ARTICLE

ABUSIVE SUPERVISION GROUPLEVEL PERCEPTION AND RETALIATION

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

47 Pages : 494- 503

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2020(V-II).47      10.31703/gssr.2020(V-II).47      Published : Jun 2

Abusive Supervision: Group-Level Perception and Retaliation

Abstract

    Prior research provides various views on subordinates' workplace deviated behavior as retaliation against supervisory abuse, the effect of abusive supervision (AS) on subordinates as a group and their interpersonal relations gets poor attention. Grounded on the social exchange theory, the present study presents a model where a group of subordinates exhibits seemingly opposite discretionary behaviors in integration to combat supervisory abuse. In particular, this study posits that subordinates who experience abuse from the same supervisor form a group. This group bond provides them with enough power to involve in deviant behavior against their supervisor and supervisor's favored coworkers. Multiple source data were collected, and linear hierarchal regression in addition to process macro methodology was used for data analysis. Findings support the mediation hypotheses partially.

    Abusive Supervision, Prosocial Work Behaviors, Deviant Work Behaviors

    (1) Farah Samreen
    Assistant Professor, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
    (2) Sadaf Nagi
    Lecturer, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • Aquino, K., & DouglaS, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 195-208
  • Arain, G. A., Bukhari, S., Khan, A. K., & Hameed, I. (2018). The impact of AS on subordinates' feedback avoidance and subsequent help-seeking behaviour: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-16.
  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(2), 278- 321.
  • Dalal, R. S. (2005). A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Prosocial behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255.
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research, 18(3), 382-388.
  • Samreen, F., Rashid, M. A., & Hussain, G. (2019). Effect of AS on subordinates' discretionary behaviors. Journal of Management and Organization, 2019(57),1-16
  • Gong, Y., Chang, S., & Cheung, S. Y. (2010). High performance work system and collective PSBS: A collective social exchange perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 20(2), 119- 137. http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com
  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological review, 25(2), 161-178.
  • Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., Harris, R. B., & Cast, M. (2013). An investigation of ABS, vicarious ABS, and their joint impacts. The Journal of social psychology, 153(1), 38- 50.
  • Hung, T. K., Chi, N. W., & Lu, W. L. (2009). Exploring the relationships between perceived coworker loafing and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating role of a revenge motive. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(3), 257-270.
  • Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., Prosser, M., & Cameron, J. E. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior as protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 18-2
  • Liu, X. Y., & Wang, J. (2013). ABS and organizational citizenship behaviour: is supervisor-subordinate guanxi a mediator? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(7), 1471- 1489.
  • Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader- Member exchange (LMX) and performance: A Meta-Analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67-121
  • Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of ABS research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S120-S137.
  • Merritt, A. C., Effron, D.A. & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and personality psychology compass, 4(5), 344-357.
  • Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). AS and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159-1168.
  • Peng, A. C., Schaubroeck, J. M., & Li, Y. (2014). Social exchange implications of own and co-workers' experiences of supervisory abuse. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1385-1405.
  • Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate behavioral research, 42(1), 185-227.
  • Priesemuth, M., Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Folger, R. (2014). AS climate: A multiple-mediation model of its impact on group outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1513-1534.
  • Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers AS agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource management journal, 17(1), 3-20.
  • Robbins, Judge, & Vohra. (2011). Organizational Behavior. New Delhi: Pearson Publication Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International journal of selection and ASsessment, 10(1-2), 5-11.
  • Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors:Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International journal of selection and assessment, 10(1-2), 5-11.
  • Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of educational research, 99(6), 323-338.
  • Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management review, 25(1), 43-62.
  • Skarlicki, D. P., & Rupp, D. E. (2010). Dual processing and organizational justice: The role of rational versus experiential processing in third-party reactions to workplace mistreatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 944.
  • Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource management review,12(2), 269- 292.
  • Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. S. (2007). Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 952-966.
  • Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90-106.

Cite this article

APA

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Samreen, Farah, and Sadaf Nagi. 2020. "Abusive Supervision: Group-Level Perception and Retaliation." Global Social Sciences Review, V (II): 494- 503 doi: 10.31703/gssr.2020(V-II).47

HARVARD

    HARVARD : SAMREEN, F. & NAGI, S. 2020. Abusive Supervision: Group-Level Perception and Retaliation. Global Social Sciences Review, V, 494- 503.

MHRA

    MHRA : Samreen, Farah, and Sadaf Nagi. 2020. "Abusive Supervision: Group-Level Perception and Retaliation." Global Social Sciences Review, V: 494- 503

MLA

    MLA : Samreen, Farah, and Sadaf Nagi. "Abusive Supervision: Group-Level Perception and Retaliation." Global Social Sciences Review, V.II (2020): 494- 503 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Samreen, Farah and Nagi, Sadaf (2020), "Abusive Supervision: Group-Level Perception and Retaliation", Global Social Sciences Review, V (II), 494- 503

TURABIAN