Consequences of Abusive Supervision

Consequences of Abusive Supervision Author(s): Bennett J. Tepper Reviewed work(s): Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 178-190 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1556375 . Accessed: 28/11/2012 21:53 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Journal. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:53:22 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ? Academy of Management Journal 2000, Vol. 43, No. 2, 178-190. CONSEQUENCES OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION BENNETT J. TEPPER University of Kentucky Drawing on justice theory, I examined the consequences of abusive supervisor behav- ior. As expected, subordinates who perceived their supervisors were more abusive were more likely to quit their jobs. For subordinates who remained with their jobs, abusive supervision was associated with lower job and life satisfaction, lower norma- tive and affective commitment, and higher continuance commitment, conflict between work and family, and psychological distress. Organizational justice mediated most of these effects, and job mobility moderated some of the deleterious effects of abusive supervision. What did I tell you the first day? Your thoughts are nothing; you are nothing ... if you were in my toilet bowl I wouldn't bother flushing it. My bath mat means more to me than you ... you don't like it here, leave! You see this watch? That watch costs more than your car. I made $970,000 last year, how much did you make? You see pal, that's who I am, and you're nothing. Nice guy? I don't give a ####. Good father? #### you, go home and play with your kids . . . you think this is abuse, you ####? You don't like it? Leave! These excerpts from the dialogue in two films, the first George Huang's 1994 Swimming with Sharks, and the second David Mamet's 1984 Glen- garry Glen Ross, vividly illustrate what may be referred to as abusive supervision, a manifestation of dysfunctional workplace behavior that has cap- tured the attention of academic researchers (e.g., Bies & Tripp, 1998; Keashly, Trott, & MacLean, 1994). The notion of abusive supervision evokes images of a tyrannical boss who publicly ridicules and undermines those reporting to him or her (Ash- forth, 1994). However, despite anecdotal evidence suggesting abusive supervision is ubiquitous and has implications for subordinates' performance, at- This research was supported by a Summer Research Grant from the Gatton College of Business and Econom- ics of the University of Kentucky. The grant was made possible by a donation of funds to the College by Ashland Oil, Inc. I thank the following individuals for their assis- tance during the data collection and processing phases of the research reported in this article: Rhea Ingram, Daniel Nehring, Robert Nelson, Erica Newton, Edward Taylor, Nicole Terrain, Jackie Thompson, and Annabelle Van't Klooster. I also thank Robert Folger, Chester Schriesheim, and three anonymous AMJ reviewers for comments on earlier versions. titudes, and psychological health (Hornstein, 1996), there has been little theory-based study of the construct. Accordingly, in this research I devel- oped and tested a model of the consequences of abusive supervision. In the following sections, I identify the construct's behavioral domain and in- voke the organizational justice literature to explain the effects of abusive supervision on a variety of outcome variables. ABUSIVE SUPERVISION For this study, abusive supervision refers to sub- ordinates' perceptions of the extent to which super- visors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physi- cal contact. This definition characterizes abusive supervision as a subjective assessment. The same individual could view a supervisor's behavior as abusive in one context and as nonabusive in an- other context, and two subordinates could differ in their evaluations of the same supervisor's behavior. Like abuse directed toward intimate partners, the elderly, and children, abusive supervision can be characterized as sustained or enduring in the sense that it is likely to continue until (1) the target ter- minates the relationship, (2) the agent terminates the relationship, or (3) the agent modifies his or her behavior (Jezl, Molidor, & Wright, 1996; Shepard & Campbell, 1992). Several features of abusive rela- tionships contribute to their enduring quality. First, targets of abuse may remain in the relation- ships because they feel powerless to take corrective action, are economically dependent on the abusers, or fear the unknown associated with separation more than they fear the abuse, and they may remain because the agents often intersperse abusive behav- ior with normal behavior, in effect intermittently reinforcing the targets' hope the abuse will end (Walker, 1979). Second, because abusers often fail 178 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:53:22 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Tepper to recognize or take responsibility for their abusive behavior, few modify it, and, in many cases, even clinical intervention fails to recast such relation- ships as nonabusive (Wolfe, 1987). Bies (2000; Bies & Tripp, 1998) identified the following manifestations of abusive supervision: public criticism, loud and angry tantrums, rude- ness, inconsiderate actions, and coercion. Similar themes appear in Ashforth's (1994) description of organizational "petty tyranny," Neuman and Bar- on's (1997) examples of nonphysical workplace ag- gression, and Robinson and Bennett's (1995) typol- ogy of deviant organizational behavior. However, although abusive supervision shares conceptual overlap with these constructs, there are meaningful distinctions that warrant treating abusive supervi- sion as a separate construct. For example, Ash- forth's (1994: 757) conceptual and operational def- initions of petty tyranny capture management practices that may or may not involve hostility (for example, "uses authority or position for personal gain," "administers organizational policies unfair- ly," and "discourages initiative"). Second, diverg- ing from Neuman and Baron's (1997) characteriza- tion of aggression as behaviors designed to cause harm, abusive supervision refers to behaviors that reflect indifference (for example, speaking rudely to subordinates in order to elicit desired task per- formance), as well as willful hostility (publicly be- littling subordinates in order to hurt their feelings). Finally, abusive supervision may not be deviant if it conforms with an organization's policies or norms; examples of such conformity are addressed below. A few systematic studies have investigated the effects of behavior akin to abusive supervision. Ashforth (1997) found that tyrannical supervision (which included belittling subordinates, displaying little consideration, and using noncontingent pun- ishment) was associated with frustration, helpless- ness, and alienation from work. Keashly and col- leagues (1994) found that nonphysical abuse occurred more frequently than physical violence like throwing things, punching, or threatening with a weapon and that individuals who experienced more supervisory abuse were less satisfied with their jobs. Studies of medical students and resi- dents suggest abusive supervision is associated with dissatisfaction and elevated levels of psycho- logical distress (Richman, Flaherty, Rospenda, & Christensen, 1992; Sheehan, Sheehan, White, Lei- bowitz, & Baldwin, 1990). Taken together, these studies suggest nonphysical, abusive supervisor be- haviors negatively influence subordinates' work- related attitudes and psychological health (Duffy, A Justice-Based Model of Subordinates' Responses to Abusive Supervision According to justice theory, individuals' evalua- tive assessments of fairness draw on perceptions of distributive justice (fairness of outcome allocation), procedural justice (fairness of the procedures used to make allocation decisions), and interactional jus- tice (fairness of the interpersonal treatment indi- viduals receive during the enactment of proce- dures). I expected that the degree to which supervisors engaged in abusive behavior would af- fect subordinates' perceptions of organizational justice, which would, in turn, affect their decisions to quit, job satisfaction, life satisfaction, organiza- tional commitment, conflict between work and family life, and psychological distress. I further expected that perceived mobility-the extent to which employees feel they have attractive employ- ment alternatives-would moderate the effects of abusive supervision. More specifically, I expected the effects of abusive supervision would be more pronounced for individuals who have less mobil- ity. Interactional justice. Interactional justice is par- ticularly relevant to this analysis because it reflects the interpersonal dimension of fairness (Bies, 2000). According to Bies and Moag (1986), individ- uals experience interactional injustice when orga- nizational representatives fail to treat them with respect, honesty, propriety, and sensitivity to their personal needs. Contextual factors influence whether or not subordinates experience unfairness when they are the targets of behaviors that fit the present definition of abusive supervision; as Bies and Moag stated, "A person may hold a criterion such as personal respect inviolable . .. however, if rudeness is seen as an expected part of the proce- dure itself, as in a stress interview, then it may not be perceived as unfair because there is an instru- mental purpose to its occurrence" (1986: 51). Sim- ilarly, a drill instructor may be expected to use verbal battery and degradation as part of the pro- cess of divesting military recruits of the values they held prior to boot camp (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Nevertheless, beyond a narrow range of con- texts in which hostility may be tolerated, individ- uals expect others, especially those of higher status, to be aware of communicative acts that constitute face threats, actions that threaten one's social image and self-image (Goffman, 1967). Consistent with this notion is Mikula, Petri, and Tanzer's (1990) inductively derived typology of everyday experi- ences of injustice, which emphasizes interactional concerns and includes several categories of behav- Ganster, & Pagon, 1998). 2000 179 ior directly relevant to the present focus on abusive This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:53:22 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Academy of Management Journal supervision (such as unfriendliness and impolite- ness on the part of authority figures). Consequently, subordinates should experience interactional injus- tice when their supervisors are more abusive. Procedural justice. Subordinates who experi- ence long-term abusive supervision may conclude that their organization has not done an adequate job of developing or enforcing procedures that disci- pline abusers or protect targets of abuse. These conclusions might imply that one or more of the procedural justice rules Leventhal (1980) described has been violated; these rules are that organiza- tional procedures should be consistent across peo- ple and over time, not be biased by self-interest, be based on accurate information, include provisions for appeal, and reflect the concerns and ethical system of those affected. For example, the bias sup- pression and ethicality rules would be violated if subordinates believed their organization was un- willing to discipline an abusive but high-perform- ing manager out of fear that the bottom line would be negatively affected. The accuracy rule would be violated if subordinates believed that organiza- tional representatives had not done a good job of collecting the information necessary to adequately monitor or document supervisory behaviors that might warrant disciplinary action. Consequently, subordinates should experience procedural injus- tice when their supervisors are more abusive. Distributive justice. Theories of distributive jus- tice suggest individuals make fairness judgments when they compare their inputs and outcomes with those of a referent (Adams & Freedman, 1976). Sub- ordinates of abusive supervisors may experience what Martin (1981) referred to as relative depriva- tion: the belief that they are getting less than they deserve compared to target referents. For example, subordinates of abusive supervisors may feel dis- advantaged compared to peers if their supervisors spend more time berating them than providing the mentoring functions that prepare junior colleagues for advancement (Tepper, 1995). Abusive supervi- sion may also influence subordinates' perceptions of the inputs that figure in their evaluations of distributive justice. For example, subordinates of abusive supervisors may have to overcome obsta- cles that increase the time and effort required to fulfill their responsibilities; for instance, gathering needed information from a superior who is more inclined to provide criticism than constructive feedback will take longer. In addition, because peo- ple are likely to see unfair procedures as producing unfair outcomes-a phenomenon known as the fair process effect (Greenberg, 1990)-the procedural injustices subordinates of abusive supervisors ex- in the perception that their outcomes are not as favorable as those of subordinates who do not have abusive supervisors. Given these possibilities, sub- ordinates should experience distributive injustice when their supervisors are more abusive. Mediating Effects of Organizational Justice Workplace injustices cause frustration, threaten employees' self- and social images, and, in some circumstances, produce moral outrage (Greenberg, 1990). Hence, just as the injustices associated with drug-testing programs (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991), selection systems (Gilliland, 1994), pay raise decisions (Folger & Konovsky, 1989), and other or- ganizational phenomena foster job dissatisfaction and voluntary turnover (see Aquino, Griffeth, Allen, & Hom, 1997), the perceived injustices re- sulting from abusive supervision are likely to translate into dislike for a job and to prompt a subordinate to seek out and obtain alternative em- ployment. In addition, because for most people, work plays a significant role in terms of time, emo- tional involvement, fulfillment, and self-esteem (Judge, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1994), I expected that the perceived injustices produced by negative work experiences like abusive supervision would trans- late into dissatisfaction with life. These arguments suggest the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. Subordinates' justice percep- tions will mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and their voluntarily leav- ing their jobs. Hypothesis 2. Subordinates' justice percep- tions will mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and their job satisfaction. Hypothesis 3. Subordinates' justice percep- tions will mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and their life satisfaction. Economic or logistical considerations may make some individuals unwilling to quit their jobs, even if their supervisors' behavior makes those jobs un- desirable. For them, the injustices evoked by abu- sive supervision should translate into what Meyer and Allen (1991) referred to as continuance com- mitment: an attachment to an organization based primarily on need. Moreover, individuals who ex- perience injustice are likely to feel that their em- ploying organizations do not value their contribu- tions or care about their circumstances (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). These subordinates are un- likely to feel an obligation to remain with the orga- nizations (normative commitment), nor are they perience (see the preceding discussion) may result 180 April likely to develop an emotional attachment to, or a This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.228 on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:53:22 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Tepper sense of identification with, their organizations (af- fective commitment). These arguments suggest the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 4a. Subordinates' justice percep- tions will mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and their continuance commitment. Hypothesis 4b. Subordinates' justice percep- tions will mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and their normative com- mitment. Hypothesis 4c. Subordinates' justice percep- tions will mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and their affective com- mitment. Conflict between work and family is the degree to which participation in one area (work or family) is made more difficult by participating in the other (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The injustices associ- ated with abusive supervision may cause subordi- nates to be so preoccupied with work-related matters that the time they spend with their families is ad- versely affected (they experience work-to-family con- flict). In addition, abusive supervisors may try to con- vince subordinates that their familial obligations are interfering with work rather than the other way around. The excerpt from Glengarry Glen Ross at the beginning of this article, in which a malevolent supe- rior characterizes "being a good father" as incompat- ible with doing the job well, is illustrative. To the extent subordinates accept such arguments or find that performing routine family duties, such as drop- ping off and picking up their children, leaving work to care for a sick child, or participating in family functions over the weekend, triggers hostile reactions from their supervisors, they are likely to report greater family-to-work conflict. These arguments suggest the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 5a. Subordinates' justice percep- tions will mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and their work-to-family conflict. Hypothesis 5b. Subordinates' justice percep- tions will mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and their family-to-work conflict. In the justice literature, several processes by which work-related sources of injustice can under- mine individuals' sense of self-worth and engender anxiety and feelings of helplessness, or psycholog- ical distress, have been identified. For example, in clarifying the nature of inequity distress, Adams and Freedman (1976) recognized that a person's reaction to inequity could not only involve anger and a desire for restitution (the outcomes ordinarily associated with disadvantaged inequity), but could also involve damaged self-esteem when a target feels an agent's behavior constitutes a personal and intentional attack. Several more recent justice the- ories are pertinent: according to the self-interest model of procedural justice, individuals w