Suffering in silence: Investigating the role of fear in the relationship between abusive supervision and defensive silence.

Abstract

Drawing from an approach-avoidance perspective, we examine the relationships between subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervision, fear, defensive silence, and ultimately abusive supervision at a later time point. We also account for the effects of subordinates' assertiveness and individual perceptions of a climate of fear on these predicted mediated relationships. We test this moderated mediation model with data from three studies involving different sources collected across various measurement periods. Results corroborated our predictions by showing (a) a significant association between abusive supervision and subordinates' fear, (b) second-stage moderation effects of subordinates' assertiveness and their individual perceptions of a climate of fear in the abusive supervision-fear-defensive silence relationship (with lower assertiveness and higher levels of climate-of-fear perceptions exacerbating the detrimental effects of fear resulting from abusive supervision), and (c) first-stage moderation effects of subordinates' assertiveness and climate-of-fear perceptions in a model linking fear to defensive silence and abusive supervision at a later time. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Just keep silent… Defensive silence as a reaction to successive structural reforms

“…Not only can a message itself be controversial or potentially damaging, an employee's relationship with his/her supervisors and risks of being sanctioned are also likely determinants of an individual's inclination towards a defensive silence strategy (Vakola and Bouradas 2005;Wang and Hsieh 2013;Bommer and Jalajas 1999;Rhee, Dedahanov, and Lee 2014). Power asymmetries and perceptions thereof play an important role in this regard, as individuals with less power require the resources and support of their superiors, ensuring that the former will be sensitive to the latter's signals (Kiewitz et al 2016). However, this is not to say that defensive silence only manifests itself in relationships between supervisors and subordinates.…”

“…Moreover, the broader organizational environment, encompassing aspects such as the degree to which participation and proactive behaviors are encouraged, as well as the degree to which individuals generally feel safe to speak up are likely to contribute to overall levels of defensive silence in an organization (Premeaux and Bedeian 2003;Walumbwa and Schaubroeck 2009;Wang and Hsieh 2013). This is reinforced by the social cues within an organization, which inform individuals as to whether speaking up on a certain topic at a certain time is appropriate (Wang and Hsieh 2013;Hassan 2015;Kiewitz et al 2016). These cues and environments may themselves be embedded in longer-term organizational cultures, in which norms such as following instructions from superiors are passed on from employee to employee (Damanpour 1991).…”

“…Moreover, when structural reforms are frequently imposed, cues to remain quiet should become recurrent. This may be reflected in heightened levels of defensive silence observed after sequences of reform, as well as a gradual internalization of defensive silence as an appropriate and normal form of behavior through social cues within the organization (Wang and Hsieh 2013;Hassan 2015;Kiewitz et al 2016). These various processes should in turn manifest themselves in the degree to which employees report issues and problems that may create some degree of controversy among their superiors or peers.…”

The Relevance of Discrete Emotional Experiences for Human Resource Management: Connecting Positive and Negative Emotions to HRM

“…connecting discrete emotional experiences to systems and practices of hRm is interesting and useful for a number of reasons. organizational behavior literature has seen the relatively recent addition of research examining discrete emotions with respect to attitudes and behavior relevant to hRm policies and practices (e.g., Johnson & connelly, 2014;Kiewitz, Restubog, shoss, garcia, & Tang, 2016;michie, 2009). This shift in focus away from general affective trait variables (e.g., mood and positive and negative affectivity) toward specific emotional states such as pride, anger, guilt, interest, fear, anger, and hope/optimism suggests there is value to understanding the nature and effects of specific feeling states in the workplace.…”

The “Evil Pleasure”: Abusive Supervision and Third-Party Observers’ Malicious Reactions Toward Victims

“…Abusive supervision, defined as supervisors' sustained display of verbal or non-verbal hostility toward followers (Tepper 2000), tends to undermine followers' well-being and harm their performance (Mackey et al 2017). Although research has begun to explain how employees can shield and protect themselves from the destructive forces of abusive supervision (e.g., Nandkeolyar et al 2014, Kiewitz et al 2016, Wee et al 2017, we know relatively little about how third-party observers react to abusive supervision . Several theoretical perspectives within the justice literature have focused on third parties' justice concerns and judgement in determining their reactions to victims' experienced injustice.…”