Building on the emerging research that has demonstrated the adverse effects of abusive supervision on employee performance, this research draws on the theories of prosocial motivation and action identification. We develop and empirically test a mediation model to examine the indirect impact of abusive supervision on employee performance. Data were obtained from 430 Chinese healthcare employees to validate and test our proposed hypotheses and generalize the findings from Western settings in the Eastern context. The findings indicate that abusive supervision is negatively related to employee performance. Job satisfaction and extrinsic motivation mediated this relationship. The study has some important theoretical and practical implications, and we have also discussed some future directions.
AghmiuniSKSiyalSWangQ, et al. (2020) Assessment of factors affecting innovation policy in biotechnology. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge5(3): 180–190.
2.
Al-AliWAmeenAIsaacO, et al. (2019) The mediating effect of job happiness on the relationship between job satisfaction and employee performance and turnover intentions: A case study on the oil and gas industry in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research13(4): 103–116.
3.
AmabileTMHillKGHennesseyBA, et al. (1994) The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology66(5): 950.
4.
AmabileTMPrattMG (2016) The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior36: 157–183.
5.
AquinoKBommerWH (2003) Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization. Organization Science14(4): 374–385.
6.
AryeeSChenZXSunLY, et al. (2007) Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology92(1): 191.
7.
AryeeSSunLYChenZX, et al. (2008) Abusive supervision and contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure. Management and Organization Review4(3): 393–411.
8.
AshforthBE (1997) Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration14(2): 126–140.
9.
BagozziRPYiY (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science16(1): 74–94.
10.
BiesRJ (2001) Interactional (in) justice: The sacred and the profane. In: GreenbergJCropanzanoR (eds) Advances in Organizational Justice. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, pp.89–118.
11.
BlauP (1964) Power and Exchange in Social Life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
BowlingNAMichelJS (2011) Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates’ responses to abusive supervision. Work & Stress25(4): 309–320.
13.
BreauxDMPerrewéPLHallAT, et al. (2008) Time to try a little tenderness? The detrimental effects of accountability when coupled with abusive supervision. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies15(2): 111–122.
14.
ChenLXuX (2020) Effect evaluation of the long-term care insurance (LTCI) system on the health care of the elderly: A review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare13: 863.
15.
ChenS-H (2009) Establishment of a performance-evaluation model for service quality in the banking industry. The Service Industries Journal29(2): 235–247.
16.
ChenZZhaoDT (2012) When and how employees learn: The effect of task conflict on learning behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal40(1): 47–53.
17.
ChinWW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research295(2): 295–336.
18.
ChinWW (2010) How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Berlin: Springer, pp.655–690.
19.
CropanzanoRMitchellMS (2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management31(6): 874–900.
20.
DeciELOlafsenAHRyanRM (2017) Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior4: 19–43.
21.
DeciELRyanRM (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry11(4): 227–268.
22.
DuartePAORaposoMLB (2010) A PLS model to study brand preference: An application to the mobile phone market. In: Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Berlin: Springer, pp.449–485.
23.
DuffyMKGansterDCPagonM (2002) Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal45(2): 331–351.
24.
DunnetteMDHoughLM (1990) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
25.
DupréKEInnessMConnellyCE, et al. (2006) Workplace aggression in teenage part-time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology91(5): 987.
26.
EisenbergerRHuntingtonRHutchisonS, et al. (1986) Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology71(3): 500.
27.
EmersonRM (1976) Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology2(1): 335–362.
28.
EstesBC (2013) Abusive supervision and nursing performance. Nursing Forum48(1): 3–16.
29.
FarhJ-LCannellaAALeeC (2006) Approaches to scale development in Chinese Management Research. Management and Organization Review2(3): 301–318.
30.
FerrisGRTreadwayDCPerrewéPL, et al. (2007) Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management33(3): 290–320.
31.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
32.
FoxSSpectorPEMilesD (2001) Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior59(3): 291–309.
33.
GagnéM (2014) The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34.
GouldnerAW (1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review25(2): 161–178.
35.
GriffinRWLopezYP (2005) “Bad behavior” in organizations: A review and typology for future research. Journal of Management31(6): 988–1005.
36.
GriffinRWO’Leary-KellyAM (2004a) The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37.
GriffinRWO’Leary-KellyAM (2004b) An introduction to the dark side. In: The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp.1–19.
38.
GuestD (2004) Flexible employment contracts, the psychological contract and employee outcomes: An analysis and review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews5(1): 1–19.
39.
HackmanJROldhamGR (1974) The job diagnostic survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. Technical report, Yale University, New Haven, CT, May.
40.
HadikinRO’DriscollM (2000) The Bullying Culture: Cause, Effect, Harm Reduction. Melbourne: Elsevier Health Sciences.
41.
HairJFJrMatthewsLMMatthewsRL, et al. (2017) PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis1(2): 107–123.
42.
HairJFJrSarstedtMHopkinsL, et al. (2014) Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review26(2): 106–121.
43.
HairJFRingleCMSarstedtM (2011) PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice19(2): 139–152.
44.
HairJFRingleCMSarstedtM (2013) Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning46(1–2): 1–12.
45.
HairJFSarstedtMPieperTM, et al. (2012) The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning45(5–6): 320–340.
46.
HarrisKJKacmarKMZivnuskaS (2007) An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly18(3): 252–263.
47.
HenselerJDijkstraTKSarstedtM, et al. (2014) Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods17(2): 182–209.
48.
HenselerJRingleCMSinkovicsRR (2009) The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In: New Challenges to International Marketing. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.277–319.
49.
HenselerJSarstedtM (2013) Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Computational Statistics28(2): 565–580.
50.
HouseR (1996) Path-goal theory of leadership: An examination of a prescriptive theory. Leadership Quarterly7(3): 323–352.
51.
IliesRFulmerISSpitzmullerM, et al. (2009) Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology94(4): 945.
52.
JianZKwanHKQiuQ, et al. (2012) Abusive supervision and frontline employees’ service performance. The Service Industries Journal32(5): 683–698.
53.
LianHFerrisDLBrownDJ (2012) Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes117(1): 41–52.
54.
LidenRCWayneSJStilwellD (1993) A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology78(4): 662.
55.
LinWWangLChenS (2013) Abusive supervision and employee well-being: The moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied Psychology62(2): 308–329.
56.
LiuJKwong KwanHWuLZ, et al. (2010) Abusive supervision and subordinate supervisor-directed deviance: The moderating role of traditional values and the mediating role of revenge cognitions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology83(4): 835–856.
57.
LockeEA (1976) The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: DunnetteMD (ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp.1297–1343.
58.
LvXLiuYXuS, et al. (2021) Welcoming host, cozy house? The impact of service attitude on sensory experience. International Journal of Hospitality Management95: 102949.
59.
MackeyJDFriederREBreesJR, et al. (2017) Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management43(6): 1940–1965.
60.
MackeyJDMcAllisterCPMaherLP, et al. (2019) Leaders and followers behaving badly: A meta-analytic examination of curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and followers’ workplace behaviors. Personnel Psychology72(1): 3–47.
61.
MalikRRavinderK (2017) Emerging trends in organizational behavior: A perspective. International Journal of Research in IT and Management7(2): 10–20.
62.
MartinkoMJHarveyPBreesJR, et al. (2013) A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior34(S1): S120–S137.
63.
MathieuCBabiakP (2016) Corporate psychopathy and abusive supervision: Their influence on employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Personality and Individual Differences91: 102–106.
MeyerJPBeckerTEVandenbergheC (2004) Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology89(6): 991.
66.
MitchellMSAmbroseML (2012) Employees’ behavioral reactions to supervisor aggression: An examination of individual and situational factors. Journal of Applied Psychology97(6): 1148.
67.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSB (1994) An examination of the psychometric properties and nomological validity of some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal of Applied Psychology79(5): 702.
68.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879.
69.
PodsakoffPMOrganDW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management12(4): 531–544.
70.
PradhanSJenaLK (2018) Emotional intelligence as a moderator in abusive supervision-intention to quit relationship among Indian healthcare professionals. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration10(1): 35–49.
71.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers36(4): 717–731.
72.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40(3): 879–891.
73.
PriesemuthMSchminkeMAmbroseML, et al. (2014) Abusive supervision climate: A multiple-mediation model of its impact on group outcomes. Academy of Management Journal57(5): 1513–1534.
74.
RichmanJAFlahertyJARospendaKM (1996) Perceived workplace harassment experiences and problem drinking among physicians: Broadening the stress/alienation paradigm. Addiction91(3): 391–403.
75.
RichmanJAFlahertyJARospendaKM, et al. (1992) Mental health consequences and correlates of reported medical student abuse. JAMA267(5): 692–694.
76.
RichterNFCepeda-CarrionGRoldán SalgueiroJL, et al. (2016) European management research using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Management Journal34(6): 589–597.
77.
RingleCMSarstedtMStraubDW (2012) A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly (MISQ)36(1): 3.
78.
RyanRMDeciEL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist55(1): 68.
79.
RynesSLGerhartBParksL (2005) Personnel psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology56: 571–600.
80.
SarstedtMRingleCMSmithD, et al. (2014) Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy5(1): 105–115.
81.
SchatACFroneMRKellowayEK (2006) Prevalence of workplace aggression in the US workforce: Findings from a national study. In: KellowayEKBarlingJHurrellJJ (eds) Handbook of Workplace Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.47–89.
82.
SchynsBSchillingJ (2013) How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly24(1): 138–158.
83.
SiyalSPengX (2018) Does leadership lessen turnover? The moderated mediation effect of leader–member exchange and perspective taking on public servants. Journal of Public Affairs18(4): e1830.
84.
SiyalSXinCPengX, et al. (2020) Why do high-performance human resource practices matter for employee outcomes in public sector universities? The mediating role of person–organization fit mechanism. SAGE Open10(3): 2158244020947424.
85.
SiyalSXinCUmraniWA, et al. (2021) How do leaders influence innovation and creativity in employees? The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Administration & Society. Epub ahead of print 23February2021. DOI: 10.1177/0095399721997427.
86.
SpectorPE (2006) Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
87.
TepperBJ (2000) Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal43(2): 178–190.
88.
TepperBJ (2007) Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management33(3): 261–289.
89.
TepperBJHenleCALambertLS, et al. (2008) Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology93(4): 721.
90.
TepperBJMossSEDuffyMK (2011) Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal54(2): 279–294.
91.
TepperBJSimonLParkHM (2017) Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior4: 123–152.
92.
TerryDJ (1994) Determinants of coping: The role of stable and situational factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology66(5): 895.
93.
WrightTABonettDG (2007) Job satisfaction and psychological well-being as nonadditive predictors of workplace turnover. Journal of Management33(2): 141–160.
94.
XianJLiBHuangH (2020) Transformational leadership and employees’ thriving at work: The mediating roles of challenge-hindrance stressors. Frontiers in Psychology11: 1400.
95.
YamKCFehrRKeng-HighbergerFT, et al. (2016) Out of control: A self-control perspective on the link between surface acting and abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology101(2): 292.
96.
ZellarsKLTepperBJDuffyMK (2002) Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology87(6): 1068.
97.
ZhangYLiaoZ (2015) Consequences of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management32(4): 959–987.
