Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ citizenship behavior, as well as subordinates’ whistleblowing intention as a reactionary outcome of supervisory abuse. Data was collected from 180 Nigerian healthcare assistants using a structured questionnaire. Additionally, 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted. The study found a negative relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ citizenship behavior. Also, the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ whistleblowing intention was not significant. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in the light of contextual peculiarities. Recommendations advocate the urgency of cultural re-engineering to mitigate the vicious cycle of supervisory abuse and encourage the emergence of abusive supervisors from the toxic dark side into the light of inspirational leadership.

Keywords

abusive supervision organizational citizenship behavior whistleblowing intention leadership voice culture

Introduction

There is growing consensus in the leadership and management literature that abusive supervision is a central, costly, and complex phenomenon (e.g., Lopes et al., 2018; Mackey et al., 2017; Martinko et al., 2013; Ogunfowora, 2013; Onyishi, 2012; Schat et al., 2006; Tepper, 2007; Zhang et al., 2019). Tepper (2000) famously defines the concept as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact (p. 178).” Tepper (2007) states that “abusive supervision involves continuing exposure to hierarchical mistreatment, a boss who has a bad day and takes it out on his or her subordinates by exploding at them would not be considered an abusive supervisor unless such behavior became a regular feature of his or her repertoire (p.39).” It is necessary to highlight the subjectivity of the concept and the willful non-physical, persistent pattern of hostility that qualifies it as abusive (Kermond & Schaubroeck, 2015; Tepper, 2007). Abusive supervision can be differentiated from other forms of workplace mistreatment (Tepper, 2007), that is, petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1994), workplace bullying (Aquino, 2000), supervisor undermining (Duffy et al., 2002), and supervisor aggression (Schat et al., 2006). Examples of behavior that fit the abusive supervision description include, invading subordinates’ privacy, ridiculing, manipulation, intimidation, making negative comments about subordinates to others, rudeness, angry outbursts, social isolation, labeling subordinates as incompetent and constant reminders of past mistakes (Tepper, 2000; Zellars et al., 2002).

Perhaps one of the most central areas of the abusive supervision research is the study of its antecedents and consequences. Although Tepper et al. (2011) describe the study of antecedents as budding, some predictors have been identified. Hoobler and Brass (2006) associated the violation of supervisors’ psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995) with abusive supervision. The experience of breached psychological contract is likely to cause negative emotions and aggressive behavior on weaker targets (Tepper et al., 2006). Also, Byrne et al. (2014) propose that psychological depletion of resources; depression and anxiety are antecedents of abusive supervision. Supervisors with poor psychological health are less likely to be relational and more likely to exhibit abusive behaviors toward their subordinates (Tepper, 2007). The antecedent factors of abusive supervision occur primarily through the processes of social learning, identity threat, and regulation impairment (Tepper et al., 2017).

A few studies have found correlations between abusive supervision and positive organizational outcomes such as subordinates’ innovative behavior through increased challenge-related stress (Zhu & Zhang, 2019), higher levels of performance (Marcinko, 1997), and employees’ constructive resistance (Tepper et al., 2001). However, a myriad of empirical evidence document the far-reaching consequences of abusive supervision. It has been associated with subordinate problem drinking (Bamberger & Bacharach, 2006), higher levels of insomnia (Rafferty & Restubog, 2010), paranoia (Lopes et al., 2018), work-family conflict (Ju et al., 2015), workplace deviance and unethical behaviors (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), psychological distress (Restubog et al., 2011), job burnout and poor affective wellbeing (Kernan et al., 2011), low job satisfaction and reduced organizational citizenship behaviors (Mathieu et al., 2014; Zellars et al., 2002), and other adverse implications (see, e.g., Mackey et al., 2017; Tepper, 2007). Martinko et al. (2013) have criticized the persistent investigation of the deleterious effects of abusive supervision, stating that “research demonstrating the negative consequences of abusive supervision has reached a saturation point (p. 756).” In our opinion, the injustice that abusive supervision represents is proof that there is every reason to remain vocal about it.

A gamut of management theories has been used to describe the relationship between supervisors’ abusive behavior and the reciprocal behavior of subordinates (Tepper, 2007). The justice theory, which originated from the fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001) and closely related to Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory and Adam’s (1965) equity theory, remains foundational. Justice theory generally refers to individual and group perceptions about the extent to which they are valued, treated with dignity, sensitivity, and respect by their organization. Abusive supervision stems from the injustices that characterize the social exchange processes between supervisors and their subordinates. This is why the justice theory is of particular significance in understanding the consequences of abusive supervision. Cultural values may often influence justice perceptions, applications, and outcomes.

The abusive supervision research has featured several international samples, but findings from an African sample remain sparse, in spite of the imperative for more studies that explain cross-cultural differences (Tepper et al., 2017). As Tepper (2007) noted, abusive supervision does not elicit the same response in all subordinates, and by extension, will not provoke the same reaction across contexts (Vogel et al.,2015). As such, for the first objective, we take a cue from Zellars et al. (2002) to investigate the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behavior using an African/Nigerian sample of healthcare assistants. We believe this is a worthwhile research venture because it has implications not just for the healthcare sector but others sub-sectors. A major motivation for this is to explain the possibility that subordinates from this cultural context may respond to supervisors’ abuse by refraining from performing specific behaviors that will be advantageous to their organization. Second, we explore whistleblowing intention as a reactionary outcome of supervisory abuse. Our review of extant literature indicates a gap in the study of this potential outcome, as it has received little attention. Importantly, we follow this research direction because of the distinctive cultural socialization and other contextual dynamics of our sample. The third objective, which was birthed in the course of the study, was to ascertain the factors accountable for the result of the second objective. In the rest of the paper, we provide a theoretical framework alongside the development of hypotheses; this is followed by a description of the research context, study design, and methods. The results and findings are presented and discussed in the light of their significance to management practice.

Theory and Hypotheses Development

Abusive Supervision and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Organ’s (1988) definition of organizational citizenship behavior states that it is “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes effective functioning of the organization (p. 4).” A main feature of this definition is the term discretionary, which implies that the omission of OCBs is not subject to punitive measures. However, the discretionary nature of OCBs and the non-existence of formal reward system is no indication that they are unnoticed by mid/top management and might not attract some sort of reward, preferential treatment, or extra perks. This view is corroborated by Podsakoff et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis, which established positive associations between OCB and performance ratings, alongside rewards and promotions. Organ’s (1988) definition implies that OCB is a product of (or reaction to) social exchange processes and motivation-based systems in the work environment. Interpersonal relations that are perceived to be unjust, such as abusive supervision can negatively affect employees’ self-esteem and social image culminating in declined job and life satisfaction (Tepper, 2000). Positive employee attitudes are negatively related to supervisory abuse because employees experiencing such are less committed, less engaged, less creative, have turnover intentions, and less probable to be involved in extra-role OCBs (e.g., Kermond & Schaubroeck, 2015; Oyewunmi et al., 2018).

Just as Hoobler and Brass (2006) attributed supervisors’ acts of abuse to the breach of their psychological contract, subordinates may also perceive acts of abuse as a violation of psychological contract and resort to negative workplace attitudes (Restubog et al., 2011). Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory reinforces the reciprocity theme and the need for organizations to maintain the multiple layers of relationships to avoid negative reciprocity. Zellars et al. (2002) state that withholding OCBs might be a way for abused employees to react and get back at abusive supervisors or organizations. However, there might be situations where abused employees might refrain from withholding OCBs because doing so could be noticed by superiors and may induce further adverse outcomes.

Hypothesis 1: Abusive supervision will be negatively related to subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior.

Abusive Supervision and Whistleblowing Intention

Whistleblowing is the “disclosure by organization members of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employer, to person, or organizations who may be able to effect action (Near & Miceli, 1985, p. 4).” It is reporting actions deemed immoral or illegal to persons or parties that can take punitive and corrective actions. Whistleblowing is a voluntary action that is different from whistleblowing intention (Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005). The theory of planned behavior affirms that behavioral intention is predicated on subjective probability and personal judgment that a course of action will be taken (Ajzen, 2012). It is often the case that a person’s intention to blow the whistle is an immediate antecedent of actual whistleblowing. Rather than investigating whistleblowing, researchers have typically explored whistleblowing intention because of the difficulty of gaining access to actual whistleblowers (Vadera et al., 2009). In this paper, whistleblowing intention is conceptualized as the probability that employees within an organization will report actions considered as illegal, immoral, or unethical to persons or parties that are both willing and able to effect necessary measures. Abusive supervision and whistleblowing intention are both ethical issues. While the former is the unethical and immoral treatment of employees, the latter aims to expose such behavior.

When employees decide not to blow the whistle either because they are being silent or being silenced, it leads to the normalization and helpless acceptance of unethical behavior, as well as the initiation of other employees in unethical patterns through social learning (Bandura, 1986; Tepper et al., 2017). Although there are several reasons why employees might not report supervisory abuse (see Mesmer-Magnus & Viswesvaran, 2005), the fear of retaliation and lack of organization support are foremost (Restubog et al., 2011). Employees’ inclination to express concerns about work-related issues is determined by the perceived receptiveness of their superiors. This perceived disposition is significantly culturally dependent. In cultures that are characterized by social class and high power distance, the likelihood that victims will blow the whistle is low (Tavakoli et al., 2003). This is because cultural values form the foundation for the construction of thought and behavior; and as Tietjen and Myers (1998) state, “the values or worldview a worker carries into the job forms the foundation by which attitudes (to that job) develop (p. 230).” Organizational culture may also impact on the intention to blow the whistle; norms related to social exchange processes, aggression, hierarchy, deference, and conformity have implications for both intention and behavior (Tavakoli et al., 2003). The victim precipitation theory (VPT; Lasky, 2020; Wolfgang, 1957) suggests that certain personality types are more vulnerable than others to supervisory abuse (Bowling et al., 2010). Passive or docile victims are perceived as being unaggressive, disinclined, and unable to defend themselves or challenge supervisory abuse by nursing or acting on whistleblowing intention (Henle & Gross, 2013). Hallberg and Strandmark (2006) report that mistreatment from a supervisor may damage the self-esteem of subordinates, leading to feelings of shame and self-blame, two toxic and immobilizing emotions that may mitigate whistleblowing intention.

Hypothesis 2: Abusive supervision will be positively related to subordinates’ whistleblowing intention.

Methods

Overview of Research Context

Nigeria is a sub-Sahara African country located on the western coast with a population of over 185 million (World Bank, 2018), diverse ethnicities and over 400 languages (Boyes, 2013). Like in many African countries, cultural values in Nigeria emphasize respect for old age and authority, community, and collectivism, value for the sacred and religion (Oyewunmi et al., 2021). To a large extent, daily existence and interactions are guided by these values. According to Hofstede (2001), Nigeria has a high degree of power distance (80) and a low score in the individualism dimension (30), indicating a collectivist leaning. While the scores for masculinity (60) and indulgence (84) are high, long-term orientation is low (13), and uncertainty avoidance at a medium score of 55 (https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country/nigeria/). Like in most high power distance and collectivist cultures, conformity and non-expression of opinions are embedded. This is because it is widely believed that whether high or low, everyone has a place in the social hierarchy. Therefore, the acceptance of existential inequalities amongst individuals is often characteristic. A common belief is that the boss is always right and can do no wrong. In glaring cases of the boss being wrong, speaking up to correct, or offer perspective may be deemed as being disrespectful, questioning, or embarrassing authority (Umar & Hassan, 2013). Also, in a developing country such as Nigeria, the widening socio-economic gap may engender silence as a survival strategy.

Sample and Procedure

Studies have shown a high incidence of abusive supervision amongst healthcare workers (Ariza-Montes et al., 2013; Estes, 2013; Llewellyn et al., 2018; Norton et al., 2017). We tested the hypotheses using data collected from healthcare assistants (HCAs) in a public psychiatric hospital in Southwest, Nigeria. Typically, the duties of HCAs (also referred to as auxiliary nurses, support workers/staff) include assisting with patients’ movement, personal hygiene, feeding, housekeeping, errands, and providing psycho-social support (Spilsbury & Meyer, 2004). The nature of HCAs’ roles, their limited training and low professional standing has sometimes led to the perception of inferior treatment by other members of the health team (Bach et al., 2007). This is against the backdrop of numerous operational and internal governance issues in Nigeria’s public healthcare (Oyewunmi & Oyewunmi, 2014). In this study, the mixed-methods approach was adopted in sequence and for complementary purposes. The initial approach was quantitative; however the findings using the quantitative approach raised questions that necessitated the qualitative approach through semi-structured interviews to illuminate contextual variables.

For the survey, the sample size for the study was 180. Females constituted 56.1%, while 43.9% were males. For age distribution, 45.6% of the sample was between the ages 21 and 30 years, 35.6% were between the ages 31 and 40 years, 10.0% in the 41 to 50 age bracket, and 8.9% were 51 years old and above. About 50.6% of the sample indicated their marital status as single, 42.2% were married, 4.4% were separated, and 2.8% were widowed. In terms of educational qualification, 38.3% had high school certificates, 32.8% had no formal education, 23.9% had a diploma, and 5.0% had a higher diploma. About 43.3% had spent between 6 and 10 years with the hospital, 40.6%had spent less than 5 years, 13.3% had spent 11 to 15 years, and 2.8% had spent 16 to 20 years in service.

Measures

Abusive supervision was assessed using Tepper’s (2000) 15-item scale measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from SA (Strongly Agree) to SD (Strongly Disagree). Examples of items asked if respondent’s supervisor . . .makes negative comments about me to others; . . .ridicules me; . . .invades my privacy and . . .expresses anger at me when he or she is mad for another reason (α = .853). We adopted an abbreviated 15-item scale version (Kumar & Shah, 2015) of Podsakoff’s et al. (1990) original 24-item scale. Subordinates’ citizenship behavior was measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from Strongly Agree (SA) to Strongly Disagree (SD). Examples of items include; I always avoid creating, I obey organization rules when no one is watching and I willingly help fellow workers when they have work-related problems (α = .324). We attribute the rather low reliability to the difficulties of conceptualizing and measuring OCB which is prevalent in the literature (Kwantes et al., 2008). To assess whistleblowing intention, a vignette was adopted. A vignette is a “short description of a person or social situation which contain precise reference to what are thought to be the most important factors in the decision-making or judgment making process of respondents” (Alexander & Becker, 1978, p. 94). Respondents were instructed to read the vignette and consider the likelihood of blowing the whistle in a hypothetical situation. Two items were used to measure whistleblowing intention on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Definitely Would (DW) to Definitely Would Not (DWN). Example of an item is, “giving the hypothetical situation that your supervisor abuses you on several occasions or over a period of time, indicate your likelihood to report the behavior to a higher authority.”

Control Variables

From literature (Restubog et al., 2011; Zellars et al., 2002; Zhu & Zhang, 2019), demographic variables may co-vary with the independent and dependent variables. In this study, the following variables were controlled for: Gender (Male = 1, Female = 2), Age (21–30 years = 1; 31–40 years = 2; 41–50 years = 3; and 51 and above = 4), Marital Status (Single = 1, Married = 2, Separated = 3, and Widowed = 4), Highest Educational Qualification (No Education = 1, High School Certificate = 2, Diploma = 3, and Higher Diploma/Degree = 4), Length of service (<5 years = 1, 6–10 years = 2, 11–15 years = 3, and 16–20 years = 4). These variables were held constant in the analysis to avoid their effect on the relationship being measured.

Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive analysis of the variables under consideration. From the correlation coefficients shown in the table, there is a significant relationship between age of respondents and perceived level of abusive supervision, this indicates that age (not gender) significantly influence abusive supervision (at .05 level of significance), the −.218 correlation coefficient shows that the relationship is inverse (i.e., as age increases, perceived abusive supervision reduces). A positive relationship was observed between age and organizational citizenship behavior, the coefficient is .156, indicating that as age increases, the display of organizational citizenship behavior also increases. From the table, educational qualification and organizational citizenship behavior correlates with .175 coefficients, indicating that educational qualification also increases organizational citizenship behavior. Finally, length of service significantly correlates with abusive supervision, and the relationship is positive (.187). The correlation analysis shows that age and length of service affect abusive supervision. The internal consistency reliability coefficient for abusive relationship, organizational citizenship behavior, and whistleblowing intentions are reported along the diagonals.

Table 1.

Descriptive Analysis of Constructs.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Gender	1.56	0.49	–
2. Age	1.82	0.94	‒0.158*	–
3. Marital status	1.80	0.79	0.071	0.229**	–
4. Highest educational qualification	2.01	0.87	‒0.058	‒0.094	‒0.103	–
5 Length of service	1.81	0.87	‒0.033	0.093	0.136	‒0.042	–
6. Abusive supervision	2.61	0.81	0.099	‒0.218**	0.041	‒0.094	0.187*	(0.853)
7. Organizational citizenship behavior	3.30	0.42	0.012	0.156*	0.006	0.175*	0.007	‒0.126	(0.324)
8. Whistleblowing intention	2.20	0.90	‒0.118	‒0.123	‒0.092	‒0.012	0.099	‒0.031	0.099	(0.493)

Note. The alpha internal-consistency reliability coefficient appears in parenthesis along the main diagonal. A total of 180 respondents completed the survey. Gender (1 = Male and 2 = Female) age (1 = 21–30, 2 = 31–40, 3 = 41–50, and 4 = 51 and above); Marital Status (1 = Single, 2 = Married, 3 = Separated, and 4 = Widowed); Highest Educational Qualification (1 = No Education, 2 = High School Certificate, 3 = Diploma, and 4 = Higher Diploma/Degree); Length of service (1 = <5 years, 2 = 6–10 years, 3 = 11–15 years, and 4 = 16–20 years), OCB, Abusive supervision, and whistleblowing intention are coded so that higher scores mean respondent perceived high OCB, abusive supervision, and whistleblowing intention.

†

p = .10. *p = .05. **p = .01.

For Hypothesis 1, A 6-step hierarchical regression analysis is reported in Table 2 above; steps 1 to 5 shows the variables (demographics) that were controlled for in the analysis while step 6 shows the effect of abusive relationship on the dependent variable, that is, organizational citizenship behavior, the influence of the relationship is negative as hypothesized but was not significant, having a coefficient of −.078 (p = .892).

Table 2.

Regression Analysis for Hypothesis 1.

	Steps of hierarchical regression
Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6
Gender	‒0.029	‒0.012	‒0.006	0.008	0.008	0.008
Age		0.111	0.125	0.143	0.143	0.140
Marital status			‒0.056	‒0.040	‒0.041	‒0.040
Educational qualification				0.207	0.207	0.206
Length of service					0.010	0.012
Abusive supervision						‒0.011
R – change	.001	.013	.016	.058	.058	.058
Sig. F.	0.694	0.143	0.470	0.006	0.897	0.892

The 6-step hierarchical regression analysis shown in Table 3 shows the analysis for hypothesis 2. The first five steps of the regression show the demographic variables that were controlled for in the analysis, and it was observed that none of the control variable significantly affected subordinates’ whistleblowing intention. Step 6 shows the influence of abusive supervision on the dependent variable (whistleblowing intention); the influence was not significant with a coefficient of −.087 (p = .268).

Table 3.

Regression Analysis for Hypothesis 2.

	Steps of hierarchical regression
Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6
Gender	‒0.141	‒0.160	‒0.157	‒0.161	‒0.157	‒0.157
Age		‒0.123	‒0.114	‒0.119	‒0.125	‒0.142
Marital status			‒0.035	‒0.040	‒0.054	‒0.049
Educational qualification				‒0.061	‒0.058	‒0.067
Length of service					0.010	0.128
Abusive supervision						‒0.084
R – change	.020	.035	.036	.039	.051	.058
Sig. F.	0.259	0.144	0.393	0.132	0.101	0.268

Discussion of Findings

For hypothesis 1, the result showed a negative and insignificant relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. This negative relationship is consistent with the findings of earlier studies (e.g., Kim et al., 2020; Zellars et al., 2002). Although abused subordinates are likely to demonstrate fewer OCBs, others might continue to perform OCBs due to individual and social constructions of justice. The applicability of the justice theory is undoubted as it underpins the regularization of social interactions (Primeaux et al., 2003). However, perceptions of justice are often governed by the subjectivity of individual, contextual, and cultural characteristics which shape mindset and behavior. We believe that the negative but insignificant relationship for hypothesis 1 may also be attributable to culture-related variations in the definition of OCB as either in-role or extra-role. Individuals from collectivist cultures, typified by our sample, are more like likely to demonstrate higher levels of OCBs than persons from individualistic cultures (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). This is because collectivist cultures emphasize group identity and conformity. Hence, engagement in high levels of OCBs is based on the perception that those behaviors are in-role and the expectation within such organizational setting is that employees should be particularly motivated to behave in ways that strengthen their relationship with their employer. Contrary to the assumption for hypothesis 2, the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ whistleblowing intention was not significant. Extant studies have associated whistleblowing intention with several personal, situational, and cultural factors (Dungan et al., 2015; Sims & Keenan, 1999; Tavakoli et al., 2003).

From the findings, it became essential to investigate the deviation of results from the assumption that abusive supervision would negatively relate to organizational citizenship behavior while positively leading to whistleblowing intention. To achieve this, the study collated the average opinion (by rounding up the average score) of respondents, so that the general perception of the sample on abusive supervision, organizational citizenship behavior, and whistleblowing intention can be measured. The frequency distribution showed that 47.2% of the sample agreed that they had experienced abusive supervision, 15% stated their supervisors were not abusive, while the remaining 37.8% were indifferent in their perception of abusive supervision. In terms of OCB, only 1.7% did not exhibit OCB, 35% exhibited OCB, and the remaining 63.3% were neutral in their views. We assume that this high percentage of neutrality is partly due to culture-related variations in the definition of organizational citizenship behavior as in-role or extra role. The distributions of abusive supervision and OCB also show that there could be possible factors affecting the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The frequency distribution of whistleblowing intention showed that 61.7% of the sample reported that they were unlikely to engage in whistleblowing; only 17.3% stated that they were likely to report cases of abusive supervision, the remaining 21.1% of the sample were not sure whether they would report. This shows that although the proportion of respondents that have experienced abusive supervision is high, there is yet a higher proportion of the sample that would not engage in whistleblowing. A rather substantial 61.7% of the sample reported that they were unlikely to engage in whistleblowing, an important pro-social mechanism that is necessary for ensuring organizational justice, fairness, and transparency. This raised further questions on the factors that could prevent respondents from reporting the cases of abusive supervision that they experience. We decided to garner more insights using semi-structured interviews.

Qualitative Data

The qualitative approach was adopted because it has proved practical in explaining social realities, behaviors, and attitudes of participants (Levitt et al., 2017). We found this approach useful for experiential engagement, understanding the framework within which the participants interpreted their views and the dominant contextual variables. We deployed semi-structured interviews as they offer much-needed flexibility in the exploration of issues. There is no agreement in the extant literature on the appropriate sample size in qualitative research (Boddy, 2016). Nonetheless, the researchers were confident that a sample of 20 HCAs would supply representative data needed on the factors preventing whistleblowing intention in cases of abusive supervision. A total of 20 interviews were randomly sought, and 6 of the requests were declined. The snowball approach was adopted to make up the sample size of 20 (n = 20) by asking some of the participants to recommend to the researchers other HCAs who could articulate their views on the subject matter.

Participants were interviewed in-person on three occasions over 2 weeks for 35 to 40 minutes. Although interviews were conducted in the English Language, there were a few instances that necessitated Pidgin/Broken English to assist respondents’ understanding of the issues. Also, the researcher carefully explained the concepts of abusive supervision and OCB to participants to ensure that they fully comprehend the nature and purpose of the study. Informed consent was gained, and all participants were assured of anonymity and confidentiality. Data gathering was conducted conversationally to encourage candor. The interview questions were open-ended to provide opportunities for follow-up questions. Examples of the questions are, in your view, what reasons hinder your colleagues from blowing the whistle on abusive supervision? Why do you think victims of abusive supervision still engage in OCB? All responses were recorded digitally with the permission of the respondents and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Field notes were useful for recording observational data, particular incidents that the respondents recalled, as well as points of convergence and divergence in responses.

Standard content analysis framework of the transcript revealed a consistent pattern of themes in respondents’ quotes (Guest et al., 2012) on the factors that mitigate whistleblowing intention amongst HCAs. The data generated three category headings which were verified for accuracy by the researchers and subjected to a few modifications after discussions. These factors are presented in the section below with some excerpts to accentuate the discussion.

Cultural Orientation: Power Distance and Collectivism

Culture is closely related to ethical perceptions and behaviors across contexts (Tavakoli et al., 2003). Participants alluded to two of Hofstede’s cultural orientation dimensions as factors that attenuate whistleblowing intention. The most recurring of these dimensions was power distance. This was not surprising as researchers have stated the role of power distance in the reactionary attitudes of employees to supervisory practices (e.g., Daniels & Greguras, 2014; Tepper, 2007; Vogel et al., 2015). A number of participants stated that abusive supervision was a common occurrence in their interactions with their supervisors and high power distance was a major reason for the lack of whistleblowing intention. They viewed their roles as HCAs to be of low status and believed that their voices did not count. This perception of their role implied that they “are less attuned to unfairness committed by authority figures because they perceive these actions as part of their role-defined privilege” (Li & Cropanzano, 2009, p. 793). Moreover, they were generally uncomfortable with questioning the authority of persons in the positions of supervisor or management. Most responses depicted an acceptance of power differentials, a view that supervisors where somewhat superior and a tendency for deference rather than reciprocity with regards to their behavior. One respondent stated that:

Abuse by supervisors happens all the time. I have had many experiences. It is part of the job. If I report, it is more trouble for me. . .it is better to just leave them . . .you know. . .someone that has more power than you, can destroy you. (HCA 6)

This perception engenders the suppression of whistleblowing intention and reinforces supervisory abuse. It echoes the finding of Grandey et al. (2010) who argued that the suppression of emotions such as being angry with higher status individuals (e.g., supervisors) is characteristic of high power distance cultures. Beugre (1998) also noted that supervisory abuse is often expected in such contexts and victims are unlikely to respond negatively for fear of the power wielders. In high power distance cultures or contexts, internal reporting of ethical infractions perpetrated by superiors is doubtful. This is because such an action is perceived as an affront to authority figures, who are more likely to be protected by the organization rather than disciplined (MacNab et al., 2007; Miceli & Near, 1992).

A collectivist orientation implies that individuality is embedded in group identity. It highlights the importance of social relationships, conformity, maintaining the status quo, “we” consciousness, loyalty, and group interest (Hofstede, 2011). From the findings, the interplay of high power distance and high collectivism makes for a fluid perpetration of supervisory abuse and the continued fanning of its flames. In Nigeria, religion and ethnicity play dominant roles in shaping individual and collective experience by influencing thought patterns and social exchange processes. Specifically, an overbearing sense of belongingness shared by victims and perpetrators who are affiliated to the same (or similar) religious or ethnic groups may contribute to the stifling of whistleblowing intention. A significant number of participants were more attuned to maintaining the status quo and avoiding conflict.

Someone who hurts you today may make you happy tomorrow. (HCA 2)

The implication of the quote above is that social relationships are considered to be a cocktail of negatives and positives, concessions and compromises, which should not impede the continuity of such relations. This collectivist point of view is reflective of the South African Ubuntu philosophy, a worldview that is also popular in other parts of Africa. Its central themes are humaneness, group solidarity, and harmony (Metz, 2007). Whilst conflict avoidance and reconciliation are encouraged; dissent and retribution are discouraged. Consequently, a victim of abusive supervision with an intention to blow the whistle may be viewed by social group members as being non-conformist to the prevailing social philosophy (Uys, 2010).

Another concern expressed by participants was that the intention and act of whistleblowing are deemed as a breach of loyalty to members of the (HCA) group because it may attract a backlash of negative attention from supervisors and other members of management.

Some time ago, a new HCA reported to management that she was mistreated by her supervisor. Management and supervisors, are they not the same? That period was terrible for us. . .no peace of mind at all. (HCA 9)

Whistleblowing intention is often perceived as an affront on both collective loyalty (Miceli et al., 2008) and the sense of mutual dependence. As Gorodnichenko and Roland (2012, p. 222) observed, behavior is subject to the “different social context and the perception of others’ reaction to one’s behavior, as well as from the perceived effect of one’s own actions on others.” The potential whistleblower is faced with the dilemma of morality of loyalty versus morality of principle (Uys & Senekal, 2008), given that a decision has to be made between loyalty to in-group relationships or acting based on ethical standards of behavior. Our sample tended toward the former option rather than the latter because of the strong member-attachment to an “identity constituting group” (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

Fear of Retaliation and Stigma

Findings indicate that the fear of retaliation and stigma were major factors that impacted on whistleblowing intention. A consequence of whistleblowing is that,

. . .social status and the reputation of the whistleblower are often impugned. For example, whistleblowers are sometimes depicted as snitches, moles, spies or tattletales and may be categorized as paranoid, disloyal or disgruntled by leadership. Rarely are whistleblowers labeled protectors, patriots or heroes. . . (Garrick, 2017, p. 39)

Retaliation is “taking an undesirable action against an employee or not taking a desirable action because the employee disclosed information about a serious problem” (Keenan, 2002, p. 82). Work-related retaliation refers to undesirable actions that are formal, tangible, and documented, while social retaliatory behaviors are informal, antisocial, and undocumented (Cortina & Magley, 2003). Participants stated instances of work-related and social retaliation that include non-inclusion in career advancement or training opportunities, poor performance appraisal, issuance of unwarranted queries, involuntary transfers, snide remarks, silent treatment, exclusion from social gatherings, and harassment. A few participants expressed fear that social retaliation may take a more sinister dimension, as blowing the whistle may result in them being cursed by the abusive supervisor.

Once you blow the whistle, you become a target all over again. Imagine coming to work and you are afraid and anxious. For me, I see no point in blowing any whistle. . .it’s a big risk. (HCA 1)

I mentioned to one of the supervisors that my immediate supervisor had a habit of disrespecting and embarrassing me. Not long after, I noticed that I was consistently excluded from training opportunities. . . I was excluded from the annual pay increase due to poor performance appraisal. My supervisor would not speak to me. Even my co-workers who were aware of my supervisor’s abusive behaviour distanced themselves from me. Everyone was acting as if I did not exist. Eventually, I just had to go and plead with my supervisor. (HCA 5)

The occurrence of these acts of retaliation following a whistleblowing situation will impact the likelihood that observers will blow the whistle thereafter. To elaborate, employees will take behavior cues from vicarious punishment (Bandura, 1986). Retaliation as a result of whistleblowing may arouse negative emotional reactions in the observer who will subsequently associate whistleblowing with negative consequences and therefore refrain from such behavior. Our sample belonged to the low wage/earning cadre of the healthcare sector. The harsh socio-economic climate and the reality of high unemployment engender a situation of vulnerability. Retaliation may sometimes be in the forms of demotion, pay cut, or termination of employment, which are high costs when there are dependants on a potential whistleblower’s pay and when unemployment is rife. Also, the stigmatizing reaction from co-workers and contentious nature of the whistleblowing process is likely to have severe implications on the physical and psycho-social wellbeing of the abused-whistleblower-subordinate. This situation makes silence a realistic option for many abused subordinates in this context.

Perceptions of Organizational Trust and Support

The concept of trust is fundamental to social exchange processes (Blau, 1964). Organizational trust implies “one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the belief that the latter party is competent, open, concerned, reliable” (Mishra, 1996, p. 265). Over time, employees acquire a repertoire of observations and interpretations about their organization that shape their perceptions. Organizational trust necessitates positive emotional exchange between organizations and employees. Central to positive emotional exchange is the impression that organizational justice is satisfactory. Considerations about the characteristics of the organization’s actions and the situational factors of such actions may inform the unwillingness of the employee to report unethical practices to the distrusted organization (Guo et al., 2015). This was the case for a significant number of our sample, who had trust issues with their organization.

Management won’t do anything about abuse by supervisors. They do not care about things like that. As long as everyone is performing their jobs. . .that’s what matters to them. (HCA 8)

Nothing was done about the cases reported in the past. There were no disciplinary actions against the abusive supervisors. Infact, I believe they became more powerful after they were reported. (HCA 14)

Whistleblowing intention is stifled by distrust, particularly in mechanistic organizations where there is considerable emphasis on authority and hierarchy. This is because the social exchange ideology is often weak, spontaneity in interactions is limited and psychological safety is lacking (Edmondson, 2004). A critical observation is the interplay between organizational trust and the perception of organizational support. When employees perceive that their organization adequately supports them, it elicits a sense of obligation that is catalytic to the trust-building process. Extant studies suggest that support from supervisor and top management is a predictor of whistleblowing intention (Keenan, 2000, 2002). In concert, employees’ perceptions of organizational trust and support are consequential for whistleblowing intention in cases of supervisory abuse (Eisenberger et al., 1986).

Implications for Theory and Practice

Our study makes crucial theoretical and practical contributions to the literature on abusive supervision, OCB and whistleblowing intention. This is notable given the sparse empirical evidence on the nature of the relationships amongst these variables using a Nigerian sample. It is important to state that the findings of this study are relevant to other sectors aside healthcare because contextual variables play a vital role in supervisor-subordinate exchange. First, our research demonstrates that organizational behavior theories are subject to the context within which they are applied and in simplistic terms, “no behavior is context-free” (Kwantes et al., 2008). Therefore, the application of these theories must be governed by the knowledge and receptiveness to the influence of context-related variables. The environment within which subordinates subsist influences (Baez et al., 2018; Hogg & Smith, 2007; Mackey et al., 2017) their perceptions of justice, the nature of social exchange, reactions to supervisory abuse, intention to blow the whistle and the entirety of their workplace attitudes. Indeed, we concur with Vogel et al. (2015) that abusive supervision cannot be generalized across cultures. Although our findings indicated a high incidence of abusive supervision, there was a negative but insignificant relationship between abusive supervision and OCB, and an insignificant relationship between abusive supervision and whistleblowing intention. We believe a major reason for this is the culture and context in which our sample is embedded and derives their identity.

A theoretical trajectory related to the primacy of context is the dynamics of social learning, which suggest that behavioral appropriateness is often deduced from either positive or negative models in an environment. This presupposes that increased observation of the display of abusive behavior by persons in supervisory roles may potentially lead to the imitation of such behaviors by subordinates. By the time such subordinates assume supervisory positions, they would have fully internalized abuse as normative supervisory behavior. In the long run, these individuals get into top management positions and continue to exhibit abusive patterns. The support of such dysfunctional behavior through the complicity or laissez-faire style of senior management expedites and normalizes the reproductions of dominance and excessive power imbalance. Subordinates’ silence and lack of whistleblowing intention are motivated in part by dependence on supervisors for the achievement of career goals such as exceptional performance appraisals, recommendations, promotions and training and development opportunities (Tepper et al., 2007). Supervisors are aware of the powers they wield in the determination of subordinates’ career goals, and some take advantage of their positions. Subordinates in this type of power equation are vulnerable to a work environment that rejects dissent and dissenters, trampling their self-esteem, stifling their sense of personal freedom, and creating a siege consciousness that often compels them to speak silence.

We cannot over-emphasize the urgency for organizations to wholly commit to the re-engineering of their culture and the re-structuring of their attitudes toward employee-related issues such as abusive supervision. In our opinion, this is the first step toward mitigating supervisory abuse and the vicious cycle that reproduces abusive supervisors. Organizational trust is weakened by the scripted lukewarm attitude and inconsistent behavior of top management. Since trust and support are closely associated, organizations will benefit from periodically appraising employees’ levels of trust through anonymous surveys and transparently communicating the results. Next is ensuring the protection of employees from abusive supervision by initiating or reinitiating ethical codes of conduct, zero-tolerance policies, and the implementation of investigative and disciplinary processes without reserve. A high level of organizational trust is predicated on the core values of credibility, respect for all, fair treatment transparency and inclusion (Hitch, 2012; Oyewunmi, 2018; Oyewunmi et al., 2021). These will fortify the trust-building process, encourage whistleblowing, improve the perceptions of justice, foster psychological safety, and facilitate healthy social exchange on many levels. Other essential interventionist strategies to curb abusive supervision and encourage whistleblowing intention include anonymous reporting mechanisms, employee assistance programs, introduction of whistleblowing champions, specialized training on constructive voice behaviors, and conflict resolution. Also, the deployment of leadership development programs that will stimulate an organic process of learning, unlearning, and relearning is vital to changing the mindset of abusive supervisors. It is fundamental to their emergence from the dark side of toxic leadership into the light of inspirational leadership.

Organizations do not exist in vacuity; therefore, the external socio-legal environment must be considered. The broad civil law delineation avails a regulatory appreciation of workplace abuse, as well as remedial considerations for primal interests. This approach reinforces the importance of parties in an employment relationship to adhere to the principle of reciprocity that underscores the acceptance of statutory interventions that are integral to protecting the sanctity of workplace interactions. However, in many developing national contexts, the statutory posture and regulatory vigor to mitigate workplace mistreatment are lacking. Such a subduing regulatory climate is a major disincentive for whistleblowers (Gibbs, 2020). The findings of this study motivate us to propose that abusive supervision and other forms of workplace mistreatment require the implementation of specific statutory measures owing to their frequency, diversity, intensity, and dire consequences.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study has some limitations which may guide future research. A potential design limitation is our adoption of snowball sampling in the qualitative enquiry. Participants who were asked to refer others may have invited persons who share similar perspectives with them, and this may have given some latitude for bias. Also, the low reliability of the OCB scale is a weakness that must be mentioned. Future studies must consider definitional components and dimensionality in measuring OCB (Kwantes et al., 2008). The sample was limited to HCAs in Nigeria’s public healthcare sector. The sample, sector, and broader context are characterized by peculiarities that make us refrain from making sweeping generalizations about the nature of abusive supervision in diverse organizations across Nigeria and Africa. Therefore, we suggest that future studies adopt broader samples, longitudinal, multi-sectoral, cross-cultural, and comparative designs. More studies are needed in Africa to explore the processes and perceptions of abusive supervision, the nature of retaliatory behavior, the roles of culture, as well as the existence and effectiveness of whistleblowing mechanisms within organizations and external institutions. Besides, more studies could investigate the dispositional predictors of the organizational phenomena explored in this research. Given the uneven power dynamics in some contexts, future studies could explore the functionality of humble leadership. Morris et al. (2005, p. 1342) argue that “leaders with high levels of humility are more likely to encourage employee participation and involvement rather than their counterparts.” This style of leadership could encourage equitable and constructive interactions between supervisors and subordinates in a high power distance context.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the editorial team and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the earlier version of this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Adebukola E. Oyewunmi

References

Adams

J. S.

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2

Ajzen

(2012). The theory of planned behaviour. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 438–459). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n22

Alexander

C. S.

Becker

H. J.

(1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 93–104.

Aquino

(2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600201

Ariza-Montes

Muniz

N. M.

Montero-Simó

M. J.

Araque-Padilla

R. A.

(2013). Workplace bullying among healthcare workers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(8), 3121–3139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10083121

Ashforth

(1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47(7), 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700701

Bach

Kessler

Heron

(2007). The consequences of assistant roles in the public services: Degradation or empowerment? Human Relations, 60(9), 1267–1292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707082848

Baez

García

Ibáñez

(2018). How does social context influence our brain and behaviour? Frontiers Young Minds, 6(3). https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2018.00003

Bamberger

P. A.

Bacharach

S. B.

(2006). Abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress and subordinate personality into account. Human Relations, 59(6), 723–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726706066852

10.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

11.

Beugre

(1998). Managing fairness in organizations. Quorum Books Co.

12.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34, 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x

13.

Boddy

C. R.

(2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research, 19(4), 426–432.

14.

Bowling

N. A.

Beehr

T. A.

Bennett

M. M.

Watson

C. P.

(2010). Target personality and workplace victimization: A prospective analysis. Work & Stress, 24(2), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2010.489635

15.

Boyes

(2013). Getting to know Africa: 50 interesting facts. National Geographic Voices. Ideas and Insights from Explorers. https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2013/10/31/getting-to-know-africa-interestingfacts/

16.

Byrne

Dionisi

A. M.

Barling

Ayers

Robertson

Lys

Wylie

Dupré

(2014). The depleted leader: The influence of leaders’ diminished psychological resources on leadership behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 344–357.

17.

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

(2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.247

18.

Daniels

M. A.

Greguras

G. J.

(2014). Exploring the nature of power distance: Implications for micro- and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1202–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527131

19.

Duffy

Ganster

Pagon

(2002). Social undermining in the workplace. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. Retrieved August 5, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/3069350

20.

Dungan

Waytz

Young

(2015). The psychology of whistleblowing. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 129–133.

21.

Edmondson

(2004). Psychological safety, trust and learning: A group-level lens. In Kramer

Cook

(Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239–272). Russell Sage Foundation.

22.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

23.

Estes

B. C.

(2013). Abusive supervision and nursing performance. Nursing Forum, 48, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12004

24.

Folger

Cropanzano

(2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In Greenberg

Cropanzano

(Eds.), Advances in organization justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford University Press.

25.

Garrick

(2017). Peer support for whistleblowers. Federal Practitioner: For the Health Care Professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS, 34(7), 38–41.

26.

Gibbs

(2020). Whistleblowing: Protection or discouragement? Journal of Money Laundering Control, 23, 1368–5201. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-03-2020-0031

27.

Gorodnichenko

Roland

(2012). Understanding the individualism-collectivism cleavage and its effects: Lessons from cultural psychology. In Aoki

Kuran

Roland

(Eds.), Institutions and comparative economic development. International economic association series (p. 22). Palgrave Macmillan.

28.

Grandey

Rafaeli

Ravid

Wirtz

Steiner

D. D.

(2010). Emotion display rules at work in the global service economy: The special case of the customer. Journal of Service Management, 21(3), 388–412. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231011050805

29.

Guest

MacQueen

K. M.

Namey

E. E.

(2012). Applied thematic analysis. SAGE Publications.

30.

Guo

S. L.

Lumineau

Lewicki

R. J.

(2015). Revisiting the foundations of organizational distrust. Foundations and Trends in Strategic Management, 1(1), 1–88. https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/MGT-001

31.

Hallberg

L. R. M.

Strandmark

K. M.

(2006). Health consequences of workplace bullying: Experiences from the perspective of employees in the public service sector. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 1(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482620600555664

32.

Henle

C. A.

Gross

M. A.

(2013). Born to be deviant? An examination of the relationship between workplace deviance and employee personality. In Elias

S. M.

(Ed.), Psychology and crime. Deviant and criminal behaviour in the workplace (pp. 50–76). New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814722602.003.0003

33.

Hitch

(2012). How to build trust in an organization. UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School White Paper.

34.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and organizations across nations. SAGE.

35.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

36.

Hogg

M. A.

Smith

J. R.

(2007). Attitudes in social context: A social identity perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 89–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701592070

37.

Hoobler

J. M.

Brass

D. J.

(2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125–1133.

38.

Lin

Jing

Meng

(2015). The influence of abusive supervision on work-to-family conflict: The mediation role of organizational justice [Conference session]. 2nd international conference on education reform and modern management (ERMM 2015) proceedings book, Atlantis Press, pp. 284–286.

39.

Keenan

J. P.

(2000). Blowing the whistle on less serious forms of fraud: A study of executives and managers. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 12, 199–217.

40.

Keenan

J. P.

(2002). Whistleblowing: A study of managerial differences. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 14, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015796528233

41.

Kermond

C. M. Y.

Schaubroeck

J. M.

(2015). Abusive supervision. In Wright

J. D.

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioural sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 23, pp. 701–708). Elsevier.

42.

Kernan

M. C.

Watson

Chen

F. F.

Kim

T. G.

(2011). How cultural values affect the impact of abusive supervision on worker attitudes. Cross Cultural Management, 18(4), 464–484. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601111179528

43.

Kim

Chen

Kong

(2020). Abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of networking behaviour. Sustainability, 12, 288.

44.

Kumar

M. M.

Shah

S. A.

(2015). Psychometric properties of Podsakoff’s organizational citizenship behaviour scale in the Asian context. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(1), 51–60.

45.

Kwantes

C. T.

Karam

C. M.

Kuo

B. C. H.

Towson

(2008). Culture’s influence on the perception of OCB as in-role or extra-role. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.01.007

46.

Lasky

N. V.

(2020). Victim precipitation theory. In Bernat

F. P.

Frailing

(Eds.), The encyclopedia of women and crime. Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118929803.ewac0517

47.

Levitt

H. M.

Motulsky

S. L.

Wertz

F. J.

Morrow

S. L.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4, 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082

48.

Cropanzano

(2009). Do East Asians respond more/less strongly to organizational justice than North Americans? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 46(5), 787–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00825.x

49.

Llewellyn

Karageorge

Nash

Neuen

(2018). Bullying and sexual harassment of junior doctors in New South Wales, Australia: Rate and reporting outcomes. Australian Health Review, 43, 328–334. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH17224

50.

Lopes

Kamau

Jaspal

(2018). Coping with perceived abusive supervision: The role of paranoia. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(2), 237–255.

51.

Mackey

J. D.

Frieder

R. E.

Brees

J. R.

Martinko

M. J.

(2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940–1965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573997

52.

MacNab

Brislin

Worthley

Galperin

Jenner

Lituchi

MacLean

Aguilera

M. G.

Ravlin

Tiessen

H. J.

Bess

Turcotte

(2007). Culture and ethics management: External whistle-blowing and internal reporting within a NAFTA member context. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 7, 5–28.

53.

Marcinko

(1997). Leadership secrets of the rogue warrior: A commando’s guide to success. Pocket Books.

54.

Martinko

M. J.

Harvey

Brees

J. R.

Mackey

(2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 34, S120–S137. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1888

55.

Mathieu

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

Babiak

(2014). A dark side of leadership: Corporate psychopathy and its influence on employee well-being and job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.010

56.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

Viswesvaran

(2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 277–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-0849-1

57.

Metz

(2007). Toward an African moral theory*. Journal of Political Philosophy, 15, 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2007.00280.x

58.

Miceli

M. P.

Near

J. P.

(1992). Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implications for companies and their employees. Lexington.

59.

Miceli

M. P.

Near

J. P.

Dworkin

T. M.

(2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

60.

Mishra

(1996). Organizational response to crisis. In Kramer

R. M.

Tyler

T. R.

(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (p. 256). SAGE Publications.

61.

Mitchell

M. S.

Ambrose

M. L.

(2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159

62.

Moorman

R. H.

Blakely

G. L.

(1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 16, 127–142. https://doi:10.1002/job.4030160204

63.

Morris

J. A.

Brotheridge

C. M.

Urbanski

J. C.

(2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58, 1323–1350.

64.

Near

J. P.

Miceli

M. P.

(1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1–16.

65.

Norton

Costa

Teixeira

Azevedo

Roma-Torres

Amaro

Cunha

(2017). Prevalence and determinants of bullying among healthcare workers in Portugal. Workplace Health & Safety, 65(5), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079916666545

66.

Ogunfowora

(2013). When the abuse is unevenly distributed: The effects of abusive supervision variability on work attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 34, 1105–1123.

67.

Onyishi

I. E.

(2012). Abusive supervision and pro-social organizational behaviour: A study of workers in the banking industry in Nigeria. The African Symposium, 12(2), 96–103.

68.

Organ

D. W.

(1988). Issues in organization and management series. Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome (p. 4). Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com.

69.

Oyewunmi

A. E.

(2018). Normalizing difference: Emotional intelligence and diversity management competence in healthcare managers. Intangible Capital, 14(3), 429–444.

70.

Oyewunmi

A. E.

Akinnusi

D. M.

Oyewunmi

O. A.

(2018). Of predators and preys: Corporate psychopathy and employee burnout as parallels. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 26(2), 149–156.

71.

Oyewunmi

A. E.

Esho

Oyewunmi

O. A.

(2021). Spiritual intelligence and employee outcomes in an African sample. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 18(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.51327/ZPDN7247

72.

Oyewunmi

O. A.

Oyewunmi

A. E.

(2014). Collective bargaining in Nigeria’s public health sector: Evidences for an inclusive approach. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(23), 20–26.

73.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Blume

B. D.

Whiting

S. W.

Podsakoff

P. M.

(2009) Individual and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviours: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079

74.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Moorman

R. H.

Fetter

(1990). Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7

75.

Primeaux

Karri

Caldwell

(2003). Cultural insights to justice: A theoretical perspective through a subjective lens. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 187–199. https://doi:10.1023/A:1025017024336

76.

Rafferty

A. E.

Restubog

S. L. D.

(2011). The influence of abusive supervisors on followers’ organizational citizenship behaviours: The hidden costs of abusive supervision. British Journal of Management, 22, 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00732.x

77.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Scott

K. L.

Zagenczyk

T. J.

(2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021593

78.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. SAGE.

79.

Schat

A. C. H.

Frone

M. R.

Kelloway

E. K.

(2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce: Findings from a national study. In Kelloway

E. K.

Barling

Hurrell

J. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47–89). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976947.n4

80.

Sims

R. L.

Keenan

J. P.

(1999). A cross-cultural comparison of managers’ whistleblowing tendencies. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 12, 137–151 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007711220997

81.

Spilsbury

Meyer

(2004). Use, misuse and non-use of health care assistants: Understanding the work of health care assistants in a hospital setting. Journal of Nursing Management, 12, 411–418.

82.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In Worchel

Austin

W.G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relation (pp. 7–24). Hall Publishers.

83.

Tavakoli

A. A.

Keenan

J. P.

Crnjak-Karanović

(2003). Culture and whistleblowing: An empirical study of Croatian and United States managers utilizing Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1–2), 49–64.

84.

Tepper

B. J.

(2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375

85.

Tepper

B. J.

(2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812

86.

Tepper

B. J.

Duffy

M. K.

Henle

C. A.

Lambert

L. S.

(2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x

87.

Tepper

B. J.

Duffy

M. K.

Shaw

J. D.

(2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervisor and subordinate’s resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 974–983.

88.

Tepper

B. J.

Moss

S. E.

Duffy

M. K.

(2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263085

89.

Tepper

B. J.

Moss

S. E.

Lockhart

D. E.

Carr

J. C.

(2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159918

90.

Tepper

Simon

Park

H. M.

(2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, 4(1), 123–152.

91.

Tietjen

M. A.

Myers

R. M.

(1998). Motivation and job satisfaction. Management Decision, 36(4), 226–231.

92.

Umar

Hassan

(2013). Antecedents and outcomes of voice and silence behaviours of employees of tertiary educational institutions in Nigeria. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 97, 188–193.

93.

Uys

(2010). Does ubuntu impede whistleblowing? Whistleblowing and national cultures in South Africa [Conference session]. Paper presented at Business Ethics Network-Africa Conference, Nairobi, Kenya.

94.

Uys

Senekal

(2008). Morality of principle versus morality of loyalty: The case of whistleblowing. African Journal of Business Ethics, 3(1), 38–44.

95.

Vadera

A. K.

Aguilera

R. V.

Caza

B. B.

(2009). Making sense of whistle-blowing’s antecedents: Learning from research on identity and ethics programs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(4), 553–586.

96.

Vogel

R. M.

Mitchell

M. S.

Tepper

B. J.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Hua

Huang

J. C.

(2015). A cross-cultural examination of subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 36, 720–745. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1984.

97.

Wolfgang

M. E.

(1957). Victim-precipitated criminal homicide. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 48(1), 1–11.

98.

World Bank. (2018). The World Bank in Nigeria. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/nigeria/overview

99.

Zellars

K. L.

Tepper

B. J.

Duffy

M. K.

(2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1068–1076.

100.

Zhang

Liu

Yang

L.-Q.

Bednall

T. C.

(2019). Why abusive supervision impacts employee OCB and CWB: A meta-analytic review of competing mediating mechanisms. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2474–2497.

101.

Zhu

Zhang

(2019). The double-edged sword effect of abusive supervision on subordinates’ innovative behaviour. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 66. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00066

Speaking Silence: Abusive Supervision,Subordinates’ Citizenship Behavior,and Whistleblowing Intention

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theory and Hypotheses Development

Abusive Supervision and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Abusive Supervision and Whistleblowing Intention

Methods

Overview of Research Context

Sample and Procedure

Measures

Control Variables

Results

Discussion of Findings

Qualitative Data

Cultural Orientation: Power Distance and Collectivism

Fear of Retaliation and Stigma

Perceptions of Organizational Trust and Support

Implications for Theory and Practice

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References