Abusive according to whom? Manager and subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision and supervisors' performance

• Author: Maureen L. Ambrose,Deshani B. Ganegoda
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2472
• Published date: 01 October 2020
• Date: 01 October 2020

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Abusive according to whom? Manager and subordinate

perceptions of abusive supervision and supervisors'

performance

Maureen L. Ambrose

1

| Deshani B. Ganegoda

2

1

Department of Management, University of

Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA

2

Melbourne Business School, University of

Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia

Correspondence

Maureen L. Ambrose, Department of

Management, University of Central Florida,

P.O.Box 161400, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.

Email: mambrose@ucf.edu

Summary

Recognizing that supervisor–subordinate dyads exist within a broader organizational

hierarchy, we examine how the individual's role within the organizational hierarchy

influences perceptions of abusive supervision. Specifically, we examine how

supervisors' abusive behaviors are perceived by abusive supervisors' managers as

well as abusive supervisors' subordinates. Drawing on role theory, we propose that

these perceptions will differ. Further, we suggest that these differences will be

reflected in different relationships between manager-rated abusive supervision and

subordinate-rated abusive supervision and managers' evaluations of supervisor

performance. Results from manager–supervisor–subordinate triads indicate

differences between managers' and subordinates' view of abusive supervision.

Further, managers' perceptions of abuse were related to supervisors' in-role

performance, whereas subordinates' perceptions of abuse were related to workgroup

performance. In Study 2, we replicate these findings and expand our investigation to

an examination of supervisors' contextual performance. Additionally, we examine

another contextual characteristic—aggressive climate—and demonstrate it influences

how abusive supervision relates to managerial evaluations of supervisor performance.

Future research and managerial implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS

abusive supervision, aggressive climate, role theory, supervisor performance

1|INTRODUCTION

Among the most important concerns about mistreatment in

organizations is the abusive behavior of individuals in positions of

power. The importance of this problem is reflected by the

increased interest in abusive supervision during the last 15 years.

This interest is driven, in part, by the substantial impact

supervisors' abusive behavior has on the psychological and physical

well-being of their subordinates (see Martinko, Harvey, Brees, &

Mackey, 2013; Tepper, Simon, & Park, 2017, for reviews). Research

suggests that approximately 10% of the workforce reports having

an abusive supervisor (Tepper et al., 2017) and early estimates

placed the cost of abusive supervision at $23.8 billion (Tepper,

Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006). The negative impact of abusive

supervisors and the sizeable numbers of workers who report being

subjected to abuse raises the question of why organizations toler-

ate abusive supervision.

Abusive supervision is defined as “subordinates' perceptions of

the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained

display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical

contact”(Tepper, 2000, p. 178). Most research thus far has con-

textualized abusive supervision as a phenomenon occurring in a

hierarchical dyad composed of a supervisor and a subordinate.

Indeed, the hierarchical dyad is built-in to the definition of abusive

Received: 28 September 2018 Revised: 7 July 2020 Accepted: 9 July 2020

DOI: 10.1002/job.2472

J Organ Behav. 2020;41:737–756. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 737

supervision, which is assessed from the subordinate's perspective. In

organizations, however, supervisor–subordinate dyads exist within a

broader hierarchy of relationships. Abusive supervisors have their

own supervisors (hereafter referred to as “managers”) to whom they

must report and whose directives they must take. By examining

abusive supervision within a simple dyadic hierarchy, we ignore the

fact that abusive supervisors are connected not only to their subor-

dinates but also to their managers. To fully understand abusive

supervision in organizations, we suggest that it is useful to go

beyond the supervisor–subordinate dyad and examine how

supervisors' managers view and evaluate supervisors who are

perceived as abusive by subordinates.

Some previous research has looked beyond the supervisor–

subordinate dyad. Research examining third-party reactions to abu-

sive supervision considers how abusive behavior influences individ-

uals not directly targeted by the abuse (e.g., Mitchell, Vogel, &

Folger, 2015; Peng, Schaubroeck, & Li, 2014). However, this previous

work has primarily examined the reactions of coworkers who share

the same organizational role as the victim (Mitchell et al., 2015; Peng

et al., 2014; Priesemuth & Schminke, 2019). None of these studies

has considered the reactions of supervisors' managers as the third-

party observer. In contrast to observers examined in previous

research, managers have different organizational roles than the victim.

Managers are in positions of authority in organizations and have the

ability to instruct supervisors and control their rewards and punish-

ments (French & Raven, 1959; Yukl, 2004). Managers are in a position

to respond to abusive supervision differently than individuals in a

subordinate role.

Currently, we have little knowledge about how abusive super-

visors are viewed and evaluated by their own managers and how

those evaluations may influence supervisor outcomes. In this paper,

we explore managers' observations of abusive supervision—defined

as managers' perceptions of the extent to which supervisors

engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal

behaviors, excluding physical contact, directed at their subordi-

nates. We argue that an individual's perspective influences their

assessment of abusive supervision. Consistent with the special

issue, we examine two aspects of the organizational context that

influence perspective: the individual's role in the organizational

hierarchy and organizational climate. Further, we expand the scope

of consequences of abusive supervision by considering conse-

quences of abusive supervision for the supervisor. Specifically, we

consider how managers' observations of abuse and subordinates'

perceptions of abuse influence managers' performance evaluations.

We draw on role theory (Biddle, 1986; Katz & Kahn, 1978;

Mead, 1934) to explore these relationships.

In this research, we examine the role of managers as third-party

observers of abusive supervision. Based on organizational role theory

(ORT) (Katz & Kahn, 1978), we expect individuals who hold different

roles in the organizational hierarchy to have divergent perspectives of

abusive supervision. Given the hypothesized perceptual differences

between subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervision and man-

agers' observed abusive supervision, we expect manager ratings and

subordinate ratings of abusive supervision to have different relation-

ships with managers' subjective evaluations of supervisor perfor-

mance. We draw on the cognitive role theory perspective

(Biddle, 1986) and the symbolic interactionist role theory perspective

(Mead, 1934) to explain these relationships. Lastly, we integrate role

theory and work on organizational climate to suggest that organiza-

tional climate influences individuals' perspective of acceptable behav-

ior (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). We suggest that aggressive climate

moderates the relationship between supervisory abuse (perceived by

subordinates or observed by managers) and manager evaluations of

supervisor performance.

This study contributes to research on abusive supervision in sev-

eral ways. First, although important, previous research on third-party

reactions to observed abusive supervision has limitations. As noted

above, this previous work has primarily examined the reactions of

observers who share the same organizational role as the victim

(Mitchell et al., 2015; Peng et al., 2014; Priesemuth &

Schminke, 2019) and does not consider how this role similarity may

influence perceptions of abusive supervision. Additionally, previous

research on third-party reactions to abusive supervision has assumed

that third-party observers share victims' perceptions of abuse. The

accuracy of this assumption has not been empirically tested, and the-

ory and research suggest that this assumption may not be correct. For

example, consider a scenario in which a supervisor brusquely interacts

with a subordinate. A third-party observer may see the supervisor as

belittling the subordinate, whereas the subordinate may interpret that

same behavior as the supervisor being rushed. In such a scenario, a

researcher could deem a third party to have observed “abusive super-

vision”when in fact abusive supervision was not perceived by the

subordinate. As perceptions are influenced by a wide variety of indi-

vidual and contextual factors, a key limitation in the present third-

party literature on abusive supervision is the lack of an assessment of

the agreement between subordinates and third-party observers. We

argue that the individual's role in the organizational hierarchy can

influence perceptions of abusive supervision.

Testing this assumed agreement between subordinates and

observers has important theoretical implications. If subordinates' per-

ceptions of abuse differ from those of observers, it reinforces the per-

ceptual nature of abusive supervision, highlighting that different

people can view the same supervisor differently. It also reveals

whether considering managers' perceptions of abuse adds to our

understanding of abusive supervision beyond that provided by subor-

dinate perceptions. Furthermore, if subordinates and managers are

found to differ in their perceptions of abusive supervision, the rela-

tionship between abusive supervision as assessed by subordinates

and consequences for abusive supervision that stem from the man-

ager is likely to be minimal. This could explain why abusive supervision

persists in organizations.

Second, previous research focuses nearly exclusively on subordi-

nate consequences. This focus on subordinates overlooks the fact

that abusive supervision has consequences for the actor as well as the

target. A few studies have examined the relationship between self-

reported abusive supervision and supervisors' outcomes. This

738 AMBROSE AND GANEGODA