Perceived supervisor remorse, abusive supervision, and LMX

• Date: 01 December 2018
• Author: Hee Man Park,Dana L. Haggard
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2285
• Published date: 01 December 2018

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Perceived supervisor remorse, abusive supervision, and LMX

Dana L. Haggard

1

*|Hee Man Park

2

*

1

Department of Management and

Technology, College of Business, Missouri

State University, Springfield, Missouri, U.S.A.

2

School of Labor and Employment Relations,

The Pennsylvania State University, State

College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Correspondence

Dana L. Haggard, Department of

Management, College of Business, Missouri

State University, 901 South National Avenue,

Springfield, MO 65897, USA.

Email: dhaggard@missouristate.edu

*The authors contributed equally.

Summary

Abusive supervision is defined by hurtful behaviors and is associated with many

negative outcomes. This has made it easy for researchers to overlook the possibility

that some supervisors regret their bad behavior and express remorse for their actions.

Hence, we know little about how subordinates react to the perception that their

supervisor is remorseful and how this perception affects the relationship or other

organizational outcomes. We address this possibility by developing a measure of vic-

tim perceptions of supervisor remorse (PSR) and examining the consequences PSR

might have on complicated supervisor–subordinate relationships. Drawing on the

remorse and justice literatures, we maintain that PSR will mitigate the detrimental

effects of abusive supervision on various subordinate outcomes. Collective results

from 2 multiple‐wave studies indicate that PSR reduces the indirect effects of abusive

supervision on turnover intentions and organization‐based self‐esteem (OBSE). This

indirect effect operates through leader–member exchange and interactional justice.

PSR is also shown to have direct effects on OBSE and subordinates' resistance. Our

research contributes to abusive supervision literature by showing the possibility of

supervisors regretting their hostile behavior and the importance of PSR's role in

decreasing detrimental effects of abusive supervision.

KEYWORDS

abusive supervision, interactional justice, leader–memberexchange, organization‐based self‐

esteem, perceived supervisor remorse

1|INTRODUCTION

Abusive supervision is defined as an employee's perception of a

“sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding

physical contact (Tepper, 2000, p. 178)”by their supervisor. By defini-

tion, abusive supervisors engage in behaviors most people would

describe as personally and professionally hurtful. The detrimental

effects of these hurtful behaviors have been documented widely and

include negative impacts on both individual and organizational out-

comes (e.g., Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, 2011; Tepper, 2007).

Despite the overwhelmingly negative associations with abusive super-

vision, recent studies indicate that some supervisor–subordinate

relationships can be described in terms of both abusive supervision

and high leader–member exchange (LMX; Lian, Ferris, & Brown,

2012b; Xu, Huang, Lam, & Miao, 2012). LMX, the quality of dyadic

exchange relationships between supervisors and their subordinates,

is consistently associated with positive outcomes for the supervisor,

subordinate, and the organization (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer,

& Ferris, 2012). Although abusive behaviors can occur within the

context of a high LMX relationship, abusive behaviors reduce the

likelihood that a high LMX relationship will develop (Xu et al., 2012).

If that is the case, then a logical question is under what circumstances

are the detrimental effects of abusive supervision on LMX mitigated?

One possible answer is that such supervisors apologize or otherwise

indicate remorse for their bad behavior in an attempt to repair and

rebalance the exchange relationship.

Our investigation contributes to the literature in several ways.

First, we address the possibility that supervisors who exhibit abuse

may also exhibit remorse for the abuse, a possibility (along with its

attendant implications) that seems to have been neglected so far.

Leaders can display hostility impulsively due to temporary negative

mood (Barnes, Lucianetti, Bhave, & Christian, 2015) or extremely

Received: 22 June 2016 Revised: 1 March 2018 Accepted: 14 March 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2285

1252 Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J Organ Behav. 2018;39:1252–1267.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job

difficult organizational goals (Mawritz, Folger, & Latham, 2014), and

even well‐meaning and ethical supervisors occasionally behave hurt-

fully (Lin, Ma, & Johnson, 2016), so it is likely that some leaders regret

their behavior and show remorse to their subordinates. Second, we

develop a measure of victim perceptions of supervisor remorse (PSR,

see Appendix A) and thus facilitate further scientific research on the

effects of PSR in workplaces. Lastly, by incorporating PSR as a moder-

ating variable, as well as by examining a broader set of organizational

outcomes (i.e., turnover intentions, organization‐based self‐esteem

(OBSE), and subordinates' constructive and dysfunctional resistance),

we extend research on LMX as a mechanism through which abusive

supervision influences outcomes (Xu et al., 2012).

What follows next is a discussion of the remorse and apology lit-

eratures along with our definition of PSR. Then, after providing a brief

discussion of abusive supervision and LMX, we describe our model

and present supportive empirical results from two studies. Research

and practical implications of our findings are presented as well.

2|REMORSE AND APOLOGY

Remorse and apology are constructs so intertwined they are often

conflated and used interchangeably. Some researchers consider a

verbal expression of remorse a necessary part of a comprehensive or

successful apology (Byrne, Barling, & Dupré, 2014; Slocum, Allan, &

Allan, 2011), whereas others see an apology as a necessary but not

sufficient indicator of remorse (Weisman, 2014). According to

Weisman (2014; p. 10), “While an apology may refer to the anguish

and pain that the offender feels at having contravened the norms of

the community, an expression of remorse shows or demonstrates this

pain by making the suffering visible.”Phrased another way, an apology

is expressed verbally, remorse is expressed behaviorally as well as

verbally, for example, by “gestures, displays of affect, and other

paralinguistic devices”(Weisman, 2014; p. 10). An apology is saying

one is sorry for engaging in wrongful behavior whereas remorse

couples this verbal expression with behavioral demonstrations that

one actually feels sorry for engaging in the wrongful behavior.

Weisman further describes remorse as having three necessary charac-

teristics: an acknowledgement of responsibility for the wrongful

behavior and the harm caused by it, a demonstration of visible

suffering for one's wrongdoing, and the willingness to make changes

so the wrongdoing will not recur. These characteristics are very similar

to those identified by Slocum et al.'s (2011) interview study of

wronged intimate partners. Research shows that apologies coupled

with expressions of remorse reduce blame, punishment, and the desire

for retaliation (Darby & Schlenker, 1982; Gold & Weiner, 2000), and

increase forgiveness and the belief that the offending behavior will

not be repeated (Exline & Baumeister, 2000; Tomlinson, Dineen, &

Lewicki, 2004).

We see an apology as one potential outward manifestation of the

inner emotion of remorse, necessary but not sufficient on its own. We

are interested not only in the words the supervisor speaks but in their

actions and gestures which signal their inner emotions and how these

words, actions, and gestures are interpreted by their subordinates.

Therefore, we define victim PSR as “a subordinate's perception that

their supervisor is experiencing feelings of personal guilt and regret

about the supervisor's behavior toward the subordinate.”Our defini-

tion of supervisor remorse seeks to incorporate the characteristics

outlined by Weisman (2014); feelings of “guilt”is intended to capture

the characteristic of acknowledgement of wrongful behavior and

harm, and feelings of “regret”is intended to capture the characteristic

of desire to avoid the behavior in the future. The fact that the subor-

dinate is able to perceive them is an indication that visible suffering is

taking place. A remorseful apology is one of many potential behaviors

consistent with our definition.

The literature provides multiple theoretical reasons for the effec-

tiveness of remorse (Davis & Gold, 2011). According to the attribu-

tional perspective, remorseful apologies reduce the victim's

dispositional attribution for the offender's behavior (i.e., shifting it

from internal to external) and increase the belief that the behavior is

unlikely to recur (Weiner, Graham, Peter, & Zmuidinas, 1991). A

second common model is one in which the offender's apology prompts

empathetic concern for the offender and concern for the relationship

and therefore a desire to forgive (McCullough, Worthington Jr, &

Rachal, 1997). In this situation, the victim is made aware of the value

of the relationship and the desire to repair and maintain it. Justice is

a third model (Bies & Moag, 1986: Tomlinson, 2012). Interactional

justice is the perception that, in an organizational exchange relation-

ship, the individual is being treated respectfully, with honesty, propri-

ety, and sensitivity, by organizational agents (Bies & Moag, 1986). In

abusive supervision, abuse is often conceptualized as a justice viola-

tion of the exchange relationship (Burton & Hoobler, 2011; Tepper,

2000). Andiappan and Treviño (2011) reason that interactional justice

is the most relevant to repairing supervisor–subordinate relationships

because (a) interactional justice is the fairness of interpersonal treat-

ment, (b) it is key in establishing social exchange relationships, and

(c) it is associated with trust in one's supervisor. Tomlinson (2012)

provided evidence that after a trust violation, apologies that contained

promises not to reoffend were positively related to interactional

justice. Remorseful apologies act to restore justice.

2.1 |Abusive supervision and LMX

Tepper (2000) invokes Walker's (1979) work on spousal abuse to iden-

tify similarities between domestic and supervisory abuse, not only in

the characteristics of the abuse itself but also in the reasons why

targets of abuse might remain in the relationship. Walker points out

that one potential reason is that abusers “often intersperse abusive

behavior with normal behavior, in effect intermittently reinforcing

the targets' hope the abuse will end”(p.178). She further details the

three‐phase behavioral cycle that is often associated with abusive

spousal relationships: (a) tension building, (b) the acute battering inci-

dent, and (c) kindness and contrite behavior. In Phase 3, the abuser

tries to make amends and engages in behaviors that promote the per-

ceptions of the “good”side of the abuser. Such “good”behavior is

sometimes framed by the victim as representative of the “real”person

and supports the hope that the abuse will stop. Likewise, victims of

supervisor abuse might remain in the relationship because their super-

visors sometimes display supportive behaviors, which alter victims'

perception of their supervisors' destructive behaviors. Recent

HAGGARD AND PARK 1253