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.

This paper reviews studies concerned with abusive supervision and provides a constructive revision of Tepper's 2007 model. As a result of our review of the recent research, we revised the 2007 Tepper model and added additional variables and casual paths to increase its explanatory potential. The model we propose distinguishes between abusive supervisory behavior and abusive supervisory perceptions, suggesting that each of these variables needs to be studied separately until we know more about how they are related. The revised model also explicitly recognizes possibilities for reverse causation and stresses the importance of subordinates' individual differences such as attribution style, negative affectivity, and implicit work theories, which have the potential to account for significant variability in subordinates' perceptions of abuse. Suggestions for future research based on the original relationships identified by the Tepper review as well as the variables and causal paths suggested in the revised model are provided. emerge as the result of our review. Next, we propose a constructive revision of the Tepper model, which addresses some of the limitations of the prior model and provides suggestions regarding the causal paths and variables that have the potential to explain significant variance in the outcomes associated with abusive supervision. We end with suggestions for future research.Before conducting our review of the recent research, we examined Tepper's (2007) review and the articles covered in his summary to make sure we understood his perspective. Although we agreed with many of his observations and recommendations, we also had some concerns about this body of research. These concerns centered around six issues. First, as noted by Tepper (2007), a majority of the data in these early studies was from single sources (usually the subordinate), and almost all of the research designs were cross-sectional. As a result, we are concerned that strong causal inferences are being made despite the limitations of these designs.Second, we are concerned that researchers appear to be assuming that commonly used abusive supervision measures are objective and reliable measures of abusive supervisory behaviors. Thus, for example, when discussing the results of his research on abusive supervision, Tepper (2000, p. 186) stated "subordinates whose supervisors were more abusive reported higher turnover, less favorable attitudes toward job, life, and organization." This would not be a problem if the statement said "subordinates whose supervisors were perceived to be more abusive" as opposed to "were more abusive," as the Tepper scale measures perceptions rather than behaviors. Third, we are concerned by the lack of validation of abusive supervision measures. We could not find any objective measure of abusive behavior that was related to Tepper's (2000) commonly used perceptual measure.Fourth, we are also concerned that researchers are ignoring plausible theoretical alternatives to the origins of perceptions of abusive supervis...

This study investigates the relationship between individual differences and the incidence of workplace aggression in a sample of employees from a transportation company and a public school system. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis indicated that measures of trait anger, attribution style, negative affectivity, attitudes toward revenge, self-control, and previous exposure to aggressive cultures accounted for 62% of the variance in the participants' self-reported incidence of workplace aggression. Further research on workplace aggression is advocated, focusing on the role of individual differences and their interactions with organizational and group-level variables.

Evidence of the process through which organizational members create and maintain desired impressions is provided by this review of social psychological and relevant management research on impression management. Propositions regarding the stimuli and the cognitive, motivational, and affective processes related to impression management and audience responses are advanced. Finally, directions forfuture research into impression management in organizational settings are suggested.

Over the past decade, there has been an increase in attention to counterproductive workplace behaviors including violence, stealing, dishonesty, volitional absenteeism, drug and alcohol abuse, and aggression, many of which have been addressed in this special issue. Accompanying the attention to these specific types of behaviors has been a proliferation of theories developed to explain, understand, and manage counterproductive behavior. While these theories have addressed many apparently divergent types of behaviors, many similarities exist between and among these various perspectives. In this article, we integrate these various perspectives into a causal reasoning framework, proposing that individuals' attributions about the causal dimensions of workplace events are a primary factor motivating both the emotions and behaviors that result in counterproductive workplace behaviors.