Article

Organizational Psychology Review

2023, Vol. 13(3) 237–278
The hot and the cold in © The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
destructive leadership: Modeling sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20413866231153098

the role of arousal in explaining journals.sagepub.com/home/opr

leader antecedents and follower

consequences of abusive
supervision versus exploitative
leadership

Franziska Emmerling
Technical University of Munich, Germany

Claudia Peus
Technical University of Munich, Germany

Jill Lobbestael
Maastricht University, the Netherlands

Abstract
Due to its devastating consequences, research needs to theoretically and empirically disentangle
different sub-types of destructive leadership. Based on concepts derived from aggression research
distinguishing re- and proactive aggression, we provide a process model differentiating abusive
supervision and exploitative leadership. High versus low arousal negative affect is installed as
the central mediating factor determining (1) whether perceived goal-blockage (leadership antece-
dents) leads to abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership and (2) whether a specific lead-
ership behavior leads to active versus passive follower behavior (leadership consequence).

Paper received 13 December 2019. Received revised December 13, 2019

Corresponding author:
Franziska Emmerling, Chair for Research and Science Management, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstrasse 21,
Munchen, 80333, Bayern, Germany.
Email: franziska.emmerling@tum.de

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission
provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/
nam/open-access-at-sage).
238 Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)

Further, theoretical anchoring of individual and contextual moderators onto the model’s process
paths is provided and exemplary hypotheses for concrete moderation effects are deduced. Based
on the provided process model, we highlight four recommendations to facilitate process-based
construct differentiation in future research on destructive leadership. To precisely understand
the differences and commonalities in different forms of destructive leadership will ultimately
enable custom-tailored inter- and prevention.

Plain Language Summary

Negative leadership—also named “destructive” leadership—has very bad effects on followers
and organizations. There are not just one, but many forms of destructive leadership and it is
important to understand where different sub-types come from (i.e., to understand their ante-
cedents) and which specific effect they have (i.e., to understand their consequences). In this
paper, we focus on better understanding two forms of destructive leadership, namely abusive
supervision and exploitative leadership. These two forms are similar to the two main forms
of aggression. Abusive supervision is similar to reactive aggression, an impulsive “hot blooded”
form of aggression. Exploitative leadership is similar to proactive aggression, a premeditated
“cold blooded” form of aggression. We explain the parallels between the two forms of aggres-
sion and the two forms of leadership and provide a model which allows to predict when one
versus the other form of leadership occurs and to which follower behavior they lead. An
important factor in this model is the physiological characteristic of the emotional reaction to
an event (i.e., arousal). An emotional reaction can be high in arousal; for instance, anger is a
high arousal negative emotional reaction. On the contrary, boredom, for instance, is a low arou-
sal negative emotional reaction. Dependent on whether both a leader and a follower react to a
negative event (e.g., not getting what they want, being treated badly by others) with high or low
arousal, their behavior will be different. We explain how this mechanism works and how it can
help us to better predict leaders’ and followers’ behavior. We also outline how individual char-
acteristics of the leader and follower and characteristics of their environment and context inter-
act with arousal and their behavior.

Keywords
destructive leadership, abusive supervision, consequences, antecedents, negative leadership,
exploitative leadership, arousal, affect

Most—if not all—organizations rely on skillful
leadership to optimize their potential, unite
followers, reduce conflict, and distill various
centrifugal forces into success (Peus et al.,
2016). While positive forms of leadership (e.g.,
Antonakis et al., 2003) enable individuals, orga-
nizations, and societies to flourish, destructive
forms of leadership can have devastating conse-
quences (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). This nega-
tive impact is magnified psychologically as
humans perceive and process negative input
more intensely than positive input (Unkelbach
et al., 2008). Furthermore, negative behavior
is generally more harmful than an equivalent
positive behavior is helpful (Baumeister et al.,
2001). Also, destructive leadership—which pre-
sents itself with many faces—not only negatively
affects the direct target but also indirectly impacts
the target’s environment (Hoobler & Brass, 2006).
The immense and widespread negative influence
of destructive leadership therefore necessitates
nuanced empirical investigations into its antece-
dents as well as its consequences in order to
obtain a better understanding of how individuals
Emmerling et al.
and organizations could prevent or react to destruc-
tive leadership.
In this paper, we will review the evolution of
constructs in research on destructive leadership
and evidence its antecedents and consequences.
Against this background, we will draw on
aggression research by suggesting a process
model which outlines how arousal mediates
leader antecedents and follower consequences
of two exemplary forms of destructive leader-
ship characterized by opposite arousal states,
i.e., abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000) versus
exploitative leadership (Schmid et al., 2019).
Positive forms of leadership and its effects on
followers and organizations have been studied
extensively in the past (Antonakis et al., 2003;
Antonakis & Day, 2017). Traditionally, the
focus of leadership research was on unraveling
and explaining those forms of leadership that
facilitate a desired consequence among followers
or in organizations, most notably transformational
and charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985a, 1985b).
Over the course of the last two decades, particular
moral forms of leadership (Lemoine et al., 2019),
such as ethical leadership (Brown & Treviño,
2006a, 2006b), authentic leadership (Peus et al.,
2013; Walumbwa et al., 2008), and servant lead-
ership (Liden et al., 2008; van Dierendonck,
2011) emerged (for an overview, see Zhu et al.,
2019).
An acknowledgement that the dark side of
leadership is equally in need of scientific atten-
tion has emerged more hesitantly. Initially, it
was suggested that leadership entailing negative
behavior or consequences contradicts the very
definition of “what leadership is” (Yukl &
van Fleet, 1992) and could not therefore be
defined as leadership. And yet, the last two
decades have seen an increase in research on
destructive forms of leadership, which has gen-
erated ample theoretical and empirical insights
on various forms of destructive leadership (for
an overview, see Krasikova et al., 2013;
Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Tepper et al., 2017).
Various definitions of destructive leadership
have been introduced, mostly originating from a
ground-breaking conceptualization by Einarsen
239
et al. (2007) as a continuous display of influen-
tial behavior by a leader causing harm. Over
time, the term “destructive leadership” has
arisen to mean more than one specific construct
and this has become an umbrella term. In add-
ition, recently, its initially somewhat basic def-
inition was rendered more precise by
highlighting its deliberate foci. For instance,
Schyns and Schilling (2013) specified in their
seminal meta-analysis, that the dark side of
leadership takes on many forms, depending on
whether the perception of or actual behavior is
discussed, whether action is intentional, which
types of behavior (i.e., physical, verbal, non-
verbal) are included in the conceptualization,
and to what extent consequences are considered.
Krasikova et al. (2013) defined destructive leader-
ship in their comprehensive overview as volitional
behavior while also stressing that the leader does
not have to be consciously aware of their intent to
harm (James & LeBreton, 2010, 2012). These
authors thereby pioneered the demarcation of
clear destructive forms of leadership from adjacent
phenomena, such as non-volitional harmful leader-
ship behavior, ineffective leadership (e.g., due to
incompetence), and simply non-existent or laissez-
faire leadership. They outlined two further manifes-
tations of destructive leadership: the leading of
followers toward harmful goals and employing
harmful methods of leading. These can—but do
not necessarily have to—co-occur, i.e., either
type is sufficient to define destructive leadership.
Focusing on the history of research on
destructive leadership, several developmental
landmarks stand out. The first study on antece-
dents and consequences of destructive forms of
leadership was published in 1997 and the number
of publications has increased steadily ever since.
Studied constructs diversified across time. Early
conceptualizations included petty tyranny
(Ashforth, 1997) and abusive supervision (Tepper,
2000), followed by—for instance—supervisor
undermining (Duffy et al., 2006), aversive leader-
ship (Bligh et al., 2007), despotic leadership (De
Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008), destructive leader-
ship (Aasland et al., 2010), narcissistic leadership
(Hochwarter & Thompson, 2012), toxic leadership
240
(Aubrey, 2012), and exploitative leadership
(Schmid et al., 2018).
The high and ever-increasing number of con-
structs used in past research on destructive lead-
ership warrants integration. It necessitates there
being a clear distinction between overlap and
differentiation within this construct space (as
demanded by Krasikova et al., 2013; Le et al.,
2010; Shaffer et al., 2016; Thoroughgood
et al., 2018), as well as a specification of basic
distinctive processes underlying different leader-
ship behaviors (DeRue et al., 2011; Piccolo et al.,
2012; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). This
work follows those suggestions and develops a
process model on the differentiation between
abusive supervision and exploitative leadership
based on their antecedents and consequences.
One way of illuminating the basic distinctive
processes underlying different forms of destruc-
tive leadership which shows promise is to focus
on criterion validity (Crocker & Algina, 1986;
McDonald, 2013; Novick, 1966). Criterion val-
idity refers to the function of a construct when
predicting independent consequences and cri-
teria. Constructs can be differentiated based on
their consequences (e.g., physical aggression
leads to physical injury while psychological vio-
lence does not) or, even if consequences are
similar, based on their antecedents. Criterion val-
idity, therefore, predicts the fact that constructs
require differentiation in the case of either dis-
tinct antecedents or consequences, since this
implies differing underlying processes and/or
potential intervention strategies.
The general idea of conceptualizing destruc-
tive forms of leadership as a process (antece-
dents—leadership—consequence) has emerged
gradually. In early research on destructive
forms of leadership—when petty tyranny was
proposed as a construct—Ashforth (1994) was
already recommending investigating individual
predispositions and situational facilitators (i.e.,
antecedents) of petty tyranny as well as their
effects on followers (i.e., consequences). In 2007,
Tepper provided the first review on antecedents
and consequences of negative leadership (mainly
on abusive supervision) and set the stage for an
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
emergent model. He focused on the time continuum,
including supervisor perception of injustice and con-
tract violation (antecedents), abusive supervision
(leadership), and various effects (consequences;
subordinates’ attitudes, resistance, aggression
and deviance, performance contributions, psy-
chological distress, and family well-being).
Furthermore, his work considered differentiable
entities (i.e., the character and behavior of super-
visors and subordinates, as well as the work
context). Similarly, by proposing the toxic triangle
model of destructive leadership, i.e., describing
characteristics of leaders, followers, and environ-
mental contexts in reference to destructive leader-
ship, Padilla et al. (2007) underlined the
importance of considering all levels of analysis
involved in order to fully grasp destructive lead-
ership. Building on the toxic triangle model,
Thoroughgood et al. (2018) integrated further
theories and focused on the role of followers in
the destructive leadership process. They pro-
posed a cohesive taxonomy of vulnerable fol-
lowers, i.e., the type of follower associated with
destructive leadership. Krasikova et al. (2013)
went even further and described destructive lead-
ership “as a product of dispositional and context-
ual factors” (p. 1316). Thoroughgood et al. (2018)
demand an inclusive definition that acknowledges
“destructive leadership as (i) a group process
involving flawed, toxic, or ineffective leaders,
susceptible followers, and conducive environ-
ments; consisting of (ii) destructive group or
organizational outcomes, as well as (iii) a
dynamic time frame” (p. 2). Throughout the last
two decades therefore, the field has clearly moved
toward including process elements (i.e., antecedents
and consequences) in its theorizing of destructive
leadership. The dyadic process—particularly as
regards leaders and followers—constitutes the
core of previous theorizing.
Leader antecedents and follower
consequences of destructive
leadership
When it comes to leader characteristics as antece-
dents of destructive forms of leadership, ample
Emmerling et al.
evidence is provided. Factors such as compromised
mental health (e.g., depression: Byrne et al., 2014;
Dionisi & Barling, 2019; Tepper et al., 2006/ emo-
tional exhaustion: M. M. Fan et al., 2020; Walsh &
Arnold, 2018), problematic personality traits (e.g.,
high Machiavellianism: Kiazad et al., 2010;
Lyons et al., 2019; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016/ high
narcissism: Lyons et al., 2019; Nevicka et al.,
2018), or low self-control (Mawritz et al., 2017;
Yam et al., 2016) have been associated with
higher levels of destructive leadership.
While leaders and their characteristics
undoubtedly play a crucial role in the emergence
of destructive forms of leadership, they do not
operate in a vacuum. In other words, there is no
such concept as “absolute evil” in leadership—
leader characteristics interact with followers-
related and organizational variables to create a
multifactorial bed on which destructive forms of
leadership grow. The antecedents of various
forms of destructive leadership can, however, be
analyzed not only at the leadership level, but
also at that of the follower (e.g., deviant behavior),
and the organization/environment (e.g., downsiz-
ing of a company). To conceptualize this point
of view, Krasikova et al. (2013) tailored their the-
oretical model toward destructive leadership as
being a result of a leader’s perceived goal-
blockage and thereby, they substantially advanced
theorizing in the field. Without neglecting the
many interactive and recursive elements within
the leadership process, the field acknowledges
perceived goal-blockage as the central construct
which anchors the leadership process. Perceived
goal-blockage leads to destructive forms of lead-
ership. Perceived goal-blockage is described as a
complex phenomenon comprising two central
aspects. On the one hand, leaders experience per-
ceived goal-blockage if their goals are misaligned
with organizational goals (Krasikova et al., 2013).
On the other hand, leaders also perceive goals as
blocked if their own and/or organizational goals
are thwarted by followers (Krasikova et al.,
2013). Krasikova et al. (2013) further outline
how the interplay between leaders’ characteristics
and organizational context can enhance perceived
goal-blockage. To assign a central role to goal-
241
blockage honors both the complexity and multi-
factorial nature of the destructive leadership
process. Note that the focus lies on “perceived”
goal-blockage: whether there is an actual object-
ive goal-blockage is of secondary interest, more
pertinent is whether a leader subjectively experi-
ences it. Thereby, goals are understood as the
engagement in satisfactory activities. These can
include concrete performance or career goals
(e.g., promotion, monetary success), psychological
needs (e.g., acknowledgement, respect, status, self-
efficacy), or positive affect (e.g., pleasure, fun,
excitement). Rooted in this broad understanding
of goals, a leader’s perceived goal-blockage has
evolved as the central anchor point of the destruc-
tive leadership process (Krasikova et al., 2013).
Emphasizing the dyadic process underlying
leadership, it is negative consequences at the fol-
lower level that constitutes the most prevalent
outcome in research on destructive leadership by
far. A wide range of active (i.e., outwards directed
/ high energy) versus passive (i.e., more inwards
directed / low energy) behaviors have been
studied as being consequences of destructive
forms of leadership. When it comes to active beha-
viors, followers have been shown to respond with
aggression (Burton et al., 2011; Burton &
Hoobler, 2011; Brees et al., 2014; Carleton et al.,
2016; Dupré et al., 2006; Lian et al., 2014;
Pradhan et al., 2019a; Richard et al., 2018), counter-
productive work behavior (Akram et al., 2019;
Brender-Ilan & Sheaffer, 2019; Chu, 2014; Duffy
et al., 2006; Goswami et al., 2019; Ju et al., 2019;
Low et al., 2019; Ogunfowora, 2013; Shoss et al.,
2013; Simon et al., 2015; Watkins et al., 2019;
Yang et al., 2019), deviance (Avey et al., 2015;
Javed et al., 2019; Mackey et al., 2015; Mawritz
et al., 2017; Rice et al., 2020a; Schmid et al.,
2019; Thoroughgood et al., 2018; Valle et al.,
2019; Vogel et al., 2016; Wang & Jiang, 2014),
or reactance (Bligh et al., 2007; Goswami et al.,
2015; Haggard & Park, 2018; Liu et al., 2010;
Tepper et al., 2001). Destructive forms of leadership
have also been linked with passive follower beha-
viors such as withdrawal (Allen et al., 2016; Chi
& Liang, 2013; Huang et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2019;
Mawritz et al., 2014; Wei & Si, 2013), turnover /
242
turnover intention (Agarwal, 2019; Ogunfowora
et al., 2019; Palanski et al., 2014; Pradhan et al.,
2018; Ramdeo & Singh, 2019; Rice et al.,
2020a; Schmid et al., 2018; Pradhan et al.,
2019a; Wang & Chan, 2019), and silence
(Al-Hawari et al., 2020a; Burris et al., 2008;
Carnevale et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2019a;
Huang et al., 2019b; Jung & Yoon, 2019;
Kiewitz et al., 2016; Ouyang et al., 2015; Park
et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020a; Wang & Jiang,
2015; Wu et al., 2018b; Xu et al., 2020; Yao
et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2015).
In summary, extensive and robust theorizing as
well as evidence suggests that (1) leader’s per-
ceived goal-blockage is a crucial precursor and
(2) negative active/passive follower behavior is
a crucial result of destructive leadership. In the fol-
lowing, we will outline this dyadic process further
by focusing on specific forms of destructive lead-
ership and introducing concepts of research ori-
ginating in the field of aggression.
The hot and cold in destructive
leadership
In the context of this work, we will focus on two
forms of destructive leadership, i.e., abusive
supervision (Tepper, 2000) and exploitative lead-
ership (Schmid et al., 2019)1. These two con-
structs lend themselves to being differentiable
focuses for three reasons. Firstly, they frame the
historic development of research on destructive
leadership—with abusive supervision being the
first construct concretely measurable to emerge
and exploitative leadership being the most
recent. Secondly, these two constructs are charac-
terized by clearly differentiable yet parallel defini-
tions—with abusive supervision involving
impulsive and exploitative leadership signified
by more deliberate courses of destructive action.
Thirdly, abusive supervision and exploitative
leadership are—to date—the only two constructs
in research on destructive forms of leadership
which have been directly compared within an
empirical framework, if not with respect to their
antecedents, then at least with respect to their con-
sequences (Schmid et al., 2019).
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
Abusive supervision. Abusive supervision is
defined as the “subordinates’” perceptions of
the extent to which supervisors engage in the
sustained display of hostile verbal and non-
verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact”
(Tepper, 2000, p.178). It was introduced as
one of the first constructs in research on destruc-
tive forms of leadership based on theoretical
conceptual considerations. Tepper’s (2000)
15-item Abusive Supervision Scale as well as
its frequently used shortened 5-item version
(Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007) includes items
such as “[the leader] ridicules me,” “puts me
down in front of others,” or “tells me I am
incompetent.” The definition and measurement
of abusive supervision focuses on overtly dis-
played, often impulsive negative behavior.
The construct points at leaders’ anger and its
immediate expression in front of and toward
employees. Note that Mitchell and Ambrose’s
(2007) work magnifies this perspective on the
construct, having introduced a 5-item short
measure which explicitly and deliberately
focuses on items assessing active impulsive
behavior (e.g., shouting, putting an employee
down in front of others); this short measure
has become the dominant tool with which to
assess abusive supervision.
Exploitative leadership. Rooted in the
motivation to provide a more nuanced picture
of destructive leadership, specifically taking
leaders’ self-interest into account, Schmid et al.
(2019) developed the construct of exploitative
leadership. They define exploitative leadership
as “leadership with the primary intention to
further the leader’s self-interest. Such leaders
exploit others by (1) acting egoistically, (2) exert-
ing pressure and manipulating followers, (3) over-
burdening followers, or, on the other hand, (4)
consistently underchallenging followers, allowing
no development” (Schmid et al., 2019, p.1404).
The construct of exploitative leadership and how
to measure it has been developed based on test-
theoretical principles (exploratory followed by
confirmatory factor analysis, Schmid et al.,
2019). The establishment of its differential value
within a nomological network has further
Emmerling et al.
confirmed that exploitative leadership is best
described as falling into one (or more) of five sep-
arate but related sub-dimensions, i.e., genuine
egoistic behavior, exerting pressure, undermining
development, taking credit, and manipulative
leader behavior (Schmid et al., 2019). The
15-item Exploitative Leadership Scale includes
items such as “[the leader] passes the teams
work off as his or her own,” “manipulates
others to reach his or her goals,” or “does not
give me opportunities to further develop myself
professionally because his or her own goals
have priority” (Schmid et al., 2019).
Due to there being striking parallels with
respect to definitions and prevalent constructs,
research on destructive forms of leadership also
benefits from research into aggression. Aggression
research has been developing constantly over the
course of many decades. In their seminal work on
human aggression which merges historic and
updated research streams, Anderson and Bushman
(2002) define aggression as “any behavior directed
toward another individual that is carried out with the
proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm”
(p. 28). They add that, furthermore, the conditions
of (1) the perpetrator’s belief that their behavior
will harm and (2) the victim’s motivation to avoid
said harm need to be met in order to classify a
behavior as aggressive. The parallels between this
conceptual approach to negative behavior and the
development of definitions in research on destruc-
tive leadership are self-evident with destructive
leadership literally focusing on the intent to harm
in a leadership-specific context (Einarsen et al.,
2007; Krasikova et al., 2013).
When it comes to different types of aggres-
sion, the distinction between reactive and pro-
active aggression has proven to be a fruitful
and widely used concept (Crick & Dodge,
1996; Miller & Lynam, 2006; Poulin &
Boivin, 2000; Raine et al., 2006). In general
terms, reactive and proactive aggression are
similar in that they both intend to harm and fun-
damentally different in that the former is charac-
terized by impulsiveness, high arousal, and
immediacy, while the latter by deliberation,
low arousal, and planful action. More
243
specifically, proactive aggression “refers to
acts committed in negative affective states
such as anger or frustration, or in response to
provocation” (Miller & Lynam, 2006, p.1470).
Proactive aggression has been “characterized as
instrumental, organized, and “cold-blooded,” with
little evidence of autonomic arousal” (Raine
et al., 2006, p. 160). Abusive supervision—based
on its definition and measurement that focuses on
impulsive and overtly harmful action toward subor-
dinates—is, therefore, close to the idea of reactive
aggression.2 In contrast, exploitative leadership
centers explicitly around premeditated, delibera-
tive, and proactively destructive behavior.
Leaders consciously exploit an employee’s work
and hinder personal development to serve their
self-interest. As such, the construct resembles the
idea of proactive as opposed to reactive aggression.
Although far more recent, the introduction of
exploitative leadership as a construct in research
on destructive forms of leadership mirrors
developments in aggression research. Just as
with exploitative leadership in the leadership
field, evidence on proactive as opposed to react-
ive aggression has also accumulated more grad-
ually in the aggression field. One reason for this
might be that proactively aggressive behavior—
as with exploitative leadership—is more subtle
in that the actor’s high and deliberate intrinsic
motivation to harm is often difficult to observe
(Raine et al., 2006). This can divert societal
and scientific attention and makes a phenom-
enon hard to identify, measure, and—therefore
—study. In contrast, reactive impulsive aggres-
sion—as with abusive supervision—is out in
the open and unable to be overlooked; circum-
stances making those constructs primary and
early foci of aggression and leadership research
respectively. Even though more premeditated
forms of destructive behavior might only be
obvious at second glance, their immensely nega-
tive impact—often rooted in the planful deliber-
ation of how to maximize the intended harm and
gain—should not be underestimated. Proactive
aggression, for instance, has been linked with par-
ticularly severe and violent crimes (Cima et al.,
2013; Miller & Lynam, 2006; Woodworth &
244
Porter, 2002). Importantly, it is not our intention in
the slightest to make the case that one of the two
sides (proactive versus reactive / abusive versus
exploitative) is more important, harmful, or rele-
vant, but we simply wish to emphasize that—in
order to capture destructive behavior and its
impact—any scientific perspective must incorpor-
ate both. The mutual exclusivity of reactive and
proactive aggression is debated in aggression
research (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Even so,
the field also emphasizes that both forms of
destructive behavior can co-occur (Fite et al.,
2006); in other words, while both behaviors are
conceptually different and can be attributed to dis-
tinct constructs, they can—of course—be dis-
played simultaneously or consecutively by one
individual depending on the context. For instance,
an individual can impulsively shout at a provoca-
teur (reactive aggression) and then premeditate
revenge (proactive aggression). Not only can
both forms of aggression co-occur within one indi-
vidual, but also within one aggressive act
(Bushman & Anderson, 2001). A bank robbery,
for instance, might be deliberately planned to
obtain financial resources and power (proactive
aggression), but on the scene, a robber can be trig-
gered by a costumer’s behavior and impulsively
lash out (reactive aggression). What it comes
down to is that reactive and proactive aggression
are distinct but parallel dimensions (Poulin &
Boivin, 2000; Stanford et al., 2003). Similar
assumptions can be made about abusive supervi-
sion versus exploitative leadership. A leader can
put an employee down in front of others (abusive
supervision) and subsequently hinder the same
employee’s personal development to maximally
exploit labor (exploitative leadership). Likewise,
even the most consistently exploitative leader
might lash out impulsively when triggered by an
employee’s seemingly sub-optimal performance.
When it comes to the antecedents of reactive
versus proactive aggression, Crick and Dodge
(1996) provided a popular framework, i.e., the
Social Information Processing Model (SIPM).
The model states that the emergence of reactive
versus proactive aggression (enactment) is
fueled by differential pattern in preceding
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
information encoding, mental representations,
response accessing, and response evaluation.
Reactive aggression results from problems in
the early stages of information processing; for
instance, information encodings and representa-
tions rooted in a hostile attribution bias (“this
employee bumped into me because he/she
wanted to provoke me” instead of “…because
he/she lost balance”) have been uniquely
linked with high arousal (e.g., anger) and react-
ive aggression (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Gagnon
& Rochat, 2017; Tuente et al., 2019). In con-
trast, proactive aggression and the preceding
low arousal (e.g., boredom) is fueled by pro-
blems in the later stages of information process-
ing, namely during selection and evaluation of
potential behavioral responses; for instance,
expecting rewards such as personal gain or
pleasure from displaying aggressive behavior
(“I will get praised if I pass others’ work off
as my own” or “I enjoy / find it exciting to see
others being exploited”) increases proactive
aggression (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Hubbard
et al., 2001; Smithmyer et al., 2000). Note that
this seminal model on the antecedents of re-
versus proactive aggression (Crick & Dodge,
1996) can be applied organically to the notion
of perceived goal-blockage being the central
anchor point to the destructive leadership
process (Krasikova et al., 2013). Following
the model’s logic, leaders’ perceived goal-
blockage leads to different levels of arousal
and, thereby, leadership behaviors depending
on whether it occurs in early versus late stages
of social information processing. While per-
ceived goal-blockage rooted in the early
stages of social information processing (e.g.,
“this employee’s behavior is a personal
attack”) will lead to high arousal negative
affect (e.g., anger) and high levels of abusive
supervision, perceived goal-blockage rooted in
the later stages (e.g., “I cannot advance my per-
sonal advancement enough; if only I could sell
my employees’ work as my own”) will be
accompanied by low arousal (e.g., boredom)
and favor high levels of exploitative leadership.
Paralleling the central theoretical perspectives
Emmerling et al.
on aggression and destructive leadership
research (social information processing & per-
ceived goal-blockage) and applying them to
the concrete example of differentiating reactive
from proactive aggression and abusive supervi-
sion from exploitative leadership, highlights the
theoretical potential which lies in fusing
together these two streams of thought.
The fact that abusive supervision and
exploitative leadership cater to a more impul-
sive and “reactive” versus a more premeditated
“proactive” dimension suggests that they differ
with respect to antecedents and consequences.
While aggression research is rooted in a widespread
theoretical and empirical tradition of comparing
constructs directly (i.e., theoretically and empirically
differentiating re- from proactive aggression: Card
& Little, 2006; Hubbard et al., 2010; Kempes
et al., 2005), research on destructive forms of lead-
ership has so far allocated relatively little attention
to direct construct differentiation. Schmid et al.
(2019) have provided initial evidence with respect
to selected follower consequences of abusive super-
vision versus exploitative leadership. In two inde-
pendent studies, they found that the inclusion of
exploitative leadership over abusive supervision
into regression models increased the predictive val-
idity for both leadership behaviors’ negative rela-
tionship with job satisfaction and affective
commitment as well as their positive relationship
with burnout and workplace deviance (Schmid
et al., 2019). This finding points toward differences
in predictive validity between the two constructs
and, thereby, their conceptual distinction. The spe-
cific process (antecedents—leadership—conse-
quence) differentiating both leadership behaviors
—i.e., which antecedents or affective reaction to
perceived goal-blockage lead to abusive supervision
versus exploitative leadership and which conse-
quences result from abusive supervision versus
exploitative leadership—remains to be examined.
Enabling empirical research to specify this process
necessitates a theoretical model that allows for the
deduction of differential hypotheses on the pro-
cesses underlying abusive supervision versus
exploitative leadership. Such a model should
describe (1) which antecedents lead to specifically
245
abusive supervision, not exploitative leadership
and vice versa, (2) which follower consequences
result specifically from abusive supervision not
exploitative leadership and vice versa, and (3)
which variables moderate these processes.
Drawing from concepts outlined in aggression
research, we have built a respective process model.
Introducing arousal into the
destructive leadership process
As outlined, the definitions of reactive and pro-
active aggression serve to differentiate their
underlying states of arousal explicitly. While
reactive aggression is characterized by high
arousal or negative affective states, proactive
aggression is, in contrast, characterized by low
arousal (Miller & Lynam, 2006; Raine et al.,
2006). So, when applying the reactive/proactive
parallel to that of destructive leadership, one
central assumption is that autonomic arousal
also forms a crucial variable in differentiating
these two perspectives on destructive behavior.
Arousal describes the universal physiological reac-
tion to any kind of stimulus which is relevant for
an organism (Reisenzein, 1994). As such,
arousal is defined by two central characteristics;
arousal is always a physiological reaction to a con-
crete and specific experience (e.g., stimulus, indi-
vidual, event) and this reaction is immediate,
direct, and instantaneous (i.e., in its first instance
not modifiable). Arousal is—next to valence—
one of the two definitory elements of emotion
(Barrett, 1998; Kensinger, 2004); any emotion
can be located in a two-dimensional space span-
ning along the axes of low versus high arousal
and positive versus negative valence. For instance,
anger, fear, and frustration are prime examples of
high arousal/negatively valenced emotions, while
sadness or boredom is described as low. As the
current work centers around destructive forms of
leadership, we will focus exclusively on negative
valence in the following and omit theoretical con-
siderations on positively valenced emotions.
When aiming to understand the emergence
of both leader and follower behavior, assigning
a central role to arousal seems intuitive if
246
drawing inspiration from aggression research
based on the following basic mechanism.
Behaviors are usually preceded by high versus
low arousal affective states and this link is mod-
erated by individual characteristics and context.
For instance, anger is the archetypical—almost
formative—high arousal emotion preceding
reactive aggression (Wilkowski & Robinson,
2010). This does not, however, mean that
anger necessarily leads to reactive aggression.
On the one hand, their link is moderated by
the personal characteristics of the actor; for
instance, personality traits such as high neuroti-
cism, low agreeableness, and low emotional
intelligence intensify the effect of anger on
aggression (García-Sancho et al., 2017). On
the other hand, contextual variables moderate
the process of anger inducing aggression; for
instance, a long time period between the anger-
inducing event and the opportunity to act
enables a high arousal affect to calm and,
thus, weakens the anger aggression link
(Bushman et al., 2001; Joireman et al., 2003;
Wang et al., 2020b). In a different example, a
very supportive environment or peer-group
can equally weaken the anger aggression link
(Levendosky et al., 2002; O’Leary et al.,
2007; Swartout, 2013).
Based on the described mechanisms, arousal
is an interesting variable to introduce into the
conceptualization of why a leader displays a
certain behavior and why a follower reacts to
a leader behavior in one way rather than
another. So far, arousal has not played a funda-
mental role in research on destructive forms of
leadership as usually, it is not directly assessed.
However, indirectly the concept has already
permeated the field. Although not in the
context of differentiating abusive supervision
versus exploitative leadership nor active
versus passive follower behavior, it is the case
that emotions characterized by different states
of autonomic arousal have been studied in
research on destructive leadership before.
Arousal and leader antecedents. On the one
hand, leader affective states have been investi-
gated as antecedents of destructive leadership.
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
Most evidence focuses on anger (Kant et al.,
2013; Mawritz et al., 2014), anxiety (Byrne
et al., 2014; Mawritz et al., 2014), hostility
(Garcia et al., 2014; Liang et al., 2016), and
other unspecified negative affectivity in
general (Eissa et al., 2019; Gabler et al., 2014;
Naeem et al., 2019; Pan & Lin, 2018; Walsh
& Arnold, 2018). Single studies have, further,
linked irritation (Pundt & Schwarzbeck, 2018)
and frustration (Eissa & Lester, 2017) on the
side of the leader to destructive leadership beha-
viors. Notably, the affective states studied have
been—as far as empirical papers have provided
sufficient information to allow for categorization
—high arousal states and were mostly, while
not exclusively, investigated in the context of
abusive supervision. However, empirical evi-
dence needs to be extended toward other forms
of destructive leadership, such as exploitative
leadership. Furthermore, future research should
include arousal explicitly—in addition to very
general affectivity—in order to discover its medi-
ating role in the effect of perceived goal-blockage
on the emergence of destructive leadership.
Arousal and follower consequences. On the
other hand, affective states within followers
have been studied as consequences of destruc-
tive forms of leadership. For instance, elevated
levels of high arousal states in followers such
as anger (Ferris et al., 2016; Khan, 2020;
Mitchell et al., 2015; Peng et al., 2019;
Priesemuth & Schminke, 2019; Simon et al.,
2015), anxiety (Huang et al., 2019b; Pyc et al.,
2017; Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2007), and
frustration (Avey et al., 2015; Harris et al.,
2013a; Harris et al., 2013b) have been linked
with destructive forms of leadership. Elevated
levels of low arousal affective states including
insecurity (Li et al., 2020a; Otto et al., 2018;
van Prooijen & de Vries, 2016; Wang et al.,
2019), shame (Fatima et al., 2020; Peng et al.,
2019), and depression (Bortolon et al., 2019)
have been associated with destructive leadership
equally. The field’s task is now to establish links
of these affective states empirically with specific
forms of destructive leadership and active versus
passive follower behaviors.
Emmerling et al.
As outlined, the field can present initial evi-
dence for the theoretically central role arousal
and affective states play in the emergence of
leader and follower behavior. The emerging
picture describes the complex dyadic process of
(1) leader arousal mediating the effect of leader
antecedents on abusive supervision versus
exploitative leadership and (2) follower arousal
mediating the effect of destructive leadership
on active versus passive follower behavior.
We have outlined the development of a
process perspective on destructive forms of
leadership. Leader antecedents, in particular
perceived goal-blockage, are triggering the
emergence of destructive forms of leadership,
which in turn lead to negative active versus
passive follower behavior as consequences.
We have highlighted how focusing on two spe-
cific forms of leadership (i.e., abusive supervi-
sion versus exploitative leadership) enables
the utilization of concepts from aggression
research (i.e., reactive versus proactive aggres-
sion) and their underlying processes. We have
introduced arousal as a central mediating con-
struct and have reviewed evidence on leader
affective states having been studied as antece-
dents and follower affective states as conse-
quences of destructive leadership behaviors.
The evidence outlined suggests that high and low
arousal negative affect plays a crucial role in both
the emergence of abusive supervision versus
destructive leadership, as well as active versus
passive follower behavior. In the following, we
present a model which specifies the processes dis-
tinguishing between abusive supervision and
exploitative leadership based on leader antecedents
and follower consequences, focusing on the medi-
ating role of arousal.
A process model on arousal and
destructive leadership
Based on the theoretical considerations outlined
and evidence subsequently reviewed, we
present a model on the process underlying the
antecedents and consequences of abusive super-
vision versus exploitative leadership (Figure 1).
247
Rooted in the arousal theory of behavior—
stating that arousal level can predict behavior
differentially (Andrew, 1974; Herman et al.,
2018)—this model specifies as a first step how
high versus low arousal leads to abusive super-
vision versus exploitative leadership and subse-
quently, active versus passive follower behavior
in reaction to those leadership behaviors. While
focusing on the dyad of leader-follower behav-
ior, the model provides theoretical anchoring of
individual and contextual levels of analysis.
The proposed process model is then outlined
in detail and concrete propositions regarding
exemplary moderations are deduced.
With respect to antecedents, the model
assumes that abusive supervision versus exploit-
ative leadership is caused by perceived goal-
blockage on the side of the leader and that this
effect is mediated by leader arousal. So far, no
framework has aimed to explain how perceived
goal-blockage triggers one specific type of
destructive leadership behavior versus another.
The development of our process perspective is
rooted in the theoretical parallels between, on
the one hand, abusive and reactive supervision
and, on the other hand, exploitative leadership
and proactive aggression. Thus, we propose
leaders’ immediate affective reaction to per-
ceived goal-blockage as the central mediating
factor predicting the hot versus cold in destruc-
tive leadership. A range of emotions and
arousal states have been studied in the field of
destructive leadership including anger, frustra-
tion, and boredom. Fundamentally, these affect-
ive states can be classified into high arousal
negative affect (e.g., anger, frustration) and low
arousal negative affect (e.g., sadness, boredom).
If a leader’s immediate affective reaction to
perceived goal-blockage is high in arousal
(e.g., he/she is angry), it is very likely that this
will lead to a “hot” or impulsive type of destruc-
tive leadership behavior, such as, for instance,
abusive supervision; an angry leader might
react with overtly aggressive behavior toward
employees. The link between high arousal
negative affect, for instance anger, and reactive
aggression is intuitive and backed up by ample
248
Figure 1. Process model differentiating antecedents and consequences of abusive supervision and
exploitative leadership.
evidence. The conceptualization of the anger-
aggression link dates way back (Averill, 1983)
and numerous theories have summarized the
vast amount of empirical evidence supporting
the causal link between anger and reactive
aggression (Berkowitz, 2012; Lochman et al.,
2010; Roberton et al., 2012; Wyckoff, 2016),
including biophysiological models (Achterberg
et al., 2016; Hortensius et al., 2012). Thereby,
anger has been linked specifically with react-
ive not proactive aggression (White & Turner,
2014). The phenomenon that high arousal
negative affect increases the likelihood of reac-
tively destructive behavior is widely studied
and respective findings organically translate
into the assumption that, in the context of lead-
ership, high arousal reactions to perceived
goal-blockage also facilitate abusive supervi-
sion specifically.
If, on the other hand, a leader’s immediate
affective reaction to perceived goal-blockage
is low in arousal (e.g., boredom), it is very
likely that this will lead to a “cold” or controlled
destructive leadership behavior, such as, for
instance, exploitative leadership. While the
link between low arousal and exploitation
might seem less intuitive than its counterpart
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
(hot emotions leading to proactive aggression),
ample evidence points at the association of, for
instance, boredom as a specific example of a
low arousal affective reaction and destructive
behavior. Self-report studies have also found
positive associations between trait boredom
and aggression in college (Dahlen et al., 2004;
Rupp & Vodanovich, 1997; Wilson & Scarpa,
2013), community (Pfattheicher et al., 2020;
Stephens & Sullman, 2015; van Tilburg et al.,
2019), and clinical samples (Cao & An, 2020;
Isacescu & Danckert, 2018). Interviews with
“internet trolls” identified boredom as the
prime motivator for harmful online behavior
(Shachaf & Hara, 2010); this is especially inter-
esting in this context as trolling is defined as a
proactive rather than reactive destructive behavior.
Pfattheicher et al. (2020) demonstrated a positive
association between self-reported boredom prone-
ness and aggression tendencies in online, military,
and parenting contexts. They, furthermore, demon-
strated that boredom proneness correlates with sad-
istic fantasies. Boredom is a low arousal and
aversive emotion, resulting from wanting but
being unable to engage in satisfying activities;
feeling bored makes people seek out activities
that will end their boredom, irrespective of
Emmerling et al.
associated costs (Westgate & Wilson, 2018).
Boredom motivates people to seek out new
experiences, even when those experiences are
negative (Bench & Lench, 2019). These experi-
ences are very often identified as the proactive,
deliberate choice to harm others. Following this
evidence and argument, our model assumes
that a bored leader might react by deliberately
planning the exploitation of employees, and
therefore, that a low arousal affective reaction
leads to exploitative leadership.
Proposition I: The leader’s affective reaction
to perceived goal-blockage impacts the result-
ing destructive leadership behavior; high
arousal affective reactions lead to abusive
supervision, while low arousal affective reac-
tions lead to exploitative leadership.
With respect to consequences, the model
assumes that the effect of abusive supervision
and exploitative leadership on follower behaviors
is mediated by follower arousal. Past research has
clearly demonstrated that manifold forms of
destructive leadership lead to an overwhelming
array of negative consequences. Previous models
have, however, not specified which leadership
behaviors lead to which consequences. As an over-
view of the empirical status quo of the field demon-
strates, the affective reactions of not only the
leaders but also the followers (including, e.g.,
anger, sadness, boredom) are of utmost importance.
We propose that the immediate affective reaction
of followers to a specific type of destructive leader-
ship behavior mediates their behavioral reaction.
If, on the one hand, a follower experiences
an impulsive destructive leadership behavior
(e.g., abusive supervision) the follower’s imme-
diate affective reaction might be, for instance,
of high arousal (e.g., anger) and, thus, trigger
“hot” or impulsive follower behavior (e.g.,
aggression toward co-workers). In certain
ways, the follower consequences develop simi-
larly to how reactively destructive leadership
emerges. The type of arousal characterizing an
affective reaction to an aversive event—in the
case of the follower being subjected to
249
destructive leadership—mediates, or in other
words, influences which follower behavior will
be displayed. Thereby, high arousal negative
affect will lead to reactively destructive and there-
fore active or impulsive behaviors. This link can
be deduced from models in the context of aggres-
sion research derived from the anger-aggression
link widely studied (Achterberg et al., 2016;
Averill, 1983; Berkowitz, 2012; Hortensius et al.,
2012; Lochman et al., 2010; Roberton et al.,
2012; White & Turner, 2014; Wyckoff, 2016).
If, on the other hand, a follower experiences
a controlled destructive leadership behavior (e.g.,
exploitative leadership) the follower’s immediate
affective reaction might be, for instance, of low
arousal (e.g., sadness) and therefore trigger less
impulsive or passive follower behavior (e.g., turn-
over or reduced work engagement). The link
between low arousal negative affect and passive
or avoidance-oriented behaviors is well established
(Leonidou & Panayiotou, 2022; Leventhal, 2008)
and has been found in respect to real life (Rispens
& Demerouti, 2016) and experimentally induced
low arousal negative affect (Alexopoulos & Ric,
2007; Lecours et al., 2013). The arousal character-
izing a negative affective reaction can even predict
experiential avoidance, with low arousal predicting
high levels of avoidance (Leonidou & Panayiotou,
2022). Generally, low arousal negative affect is a
precursor of non-clinical depression on the level
of cognition (Finucane et al., 2010), behavior
(Woods & White, 2005), physiology (Osotsi
et al., 2020; Shirai & Suzuki, 2017), and of course
clinical depression (Csukly et al., 2009). This phe-
nomenon translates to the work context and moti-
vates our model’s assumption that low arousal
negative affective reaction to any form of destructive
leadership leads to passive and avoidance-oriented
behaviors on the side of the followers.
Proposition II: The follower’s affective reac-
tion to destructive leadership behaviors
impacts resulting follower behaviors; high
arousal affective reactions lead to active
behaviors such as aggression, while low
arousal affective reactions lead to passive
behaviors such as withdrawal.
250
The proposed model emphasizes that leader-
ship is an inherently recursive process. Active
and passive follower behavior recursively
impact a leader’s perceived goal-blockage.
Follower behaviors such as, for instance, devi-
ance or withdrawal, directly affect if and to
what degree leaders might perceive their goal
as blocked. If a follower reacts to destructive
leadership with aggression against co-workers,
he/she will harm the team coherence and
thereby, performance; the resulting low per-
formance will impact the leader’s future goal
of delivering an outstanding team performance
for, e.g., a product launch to his name. Similar
scenarios would also arise when more passive
follower behaviors, such as withdrawal or turn-
over, are also at play. The leadership process is,
therefore, a loop, where outcomes of one
destructive leadership behavior can trigger or
be the antecedents of the next.
The process described does not emerge in
isolation but is embedded in a complex
system of interactions across all levels of ana-
lysis involved in leadership (i.e., leaders, fol-
lowers, organization/environment). More
precisely, the arousal-behavior link is not abso-
lute, but subject to moderation effects. While
arousal itself is an automatic immediate reaction
to an experience (Reisenzein, 1994), its behav-
ioral outcome is not. A high/low arousal nega-
tive affect does neither immediately, nor
automatically, nor under every circumstance
lead to a proactive/reactive behavior such as
abusive supervision versus exploitative leader-
ship, or active versus passive negative follower
behavior. Instead, how affect impacts behavior
is moderated by individual and contextual vari-
ables. On the one hand, this is bad news when it
comes to reinforcing variables; negative behav-
ior resulting from negative affect can be
enhanced, if—for instance—an actor’s prob-
lematic personality traits or contextual stressors
add up. On the other hand, such moderation
effects can also be good news when it comes
to mitigating variables; negative behavior
resulting from negative affect can be reduced,
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
if—for instance—high self-control on the side
of the actor or a resourceful environment
come into play. Consequently, understanding
the moderation effects is one key to ultimately
reducing destructive behaviors, including
destructive leadership.
Over the course of the following, we will
briefly present an overview on the type of indi-
vidual leader-/follower-related and contextual
variables that have been studied in the field.
We will then deduce exemplarily concrete pro-
positions focusing on single individual and con-
textual moderators on both the side of the
antecedents, as well as the consequences of
destructive leadership.
When it comes to leaders, manifold leader
characteristics have been studied. For instance,
a variety of personality variables and traits such
as low agreeableness (Breevaart & de Vries,
2017), low competence (Meglich et al., 2019),
high entitlement (Whitman et al., 2013), high
machiavellianism (Kiazad et al., 2010; Lyons
et al., 2019; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016), high nar-
cissism (Lyons et al., 2019; Nevicka et al.,
2018), low neural executive control (Waldman
et al., 2018), high perfectionism (Guo et al.,
2020), and high psychopathy (Lyons et al.,
2019; Mathieu & Babiak, 2016; Wisse &
Sleebos, 2016) have been found to relate to
destructive leadership. When it comes to com-
promised mental health, manifold aspects includ-
ing alcohol abuse (Byrne et al., 2014),
depression (Byrne et al., 2014; Dionisi &
Barling, 2019; Tepper et al., 2006), emotional
exhaustion (Fan et al., 2020; Walsh & Arnold,
2018), psychological distress (Y. Li et al.,
2016), low sleep quality (Barnes et al., 2015;
Tariq et al., 2020), and elevated stress levels
(Burton et al., 2012; Li et al., 2020b;
Shillamkwese et al., 2020) have been empirically
linked to increased destructive leadership.
Furthermore, low self-control (Mawritz et al.,
2017; Yam et al., 2016) and a history of abuse
(Garcia et al., 2014; Kiewitz et al., 2012) have
been associated with destructive leadership beha-
viors. It is crucial to integrate these individual
characteristics into the outlined process model.
Emmerling et al.
Focusing, for instance, on a leader’s personality,
we can assume that narcissism plays a central
role in shaping the impact of leader affect on
leadership behavior. Both grandiose and vulner-
able narcissism have been linked with specific
sub-dimensions of negative behavior and aggres-
sion (Lobbestael et al., 2014).
Our process model states that high arousal
negative affect in response to perceived goal-
blockage leads to elevated levels of abusive
supervision. This path is not unalterable. A
leader high in narcissistic traits will exhibit
much higher level of abusive supervision com-
pared to a leader with few or no narcissistic
traits. Several mechanisms theoretically fuel
this moderation effect. If, on the one hand, per-
ceived goal-blockage and the subsequent high
arousal affective reaction meet authority, super-
iority, self-admiration, and entitlement, the
escalation toward negative behavior will be
accelerated. On the one hand, a leader high in
narcissistic traits might interpret the fact that a
goal was not achieved as being down to the mis-
conduct of the employees and view it as a personal
attack paralleling the well-established concept of
threatened egotism in narcissism literature
(Baumeister et al., 2000). The leader might, then,
completely overlook the complex root causes
which might have caused the misconduct (e.g.,
refusal to work due to cognitive overload) and
attempt to solve the problem by lashing out at
employees (i.e., abusive supervision). On the
other hand, when perceived goal-blockage and
the associated negative affect develop in an indi-
vidual who is self-critical, has a grounded sense
of self-esteem, and a healthy notion of being a fal-
lible human being (e.g., exposes few or no charac-
teristics of grandiose narcissism), dynamics might
be shifted toward finding more constructive solu-
tions for affective tension. Specifically, a leader
might ask employees for 360-degree feedback on
why a goal was not achieved and consequently
develop constructive ways to move forward and
avoid similar scenarios in the future (e.g., under-
stand that the task exceeded the employees’ cogni-
tive capacity and either change it or provide further
resources).
251
Proposition III (leader characteristic as
moderator): High arousal negative affect
leads to more abusive supervision when
leader narcissism is high.
Exploitative leadership, in our process
model, is preceded by low arousal negative
affective reaction to perceived goal-blockage.
This path is equally affected by individual mod-
erators including personality traits. Psychopathy,
for instance, is the most prominent personality
trait (in extreme expression: personality disorder)
that has been connected with proactive aggres-
sion exclusively, and therefore with strategic
and premeditated negative behavior (Cima &
Raine, 2009). Low arousal affective reaction to
aversive events predicts both psychopathy and
the likelihood of proactive aggression (Raine
et al., 2014; Woodworth & Porter, 2002).
When accompanied by high intelligence—pre-
sumably prevalent in individuals reaching high
rank positions—, psychopathy can favor highly
functional behavior in a competitive context
and is widely discussed in leadership research
(see “snakes in suits” phenomenon; Babiak et
al., 2007 ). A leader might perceive the goal of
career advancement as blocked and react with a
low arousal affective reaction (e.g., boredom
due to too little excitement). When accompanied
by psychopathic traits, a likely response to this
scenario could be the premeditated exploitation
of employees without giving credit which
enhances the whole department’s performance,
thereby, solely fostering the leader’s excitement
and career goals (i.e., exploitative leadership).
In contrast, when accompanied by low psycho-
pathic traits the level of exploitative leadership
as an outcome of this scenario will likely
decrease, because the leader will be less caught
up in self-referential, sensation-seeking thought
cycles and be more able to empathically and con-
structively react to employees.
Proposition IV (leader characteristic as
moderator): Low arousal negative affect
leads to more exploitative leadership when
leader psychopathic traits are high.
252
When it comes to followers, characteristics
such as less commitment (Aryee et al., 2007;
Burris et al., 2008; Caesens et al., 2019; ;
Luu, 2018, 2019; Tepper, 2000; Tillman et al.,
2018; Schmid et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2020;
Yu et al., 2016; Zhao et al., 2018) and low self-
esteem (Akhtar & Shaukat, 2016; Ashforth,
1997; Bernardo et al., 2018; Farh & Chen,
2014; Fatima et al., 2020; Haggard & Park,
2018; Hobman et al., 2009; Jian et al., 2012;
Rafferty & Restubog, 2011; Shen et al., 2019;
Vogel & Mitchell, 2017; Wongleedee, 2020)
have been found to result from destructive lead-
ership behaviors. A variety of personality vari-
ables and traits including follower narcissism
(Wang & Jiang, 2014), low need for auton-
omy/competence/relatedness (Liu et al.,
2019a), low vigor (Kirrane et al., 2019; Yan
et al., 2020), and low vitality (Nyberg et al.,
2011) have been linked empirically to destruc-
tive leadership both as antecedents and conse-
quences. Manifold aspects of compromised
mental health including increased substance
abuse (Bamberger & Bacharach, 2006), depres-
sion (Duffy et al., 2006; Pyc et al., 2017;
Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2007), emotional
exhaustion (Akram et al., 2019; Al-Hawari
et al., 2020b; Allen et al., 2016; Aryee et al.,
2008; Chi & Liang, 2013; Frieder et al., 2015;
Frone & Blais, 2019; Han et al., 2017; Harvey
et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2020; Khan, 2015;
Khan et al., 2010; Laila et al., 2019; Lee et al.,
2018; Mackey et al., 2013; Molino et al., 2019;
Nauman et al., 2018; Nevicka et al., 2018;
Pradhan & Jena, 2018a; Peltokorpi, 2019;
Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2007; Sârbescu
et al., 2017; Scheuer et al., 2016; Stempel &
Rigotti, 2018; Sulea et al., 2012; Wang &
Chan, 2019; Wang et al., 2016; Wu & Hu,
2009; Wu et al., 2013; Xu et al., 2015; Yuan
et al., 2020), elevated stress levels (Agarwal,
2019; Ashforth, 1997; Booth et al., 2020;
Matos et al., 2018; Nyberg et al., 2011;
Schmid et al., 2019; Uysal, 2019; Woestman &
Wasonga, 2015; Wu et al., 2018a; Yao et al.,
2019; Zhu & Zhang, 2019), and even suicidal
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
ideation (Liu et al., 2019b) have been associated
with destructive leadership. Similarly, attribution
styles in favor of the leader or the environment
(Chen & Liu, 2019; Yagil, 2005), a tendency
toward cognitive avoidance strategies (Bortolon
et al., 2019; Simon et al., 2015), and surface
acting (Adams & Webster, 2013; Bortolon et al.,
2019; Carlson et al., 2012; Chi et al., 2018; Liang
et al., 2018; Perko et al., 2017; Wu & Hu, 2013)
have also been linked to destructive leadership.
Referring to our process model, individual
characteristics on the side of the follower crucially
shape the impact that the affective reaction to a
leadership behavior has on that follower’s behav-
ior. Consider, for instance, the attribution style of
a follower as a crucial moderating factor of high
arousal negative affect triggering active follower
behavior (e.g., aggression). Ample research has
shown that ambiguous or even negative behavior
has very variable effects in its recipient based on
attribution processes (Lobbestael et al., 2013). If
a leader behaves impulsively and shouts at an
employee in front of colleagues (i.e., abusive
supervision), this can trigger a high arousal nega-
tive affect (e.g., anger) within that employee.
Based on the employee’s attribution style,
various outcomes are conceivable. While a
hostile actor-based attribution style (e.g., “the
leader did this on purpose to put me down and
because he/she is mean”) will enhance the likeli-
hood that the employee will act aggressively, a
more situational attribution style (e.g., “today
the leader is really stressed because of the shifting
market conditions and missing resources, he/she
lost their temper because it is his/her utmost
goal to make us succeed as a company”) will
temper the employeès likelihood toward acting
with aggression.
Proposition V (follower characteristic as
moderator): High arousal negative affect in
followers leads to more active behavior
(e.g., aggression) when the follower is char-
acterized by a hostile attribution bias.
Contextual variables in research on destruc-
tive leadership often—albeit not exclusively—
Emmerling et al.
refer to the organization. Variables related to
organizational norms and climate that have
been associated with destructive leadership
behaviors include aggressive norms within an
organization (Restubog et al., 2011), justice
related constructs (Gabler & Hill, 2015; Lian
et al., 2012; Low et al., 2019; Ramdeo & Singh,
2019; Tepper, 2000; Velez & Neves, 2017;
Zellars et al., 2002), low granted autonomy
(Brender-Ilan & Sheaffer, 2019), and low organiza-
tional ethicality (Ogunfowora, 2013). Furthermore,
work and task characteristics such as work over-
load (Harris et al., 2013a; Molino et al., 2019),
missing resources (Bregenzer et al., 2019;
Hochwarter & Thompson, 2012), job strain or
tension (Harvey et al., 2007; Khan, 2015; Khan
et al., 2010; Mackey et al., 2013; McAllister
et al., 2018; Nahum-Shani et al., 2014), and organ-
izational obstruction (Mackey et al., 2018) have
been found to relate to destructive leadership.
When focusing on communication and social inter-
action within a work context, team conflict (Farh &
Chen, 2014; Gardner & Rasmussen, 2018), ostra-
cism, low team cohesion / cooperation (Al Zaabi
et al., 2018; Decoster et al., 2013; Priesemuth
et al., 2014), and low team performance/productiv-
ity (Al Zaabi et al., 2018; Frazier & Bowler, 2015;
Priesemuth et al., 2014) have been associated with
destructive leadership behaviors. Adopting a
process perspective, contextual variables moderate
both the effect of the affective state of leaders on
leadership as well as of followers on their reaction.
For instance, contextual variables such as
time and performance pressure can determine
leadership triggered by high arousal negative
affect. Previous research has shown that time
to act is a central determining factor in the emer-
gence of aggression (Bushman et al., 2001;
Joireman et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2020b). If
a leader perceives a goal as blocked and experi-
ences the resulting high arousal negative affect
(e.g., anger), context-specific time and perform-
ance pressure on the side of the organization or
the market will increase the likelihood that
anger will lead to overt verbal aggression
(e.g., abusive supervision). This effect occurs
as there will be no chance for any deliberation
253
processes or emotional recalibration to take
place. On the one hand, a leader’s high
arousal after seeing a product launch fail due
to flawed engineering will likely trigger their
lashing out at subordinate engineers. Low
arousal, in contrast, is not likely to lead to
this, even if the situation were the same. The
reaction will be stronger if, for example, man-
agement higher up sets an ultimatum for the
respective product to be introduced by a
certain date else the entire department will be
cut. On the other hand, if a leader faces this situ-
ation but knows that management will be open
to re-evaluate the launch date and provide any
further resources needed (e.g., increase the
engineering work force), dynamics will differ.
This leader will now have the opportunity for
emotion regulation and be able to take a pro-
verbial “deep breath” before further instructing
the subordinate engineers, therefore decreasing
the likelihood of abusive supervision.
Proposition VI (contextual moderator):
High arousal negative affect leads to more
abusive supervision when time pressure
(time until opportunity to act) is high.
On the side of follower behavior, contextual
variables including organizational norms and
climate play an equally vital role. Research
has clearly shown that negative behavior, espe-
cially aggression, is never a one-way-street;
contextual norms intensify or temper the nega-
tive behavior (cf. to alcohol intoxication
leading to more aggression in the presence of
aggressive norms, Parrott & Eckhardt, 2018).
If facing exploitation by a leader, a follower
might be frustrated (e.g., high arousal negative
affect). According to our process model, such
frustration can lead to active negative behavior,
for example, as aggression toward leaders and/
or co-workers. This process is affected by con-
textual moderators including aggressive norms.
Within an organization characterized by aggres-
sive norms (e.g., a law firm with an attack-style
work ethic), a follower’s frustration is much
more likely to result in high levels of aggression
254
than it would in an organization characterized
by cooperativeness. In a context of aggressive
norms, a frustrated follower will gear his/her
behavior to the extent that leaders and
co-workers display aggressive behavior when
facing perceived goal-blockage and the result-
ing negative affect. In a context of cooperative
norms, a follower will moderate negative
behavioral reactions to frustration by explicitly
observing and implicitly sensing his leaders
and co-workers reverting to cooperation and
communication when problems arise.
Proposition VII (contextual moderator):
High arousal negative affect leads to more fol-
lower aggression when the organizational
climate is characterized by aggressive norms.
Discussion
Theoretical and practical implications
The model and propositions outlined emphasize
the importance of deliberately including arousal
as well as individual and contextual moderators
into explanatory frameworks on the emergence
of abusive supervision versus exploitative lead-
ership. Adopting this suggested perspective on
destructive forms of leadership has various
implications on theory and practice.
When it comes to theoretical implications,
the line of thought presented highlights how—
so far—detached streams of literature can be
combined fruitfully to develop more nuanced
process descriptions. It is surprising that research
on destructive leadership rarely reverts to aggres-
sion research as a source of theoretical and
empirical inspiration, although both fields share
an interest in aiming to better understand nega-
tive, intentionally harmful human behavior
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Krasikova et al.,
2013). Aggression in its manifold forms is fun-
damental to the human experience (Crick &
Dodge, 1996) and—rooted in that perspective
—it can be argued to a certain extent, that
destructive leadership is nothing but aggressive
behavior in a leadership context. Therefore,
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
intertwining theoretical aspects from both fields
seems intuitive. While the introduction of mani-
fold constructs is of merit in representing a phe-
nomenon in its complexity, it can lead to
fragmentation of empirical evidence. Research
on destructive forms of leadership has generated
numerous different constructs, but has provided
next to no evidence on comparing these with
respect to antecedents and consequences (excep-
tion Schmid et al., 2019). While disentangling
the precursors and effects of the many different
constructs in the field by directly comparing
them within single empirical studies and respect-
ive replications is absolutely crucial, this type of
work is demanding, time-consuming, and highly
iterative. An additional way forward could be by
way of theoretical considerations emphasizing
underlying integrative tendencies (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002). Aggression research, for
instance, has profited from mapping the many
expressions of aggressive behavior onto the
hot-versus-cold plain field, distinguishing behav-
ior based on high versus low arousal level (i.e.,
reactive versus proactive aggression; Card &
Little, 2006; Hubbard et al., 2010; Kempes
et al., 2005). Thereby, these dimensions are
meant neither to be exclusive nor exhaustive;
for instance, reactive and proactive forms of
aggression can co-occur consecutively as well
as simultaneously (Bushman & Anderson,
2001; Fite et al., 2006; Poulin & Boivin, 2000;
Stanford et al., 2003). To introduce such basic
dimensions into theorizing and thereby hypothe-
sizing preceding empirical work, can, however,
bring about an overwhelmingly complex con-
struct space, deflect from repetitive and isolated
empirical work on single specific constructs,
and lead to applicable insights. Focusing on the
hot versus cold in destructive leadership can
have similar benefits. Differentiating between
high versus low arousal or impulsive versus
deliberative action when it comes to destructive
forms of leadership can help integrate the over-
whelming number of constructs, extend the
focus beyond the striking dominance of
abusive supervision as one specific form of
destructive leadership in empirical work and
Emmerling et al.
thereby map the reality of negative leadership
taking the manifold involved parties and contexts
based on higher ecological validity into consider-
ation. We therefore hope that spotlighting the hot
versus cold in destructive leadership will inspire
further theorizing, opening up ways to integrate
and streamline the diverse and valuable, thought-
fragmented evidence with respect to antecedents
and consequences in the field.
It is important to note that the model pre-
sented focuses on clear-cut high- versus low-
arousal negative affective states. However,
there might be affective states involved which
are not that clearly defined on the arousal inten-
sity spectrum. A prime example for this type of
affective state is guilt. While clearly aversive,
guilt cannot be defined as a high- versus low-
arousal state, but rather incorporates aspects
from both sides (Weierich et al., 2010). With
respect to follower consequences, Tröster &
Van Quaquebeke (2021) outline that victims
of abusive supervision might blame themselves
and, thus, feel guilt; to resolve that guilt they
invest in helping their abusive supervisor. This
is in line with findings that when people feel
guilty about something they have done, they are
more likely to perform prosocial actions to eradi-
cate their guilt (Xu et al., 2011). Tröster &
Quaquebeke’s perspective on destructive leader-
ship is an outstanding example of what we hope
to inspire with the model presented, i.e., the devel-
opment of process models enabling the explan-
ation of seemingly counterintuitive phenomena
around destructive leadership (e.g., why would
an abused employee help an abusive supervisor?
why would a bored leader revert to exploitative
leadership? why would followers subjected to
the bad example of destructive leadership be
aggressive themselves?). We believe that it is
crucial to consider the mediating role of negative
affective states as antecedents of destructive forms
of leadership and their follower consequences.
We therefore provide a process model on high-
versus low-arousal negative affective states and
hope to inspire conjointly with other similar
work (Tröster & Van Quaquebeke, 2021) more
out-of-the-box thinking which utilizes negative
255
affect as a means of unraveling the complexity
of destructive leadership, its antecedents, and
consequences.
When it comes to practical implications,
considering the mediating role of arousal
states with respect to antecedents and conse-
quences of destructive leadership opens up
opportunities for both leader- and follower-
oriented interventions. Arousal is an automatic
response to an event of the human autonomous
system and as such cannot be consciously con-
trolled in the acute situation. This, however,
does not mean that arousal and thereby affective
reactions cannot be altered. Arousal is, for
instance, one of the central target points of
mindfulness-based stress reduction (Bishop,
2002; Kabat-Zinn, 2003) and similar forms of
breathing meditation (Holmes, 1984; Jones
et al., 2018). Such techniques instruct the prac-
titioner to proactively learn to slow down and
deepen their breathing and this is often accom-
panied by a reduction in heart rate (Lumma
et al., 2015; Wu & Lo, 2008). These strategies
not only lead to a direct reduction of arousal
in the acute training situation, but they also
mediate the reduction of affective reaction
(Sears & Kraus, 2009), and have been shown
to have long-lasting effects on arousal and
affectivity beyond training (Gamaiunova et al.,
2019). Meditation affects autonomic reactions
(i.e., arousal) to negative stimuli far more than
to positive (Pavlov et al., 2015). What it
comes down to is that any intervention targeted
at reducing negative affective reactions to
adverse events and increasing stress resilience
works via modifying affective reactions to stres-
sors. Considering the mediating role of arousal
states with respect to antecedents and conse-
quences of destructive leadership therefore, is
a way to put the brakes hard onto the destructive
leadership process. Destructive leadership has
devastating consequences (Schyns & Schilling,
2013) and, thus, its reduction is a pragmatic
goal. One strategy for how to do so is to
reduce stressors which introduce negative affec-
tivity. Following this logic, in order to reduce
destructive leadership, its precursor—namely
256
perceived goal-blockage—must be reduced; to
reduce negative follower consequences the stres-
sor inducing those consequences - namely the
destructive leadership itself - must be reduced.
While this approach is intuitive and should
always be promoted, in practice it is often unreal-
istic. Some leaders face continuous perceived
goal-blockage just as some followers simply
deal with destructive leaders. A low-threshold,
pragmatic way of intervening—especially when
removing the stressor is not (currently/yet) a con-
crete option—is to train both leaders and fol-
lowers to increase their resilience to adverse
events by reducing their negative affective reac-
tion. Mindfulness training and other forms of
meditation for stress reduction have successfully
been applied in work contexts (Hafenbrack,
2017; Heckenberg et al., 2018). While this
approach might not be entirely novel, its applica-
tion in the context of destructive leadership finds
theoretical fuel in the proposed process model
focusing on the mediating role of arousal and,
furthermore, enables a much more optimistic
and practicable vision of how to reduce the wide-
spread adverse effects of destructive leadership.
Directions for future research
The arousal-focused model presented aims at
inspiring future research to include arousal
and affect more frequently and deliberately
and moreover, to tie it in theoretically to inves-
tigations on the emergence and impact of differ-
ent destructive leadership behaviors. The task is
to provide empirical evidence not only with
respect to the propositions outlined above, but
also to inspire newly generated hypotheses
rooted in the process perspective provided. To
succeed, future work can profit from following
some guidelines.
Firstly, affective states in research on antece-
dents and consequences of destructive forms of
leadership should be specified with respect to
the underlying state of arousal. When it comes
to studying affective states, research on destruc-
tive forms of leadership often examines unspeci-
fied negative affectivity (Brees et al., 2016; Eissa
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
et al., 2019; Gabler et al., 2014; Glasø et al.,
2018; Henle & Gross, 2014; Hoobler & Hu,
2013; Naeem et al., 2019; Pan & Lin, 2018;
Schmid et al., 2018; Walsh & Arnold, 2018;
Yagil et al., 2011). We advise studying specified
affective states which vary in arousal, because
variance in arousal and affect is theoretically rele-
vant when it comes to explaining different pro-
cesses underlying leadership. As specified in the
model presented, different states of arousal in
leaders lead to different leadership behaviors
(e.g., abusive supervision versus exploitative lead-
ership), and different states of arousal in followers
lead to different follower consequences in response
to those leadership behaviors (e.g., active versus
passive behaviors). Affect is defined not only
across one but two axes (Barrett, 1998;
Kensinger, 2004) and research on destructive lead-
ership therefore needs to account not only for
valence (positive / negative), but also for arousal
level. Without doing so, investigated processes
remain unspecific.
Secondly, research on destructive forms of
leadership needs to advance the measurement
of affective states and arousal by including
evidence-based self-report tools and physi-
ology. Once the theoretical relevance of affect-
ive states and arousal for the emergence and
impact of different destructive leadership beha-
viors has been recognized, it is worth carefully
assessing how to measure them. Ample work
has been done defining crucial issues with
emotion measurement and evidence-based
assessment strategies (Larsen & Fredrickson,
1999; Rogers, & Robinson, 2014). Arousal is
—per definition (Reisenzein, 1994)—a physio-
logical state. We can assess physiological states
indirectly based on self-reporting (Walden
et al., 2003). For instance, the self-assessment
manikin (Bradely & Lang, 1994; Nabizadeh
Chianeh et al., 2012) has been proven a valid,
reliable, and practical tool with which to two-
dimensionally assess acute affective states based
on valence and arousal. Such a measure could be
included effortlessly into classic study designs in
leadership research. While the value of self-report
measures and the practicability of their application
Emmerling et al.
should never be underestimated, physiological mea-
sures are self-evidently most suited to measure auto-
nomic arousal. Heart rate (Wascher, 2021), heart
rate variability (Nardelli et al., 2015), and electro-
dermal activity/skin-conductance/galvanic skin
response (Keil et al., 2008) are direct indicators of
autonomic arousal which should be utilized in
research on destructive leadership. Admittedly,
assessing physiological measures requires more
effort than recording self-reporting. Nevertheless,
these methods have slowly but surely found their
way into research on (constructive) leadership
(Hoogeboom et al., 2021; Waller et al., 2017)
and evidence accumulated up till now has con-
tributed to elaborate and practical guidelines on
their application in the context of organizational
research (Christopoulos et al., 2019; Massaro &
Pecchia, 2019).
Thirdly, research on destructive forms of
leadership needs to enable predictive and
causal claims. To date, the overwhelming dom-
inance of correlational study designs in research
on destructive leadership implies that the bulk
of currently available evidence—although
very insightful and increasingly based on
complex analysis techniques—neither enables
predictive nor causal claims. Longitudinal
studies (enabling predictive claims; Arjas &
Eerola, 1993) and even more so experimental
studies (enabling causal claims; Podsakoff &
Podsakoff, 2019) are still scarce. The lack of
evidence enabling predictive and causal claims
not only highlights a generic gap often faced
by social science (for leadership research in
general see Avey et al., 2008), but creates a
problem specific to the research of destructive
forms of leadership. When it comes to destruc-
tive behavior, the predictive value of evidence
(i.e., causal inferences on what triggers a
certain destructive behavior and on what it
will lead to) is of the utmost pragmatic rele-
vance (Glueck & Glueck, 2013) due to the
immense negative impact of destructive leader-
ship. We need predictive evidence on the ante-
cedents of destructive leadership behaviors in
order to avoid those behaviors in the first
place and we need evidence on their
257
consequences in order to manage and counter-
act devastating outcomes. It is for this reason
that research on negative and deviant behavior,
including delinquency and crime (Katsiyannis
et al., 2013; Leschied et al., 2008; Murray &
Farrington, 2010), traditionally calls for longi-
tudinal and experimental approaches. With our
model, we hope to encourage more time-lagged
and longitudinal studies investigating the time-
line of the leadership process to be undertaken.
Such approaches need to be intensified, as longi-
tudinal research is crucial to better understanding
a complex and dynamic social phenomenon such
as destructive leadership. Future research should
focus on the dyadic process underlying destruc-
tive forms of leadership (leader antecedents—
leadership—follower consequences), while not
neglecting the recursivity of this process (fol-
lower behavior recursively affects leader’s per-
ceived goal-blockage) and the context in which
the process evolves (e.g., organizational modera-
tors). Destructive leadership—similar to aggres-
sion—is never about one single individual
showing one single behavior in one single situ-
ation. Different leaders interact with different fol-
lowers, showing various destructive behaviors
within and across situations. Furthermore, the
multilevel perspective should not be overlooked
as within an organization several units (e.g.,
teams) under various hierarchically organized
leaders interact and both followers and leaders
might be members of more than one unit.
While the identification of correlational rela-
tionships between constructs (e.g., leadership con-
structs, antecedents and/or consequences) is a
major empirical task, a growing field must eventu-
ally translate this evidence into research designs
enabling the establishment of causal links
(Antonakis et al., 2010; Fischer et al., 2017;
Martin et al., 2020). Experimental studies are a
prime strategy when unraveling causal relation-
ships (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2019). Field experi-
ments especially (Gonzalez-Morales et al., 2018;
Lange & Rowold, 2019) lend themselves to
extending the research design portfolio toward
that goal, although they are still rare in research
on destructive forms of leadership. In order to
258
design experiments which can enable causal
claims, specific methodological challenges must
be addressed. While the experimental studies in
the field are innovative in widening the methodo-
logical portfolio of studying destructive forms of
leadership, it has to be noted that they still do not
approach destructive leadership as actual behavior.
It might seem impossible to assess destructive
leadership behaviorally, i.e., to observe actual
destructive leadership behavior in a controlled
setting. While such attempts are certainly chal-
lenging, it needs to be stressed that other fields
investigating negative social interaction (e.g.,
aggression research) rose to that challenge more
than two decades ago (Giancola & Parrott, 2008;
Lobbestael et al., 2020; Taylor, 1967) and could
serve as sources of inspiration. Field as well as
laboratory experiments (Podsakoff & Podsakoff,
2019; Sieweke & Santoni, 2020) facilitate the
usage of tools which not only enable a more
direct measurement of actual behavior when com-
pared to questionnaires (which can only focus on
perceptions of behavior), but their specific
methods also provide direct access to cognition
and affect. Importantly, as a single experiment
usually focuses on building evidence for single or
a few causal links, more than with any other
approach experimental work needs to be grounded
in a process framework. Our model enables the
deduction of specific, directed hypotheses which
explicate concrete levels of measurement with
respect to involved constructs.
Fourthly, research on destructive forms of
leadership will profit from a theoretically
guided implementation of individual versus
contextual moderators into a process perspec-
tive. Note that—so far—knowledge of individ-
ual and contextual moderators is based on
diverse evidence. Umbrella terms (e.g., person-
ality traits or mental health) comprise manifold
sub-constructs and similar constructs are often
measured inconsistently. More inconsistency
arises from the nomological characterization of
variables; the same concepts are often studied
interchangeably as antecedents of destructive
leadership, consequences, mediators, or modera-
tors. As the overwhelming majority of empirical
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
evidence in the field draws from questionnaire-
based correlational designs, we have little caus-
ally interpretable evidence at hand. While
authors mostly provide sound theoretical consid-
erations on where to place a construct in an
empirical model, the sheer variety of theoretical
ideas and model-placements for one and the
same constructs hints toward the fact that over-
arching theoretical models, which enable the
deduction of concrete hypotheses with respect
to specific leadership behaviors, are still
missing. While the critique of the field described
might pose problems for the comparability of
single studies, it does not detract from the
broader picture we aim at painting here. We
have plentiful evidence that personal and con-
textual characteristics play an important role for
antecedents and consequences of various forms
of destructive leadership. To elevate this rather
generic statement to actionable insights, we
need to insert these moderators into a model
which specifies concrete process paths with
respect to specific leadership behaviors.
In this paper, we provide propositions on two
individual and contextual moderators, each
deduced from the developed process model.
Future research will hit a creative streak when
extending the logic behind our suggestions to
further moderating variables. Importantly, we
aim at identifying specific categories of modera-
tors—i.e., leader characteristics, follower charac-
teristics, context / organizational characteristics.
While in this article we focus on specific exam-
ples drawn for each of these categories, there
are plenty more variables which can be dis-
cussed. When it comes to leader or follower
characteristics, further personality traits (e.g.,
Machiavellianism, Big Five, competence), a
broad range of mental health issues (e.g.,
anxiety, borderline, addiction), or other con-
straints (e.g., work-family situation, previous
experience with destructive leadership) can
play a role. When it comes to contextual / organ-
izational characteristics manifold aspects of
organizational climate (e.g., voice, implicit and
explicit norms and values, justice, culture), task
characteristics (e.g., demands, time pressure,
Emmerling et al.
importance, self-/leader-/organization-directed rele-
vance), or external forces (e.g., crises, market
developments, scarcity of resources) are relevant.
Inspiration on which individual and contextual
characteristics to focus on can be drawn from
both previous research on such variables in the
context of destructive leadership as well as promin-
ent moderators from aggression research. A focus
on moderators is one promising avenue which
could develop interventions modulating behavior
—whether this might be destructive leadership or
negative follower behavior.
Conclusion
Following the arguments outlined, the field can
succeed in adopting a process perspective on
how arousal mediates the emergence of specific
leadership behaviors (i.e., abusive supervision
versus exploitative leadership) and follower reac-
tions to those leader behaviors (i.e., active versus
follower behavior). As destructive leadership has
immense and widespread negative impacts,
research needs to continue down the path of
better understanding its antecedents and conse-
quences. Future empirical investigations should
extend their current focus by deliberately including
arousal and affective state and by providing pre-
dictive and causal evidence on the differentiation
of specific leadership behaviors. Generated
insights will open up new vistas on how to deal
with and prevent destructive leadership in practice.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following
financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This work was sup-
ported by the European Commission, (grant number
H2020-MSCA-IF-2017 No.798638).
ORCID iD
Franziska Emmerling https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
7350-7473
Notes
1. Note that “abusive supervision”—as opposed to
“abusive leadership”—is the term proper coined
259
when the construct was introduced (Tepper,
2000); likewise “exploitative leadership” is the
construct name chosen by the original authors
(Schmid et al., 2019). In this context, “supervi-
sion” and “leadership” refer to the same idea.
This text conforms with the original terminology
at the cost of linguistic consistency.
2. Note: Tepper’s (2000) definition of abusive super-
vision deliberately excludes physically harmful
behavior which is, however, included in the defin-
ition of reactive aggression (Miller & Lynam,
2006). The explicit exclusion of physical aggression
from the definition of abusive leadership might
reflect the specificity of the construct to a work/lead-
ership context. In such context, the prevalence of
physical aggression might be relatively low due to
the relatively high education of actors, the largely
public stage on which they act, and the highly preva-
lent social and status norms to display “controlled”
behavior. These factors highly stigmatize physical
attacks toward others. Note that aggression research
(Little et al., 2003) emphasizes that the form in
which aggression manifests (i.e., verbal, physical,
against objects) is conceptually much less relevant
than the underlying mechanisms (e.g., reactive
versus proactive aggression).
References
Aasland, M. S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen,
M. B. & Einarsen, S. (2010). The prevalence of
destructive leadership behaviour. British Journal
of Management, 21(2), 438–452. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00672.x
Achterberg, M., van Duijvenvoorde, A. C.,
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. & Crone, E. A.
(2016). Control your anger! The neural basis of
aggression regulation in response to negative
social feedback. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 11(5), 712–720. https://doi.org/
10.1093/scan/nsv154
Adams, G. A. & Webster, J. R. (2013). Emotional regu-
lation as a mediator between interpersonal mistreat-
ment and distress. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 22(6), 697–710. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.698057
Agarwal, U. A. (2019). Examining links between
abusive supervision, PsyCap, LMX and outcomes.
Management Decision, 57(5), 1304–1334. https://
doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2017-0103
260
Akhtar, S. & Shaukat, K. (2016). Impact of petty
tyranny on alienation from work: Role of self-
esteem and power-distance. Global Journal of
Flexible Systems Management, 17(3), 275–285.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-016-0126-4
Akram, Z., Li, Y. & Akram, U. (2019). When employ-
ees are emotionally exhausted due to abusive
supervision. A conservation-of-resources perspec-
tive. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(18), 3300.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183300
Alexopoulos, T. & Ric, F. (2007). The evaluation-
behavior link: Direct and beyond valence.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
43(6), 1010–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.
2006.10.017
Al-Hawari, M. A., Bani-Melhem, S. & Quratulain, S.
(2020a). Abusive supervision and frontline employ-
ees’ attitudinal outcomes: The multilevel effects of
customer orientation. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(3),
1109–1129. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2019-
0510
Al-Hawari, M. A., Bani-Melhem, S. & Quratulain, S.
(2020b). Do frontline employees cope effectively
with abusive supervision and customer incivility?
Testing the effect of employee resilience. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 35(2), 223–240.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09621-2
Allen, D. G., Peltokorpi, V. & Rubenstein, A. L. (2016).
When “embedded” means “stuck”: Moderating
effects of job embeddedness in adverse work envir-
onments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12),
1670–1686. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000134
Al Zaabi, H. H., Elanain, H. M. A. & Ajmal, M. M.
(2018). Impact of toxic leadership on work out-
comes: An empirical study of public banks in
the UAE. International Journal of Public Sector
Performance Management, 4(3), 373. https://doi.
org/10.1504/IJPSPM.2018.093470
Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human
aggression. Annual Review of Psychology,
53(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.53.100901.135231
Andrew, R. J. (1974). Arousal and the causation of
behaviour. Behaviour, 51(3-4), 135–164. https://
doi.org/10.1163/156853974(00174
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J. & Sivasubramaniam, N.
(2003). Context and leadership: An examination
of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory
using the multifactor leadership questionnaire.
The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261–295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P. & Lalive, R.
(2010). On making causal claims: A review and
recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly,
21(6), 1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.
2010.10.010
Antonakis, J. & Day, D. V. (eds.). (2017). The nature
of leadership. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/
10.4135/9781506395029.
Arjas, E. & Eerola, M. (1993). On predictive causal-
ity in longitudinal studies. Journal of Statistical
Planning and Inference, 34(3), 361–386. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1009620223494
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y. & Debrah, Y. A.
(2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive
supervision: Test of a trickle-down model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191–201.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191
Ashforth, B. E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organiza-
tions. Human Relations, 47(7), 755–778. https://
doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700701
Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations:
A preliminary examination of antecedents and con-
sequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de
L’Administration, 14(2), 126–140. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1936-4490.1997.tb00124.x
Aubrey, D. W. (2012). The effect of toxic leadership.
ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS
PA. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11020054.
Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggres-
sion: Implications for theories of emotion.
American Psychologist, 38(11), 1145–1160.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.11.1145
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F. & Mhatre, K. H. (2008). A call
for longitudinal research in positive organizational
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational
and Organizational Psychology and Behavior,
29(5), 705–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.517
Avey, J. B., Wu, K. & Holley, E. (2015). The influ-
ence of abusive supervision and job
Emmerling et al.
embeddedness on citizenship and deviance.
Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 721–731.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2192-x
Bamberger, P. A. & Bacharach, S. B. (2006). Abusive
supervision and subordinate problem drinking:
Taking resistance, stress and subordinate personal-
ity into account. Human Relations, 59(6), 723–
752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706066852
Barnes, C. M., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D. P. &
Christian, M. S. (2015). “You wouldn’t like me
when I’m sleepy”: Leaders’ sleep, daily abusive
supervision, and work unit engagement.
Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1419–
1437. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1063
Barrett, L. F. (1998). Discrete emotions or dimen-
sions? The role of valence focus and arousal
focus. Cognition & Emotion, 12(4), 579–599.
https://doi.org/10.1080/026999398379574
Bass, B. M. (1985a). Leadership and performance
beyond expectations. Free Press. https://doi.org/
10.1002/hrm.3930250310.
Bass, B. M. (1985b). Leadership: Good, better, best.
Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26–40. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. &
Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good.
Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
Baumeister, R. F., Bushman, B. J. & Campbell,
W. K. (2000). Self-esteem, narcissism, and
aggression: Does violence result from low self-
esteem or from threatened egotism? Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 26–
29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00053
Bench, S. W. & Lench, H. C. (2019). Boredom as a
seeking state: Boredom prompts the pursuit of
novel (even negative) experiences. Emotion
(Washington, D.C.), 19(2), 242–254. https://doi.
org/10.1037/emo0000433
Berkowitz, L. (2012). A different view of anger: The
cognitive-neoassociation conception of the relation
of anger to aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 38(4),
322–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21432
Bernardo, A. B. I., Daganzo, M. A. A. & Ocampo,
A. C. G. (2018). Abusive supervision and well-
being of Filipino migrant workers in Macau:
Consequences for self-esteem and heritage
261
culture detachment. Social Indicators Research,
139(1), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-
016-1446-7
Bishop, S. R. (2002). What do we really know about
mindfulness-based stress reduction? Psychosomatic
Medicine, 64(1), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/
00006842-200201000-00010
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., Pearce, C. L. & Justin, J.
E., (Gene) & Stovall, J. F. (2007). When the
romance is over: Follower perspectives of aversive
leadership. Applied Psychology, 56(4), 528–557.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00303.x
Booth, J. E., Shantz, A., Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K.
& Stillwell, E. E. (2020). Bad bosses and self-
verification: The moderating role of core self-
evaluations with trust in workplace management.
Human Resource Management, 59(2), 135–152.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21982
Bortolon, C., Lopes, B., Capdevielle, D., Macioce, V. &
Raffard, S. (2019). The roles of cognitive avoidance,
rumination and negative affect in the association
between abusive supervision in the workplace and
non-clinical paranoia in a sample of workers
working in France. Psychiatry Research, 271(1),
581–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.
11.065
Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring
emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the
semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy
and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
Brees, J. R., Mackey, J., Martinko, M. J. & Harvey, P.
(2014). The mediating role of perceptions of abusive
supervision in the relationship between personality
and aggression. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 21(4), 403–413. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1548051813505859
Brees, J. R., Martinko, M. J. & Harvey, P. (2016).
Abusive supervision: Subordinate personality or
supervisor behavior? Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 31(2), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JMP-04-2014-0129
Breevaart, K. & de Vries, R. E. (2017). Supervisor’s
HEXACO personality traits and subordinate per-
ceptions of abusive supervision. The Leadership
Quarterly, 28(5), 691–700. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2017.02.001
262
Bregenzer, A., Felfe, J., Bergner, S. & Jiménez, P.
(2019). How followers’ emotional stability and
cultural value orientations moderate the impact
of health-promoting leadership and abusive
supervision on health-related resources. German
Journal of Human Resource Management:
Zeitschrift Für Personalforschung, 33(4), 307–
336. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002218823300
Brender-Ilan, Y. & Sheaffer, Z. (2019). How do self-
efficacy, narcissism and autonomy mediate the
link between destructive leadership and counter-
productive work behaviour. Asia Pacific
Management Review, 24(3), 212–222. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2018.05.003
Brown, M. E. & Treviño, L. K. (2006a). Ethical lead-
ership: A review and future directions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
Brown, M. E. & Treviño, L. K. (2006b). Socialized
charismatic leadership, values congruence, and
deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 954–962. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.91.4.954
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R. & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008).
Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of
psychological attachment and detachment on
voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 912–
922. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.912
Burton, J. P. & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive
reactions to abusive supervision: The role of inter-
actional justice and narcissism. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 52(4), 389–398. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00886.x
Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M. & Kernan, M. C. (2011).
When research setting is important: The influence
of subordinate self-esteem on reactions to
abusive supervision. Organization Management
Journal, 8(3), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1057/
omj.2011.24
Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M. & Scheuer, M. L. (2012).
Supervisor workplace stress and abusive supervi-
sion: The buffering effect of exercise. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 27(3), 271–279. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9255-0
Bushman, B. J. & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time
to pull the plug on hostile versus instrumental
aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review,
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
108(1), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.108.1.273
Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F. & Phillips, C. M.
(2001). Do people aggress to improve their
mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation, oppor-
tunity, and aggressive responding. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 17–33.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.17
Byrne, A., Dionisi, A. M., Barling, J., Akers, A.,
Robertson, J., Lys, R., Wylie, J. & Dupré, K.
(2014). The depleted leader: The influence of
leaders’ diminished psychological resources on leader-
ship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 344–
357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.09.003
Cao, Q. & An, J. (2020). Boredom proneness and
aggression among people with substance use dis-
order: The mediating role of trait anger and impul-
sivity. Journal of Drug Issues, 50(1), 77–88.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042619886822
Card, N. A. & Little, T. D. (2006). Proactive and
reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence:
A meta-analysis of differential relations with psy-
chosocial adjustment. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 30(5), 466–480.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025406071904
Carleton, E. L., Barling, J., Christie, A. M.,
Trivisonno, M., Tulloch, K. & Beauchamp,
M. R. (2016). Scarred for the rest of my career?
Career-long effects of abusive leadership on pro-
fessional athlete aggression and task performance.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(4),
409–422. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0333
Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Hunter, E. & Whitten,
D. (2012). Abusive supervision and work-family
conflict: The path through emotional labor and
burnout. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 849–
859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.003
Carnevale, J., Huang, L. & Harms, P. (2018).
Speaking up to the “emotional vampire”: A con-
servation of resources perspective. Journal of
Business Research, 91, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.041
Chen, S.-C. & Liu, N.-T. (2019). When and how vicari-
ous abusive supervision leads to bystanders’
supervisor-directed deviance: A moderated-
mediation model. Personnel Review, 48(7), 1734–
1755. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2018-0368
Emmerling et al.
Chi, N.-W., Chen, Y.-C., Huang, T.-C. & Chen, S.-F.
(2018). Trickle-down effects of positive and negative
supervisor behaviors on service performance: The
roles of employee emotional labor and perceived
supervisor power. Human Performance, 31(1), 55–
75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2018.1442470
Chi, S.-C. S. & Liang, S.-G. (2013). When do subor-
dinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter?
Abusive supervision, subordinates’ emotional
exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 125–137. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.006
Christopoulos, G. I., Uy, M. A. & Yap, W. J. (2019). The
body and the brain: Measuring skin conductance
responses to understand the emotional experience.
Organizational Research Methods, 22(1), 394–420.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116681073
Chu, L.-C. (2014). Mediating toxic emotions in the
workplace - the impact of abusive supervision.
Journal of Nursing Management, 22(8), 953–
963. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12071
Cima, M. & Raine, A. (2009). Distinct characteristics of
psychopathy relate to different subtypes of aggres-
sion. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8),
835–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.031
Cima, M., Raine, A., Meesters, C. & Popma, A.
(2013). Validation of the Dutch Reactive
Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ): Differential cor-
relates of reactive and proactive aggression from
childhood to adulthood. Aggressive Behavior,
39(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21458
Crick, N. R. & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social
information-processing mechanisms in reactive
and proactive aggression. Child Development,
67(3), 993–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.1996.tb01778.x
Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to
Classical and Modern Test Theory. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Csukly, G., Czobor, P., Szily, E., Takács, B. &
Simon, L. (2009). Facial expression recognition
in depressed subjects: The impact of intensity
level and arousal dimension. The Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 197(2), 98–103.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181923f82
Dahlen, E. R., Martin, R. C., Ragan, K. & Kuhlman,
M. M. (2004). Boredom proneness in anger and
263
aggression: Effects of impulsiveness and sensation
seeking. Personality and Individual Differences,
37(8), 1615–1627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2004.02.016
Decoster, S., Camps, J., Stouten, J., Vandevyvere, L.
& Tripp, T. M. (2013). Standing by your organ-
ization: The impact of organizational identifica-
tion and abusive supervision on followers’
perceived cohesion and tendency to gossip.
Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 623–634.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1612-z
De Hoogh, A. H. B. & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008).
Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships
with leader’s social responsibility, top manage-
ment team effectiveness and subordinates’ opti-
mism: A multi-method study. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19(3), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D. &
Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral the-
ories of leadership: An integration and
meta-analytic test of their relative validity.
Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x
Dionisi, A. M. & Barling, J. (2019). What happens at
home does not stay at home: The role of family
and romantic partner conflict in destructive lead-
ership. Stress and Health, 35(3), 304–317.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2858
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L.
& Pagon, M. (2006). The social context of under-
mining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 105–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.04.005
Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., Connelly, C. E., Barling, J.
& Hoption, C. (2006). Workplace aggression in
teenage part-time employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(5), 987–997. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-9010.91.5.987
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S. & Skogstad, A. (2007).
Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition
and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.
2007.03.002
Eissa, G. & Lester, S. W. (2017). Supervisor role over-
load and frustration as antecedents of abusive
supervision: The moderating role of supervisor
264
personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
38(3), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2123
Eissa, G., Lester, S. W. & Gupta, R. (2019).
Interpersonal deviance and abusive supervision:
The mediating role of supervisor negative emo-
tions and the moderating role of subordinate
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics, 166(3), 577–594. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-019-04130-x
Fan, X., Wang, Q., Liu, J., Liu, C. & Cai, T. (2020).
Why do supervisors abuse subordinates? Effects
of team performance, regulatory focus, and emo-
tional exhaustion. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 59(4), 1385–
1406. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12307
Farh, C. I. C. & Chen, Z. (2014). Beyond the individual
victim: Multilevel consequences of abusive supervi-
sion in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6),
1074–1095. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037636
Fatima, T., Majeed, M. & Jahanzeb, S. (2020).
Supervisor undermining and submissive behavior:
Shame resilience theory perspective. European
Management Journal, 38(1), 191–203. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.07.003
Ferris, D. L., Yan, M., Lim, V. K. G., Chen, Y. &
Fatimah, S. (2016). An approach-avoidance
framework of workplace aggression. Academy of
Management Journal, 59(5), 1777–1800. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0221
Finucane, A. M., Whiteman, M. C. & Power, M. J.
(2010). The effect of happiness and sadness on
alerting, orienting, and executive attention.
Journal of Attention Disorders, 13(6), 629–639.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054709334514
Fischer, T., Dietz, J. & Antonakis, J. (2017).
Leadership process models: A review and synthe-
sis. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1726–1753.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316682830
Fite, P. J., Colder, C. R. & Pelham, W. E. Jr. (2006).
A factor analytic approach to distinguish pure and
co-occurring dimensions of proactive and reactive
aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 35(4), 578–582. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3504_9
Frazier, M. L. & Bowler, W. M. (2015). Voice
climate, supervisor undermining, and work out-
comes: A group-level examination. Journal of
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
Management, 41(3), 841–863. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0149206311434533
Frieder, R. E., Hochwarter, W. A. & DeOrtentiis,
P. S. (2015). Attenuating the negative effects of
abusive supervision: The role of proactive voice
behavior and resource management ability. The
Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 821–837. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.06.001
Frone, M. R. & Blais, A.-R. (2019). Work fatigue in a
non-deployed military setting: Assessment, preva-
lence, predictors, and outcomes. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 16(16), 2892. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph16162892
Gabler, C. B. & Hill, R. P. (2015). Abusive supervision,
distributive justice, and work-life balance:
Perspectives from salespeople and managers.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
35(3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853134.
2015.1058167
Gabler, C. B., Nagy, K. R. & Hill, R. P. (2014).
Causes and consequences of abusive supervision
in sales management: A tale of two perspectives.
Psychology & Marketing, 31(4), 278–293. https://
doi.org/10.1002/mar.20694
Gagnon, J. & Rochat, L. (2017). Relationships
between hostile attribution bias, negative
urgency, and reactive aggression. Journal of
Individual Differences, 38(4), 211–219. https://
doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000238
Gamaiunova, L., Brandt, P. Y., Bondolfi, G. & Kliegel,
M. (2019). Exploration of psychological mechanisms
of the reduced stress response in long-term meditation
practitioners. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 104, 143–
151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.02.026
García-Sancho, E., Dhont, K., Salguero, J. M. &
Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2017). The personality
basis of aggression: The mediating role of anger
and the moderating role of emotional intelligence.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58(4), 333–
340. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12367
Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C.,
Scott, K. L. & Tang, R. L. (2014). Roots run deep:
Investigating psychological mechanisms between
history of family aggression and abusive supervi-
sion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 883–
897. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036463
Emmerling et al.
Gardner, D. H. & Rasmussen, W. (2018). Workplace
bullying and relationships with health and perform-
ance among a sample of New Zealand veterinarians.
New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 66(2), 57–63.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2017.1395715
Giancola, P. R. & Parrott, D. J. (2008). Further evi-
dence for the validity of the Taylor aggression
paradigm. Aggressive Behavior, 34(2), 214–229.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20235
Glasø, L., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G. & Einarsen, S.
(2018). Leadership, affect and outcomes:
Symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships.
Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 39(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/
LODJ-08-2016-0194
Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. (2013). Delinquents and
nondelinquents in perspective. Harvard
University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.
9780674188754.
Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Kernan, M. C., Becker,
T. E. & Eisenberger, R. (2018). Defeating
abusive supervision: Training supervisors to
support subordinates. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 23(2), 151–162. https://doi.
org/10.1037/ocp0000061
Goswami, A., Nair, P. K. & Grossenbacher, M. A.
(2015). Impact of aggressive humor on dysfunc-
tional resistance. Personality and Individual
Differences, 74, 265–269. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2014.10.037
Goswami, A., Park, H. I. & Beehr, T. A. (2019).
Does the congruence between leaders’ implicit
followership theories and their perceptions of
actual followers matter? Journal of Business and
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-
09638-7
Guo, L., Chiang, J. T., Mao, J. & Chien, C. (2020).
Abuse as a reaction of perfectionistic leaders: A
moderated mediation model of leader perfection-
ism, perceived control, and subordinate feedback
seeking on abusive supervision. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
5, https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12308
Hafenbrack, A. C. (2017). Mindfulness meditation as
an on-the-spot workplace intervention. Journal of
Business Research, 75, 118–129. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.01.017
265
Haggard, D. L. & Park, H. M. (2018). Perceived super-
visor remorse, abusive supervision, and LMX.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10),
1252–1267. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2285
Han, G. H., Harms, P. D. & Bai, Y. (2017).
Nightmare bosses: The impact of abusive supervi-
sion on employees’ sleep, emotions, and creativ-
ity. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 21–31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2859-y
Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., Harris, R. B. & Cast, M.
(2013a). An investigation of abusive supervision,
vicarious abusive supervision, and their joint
impacts. The Journal of Social Psychology,
153(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.
2012.703709
Harris, K. J., Lambert, A. & Harris, R. B. (2013b).
HRM Effectiveness as a moderator of the relation-
ships between abusive supervision and technol-
ogy work overload and job outcomes for
technology end users. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 43(8), 1686–1695. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jasp.12122
Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W. & Kacmar, C.
(2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The
neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive
affect on negative employee outcomes. The
Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 264–280. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.008
Heckenberg, R. A., Eddy, P., Kent, S. & Wright, B. J.
(2018). Do workplace-based mindfulness medita-
tion programs improve physiological indices of
stress? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 114, 62–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2018.09.010
Henle, C. A. & Gross, M. A. (2014). What have I
done to deserve this? Effects of employee person-
ality and emotion on abusive supervision. Journal
of Business Ethics, 122(3), 461–474. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-013-1771-6
Herman, A. M., Critchley, H. D. & Duka, T. (2018).
The role of emotions and physiological arousal in
modulating impulsive behaviour. Biological
Psychology, 133, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biopsycho.2018.01.014
Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P. &
Tang, R. L. (2009). Abusive supervision in advis-
ing relationships: Investigating the role of social
266
support. Applied Psychology, 58(2), 233–256. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00330.x
Hochwarter, W. A. & Thompson, K. W. (2012).
Mirror, mirror on my boss’s wall: Engaged enact-
ment’s moderating role on the relationship
between perceived narcissistic supervision and
work outcomes. Human Relations, 65(3), 335–
366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711430003
Holmes, D. S. (1984). Meditation and somatic
arousal reduction: A review of the experimental
evidence. American Psychologist, 39(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.1.1
Hoobler, J. M. & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive super-
vision and family undermining as displaced
aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(5), 1125–1133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.91.5.1125
Hoobler, J. M. & Hu, J. (2013). A model of injustice,
abusive supervision, and negative affect. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 256–269. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.005
Hoogeboom, M. A., Saeed, A., Noordzij, M. L. &
Wilderom, C. P. (2021). Physiological arousal vari-
ability accompanying relations-oriented behaviors
of effective leaders: Triangulating skin conductance,
video-based behavior coding and perceived effect-
iveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(6), 101493.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101493
Hortensius, R., Schutter, D. J. & Harmon-Jones, E.
(2012). When anger leads to aggression:
Induction of relative left frontal cortical activity
with transcranial direct current stimulation
increases the anger–aggression relationship.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,
7(3), 342–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr012
Huang, J., Guo, G., Tang, D., Liu, T. & Tan, L.
(2019a). An eye for an eye? Third parties’
silence reactions to peer abusive supervision:
The mediating role of workplace anxiety, and
the moderating role of core self-evaluation.
International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(24), 5027.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245027
Huang, L.-C., Lin, C.-C. & Lu, S.-C. (2020). The
relationship between abusive supervision and
employee’s reaction: The job demands-resources
model perspective. Personnel Review, 49(9),
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
2035–2054. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2019-
0002
Huang, L.-C., Su, C.-H., Lin, C.-C. & Lu, S.-C.
(2019b). The influence of abusive supervision
on employees’ motivation and extra-role beha-
viors: The daily-basis investigation. Chinese
Management Studies, 13(3), 514–530. https://
doi.org/10.1108/CMS-04-2018-0495
Hubbard, J. A., Dodge, K. A., Cillessen, A. H., Coie,
J. D. & Schwartz, D. (2001). The dyadic nature of
social information processing in boys’ reactive
and proactive aggression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 80(2), 268–280. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.268
Hubbard, J. A., McAuliffe, M. D., Morrow, M. T. &
Romano, L. J. (2010). Reactive and proactive aggres-
sion in childhood and adolescence: Precursors, out-
comes, processes, experiences, and measurement.
Journal of Personality, 78(1), 95–118. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00610.x
Isacescu, J. & Danckert, J. (2018). Exploring the rela-
tionship between boredom proneness and self-
control in traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Experimental Brain Research, 236(9), 2493–
2505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4674-9
James, L. R. & LeBreton, J. M. (2010). Assessing
aggression using conditional reasoning. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 30–
35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359279
James, L. R. & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). Assessing the
implicit personality through conditional reason-
ing. American Psychological Association.
Javed, B., Fatima, T., Yasin, R. M., Jahanzeb, S. &
Rawwas, M. Y. A. (2019). Impact of abusive
supervision on deviant work behavior: The role
of Islamic work ethic. Business Ethics: A
European Review, 28(2), 221–233. https://doi.
org/10.1111/beer.12212
Jian, Z., Kwan, H. K., Qiu, Q., Liu, Z. Q. & Yim,
F. H. (2012). Abusive supervision and frontline
employees’ service performance. The Service
Industries Journal, 32(5), 683–698. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02642069.2011.614338
Joireman, J., Anderson, J. & Strathman, A. (2003). The
aggression paradox: Understanding links among
aggression, sensation seeking, and the consideration
of future consequences. Journal of Personality and
Emmerling et al.
Social Psychology, 84(6), 1287–1302. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1287
Jones, D. R., Graham-Engeland, J. E., Smyth, J. M.
& Lehman, B. J. (2018). Clarifying the associa-
tions between mindfulness meditation and
emotion: Daily high-and low-arousal emotions
and emotional variability. Applied Psychology:
Health and Well-Being, 10(3), 504–523. https://
doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12135
Ju, D., Huang, M., Liu, D., Qin, X., Hu, Q. & Chen,
C. (2019). Supervisory consequences of abusive
supervision: An investigation of sense of power,
managerial self-efficacy, and task-oriented leader-
ship behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 154, 80–95. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.09.003
Jung, H. S. & Yoon, H. H. (2019). The effects of
social undermining on employee voice and
silence and on organizational deviant behaviors
in the hotel industry. Journal of Service Theory
and Practice, 29(2), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JSTP-06-2018-0131
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based stress
reduction (MBSR). Constructivism in the
Human Sciences, 8(2), 73.
Kant, L., Skogstad, A., Torsheim, T. & Einarsen, S.
(2013). Beware the angry leader: Trait anger
and trait anxiety as predictors of petty tyranny.
The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 106–124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.005
Katsiyannis, A., Thompson, M. P., Barrett, D. E. &
Kingree, J. B. (2013). School predictors of
violent criminality in adulthood: Findings from
a nationally representative longitudinal study.
Remedial and Special Education, 34(4), 205–
214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512448255
Keil, A., Smith, J. C., Wangelin, B. C., Sabatinelli, D.,
Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J. (2008). Electrocortical
and electrodermal responses covary as a function of
emotional arousal: A single-trial analysis.
Psychophysiology, 45(4), 516–523. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00667.x
Kempes, M., Matthys, W., De Vries, H. & Van
Engeland, H. (2005). Reactive and proactive
aggression in children A review of theory, find-
ings and the relevance for child and adolescent
psychiatry. European Child & Adolescent
267
Psychiatry, 14(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00787-005-0432-4
Kensinger, E. A. (2004). Remembering emotional
experiences: The contribution of valence and
arousal. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 15(4), 241–
252. https://doi.org/10.1515/revneuro.2004.15.4.241
Khan, S. (2020). Do workplace contextual factors
engender abusive supervision? Australian
Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0312896219899435
Khan, S. N. (2015). Abusive supervision and nega-
tive employee outcomes: The moderating effects
of intimidation and recognition. Journal of
General Management, 41(1), 61–81. https://doi.
org/10.1177/030630701504100105
Khan, S. N., Qureshi, I. M. & Ahmad, H. I. (2010).
Abusive supervision & negative employee out-
comes. In Article in European Journal of Social
Sciences, 15(4).
Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J.,
Kiewitz, C. & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of
power: The role of authoritarian leadership in
the relationship between supervisors’
Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions
of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of
Research in Personality, 44(4), 512–519. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Shoss, M. K.,
Garcia, P. R. J. M. & Tang, R. L. (2016).
Suffering in silence: Investigating the role of
fear in the relationship between abusive supervi-
sion and defensive silence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101(5), 731–742. https://doi.org/10.
1037/apl0000074
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J.,
Scott, K. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M. & Tang, R. L.
(2012). Sins of the parents: Self-control as a
buffer between supervisors’ previous experience
of family undermining and subordinates’ percep-
tions of abusive supervision. The Leadership
Quarterly, 23(5), 869–882. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.005
Kim, K. Y., Atwater, L., Latheef, Z. & Zheng, D.
(2019). Three motives for abusive supervision:
The mitigating effect of subordinates attributed
motives on abusive supervision’s negative out-
comes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
268
Studies, 26(4), 476–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1548051818781816
Kirrane, M., Kilroy, S. & O’Connor, C. (2019). The
moderating effect of team psychological empower-
ment on the relationship between abusive supervi-
sion and engagement. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 40(1), 31–44. https://doi.
org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2018-0252
Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G. & LeBreton, J. M.
(2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical
review, integration, and future research agenda.
Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308–1338.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471388
Laila, U., Iqbal, S. & Rasheed, M. (2019). Abusive
supervision and workplace deviance: The moder-
ating role of power distance. In Pakistan Journal
of Commerce and Social Sciences, 13(2).
Lange, S. & Rowold, J. (2019). Mindful leadership:
Evaluation of a mindfulness-based leader interven-
tion. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift
Für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO),
50(3), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-
019-00482-0
Larsen, R. J. & Fredrickson, B. L. (1999). Measurement
issues in emotion research. Well-being: The
Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, 40, 60.
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K. & Lauver, K. J.
(2010). The problem of empirical redundancy of
constructs in organizational research: An empir-
ical investigation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 112–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.003
Lecours, S., Philippe, F., Arseneault, S., Boucher, MÈ &
Ahoundova, L. (2013). Alexithymia, cognitive com-
plexity, and defensive avoidance of emotion in a situ-
ation of experimentally induced sadness. Journal of
the American Psychoanalytic Association, 61(3),
573–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003065113490024
Lee, J. (Jessie), Wang, G. & Piccolo, R. F. (2018).
Jekyll and hyde leadership: A multilevel, multi-
sample examination of charisma and abuse on fol-
lower and team outcomes. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies, 25(4), 399–415.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818757692
Lemoine, G. J., Hartnell, C. A. & Leroy, H. (2019).
Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership:
An integrative review of ethical. Authentic, and
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
Servant Leadership. Academy of Management
Annals, 13(1), 148–187. https://doi.org/10.5465/
annals.2016.0121
Leonidou, C. & Panayiotou, G. (2022). Can we
predict experiential avoidance by measuring sub-
jective and physiological emotional arousal?
Current Psychology, 41(10), 7215–7227. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10608-017-9856-7
Leschied, A., Chiodo, D., Nowicki, E. & Rodger, S.
(2008). Childhood predictors of adult criminality:
A meta-analysis drawn from the prospective lon-
gitudinal literature. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50(4), 435–
467. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.50.4.435
Levendosky, A. A., Huth-Bocks, A. & Semel, M. A.
(2002). Adolescent peer relationships and mental
health functioning in families with domestic vio-
lence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 31, 206–218. https://doi.org/10.
1207/153744202753604485
Leventhal, A. M. (2008). Sadness, depression, and avoid-
ance behavior. Behavior Modification, 32(6), 759–
779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445508317167
Li, V., Jiang, L. & Xu, X. (Violet) (2020a). From
workplace mistreatment to job insecurity: The
moderating effect of work centrality. Stress and
Health, 1050. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2915
Li, Y., Wang, Z., Yang, L.-Q. & Liu, S. (2016). The
crossover of psychological distress from leaders
to subordinates in teams: The role of abusive
supervision, psychological capital, and team per-
formance. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 21(2), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0039960
Li, Z., He, B., Sun, X. & Zhang, Y. (2020b).
Demonstrating the psychological aspects of stressors
and abusive supervision behavior: Attainment of
sustainability under the rubric of resources theory.
Frontiers in Psychology, 11(March), 1–13. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00293
Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H.,
Keeping, L. M. & Morrison, R. (2014). Abusive
supervision and retaliation: A self-control frame-
work. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1),
116–139. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0977
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L. & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does
taking the good with the bad make things worse?
Emmerling et al.
How abusive supervision and leader–member
exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and
organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 41–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.003
Liang, L. H., Brown, D. J., Lian, H., Hanig, S., Ferris,
D. L. & Keeping, L. M. (2018). Righting a wrong:
Retaliation on a voodoo doll symbolizing an
abusive supervisor restores justice. The Leadership
Quarterly, 29(4), 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2018.01.004
Liang, L. H., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L.,
Hanig, S. & Keeping, L. M. (2016). Why are
abusive supervisors abusive? A dual-system self-
control model. Academy of Management Journal,
59(4), 1385–1406. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.
2014.0651
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H. & Henderson, D.
(2008). Servant leadership: Development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assess-
ment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
Little, T. D., Henrich, C. C., Jones, S. M. & Hawley, P.
H. (2003). Disentangling the “whys” from the
“whats” of aggressive behaviour. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 122–
133. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250244000128
Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Wu, L. & Wu, W. (2010).
Abusive supervision and subordinate supervisor-
directed deviance: The moderating role of trad-
itional values and the mediating role of revenge
cognitions. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 835–856.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X485216
Liu, S., Zhu, Q. & Wei, F. (2019a). How abusive super-
vision affects employees’ unethical behaviors: A
moderated mediation examination of turnover inten-
tions and caring climate. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(21),
4187. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214187
Liu, Y., Gul, H., Zhang, J. & Usman, M. (2019b).
Abusive supervision and suicidal ideation: The
mediating role of basic psychological need satis-
faction. Death Studies, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.
1080/07481187.2019.1609134
Lobbestael, J., Baumeister, R. F., Fiebig, T. & Eckel,
L. A. (2014). The role of grandiose and
269
vulnerable narcissism in self-reported and labora-
tory aggression and testosterone reactivity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 22–
27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.007
Lobbestael, J., Cima, M. & Arntz, A. (2013). The
relationship between adult reactive and proactive
aggression, hostile interpretation bias, and anti-
social personality disorder. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 27(1), 53–66. https://doi.
org/10.1521/pedi.2013.27.1.53
Lobbestael, J., Emmerling, F., Brugman, S., Broers,
N., Sack, A. T., Schuhmann, T., Bonnemayer, C.,
Benning, R. & Arntz, A. (2020). Towards a more
valid assessment of behavioral aggression: An
open source platform and an empirically derived
scoring method for using the Competitive
Reaction Time Task (CRTT). Assessment, in
press. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120959757
Lochman, J. E., Barry, T., Powell, N. & Young, L.
(2010). Anger and aggression. In Practitioner’s
guide to empirically based measures of social
skills (pp. 155–166). Springer. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.comppsych.2015.04.012.
Low, Y. M., Sambasivan, M. & Ho, J. A. (2019).
Impact of abusive supervision on counterproduct-
ive work behaviors of nurses. Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 1744–7941.12234.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12234
Lumma, A. L., Kok, B. E. & Singer, T. (2015). Is
meditation always relaxing? Investigating heart
rate, heart rate variability, experienced effort and
likeability during training of three types of medita-
tion. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
97(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.
2015.04.017
Luu, T. (2019). Discretionary HR practices and
employee well-being: The roles of job crafting and
abusive supervision. Personnel Review, 49(1), 43–
66. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2018-0162
Lyons, B. D., Moorman, R. H. & Mercado, B. K.
(2019). Normalizing mistreatment? Investigating
Dark Triad, LMX, and abuse. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 40(3), 369–
380. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2018-0408
Mackey, J. D., Brees, J. R., McAllister, C. P., Zorn,
M. L., Martinko, M. J. & Harvey, P. (2018).
Victim and culprit? The effects of entitlement
270
and felt accountability on perceptions of abusive
supervision and perpetration of workplace bully-
ing. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 659–
673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3348-7
Mackey, J. D., Ellen Ill, B. P., Hochwarter, W. A. &
Ferris, G. R. (2013). Subordinate social adaptabil-
ity and the consequences of abusive supervision
perceptions in two samples. The Leadership
Quarterly, 24(5), 732–746. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.003
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Perrewé, P. L.,
Gallagher, V. C. & Brymer, R. A. (2015).
Empowered employees as social deviants: The
role of abusive supervision. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 30(1), 149–162. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10869-014-9345-x
Martin, R., Hughes, D. J., Epitropaki, O. & Thomas,
G. (2020). In pursuit of causality in leadership
training research: A review and pragmatic recom-
mendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 101375.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101375
Massaro, S. & Pecchia, L. (2019). Heart rate variabil-
ity (HRV) analysis: A methodology for organiza-
tional neuroscience. Organizational Research
Methods, 22(1), 354–393. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1094428116681072
Mathieu, C. & Babiak, P. (2016). Corporate psychop-
athy and abusive supervision: Their influence on
employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intentions.
Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 102–
106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.002
Matos, K. & O’Neill, O., (Mandy) & Lei, X. (2018).
Toxic leadership and the masculinity contest
culture: How “win or die” cultures breed abusive
leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 500–
528. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12284
Mawritz, M. B., Folger, R. & Latham, G. P. (2014).
Supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals and
abusive supervision: The mediating effects of hin-
drance stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 358–372.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1879
Mawritz, M. B., Greenbaum, R. L., Butts, M. M. &
Graham, K. A. (2017). I just can’t control myself: A
self-regulation perspective on the abuse of deviant
employees. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4),
1482–1503. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0409
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
McAllister, C. P., Mackey, J. D. & Perrewé, P. L.
(2018). The role of self-regulation in the relation-
ship between abusive supervision and job tension.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), 416–
428. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2240
McDonald, R. P. (2013). Test theory: A unified treat-
ment. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781410601087.
Meglich, P., Valentine, S. & Eesley, D. (2019).
Perceptions of supervisor competence, perceived
employee mobility, and abusive supervision:
Human capital and personnel investments as
means for reducing maltreatment in the workplace.
Personnel Review, 48(3), 691–706. https://doi.org/
10.1108/PR-08-2017-0239
Miller, J. D. & Lynam, D. R. (2006). Reactive and pro-
active aggression: Similarities and differences.
Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1469–
1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.004
Mitchell, M. S. & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive
supervision and workplace deviance and the moder-
ating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159–1168. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159
Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M. & Folger, R. (2015). Third
parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision of cow-
orkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4),
1040–1055. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000002
Molino, M., Cortese, C. & Ghislieri, C. (2019).
Unsustainable working conditions: The associ-
ation of destructive leadership, use of technology,
and workload with workaholism and exhaustion.
Sustainability, 11(2), 446. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su11020446
Murray, J. & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Risk factors
for conduct disorder and delinquency: Key find-
ings from longitudinal studies. The Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry, 55(10), 633–642. https://
doi.org/10.1177/070674371005501003
Nabizadeh Chianeh, G., Vahedi, S., Rostami, M. &
Nazari, M. A. (2012). Validity and reliability of
self-assessment manikin.
Naeem, M. & Weng, Q. (Derek), Ali, A. & Hameed,
Z. (2019). An eye for an eye: Does subordinates’
negative workplace gossip lead to supervisor
abuse? Personnel Review, 49(1), 284–302.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2018-0174
Emmerling et al.
Nahum-Shani, I., Henderson, M. M., Lim, S. &
Vinokur, A. D. (2014). Supervisor support:
Does supervisor support buffer or exacerbate the
adverse effects of supervisor undermining?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 484–503.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035313
Nardelli, M., Valenza, G., Greco, A., Lanata, A. &
Scilingo, E. P. (2015). Recognizing emotions
induced by affective sounds through heart rate vari-
ability. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing,
6(4), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2015.
2432810
Nauman, S., Fatima, T. & Haq, I. U. (2018). Does
despotic leadership harm employee family life:
Exploring the effects of emotional exhaustion
and anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology,
9(MAY). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.
00601
Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N.
& Belschak, F. D. (2018). Narcissistic leaders and
their victims: Followers low on self-esteem and
low on core self-evaluations suffer most.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9(MAR). https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00422
Novick, M. R. (1966). The axioms and principal
results of classical test theory. Journal of
Mathematical Psychology, 3(1), 1–18. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(66)90002-2
Nyberg, A., Holmberg, I., Bernin, P., Alderling, M.,
Åkerblom, S., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., Magrin, M. E.,
Hasselhorn, H.-M., Milczarek, M., D’Angelo, G.,
Denk, M., Westerlund, H. & Theorell, T. (2011).
Destructive managerial leadership and psychological
well-being among employees in Swedish, Polish,
and Italian hotels. Work, 39(3), 267–281. https://
doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2011-1175
Ogunfowora, B. (2013). When the abuse is unevenly
distributed: The effects of abusive supervision
variability on work attitudes and behaviors.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(8),
1105–1123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1841
Ogunfowora, B., Weinhardt, J. M. & Hwang, C.
C. (2019). Abusive supervision differenti-
ation and employee outcomes: The roles of
envy, resentment, and insecure group attach-
ment. Journal of Management. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206319862024
271
O’Leary, K., Smith Slep, A. M. & O’Leary, S. G.
(2007). Multivariate models of men’s and
women’s partner aggression. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 752–
764. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.752
Osotsi, A., Oravecz, Z., Li, Q., Smyth, J. & Brick,
T. R. (2020). Individualized modeling to distin-
guish between high and low arousal states using
physiological data. Journal of Healthcare
Informatics Research, 4(1), 91–109. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s41666-019-00064-1
Otto, K., Thomson, B. & Rigotti, T. (2018). When dark
leadership exacerbates the effects of restructuring.
Journal of Change Management, 18(2), 96–115.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1446691
Ouyang, K., Lam, W. & Wang, W. (2015). Roles of
gender and identification on abusive supervision
and proactive behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 32(3), 671–691. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10490-015-9410-7
Padilla, A., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The
toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible fol-
lowers, and conducive environments. The
Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–194. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001
Palanski, M., Avey, J. B. & Jiraporn, N. (2014). The
effects of ethical leadership and abusive supervi-
sion on job search behaviors in the turnover
process. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 135–
146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1690-6
Pan, S.-Y. & Lin, K. J. (2018). Who suffers when
supervisors are unhappy? The roles of leader–
member exchange and abusive supervision.
Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3), 799–811.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3247-y
Park, J. H., Carter, M. Z., DeFrank, R. S. & Deng, Q.
(2018). Abusive supervision, psychological dis-
tress, and silence: The effects of gender dissimi-
larity between supervisors and subordinates.
Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 775–792.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3384-3
Parrott, D. J. & Eckhardt, C. I. (2018). Effects of
alcohol on human aggression. Current Opinion
in Psychology, 19, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
copsyc.2017.03.023
Pavlov, S. V., Reva, N. V., Loktev, K. V., Korenyok, V.
V. & Aftanas, L. I. (2015). Impact of long-term
272
meditation practice on cardiovascular reactivity during
perception and reappraisal of affective images.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95(3),
363–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.01.
002
Peltokorpi, V. (2019). Abusive supervision and emo-
tional exhaustion: The moderating role of power
distance orientation and the mediating role of
interaction avoidance. Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, 57(3), 251–275. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1744-7941.12188
Peng, A. C., Schaubroeck, J. M., Chong, S. & Li, Y.
(2019). Discrete emotions linking abusive super-
vision to employee intention and behavior.
Personnel Psychology, 72(3), 393–419. https://
doi.org/10.1111/peps.12310
Perko, K., Kinnunen, U. & Feldt, T. (2017). Long-term
profiles of work-related rumination associated with
leadership, job demands, and exhaustion: A three-
wave study. Work & Stress, 31(4), 395–420.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1330835
Peus, C., Braun, S. & Frey, D. (2013).
Situation-based measurement of the full range of
leadership model—development and validation
of a situational judgment test. The Leadership
Quarterly, 24(5), 777–795. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.006
Peus, C., Braun, S. & Schyns, B. (2016). Leadership
lessons from compelling contexts (Monographs in
Leadership and Management, Volume 8).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Pfattheicher, S., Lazarević , L. B., Westgate, E. C. &
Schindler, S. (2020). On the relation of boredom
and sadistic aggression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pspi0000335
Piccolo, R. F., Bono, J. E., Heinitz, K., Rowold, J., Duehr,
E. & Judge, T. A. (2012). The relative impact of com-
plementary leader behaviors: Which matter most? The
Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 567–581. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.008
Podsakoff, P. M. & Podsakoff, N. P. (2019).
Experimental designs in management and leader-
ship research: Strengths, limitations, and recom-
mendations for improving publishability. The
Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 11–33. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.002
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
Poulin, F. & Boivin, M. (2000). Reactive and pro-
active aggression: Evidence of a two-factor
model. Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 115–
122. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.12.2.115
Pradhan, S. & Jena, L. K. (2018a). Abusive supervi-
sion and job outcomes: A moderated mediation
study. Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum
for Empirical Scholarship, 6(2), 137–152.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-06-2017-0030
Pradhan, S., Jena, L. K. & Mohapatra, M. (2018).
Role of gender on the relationship between
abusive supervision and employee’s intention to
quit in Indian electricity distribution companies.
Gender in Management: An International
Journal, 33(4), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/
GM-01-2017-0008
Pradhan, S., Srivastava, A. & Jena, L. K. (2019a).
Abusive supervision and intention to quit:
Exploring multi-mediational approaches. Personnel
Review, 49(6), 1269–1286. https://doi.org/10.1108/
PR-12-2018-0496
Pradhan, S., Srivastava, A. & Mishra, D. K. (2019b).
Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding: The
mediating role of psychological contract violation
and supervisor directed aggression. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 24(2), 216–234.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2019-0248
Priesemuth, M. & Schminke, M. (2019). Helping thy
neighbor? Prosocial reactions to observed abusive
supervision in the workplace. Journal of
Management, 45(3), 1225–1251. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0149206317702219
Priesemuth, M., Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L. &
Folger, R. (2014). Abusive supervision climate: A
multiple-mediation model of its impact on group out-
comes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5),
1513–1534. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0237
Pundt, A. & Schwarzbeck, K. (2018). Abusive super-
vision from an integrated self-control perspective.
Applied Psychology, 67(3), 473–497. https://doi.
org/10.1111/apps.12125
Pyc, L. S., Meltzer, D. P. & Liu, C. (2017).
Ineffective leadership and employees’ negative
outcomes: The mediating effect of anxiety and
depression. International Journal of Stress
Management, 24(2), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.
1037/str0000030
Emmerling et al.
Rafferty, A. E. & Restubog, S. L. D. (2011). The
influence of abusive supervisors on followers’
organizational citizenship behaviours: The
hidden costs of abusive supervision. British
Journal of Management, 22(2), 270–285. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00732.x
Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L.,
Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., Stouthamer-Loeber,
M. & Liu, J. (2006). The reactive–proactive
aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates
of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent
boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32(2), 159–171.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20115
Raine, A., Fung, A. L. C., Portnoy, J., Choy, O. &
Spring, V. L. (2014). Low heart rate as a risk
factor for child and adolescent proactive aggres-
sive and impulsive psychopathic behavior.
Aggressive Behavior, 40(4), 290–299. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ab.21523
Ramdeo, S. & Singh, R. (2019). Abusive supervision,
co-worker abuse and work outcomes: Procedural
justice as a mediator. Evidence-Based HRM: A
Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 7(3),
325–341. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-09-2018-
0060
Reisenzein, R. (1994). Pleasure-arousal theory and
the intensity of emotions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 67(3), 525–539. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.525
Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L. & Zagenczyk, T. J.
(2011). When distress hits home: The role of con-
textual factors and psychological distress in pre-
dicting employees’ responses to abusive
supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96(4), 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021593
Rice, D. B., Letwin, C., Taylor, R. & Wo, X. (2020a).
Extending the trickle-down model of abusive
supervision. The role of moral disengagement.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 1–7. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2020.1752133
Rice, D. B., Taylor, R. & Forrester, J. K. (2020b).
The unwelcoming experience of abusive supervi-
sion and the impact of leader characteristics:
Turning employees into poor organizational citi-
zens and future quitters. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1737521
273
Richard, O. C., Boncoeur, O. D., Chen, H. & Ford,
D. L. Jr. (2018). Supervisor abuse effects on sub-
ordinate turnover intentions and subsequent inter-
personal aggression: The role of power-distance
orientation and perceived human resource
support climate. Journal of Business Ethics.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4019-7
Rispens, S. & Demerouti, E. (2016). Conflict at work,
negative emotions, and performance: A diary study.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research,
9(2), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12069
Roberton, T., Daffern, M. & Bucks, R. S. (2012).
Emotion regulation and aggression. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 72–82. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.09.006
Rogers, K. B. & Robinson, D. T. (2014). Measuring
affect and emotions. Handbook of the Sociology
of Emotions, II, 283–303.
Rupp, D. E. & Vodanovich, S. J. (1997). The role of
boredom proneness in self-reported anger and
aggression. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 12(4), 925–936.
Sârbescu, P., Sulea, C. & Moza, D. (2017).
Supervisor undermining and driving errors in
truck drivers: A moderated mediation model.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 45, 122–130. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.12.006
Scheuer, M. L., Burton, J. P., Barber, L. K.,
Finkelstein, L. M. & Parker, C. P. (2016).
Linking abusive supervision to employee engage-
ment and exhaustion. Organization Management
Journal, 13(3), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15416518.2016.1214063
Schmid, E. A., Pircher Verdorfer, A. & Peus, C.
(2019). Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest:
Theory and measurement of exploitative leader-
ship. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1401–1433.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317707810
Schmid, E. A., Pircher Verdorfer, A. & Peus, C. V.
(2018). Different shades - different effects?
Consequences of different types of destructive
leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(JUL).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01289
Schyns, B. & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the
effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destruc-
tive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership
274
Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001
Sears, S. & Kraus, S. (2009). I think therefore I om:
Cognitive distortions and coping style as media-
tors for the effects of mindfulness meditation on
anxiety, positive and negative affect, and hope.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(6), 561–573.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20543
Shachaf, P. & Hara, N. (2010). Beyond vandalism:
Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information
Science, 36(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0165551510365390
Shaffer, J. A., DeGeest, D. & Li, A. (2016). Tackling the
problem of construct proliferation: A guide to asses-
sing the discriminant validity of conceptually related
constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1),
80–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115598239
Shen, C., Yang, J., He, P. & Wu, Y. J. (2019). How
does abusive supervision restrict employees’
feedback-seeking behavior? Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 34(8), 546–559. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2018-0480
Shillamkwese, S. S., Tariq, H., Obaid, A., Weng, Q.
& Garavan, T. N. (2020). It’s not me, it’s you:
Testing a moderated mediation model of subor-
dinate deviance and abusive supervision through
the self-regulatory perspective. Business Ethics:
A European Review, 29(1), 227–243. https://doi.
org/10.1111/beer.12245
Shirai, M. & Suzuki, N. (2017). Is sadness only one
emotion? Psychological and physiological
responses to sadness induced by two different
situations:“loss of someone” and “failure to
achieve a goal”. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,
288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00288
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D. &
Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming the organization
for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organ-
izational support and supervisor’s organizational
embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1),
158–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030687
Sieweke, J. & Santoni, S. (2020). Natural experiments in
leadership research: An introduction, review, and
guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1),
101338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101338
Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., Kelley, K. & Judge, T. A.
(2015). Understanding cycles of abuse: A
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
multimotive approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(6), 1798–1810. https://doi.org/
10.1037/apl0000031
Smithmyer, C. M., Hubbard, J. A. & Simons, R. F.
(2000). Proactive and reactive aggression in delinquent
adolescents: Relations to aggression outcome expect-
ancies. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(1),
86–93. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424jccp2901_9
Stanford, M. S., Houston, R. J., Mathias, C. W.,
Villemarette-Pittman, N. R., Helfritz, L. E. &
Conklin, S. M. (2003). Characterizing aggressive
behavior. Assessment, 10(2), 183–190. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1073191103010002009
Stempel, C. R. & Rigotti, T. (2018). Leaders’ gender,
perceived abusive supervision and health.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9(DEC). https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02427
Stephens, A. N. & Sullman, M. J. (2015). Trait pre-
dictors of aggression and crash-related behaviors
across drivers from the United Kingdom and the
Irish Republic. Risk Analysis, 35(9), 1730–1745.
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12379
Sulea, C., Filipescu, R., Horga, A., Orţ an, C. &
Fischmann, G. (2012). Interpersonal mistreatment
at work and burnout among teachers. Cognition,
Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
16(4), 553–570.
Swartout, K. M. (2013). The company they keep:
How peer networks influence male sexual aggres-
sion. Psychology of Violence, 3, 157–171. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0029997
Tariq, H. & Weng, Q. (Derek), Garavan, T. N.,
Obaid, A. & Hassan, W. (2020). Another sleep-
less night: Does a leader’s poor sleep lead to sub-
ordinate’s poor sleep? A spillover/crossover
perspective. Journal of Sleep Research, 29(1),
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.12904
Taylor, S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and
physiological arousal as a function of provocation
and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of
Personality, 35(2), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01430.x
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive super-
vision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2),
178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A. & Schurer
Lambert, L. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim
Emmerling et al.
precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel
Psychology, 59(1), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K. & Shaw, J. D. (2001).
Personality moderators of the relationship between
abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 974–983.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.974
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E. & Carr, J.
C. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward mainten-
ance communication, and subordinates’ psycho-
logical distress. Academy of Management
Journal, 50(5), 1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amj.2007.20159918
Tepper, B. J., Simon, L. & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive
supervision. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1),
123–152. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
041015-062539
Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K. B., Padilla, A. &
Lunsford, L. (2018). Destructive leadership: A
critique of leader-centric perspectives and
toward a more holistic definition. Journal of
Business Ethics, 151(3), 627–649. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-016-3257-9
Tröster, C. & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2021). When
victims help their abusive supervisors: The role
of LMX, self-blame, and guilt. Academy of
Management Journal, 64(6), 1793–1815. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0559
Tuente, S. K., Bogaerts, S. & Veling, W. (2019).
Hostile attribution bias and aggression in
adults-a systematic review. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 46, 66–81. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.avb.2019.01.009
Unkelbach, C., Fiedler, K., Bayer, M., Stegmüller, M.
& Danner, D. (2008). Why positive information is
processed faster: The density hypothesis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 36–
49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.36
Uysal, H. T. (2019). The mediation role of toxic lead-
ership in the effect of job stress on job satisfaction.
International Journal of Business, 24(1), 55–73.
Valle, M., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S. & Harting, T.
(2019). Abusive supervision, leader-member
exchange and moral disengagement: A
moderated-mediation model of organizational
275
deviance. The Journal of Social Psychology,
159(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224545.2018.
1466776
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A
review and synthesis. Journal of Management,
37(4), 1228–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206310380462
Van Knippenberg, D. & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical
assessment of charismatic-transformational leader-
ship research: Back to the drawing board? The
Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60.
https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.759433
Van Prooijen, J.-W. & de Vries, R. E. (2016).
Organizational conspiracy beliefs: Implications
for leadership behaviors and employee outcomes.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(4), 479–
491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9428-3
Van Tilburg, W. A., Igou, E. R., Maher, P. J. & Lennon,
J. (2019). Various forms of existential distress are
associated with aggressive tendencies. Personality
and Individual Differences, 144, 111–119. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.032
Velez, M. J. & Neves, P. (2017). The relationship
between abusive supervision, distributive justice
and job satisfaction: A substitutes for leadership
approach. European Review of Applied
Psychology, 67(4), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.erap.2017.05.005
Vogel, R., Homberg, F. & Gericke, A. (2016).
Abusive supervision, public service motivation, and
employee deviance: The moderating role of employ-
ment sector. Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum
for Empirical Scholarship, 4(3), 214–231. https://doi.
org/10.1108/EBHRM-08-2015-0034
Vogel, R. M. & Mitchell, M. S. (2017). The motiv-
ational effects of diminished self-esteem for
employees who experience abusive supervision.
Journal of Management, 43(7), 2218–2251.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314566462
Walden, T. A., Harris, V. S. & Catron, T. F. (2003).
How I feel: A self-report measure of emotional
arousal and regulation for children.
Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 399–412.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.399
Waldman, D. A., Wang, D., Hannah, S. T., Owens,
B. P. & Balthazard, P. A. (2018). Psychological
276
and neurological predictors of abusive supervision.
Personnel Psychology, 71(3), 399–421. https://doi.
org/10.1111/peps.12262
Waller, L., Reitz, M., Poole, E., Riddell, P. M. &
Muir, A. (2017). Experiential learning as
preparation for leadership: An exploration of the
cognitive and physiological processes.
Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 38(4), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1108/
LODJ-03-2015-0057
Walsh, M. M. & Arnold, K. A. (2018). Mindfulness
as a buffer of leaders’ self-rated behavioral
responses to emotional exhaustion: A dual
process model of self-regulation. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9(DEC). https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.02498
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L.,
Wernsing, T. S. & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and valid-
ation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34(1), 89–126. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0149206307308913
Wang, C.-C., Hsieh, H.-H. & Wang, Y.-D. (2020a).
Abusive supervision and employee engagement
and satisfaction: The mediating role of employee
silence. Personnel Review, 49(9), 1845–1858.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2019-0147
Wang, R. & Chan, D. K. S. (2019). Subordinate reac-
tions to ethical leaders’ abusive behavior: a mul-
tiple-wave study. Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-
7941.12222
Wang, R. & Jiang, J. (2014). How narcissistic
employees respond to abusive supervision: Two
roles of narcissism in decreasing perception and
increasing deviance. Psychological Reports,
115(2), 372–380. https://doi.org/10.2466/01.21.
PR0.115c22z2
Wang, R. & Jiang, J. (2015). How abusive supervi-
sors influence employees’ voice and silence:
The effects of interactional justice and organiza-
tional attribution. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 155(3), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00224545.2014.990410
Wang, R., Jiang, J., Yang, L. & Chan, D. K. S.
(2016). Chinese Employees’ psychological
responses to abusive supervisors. Psychological
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
Reports, 118(3), 810–828. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0033294116644369
Wang, Y., Cao, S., Zhang, Q. & Xia, L. X. (2020b).
The longitudinal relationship between angry
rumination and reactive–proactive aggression and
the moderation effect of consideration of future
consequences-immediate. Aggressive Behavior,
46(6), 476–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21913
Wascher, C. A. (2021). Heart rate as a measure of
emotional arousal in evolutionary biology.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B, 376(1831), 20200479. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rstb.2020.0479
Watkins, T., Fehr, R. & He, W. (2019). Whatever it
takes: Leaders’ perceptions of abusive supervi-
sion instrumentality. The Leadership Quarterly,
30(2), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.
2018.09.002
Wei, F. & Si, S. (2013). Tit for tat? Abusive supervi-
sion and counterproductive work behaviors: The
moderating effects of locus of control and per-
ceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 30(1), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10490-011-9251-y
Weierich, M. R., Wright, C. I., Negreira, A.,
Dickerson, B. C. & Barrett, L. F. (2010).
Novelty as a dimension in the affective brain.
Neuroimage, 49(3), 2871–2878. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.09.047
Westgate, E. C. & Wilson, T. D. (2018). Boring thoughts
and bored minds: The MAC model of boredom and
cognitive engagement. Psychological Review,
125(5), 689–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000097
White, B. A. & Turner, K. A. (2014). Anger rumin-
ation and effortful control: Mediation effects on
reactive but not proactive aggression. Personality
and Individual Differences, 56, 186–189. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.012
Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R. B. & Shanine, K.
K. (2013). Psychological entitlement and abusive
supervision: Political skill as a self-regulatory
mechanism. Health Care Management Review,
38(3), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.
0b013e3182678fe7
Wilkowski, B. M. & Robinson, M. D. (2010). The
anatomy of anger: An integrative cognitive
model of trait anger and reactive aggression.
Emmerling et al.
Journal of Personality, 78(1), 9–38. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00607.x
Wilson, L. C. & Scarpa, A. (2013). Baseline heart
rate, sensation seeking, and aggression in young
adult women: A two-sample examination.
Aggressive Behavior, 39(4), 280–289. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ab.21477
Wisse, B. & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones
gain power: Perceived position power strengthens
the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on
abusive supervision in work teams. Personality
and Individual Differences, 99, 122–126. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.019
Woestman, D. S. & Wasonga, T. A. (2015).
Destructive leadership behaviors and workplace
attitudes in schools. NASSP Bulletin, 99(2), 147–
163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636515581922
Wongleedee, K. (2020). Turnover intention and
abusive supervision and management:
Investigating the role of self-identity and future
work self-salience. Systematic Reviews in
Pharmacy, 11(1), 462–471. https://doi.org/10.
5530/srp.2020.1.58
Woods, S. & White, E. (2005). The association
between bullying behaviour, arousal levels and
behaviour problems. Journal of Adolescence,
28(3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
adolescence.2004.09.002
Woodworth, M. & Porter, S. (2002). In cold blood:
Characteristics of criminal homicides as a func-
tion of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 111(3), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0021-843X.111.3.436
Wu, M., Peng, Z. & Estay, C. (2018a). How destruc-
tive leadership influences compulsory organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. Chinese Management
Studies, 12(2), 453–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/
CMS-10-2017-0298
Wu, M., Peng, Z. & Estay, C. (2018b). How role stress
mediates the relationship between destructive leader-
ship and employee silence: The moderating role of
job complexity. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology,
12, e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2018.7
Wu, S. D. & Lo, P. C. (2008). Inward-attention medita-
tion increases parasympathetic activity: A study based
on heart rate variability. Biomedical Research, 29(5),
245–250. https://doi.org/10.2220/biomedres.29.245
277
Wu, T.-Y. & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and
employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional
antecedents and boundaries. Group &
Organization Management, 34(2), 143–169.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331217
Wu, T.-Y., Hu, C. & Yang, C.-C. (2013). Abusive
supervision and workload demands from supervi-
sors: Exploring two types of supervisor-related
stressors and their association with strain. Stress
and Health, 29(3), 190–198. https://doi.org/10.
1002/smi.2440
Wyckoff, J. P. (2016). Aggression and emotion: Anger,
not general negative affect, predicts desire to
aggress. Personality and Individual Differences,
101, 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.
06.001
Xu, A. J., Loi, R. & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss
takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader-
member exchange interact to influence employee
silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763–
774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.002
Xu, H., Bègue, L. & Shankland, R. (2011). Guilt and
guiltlessness: An integrative review. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 5(7), 440–457.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00364.x
Xu, Q., Zhao, Y., Xi, M. & Li, F. (2020). Abusive super-
vision, high-performance work systems, and subor-
dinate silence. Personnel Review, 49(8), 1637–
1653. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2019-0029
Yagil, D. (2005). Employees’ attribution of abusive
supervisory behaviors. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 13(4), 307–326. https://
doi.org/10.1108/eb029009
Yagil, D., Ben-Zur, H. & Tamir, I. (2011). Do
employees cope effectively with abusive supervi-
sion at work? An exploratory study. International
Journal of Stress Management, 18(1), 5–23.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020548
Yam, K. C., Fehr, R., Keng-Highberger, F. T., Klotz,
A. C. & Reynolds, S. J. (2016). Out of control: A
self-control perspective on the link between
surface acting and abusive supervision. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 292–301. https://
doi.org/10.1037/apl0000043
Yan, X., Wang, Z., Su, J. & Luo, Z. (2020).
Relationship between core self-evaluations and
team identification: The perception of abusive
278
supervision and work engagement. Current
Psychology, 39(1), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12144-017-9749-7
Yang, J.-H., Lin, C.-C., Fang, S.-C. & Huang, C.-Y.
(2019). An uncertainty management theory on the
effects of abusive supervision: The moderating
role of future orientation. Management
Decision, 57(11), 3079–3095. https://doi.org/10.
1108/MD-06-2017-0604
Yao, Z., Zhang, X., Liu, Z., Zhang, L. & Luo, J.
(2019). Narcissistic leadership and voice behav-
ior: The role of job stress, traditionality, and
trust in leaders. Chinese Management Studies,
14(3)543–563. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-11-
2018-0747
Yu, K., Lin, W., Wang, L., Ma, J., Wei, W., Wang, H.,
Guo, W. & Shi, J. (2016). The role of affective com-
mitment and future work self salience in the abusive
supervision-job performance relationship. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
89(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12101
Yuan, X., Xu, Y. & Li, Y. (2020). Resource depletion
perspective on the link between abusive
Organizational Psychology Review 13(3)
supervision and safety behaviors. Journal of
Business Ethics, 162(1), 213–228. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-018-3983-2
Yukl, G. & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and
research on leadership in organizations. In
Dunnette, M. D. & Hough, L. M. (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psych-
ology (pp. 147–197). Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J. & Duffy, M. K. (2002).
Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(6), 1068–1076. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068
Zhu, J., Song, L. J., Zhu, L. & Johnson, R. E. (2019).
Visualizing the landscape and evolution of leader-
ship research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(2),
215–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.
06.003
Zhu, J. & Zhang, B. (2019). The double-edged sword
effect of abusive supervision on subordinates’
innovative behavior. Frontiers in Psychology,
10(JAN). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00066