediation) or shrinks in magnitude (partial mediation).
The results in Table 3 indicate that abusive supervision has significantly positive influ-
ence on employees’ organisational deviance (b = 0.20, p < 0.01, M2 in Table 3), interpersonal
deviance (b = 0.19, p < 0.01, M5 in Table 3), and supervisor-directed deviance (b = 0.21, p
< 0.01, M8 in Table 3), thereby supporting hypothesis 1. After introducing the mediator into
the model, the influence of abusive supervision on the three kinds of workplace deviant
behaviours becomes insignificant, while employees’ perception of interactional justice
maintains a significantly negative influence on them (b = -0.26, p < 0.01, M3 in Table 3; b
= -0.23, p < 0.01, M6 in Table 3; b = -0.26, p < 0.01, M9 in Table 3). Meanwhile, the results
in Table 2 indicate that abusive supervision has a significantly negative influence on
employees’ perception of interactional justice (b = -0.41, p < 0.01, M4 in Table 2). There-
fore, employees’ perception of interactional justice fully mediates the relationship between
52 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
 Wei Wang et al.

Table 2 Results of hierarchical regression model

Mediator: employee perception of interactional
justice (T1)
M1 M2 M3 M4
Control variables
Age .02 .06 .07 .09
Gender -.11 -.08 -.08 -.06
Seniority .10 .01 .00 -.01
Organisational level -.01 -.04 -.04 -.03
Negative affectivity -.17** -.10 -.10 -.08
Positive affectivity .25** .21** .20** .21**
Independent variable
Abusive supervision (T1) -.41** -.41** -.40**
Moderator
Power distance (T1) .12* .13*
Interaction
Abusive supervision ¥ power distance .18**
R2 .15 .30 .31 .34
F 8.39** 17.17** 15.93** 16.33**
DR2 .15 .15 .01 .03
DF 8.39** 59.20** 5.37* 13.63**
n = 283 **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

Table 3 The mediating role of perception of interactional justice

Organisational deviance Interpersonal deviance Supervisor-directed deviance
(T2) (T2) (T2)

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9

Control variables
Age -.00 -.03 -.01 -.07 -.09 -.08 -.16 -.18* -.16*
Gender -.08 -.09 -.11 .01 -.01 -.03 -.04 -.06 -.08
Seniority -.12 -.08 -.07 -.01 .03 .03 .01 .05 .05
Organisational level -.10 -.08 -.08 -.07 -.05 -.06 -.08 -.07 -.08
Negative affectivity .08 .05 .02 .18** .14* .12 .10 .06 .03
Positive affectivity -.04 -.02 .04 .01 .02 .07 -.07 -.05 .00
Independent variable
Abusive supervision (T1) .20** .10 .19** .09 .21** .10
Mediator
Interactional justice (T1) -.26** -.23** -.26**
R2 .05 .09 .14 .05 .08 .12 .06 .10 .15
F 2.31* 3.64** 5.13** 2.22* 3.33** 4.46** 3.14** 4.53** 6.06**
DR2 .05 .04 .05 .05 .03 .04 .06 .04 .05
DF 2.31* 11.07** 14.37** 2.22* 9.56** 11.49** 3.14** 12.11** 15.14**

n = 283 **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 53

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

6.0

justice perception
Interactional
5.5

5.0
High power distance
4.5
Low power distance
4.0
1.6 2.6 3.6
Abusive supervision

Figure 2 Abusive supervision and power distance’s interaction on employee’s interactional justice

abusive supervision and employees’ workplace deviant behaviours. Hypothesis 2 is also

supported.
Model 4 in Table 2 shows that the interaction of abusive supervision and power dis-
tance has a significantly positive influence on employee’s interactional justice (b = 0.18,
p < 0.01, M4 in Table 2), which indicates that the negative relationship between abusive
supervision and employees’ interactional justice is weaker when the employees are high
than low in power distance, supporting hypothesis 3. Following the procedure recom-
mended by Aiken and West (1991), we plotted Figure 2 to demonstrate the significant
interaction between abusive supervision and power distance on employees’ perceptions of
interactional justice.

Discussion
Previous research of abusive supervision has focused on the relationship between abusive
supervision and its negative outcomes, and our research replicated the findings obtained in
the Chinese organisational context. As predicted, abusive supervision is positively related to
workplace deviance. This result validated findings obtained in the western organisational
contexts (e.g., Mitchell and Ambrose 2007; Tepper et al. 2009; Thau and Mitchell 2010;
Thau et al. 2009) and offered Chinese evidence for the theories’ generalisability. As an
extension of these theories, this study investigated how abusive supervision’s effect on
workplace deviance is mediated by interactional justice and moderated by power distance.
Our analyses suggested a mediating role of interactional justice in the link between abusive
supervision and deviant behaviour. We also found that employees who were low in power
distance responded more negatively than employees who were high in power distance
because they perceived more interactional injustice. These findings help to deepen our
understanding regarding why and how abusive supervision exerts influence on workplace
deviance, especially in the Chinese organisational context. However, we realise that our
exploration of intervening and boundary mechanisms for the abusive supervision and
workplace deviance might be interpreted along with the western findings. For example,
Tepper et al. (2009) found that employees’ responses to abusive supervision are moderated
by their intentions to quit, while Thau et al. (2009) identified management style as an
54 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
 Wei Wang et al.

important moderator. Other research (Thau and Mitchell 2010) focused on the role of
distributive justice (rather than interactional justice) and ‘self-regulation impairment’ vari-
ables. The findings support a mediated-moderation effect whereby abuse depletes self-
regulatory strength and makes deviance more likely, especially when distributive justice is
high. Constructing our investigation within the exchange perspective, we explored the
intervening role of interactional justice, which offers new evidence, as well as a new angle
for explaining why abusive supervision relates to employees’ deviant behaviours. Future
research may consider whether interactional justice is a stronger mediator for some types of
deviance. For example, interactional justice may be a strong mediator of the relationship
between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance because supervisor-directed
deviance involves a retaliation motive. With other forms of deviance, the connection
between the source of perceived injustice and target of the deviant behaviour is not as close,
so it may be driven more by motives related to catharsis.
Our exploring the boundary effect of power distance, a cultural variable, is a clear
contribution to the field of abusive supervision and workplace deviance. However, com-
pared with western societies, China’s society has relatively higher power distance. Given
that all of our respondents were Chinese, there might be a range restriction on the power
distance variable, which makes it more difficult to find significant effects, thus any effect
found is meaningful. We expect that our findings can also be supported in western contexts.
From a theoretical validity standpoint, a test that examines the full range of power distance
would be more beneficial. In the future, cross-cultural investigations of the mechanisms
explored in the present study will be promising.
This study inevitably has methodological limitations. First, although we collected data
from multiple organisations, they were all in the manufacturing industry. Therefore, we
may not be able to generalise our findings beyond this industry. Further research should
collect data from multiple industries to investigate the industry effects on the proposed
research framework. Second, we adopted measurement scales developed in the western
cultural contexts to investigate the relationships and phenomena taking place in Chinese
organisations. Although some scales have been proven to have stable measurement prop-
erties in both Chinese and western populations, the best choice is to use indigenous
measurement scales. Future studies conducted in the Chinese organisational context should
make efforts to develop or adopt indigenous measures. Finally, some of our dependent
variables such as organisational and interpersonal deviant behaviours were self-reported by
employees. Due to respondents’ self-serving purpose and social desirability effects, employ-
ees may constrain their ratings. Future studies should endeavour to use multiple sources to
collect deviance data. If they adopt the self-reporting method, future studies should at least
control for the effects of social desirability.

Practical implications
Findings of this research have practical implications for the management of workplace
deviance. Workplace deviance is a costly problem, both financially for organisations and
psychologically for their employees (Robinson and Greenberg 1998). A deep understanding
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 55
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

of abusive supervisors’ influence on workplace deviance may help companies define solu-
tions to reduce both financial and psychological costs of deviant behaviour. Our study
indicates that abusive supervision creates an atmosphere that increases deviant workplace
behaviours. To offer solutions, Thau and Mitchell (2010), for example, highlighted that
identifying abusive supervisors is an essential first step in mitigating the destructive effects of
abusive supervision, and those with negative affectivities and abusive orientations should not
be placed in supervisory positions. Thau and Mitchell (2010) also recognised that supervisor
training can help supervisors/managers develop fairer, more supportive leadership styles.
The significant mediating effect of the perception of interactional justice in the link
between abusive supervision and workplace deviance suggests that abusive supervision
influences workplace deviance indirectly by influencing the perception of interactional
justice. Workplace deviance is considered a kind of retaliation, which can be a counterpro-
ductive way of coping with perceived injustice. Therefore, organisations should strive to
find ways to reduce employees’ feelings of interactional injustice in order to eliminate
deviant workplace behaviours. For instance, Chinese organisations should make efforts to
build both formal channels and regulations that encourage employees to voice their con-
cerns (Liang, Farh and Farh in press). The companies could also cultivate more employee-
oriented organisational cultures in order to eliminate the tolerance of abusive management
styles. In addition, the significant moderating effect of individual-level power distance
suggests that managers should pay more attention to employees’ cultural value orientations
and characteristics when developing their management practices.

Conclusions
Conducted in the Chinese organisational context, this study shows that employees who
experience abuse from supervisors engage in supervisor-targeted deviant behaviour,
directly retaliating against the source of mistreatment. They may also transfer their retali-
ation to target substitutes, such as organisations and non-supervisory individuals, by
engaging in organisational and non-supervisory interpersonal deviant behaviours. The
study also indicates that these effects are likely triggered by employees’ perceptions of
interactional injustice. In addition, in keeping with research that has shown that people
with different cultural value orientations tend to have different reactions to abusive super-
vision, our study reveals that employees with low power distance react more negatively to
abusive supervisors than do those with high power distance. These findings provide both
replications of and extensions to the western theories of abusive supervision and workplace
deviance. To enrich this stream of research, researchers should endeavour to make cross-
cultural comparisons and to explore more culturally meaningful mechanisms for the
dynamics of abusive supervision and workplace deviance.

Wei Wang (MPhil, Renmin U) is a doctoral student at the Sauder School of Business, the University
of British Columbia. His research interests include workplace deviance, organisational politics, and
leadership.

56 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

 Wei Wang et al.

Jiye Mao (PhD, UBC) is a professor in the School of Business, Renmin University of China. His areas
of particular expertise are IT project management, management of IT outsourcing/offshoring, and
e-commerce.

Weiku Wu (PhD, Tsinghua U) is a professor at the Department of Business Strategy and Policy, School
of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University. His current research focuses on organisational
leadership and business strategy.

Jun Liu (PhD, Chinese U of HK) is an associate professor at the Department of Organisation &
Human Resources, School of Business, Renmin University of China. His recent work focuses on
leadership, employment relations, and issues of Chinese top management teams.

Acknowledgements
The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (70972025).
The work by Jun Liu was supported by the Program for New Century Excellent Talents
(NCET) in Chinese Universities. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the
International Association of Chinese Management Research 2010 Conference. We would
like to thank Dr Timothy Bartram and two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful
comments and suggestions. We also deeply appreciate the support and guidance from
Longzeng Wu and Michael Kwan.

References
Aiken LS and SG West (1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publica-
tions, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Aquino K and S Douglas (2003) Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The mod-
erating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes 90, 195–208.
Aquino K, TM Tripp and RJ Bies (2001) How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of
blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the work-
place. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 52–59.
Aquino K, TM Tripp and RJ Bies (2006) Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and
types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organiza-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(3), 653–668.
Aryee S, ZX Chen, LY Sun and YA Debrah (2007) Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision:
Test of a trickle down model. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 191–201.
Ashforth B (1997) Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and
consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science 14, 126–140.
Baron RA, JH Neuman and D Geddes (1999) Social and personal determinants of workplace aggres-
sion: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the Type A behavior pattern. Aggressive
Behavior 25, 281–296.
Baron RM and DA Kenny (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psycho-
logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 51, 1173–1182.

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 57

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

Bennett RJ and SL Robinson (2003) The past, present, and future of workplace deviance research.
In J Greenberg (ed) Organizational behavior: The state of science, 349–360. Erlbaum, Mahwah,
NJ.
Bies RJ (1999) Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J Greenberg and R Cropanzano
(eds) Advances in organizational behavior, 89–118. New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA.
Bies RJ and JF Moag (1986) Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In RJ Lewicki,
BH Sheppard and MH Bazeman (eds) Research on Negotiations in organizations, 43–55. JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT.
Bies RJ and TM Tripp (1996) Beyond distrust: Getting even and the need for revenge. In RM Kramer
and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in organizations, 246–260. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bies RJ and TM Tripp (1998) The many faces of revenge: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In RW
Griffin, A O’Leary-Kelly and JM Collins (eds) Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent
behavior in organizations, 49–68. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Blau P (1964) Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Clugston M, JP Howell and PW Dorfman (2000) Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases
and foci of commitment? Journal of Management 26, 5–30.
Colquitt JA (2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 386–400.
Colquitt JA, DE Conlon, MJ Wesson, C Porter and KY Ng (2001) Justice at the millennium: A
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology
86, 425–445.
Cropanzano R and MS Mitchell (2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
Management 31, 874–900.
Dollard J, LW Doob, NE Miller, OH Mowrer and RR Sears (1939) Frustration and aggression. Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT.
Dorfman PW and JP Howell (1988) Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership in
patterns. Advances in International Comparative Management 3, 127–150.
Dupré KE and J Barling (2001) The prediction and prevention of workplace aggression and violence.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington DC, Organ-
izational Behavior Division.
Emerson RM (1972) Exchange theory: Part I. A psychological basis for social exchange. Part II:
Exchange relations and network structures. In Zelditch M and B Anderson (eds) Sociological
theories in progress, Vol. 2, 38–87. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Foa UG and EB Foa (1974) Societal structures of the mind. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Foa UG and EB Foa (1980) Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior as exchange. In KJ Gergen, M
Greenberg and RH Willis (eds) Social exchange: Advances in theory and research, 77–94. Plenum
Press, New York.
Folger R (1993) Reactions to mistreatment at work. In JK Murnighan (ed) Social psychology
in organizations: Advances in theory and research, 161–183. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Gouldner AW (1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review
25, 161–178.
Greenberg J and BJ Alge (1998) Aggressive reactions to workplace injustice. In RW Griffin, A O’Leary-
Kelly and J Collins (eds) Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behaviors,
43–81. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

58 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

 Wei Wang et al.

Harvey P, J Stoner, W Hochwarter and C Kacmar (2007) Dealing with bad bosses: The neutralizing
effects of self-presentation and positive affect on the negative consequences of abusive super-
vision. Leadership Quarterly 18, 264–280.
Hershcovis SM, N Turner, J Barling, KA Arnold, KE Dupre, M Inness, MM LeBlanc and N Sivanathan
(2007) Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 228–
238.
Hofstede GH (1980) Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?
Organizational Dynamics 9, 42–63.
Hofstede GH (1991) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hofstede GH and MH Bond (1988) The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic
growth. Organizational Dynamics 16(4), 4–21.
Hogg MA and D van Knippenberg (2003) Social identity and leadership processes in groups. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology 35, 1–52.
Jones DA (2009) Getting even with one’s supervisor and one’s organization: Relationships among
types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organ-
izational Behavior 30, 525–542.
Jöreskog KG and D Sörbom (1993) LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Scientific Software, Chicago.
Judge TA, BA Scott and R Ilies (2006) Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a
multi-level model. Journal of Applied Psychology 91, 126–138.
Kirkman BL and DL Shapiro (1997) The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams:
Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management
Review 22, 730–757.
Kirkman BL and DL Shapiro (2001) The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance.
Academy of Management Journal 44, 557–569.
Kirkman BL, KB Lowe and CB Gibson (2006) A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review
of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural value framework. Journal of International
Business Studies 37, 285–320.
Landis RS, DJ Beal and PE Tesluk (2000) A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures
in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods 3, 186–207.
Lee C, MM Pillutla and KS Law (2000) Power distance, gender, and organizational justice. Journal of
Management 26, 685–704.
Li N, J Liang and JM Crant (2010) The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organ-
izational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 95, 395–
404.
Liang J, CIC Farh and JL Farh (in press) Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice:
A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal.
Lind EA and TR Tyler (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum, New York.
Lind EA and K Van den Bos (2002) When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty
management. In BM Staw and RM Kramer (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24,
181–224. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Mathieu JE and SR Taylor (2006) Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type
inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27, 1031–1056.
Mitchell MS and ML Ambrose (2007) Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moder-
ating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 1159–1168.

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 59

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

Niehoff BP and RH Moorman (1993) Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of
monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 36, 527–556.
Robinson SL and RJ Bennett (1995) A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional
scaling study. Academy of Management Journal 38, 555–572.
Robinson SL and J Greenberg (1998) Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants, and
dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In CL Cooper and DM Rousseau (eds) Trends in
organizational behavior, Vol. 5, 1–30. Wiley, New York.
Rudolph U, SC Roesch, T Greitemeyer and B Weiner (2004) A meta-analytic review of help giving and
aggression from an attributional perspective: Contributions to a general theory of motivation.
Cognition and Emotion 18, 815–848.
Skarlicki DP and R Folger (1997) Retaliation in the workplace: The role of distributive, procedural,
and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 434–443.
Skarlicki DP and R Folger (2004) Broadening our understanding of organizational retaliatory behav-
ior. In RW Griffin and AM O’Leary Kelly (eds) The dark side of organizational behavior, 373–402.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Skarlicki DP, R Folger and P Tesluk (1999) Personality as a moderator in the relationship between
fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal 42, 100–108.
Tangirala S and BJ Algae (2006) Reactions to unfair events in computer-mediated groups: A test of
uncertainty management theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 100, 1–20.
Tedeschi JT (2001) Social power, influence, and aggression. In JP Forgas and KD Williams (eds) Social
influence: Direct and indirect processes, 109–128. Psychology Press, New York.
Tepper BJ (2000) Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal 43, 178–190.
Tepper BJ (2007) Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis and research agenda.
Journal of Management 33, 261–289.
Tepper BJ, J Carr, DM Breaux, S Geider, C Hu and W Hua (2009) Abusive supervision, intentions to
quit, and employees’ workplace deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
109, 156–167.
Thau S and MS Mitchell (2010) Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explan-
ations for the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of
distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology 95, 1009–1031.
Thau S, RJ Bennett, MS Mitchell and MB Marrs (2009) How management style moderates the
relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108, 79–92.
Van den Bos K and EA Lind (2002) Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In MP
Zanna (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 34, 1–60. Academic Press, San Diego,
CA.
Van den Bos K and J Miedema (2000) Towards understanding why fairness matters: The influence of
mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
79(3), 355–366.
Watson D, LA Clark and A Tellegen (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive
and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 1063–1070.

60 © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd