ArticlePDF Available

Defeating abusive supervision: Training supervisors to support subordinates

December 2016
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 23(2)

DOI:10.1037/ocp0000061

Project: Respect in the Workplace

Authors:

M. Gloria González-Morales

Claremont Graduate University

Thomas E. Becker

University of South Florida Sarasota Manatee

Although much is known about the antecedents and consequences of abusive supervision, scant attention has been paid to investigating procedures to reduce its frequency. We conducted a quasiexperiment to examine the effects of supervisor support training on subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision and supervisor support. Supervisors (n = 23) in 4 restaurants were trained in 4 supportive supervision strategies (benevolence, sincerity, fairness, and experiential processing) during 4 2-hr sessions over a period of 2 months. We compared perceived supervisor support and abusive supervision before and 9 months after training for 208 employees whose supervisors received support training and 241 employees in 4 similar control restaurants. Compared to employees in the control restaurants, employees whose supervisors received the support training reported higher levels of perceived supervisor support and less abusive supervision. These findings suggest that a relatively brief training program can help managers become more supportive and less abusive. Theoretical and practical implications for effectively managing abusive supervision are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Means and Standard Deviations for Employee Variables Control Experimental

…

Percentage Distribution of Abusive Supervision Scores Control Experimental

…

Figures - uploaded by Thomas E. Becker

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Thomas E. Becker

Content may be subject to copyright.

Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology

Defeating Abusive Supervision: Training Supervisors to

Support Subordinates

M. Gloria Gonzalez-Morales, Mary C. Kernan, Thomas E. Becker, and Robert Eisenberger

Online First Publication, December 12, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000061

CITATION

Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Kernan, M. C., Becker, T. E., & Eisenberger, R. (2016, December 12).

Defeating Abusive Supervision: Training Supervisors to Support Subordinates. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online publication.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000061

Defeating Abusive Supervision: Training Supervisors to

Support Subordinates

M. Gloria Gonzalez-Morales

University of Guelph

Mary C. Kernan

University of Delaware

Thomas E. Becker

University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee

Robert Eisenberger

University of Houston

Although much is known about the antecedents and consequences of abusive supervision, scant attention

has been paid to investigating procedures to reduce its frequency. We conducted a quasiexperiment to

examine the effects of supervisor support training on subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision and

supervisor support. Supervisors (n⫽23) in 4 restaurants were trained in 4 supportive supervision

strategies (benevolence, sincerity, fairness, and experiential processing) during 4 2-hr sessions over a

period of 2 months. We compared perceived supervisor support and abusive supervision before and 9

months after training for 208 employees whose supervisors received support training and 241 employees

in 4 similar control restaurants. Compared to employees in the control restaurants, employees whose

supervisors received the support training reported higher levels of perceived supervisor support and less

abusive supervision. These findings suggest that a relatively brief training program can help managers

become more supportive and less abusive. Theoretical and practical implications for effectively manag-

ing abusive supervision are discussed.

Keywords: abusive supervision, supervisor support, perceived supervisor support, training, quasiexperiment

Abusive supervision, involving “subordinates perceptions of the

extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of

hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical con-

tact” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178), has deleterious consequences for

victims and the organizations that employ them (Mackey, Frieder,

Brees, & Martinko, 2015; Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey,

2013; Tepper, 2007). A substantial body of work has shown that

abusive supervision is negatively associated with employee atti-

tudes and behaviors, such as job satisfaction (Palanski, Avey, &

Jiraporn, 2014; Tepper, 2000), organizational commitment (Duffy,

Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), perceptions of organizational support

(Kernan, Watson, Chen, & Kim, 2011; Shoss, Eisenberger, Res-

tubog, & Zagenczyk, 2013), in-role job performance (Xu, Huang,

Lam, & Miao, 2012), citizenship behaviors (Zellars, Tepper, &

Duffy, 2002), and positively associated with employee deviance

(Brees, Mackey, Martinko, & Harvey, 2014; Lian, Ferris, &

Brown, 2012; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, Henle, Lam-

bert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008) and turnover intentions (Tepper,

2000).

More importantly, empirical evidence also indicates that abu-

sive supervision is a serious psychosocial health risk that needs

to be appropriately managed. Meta-analytic evidence reveals

negative relationships with psychological well-being and posi-

tive associations with stress (Schyns & Schilling, 2013), work-

to-family conflict, job tension, emotional exhaustion, and de-

pression (Mackey et al., 2015). Because of its harmfulness,

there have been many calls for investigating ways to reduce the

occurrence of abusive supervision, including supervisory train-

ing and improved organizational socialization techniques

(Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012; Mitchell

& Ambrose, 2012; Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, 2011; Shoss

et al., 2013; Walter, Lam, van der Vegt, Huang, & Miao, 2015).

However, to this point little research has responded to these

calls. Although much empirical research has investigated the

antecedents of abusive supervision (e.g., Zhang & Bednall,

2015), the implementation of procedures to prevent or reduce

abusive supervision in the workplace needs to be empirically

examined. To address this need, the present research investi-

gates whether abusive supervision can be modified by training

M. Gloria Gonzalez-Morales, Department of Psychology, University of

Guelph; Mary C. Kernan, Department of Business Administration, Uni-

versity of Delaware; Thomas E. Becker; College of Business, University of

South Florida Sarasota-Manatee; Robert Eisenberger, Department of Psy-

chology, University of Houston.

An earlier version of this article was presented as a poster at the 2012

SIOP conference: M. Gloria Gonzalez-Morales, Mary C. Kernan, Thomas

E. Becker, Robert Eisenberger (2012, April). Managerial training to in-

crease employee perceptions of support. Featured top-rated posters session

27th SIOP Annual Conference. San Diego, CA. Our research was sup-

ported in part by a contract from the Army Institute for the Social and

Behavioral Sciences.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to M. Gloria

Gonzalez-Morales, Department of Psychology, University of Guelph,

Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada. E-mail: gonzalez.morales@uogue

lph.ca

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2016, Vol. 22, No. 1, 000 1076-8998/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000061

supervisors to understand the value of supportive supervision

and by providing them with effective techniques for engaging in

more supportive supervision.

In this study we apply strategies based on organizational support

theory (OST) (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011) to address the

rectification of abusive supervision. OST holds that employees

form general beliefs concerning the extent to which the organiza-

tion and its representatives (e.g., managers and supervisors) value

their contributions and care about their well-being (perceived

organizational support, or POS). A large number of correlational

studies have established that supervisor and organizational support

are related to many employee and organizational outcomes (Kur-

tessis et al., 2015). OST incorporates basic assumptions of social

exchange theory with regard to reciprocity and attributions (Eisen-

berger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Kurtessis et al., 2015). Based on the

reciprocity norm, employees are assumed to experience an indebt-

edness or felt obligation to the organization and its agents, such as

supervisors and managers, for favorable treatment. Moreover, in

accord with social exchange theory (Gouldner, 1960), favorable

treatment leads to greater indebtedness and affective commitment

to the organization and its agents when employees attribute such

treatment to favorable intent (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, &

Lynch, 1997). Among the major antecedents of POS are organi-

zational justice, support by supervisors, and favorable human

resource practices (Kurtessis et al., 2015). According to OST,

employees should value supportive actions by the supervisor both

as indication of valuation by the organization and by a leader who

may provide significant material, informational, and socioemo-

tional resources. We extend knowledge and contribute to research

on OST by demonstrating that its theoretical principles can be used

to design and implement organizational practices to foster healthy

workplaces.

Overcoming Abusive Supervision

Research that has examined the antecedents of abusive super-

vision suggests that attempts to lessen its frequency may be im-

peded by leaders’ familial and dispositional tendencies to be

abusive and by stable characteristics of followers that elicit abuse.

For example, supervisors’ history of family aggression and under-

mining (Garcia, Restubog, Kiewitz, Scott, & Tang, 2014; Kiewitz

et al., 2012), level of anxiety (Byrne et al., 2014), hostility-related

affect (Garcia et al., 2014), and depression (Byrne et al., 2014;

Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006) are positively associated

with abuse. Further, subordinates’ high levels of negative affec-

tivity (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield, & Allen, 1999) and low levels

of core self-evaluations (Wu & Hu, 2009), self-esteem (Kiazad,

Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, & Tang, 2010) and conscientious-

ness (Henle & Gross, 2014), and a predisposition toward paranoid

tendencies are associated with greater reports of abuse (Chan &

McAllister, 2014; Martinko, Harvey, Sikora, & Douglas, 2011).

Zhang and Bednall’s (2015) meta-analysis provides further evi-

dence that supervisors’ and subordinates’ demographic and dispo-

sitional characteristics affect abusive supervision.

Although overcoming the effects of these individual and dispo-

sitional characteristics may seem difficult, finding ways to encour-

age supervisors to act more favorably toward subordinates pro-

vides a more hopeful perspective. This is especially true if we

consider that contextual features of the work environment, such as

supervisors’ attempts to cope with overly stressful environments

(Burton, Hoobler, & Scheuer, 2012) or inadequate subordinate

performance (Li, Zhang, Law, & Yan, 2015; Tepper, Moss, &

Duffy, 2011; Walter et al., 2015), can also impact abusive super-

vision. Further, combating abusive supervision by training super-

visors to engage in supportive behaviors is consistent with a large

body of work in the leadership domain that has demonstrated that

effective leadership behaviors can be learned (cf. Brungardt, 1997;

DeRue, Nahrgang, Hollenbeck, & Workman, 2012; Packard &

Jones, 2015; Santos, Caetano, & Tavares, 2015).

Supportive Supervision

Supportive supervision involves an orientation by the supervisor

to be helpful and considerate to subordinates (House, 1996). Sup-

portive supervisors and managers have been characterized as being

friendly and approachable, receptive to followers’ new ideas and

dissenting opinions, and expressing appreciation and support to

followers (Bass, 1990; DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey,

2011; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; Lambert, Tepper, Carr, Holt,

& Barelka, 2012; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). OST (Eisenberger,

Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Eisenberger & Stinglham-

ber, 2011; Shore & Shore, 1995) suggests that employees should

respond to the receipt of supportive behaviors with a general

perception of positive valuation by their supervisor. Although most

research relevant to this theory has focused on POS, organization

members also form perceptions of support about individuals and

collectives within the organization that may provide important

material, informational, and socioemotional resources (Eisen-

berger & Stinglhamber, 2011). Perceived supervisor support (PSS)

refers to a general perception about the extent to which employees

feel their supervisor values their contributions and cares about

their well-being. We suggest that inducing supervisors to engage in

supportive supervision behaviors will displace supervisor’s orien-

tation toward abusive behaviors, leading to higher PSS and lower

reports of abusive supervision.

Training would involve explaining the utility of supportive

supervision and providing supervisors with the necessary skills

and strategies to enact such behavior. There are several reasons

why supportive supervision training may increase positive percep-

tions about supervisors and reduce abusive supervision. First,

according to OST, and based on the reciprocity norm, employees

should reciprocate supportive supervision by increasing their per-

formance. In return, and responding favorably to such enhanced

performance, supervisors would be less likely to engage in abusive

supervision. Second, abusive supervision has been linked to ag-

gression norms in organizations. For example, Restubog et al.

(2011) found that supervisors who perceived stronger norms to-

ward aggressive behavior in their organization were perceived as

more abusive by their subordinates. Moreover, researchers in the

broader workplace victimization area have theorized that employ-

ees often learn aggressive behavior from their peers or other

valued organizational members as the normative way of behaving

“around here” (Aquino, Douglas, & Martinko, 2004; Einarsen,

1999; Glomb & Liao, 2003; Langan-Fox & Sankey, 2007). Super-

visors trained in supportive supervision can help establish a new

norm regarding how to appropriately respond to subordinates in

stressful situations. This norm would encourage caring and con-

sideration as responses to subordinates, and discourage impulsive

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2GONZALEZ-MORALES, KERNAN, BECKER, AND EISENBERGER

and potentially abusive behaviors. Therefore, we expect supervisor

support training to increase the frequency of perceived supportive

behaviors and decrease the frequency of perceived abusive behav-

ior.

Third, supportive supervision produces favorable reactions

among subordinates (DeRue et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2004;

Lambert et al., 2012; Oldham & Cummings, 1996) and, more

generally, destructive leadership-subordinate outcome correlations

are largely negative and opposite in direction to constructive

leadership-outcome correlations (Schyns & Schilling, 2013). We

thus propose that enhancing supportive supervision, a constructive

leadership behavior, should make supportive supervisory behav-

iors more salient, increasing perceptions of supportive supervision

and decreasing perceptions of abusive supervision. As supervisors

notice the effectiveness of supportive supervision in dealing with

subordinates, such behavior should become preferable to abuse.

Further, as supervisors engage in more supportive and less abusive

behaviors, subordinates should perceive this change and come to

see their supervisors as generally supportive. We would not expect

that perceptions of abuse would be totally eradicated because

negative and unfavorable perceptions are stronger and more salient

than positive ones (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs,

2001). However, even if isolated instances of mistreatment occur

they may not be interpreted as abusive, especially if subordinates

believe the supervisor did not intend to be harmful.

Feeling victimized by an abusive behavior is a subjective expe-

rience (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Thus, like most research in the

mistreatment literature, our focus is on subordinate perceptions of

abusive supervision. By definition supervisory abuse lies in the eye

of the beholder and requires the employee’s perception that the

perpetrator intended to commit harm. If employees experience

frequent supportive behaviors they may not attribute intent to harm

when isolated abusive supervisory behaviors are enacted, espe-

cially in the context of a generally supportive relationship. In these

instances subordinates may be more likely to absolve the supervi-

sor of blame and attribute the behavior to external, situational

causes, such as an unusually busy or understaffed day.

Training Supportive Supervisor Strategies

According to OST (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011), there

are a number of supervisory behaviors that should contribute to

subordinates’ PSS. We organized these behaviors around four

general strategies: benevolence, sincerity, fairness, and experien-

tial processing. These strategies, along with relevant behaviors, are

presented in Table 1 and are explained in more detail below.

Benevolence refers to supervisors’ discretionary behaviors that

provide subordinates with helpful information and tangible and

emotional support beyond the supervisor’s general role require-

ments. PSS is enhanced when employees believe that organiza-

tional representatives have a genuine concern for their welfare, as

demonstrated by their actions beyond the call of duty (Eisenberger

& Stinglhamber, 2011). This concern is more strongly communi-

cated when supervisors’ favorable actions appear to be voluntary

and reflect genuine caring on their part as opposed to being forced

by external constraints, such as contractual obligations, govern-

ment regulations, or a tight job market (Eisenberger et al., 1997).

Sincerity refers to authenticity in expression and deed (Eisen-

berger & Stinglhamber, 2011). Employees believe supervisors are

being sincere in judgments of their performance when these judg-

ments reflect careful evaluation rather than other motives such as

bias toward favored employees or a disingenuous desire to please.

Attributions of sincerity are also enhanced, according to OST,

when supervisors follow through on their promises. In addition,

being treated with dignity and respect by those in positions of

authority is an important aspect of interactional justice and is

reflected in the sincerity strategy.

Procedural and informational justice are also important. Both

have been consistently found to be positively associated with

perceived support (DeConinck, 2010; Kurtessis et al., 2015;

Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick,

2002). Procedural justice refers to fairness in the processes used to

determine valued outcomes (Colquitt, 2001). For example, social

accounts as a dimension of procedural justice have been shown to

reduce blame employees place on the decision maker (Bobocel &

Table 1

Summary of Supportive Behavior Strategies

BENEVOLENCE SINCERITY

yRecognize employee efforts, especially when they go beyond the call of

duty (perform beyond expectations).

yWhenever possible, accept mistakes and use them as learning

opportunities.

ySupport employees with necessary back-up and training to do their jobs.

yMake amends for poor treatment from customers.

yFollow through on promises made to employees.

yBe honest and timely when communicating positive and negative

information about performance.

yTreat employees with respect.

yEmploy constructive feedback skills:

XImpersonal/Focus on behavior

XOffer encouragement

XSuggest corrective actions/behaviors

XProvide clear direction

FAIRNESS MINDFULNESS

yProcedures based on accurate information. yGather all relevant information regarding performance.

yRules and policies applied uniformly. yDecide private or public discussion and appropriate place and time.

yProcedures neutral and unbiased. yEmploy active listening skills:

yOpportunity for employee voice. XAvoid interruption and defer judgment

yOpportunity for Correction/Appeal. XPay attention/ Organize information

yExplain reasons for decisions using social accounts. XMaintain/Show interest

XObtain feedback to check understanding

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

DEFEATING ABUSIVE SUPERVISION

Zdaniuk, 2005; Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003). Informational

justice provides explanations for why procedures were used or

outcomes were distributed in a particular way (Colquitt, Conlon,

Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Both procedural and informational

fairness communicate concern for employees’ opinions and well-

being, leading to enhanced perceptions of support (DeConinck,

2010; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Roch & Shanock, 2006).

The fourth strategy, experiential processing (Good et al., 2016),

involves attending to stimuli without immediate judgment or eval-

uation since such interpretations often tend to be habitual in nature

or biased toward self-concerns. Thus, experiential processing per-

mits a more nonautomatic and careful evaluation of events. Having

supervisors stop and listen carefully to subordinate concerns or

explanations, as opposed to responding impulsively, provides an

opportunity for greater awareness and more flexible responses,

essentially minimizing automatic reactions. Experiential process-

ing may be particularly important during stressful periods when

supervisors may impulsively react to their own mistakes or those

of their subordinates with abusive behavior. Thoughtful reflection

and awareness of interactions with subordinates during stressful

periods may help enable more supportive supervision, leading to

greater PSS and fewer instances of abuse.

In sum, OST points to several specific strategies for treating

subordinates supportively and, as illustrated in Table 1, these

strategies suggest concrete behaviors that can serve as training

targets. We believe such training has the potential to increase

perceived supervisor support and decrease abusive supervision.

We conducted a quasiexperiment in a midsized restaurant chain,

with supervisors in experimental restaurants receiving supportive

supervision training. Supervisors in the remaining restaurants

served as the control group. We hypothesized that supervisor

support training would enhance PSS and lessen abusive supervi-

sion:

Hypothesis 1: Subordinates of supervisors in the supervisor

support training condition, in comparison to the control con-

dition, will report higher perceived supervisor support.

Hypothesis 2: Subordinates of supervisors in the supervisor

support training condition, in comparison to the control con-

dition, will report lower abusive supervision.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We conducted a quasiexperimental field study, using a compar-

ison group before–after design, in eight restaurants, with four

restaurants assigned to the training condition and four assigned to

a nontraining control condition. These eight locations are members

of a small chain of locally based, upscale casual restaurants. They

are located within a 90-mile radius in various medium-sized towns

and cities, with similar economic climates, in two adjacent North-

east states in the United States.

The hospitality setting is useful for investigating ways to reduce

abuse because it is an environment characterized by frequent

customer and supervisor interactions, heavy work demands during

peak periods, and significant time pressures. Pretraining equiva-

lence between conditions was obtained by using a matched-group

design to guarantee that the mean scores on PSS in the experi-

mental and control restaurants were comparable (see Table 2).

Supervisors were trained in four 2-hr sessions over a 2-month

period. The first three sessions took place over 3 consecutive

weeks and the fourth took place a month later in order to refresh

the content of the training and to keep participants on track with

the transfer process. Trainees included a balanced composition of

restaurant general managers, floor managers, chefs, and sous

chefs. Management teams in each location are composed of man-

agers in the two areas of the restaurant. The back of the house

refers to the kitchen area and the front of the house refers to the

area where customers are served. The back of the house manage-

ment team is composed of an executive chef and two sous chefs.

The front of the house management team is composed of one

general store manager and two floor managers. In a given shift,

there is a least one manager in the front and one manager in the

back of the house. Busier shifts, such as dinners on Fridays and

Saturdays, require at least two managers in each part of the house.

A total of 23 supervisors (4 women, 19 men) from the four

experimental locations started the training: six from three restau-

rants (1 general manager, 2 floor managers, 1 executive chef and

2 sous chefs) and five from the fourth (i.e., one general manager,

two floor managers, one executive chef and one sous chef). To

enhance interpersonal interaction and foster learning, the initial

group of 23 was split into two training groups, 13 in one and 10 in

the other. All supervisors but three (two floor managers from two

different restaurants, and one sous chef from a third restaurant)

completed the program.

Training was conducted off-site at the company’s headquarters.

Employees from all of the restaurants (experimental and control)

knew that the company was collaborating with our research team,

but were unaware of specific interventions, including the supervi-

sory support training program. Our primary means of communi-

cation with employees was the presentation and explanation of the

consent form for collecting the critical incident data (discussed

below). The consent form also explained the general goals of our

collaboration (helping to increase organizational effectiveness),

that we would be asking questions about their work attitudes on the

company’s biannual employee survey, and emphasized the volun-

tary nature of participation.

Employee (subordinate) measures of PSS and abusive supervi-

sion, included in the organization’s online employee attitude sur-

vey, were assessed 2 months prior to training (Time 1) and 9

months after the training was completed (Time 2). Because of

frequently shifting employee and manager schedules, most em-

Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations for Employee Variables

Control Experimental

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)

PSS 5.51 (1.16) 5.32 (1.12) 5.52 (1.28) 5.67 (1.13)

AS 1.20 (.44) 1.27 (.68) 1.29 (.59) 1.13 (.44)

Note. PSS ⫽Perceived supervisor support; AS ⫽Abusive supervision.

Ns for experimental group at pre- and posttest were 227 and 208, respec-

tively. Ns for control group at pre- and posttest were 216 and 241,

respectively.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

4GONZALEZ-MORALES, KERNAN, BECKER, AND EISENBERGER

ployees worked under several supervisors. For example, in a single

shift, a server may be responding to both the floor manager and the

store manager (2 supervisors in 1 shift). This is the norm in many

restaurants, which is why we trained all supervisors in the exper-

imental restaurants. When responding to survey questions, em-

ployees were asked to think of the supervisors they most fre-

quently reported to.

In keeping with the organization’s survey policy of guaranteed

employee anonymity, we were not allowed to collect demographic

information. However, based on organizational records we can

report the following characteristics of the nonmanagerial employ-

ees: 44% of employees in the experimental restaurants were fe-

male, compared to 39% in control restaurants (we did not have

information on gender identity for 7% and 6%, respectively), and

17% in the experimental and 15.5% in the control restaurants were

of Hispanic origin. In both experimental and control restaurants,

the job title distribution was similar: 27% were kitchen staff (most

of them male); 45% were wait staff, and 15% were hosts (the

majority were female). Finally, bar and bus staff comprised 12% of

the nonmanagerial employees.

Participants completed surveys during work hours on laptop

computers installed in the restaurants. Response rates for both time

periods were approximately 95%. Participants at Time 1 included

443 employees, 227 from experimental locations and 216 from

control locations. At Time 2, 449 employees were surveyed; 208

worked at experimental locations and 241 worked at control loca-

tions.

Training Procedure

Needs analysis. Needs analysis is an essential element of

training design (e.g., Dessler, 2011; Ford, Kozlowski, Kraiger,

Salas, & Teachout, 1997). In our analysis, we explored the current

levels of perceived support provided by supervisors to subordi-

nates. The main purpose was to identify key situations in which

subordinates regularly felt supported and unsupported, so that we

could design training content that was relevant to their particular

work environment. We interviewed 33 top and mid-level managers

from the eight restaurants concerning the relationships between

supervisors and subordinates. In addition, we administered a brief

critical-incident questionnaire to the employees before the dinner

shift in each of the eight locations (mean number of respondents

per location was 17.12, SD ⫽3.83). We collected and analyzed a

total of 298 positive and negative critical incidents from 137

employees. Employees were asked to describe an incident where

they felt they had been well treated by a supervisor and an incident

where they felt poorly treated by a supervisor. Many cases of

positive treatment described interactions in which employees re-

ported being treated with respect, having work efforts recognized

and rewarded, receiving emotional support for personal problems

and mistakes, and obtaining constructive feedback about perfor-

mance. Instances of poor treatment included situations in which

supervisors showed a lack of support or understanding, became

quickly frustrated by mistakes, failed to treat employees with

respect, or consistently provided little recognition for good per-

formance. Many instances of poor treatment revealed abusive

behaviors such as being yelled at, unfairly disciplined, ridiculed

and ignored, often made more humiliating when carried out in

front of customers or coworkers.

Training objective and content. The objective of the training

program was to provide supervisors with strategies to treat subor-

dinates more supportively. Supervisors received instruction in the

benefits of supervisor support and in four basic supervisor support

strategies (benevolence, sincerity, fairness, and experiential pro-

cessing). In discussing benevolence, we emphasized to supervisors

that instrumental support (e.g., assistance with work-related prob-

lems and providing recognition for extraordinary efforts) and

emotional support (e.g., providing understanding and encourage-

ment when mistakes are made) should be presented as volitional

and concerned with the best interests of employees. With respect

to sincerity, we urged supervisors to provide honest, constructive

feedback when evaluating positive and negative instances of per-

formance, to follow through on promises made to employees and

to treat employees with respect. We incorporated this last element,

interactional justice, into the sincerity principle without explicitly

using the interactional fairness term with trainees. If supervisors

behave in an honest, timely and respectful manner (behaviors

included under the sincerity principle), perceptions of interactional

fairness perceptions should follow. When discussing fairness, we

urged supervisors to apply basic elements of procedural justice,

including using accurate information, uniform and unbiased appli-

cation of rules and procedures, and allowing for employee voice

and opportunity for appeal. We trained supervisors to provide

social accounts so that they would be perceived as fair even when

their actions were seen as unfavorable by subordinates (e.g., an

employee who receives an unpopular shift assignment). Finally,

we presented the experiential processing principle to trainees using

the label of mindfulness. The particular behaviors trained for this

and the other strategies are identified in Table 1.

Training format and techniques. We incorporated several

pedagogical techniques (lectures, group discussion, role plays) and

recommendations suggested by training researchers for maximiz-

ing trainee learning and transfer: meaningfulness, active participa-

tion, and distributed practice (Noe & Colquitt, 2002; Skarlicki &

Latham, 2005). Meaningfulness of the training content was

achieved in two ways. First, we stressed the relevance of the

training to work dimensions important to supervisors (e.g., lead-

ership development, subordinate attitudes) and the organization’s

bottom line (e.g., sales). Second, we developed training vignettes

specifically for the focal organization depicting various interac-

tions between customers and/or supervisors and employees. Each

vignette was written to highlight one or two of the support strat-

egies and were used as discussion starters and role-playing vehi-

cles. Third, we reviewed relevant organizational documentation

with the human resources manager in order to acquire knowledge

on organizational policies, procedures, and rules that would give

meaning to the training content.

Active participation was accomplished by asking trainees to

role-play supervisor–subordinate interactions (via the organiza-

tionally relevant vignettes), and by soliciting examples of success-

ful and unsuccessful applications of the four training strategies (via

weekly logs maintained by the trainees in between training ses-

sions, discussed below). Active participation was also encouraged

through group discussions and by having trainees provide feed-

back to one another after role-playing sessions. Finally, distribu-

tive practice was accomplished by holding three primary training

sessions, separated by a week, and a refresher session, scheduled

1 month later. Trainees were encouraged to practice the principles

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

DEFEATING ABUSIVE SUPERVISION

and skills they learned during training with their employees be-

tween each session.

The training vignettes were created from incidents reported in

the employee critical-incident questionnaire and were intended to

map onto one or more of the training strategies. Examples of

situations depicted in the vignettes included: (a) employees per-

forming less well than supervisors would have liked, and the

supervisors reacting abusively (low experiential processing and

benevolence), (b) employees performing well under very difficult

conditions and supervisors failing to provide praise or recognition

(low benevolence), (c) employees feeling that supervisors did not

consistently apply company policies and instead played “favorites”

(low fairness), and (d) supervisors failing to provide accurate and

timely feedback about employee performance (low sincerity).

Ensuring that learning is transferred back to the organization is

critical to effective training (Kirkpatrick, 1998; Saks & Belcourt,

2006; Skarlicki & Latham, 2005). We designed a number of

elements into the training program to enhance the transfer process.

At the end of each training session we distributed business-card-

sized flashcards summarizing each strategy. Trainees took these

cards with them to work to remind them of supportive behaviors in

daily interactions with subordinates. Weekly trainee logs were

provided to participants so that they could document their prog-

ress, review examples of the training strategies and applications,

and identify questions for the trainers. Trainees were instructed to

record their applications of the strategies and skills during the

following week using the flashcards as support. Thus, this “trans-

fer log” was intended to motivate and enhance the transfer of the

training back to the job.

Measures

The PSS and abusive supervision items were consistent with the

issues identified by the needs analysis and with the training design.

We modified four items from the Survey of Perceived Organiza-

tional Support developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986) to measure

PSS. Scale items were as follows: My supervisor: “strongly con-

siders my goals and values,” “would forgive an honest mistake on

my part,” “disregards my best interests when he/she makes deci-

sions that affect me,” “is willing to extend herself/himself in order

to help me perform my job to the best of my ability.” Subordinates

indicated their agreement with each item on a scale ranging from

1(strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree). Several studies have

used similar adaptations of this scale, which has been shown to

have good discriminant and predictive validity (T1 ␣⫽.78; T2

␣⫽.73; Kurtessis et al., 2015; Ng & Sorensen, 2008).

Abusive supervision was assessed with six items from the

Negative Acts Questionnaire–Revised (NAQ-R; Einarsen, Hoel, &

Notelaers, 2009). Adaptions of this scale have been used in prior

research with acceptable levels of reliability (Baillien, Bollen,

Euwema, & De Witte, 2014; Spence Laschinger & Nosko, 2015).

Scale items were as follows: My supervisor: “subjects me to

excessive teasing and sarcasm,” “humiliates or ridicules me in

connection with my work,” “reminds me repeatedly of my past

errors and mistakes,” “makes insulting/offensive comments about

me to others,” “has shouted at or targeted me with spontaneous

rage or anger,” and “ignores me or makes hostile comments when

I approach him/her.” The response scale was 1 (never),2(occa-

sionally), 3(monthly),4(weekly), and5(daily); (T1 ␣⫽.82; T2

␣⫽.93).

Results

Given that employees are nested within restaurants we checked

to see if the nested nature of the data made the observations

nonindependent. Using the “multilevel” package (Bliese, 2013) for

R (R Core Team, 2014), we calculated ICC(1)S for PSS and

abusive supervision in both pre and posttest periods. The very low

ICC(s) indicate that subordinate data is independent for both

abusive supervision (pretest ICC(1) ⫽0.04; posttest ICC(1) ⫽

0.02) and PSS (pretest ICC(1) ⫽0.08; posttest ICC(1) ⫽0.03).

These figures indicate that on average, only 4% of variance in the

dependent variables can be attributed to the restaurant where

employees work.

Correlations between PSS and abusive supervision were:

r⫽⫺.457, pⱕ.001 at pretest, and r⫽⫺.363, pⱕ.001 at

posttest. Table 2 shows the means by pre/posttest and condition

(experimental vs. control). As noted by Tepper (2007), abusive

supervision is a low base rate phenomenon. Mackey et al.’s (2015)

meta-analysis reports a mean of 1.78, SD ⫽.46. The lowest mean

across studies was 1.18 and the highest was 3.88. Thus, our means

are low but in line with previous research. In relation to the

distribution of the scores, Table 3 shows the distribution of mean

scores, segmented by pre/posttest and condition (experimental vs.

control). The percentages shown in each cell suggest that instances

of abusive supervision are reported less frequently by employees

of the experimental restaurants after the intervention.

Because employee surveys were anonymous we were not able to

pair employees on pretest and posttest measures. Instead, to assess

the influence of training on subordinates’ PSS and abusive super-

vision, using IBM SPSS 22, we ran a 2 ⫻2 multivariate analysis

of variance (MANOVA) with experimental versus control condi-

tion as one factor and pretest versus posttest period as the second

factor. A training effect would be demonstrated by an interaction

between the two factors (condition and pre/posttest). Consistent

with our hypotheses, the MANOVA analysis revealed a significant

interaction effect on employees’ perceptions of PSS and abusive

supervision (⌳

Roy

⫽0.012, F(2, 887) ⫽5.18, p⬍.01, ␩p

2⫽.012,

1⫺␤⫽.83). The univariate analyses for the interaction between

training conditions and pretest–posttest periods were significant

for PSS, F(1, 888) ⫽4.69, p⫽.031, ␩p

2⫽.005, 1 ⫺␤⫽.58 and

Table 3

Percentage Distribution of Abusive Supervision Scores

Control Experimental

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest

Never 71.1% 69.0% 64.6% 78.2%

Occasionally 22.0% 25.2% 26.6% 19.0%

Monthly 6.0% 2.1% 5.7% 1.9%

Weekly or more .9% 3.7% 3.1% .9%

Note. The distribution of responses on the average abusive supervision

scores has been segmented as follows: Never refers to average scores

below 1; Occasionally refers to average scores between 1 and 2; Monthly

refers to average scores between 2 and 3; Weekly or more refers to reported

mean scores higher than 3 (weekly and daily).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

6GONZALEZ-MORALES, KERNAN, BECKER, AND EISENBERGER

for abusive supervision, F(1, 888) ⫽9.37, p⬍.002, &␩p

2⫽.010,

1⫺␤⫽.86.

Simple effects analyses were run using IBM SPPS 22 within

contrast MANOVA syntax to test differences between the means

in Table 2. There were no statistically significant differences

between conditions at pretest for both dependent variables, for

PSS, F(1, 889) ⫽0.01, p⫽.929 and for abusive supervision, F(1,

889) ⫽2.85, p⫽.092. The differences were significant at posttest

for PSS, F(1, 889) ⫽10.1, p⬍.01 and for abusive supervision,

F(1, 889) ⫽6.80, p⬍.01. These results indicate that employees

whose supervisors received support training reported higher levels

of PSS and less abusive supervision relative to employees in the

control condition.

Discussion

Despite the considerable progress made in understanding the

predictors and consequences of abusive supervision, there has been

little empirical research on the effectiveness of interventions or

strategies for reducing its occurrence. We addressed this need by

conducting a quasiexperiment to examine the effects of supervisor

support training on abusive supervision and perceived supervisor

support. We found that, compared to employees in control restau-

rants, employees in restaurants whose supervisors received support

training reported less abusive supervision and greater supervisor

support a full 9 months following the completion of training.

Many personal and dispositional factors have been found to be

associated with abusive supervision, ranging from a history of

family aggression and undermining (Garcia et al., 2014; Restubog

et al., 2011) to various personality characteristics such as hostility

related affect (Garcia et al., 2014) and paranoid tendencies (Chan

& McAllister, 2014; Martinko et al., 2011). These factors may

make it difficult to eliminate abusive supervision. Yet, abusive

behaviors have also been found to be associated with various

contextual factors, such as subordinate performance (Walter et al.,

2015), organizational norms (Restubog et al., 2011), and perceived

abuse from higher-level managers (Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012;

Mawritz et al., 2012), suggesting that organizations can take steps

to lessen abusive supervision and its deleterious influence on

employee well-being.

The present research procedures provide a practical first step

toward actions that organizations can take to reduce abusive su-

pervision. Based on OST (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger &

Stinglhamber, 2011; Shore & Shore, 1995), which maintains that

supportive supervision leads to a general positive perception of the

supervisor as an organizational agent, we used supportive super-

vision as an alternative for supervisors to employ in place of

abusive supervision. The supportive supervision training was de-

signed to convince supervisors of the benefits to themselves and

the organization of substituting supportive supervision for abuse

and to provide them with the skills needed to provide such treat-

ment. Training sessions provided supervisors with four basic

supervisor-support strategies (benevolence, sincerity, fairness, and

experiential processing) which they practiced in scenarios and in

their supervisory roles at work.

Our findings also contribute to OST’s view that the supervisor,

as an organizational agent, plays an important role in the psycho-

logical well-being of subordinates. Support by supervisors is as-

sumed to fulfill socioemotional needs (e.g., approval, esteem,

affiliation), leading to increased job satisfaction and positive

affect (Cole, Bruch, & Vogel, 2006; Giumetti et al., 2013;

Griffin, Patterson, & West, 2001). Conversely, aversive treat-

ment by the organization and its representatives, such as abu-

sive supervision, should lead to dissatisfaction and stress

(Palanski et al., 2014; Schyns & Schilling, 2013; Tepper, 2000).

The present findings go beyond cross-sectional and cross-

lagged findings to suggest that supervisor support training can

be used to lessen an important determinant of employee dissat-

isfaction and discomfort. The reduced abusive supervision per-

ceived by employees in the experimental restaurants, as com-

pared to the control restaurants, indicates the promise of such

training for countering abusive supervision.

Future Research

In the present study, the changes in abusive supervision and PSS

reflected a decrease in PSS and an increase in abuse for the control

restaurants as much as an increase in PSS and decrease in abuse for

the experimental restaurants. These results may be due, in part, to

pressures associated with the general economic decline that oc-

curred during the study period. Discussions with senior managers

and subsequent documentation based on sales reports indicated

that the restaurant chain suffered sales losses coincident with the

U.S. financial crisis that began in 2008. Supervisors in both the

experimental and control conditions were rewarded, in part, for

meeting revenue goals, and this was especially challenging in the

depressed economy. This situation may have increased perfor-

mance demands on supervisors, leading to greater stress and im-

patience with subordinates, including increasing abusive supervi-

sion in the control condition. While the same demands confronted

supervisors in the experimental condition, it is possible that sup-

port training exerted a protective effect against the situational

factors working to suppress supportive supervisory behaviors. In

fact, restaurant sales reports suggest cautious support for this line

of reasoning. Three of the four restaurants in the training condition

had lower revenues during the study than the restaurants in the

control condition. Even though this situation should have led to

increased pressure on these supervisors and a concomitant increase

in abuse, employee perceptions of abusive supervision in the

training group decreased. We note that revenue differences be-

tween experimental and control restaurants are less than ideal from

a design perspective. However, we do not believe these differences

compromise our findings, because, if anything, they would have

increased Type II error and therefore prevented us from finding

training effects. Further research is needed to determine if and

when support training is capable of ameliorating the adverse

effects of situational pressures that typically contribute to elevated

levels of abuse.

Future work should also study ways to strengthen the effects of

support training. For instance, training sessions may be increased

and more refresher sessions provided to discuss problems in im-

plementing the supervision strategies. In addition, managers of the

supervisors involved in training and the HR system as a whole may

take a greater role in endorsing and emphasizing the training to

help instill a stronger norm for supportive supervision. Further,

supportive supervision might be included as part of the reward

system to give supervisors an added inducement to maintain the

supportive behaviors learned in training. Holding supervisors ac-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

DEFEATING ABUSIVE SUPERVISION

countable for supportive treatment of subordinates via regular

performance appraisals would necessarily entail proper alignment

between the organization’s performance management and com-

pensation systems. Tying personnel decisions to supervisor per-

formance appraisals and rewards could also aid in making better

promotion decisions or providing counseling or remedial help to

supervisors who are unable or unwilling to forego abusive behav-

ior.

In future research, the mechanisms by which support training

influences abusive supervision should also receive greater atten-

tion. As noted in the introduction, the relationship between super-

visor support training and lessened abusive supervision was pre-

dicted, in part, on the basis that employees would reciprocate

supportive supervision with increased performance which, in turn,

would lead supervisors to abuse them less. This is consistent with

organization support theory’s emphasis on the reciprocity norm

but this should be investigated more thoroughly with additional

training studies that are able to track employee performance. We

also suggested that supervisor support training should reduce abu-

sive supervision on the basis of the development of a norm for

supportive treatment of subordinates. Evidence for such an orga-

nizational support climate, involving agreement across employees,

has been reported by Li, Chiaburu, and Kirkman (2014). A third

factor predicted to influence the outcomes, the salience of more

frequent supportive behaviors over less frequent instances of abu-

sive supervision, suggests an extension of OST. Trained support-

ive behaviors may become more frequent than aversive treatment,

making it more difficult for subordinates to interpret isolated

instances of mistreatment as abusive in terms of intent to harm, and

easier to attribute the behavior to situational or external circum-

stances. OST might take into account these attribution effects for

explaining how support training overcomes aversive treatment of

subordinates and thereby enhances psychological well-being and

health.

Experience sampling methodology might also be used to further

understand the mechanisms responsible for the effects of support

training. Supervisors and subordinates could be asked to report

their interactions before, during, and after supportive supervision

training. We would expect to find that during supportive supervi-

sion training, daily supervisor reports of increased supportive

supervision directed at specific subordinates would be linked to

reports by those subordinates of increased supportive supervision

and decreased abusive supervision. Moreover, training studies

designed using experience sampling methods can be used to ex-

plore the associated changes in health and well-being. The mea-

surement of health outcome variables, such as self-reported stress

or psychophysiological strain indicators, on a daily or weekly basis

can extend our understanding of supervisory treatment and its

influence on employees’ occupational health.

Another future research direction involves exploring the role of

subordinate attributions. Martinko et al. (2011) found that employ-

ees’ hostile attributional style explained a sizable proportion of the

variance in subordinates’ abusive supervision perceptions, and

more recent research supports the role of these attributions on the

experience of and reaction to abuse (Burton, Taylor, & Barber,

2014). Such results led Martinko et al. (2013) to propose a con-

structive revision of the Tepper (2007) model, whereby the link

between supervisor behavior and employee perceptions of abusive

supervision is mediated by subordinate attributions. Future re-

search should continue to investigate the impact of subordinate

attributions on perceptions of supervisory abuse and the conditions

that predict the type of attribution made in response to an abusive

behavior.

Practical Implications

Although additional studies that extend our training design and

investigate the mechanisms underlying our findings are desirable,

our results suggest that supportive supervision training may be a

useful methodology for organizations to combat abusive supervi-

sion and enhance PSS. Furthermore, this type of training may have

effects that reach beyond perceptions of supervisor behavior. Re-

search has consistently shown that abusive supervision severely

impacts worker well-being, contributing to stress and emotional

exhaustion (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007; Breaux, Perrewé,

Hall, Frink, & Hochwarter, 2008; Carlson, Ferguson, Hunter, &

Whitten, 2012; Wu & Hu, 2009), work-to-family conflict (Carlson,

Ferguson, Perrewé, & Whitten, 2011), and decreased psychologi-

cal health and life satisfaction (Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Bowling

& Michel, 2011). Conversely, general supervisory support is as-

sociated with greater positive affect (Cole et al., 2006; Giumetti et

al., 2013) and less stress (Hall, 2007; Kirmeyer & Dougherty,

1988; O’Driscoll et al., 2003) and work-to-family conflict (Nicklin

& McNall, 2013). Thus, supervisor support training may provide

an intervention with broad favorable influences on employees’

psychological well-being and health.

The general strategies, realistic practice, and homework assign-

ments included in the training can be emulated in various kinds of

organizations. Combating abusive supervision may be especially

relevant in occupations where employees experience heavy work

demands during peak periods and significant time pressures (Re-

stubog et al., 2011; Tepper, 2007). The stress created by difficult

demands and time pressures may elicit aversive emotional reac-

tions and impatience by supervisors with subordinate behaviors

whose own performance may be less than optimal because of

similar pressures. Supervisor support training benefits supervisors

by providing them with practical strategies to deal with these

difficult situations, gives them practice in implementing the strat-

egies, and provides positive feedback as they observe the favorable

reactions to supportive supervision.

Scholars in this area have also proposed other strategies for

curtailing abuse: implementing organization-wide zero tolerance

policies against abusive behavior (Restubog et al., 2011), improv-

ing managerial selection procedures (Shoss et al., 2013), educating

supervisors about the negative consequences of abuse (Walter et

al., 2015), and promoting constructive problem-solving ap-

proaches so as to minimize destructive employee responses to

abuse (e.g., deviant behavior; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2012). As part

of a comprehensive set of strategies, supervisor support training

may help combat the negative consequences of abusive supervi-

sion on employee welfare and productivity.

Study Strengths and Limitations

Our quasiexperimental design provides the first relatively strong

causal evidence that organizations can influence abusive supervi-

sion by altering the work context. Second, the application of

training to a field setting enhances the external validity of the

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

8GONZALEZ-MORALES, KERNAN, BECKER, AND EISENBERGER

findings. Finally, that the effects of support training on abusive

supervision were evident 9 months following training suggests that

the findings have practical implications.

In terms of limitations, because of anonymity requirements by

management, we were unable to identify particular subordinates in

order to assess individual change scores. However, the sample of

subordinates was large and we were able to assess the average

level of change in supportive and abusive supervision in the

experimental and control restaurants. In addition, our effects sizes

were small. However, as suggested by several scholars, small

effect sizes can tell a big story (Abelson, 1985; Aguinis & Harden,

2009; Cortina & Landis, 2009; Prentice & Miller, 1992). This is

especially true when a phenomenon can be detected even in

inauspicious circumstances (Cortina & Landis, 2009). Circum-

stances in our research setting were unfavorable in several ways.

First, the mean and variance of abusive supervision scores were

low, suggesting that in the future, measures that capture less

extreme abusive behavior would be helpful. Other researchers, like

Martinko and colleagues (Martinko et al., 2013; Mackey et al.,

2015), have suggested more direct assessments of abusive super-

vision that involve comparing subordinate perceptions to actual

complaints filed against supervisors, coworkers’ perceptions of

abusive committed by the same supervisor, or even video footage

obtained from surveillance cameras in organizations or laboratory

studies. Second, a lengthier, more comprehensive training program

would probably promote deeper learning and application. Third,

the human resource system was not altered in any way to reinforce

the training. Further, following the training, organizational leaders

and trainees did not set proximal and distal goals for applying

newly acquired capabilities. Thus, transfer of training to the job

was unlikely to have been maximized. However, despite these

conditions, we did find significant effects for PSS and abuse.

The organization records that we were able to access showed

that not all supervisors who completed training remained with the

organization for the entire study period: 35% of the trainees left the

organization during the course of our study. In this industry turn-

over is high and expected. However, to the extent that supervisors

left the organization, our results most likely underestimate the

effects among the variables we studied. For example, if a support-

ively trained supervisor was replaced by a less supportive, un-

trained supervisor, the effect of training on the restaurant employ-

ees would be reduced. As a result, our findings may represent a

conservative estimate of the impact of training. Finally, we did not

use Tepper’s (2000) 15-item scale to assess perceptions of abuse

but an adaptation of the Einarsen et al. (2009) workplace bullying

scale. Sasso and González-Morales (2014) report a correlation of

.80 between these two measures, and a meta-analysis by Hersh-

covis (2011) show that Tepper’s and Einarsen’s measures correlate

similarly with outcome variables such as job satisfaction and

psychological and physical well-being. Even though there is sub-

stantial conceptual overlap between our measure and Tepper’s

scale items, we cannot definitively conclude that our results would

remain unchanged if Tepper’s scale was used.

Conclusion

We found that training supervisors to treat subordinates sup-

portively resulted in greater perceived supervisor support and

lesser abusive supervision relative to subordinates of untrained

supervisors. This study makes a substantive contribution to the

abusive supervision literature by showing that organizations can

effectively reduce abusive supervision by changing the work con-

text. Our findings also confirm OST’s view that the supervisor, as

an organizational agent, can play an important role in the psycho-

logical well-being of subordinates. Although additional work

needs to be done to strengthen our training procedures and extend

our findings to health outcomes and other organizational settings,

the results provide a promising start to helping organizations deal

with the problem of abusive supervision.

References

Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a

lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129 –133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

0033-2909.97.1.129

Aguinis, H., & Harden, E. E. (2009). Sample size rules of thumb: Evalu-

ating three common practices. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.),

Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine,

verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 267–286).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Aquino, K., Douglas, S., & Martinko, M. J. (2004). Overt anger in response

to victimization: Attributional style and organizational norms as mod-

erators. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 152–164. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.9.2.152

Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D. G. (1999). The

effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination

on workplace victimization. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 260 –

272. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256918

Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from

the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163703

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, 191–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

0021-9010.92.1.191

Baillien, E., Bollen, K., Euwema, M., & De Witte, H. (2014). Conflict and

conflict management styles as precursors of workplace bullying: A

two-wave longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organi-

zational Psychology, 23, 511–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X

.2012.752899

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory,

research, and managerial applications. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001).

Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

Bliese, P. (2013). Multilevel functions. R package (Version 2.5) [Computer

software]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package⫽

multilevel

Bobocel, D. R., & Zdaniuk, A. (2005). How can explanations be used to

foster organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.),

Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 469 – 498). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-

baum.

Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the

victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91, 998 –1012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.91.5.998

Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Why do you treat me badly? The

role of attributions regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates’ re-

sponses to abusive supervision. Work & Stress, 25, 309 –320. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.634281

Breaux, D. M., Perrewé, P. L., Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Hochwarter,

W. A. (2008). Time to try a little tenderness? The detrimental effects of

accountability when coupled with abusive supervision. Journal of Lead-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

DEFEATING ABUSIVE SUPERVISION

ership & Organizational Studies, 15, 111–122. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1177/1548051808321787

Brees, J., Mackey, J., Martinko, M., & Harvey, P. (2014). The mediating

role of perceptions of abusive supervision in the relationship between

personality and aggression. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 21, 403– 413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051813505859

Brungardt, C. (1997). The making of leaders: A review of the research in

leadership development and education. Journal of Leadership & Orga-

nizational Studies, 3, 81–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1071791

99700300309

Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Scheuer, M. L. (2012). Supervisor work-

place stress and abusive supervision: The buffering effect of exercise.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 271–279. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1007/s10869-011-9255-0

Burton, J. P., Taylor, S. G., & Barber, L. K. (2014). Understanding internal,

external, and relational attributions for abusive supervision. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 35, 871– 891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job

.1939

Byrne, A., Dionisi, A. M., Barling, J., Akers, A., Robertson, J., Lys, R.,...

Dupre, K. (2014). The depleted leader: The influence of leaders’ dimin-

ished psychological resources on leadership behaviors. The Leadership

Quarterly, 25, 344 –357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.09.003

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, 849 – 859. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.003

Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Perrewé, P. L., & Whitten, D. (2011). The

fallout from abusive supervision: An examination of subordinates and

their partners. Personnel Psychology, 64, 937–961. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01232.x

Chan, M., & McAllister, D. (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens

of employee state paranoia. Academy of Management Review, 39, 44 –

66. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0419

Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the

relations between perceived supervisor support and psychological har-

diness on employee cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,

463– 484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.381

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A

construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

386 – 400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of

organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–

445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Cortina, J. M., & Landis, R. L. (2009). When small effect sizes tell a big

story, and when large effect sizes don’t. In C. E. Lance & R. J.

Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban

legends: Doctrine, verity, and fable in the organizational and social

sciences (pp. 287–308). New York, NY: Routledge.

DeConinck, J. B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice, perceived

organizational support, and perceived supervisor support on marketing

employees’ level of trust. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1349 –1355.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.01.003

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Workman, K. (2012).

A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviews and leadership devel-

opment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 997–1015. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1037/a0028244

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011).

Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-

analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x

Dessler, G. (2011). A framework for human resource management (6th

ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the

workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. http://dx.doi

.org/10.2307/3069350

Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. Interna-

tional Journal of Manpower, 20, 16 –27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/

01437729910268588

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to

bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psycho-

metric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work &

Stress, 23, 24 – 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370902815673

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived

organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812– 820. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

0021-9010.82.5.812

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Per-

ceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500 –

507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational

support. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1037/12318-002

Ford, J. K., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Kraiger, K., Salas, E., & Teachout, M. S.

(1997). Improving training effectiveness in work organizations. Mah-

wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Garcia, P. R., Restubog, S. L., Kiewitz, C., Scott, K. L., & Tang, R. L.

(2014). Roots run deep: Investigating psychological mechanisms be-

tween history of family aggression and abusive supervision. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 99, 883– 897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036463

Giumetti, G. W., Hatfield, A. L., Scisco, J. L., Schroeder, A. N., Muth,

E. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (2013). What a rude e-mail! Examining the

differential effects of incivility versus support on mood, energy, engage-

ment, and performance in an online context. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 18, 297–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032851

Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups:

Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 46, 486 – 496. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30040640

Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy,

M.K.,...Lazar, S. W. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work: An

integrative review. Journal of Management, 42, 114 –142. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1177/0149206315617003

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.

American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/

2092623

Griffin, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & West, M. A. (2001). Job satisfaction

and teamwork: The role of supervisor support. Journal of Organiza-

tional Behavior, 22, 537–550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.101

Hall, D. S. (2007). The relationship between supervisor support and reg-

istered nurse outcomes in nursing care units. Nursing Administration

Quarterly, 31, 68 – 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006216-200701000-

00015

Henle, C. A., & Gross, M. A. (2014). What have I done to deserve this?

Effects of employee personality and emotion on abusive supervision.

Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 461– 474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

s10551-013-1771-6

Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying. . . oh

my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression re-

search. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 499 –519. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1002/job.689

House, R. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a

reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323–352. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The

validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36 –51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

0021-9010.89.1.36

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

10 GONZALEZ-MORALES, KERNAN, BECKER, AND EISENBERGER

Kernan, M. C., Watson, S., Chen, F. F., & Kim, T. G. (2011). How cultural

values affect the impact of abusive supervision on worker attitudes.

Cross Cultural Management, 18, 464 – 484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/

13527601111179528

Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. D. L., 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 subordi-

nates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research

in Personality, 44, 512–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004

Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. D. L., Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Garcia, P.,

& Tang, R. L. (2012). Sins of the parents: Self-control as a buffer

between supervisors’ previous experience of family undermining and

subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision. The Leadership Quar-

terly, 23, 869 – 882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.005

Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating training programs. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler.

Kirmeyer, S. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1988). Work load, tension, and

coping: Moderating effects of supervisor support. Personnel Psychol-

ogy, 41, 125–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988

.tb00635.x

Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart,

K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2015). Perceived organizational support: A

meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of

Management. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

0149206315575554

Lambert, L. S., Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Holt, D. T., & Barelka, A. J.

(2012). Forgotten but not gone: An examination of fit between leader

consideration and initiating structure needed and received. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 97, 913–930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028970

Langan-Fox, J., & Sankey, M. (2007). Tyrants and workplace bullying. In

J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research com-

panion to the dysfunctional workplace (pp. 58 –74). Northampton, MA:

Edward Elgar Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781847207081

.00011

Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., & Kirkman, B. L. (2014). Cross-level influences of

empowering leadership on citizenship behavior: Organizational support

climate as a double-edged sword. Journal of Management. Advance

online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206314546193

Li, Y. N., Zhang, M. J., Law, K. S., & Yan, M. N. (2015). Subordinate

performance and abusive supervision: The role of envy and anger.

Academy of Management Meeting Proceedings, 2015, 16420 –16420.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2015.16420abstract

Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance

exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on

the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 107–123. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1037/a0024610

Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A

three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision

on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1187–

1212. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0400

Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2015).

Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of

Management. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

0149206315573997

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review

of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34,

S120 –S137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1888

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011). Percep-

tions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’ attribution styles.

The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 751–764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j

.leaqua.2011.05.013

Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova,

S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel

Psychology, 65, 325–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012

.01246.x

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and

workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity

beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159 –1168. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2012). Employees’ behavioral reac-

tions to supervisor aggression: An examination of individual and situa-

tional factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1148 –1170. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1037/a0029452

Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding

of the relationship between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A

meta-analysis. Group & Organization Management, 33, 243–268. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601107313307

Nicklin, J. M., & McNall, L. A. (2013). Work–family enrichment, support,

and satisfaction: A test of mediation. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 22, 67–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/

1359432X.2011.616652

Noe, R. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2002). Planning for training impact: Prin-

ciples of training effectiveness. In K. Kraiger (Ed.), Creating, imple-

menting, and managing effective training and development (pp. 53–79).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

O’Driscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T. D.,

Cooper, C. L., & Sanchez, J. I. (2003). Family-responsive interventions,

perceived organizational and supervisor support, work–family conflict,

and psychological strain. International Journal of Stress Management,

10, 326 –344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.10.4.326

Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and

contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–

634. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256657

Packard, T., & Jones, L. (2015). An outcomes evaluation of a leadership

development initiative. Journal of Management Development, 34, 153–

168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-05-2013-0063

Palanski, M., Avey, J. B., & Jiraporn, N. (2014). The effects of ethical

leadership and abusive supervision on job search behaviors in the

turnover process. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 135–146. http://dx

.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1690-6

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive.

Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160 –164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-

2909.112.1.160

R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical

computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/

Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress

hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in

predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021593

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support:

A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698 –714.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698

Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational justice in an

exchange framework: Clarifying organizational justice distinctions.

Journal of Management, 32, 299 –322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

0149206305280115

Saks, A., & Belcourt, M. (2006). An investigation of training activities and

transfer of training in organizations. Human Resource Management, 45,

629 – 648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20135

Santos, J. P., Caetano, A., & Tavares, S. M. (2015). Is training leaders in

functional leadership a useful tool for improving the performance of

leadership functions and team effectiveness? Leadership Quarterly, 26,

470 – 484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.010

Sasso, T., & González-Morales, M. G. (2014). The development of the

Perceived Victimization Measure for Workplace Aggression. Commu-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

DEFEATING ABUSIVE SUPERVISION

nication presented at the 29th SIOP Annual Conference, Honolulu,

Hawaii.

Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders?

A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. Leadership

Quarterly, 24, 138 –158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001

Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse?: A

meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 444 – 458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.444

Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and

organizational justice. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.),

Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social cli-

mate of the workplace (pp. 149 –164). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J.

(2013). Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of

perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational em-

bodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 158 –168. http://dx.doi

.org/10.1037/a0030687

Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Can leaders be trained to be fair?

In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice

(pp. 499 –524). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Nosko, A. (2015). Exposure to workplace

bullying and posttraumatic stress disorder symptomology: The role of

protective psychological resources. Journal of Nursing Management, 23,

252–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12122

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of

Management Journal, 43, 178 –190. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556375

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review,

synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006).

Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Per-

sonnel Psychology, 59, 101–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570

.2006.00725.x

Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy,

M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization de-

viance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 721–732. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.721

Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive

supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relation-

ship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 54, 279 –294. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263085

Walter, F., Lam, C. K., van der Vegt, G. S., Huang, X., & Miao, Q. (2015).

Abusive supervision and subordinate performance: Instrumentality con-

siderations in the emergence and consequences of abusive supervision.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1056 –1072. http://dx.doi.org/10

.1037/a0038513

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The

role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational

support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology,

87, 590 –598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.590

Wu, T.-Y., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional

exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and boundaries. Group & Orga-

nization Management, 34, 143–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/

1059601108331217

Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision

and work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organiza-

tional Behavior, 33, 531–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.768

Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision

and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Ap-

plied Psychology, 87, 1068 –1076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010

.87.6.1068

Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. C. (2015). Antecedents of abusive supervision: A

meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online pub-

lication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2657-6

Received April 3, 2016

Revision received September 26, 2016

Accepted September 27, 2016 䡲

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

12 GONZALEZ-MORALES, KERNAN, BECKER, AND EISENBERGER

The Psychology of Abusive Supervision

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2022

Abusive supervision, defined as employees' perceptions of leaders' sustained hostile behaviors, has a wide range of negative outcomes for individuals and their workplaces. In understanding the psychology of abusive supervision, both employee perceptions and leader behaviors are relevant to employee reports of abuse, and various factors can lead to abusive supervision. Supervisors may enact hostile behaviors for a variety of reasons, including their past experiences, personality traits, employee characteristics and behaviors, and a failure of supervisors to self-regulate their behavior due to stressors in their environment. As a consequence of abusive supervision, employees often experience a number of negative effects, including adverse mental health outcomes. Additionally, due to the negative psychological effects of abusive supervision, employees are more likely to engage in destructive behaviors both at work and at home. However, these chains of events are not inevitable: There are various interventions that organizations and individuals can undertake to prevent the harmful outcomes of abusive supervision.

Abusive Supervision and Individual, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Exploring the Mediating Effect of Employee Well-Being in the Hospitality Sector

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2023

This study intends to bridge the unattended research gap and add to the knowledge base of ‘human resource management’ regarding the relationships between abusive supervision, and individual organizational citizenship behaviour (OCBI), through the mediation of ‘employee well-being’. For the given purpose, a sample of 250 cases was selected to collect data from non-managerial hotel employees from the metropolitan cities of Pakistan. Given responses were analysed in Smart PLS 3.0. Structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to conduct the necessary tests regarding measurement model and structural model assessment. The study found statistical support for three of the four hypotheses, confirming the deleterious role of abusive supervision in general and the intervening role of employee well-being. The findings have concluded that abusive supervision is harmful for workplaces, particularly when it comes to employees’ citizenship behaviours. Finally, the predictive relevance and r-squared values for the underlying model were also confirmed.

Dehumanizing organizations: insidious effects of having one's human integrity denied at work

Article

Feb 2023

Organizational dehumanization (OD) is a pervasive phenomenon that can be defined as the employee’s perception of being dehumanized, treated as an instrument, and denied personal subjectivity by their organization. Studies examining dehumanization in the workplace have proliferated in recent years and increasingly underscore the insidious effects of OD for employees, their social relations, and the organization itself. Here, we review research over the past 5 years on OD that has contributed significantly to our understanding of its (organizational, interpersonal, situational, and environmental) triggers and its consequences at individual and organizational levels. We conclude by discussing future research directions that may equip us to better understand and protect humanness at work. https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1gHs28MqMiiu5W

Longitudinal relations between abusive supervision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and job neglect among Pakistani Nurses: The moderating role of self-compassion

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2022
CURR PSYCHOL

The main purpose of this study was to investigate reciprocal relationships between abusive supervision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and job neglect, and to examine the mediating role of emotional exhaustion in the cross-lagged relationship between abusive supervision and job neglect. Besides, we tested the moderating role of self-compassion in the cross-lagged relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion. We applied a two-wave cross-lagged panel design with a time lag of six months. Participants were 331 staff nurses of public sector hospitals in Islamabad, Pakistan. Data were collected using a self-report questionnaire at two points in time. Longitudinal structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to compare nested models. Results of cross-lagged SEM analyses supported the posited reciprocal model, indicating that abusive supervision, emotional exhaustion, and job neglect are mutually related. Results of mediation analysis showed that emotional exhaustion partially mediates the cross-lagged relationship between abusive supervision and job neglect. Further, we found that self-compassion attenuates the positive cross-lagged effect of abusive supervision on emotional exhaustion, and the indirect effect of abusive supervision on job neglect was weaker at higher levels of self-compassion. Our findings suggest that subordinates may find themselves in abusive relationships, in part, because their own behavioral responses to abuse can reinforce abusive supervision. Moreover, we identified the stress-buffering effect of self-compassion on emotional exhaustion.

How to Deal With a Difficult Boss: The Roles of Leaders’ Narcissistic Rivalry and Followers’ Behavior in Abusive Supervision Intentions

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2022

As abusive supervision entails negative outcomes for individuals and organizations, a better understanding of leader- and follower-related antecedents of abusive supervision can help organizations prevent destructive leadership. In an experimental vignette study with 140 leaders, we tested an integrative model that includes leaders’ narcissism as an antecedent of their abusive supervision intentions. We also tested for the moderating role of followers’ behavior and indirect effects via leaders’ evaluations of followers. We employed the narcissistic admiration and rivalry concept (NARC) to distinguish between adaptive and maladaptive dimensions of grandiose narcissism and found that the maladaptive dimension, narcissistic rivalry, predicted abusive supervision intentions. This effect was strongest when followers behaved dominantly. Finally, we found preliminary evidence that leaders’ evaluations of followers’ likeability, but not of followers’ competence, mediated the relationship between leaders’ narcissistic rivalry and abusive supervision intentions. These indirect effects were not conditional on followers’ behavior. We discuss these findings in light of theoretical and practical implications for individuals and organizations.

Impacts of Stress and Well-Being on Organizations and Societies: A Global Perspective

Chapter

Feb 2023

In this Cambridge Companion, global thought leaders in the fields of workplace stress and well-being highlight how theory and research can improve employee health and well-being. The volume explains how and why the topics of workplace stress and well-being have evolved and continue to be highly relevant, and why line managers have great influence over employees' quality of working life. It includes the latest research findings on stress and well-being and their impact on organizations, as well as up-to-date findings on the effectiveness of workplace interventions focused on these issues. It also explores important and emerging issues relating to organizational stress and well-being, including the ongoing effects of the global coronavirus pandemic. This is an ideal reference for students and researchers in the areas of human resources management, occupational health psychology and organisational behavior.

Supportive supervisor behavior and helping behaviors in the hotel sector: assessing the mediating effect of employee engagement and moderating influence of perceived organizational obstruction

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2023
CURR PSYCHOL

While emerging studies pay much attention to the supervisory support–employee performance relationship, the supportive supervisor consequences on employees’ attitudes and behaviors have attracted little attention in this relationship. In spite of the growing concern about employees’ helping behaviors as a tool that directly benefit coworkers to be work-role focused and improve performance, supportive supervisor behavior that represents the psychological, physical, cognitive, and esteem assistance has also been deemed to be a catalyst of employees’ helping behaviors. Also, it is worth noting that employees exhibit helping behaviors when they are highly engaged in work role focus, activation, and positive affect. However, little has been espoused on how supportive behaviors could enhance employees’ loyalty to spark helping behaviors. Owing to this narrative, this study draws on social exchange theory and reciprocity norm to examine the mediating role of employee engagement in the effects of supportive supervisor behavior on hotel employees’ helping behaviors. Also, this study examined the boundary role of perceived organizational obstruction based on perceived organizational support as proposed by organizational support theory. Using a time lag of six months, a two-wave data were gathered from 461 full‒time frontline employees working in 3–5 star hotels in Ghana. Hierarchical regression was used to analyze the hypothesized relationships. The results demonstrated that supportive supervisor behavior positively related to employees’ helping behaviors. Besides, intellectual, social, and affective engagement partly mediated the relationship between supportive manager behavior and employees’ helping behavior. Moreover, perceived organizational obstruction moderated the relationship between intellectual engagement and employees’ helping behavior. However, failed to moderate social and affective engagement relationships with employees’ helping behaviors.

Abusive supervision and emotional labour on a daily Basis:The role of employee mindfulness

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023
TOURISM MANAGE

This study examined the relationships between abusive supervision, subordinates' work engagement and their emotional labour on a daily basis. Based on an experience sampling study of 95 frontline hospitality employees over 10 working days, the results revealed the complex consequences of abusive supervision on subordinates in the hospitality industry. The results showed that daily abusive supervision was positively related to employees' daily surface acting through their daily work engagement, but it was not significantly related to daily deep acting. In addition, subordinates' mindfulness moderated the relationship between daily abusive supervision and subordinates' daily work engagement. These findings reveal employees’ daily responses to abusive supervision and can help tourism and hospitality managers develop relevant training programmes and policies to reduce the negative impact of abusive supervision and thus protect employee well-being.

Identifying the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational members’ deviant behavior, in-role behavior and work–life balance

Article

Oct 2022
Ind Commerc Train

Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships among abusive supervision, in-role behavior, career commitment and work–life balance. Design/methodology/approach The data were collected from 310 South Korean company employees using the survey method. To investigate the research hypotheses, structural equation modeling analysis was conducted. Findings This study found negative effects of abusive supervision on in-role behavior, career commitment and work–life balance. Career commitment and work–life balance has the positive influences on in-role behavior. These results support the research hypotheses. Research limitations/implications Although this study empirically confirmed the negative effects of abusive supervision on employees’ attitudes toward their careers, lives and working behavior, the influence of cultural aspects was not considered. This study found mediating effects of work–life balance and career commitment. Practical implications This study points out that one leader with abusive supervision can negate all organizational efforts aimed at employees’ well-being because the influence of leaders on employees’ careers, lives and working behavior is very critical. Originality/value This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of the relationships between abusive supervision and other related variables from a human resource development perspective.

Does Our Employee Assistance Program Cover Voodoo Dolls? A Cry for Help on Behalf of Those Affected by Abusive Supervision

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2022
GROUP ORGAN MANAGE

Consistent with the goals of a GOMusing to “refresh” readers’ minds about a topic, challenge readers to re-examine their assumptions about a topic, and/or spark a needed debate about a topic, we (1) provide a refresher on abusive supervision and the severity of its consequences, (2) acknowledge the wealth of research on its antecedents and moderators while highlighting the lack of applied research on successful interventions, and (3) encourage new research perspectives and methods to move the field forward. Our ultimate goal is to galvanize scholars to use existing knowledge as a basis to develop, test, and validate successful prevention and intervention strategies for organizations and individuals to deal with abusive supervision. As you might suspect from the title, we also hope to do all this with a bit of humor and a lot of compassion.

The Mediating role of perceptions of abusive supervision in the relationship between personality and aggression

Data

Full-text available

Oct 2015

This study examines whether subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision mediate the relationship between subordinate personality and aggression. Results from a cross-organizational sample of 411 working adults suggest that subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision account for some of the variance in the relationships between subordinate Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, Extraversion, and subordinate aggression. This study suggests that social-information processing and perceptions of control found within subordinates’ personality influences whether they are more or less likely to perceive supervisory abuse. Perceptions of supervisory abuse were associated with aggression.

Contemplating Mindfulness at Work: An Integrative Review

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2016

Mindfulness research activity is surging within organizational science. Emerging evidence across multiple fields suggests that mindfulness is fundamentally connected to many aspects of workplace functioning, but this knowledge base has not been systematically integrated to date. This review coalesces the burgeoning body of mindfulness scholarship into a framework to guide mainstream management research investigating a broad range of constructs. The framework identifies how mindfulness influences attention, with downstream effects on functional domains of cognition, emotion, behavior, and physiology. Ultimately these domains impact key workplace outcomes, including performance, relationships, and well-being. Consideration of the evidence on mindfulness at work stimulates important questions and challenges key assumptions within management science, generating an agenda for future research.

Abusive Supervision: A Meta-Analysis and Empirical Review

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2017

We conducted a meta-analysis and empirical review of abusive supervision research in order to derive meta-analytic population estimates for the relationships between perceptions of abusive supervision and numerous demographic, justice, individual difference, leadership, and outcome variables. The use of psychometric correction enabled us to provide weighted mean correlations and population correlation estimates that accounted for attenuation due to measurement error and sampling error variance. Also, we conducted sensitivity analyses that removed the effects of large samples from analyses. Then, we conducted subgroup analyses using samples drawn from the United States to provide population correlation estimates that corrected for attenuation due to measurement error, sampling error variance, and indirect range restriction. Finally, we examined measurement artifacts resulting from various adaptations of Tepper’s abusive supervision measure. The results reveal that although the associations between perceptions of abusive supervision and outcome variables appear to be universally negative, the magnitude of the relationships between perceptions of abusive supervision and antecedent and outcome variables varies according to the design features of studies. Contributions to theory and practice, strengths and limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.

Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature

Article

Aug 2002

The authors reviewed more than 70 studies concerning employees' general belief that their work organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being (perceived organizational support; POS). A meta-analysis indicated that 3 major categories of beneficial treatment received by employees (i.e., fairness, supervisor support, and organizational rewards and favorable job conditions) were associated with POS. POS, in turn, was related to outcomes favorable to employees (e.g., job satisfaction, positive mood) and the organization (e.g., affective commitment, performance, and lessened withdrawal behavior). These relationships depended on processes assumed by organizational support theory: employees' belief that the organization's actions were discretionary, feeling of obligation to aid the organization, fulfillment of socioemotional needs, and performance-reward expectancies.

On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure

Article

Jun 2001

J.A. Colquitt

This study explores the dimensionality of organizational justice and provides evidence of construct validity for a new justice measure. Items for this measure were generated by strictly following the seminal works in the justice literature. The measure was then validated in 2 separate studies. Study 1 occurred in a university setting, and Study 2 occurred in a field setting using employees in an automobile parts manufacturing company. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a 4-factor structure to the measure, with distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice as distinct dimensions. This solution fit the data significantly better than a 2- or 3-factor solution using larger interactional or procedural dimensions. Structural equation modeling also demonstrated predictive validity for the justice dimensions on important outcomes, including leader evaluation, rule compliance, commitment, and helping behavior.

Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research

Article

Jun 2001

The field of organizational justice continues to be marked by several important research questions, including the size of relationships among justice dimensions, the relative importance of different justice criteria, and the unique effects of justice dimensions on key outcomes. To address such questions, the authors conducted a meta-analytic review of 183 justice studies. The results suggest that although different justice dimensions are moderately to highly related, they contribute incremental variance explained in fairness perceptions. The results also illustrate the overall and unique relationships among distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice and several organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, evaluation of authority, organizational citizenship behavior, withdrawal, performance). These findings are reviewed in terms of their implications for future research on organizational justice.

Family-Responsive Interventions, Perceived Organizational and Supervisor Support, Work-Family Conflict, and Psychological Strain

Chapter

Jan 2013

With the increased representation of women in the labor market and an associated growth in the proportion of dual-earner families, individuals and organizations in many countries are confronted with the challenge of managing the balance between work, family, and personal life (Aryee, Fields, & Luk, 1999; Boyar, Maertz, Pearson, & Keough, 2003; Elloy & Smith, 2003). This challenge has been discussed in the literature for over 20 years, and many organizations have put in place initiatives to assist their employees in maintaining a balance between work and family lives (Frone, 2003). These interventions are generally aimed at facilitating flexibility and supporting employees with child care, although recently elder care support also has received some attention. Numerous strategies have been implemented by organizations to alleviate the negative impact of interference between work and family commitments and responsibilities, which is typically referred to as work-family conflict (Frone, 2003). However, there is a paucity of empirical research examining the effects of organizational policies and initiatives on employees, and especially the mechanisms by which these practices influence employee psychological well-being.

Subordinate Performance and Abusive Supervision: the Role of Envy and Anger

Article

Jan 2015

This study focuses on the relationships among subordinate’s performance, supervisor’s envy and anger, and abusive supervision. Specifically, we draw on the “trigger – emotions – behavior” chain and posit that a subordinate’s high performance provokes supervisor’s envy while low performance provokes supervisor’s anger. We argue that if a supervisor is in a prolonged and consistent state of these emotions, abusive supervision would evoke, which is viewed as a behavioral reflection of supervisor’s emotions. Furthermore, we propose that self-control moderates the relationship between supervisor’s emotions and abusive behaviors. The relationship would be weaker for supervisors who have stronger emotional control. Two studies were conducted to test our hypotheses. In study 1, an online experimental design was conducted to test whether subordinate’s high performance triggers supervisor’s envy while low performance triggers anger. In study 2, a two-wave survey with 357 supervisor-subordinate dyads was used to test the whole model. Path-analytic results suggest that subordinate’s performance evokes supervisor’s envy/anger and that anger leads to abusive supervision irrespective of self-control while the effect of envy on abusive supervision was buffered by self-control.

Tyrants and workplace bullying

Article

Jan 2007

Evaluating Training Programs: The State of the Art

Article

Jan 1968
Train Dev J

Defeating abusive supervision: Training supervisors to support subordinates

Abstract and Figures

Recommendations

The Bright Side of Work - Promoting resources and well-being at work

Respect in the Workplace

When stressors make you work

WorkLifeDiary

Training social workers to evaluate practice

A review of abusive supervision research

A review of abusive supervision research

Propensity to Perceive Abusive Supervision: Development of an Affective Trait-Based Measure

Supervision, Abusive