Accountability breeds response-ability. Instrumental contemplation of abusive supervision
| Pages | 1019-1042 |
| Date | 06 August 2018 |
| Published date | 06 August 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2017-0149 |
| Author | Hussain Tariq,Qingxiong (Derek) Weng |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
Accountability breeds
response-ability
Instrumental contemplation
of abusive supervision
Hussain Tariq and Qingxiong (Derek) Weng
Department of Business Administration,
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to investigate the link between perceived subordinate performance
and abusive supervision. From the perspective of moral exclusion theory, the authors examine cooperative
goal interdependence and competitive goal interdependence as key boundary conditions to hypothesize and
demonstrate the direct negative relationship between low-performing subordinates and abusive supervision.
Within the moral exclusion framework, supervisors may strategically abuse low performers when
cooperative goal interdependence is high, or competitive goal interdependence is low. Moreover, this study
explores the impact of abusive supervision on subordinate’s objective performance.
Design/methodology/approach –This research employs two independent studies to examine the
antecedents and consequences of abusive supervision based on respondents from a Fortune 500 company
located in Anhui province of People’s Republic of China (PRC). Study 1 uses a time lagged, single source
survey while Study 2 employs multi-source, multi-wave data. The results support the integrated model.
Findings –Across the two studies, the results showed that the direct negative relationship between
perceived subordinate performance and abusive supervision was found to be strongerwhen cooperative goal
interdependence was high and when competitive goal interdependence was low. Study 2 also revealed the
negative impact of abusive supervision on subordinate’s objective performance and that the conditional
indirect effect of subordinate’s perceived performance on objective performance via abusive supervision was
contingent on the extent of cooperative and competitive goal interdependence.
Originality/value –The results clearly demonstrate that supervisors are likely to turn to abusive
supervision in response to poor performing subordinates but that the tendency to use abuse as an
instrumental strategy for improving subordinate performance is dependent on the nature of goal
interdependence between the supervisor and subordinates’goals. The research also shows that although
supervisors may turn to abusive supervision under certain goal interdependence conditions, it is not an
effective strategy for actually improving subordinate objective performance. In fact, it has the opposite effect.
Keywords Quantitative, Abusive supervision, Competitive goals interdependence,
Cooperative goals interdependence, Subordinate objective performance, Subordinate performance
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Over the past decade and a half, an explosion of research has been conducted on abusive
supervision; defined as supervisors’“sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal
behaviors [toward subordinates], excluding physical contact”(e.g. belittling and ridiculing;
Tepper, 2000). Sustained exposure to abusive supervision has a pervasive and negative
impact on employees and employers (Tepper, 2007; Jian et al., 2012; Duffy et al., 2002; Dupré
et al., 2006). Estimates suggest that more than 13 percent of the US workforce is affected by
abusive supervision (Tepper, 2007), and the majority of research to date has shown that
abusive supervision imposes severe psychological costs on subordinates, including job
dissatisfaction, emotional exhaustion, psychologicaldistress, counterproductivebehavior and
turnover (for reviews, see Martinko et al., 2013; Schyns and Schilling, 2013; Tepper, 2007). Personnel Review
Vol. 47 No. 5, 2018
pp. 1019-1042
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-05-2017-0149
Received 15 May 2017
Revised 8 November 2017
1 January 2018
Accepted 10 February 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Financial support from the Natural Sciences Foundation of China (Project Nos 71373251; 71422014) is
gratefully acknowledged.
1019
Accountability
breeds
response-ability
Consequently, if we are to stopabusive supervisor behavior in the workplace, it is important
for practitioners and researchers alike (Khan et al., 2016) to understand the conditions that
lead supervisors to engage in abusive supervision (Walter et al., 2015; Barnes et al., 2015;
Liang et al., 2016; Courtright et al., 2016).
Previous research on abusive supervision has added to our understanding, but has several
limitations.First, it does not address “how subordinate’s own behaviormight provoke abusive
supervision”(Khan et al., 2016). Given that subordinate behavior constitutes one-half of
the supervisor–subordinate relationship, it is surprising how little research exists examining
subordinate behavior as an antecedent of abusive supervision. Using moral exclusion
theory (Opotow, 1990, 1995) and victim precipitation theory (Elias, 1986; Olweus, 1978),
Tepper et al.(2011) were the first to study subordinateperformance as a behavioralantecedent
to abusive supervision.
A second problem with research to date is that most researchers explain abusive
supervision as noninstrumental hostility “that is directed against convenient and innocent
targets when retaliation against the source of one’s frustration is not possible or feasible”
(Tepper, 2007). Contrary to this perspective, Ferris et al. (2007) suggested that researchers
identify the potential strategic aspects of abusive supervision in the workplace
(Walter et al., 2015), while Tepper (2007) argued that supervisors may be abusive in the
workplace “to elicit high performance [from subordinates] or to send the message that
mistakes will not be tolerated”(p. 265). Based on these arguments, we propose that
supervisors may practice abusive supervisory behavior as an instrumental reaction
toward low-performing subordinates.
Moral exclusion theory (Opotow, 1990, 1995) and victim precipitation theory (Elias, 1986;
Olweus, 1978) have proven particularly useful in addressing how poor performing
subordinates lead to abusive supervision (Khan et al., 2016; Tepper et al., 2011). Moral
exclusion theory suggests that every individual has a “scope of justice”that imitates a
psychological boundary that separates others into groups on the basis of whether they
should receive fair and respectful treatment or not (Khan et al., 2016). Such categorization is
based, in part, on the “target usefulness or utility for the actor”(Tepper et al., 2011; Walter
et al., 2015), which represents the perceived individual’s utility and determines whether or
not they are placed inside an actor’s scope of justice (i.e. the extent to which target is likely to
be perceived as harmful or beneficial for actor’s self-interest or goal attainment; Leets, 2001).
Tepper et al. (2011) argued that poor performers are more likely to make supervisors look
bad, making them more likely to become victims of supervisor abuse; an assertion that
needs to be more thoroughly examined.
Walter et al. (2015) argued that the relationship between perceived subordinate
performance and abusive supervision may be more complex than that explained by the
existing literature[1]. To further explore the supervisor–subordinate (poor performing
subordinate) relationship, we argue that there may be another important factor, i.e., goal
interdependence (Deutsch, 1949) because it determines the subordinate’s utility for his/her
supervisor. An interdependent situation in which supervisor goals are positively or
negatively related to his/her subordinates goals (Wu et al., 2015), decides the utility of a
subordinate’s perceived performance to his/her supervisor’s goals (Walter et al., 2015).
Deutsch (1949) identifies the two basic categories of individuals’goal interdependence
(i.e. cooperative and competitive; Wu et al., 2015), which strongly shape their “perceptions
that they need one another in order to perform effectively”(Wageman, 1999). On this notion,
we propose that a supervisor’s cooperative goal interdependence and competitive goal
interdependence moderate the negative relationship between subordinate performance and
abusive supervision.
In addition, Ferris et al. (2007) argued that supervisors may be instrumentally abusive
toward underachievers to enforce better performance from them (Walter et al., 2015).
1020
PR
47,5
To continue reading
Request your trial