This study examines the effects of unit-level culture on abusive supervision. Utilizing Baumeister and colleagues' (2000) self-regulatory resource depletion model as an explanatory framework, I argue that aggressive unit-level culture will increase the incidence of abusive supervision, whereas people- and team-oriented unit-level cultures will decrease the incidence of abusive supervision. In line with these arguments, I then examine the degree to which those effects are mediated by ego depletion. In sum, I argue that aggressive unit-level culture will increase, while people- and team-oriented cultures will reduce, the amount of supervisor ego depletion, which then increases the incidence of abusive supervision. Using Hobfoll et al.'s (1990) Social Support Resource Theory, I further argue that the relationship between unit-level culture and ego depletion is moderated by supervisor home social support. I tested my model using a sample of 340 nurses and 52 nursing directors working in a large hospital system in the Southwestern United States. I was unable to demonstrate support for my model as hypothesized. However, I am able to contribute to the literature concerning antecedents to abusive supervision by showing that alternative conceptualization of culture impact abusive supervision. Further, I show that aggressive norms mediate the relationship between aggressive culture and abusive supervision. I also contribute to the literature examining resource depletion in the workplace by demonstrating the buffering role of supervisor home social support on ego depletion. Implications and future directions are discussed.

The purpose of the proposed study is to consider why and under which conditions do supervisors engage in abusive behaviours towards their subordinates. To answer my first research question, why do supervisors engage in abusive supervision, I draw on victim precipitation (e.g., Sparks, Glenn, & Dodd, 1977) and conservation of resources (COR; Hobfoll, 1989) theories to argue that certain subordinate performance-related behaviours and characteristics threaten supervisor resources leading to abuse as a stress reaction. To answer my second research question, under which conditions do supervisors engage in abusive supervision, I draw on attribution theory (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1986). I argue that supervisors abuse subordinates when they attribute responsibility, or blame subordinates for negative performance-related behaviours and characteristics, as a means of protecting or guarding against future resource loss. To answer my research questions, I developed measures for self- and other-perceived general mental ability (GMA) and blame attributions. I obtained data from 211 supervisor-subordinate dyads in Canada and the United States. Respondents were surveyed for information about their work behaviours, characteristics, and relationships. Using Hayes (2013) PROCESS macros, I found partial support for the proposed model and offer refinements to COR and victim precipitation theories. I found relationships between both self- and supervisor-reported subordinate behaviours and characteristics and abusive supervision, largely in the direction hypothesized. I also found supervisor-reported subordinate performance behaviours and perceived GMA to share a stronger relationship with subordinate reports of abusive supervision than subordinate reported behaviours and characteristics in many instances. / October 2016

Toxic leaders are a serious problem, but shockingly, there is no standard detection tool that is both efficient and accurate. Compounding the problem are the various definitions and descriptions used to operationalize toxic leadership. This research sought to align the literature, offer a concise definition, and assess the domains indicative of toxic leadership through two conceptually compatible studies. Study 1 involved development of a toxic leader threat detection scale. Results using a variable-centered approach indicated that follower perceptions (n = 357) of leader empathy (4-item scale; α = .93) and the need for achievement recognition (4-item scale; α = .83) significantly predicted the egoistic dominance behaviors (5-item scale; α = .93) employed by toxic leaders (R2 = .647, p < .001). Using a person-centered approach, the scale scores also revealed latent clusters of distinct behavioral patterns, representing significantly different toxic leader threat levels (low, medium, and high). Study 2 assessed whether followers (n = 357), without access to behavioral information, would infer toxic characteristics simply from a leader’s physical appearance. Participants perceived images of male leaders (η2 = .131) with masculine facial structures (η2 = .596) as most likely to behave aggressively, while feminine facial structures (η2 = .400) and female images (η2 = .104) created the highest perceptions of empathy. The subjects also selected male leaders with masculine faces (η2 = .044; η2 = .015) as more likely to desire recognition, but with an inverse relationship (η2 = .073) such that feminine looking males earned the lowest scores. Overall, these results supported the idea that empathy and the need for achievement recognition create an “ego gone wild” condition and, not only can we measure the behavioral tendencies of toxic leaders, but perhaps we can “see” them as well.

Retaliation is a well-established response to abusive supervision. Leading edge research explains the occurrence of supervisor-directed retaliation through processes associated with the strength model of self-control (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007). The present research builds on these ideas by considering the role of emotions in the retaliatory processes. 407 participants completed an online survey that included questionnaires measuring personality traits associated with self-control and emotional experiences. Findings indicate that a predisposition to negative emotional experiences predicts retaliatory behavior in response to abusive supervision, even for individuals with a high capacity for self-control. It is suggested that future research should determine whether emotion-driven retaliation is mediated by a desire for revenge.

The study investigated the relationship among supervisor's job insecurity, job stress, abusive supervision, employee¡¦s job engagement and innovative behavior. The author distributed 90 questionnaires for supervisors and 270 questionnaires for employees who work in research and development department. In all, questionnaires were completed by the 83 supervisor and 133 employees and analyzed by factor analysis, internal consistency analysis, regression analysis and path analysis to measure the relationship among the constructs. Research results found that: (1) Supervisor¡¦s job insecurity and work stress was positively related to employee¡¦s perception of abusive supervision. (2) Employee¡¦s perception of abusive supervision was negatively related to their job engagement. (3) Employee¡¦s job engagement was positively related to their innovative behavior. The results provide an idea that encourages researchers to explore other possible factors which cause abusive supervision in the future.

Retaliation is a well-established response to abusive supervision. Leading edge research explains the occurrence of supervisor-directed retaliation through processes associated with the strength model of self-control (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007). The present research builds on these ideas by considering the role of emotions in the retaliatory processes. 407 participants completed an online survey that included questionnaires measuring personality traits associated with self-control and emotional experiences. Findings indicate that a predisposition to negative emotional experiences predicts retaliatory behavior in response to abusive supervision, even for individuals with a high capacity for self-control. It is suggested that future research should determine whether emotion-driven retaliation is mediated by a desire for revenge.

My study investigated the effects of abusive supervision on work and family outcomes including supervisor-directed and organization-directed deviance and spousal undermining. Using a moderated-mediation model, the relationship of abusive supervision on outcome variables was proposed to be mediated by moral courage and moderated by leader-member exchange (a-path) and work and family role quality (b-path). Two separate studies were conducted using a sample (N=200) recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and through relatives of students at a large US public southeastern university (N=150 dyads). Results confirm the effects of abusive supervision on work and family outcomes while analyses of contextual and conditional factors are mixed. Confirmatory factor analyses, factor loadings, and model fit statistics are provided and implications for research and practice are discussed.

Research purpose: The purpose of the study is to investigate the extent to which supervisors are universally perceived as abusive across those they supervise. I propose social learning theory and social information processing theory as theoretical bases for understanding collective impression formation among subordinates reporting to the same supervisor. The study, therefore builds on a growing body of abusive supervision literature by analysing intraclass correlations between subordinates' and their co-workers' perceptions of the same supervisor. Research motivation: Studies that examine whether or not subordinates of the same supervisor have similar perceptions of abuse are in short supply. Therefore, this study examines the possibility of objective impression formation with regards to abusive supervision so as to answer the question: Do subordinates and their co-workers mutually perceive the extent to which a supervisor's behaviour is abusive? Research design, approach and method: This study follows a cross-sectional approach to investigate the extent to which subordinates of the same workgroup mutually perceive their supervisor's behaviour as abusive. Purposive sampling was employed to recruit full-time employed Master's of Business Administration (MBA) students from six respected universities in the United States (US). Purposive sampling was further aided by snowball sampling where each subordinate was asked to get two of their own co-workers involved in the study. A total of 1,029 surveys were distributed and 693 completed surveys were returned. The final sample consisted of 210 sets of surveys where responses were received from the focal subordinate and two of his or her co-workers. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis was conducted to determine the strength of intra-group agreement regarding abusive supervision perceptions. Main findings: The results indicate that there is agreement between subordinates' and their co-workers' perceptions of abusive supervision as no significant differences were found between these two groups' assessments of the same supervisor's behaviour. The null hypothesis was accepted. A non-hypothesized finding is that dyadic tenure appears to influence the extent to which supervisory abuse is observed. That is, subordinates and their co-workers may view the same supervisor in the same light, the longer the duration of the supervisor-subordinate relationship. Limitations: The results should be interpreted, bearing in mind that there is limited literature available on abusive supervision at the group level. Furthermore, the results should be considered with caution as the perceptions of abusive supervision were only examined at one point in time, the use of snowball sampling method may be associated with the possibility of sampling bias, and that dyadic tenure was measured with a categorical response (i.e., not treated as a continuous variable). Finally, the results may not be generalisable to the South African context. Future research: It is suggested that future studies should investigate abusive supervision as a group-level phenomenon as few such studies currently exist. Additionally, future studies should examine the extent to which social learning and social information processing approaches contribute to the establishment of mutual perceptions about supervisory abuse. Researchers may also investigate the occurrence of abusive supervision at the group level through the lens of an alternative theoretical framework such as social identity theory. / Dissertation (MCom)--University of Pretoria, 2017. / Human Resource Management / MCom / Unrestricted

This dissertation examines what happens when employees witness supervisory abuse in the workplace. In particular, it explores whether-and when-employees will respond to witnessing supervisory abuse of a coworker by engaging in prosocial actions aimed at benefitting the target of abuse. In doing so, it extends work on abusive supervision. Traditionally, abusive supervision research has focused on the impact of abuse on the victim him/herself. However, this work explores the impact of abusive supervision on third party observers. In addition, because abusive supervision represents a form of organizational injustice, this dissertation extends both work on abusive supervision and third party reactions to injustice by considering the positive, prosocial reactions abuse might trigger in employees.

In this study, I draw on research on goal setting, stress, and aggression to examine contextual antecedents of abusive supervision. I suggest that a characteristic of the supervisors' goals (viz., goal difficulty) can contribute to abusive supervisory behaviors through the effect it has on the supervisors' level of hindrance stress. I also propose that this mediating process is moderated by two characteristics of the supervisors' rewards (viz., goal-contingent reward and reward interdependence). Thus, I suggest a moderated mediation model predicting supervisors' hindrance stress acts as a mediator of the relationship between supervisors' difficult goals and abusive supervision. Moreover, I also posit that the mediation is stronger when the supervisors' rewards are contingent on goal attainment and their subordinates' performance. With a sample of 257 supervisor-subordinate dyads, I find that supervisors' hindrance stress partially mediates the relationship between supervisors' difficult goals and abusive supervision. However, the results revealed that this mediating effect is not moderated by the characteristics of the supervisors' rewards that were examined. The theoretical and practical implications of this study are identified and future research is discussed.