The Lingering Impact of Abusive SupervisionDespite the increased attention placed on functional or positive leader behavior (Cameron, 2008), some leaders elect to demonstrate dysfunctional or negative behavior instead. One destructive behavior in particular, abusive supervision, has received increasing attention over the past decade (Lian, Brown, Ferris, Liang, Keeping, & Morrison, in press; Tepper, 2007). Abusive supervision refers to subordinates' perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact (Tepper, 2000, p. 178). Verbal behaviors often consist of public ridicule (Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006), explosive outbursts (Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002), and intimidation (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007). Nonverbal behaviors may include aggressive eye contact, withholding needed information (Zellars et al., 2002), invoking the silent treatment, and breaking promises (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007). Naturally, such improper workplace behavior has been linked to a number of dysfunctional consequences (Aryee et al., 2007; Ashforth, 1997; Burton & Hoobler, 2006; Carlson, Ferguson, Perrewe, & Whitten, in press; Detert, Trevino, Burris, & Andiappan, 2007; Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Harris, Harvey, Harris, Cast, 2013; Harris, Harvey, & Kacmar, 2011; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000, 2007; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2008; Zellars et al., 2002).Earlier studies of abusive supervision invoked organizational justice theory to explain the effects of abuse on a number of outcome variables (Aryee et al., 2007; Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997; Tepper, 2000). Indeed, abusive supervision denotes a source of injustice which has been shown to result in negative behavioral responses (Tepper, 2000; Zellars et al., 2002). Since then, researchers have turned to alternative theories such as social exchange, self-regulation, conservation of resources, and psychological contract violation to explain individuals' behavioral responses to abuse (Aryee et al., 2007; Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, Carr, Breaux, Geider, Hu, & Hua, 2009; Tepper et al., 2008; Thau et al., 2008). More recently, Thau et al. (2008) weaved uncertainty management theory (UMT) and social exchange theory (SET) to explore the influence of situational uncertainty on the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational deviance. We extend this stream of research by applying the same framework to a positive outcome by examining the mediated effects of abusive supervision on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), or discretionary behaviors that are beneficial to the organization but are not part of a subordinate's official job duties (Organ, 1988).The present study answers the call by Thau et al. (2008) to explore the influence of uncertainty on potentially positive consequences such as citizenship behavior and in doing so we make a number of contributions. First, we expand the exploration of the impact of abuse on organizational outcomes by exploring the lingering effect of abuse. Events with a negative valence, such as abuse from one's supervisor, have a greater impact on individuals than do those with a positive valence, and negative events also have more lasting effects (Baumeister, Braslvsky, Finkenaur, & Vohs, 2001; Ito, Larsen, Smith, & Cacioppo, 1998; Rozin & Royzman, 2001). In addition, the negative information that is derived from abusive supervision will receive more mental reflection by individuals than positive information and will play an integral role in forming impressions of the organization and those who work in it over time (Baumeister et al., 2001). These findings highlight the importance of examining phenomena over time in order to fully understand them (Mitchell & James, 2001). …
Read full abstract