When research setting is important: the influence of subordinate self-esteem on reactions to abusive supervision

Burton, James P.; Hoobler, Jenny M.; Kernan, Mary C.

doi:10.1057/omj.2011.24

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The final theoretical contribution of the study is that OBSE does not have a moderation role on the relationship between abusive supervision and job alienation. The studies, which were implemented in the other industries, indicate that OBSE has a moderator role on the relationships between negative incidents and experiences confronted by employees and their behaviors (Kiazad et al, 2010;Burton et al, 2011). Unlike the previous researches, this study demonstrates that OBSE does not have a moderator role.…”

Section: Theoretical Contributionscontrasting

confidence: 69%

“…To investigate the moderating role of self-esteem between the negative behaviors that an employee is exposed to and his/her reactions to these behaviors, the Behavioral Plasticity Theory can provide a highly effective background (Pierce et al, 1993;Hui & Lee, 2000;García-Cabrera & García-Barba Hernández, 2014;Ekrot et al, 2016). Employees with low OBSE are more defenseless against the negative incidents they are exposed to and the unfavorable experiences they have in the organization (Burton et al, 2011;Vogel & Mitchell, 2017). The Behavioral Plasticity Theory (Brockner, 1983(Brockner, , 1988 claims that employees with lower self-esteem are more vulnerable and sensitive to negative incidents than the ones with higher levels of selfesteem are.…”

Section: Moderating Effect Of Obsementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Abusive Supervision on Service Sabotage: A Mediation and Moderation Analysis

Gürlek

Yeşiltaş

2020

Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research (AHTR)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of this study is to understand how abusive supervision affects service sabotage. In this context, the mediating role of job alienation was examined. In addition, other purpose of this research is to investigate whether organization-based selfesteem moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and job alienation. The study was carried out with the participation of 336 employees working in hotel companies in different regions of Turkey. It was revealed that abusive supervision impacts on job alienation and service sabotage. Moreover, the study results showed that job alienation affects service sabotage. Job alienation has a mediating role whereas organization-based self-esteem does not have a moderating role. Finally, this study contributes to the management literature by providing a cross-section on the consequences of abusive supervision.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Contributionscontrasting

confidence: 69%

Section: Moderating Effect Of Obsementioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Abusive Supervision on Service Sabotage: A Mediation and Moderation Analysis

Gürlek

Yeşiltaş

2020

Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research (AHTR)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an interesting variation on the study of the abuse–retaliation relationship Burton, Hoobler, and Kernan () examined how the research setting impacts subjects' reports of aggressive responses to abuse. Using a hypothetical scenario design, the authors found that subjects with high self‐esteem reported a strong willingness to engage in (hypothetical) aggressive responses.…”

Section: Abusive Supervision Research (2008–2012)mentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of abusive supervision research

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

“…A wide range of active (i.e., outwards directed / high energy) versus passive (i.e., more inwards directed / low energy) behaviors have been studied as being consequences of destructive forms of leadership. When it comes to active behaviors, followers have been shown to respond with aggression (Burton et al, 2011; Burton & Hoobler, 2011; Brees et al, 2014; Carleton et al, 2016; Dupré et al, 2006; Lian et al, 2014; Pradhan et al, 2019a; Richard et al, 2018), counterproductive work behavior (Akram et al, 2019; Brender-Ilan & Sheaffer, 2019; Chu, 2014; Duffy et al, 2006; Goswami et al, 2019; Ju et al, 2019; Low et al, 2019; Ogunfowora, 2013; Shoss et al, 2013; Simon et al, 2015; Watkins et al, 2019; Yang et al, 2019), deviance (Avey et al, 2015; Javed et al, 2019; Mackey et al, 2015; Mawritz et al, 2017; Rice et al, 2020a; Schmid et al, 2019; Thoroughgood et al, 2018; Valle et al, 2019; Vogel et al, 2016; Wang & Jiang, 2014), or reactance (Bligh et al, 2007; Goswami et al, 2015; Haggard & Park, 2018; Liu et al, 2010; Tepper et al, 2001). Destructive forms of leadership have also been linked with passive follower behaviors such as withdrawal (Allen et al, 2016; Chi & Liang, 2013; Huang et al, 2020; Kim et al, 2019; Mawritz et al, 2014; Wei & Si, 2013), turnover / turnover intention (Agarwal, 2019; Ogunfowora et al, 2019; Palanski et al, 2014; Pradhan et al, 2018; Ramdeo & Singh, 2019; Rice et al, 2020a; Schmid et al, 2018; Pradhan et al, 2019a;…”

Section: Leader Antecedents and Follower Consequences Of Destructive ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The hot and the cold in destructive leadership: Modeling the role of arousal in explaining leader antecedents and follower consequences of abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership

Emmerling

Peus

Lobbestael

2023

Organizational Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to its devastating consequences, research needs to theoretically and empirically disentangle different sub-types of destructive leadership. Based on concepts derived from aggression research distinguishing re- and proactive aggression, we provide a process model differentiating abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. High versus low arousal negative affect is installed as the central mediating factor determining (1) whether perceived goal-blockage (leadership antecedents) leads to abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership and (2) whether a specific leadership behavior leads to active versus passive follower behavior (leadership consequence). Further, theoretical anchoring of individual and contextual moderators onto the model's process paths is provided and exemplary hypotheses for concrete moderation effects are deduced. Based on the provided process model, we highlight four recommendations to facilitate process-based construct differentiation in future research on destructive leadership. To precisely understand the differences and commonalities in different forms of destructive leadership will ultimately enable custom-tailored inter- and prevention. Plain Language Summary Negative leadership—also named “destructive” leadership—has very bad effects on followers and organizations. There are not just one, but many forms of destructive leadership and it is important to understand where different sub-types come from (i.e., to understand their antecedents) and which specific effect they have (i.e., to understand their consequences). In this paper, we focus on better understanding two forms of destructive leadership, namely abusive supervision and exploitative leadership. These two forms are similar to the two main forms of aggression. Abusive supervision is similar to reactive aggression, an impulsive “hot blooded” form of aggression. Exploitative leadership is similar to proactive aggression, a premeditated “cold blooded” form of aggression. We explain the parallels between the two forms of aggression and the two forms of leadership and provide a model which allows to predict when one versus the other form of leadership occurs and to which follower behavior they lead. An important factor in this model is the physiological characteristic of the emotional reaction to an event (i.e., arousal). An emotional reaction can be high in arousal; for instance, anger is a high arousal negative emotional reaction. On the contrary, boredom, for instance, is a low arousal negative emotional reaction. Dependent on whether both a leader and a follower react to a negative event (e.g., not getting what they want, being treated badly by others) with high or low arousal, their behavior will be different. We explain how this mechanism works and how it can help us to better predict leaders' and followers' behavior. We also outline how individual characteristics of the leader and follower and characteristics of their environment and context interact with arousal and their behavior.

show abstract

When research setting is important: the influence of subordinate self-esteem on reactions to abusive supervision

Cited by 17 publications

References 47 publications

The Effect of Abusive Supervision on Service Sabotage: A Mediation and Moderation Analysis

The Effect of Abusive Supervision on Service Sabotage: A Mediation and Moderation Analysis

A review of abusive supervision research

The hot and the cold in destructive leadership: Modeling the role of arousal in explaining leader antecedents and follower consequences of abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About