Abusive Supervision in Advising Relationships: Investigating the Role of Social Support

Abstract

The present study examines the consequences of abusive supervision in an educational setting. The study contrasts the cross-domain stress-buffering hypothesis with the within-domain stress exacerbation hypothesis in examining the moderating role of advisor and team member support on the relationship between abusive supervision and student outcomes in student-advisor relationships. Using a temporal research design, results provided support for both hypotheses. In support of the stress exacerbation hypothesis, in the presence of high advisor support, there was a significant positive relationship between abusive supervision and anxiety, and a significant negative association between abusive supervision and psychological well-being. Consistent with the stress-buffering hypothesis, in the presence of high team member support, there was a negligible association between abusive supervision and satisfaction and anxiety.Ce travail s'intéresse aux conséquences d'un contrôle excessif dans un contexte de formation. On oppose l'hypothèse d'un stress atténué, mais généralisé, avec celle d'un stress exacerbé dans un domaine spécifique en examinant le rôle régulateur du soutien du conseiller pédagogique et des membres du groupe sur

Envy As Pain: Rethinking the Nature of Envy and Its Implications for Employees and Organizations

“…However, we argue that the strength of the effect of each action tendency on behavior depends on individual and situational factors. Thus, our model allows for both action tendencies to operate in tandem and for the possibility that envy's consequences may entail behavior traditionally viewed as malicious, behavior traditionally viewed as benign, and in many instances some combination of the two (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002;Hobman, Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2009).…”

A Step towards Distinction between Supervisory Impulsive and Strategic Abuse

“…Such conflicting perceptions create tension and strain (Festinger, 1957;Harmon-Jones, 1999). The concept of social support is quite distinct from abusive supervision, as it supports development of positive relationships while abusive supervision causes negative behaviours (Hobman et al, 2009;Tepper, 2000). To validate this argument, it is worthwhile to mention the study of supervisory undermining conducted by E. Duffy, Michelle, Ganster, and Pagon (2002) in which they found that social support is distinct from supervisory undermining, while the concept of supervisory undermining is closely linked with abusive supervision (Tepper, 2007).…”

“…It includes support from a variety of people, e.g., spouse, sibling, friends, peers, supervisors, and neighbours, etc. (Hobman et al, 2009;LaRocco & Jones, 1978). However Arnault (2002) defined social support a bit differently, and linked it with cultural understandings that shape it according to the need, situations/circumstances and the people who need it.…”

“…In such severe situations, the subordinate might be in need of some social support, e.g., organisational support, peer support, supervisory support, spouse support etc (Hobman et al, 2009;LaRocco, House, & French Jr, 1980;LaRocco & Jones, 1978) to cope with abusive supervision at work. Hence Festinger (1957) cognitive dissonance theory supports and identifies the factor and reason for supervisory behaviour to be abusive towards subordinates.…”

“…Interpersonal relationships have a strong effects on an individual's psychological well-being (Hobman et al, 2009) and plays an especially significant role in poor relationships between supervisors and subordinates. They argued that where there is high supervisory support, there exists a positive relationship between abusive supervision and anxiety, while negative support for abusive supervision and self-esteem and psychological well-being.…”