When and how vicarious abusive supervision leads to bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance. A moderated–mediation model
| Pages | 1734-1755 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2018-0368 |
| Published date | 04 November 2019 |
| Date | 04 November 2019 |
| Author | Shu-Chen Chen,Na-Ting Liu |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Global hrm |
When and how vicarious abusive
supervision leads to bystanders’
supervisor-directed deviance
A moderated–mediation model
Shu-Chen Chen and Na-Ting Liu
Ming Chuan University, Taipei, Taiwan
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine bystanders’supervisor-directed deviance to
vicarious abusive supervision by supervisor-directed attribution. Furthermore, this study developed a
moderated–mediation model to explore how LMX between bystander and his/her supervisor moderate the
relationship between vicarious abusive supervision and the supervisor-directed attribution, which
subsequently influences bystanders’supervisor-directed deviance.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper tested the model using a sample of 336 workers using a
two-wave survey. A moderated–mediation analysis was conducted with bootstrapping procedure to test the
first stage moderated–mediation model in this study.
Findings –The results showed that LMX (between bystander and his/her supervisor) weakens the indirect
relationship between vicarious abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance by bystanders’
supervisor-directed attribution.
Practical implications –Leadership training programs should be conducted to caution supervisors in
terms of the deleterious consequences of vicarious abusive supervision. Organizations also should plan
perception and communication training courses for leaders; such training would reduce bystanders’
responsibility attribution to them by providing timely explanations and communication. Furthermore,
organizations should monitor supervisors by managers’performance appraisal and formulate rules to punish
abusive managers.
Originality/value –These results clarify the nature and consequences of LMX (dyadic relationships of
bystanders–supervisor) for bystanders’attribution process, and explain underlying attributional perceptions
and reactions to vicarious abusive supervision. This study provides a more nuanced understanding of when
and how vicarious abusive supervision leads to bystanders’supervisor-directed deviance.
Keywords Quantitative, Abusive supervision, Leader–member exchange (LMX), Attribution,
Supervisor-directed deviance, Vicarious abusive supervision
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Recent research has examined counterproductive leader behaviors. Beginning with Tepper
(2000), researchers recognized the importance of studying abusive supervision, which
involves repeated verbal and nonverbal mistreatment, directed by a supervisor at his/her
subordinates. To date, most studies on abusivesupervision have mainly focused on the dual
relationshipbetween supervisorsand victims, especially on howabused employees respondto
abusive supervisors, including poor work performance (Sutton, 2010) and workplace
aggression (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007; Restubog et al., 2011). Mistreatment by a leader
occurs in a social context (Duffy et al., 2006); apart from experiences of own abusive
supervision, other individuals in the same leadership context are more likely to hear or
observe how others are mistreated by the same leader (Colquitt, 2004; Skarlicki and Kulik,
2005). Studies have reported that more than 80 percent of employees in the USA have
witnessed workplace mistreatment (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). Recent research has focused on
bystanders’responses to mistreatment in the workplace. For example, Coyne et al. (2019)
examined bystanders’reactions to workplace bullying incidents. Skarlicki et al. (2015) also
explored the effect of vicarious injustice on bystanders. Furthermore, reviews have been
Personnel Review
Vol. 48 No. 7, 2019
pp. 1734-1755
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-09-2018-0368
Received 28 September 2018
Revised 14 March 2019
12 April 2019
Accepted 19 May 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
1734
PR
48,7
performed on vicarious incivility(e.g. Schilpzand, de Pater and Erez, 2016;Schilpzand, Leavitt
and Lim, 2016) and mistreatment (e.g. Dhanani and LaPalme, 2019). From a practical
perspective, human resource professionals expressed that one incident of mistreatmentalone
can diminish e mployees’attention and effort for several weeks. Studies have indicated that
executivesof the Fortune 1,000 typically spend13 percent of their work time –approximately
seven weeks per year –onremedying their relationships withemployees after the occurrence
of abusive supervision (Porath andPearson, 2013). In addition, surveysand case studies have
reported that bystanders commonly seek assistance from human resource managers after
witnessing abusive supervision (Withey and Cooper, 1989; Wu and Wu, 2019).When human
resource managers overlook the effects of vicarious abusive supervision on bystanders,
bystanders can lose their work engagement, ultimately increasing their turnover intentions.
This consequentlyaffects an organization’s human resourcestability, leading to an increasein
the costs of employee recruitment and training. When this effect persists for a prolonged
period, the organization can lose its long-term employees who have acquired valuable
knowledge and skills through experience and training, thus impeding its operational
efficiencyand performance (Wu and Wu, 2019).Accordingly, human resourcemanagers must
clarify the mechanism through which vicarious abusive supervision affects bystanders and
must intervene promptly; doing so can mitigate the negative effects of vicarious abusive
supervision on bystanders. These studies indicate that the effect of vicarious experiences at
workplace on bystanders has attractedacademic and practical interests. Mistreatmentcan be
categorized into various types, of which abusive supervision has received more research
attention (Mi tchell and Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000 ;R estubog et al.,2011; Sutton, 2010). The
purpose of the current study was to examine the effect of vicarious abusive supervision on
bystanders in order to extend the literature on abusive supervision.
Although abusive supervision is likely to have a considerable negative impact on the
abused employee at the workplace, there are unanswered questions for those who do not
directly experience abuse but hear about it or experience it second hand. Recently, several
researchers (e.g. Harris et al., 2013; Priesemuth, 2013) have turned their attention to
understandinghow abusive supervisionaffects the larger work environmentand, specifically,
to bystanders who do not directly experience abuse but hear or witness about coworkers’
abusive supervision. Harris et al. (2013) termed this as “vicarious abusive supervision,”
because bystanders often experience abusive supervisory behaviors vicariously. Researches
have provided new insights into how bystanders react to vicarious abusive supervision
(Mitchell et al.,2015; Rupp and Bell, 2010; Skarlicki andKulik, 2005; Skitka, 2002). Few studies
have shown that witnessing abuse can elicit reactions from bystanders, such as
counterproduct ive behaviors that are harmful to th e supervisor (Harris et al., 2013). This
study chooses the unit peer as the reference target because bystander may well perceive
themselves to besimilar to each other due to the same leader. Bystanders witnessing abusive
supervision exhibit different reactions; for example, retaliate against supervisors (Mitchell
et al., 2015), help the victims of the abuse (Hershcovis and Bhatnagar, 2017), or take no action
(Reich and Hershcovis, 2015). These studieshighlight the complexitiesinvolved in the process
through which bystander reactions toward victims unfold, and future research should direct
attention toward better understanding attribution processes (i.e. the ways in which third
parties decidewho is to blame (Dhanani and LaPalme,2019). What is less clear, though, is how
and when bystandersreact to vicarious abusive supervision. Based on attribution theory and
social identity theory, this study extends theliterature on abusive supervision by examining
how unit peers’supervisory abuse (i.e. bystanders’perceptionsabout the extent to which unit
peers are abused by the same leader; vicarious abusive supervision, hereafter) provides a
social context that influences bystanders’behavior.
According to attribution theory, people have an innate tendency to gather information
in a rational manner and then make decisions regarding the causes of the behavior
1735
Vicarious
abusive
supervision
To continue reading
Request your trial