When Does Abusive Supervision Affect Job Performance Positively?

Abstract

By combining the Job Demand-Resources model with Arnold's action sequence as the overall logic, this study explores the connections between abusive supervision and job performance. Participants and Methods: This study employed two-point surveys, with 474 valid responses, to reduce the risk of common method bias. On this basis, confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the reliability and validity of data, and Smart-PLS was used to test the hypotheses. Results: Our findings suggest that abusive supervision has a significant positive impact on job performance. Furthermore, challenge stressors and innovative work behavior partially mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and job performance, and these two factors also form a chain mediating effect. Leader-member exchange moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and job performance, as higher levels of leader-member exchange are associated with a stronger positive effect of abusive supervision on job performance. Practical Implications: This study provides insights to managers about the link between abusive supervision and employee performance. In addition, it recommends that leaders at all levels adopt abusive supervision when they can properly consider a specific employee's perception of the reasons for their behavior and must consider the previous inclusion in the manager's circle of members, as well as the link between the challenging pressures they face and innovative work behavior to deal with such management behaviors. Originality: Most research on abusive management has focused on its negative effects on employee performance. This study, by contrast, explores whether there are positive impacts from abusive management and when such positive effects will occur.

The Intuitive and Counterintuitive Effects of Supportive and Abusive Supervision on Hotel Employees

“…Finally, the empirical evidence in support of the whiplash effect (Yu & Duffy, 2021) indicates that abusive supervisors, who simultaneously display supportive behaviors, are more likely to be perceived as a motivator by the subordinate and thus will elicit from the subordinate discretionary, extra-role behaviors that benefit the supervisor (OCBI). At face value, these results are consistent with the Tepper (2007) delineation of abusive supervision and the notion forwarded by Ferris and colleagues (2007) that abusive supervision is a type of destructive management style that may be adopted as a strategic approach to change subordinates' behavior and to produce positive consequences (also see Li et al, 2022 concerning the potential positive effects of abusive supervision on positive subordinate behavioral outcomes). However, our findings also illuminate the costs of abusive supervision as it pertains to the diminished psychological well-being (higher job stress and job anxiety) of subordinates.…”

“…As shown in previous studies, abusive supervision does not invariably elicit undesirable behaviors (e.g., supervisordirected deviance); it may also generate desirable ones (e.g., supervisor-directed OCB) (Li et al, 2022;Yu & Duffy, 2021). This is because supervisor abusive behaviors are sometimes perceived by their subordinates as means to motivate them to work hard and to reduce mistakes in their work and to promote their performance (see Ferris et al, 2007;Isaacson, 2012;Li et al, 2022) and is dubbed the whiplash effect; i.e., "abusive supervisors can be seemingly appreciated and motivational" (Yu & Duffy, 2021, p. 754). The whiplash effect (Yu & Duffy, 2021) forwards the notion that whether abusive supervision leads to deviant behavior or organizational citizenship behavior depends on how the subordinate attributes motivation of the abuser.…”

“…The whiplash effect (Yu & Duffy, 2021) forwards the notion that whether abusive supervision leads to deviant behavior or organizational citizenship behavior depends on how the subordinate attributes motivation of the abuser. If the subordinate attributes the motive as a "tough love" approach to drive (augment) their work performance (Bies et al, 2016;Isaacson, 2012), they would assume that the abuse is caused by their own subpar performance, which leads to guilt (Tangney et al, 2007), and in turn, counterintuitively, induce positive, discretionary, extra-role behaviors directed at the abuser (see Li et al, 2022;Yu & Duffy, 2021) such as OCBI.…”

“…Given that the current study's sampled subordinatesupervisor dyads are composed of subordinate Chinese hospitality workers who are accustomed to high-power distance and are more abuse tolerant and are therefore more likely to interpret abusive supervision as "tough love" and respond by displaying OCBI (see Li et al, 2022;Yu et al, 2020). Consequently, we propose that the combination of subordinate PSS and perceived abusive supervision, instead of projecting an inconsistent signal or seen as inconsistent supervisor behaviors as forwarded by the within-domain exasperation hypothesis (see Chénard-Poirier et al, 2022;Duffy et al, 2002;Lian et al, 2012), will instead as forwarded by the whiplash effect (see Yu & Duffy, 2021) be seen as consistent supervisor behaviors that are oriented toward motivating and enhancing subordinate work performance (see Ferris et al, 2007;Isaacson, 2012;Li et al, 2022;Yu & Duffy, 2021), which we posit will elicit greater subordinate (supervisor-rated) OCBI than either subordinate PSS or subordinate perceived abusive supervision alone. Thus, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 6 (H6): Subordinate PSS will moderate the negative relationship between perceived abusive supervision and subordinate (supervisor-rated) OCBI such that when subordinate PSS is high (vs. low), the relationship between perceived abusive supervision and subordinate (supervisor-rated) OCBI becomes positive (vs. remains negative).…”

Social Capital—Can It Weaken the Influence of Abusive Supervision on Employee Behavior?

“…Such managers often think that the employment of pressure management can stimulate the potential of employees, motivate them, and improve their ability to resist pressure. They believe that the direct high-pressure management method is effective for employees [6]. However, can this stressor stimulate employee potential to improve performance?…”