Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Mistreatment in the workplace is a recurring and persistent threat to employee health and organizational productivity. Research has shown that there are five times as many cases of workplace mistreatment reported in China as in the United States. Therefore, we established the mistreatment-employee health relationship in Chinese companies. The search was conducted in the Web of Science, EBSCOhost, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar databases. The search terms used were “China,” “mistreatment,” “abuse,” “neglect,” “exploitation,” and “violence.” The search was not limited by the year of publication. The search found 1,527 articles, 65 of which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were used for data analysis and quality assessment. Our results show that the overall prevalence of abuse varies significantly but ranges from 18.5% to 94.6%. Psychological aggression by supervisors and customers was common in the healthcare industry. The experience of abuse was positively correlated with adverse consequences such as emotional fatigue, addiction, and suicidal ideation. By providing evidence of the effects of mistreatment, this study aims to help researchers and practitioners align their policies with global labor standards.

Keywords

Mistreatment workplace China health and well-being systematic review

Introduction

Mistreatment has been compared to an epidemic: a recurring and ongoing source of threat to employee health and well-being (Feldblum & Lipnic, 2016). A report by the co-chairs of the EEOC selected task force (Feldblum & Lipnic, 2016) found that more than 30% of employees in the U.S had filed workplace harassment-related complaints. Further, an average of 15 employees die each day from work-related injuries, including those related to the mistreatment of employees (OSHA, 2020). In China, the situation is probably even worse. Official reports recorded about 75 deaths daily, with 15% associated with mistreatment (CLB, 2020). Despite growing attention and awareness of the link between mistreatment and health, the extent of abuse in Chinese companies remains largely unknown.

Workplace mistreatment is defined as interpersonal behavior aimed at harming employees at work (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). An employee’s experience of mistreatment can take many forms, including abuse, violence, harassment, bullying, ostracism, and discrimination (McCord et al., 2018). This behavior may be perpetrated by customers, co-workers, or supervisors. Mistreatment varies in severity, cause, and motivation and potentially leads to high employee stress, burnout, and psychological stress (McCord et al., 2018). At the organizational level, this leads to loss of productivity and economic loss associated with sickness leave (L. Y. Dhanani et al., 2021).

There is limited research investigating the effects of workplace mistreatment on health and well-being in China (Lu et al., 2020; Magnavita et al., 2019; Nielsen et al., 2020; Nyberg et al., 2021; Pacheco et al., 2021). Only one study estimated the overall prevalence of mistreatment in China to be 62.4% (Lu et al., 2020). The study also estimated that certain types of mistreatments (e.g., verbal abuse) ranged from 6.3% to 61.2%.

Research has established the relationship between workplace mistreatment and sleep-related problems (Magnavita et al., 2019; Nielsen et al., 2020), musculoskeletal disorders, decreased mental health (Pacheco et al., 2021), and health-related absenteeism (Nyberg et al., 2021). However, the results are not conclusive as most samples are from high-income countries and focus primarily on individual perpetrators, most prominently supervisors. For example, in Magnavita et al. (2019) review of 15 countries, only 3.3% of the 119,361 participants were from China. In a review of 29 studies by Pacheco et al. (2021), more than half were conducted in the Americas, and only four were in Asia. Therefore, these studies underestimate the prevalence of mistreatment in Eastern, low-and middle-income economies and their findings may not reflect the actual trends in countries like China. In this study, China is a generic term for countries with a common language and cultural heritage; namely mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau.

It is unclear whether these studies are also applicable to the Chinese situation for several reasons. First, as China witnessed rapid industrialization, urbanization, and economic growth, attention shifted to labor law and policy. Many media reports highlighted the infringement of Chinese workers’ rights (Kuo & Chen, 2021) and, in extreme cases, death (Ming, 2021). These reports provide an opportunity to investigate the prevalence of mistreatment in China and update previous records (Lu et al., 2020). Second, cultural differences can affect employee awareness and response to abuse. Studies have shown that China’s prevailing collectivist coping strategies differ from individualist ones (Yeh et al., 2006). Such values promote emotional self-restraint and hypervigilance (H. Kim & Markus, 2002) and influence how they deal with mistreatment (Chokkanathan, 2018). Examining mistreatment in this context creates awareness that promotes early detection and intervention (Groth et al., 2019). Finally, previous reports point to the lack of systematic statistics on the extent of mistreatment in China (Eurofound and International Labour Organization, 2019). Lu et al. (2020) study focuses on China, but they only investigate healthcare professionals, and the results cannot be generalized to all work situations.

To fill this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the prevalence and impact of mistreatment on the health and well-being of Chinese employees. Specifically, we disaggregated mistreatment by type of perpetrator (supervisor, co-workers, or customer) and alternative health outcomes (physical, behavioral, cognitive, domain-specific, and emotional). We also analyze mediators and boundary conditions that can exacerbate the effects of mistreatment. We perform a systematic literature review because it will help us to synthesize and summarize the research on different types of mistreatments from multiple sources. By systematically organizing this literature, we will identify gaps in the existing research and draw conclusions about the current state of knowledge. We could not perform a meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity of our studies. Further, our sample was likely to have publication and reporting biases that would result in inadequate summarization. To fulfill our objectives, we have organized this study in various sections; methods, discussion, implications, limitations and future directions.

Methods

Following best practices for systematic reviews, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Page et al., 2021) and pre-registered the study protocol and search strategy (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021283114)

Search Strategy

The search was conducted in the Web of Science, EBSCOhost, PsycInfo and Google Scholar databases on 24th August 2021 to extract articles published in English. The search terms used were “China,”“mistreatment,”“abuse,”“neglect,”“exploitation,” and “violence.” We examined existing systematic reviews and adopted their keywords and their versions (Fischer et al., 2021; Fosse et al., 2019; Hodgins et al., 2014; Lugosi, 2019; Schilpzand et al., 2015, 2016; Sommovigo et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2020). For Web of Science, our search was as follows: (“bullying” OR “harassment” OR “incivility” OR “mobbing” OR “victimization” OR “ill-treatment” OR “rudeness” OR “bad manners” OR “discourtesy” OR “disrespect”) AND (“work” OR “workplace” OR “work-related” OR “job-related”) AND (“health” OR “well-being” OR “well-being”) AND (“China” OR “Chinese”). The detailed search terms are in Supplemental Appendix 1.

This initial search yielded 1,527 articles, of which 763 articles were from the Web of Science, and the rest were from EBSCOhost (274), APA PsycInfo (487) and Google Scholar (3). We identified 727 duplicates through automatic duplication detection by Mendeley referencing tool (version 1.19.18) and hand search. Finally, we removed two articles that were not in English, leaving 798 articles for further screening.

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

We had three inclusion criteria during the screening and eligibility stages. Articles were included if: (i) they had undergone the peer-reviewed process; (ii) they included participants residing in China; and (iii) they applied quantitative or mixed methods.

We excluded 387 articles not relevant to the study leaving 431 eligible articles. Two reviewers screened individual titles and abstracts. All the receivers reached a consensus on any conflicts during the inclusion/exclusion process. They excluded several articles on closer inspection because they did not report outcomes related to health and well-being (n = 71); the geographical location was outside of China or was not mentioned (n = 39); the mistreatment happened in contexts other than the workplace (e.g., at school or among couples; n = 98); not peer-reviewed articles (n = 72); the articles had been retracted (n = 1); they were not quantitative studies (e.g., qualitative; n = 85). A total of 65 studies retrieved from the databases fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were used in the review. See Figure 1 for the PRISMA flow diagram that describes the inclusion/exclusion process.

Figure 1.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews, which included searches of databases, registers, and other sources.

Data Extraction and Analysis

We extracted critical parameters from the studies into an Excel spreadsheet. The following parameters were extracted from the studies: author, journal name, country, theoretical framework, study design, the context of the study, perpetrators, measuring instrument, type of abuse, main findings, mediators, and moderators. Two team members assessed each of the extracted articles, and any uncertainties were resolved by contacting a third independent reviewer.

Quality Assessment

Two research team members independently evaluated the quality of each study using a quality rating tool adopted from previous systematic reviews (e.g., Cummings et al., 2010). A discussion with a third independent reviewer resolved any differences. A customized tool (See Supplemental Appendix 2) was used to evaluate four areas of each study: study design, sampling, measurement, and statistical analysis. The tool consisted of 13 items, and a total of 14 possible points could be assigned to each study. Twelve items were rated 0 (not met) or 1 (met), and one item measuring mistreatment was rated 2 (objective observation), 1 (self-report), and 0 (not met). As per instruction within the tool, a global rating was given for the study. Global scores were assigned to each study as instructed by the tool. After scoring, each study was categorized as high (10–14 points), medium (5–9 points), or low (0–4 points). The lead author reviewed and confirmed that all the studies had been extracted, analyzed, and assessed.

Results

Most of the 65 studies included in the final sample were performed in Mainland China (n = 46). The rest were conducted in Taiwan (n = 16), Hong Kong (n = 1), and Macau (n = 1). One study compared the impact of gender discrimination and job-related outcomes in the United States, Mainland China, and Hong Kong. Table 1 summarizes the studies included and their key findings. The majority of the studies were from health (n = 25), accommodation and catering (n = 7), education (n = 8), information communication and technology (n = 10), leasing and business services (n = 3), manufacturing (n = 4), and transport, storage and post (n = 2) industries. The mistreatment originated from the supervisor (n = 23), co-workers (n = 3), or customers (defined broadly to include patients, students, and the public; n = 19). The other studies either examined multiple perpetrators (n = 5) simultaneously or were not specific (n = 15). Most of the studies examined abusive supervision (n = 19), workplace violence (n = 16), customer mistreatment (n = 9), incivility (n = 8), and bullying (n = 5). Gender discrimination, verbal violence, toxic work environments, despotic leadership, psychopathic leadership, perceived victim identity, consumer behaviors, and cyber-bullying were examined in single studies.

Table 1.

Study Characteristics and Workplace Mistreatment Outcomes.

	Authors	Year	Country	Sample size	Industry	Independent variable (IV)	Dependent variable (DV)	DV category
1	Aryee, Samuel et al.	2008	Mainland China	285	C13	Abusive supervision	Job dedication	Emotional
2	Baranik, Lisa E. et al.	2017	Mainland China	737	G60	Customer mistreatment	Well-being, emotional exhaustion	Emotional
3	Chang, Chia-Ming et al.	2019	Taiwan	200	Q85	Workplace incivility	Emotional exhaustion	Behavioral
4	Chen, Jiuming et al	2021	Mainland China	470	L73	Customer mistreatment	Job satisfaction	Behavioral
5	Chen, Wen-Ching et al.	2009	Taiwan	222	Q85	Workplace violence	Reporting behavior	Behavioral
6	Cheung, Teris et al	2017	Macau	720	Q85	Workplace violence	Psychological	Emotional
7	Chi, Shu-Cheng Steve et al	2013	Taiwan	254	S93	Abusive supervision	Psychological Withdrawal Behavior	Emotional
8	Diefendorff, James M. et al.	2019	Mainland China	246	G60	Customer incivility	Emotional exhaustion; psychological vitality	General
9	Fang, Huiying et al.	2018	Mainland China	652	Q85	Workplace violence	Depressive symptoms	Domain-specific
10	Guo, Ju et al.	2021	Mainland China	519	P84	workplace incivility	Work engagement	Emotional
11	Guo, Ju et al.	2022	Mainland China	465	P84	Workplace incivility	Work engagement	Behavioral
12	J. -C. Hong et al.	2014	Taiwan	396	G60	Cyber-bullying	Psychological responses	Domain-specific
13	Hsieh, Hsiu-Fen et al.	2018	Taiwan	278	Q85	Workplace violence	Depressive symptoms	Domain-specific
14	Hsieh, Yu-Hui et al.	2019	Taiwan	385	Q85	Bullying	Mental health	General
15	Hsu, Fu-Sung et al.	2019	Taiwan	310	I66	Workplace bullying	Wellbeing	Emotional
16	Hu, H.-H. et al.	2017	Taiwan	336	F52	Consumer misbehaviors	Emotional exhaustion	Domain-specific
17	Hu, Xiaoxiao et al.	2018	Mainland China	730	G60	customer mistreatment	Emotional exhaustion; job performance	Emotional
18	Huang, L.-C. et al.	2020	Taiwan	267	G60	Abusive supervision	Psychological Withdrawal Behavior	Domain-specific
19	Huo, Yuanyuan et al.	2012	Mainland China	243	C13	Abusive supervision	Internet addiction, problem drinking, problem smoking	Domain-specific
20	Khan, Naseer Abbas et al.	2021	Mainland China	298	I66	Psycopathic leadership	Career satisfaction	Emotional
21	KO, Ying-Ying et al.	2020	Taiwan	484	Q85	Workplace bullying	Depressive symptoms	Behavioral
22	Kwok, R P W et al.	2006	Hong Kong	850	Q85	Workplace violence	Coping behaviors	Behavioral
23	Li, X. et al.	2015	Mainland China	248	I66	Abusive supervision	Burnout	Domain-specific
24	Li, Xiaomeng et al.	2021	Mainland China	1062	Q85	Workplace violence	Depressive symptoms	Domain-specific
25	Lin, W, et al.	2013	Mainland China	1109	C13	Abusive supervision	Psychological health, employee job satisfaction	Emotional
26	Liu, Bing et al.	2021	Mainland China	289	Q85	Mistreatment by patients	Work-place wellbeing	General
27	Liu, Jiali et al.	2019	Mainland China	1502	Q85	Workplace violence	Burnout, less job satisfaction	Behavioral
28	Liu, Pei et al.	2020	Mainland China	167	Not mentioned	Experienced workplace incivility	Life satisfaction	Emotional
29	Liu, Yihao et al.	2017	Mainland China	235	G60	Customer mistreatment	Daily unhealthy eating behaviors	Domain-specific
30	Liu, Yuxin et al.	2020	Mainland China	665		Abusive supervision	Suicide ideation	Domain-specific
31	Liu, Yuxin et al.	2020	Mainland China	687	Not mentioned	Abusive supervision	Suicide ideation	Domain-specific
32	Pai, Hsiang-Chu et al.	2011	Taiwan	521	Q85	Workplace violence	Anxiety	General
33	Park, In-Jo et al.	2021	Mainland China	128	I66	Perceived victim identity	Daily job satisfaction; daily work engagement	Domain-specific
34	Peng, Jie et al.	2022	Mainland China	493	Q85	Workplace bullying	Professional quality of life	Behavioral
35	Pien, Li-Chung et al.	2015	Taiwan	17109	Q85	Workplace violence	Mental distress	Domain-specific
36	Pien, Li-Chung et al.	2019	Mainland China	1690	Q85	Experienced verbal violence-Internal	Self-rated health, Poor mental health	emotional
37	Qi, Lei et al.	2020	Mainland China	657	Q85	Mistreatment by patients	Job satisfaction	Domain-specific
38	Qian, Jing et al.	2017	Mainland China	298	I66	Abusive supervision	Job dissatisfaction	Domain-specific
39	Qian, Jing et al.	2015	Mainland China	227	Q85	Abusive supervision	Mental health risk	Emotional
40	Qiao, Yueqiao et al.	2021	Mainland China	333	P84	Peer abusive supervision	Work engagement	General
41	Qin, Xin et al.	2018	Mainland China	64	P84	Abusive supervisory behavior	Work engagement	Behavioral
42	Rasool, Samma Faiz et al.	2021	Mainland China	301	L73	Toxic work environment (harassment, bullying and ostracism)	Employee engagement	Emotional
43	Shaffer, MA et al.	2000	Mainland China, Hong Kong and USA	583	Not mentioned	Gender discrimination	Job satisfaction, life stress	Domain-specific
44	Shi, Yu et al.	2018	Mainland China	696	Q85	Incivility	Job burnout, anxiety	Domain-specific
45	Sims, Randi L. et al.	2012	Mainland China	150	C13	Witnessing workplace bullying	Job satisfaction	Domain-specific
46	Song, Yifan et al.	2018	Mainland China	96	G60	Daily experience of customer mistreatment	Evening rumination, maladaptive shopping	Emotional
47	Sui, Guoyuan et al.	2019	Mainland China	1392	Q85	Workplace violence	Depressive symptoms; emotional exhaustion; despersonalisation	Emotional
48	Sun, Tao et al.	2017	Mainland China	2617	Q85	Workplace violence	Psychological stress, subjective sleep health, subjective health	General
49	Tan, Ling et al.	2021	Mainland China	1146	P84	Abusive supervision	Suicide ideation	Physical
50	Tong, Jiajin et al.	2019	Mainland China	220	S93	General incivility	Supportive behaviors	Emotional
51	Usman, Muhammd et al.	2022	Mainland China	360	P84	Abusive supervision	Workplace thriving	Emotional
52	Wang, Chih-Chieh et al.	2020	Taiwan	233	I66	Abusive supervision	Job satisfaction, work engagement	Emotional
53	Wang, Haipeng et al.	2021	Mainland China	3426	Q85	Workplace violence	Pysical disease	Emotional
54	Wang, I-An et al.	2021	Taiwan	239	I66	Abusive supervision	Mental health, job satisfaction	Domain-specific
55	Wang, M., Liu et al.	2013	Mainland China	149	G60	Customer mistreatment	Negative mood (morning)	Domain-specific
56	Wang, Rong et al.	2020	Mainland China	223	P84	Abusive supervision	Job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion	Behavioral
57	Wang, Rong et al.	2016	Mainland China	264	P84	Abusive supervision	Emotional exhaustion	Domain-specific
58	Wu, Tsung-Yu et al.	2019	Taiwan	458	F52	Abusive supervision	Job burnout	Emotional
59	Xie, Xiao-Meng at al.	2021	Mainland China	10,516	Q85	Workplace violence	More severe anxiety symptoms	General
60	Yang, Bing Xiang et al.	2018	Taiwan	290	Q85	Workplace violence	Emotional exhaustion, despersonalisation	Emotional
61	Zeng, Jiao-Ying et al.	2013	Mainland China	387	Q85	Workplace violence	Quality of life	Behavioral
62	Zhang, Hui et al.	2022	Mainland China	57	G60	Customer mistreatment	Maladaptive behaviors - impulse buying, overeating behaviors, mobile phone overuse	Emotional
63	Zhang, Shu-E et al.	2018	Mainland China	1024	Q85	Workplace violence	Psychological stress, sleep quality, subjective health status of nurses	Domain-specific
64	Zhou, Xiang et al.	2021	Mainland China	230	L73	Despotic leadership	Job satisfaction	Emotional
65	Zhou, Zhiqing et al.	2015	Mainland China	76	G60	Daily workplace incivility experience	End-of-work negative affect	Emotional

Note. F52-Road transport industry; I66-accommodation and food industry; C13-Manufacturing; G60-Telecom and other information transfer service industry; L73-Leasing industry; P84-Education; Q85-sanitation; S93-Public administration

First, we summarize prevalence estimates indicating the scale and frequency of workplace mistreatment in China, followed by disaggregating studies by perpetrators (e.g., supervisors, co-workers, and customers). Then we summarize the mediators and moderators that influence the mistreatment-health and well-being relationship. Finally, we report on the findings of the quality assessment.

Prevalence of Mistreatment

First, we report on the prevalence of mistreatment in China. Fourteen studies reported a prevalence of mistreatment (W. C. Chen et al., 2009; Cheung et al., 2017; Kwok et al., 2006; J. Liu et al., 2019; Pai & Lee, 2011; Pien et al., 2015, 2019; Sui et al., 2019; H. Wang et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2021; B. X. Yang et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2013; S. E. Zhang et al., 2018). The prevalence rates reported in these studies reflects the number of employees who reported being abused (or witnessed) divided by the total number of employees in the sample. These studies only investigated mistreatment in hospitals (workplace violence). They conceptualized mistreatment based on the definitions of the International Labor Organization, the International Council of Nurses, the World Health Organization, and the Public Services International (ILO/ICN/WHO/PSI, 2003). The survey questions asked if the participants had experienced at least one mistreatment incident in the workplace (i.e., have selected at least one item on the scale of the abuse) or if they acknowledged they had experienced/observed the abuse. Employees were considered victims or witnesses of abuse if they answered “yes” to the question “Have you ever experienced any of the following types of mistreatment during the 12 months before the survey” (Pien et al., 2015).

Prevalence rates varied across countries (Kwok et al., 2006; J. Liu et al., 2019; Sui et al., 2019; H. Wang et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2021; B. X. Yang et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2013). In Mainland China, mistreatment was at its highest in 2013 at 82.4% (Zeng et al., 2013), followed by 77.5% (Sui et al., 2019), 75.4% (S. E. Zhang et al., 2018), 52.2% (H. Wang et al., 2021) and lowest in 2021 at 18.5% (Xie et al., 2021). The other studies reported prevalence rates of 76% in Hong Kong (Kwok et al., 2006), 57.2% in Macau (Cheung et al., 2017), and 94.6% in Taiwan (B. X. Yang et al., 2018).

The participants were allowed to identify more than one type of mistreatment within a specified timeframe. They reported having experienced two (n = 1), three (n = 3), four (n = 3), five (n = 2), seven (n = 2) types of mistreatments by selecting verbal abuse, physical violence, sexual harassment, psychological violence, bullying, and discrimination. Sexual harassment (n = 11), verbal abuse/threats (n = 11), physical violence (n = 11) were the most examined types of mistreatments. In all the studies, Yang et al. (2018) reported the highest prevalence rates for sexual harassment (63.4%), physical violence (81.9%), and verbal abuse/threat (92.1%). S. E. Zhang et al. (2018) reported the lowest prevalence rate of sexual harassment (5.9%), and Xie et al. (2021) reported the lowest prevalence rates for physical violence (8.4%) and verbal abuse (15.8%). Figure 2 shows the prevalence of mistreatment by category.

Figure 2.

Prevalence of mistreatment by category.

In the surveys, participants needed to recall when they were mistreated. The participants reported whether they had been abused in the last month (e.g., past week, n = 1), previous 6 months (n = 1), previous 12 months (n = 9), or a time frame longer than 12 months (n = 3).

The studies had different ways of reporting prevalence. Eight studies reported the prevalence rate as a single value. Out of these, one study had a prevalence rate of less than 50%. This study had a large sample size of 10,516 (Xie et al., 2021). The rest had sample sizes that ranged from 290 to 3,426 participants (Cheung et al., 2017; Kwok et al., 2006; Sui et al., 2019; H. Wang et al., 2021; B. X. Yang et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2013; S. E. Zhang et al., 2018). In a study by Zeng et al. (2013), workplace violence in 22 counties/cities in mainland China ranged from 4.7% to 14.7% for men and 6.4% to 14% for women. The disparity in mistreatment for men was higher than for women. Other factors that influenced the prevalence of mistreatment were work routines, working hours, patient gender, educational background, faculty, tenure, and position.

The prevalence of mistreatment in China varies according to conceptualization, measurement, timeframe, and type of mistreatment. These studies were conducted using quantitative methods such as surveys and interviews, while others were conducted using qualitative methods such as case studies and ethnographic research. The quality of the studies varies, with some studies being more rigorous than others. Overall, however, these studies have provided valuable insights into the prevalence and nature of mistreatment of Chinese employees. A weakness of these studies is that they are often limited in scope and rely heavily on self-reported data. This means that the results of the studies may not be representative of the entire population of Chinese employees. Additionally, the studies often lack control groups, making it difficult to draw conclusions on the impact of mistreatment on employee performance. Few studies consider the cultural context in which mistreatment occurs, but we can conclude that more 18.5% do.

Perpetrators of Mistreatment

The studies used two approaches in identifying the perpetrators of mistreatment. First, 34 studies asked employees to rate labeled measures (e.g., abusive supervision, customer/consumer behavior) and items that mentioned the perpetrator (e.g., I believe that my supervisor has “victimized” me; Park et al., 2021). One study (Khan et al., 2021) asked the supervisors to rate their behavior. The rest of the studies used unlabeled measures (e.g., workplace violence; n = 22) but requested the participants to indicate the source of violence (n = 8).

Studies were analyzed based on the reported means. Three studies had means that exceeded 30. Hsieh et al. (2019), M = 30.24; SD = 10.92, N = 385) and Ko et al. (2020), M = 34.5, SD = 13.3, N = 484) used the 22-item Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ-R) developed by Einarsen et al. (2009) to measure workplace violence. Qian et al. (2015) had a mean of 35.23 (SD = 12.46, N = 227), and abusive supervision was measured using 15-items developed by Tepper (2000).

For ease of analysis, the mistreatment types were classified into five categories: bullying, incivility, psychological aggression, sexual harassment, and violence. These categories were synthesized from the mistreatment scale items and measures and adopted from previous literature (L. Y. Dhanani et al., 2021). The majority of the studies examined either psychological aggression (n = 34) or workplace violence (n = 18). The rest examined bullying (n = 4), incivility (n = 8), and sexual harassment (n = 1). Supervisors (n = 21) and customers (n = 10) were the main sources of psychological aggression. Customers (n = 12) and co-workers (n = 5) perpetrated workplace violence. Studies that examined sexual harassment, bullying, and incivility did not specify the perpetrator (anonymous). Eight studies reported perpetrators (Cheung et al., 2017; Ko et al., 2020; Kwok et al., 2006; Pai & Lee, 2011; Peng et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2017; J. H. Yang et al., 2019; Zeng et al., 2013). The breakdown of the relationship between perpetrator and mistreatment category is shown in Figure 3a. Employees in the eight industries experienced supervisor psychological aggression, and customer psychological aggression was common in four industries; anonymous incivility was in three industries. Employees in the health, social security, and social welfare industry experienced all types of mistreatments from all the perpetrators. Figure 3b shows the distribution of mistreatment across industries.

Figure 3.

(a) The relationship between perpetrator and mistreatment category and (b) the relationship between mistreatment category, perpetrator and industry.

Figure 4 shows the distribution of studies examining the perpetrators of mistreatment over the years. As shown in Figure 5, numerous outcomes were examined concerning mistreatment. For ease of analysis and discussion, these outcomes were grouped into five broad categories; physical (e.g., somatization and insomnia), behavioral (e.g., eating disorders, addictions), cognitive (e.g., decision making), domain-specific (e.g., work engagement, and job satisfaction), emotional (e.g., mood and emotions) and general (e.g., general well-being).

Figure 4.

The distribution of studies examining the perpetrators of mistreatment over the years.

Figure 5.

Impact of mistreatment on employee health and well-being

The relationship between mistreatment and the outcomes varied across studies, and some positively associated mistreatment with worse physical (n = 1) and behavioral (n = 10) outcomes. Similarly, a positive association between mistreatment and adverse health outcomes was mainly observed in studies investigating domain-specific (n = 6) and emotional-based well-being (n = 21). The findings reveal that employees’ experience of mistreatment is negatively correlated with health and well-being outcomes such as work engagement (Guo et al., 2021), job satisfaction (C. C. Wang et al., 2020), and thriving (Usman et al., 2022).

Employees’ experience of mistreatment was positively correlated with undesirable outcomes such as emotional exhaustion (Chang et al., 2019), addictions (Huo et al., 2012), and suicide ideation (Y. Liu et al., 2021). This negative impact varied with the type of mistreatment and perpetrator. For instance, the risk of sleep disturbance was higher when the perpetrator of violence was internal (e.g., supervisor or a co-worker; OR = 5.684, 95% CI [4.195, 7.702]) than when it was an external perpetrator (e.g., client; OR = 2.991, 95% CI [2.301, 3.889]) (Yoo et al., 2016). Employees reported the highest level of maladaptive behaviors—impulse buying (r = .44, p < .001), mobile phone overuse (r = .26, p < .001) and unhealthy eating behaviors (r = .33, p < .01) when mistreated by customers (H. Zhang et al., 2022).

In five studies, the mistreatment-health and well-being relationship was insignificant. For instance, Huo et al. (2012) examined the relationship between abusive supervision and problem drinking (r = .06, ns). H. Zhang et al. (2022) examined the relationship between customer mistreatment and overeating behaviors (r = .09, p = .37). Tong et al. (2019) found that both the general experienced incivility-supportive behaviors (r = .04, p = n.s) and general observed-supportive behaviors relationship (r = .01, p = n.s) was insignificant. Tong et al. (2019) found that the relationship between experienced incivility and emotional exhaustion was positive but insignificant (r = .13, p = ns).

Six studies found the relationship between mistreatment and work engagement was insignificant with positive (three studies) and negative (three studies) relationships. The studies that reported positive outcomes were collected from student samples (Qiao et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2018). Ten studies did not specify the perpetrator but reported the highest level of anxiety (Duru et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2018), emotional exhaustion (Sui et al., 2019; Tong et al., 2019), burnout, depression (X. Li & Wu, 2021; Sui et al., 2019) and stress (Chan et al., 2008; Hong et al., 2021; Pien et al., 2015; Shaffer et al., 2000). Mistreatment triggered higher levels of negative affect (r = .29, p < .001) and anger $r_{.}^{-}$ = 0.15) compared to negative mood (r = .10, p < .05). Negative self, psychological responses, vitality, strain, and workplace thriving were examined in only one study each. Table 2 outlines the impact of mistreatment on employee health and well-being.

Table 2.

Impact of Mistreatment on Employee Health and Well-Being.

Outcome	Significantly increased	Significantly decreased	No change
Behavioral (N = 10)
Unhealthy eating	Y. Liu et al. (2017)		H. Zhang et al. (2022)
Maladaptive shopping	Song et al. (2018)
Impulse buying	H. Zhang et al. (2022)
Mobile phone overuse	H. Zhang et al. (2022)
Internet addiction	Huo et al. (2012)
Problem drinking	Huo et al. (2012)
Problem smoking	Huo et al. (2012)
Supportive behaviors	Tong et al. (2019)
Depersonalization	Sui et al. (2019), B. X. Yang et al. (2018)
Domain-specific outcomes (N = 24)
Work-engagement		Guo et al. (2021), Park et al. (2021), Rasool et al. (2021)	Qiao et al. (2021), Qin et al. (2018)
Job satisfaction		J. Chen et al. (2021), Lin et al. (2013), J. Liu et al. (2019), Park et al. (2021), Qi et al. (2020), Shaffer et al. (2000), Sims and Sun (2012), C. C. Wang et al. (2020), I. -A. Wang et al. (2021), R. Wang and Chan (2020), X. Zhou et al. (2021)
Life stress		Shaffer et al. (2000)
Career satisfaction		Khan et al. (2021)
Quality of life		Peng et al. (2022)
Job dedication		Aryee et al. (2008)
Job dissatisfaction	Qian et al. (2017)
Workplace thriving		Usman et al. (2022)
Life satisfaction		P. Liu et al. (2020)
Quality of life		Zeng et al. (2013)
Emotional outcomes (N = 31)
Emotional exhaustion	Baranik et al. (2017), Chang et al. (2019), Diefendorff et al. (2019), Hu et al. (2017), X. Hu et al. (2018), Sui et al. (2019), R. Wang et al. (2016), R. Wang and Chan (2020), B. X. Yang et al. (2018)
Negative mood	M. Wang et al. (2013)
Rumination	Song et al. (2018)
Psychological responses	J. -C. Hong et al. (2014)
Psychological vitality		Diefendorff et al. (2019)
Psychological stress	S. E. Zhang et al. (2018)
Burnout	Li et al. (2016), J. Liu et al. (2019), Shi et al. (2018), Wu et al. (2019)
Negative affect			Z. E. Zhou et al. (2015)
Suicide ideation	Y. Liu et al. (2020, 2021), Tan and Xia (2021)
Anxiety	Pai and Lee (2011), Shi et al. (2018), Xie et al. (2021)
Psychological withdrawal	Chi and Liang (2013), Huang et al. (2020)
Stress	Pien et al. (2015), Sun et al. (2017)
Depressive symptoms	Fang et al. (2018), H. Hsieh et al. (2018), Li & Wu, (2021), Sui et al. (2019), Ko et al. (2020)
General outcomes (N = 10)
Well-being		Hsu et al. (2019), B. Liu et al. (2021)	Baranik et al. (2017)
Health	Y. Hsieh et al. (2019), Pien et al. (2019)	Lin et al. (2013), Sun et al. (2017), I. -A. Wang et al. (2021), S. E. Zhang et al. (2018)
Health risk	Qian et al. (2015)
Physical outcomes (N = 3)
Sleep quality		Sun et al. (2017), S. E. Zhang et al. (2018)
Physical health	H. Wang et al. (2021)

Supervisors were identified as the leading source of mistreatment in China, followed by customers and employees. These studies also found that abusive supervision was associated with higher levels of distress than co-worker and customer mistreatment. This suggests that mistreatment by management can harm employees more than abuse by colleagues or customers. The study also found that employees who were abused by their superiors were more likely to report significant adverse health and well-being, whereas other studies found the effects to be more subtle. For example, some studies have found that abuse can lead to increased stress and anxiety, while others have found that abuse can lead to improved resilience and coping skills. Additionally, some studies have found that abuse can lead to lower job satisfaction and engagement, while others have found that abuse can lead to increased workplace stress and burnout. Finally, abuse can lead to lower organizational commitment, poorer job performance, and increased intention to leave. Therefore, managers must treat their subordinates fairly and maintain a healthy and productive work environment. Overall, workplace abuse can have a wide range of negative effects on both individuals and organizations. It is important that employers recognize the potential consequences of abuse and take steps to ensure that all employees are treated with respect and dignity. However, a weakness of these studies is that they often lack a comprehensive approach. Most studies focus on a single aspect of mistreatment while failing to consider emotional abusee or neglect and the wider context of the work environment.

Mediators

Mistreatment is usually considered an event that affects distal outcomes (e.g., engagement and satisfaction) through direct mechanisms (e.g., negative affect, Fischer et al., 2017). Thirty-three out of 65 studies in our review examined mediators. Recent reviews of the literature on mistreatment (Lugosi, 2019; Sommovigo et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2020) have identified three categories of proximate mechanisms: (i) individual and personality factors, (ii) organizational factors, (iii) interpersonal, social, and cultural-based factors. We draw upon these frameworks here. Emotional exhaustion was the most common mediator (Aryee et al., 2008; Chi & Liang, 2013; Huang et al., 2020). Negative mood, self-efficacy, psychological needs, strain, and rumination were used in two studies. The other mediators were used only once. As shown in Table 3, the proposed mediators fall into one of these categories.

Table 3.

Proposed Mediators.

Proposed mediator	Reference
Individual factors
Emotional exhaustion	Aryee et al. (2008), Chi and Liang (2013), Huang et al. (2020)
Negative mood	Y. Liu et al. (2017), Song et al. (2018)
Self-efficacy	Khan et al. (2021), X. Zhou et al. (2021)
Psychological needs	J. Chen et al. (2021), Y. Liu et al. (2020)
Strain	Huo et al. (2012), Sims and Sun (2012)
Rumination	Baranik et al. (2017); M. Wang et al. (2013)
Meaning of life	Y. Liu et al. (2021)
Employee silence	C. C. Wang et al. (2020)
Emotional change	Park et al. (2021)
Resilience	Peng et al. (2022)
Social sharing	Baranik et al. (2017)
Affect	Diefendorff et al. (2019)
Emotional regulation	Diefendorff et al. (2019)
Anger and guilt	P. Liu et al. (2020)
Anxiety	Shi et al. (2018)
Emotional labor	Shi et al. (2018)
Depression	Tan and Xia (2021)
Self-blame	Tong et al. (2019)
Work meaningfulness	Qi et al. (2020)
Recovery level	Qin et al. (2018)
Schadenfreude	Qiao et al. (2021)
Self-control impairment	H. Zhang et al. (2022)
Task focus	Usman et al. (2022)
Heedful relating	Usman et al. (2022)
Affective organization commitment	Guo et al. (2022)
Job security	Guo et al. (2022)
Well-being	Rasool et al. (2021)
Organizational factors
Organizational support	Rasool et al. (2021)
Perceived organizational innovation	J. -C. Hong et al. (2014)
Interactional justice	R. Wang and Chan (2020)
Perceived service climate	Chang et al. (2019)

All the reviewed studies either examined single mediators or mediators from one category. Further, similar mediating mechanisms were explained using multiple frameworks. For instance, emotional exhaustion as an outcome of abusive supervision was explained by the conservation of resources theory (Chi & Liang, 2013) and the job demands-resources model (Huang et al., 2020). Customer mistreatment predicted negative mood (or affect) as explained by the social mindfulness theory (Song et al., 2018), self-regulatory theories (Y. Liu et al., 2017), and control theory of emotional labor (Diefendorff et al., 2019). As an exception, the mediating effect of psychological needs (e.g., need for autonomy, relatedness need) was only examined using the self-determination theory (SDT; J. Chen et al., 2021; Y. Liu et al., 2020). Interestingly, these psychological needs had inconsistent mediating effects. For instance, the relationship between abusive supervision and suicidal ideation was partially mediated by needs for competence and relatedness (Y. Liu et al., 2020). Y. Liu et al. (2020) also found that the need for autonomy (b = −0.06, ns) did not mediate this relationship. J. Chen et al. (2021) found that relatedness needs satisfaction had no mediating effect on the relationship between customer mistreatment and job satisfaction (B = −0.10, S.E. = 0.09, p > .05).

Moderators

Across all studies, 55 moderators were proposed and tested. Like the mediators, the moderators fell into three categories; (i) individual and personality factors, (ii) interpersonal, social, and cultural factors, and (iii) organizational factors. The detailed list of moderators and their effects is shown in Table 3. Studies reported that the domain-specific health outcomes (e.g., work engagement) were significantly higher when moderated by individual and personality factors, for example, self-perceived employability and schadenfreude (witnessed incivility). However, Qin et al. (2018) study found the indirect moderating effect of empathic accuracy on the relationship between abusive supervision and work engagement was negative and significant (β = −.50, p < .05).

Eleven of these studies found that the proposed moderators do not affect the main relationships. Three of these studies examined the effect of the interaction between mistreatment from internal perpetrators (e.g., customers) and various moderators on health outcomes. They found that perspective-taking intervention (Song et al., 2018) surface acting (Baranik et al., 2017), learning (H. Zhang et al., 2022), sleep quality (Y. Liu et al., 2017), emotional contagion susceptibility (B. Liu et al., 2021), training and participation (Hu et al., 2018) did not moderate the relationship between mistreatment from customers and negative mood (γ = −0.14, p > .10), cognitive rumination (γ = 0.22, p = .35), social sharing of negative work events (γ = 0.19, p = .24), healthy food consumption (γ = 0.01, p < .05), emotional exhaustion (γ = 0.19, p > .05), workplace well-being (β = .003, n.s.), and self-control capacity impairment (γ = 0.25, p = .30). Two studies examined the interaction between abusive supervision, ethical leadership (R. Wang & Chan, 2020), and cooperative goal interdependence (Qiao et al., 2021). They found that these moderators did not influence interactional justice and work engagement (B = − 0.01, p = .80). One study indicated that psychological capital (PsyCap) did not moderate the relationship between workplace incivility and emotional burnout (Chang et al., 2019). As a second stage moderator, emotional exhaustion did not moderate the relationship between emotional change and daily work engagement (γ = −0.04; p > .05) (Park et al., 2021).

The findings of these studies reveal that employees who are mistreated may use different coping strategies to manage their stress, such as avoidance, problem-solving, or seeking social support. These strategies can have a direct impact on their health and wellbeing. These studies found that boundary conditions, such as social support, can buffer the effects of stress on health outcomes, meaning that individuals with higher levels of social support are less likely to experience negative health outcomes due to stress.

Quality Assessment

The quality assessment was based on study samples, research design, and analysis (Table 4). The final 65 studies used cross-sectional, experience sampling (ESM), experiments, and time-lagged research design. The majority of the studies were rated medium (n = 45) quality. The rest were either high (n = 19) or low (n = 1) quality. Only 25 studies were prospective, partially due to the influence of time on mistreatment. Only one study used probability sampling, as most studies either used random or convenience sampling methods to study mistreatment in specific groups or units. Fifteen studies addressed the appropriateness of sample size, and 39 studies were multisource. All the studies addressed respondents’ anonymity, and 56 met the minimum response rate threshold of 60%. Fifty-nine studies had reliable and valid mistreatment measures. Sixty-one had valid study instruments, and the reported study outcomes were reliable. Fifty-seven reported the outcome correlations, and only nine managed the outliers.

Table 4.

Summary of Quality Assessment-65 Included Quantitative Studies.

	Criteria	No. of studies
	Design	Yes	No
1	Was the study prospective?	25	40
2	Was probability sampling used?	1	64
	Sample
1	Was the sample size justified?	15	50
2	Was sample drawn from more than one site?	39	26
3	Was anonymity protected?	65	0
4	Response rate more than 60%	56	9
	Measurement
	Mistreatment (Assesses IVs correlated with DVs only)
1	Was mistreatment measured reliably?	59	6
2	Was mistreatment measured using a valid instrument?	61	4
	Influence on the measure of mistreatment (DV)
1	Was the outcome of mistreatment observed rather than self-reported? ^a	65	0
2	If the scale was used for measuring outcomes, was internal consistency ≥0.70?	57	8
3	Was a theoretical framework/model used for guidance?	47	18
	Statistical Analysis
1	If multiple outcomes were studied, were correlation analyzed?	58	7
2	Were outliers managed?	9	56

This item scored 2 points. All others scored 1 point.

The quality of studies examining the relationship between mistreatment and employee health and well-being in China is generally high. Most studies have used rigorous methods to collect data and analyze the results. For example, many studies have used large sample sizes, employed valid and reliable measures, and used sophisticated statistical techniques to analyze the data.

Discussion

Our review found that mistreatment impacts employee health and well-being. The prevalence of mistreatment in China varies in terms of conceptualization, measurement, timeframe, and type of mistreatment. In terms of conceptualization, mistreatment in China is often defined as any form of physical, psychological, or sexual abuse, neglect, exploitation, or discrimination. In terms of time frame, mistreatment can be measured over a short period of time or over a longer period of time (Cole et al., 2016). In terms of type of mistreatment, it can include physical abuse, psychological abuse, and sexual abuse. Physical abuse can include hitting, slapping, pushing, kicking, or any other type of physical force. Psychological abuse can include verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, isolation, and manipulation. Sexual abuse can include any type of unwanted sexual contact or activity (L. Y. Dhanani et al., 2021; McCord et al., 2018).

Supervisors were identified as a major source of mistreatment in China followed by customers and then co-workers. Supervisors were identified as the primary source of mistreatment due to their power and authority over employees (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Customers were identified as a source of mistreatment due to their ability to make demands and complaints that employees must comply with (ILO, 2019). Co-workers were identified as a source of mistreatment due to their ability to create a hostile work environment and engage in bullying or other forms of harassment (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010).

The prevalence of mistreatment among Chinese employees is difficult to measure, as it is often unreported due to fear of retribution or lack of awareness of legal rights. However, our findings reveal an overall prevalence ranging from 18.5% to 94.6%. Prevalence of mistreatment was highest in Taiwan (94.6%) compared to Mainland China (82.4%), Hong Kong (76%), and Macau (57.2%). Similar to China, mistreatment is prevalent in the West. According to the World Health Organization, prevalence of workplace mistreatment in the US is estimated to be between 25% and 50% (L. Y. Dhanani et al., 2021). A survey of over 1,000 Chinese employees found that nearly half of employees had experienceH. d mistreatment in the workplace (Zhang, 2021). Additionally, a study of over 1,000 Chinese migrant workers found that nearly two-thirds had experienced some form of discrimination in the workplace. The study found that the majority of migrant workers felt that their employers did not respect their rights or provide them with adequate protection (Han et al., 2014). These findings suggest that mistreatment of employees is a serious issue in China and that more needs to be done to ensure that all workers are treated fairly and with respect.

Implication of the Study

Theoretical Implications

The study of the relationship between workplace mistreatment and employee health among Chinese employees has five theoretical implications. First, we develop a theoretical framework that can explain this relationship. The mistreatment of Chinese employees can have a significant impact on their health and well-being. Our findings are consistent with previous research that has found that workplace mistreatment can lead to physical and psychological health problems. Mistreatment can include physical, psychological, and emotional abuse, as well as discrimination and harassment. This mistreatment can lead to a range of physical and mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. It can also lead to decreased job satisfaction, decreased productivity, and increased absenteeism (L. Y. Dhanani et al., 2021). In addition, mistreatment can lead to feelings of isolation, low self- esteem, and depression. Victims of mistreatment may also experience physical symptoms such as headaches, stomachaches, and difficulty sleeping. In extreme cases, mistreatment can lead to suicidal thoughts or actions.

Second, we highlight the theories that were presented as explanatory mechanisms of the relationship between workplace mistreatment and employee health. Figure 6 shows the framework developed to guide our discussion. From the proposed framework, we believe that the Affective Events Theory (AET; Weiss & Russel, 1996) fits the data better. Affective events theory (AET) suggests that employees’ reactions to workplace events are based on their emotional responses to those events. These emotional reactions are determined by the perceived level of importance of the event. AET suggests that employees’ reactions to mistreatment in the workplace can be negative, leading to decreased job satisfaction, decreased commitment to the organization, and increased turnover intentions. Employees may also experience psychological distress, such as anxiety, depression, and anger. Additionally, employees may respond to mistreatment by retaliating against the perpetrator, either through direct or indirect means. This can lead to further conflict and a decrease in organizational productivity. In our review, workplace mistreatment had an impact on employee attitudes and behaviors leading to poor employee health and well-being.

Figure 6.

Proposed framework.

Third, we highlight pre-mistreatment interventions strategies that would help employees prepare for and cope with stressful events before they occur. Compared to post-treatment interventions (i.e., strategies used to help individuals cope with the aftermath of a stressful event), pre-mistreatment interventions are more effective in preventing mistreatment. Previous studies have found that pre-mistreatment interventions can be effective in reducing the severity of symptoms and the need for more intensive treatment (Colizzi et al., 2020; Sirey et al., 2020). For example, a study of pre-treatment interventions for depression found that those who received pre-treatment interventions had significantly lower levels of depression symptoms than those who did not receive pre-treatment interventions (Sirey et al., 2020). Additionally, those who received pre-treatment interventions were less likely to require more intensive treatment than those who did not receive pre-treatment interventions (Colizzi et al., 2020). These strategies can include education and training on appropriate behavior, policies and procedures to prevent mistreatment, and systems to monitor and respond to potential mistreatment.

Fourth, these findings suggest that mistreatment in China and the West differs significantly. Our literature review revealed that mistreatment of Chinese employees can include things like long working hours, low wages, and lack of job security. In US forms of mistreatment include discrimination, harassment, and unfair wages (X. Zhang et al., 2019). The studies in our review tended to focus on physical and psychological abuse, while studies in the West have tended to focus on emotional abuse and neglect (L. Y. Dhanani et al., 2021). In addition, the studies we reviewed tended to focus on the effects of mistreatment on the victims, such as the domain-specific (e.g., work engagement and job satisfaction) and emotional outcomes (e.g., negative emotions, rumination and suicide ideation). While the studies in the West focused on factors that lead to mistreatment, such as poverty, lack of education, and social isolation (Willness et al., 2007). They have also looked at the role of cultural norms and values in perpetuating mistreatment (L. Dhanani et al., 2019). In addition, research in the West has examined the impact of mistreatment on individuals, families, and communities (Okubo et al., 2022). Finally, studies in the West have explored the effectiveness of interventions to reduce mistreatment and promote positive outcomes (Okubo et al., 2022).

Finally, workplace hierarchies and cultural factors play an essential contextual role in the perception of mistreatment in reviewed articles. Qin et al. (2018) found that abusive behavior had a short-term positive impact on supervisors’ recovery and work engagement. Lin et al. (2013) showed that subordinates with low (high) power distance orientation were affected by abusive supervision and had a more dramatic impact on their health and well-being. Under these circumstances, Chinese supervisors gain a sense of control through abusive behavior (Farh et al., 2007; Jiang & Gu, 2016; Vogel et al., 2015). Mistreatment is considered primarily unfair and inappropriate in the West, but in China, cultural values such as power distance orientation determine social stratification and the perception of behavior (Farh et al., 2007; Vogel et al., 2015).

Managerial Implications

The findings of this study have important implications for managers. First, it is important for organizations in China to have policies and procedures in place that protect employees from mistreatment by managers. Supervisors were identified as a major source of mistreatment in China followed by customers and then co-workers. Abusive supervision was associated with higher levels of distress than co-worker and customer mistreatment. This suggests that mistreatment by management can harm employees more than abuse by colleagues or customers. Studies have shown that Chinese supervisors gain a sense of control through abusive behavior (Farh et al., 2007; Jiang et al., 2016; Mitchell et al., 2015). They feel that they can get more work out of their employees by using fear and intimidation. There is evidence that abusive supervision has a short-term positive impact on supervisors’ recovery and work engagement (Qin et al., 2018). However, such behavior creates a hostile work environment in which employees are afraid to speak up or challenge their superiors. This behavior has negative long-term consequences, including lower job satisfaction and commitment to the organization, increased job stress, and willingness to quit. Therefore, it is important that managers are aware of the possible negative impacts of their actions and not to engage in behavior that may compromise the health and well-being of their employees.

Second, managers can try to better understand their employees’ individual motivations and needs, and work to create a workplace where employees feel appreciated and valued. For instance, they can offer incentives such as bonuses, provide more training and development opportunities, and create a more positive and supportive work environment. Since abusive supervision can arise from individual factors, cultural influences, and management style (Oh & Farh, 2017), these managers can be encouraged to change their behavior by seeking counseling or therapy, attending workshops or training programs on effective management and communication, and reading books or articles on effective leadership and management. Employees must also be trained to recognize signs of management abuse and to know who to turn to if they are treated in such a manner.

Third, managers should be aware of the signs of workplace mistreatment from other sources such as customers and co-workers. Managers can watch for changes in employee behavior. If employees become more withdrawn or seem to be avoiding certain people or situations, this may be a sign that they are being mistreated (M.-S. Kim & Duda, 2003). Another way to detect mistreatment is to monitor employee productivity. If employees start to produce less work or make more mistakes, this may be a sign that they are being stressed out or mistreated. Finally, managers can also look for physical signs of stress, such as changes in eating or sleeping habits, or increased illness. These managers can create a system in which employees can report any incidents of mistreatment. This will help managers to be aware of any issues that may be occurring and take action to address them. Additionally, managers can create a code of conduct that employees are expected to follow, which will help to establish expectations for appropriate behavior. Finally, managers can provide training on how to handle difficult situations and how to deal with difficult people. This training can help employees to feel more confident and capable of dealing with difficult situations, which can help to reduce the occurrence of mistreatment.

Fourth, multinational companies should pay attention when implementing well-established marketing strategies in the Chinese market. There is evidence that marketing strategies such as “the customer is always right” or “service with a smile” are effective in the West but can have unintended consequences in a hierarchical society like China’s (C. S. Kim & Aggarwal, 2016). According to C. S. Kim and Aggarwal (2016) these modern marketing strategies force employees to do whatever it takes to please their customers, even if it is not in their best interests. In addition, customers expect excellent service and do not tolerate mistakes. Foreign companies should understand the underlying cultural values of marketing in China, recognize the potential for misunderstandings caused by cultural differences, take action, and ensure that their marketing strategies are adapted to the Chinese people. These businesses should establish clear policies and expectations regarding customer service, train their employees on how to properly interact with customers, and establish systems for expeditiously handling customer complaints and grievances. Furthermore, it is important to remember that customer service is an important part of doing business in China and good customer service is highly valued by Chinese consumers.

Finally, reforms have been implemented to mitigate mistreatment in Chinese companies. Recently, the Chinese government amended The Law on the Protection of Women’s Rights and Interests, proposing a mechanism to prevent and punish perpetrators of sexual harassment (Halegua, 2021). In addition, they have improved working and living conditions through increased trade union activity, improved wages, advocacy for higher levels of education, and improved public security systems (ILO, 2016). One of the country’s long-term reform priorities is the pursuit of “shared prosperity” by addressing inequality and social division. The long-standing “996” overtime policy of technology companies (such as Alibaba and Tencent) has been outlawed (Edward White, 2021), and employees can indemnify workplace responsibilities (Zhou, 2020). Despite the changes, victims of abuse rarely seek relief from Chinese courts, suggesting that corporations have not reconciled their policies with the latest International Labor Organization standards (ILO, 2019). Therefore, the government through the organizations should allow employees to protect themselves from mistreatment by teaching them about their rights and reporting any abuse to their union or to the government. They can also try to form a collective bargaining agreement with their employer to protect themselves from mistreatment.

Limitations and Future Direction

Our study had some limitations due to the review methodology and the studies involved. First, the meta-analysis could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the studies. Second, because of the research phenomenon, the studies had publication and reporting biases that would result in inadequate summarization. We also acknowledge that including studies published in English may have introduced a linguistic bias.

We identified four limitations from the studies included in the review. First, most of the studies used convenience or snowball sampling techniques to test the causality hypotheses. Such studies tend to be endogenous if the predictors (whether they are classified as predictors, mediators, or moderators) correlate with the error terms of the outcome variables (Antonakis et al., 2010; Antonakis & House, 2014). Due to the endogenous bias, it was impossible to draw firm conclusions about the direction and magnitude of the observed effects. Second, there was a conceptual and empirical overlap between mediators and moderators (e.g., psychological needs), which created redundancy. Third, it was challenging to draw comparisons between studies that provided prevalence rates due to diversity in the conceptualization of mistreatment, varying mistreatment measures, language bias introduced through translation, or sample selection (Duan et al., 2019; Magnavita & Heponiemi, 2012). Finally, mistreatment was investigated retrospectively in the majority of the studies. Still, the authors attributed a causal role to the experience of mistreatment when interpreting the results without ascertaining whether the same outcomes were present also in subjects who had not been abused.

This review examined all health-related consequences associated with mistreatment. The studies reviewed focused on physical health, behavioral health, domain-specific health, and emotional health. However, none of the studies have examined the effect of mistreatment on cognitive health. Mistreatment adversely affects employee cognitive health, including memory, decision making, and behavioral control (CDC, 2011; He et al., 2021). Center for Disease Control (CDC, 2011) reported that about 16 million people in the United States suffer from a cognitive impairment that costs the government more than the U.S. $ 647 million annually. Considering the ramifications of cognitive health on individuals and organizations, future research should investigate the reverse causality between cognitive health and mistreatment. Previous studies have shown that a decline in action control, episodic memory, and perceptual speed was associated with increased mistreatment risk (Dong et al., 2011), especially among the Chinese geriatric population (M. Li & Dong, 2021). Future studies should investigate the relationship between the mistreatment of younger workers and cognitive health (e.g., born between 1980–2000). These workers makeup 60% of the workforce, have better education and are willing to speak their minds (Hou et al., 2018).

Further, these studies should divest into industries that have not been investigated previously. The studies in this review focused on the client- and customer-facing industries. Although service employees are likely to be mistreated, these findings can only be generalized by investigating mistreatment in other contexts. Future research should focus on labor-intensive and mechanized industries such as construction, agriculture, hunting, forestry, and fishing.

Submission Declaration

This manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere and has never been published. We confirm that it will not be submitted for publication elsewhere without the agreement of the Managing Editor

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440231211417 – Supplemental material for Impact of Workplace Mistreatment on Employees’ Health and Well-Being in Chinese Firms: A Systematic Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440231211417 for Impact of Workplace Mistreatment on Employees’ Health and Well-Being in Chinese Firms: A Systematic Review by Cynthia Atamba, John Kipngetich Mosonik, David Stuckler, Lincoln Jisuvei Sungu, Cornelia Melinda Adi Santoso and Halima Habuba Mohamed in SAGE Open

Supplemental Material

sj-xls-2-sgo-10.1177_21582440231211417. – Supplemental material for Impact of Workplace Mistreatment on Employees’ Health and Well-Being in Chinese Firms: A Systematic Review

Supplemental material, sj-xls-2-sgo-10.1177_21582440231211417. for Impact of Workplace Mistreatment on Employees’ Health and Well-Being in Chinese Firms: A Systematic Review by Cynthia Atamba, John Kipngetich Mosonik, David Stuckler, Lincoln Jisuvei Sungu, Cornelia Melinda Adi Santoso and Halima Habuba Mohamed in SAGE Open

Footnotes

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 iDs

Cynthia Atamba

John Kipngetich Mosonik

Halima Habuba Mohamed

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Antonakis

Bendahan

Jacquart

Lalive

(2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010

Antonakis

House

R. J.

(2014). Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 746–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.005

Aryee

Sun

L. Y.

Chen

Z. X. G.

Debrah

Y. A.

(2008). Abusive supervision and contextual performance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of Work Unit Structure. Management and Organization Review, 4(3), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00118.x

Baranik

L. E.

Wang

Gong

Shi

(2017). Customer mistreatment, employee health, and job performance: Cognitive rumination and social sharing as mediating mechanisms (included in the sytematic review). Journal of Management, 43(4), 1261–1282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314550995

Bowling

N. A.

Beehr

T. A.

(2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998

CDC. (2011). What is a healthy brain? New research explores perceptions of cognitive health among diverse older adults. Healthy Aging.

Chan

D. K. S.

Chow

S. Y.

Lam

C. B.

Cheung

S. F.

(2008). Examining the Job-Related, psychological, and physical outcomes of workplace sexual harassment: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00451.x

Chang

C. M.

Liu

L. W.

Huang

H. C.

Hsieh

H. H.

(2019). The influence of workplace incivility on employees’ emotional exhaustion in recreational sport/fitness clubs: A cross-level analysis of the links between psychological capital and perceived service climate. Healthcare, 7(4), 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7040159

Chen

Kang

Wang

Zhou

(2021). Thwarted psychological needs: The negative impact of customer mistreatment on service employees and the moderating role of empowerment HRM practices. Personnel Review, 50(7/8), 1566–1581. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-06-2020-0489

10.

Chen

W. C.

Hwu

H. G.

Wang

J. D.

(2009). Hospital staff responses to workplace violence in a psychiatric hospital in Taiwan. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 15(2), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2009.15.2.173

11.

Cheung

Lee

P. H.

Yip

P. S.

(2017). Workplace violence toward physicians and nurses: Prevalence and correlates in Macau. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(8), 879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080879

12.

Chi

S. C. S.

Liang

S. G.

(2013). When do subordinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.006

13.

Chokkanathan

(2018). Prevalence and correlates of elder mistreatment in Singapore. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 30(4), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2018.1471433

14.

CLB. (2020). Work safety. Author.

15.

Cole

M. S.

Shipp

A. J.

Taylor

S. G.

(2016). Viewing the interpersonal mistreatment literature through a temporal lens. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(3), 273–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386615607095

16.

Cummings

G. G.

MacGregor

Davey

Lee

Wong

C. A.

Muise

Stafford

(2010). Leadership styles and outcome patterns for the nursing workforce and work environment: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(3), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.08.006

17.

Colizzi

Lasalvia

Ruggeri

(2020). Prevention and early intervention in youth mental health: Is it time for a multidisciplinary and trans-diagnostic model for care? International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 14(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-020-00356-9

18.

Dhanani

LaPalme

Joseph

(2019). A cross-cultural meta-analytic investigation of the prevalence of workplace mistreatment. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2019(1), 12007. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2019.12007abstract

19.

Dhanani

L. Y.

LaPalme

M. L.

Joseph

D. L.

(2021). How prevalent is workplace mistreatment? A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42, 1082–1098. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2534

20.

Dong

Simon

Rajan

Evans

D. A.

(2011). Association of cognitive function and risk for elder abuse in a community-dwelling population. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 32(3), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1159/000334047

21.

Diefendorff

J. M.

Gabriel

A. S.

Nolan

M. T.

Yang

(2019). Emotion regulation in the context of customer mistreatment and felt affect: An event-based profile approach. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), 965–983. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000389

22.

Duan

Edwards

J. S.

Dwivedi

Y. K.

(2019). Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data – Evolution, challenges and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.021

23.

Duru

Ocaktan

M. E.

Çelen

Ü.

Örsal

Ö.

(2018). The effect of workplace bullying perception on psychological symptoms: A structural equation approach. Safety and Health at Work, 9(2), 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2017.06.010

24.

Edward White. (2021, August 27). China’s top court takes aim at ‘996’ overtime culture in blow to tech groups. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/a794faf1-2ee9-4d19-abc6-72620227396c

25.

Einarsen

Hoel

Notelaers

(2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts questionnaire-Revised. Work and Stress, 23(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370902815673

26.

Eurofound and International Labour Organization. (2019). Working conditions in a global perspective. https://doi.org/10.2806/870542

27.

Fang

Zhao

Yang

Sun

Jiang

Jiao

Liu

Qiao

(2018). Depressive symptoms and workplace-violence-related risk factors among otorhinolaryngology nurses and physicians in Northern China: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 8(1), e019514. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019514

28.

Farh

J.-L.

Hackett

R. D.

Liang

(2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715–729. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25530866

29.

Feldblum

C. R.

Lipnic

V. A.

(2016). Report of the co-chairs of the EEOC select task force on the study of harassment in the workplace (pp. 1–130). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). https://www.eeoc.gov/select-task-force-study-harassment-workplace

30.

Fischer

Dietz

Antonakis

(2017). Leadership process models: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1726–1753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316682830

31.

Fosse

T. H.

Skogstad

Einarsen

S. V.

Martinussen

(2019). Active and passive forms of destructive leadership in a military context: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(5), 708–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1634550

32.

Groth

Nguyen

Johnson

(2019). The moment of truth: A review, synthesis, and research agenda for the customer service experience. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015056

33.

Guo

Qiu

Gan

(2021). Workplace incivility and Work Engagement: The chain mediating effects of perceived insider status, affective organizational commitment and organizational identification. Current Psychology, 41, 1809–1820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00699-z

34.

Halegua

(2021). Workplace gender-based violence and harassment in China. U. S. Law Institute.

35.

Han

Shi

Ling

(2014). Work ability of Chinese migrant workers: The influence of migration characteristics. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 353. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-353

36.

(2021). The effect of abusive supervision on employees’ work procrastination behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 596704. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.596704

37.

Hershcovis

M. S.

Barling

(2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.621

38.

Hodgins

MacCurtain

Mannix-McNamara

(2014). Workplace bullying and incivility: A systematic review of interventions. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 7(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijwhm-08-2013-0030

39.

Hong

J.-C.

Chien-Hou

Hwang

M.-Y.

R.-P.

Chen

Y.-L.

(2014). Positive affect predicting worker psychological response to cyber-bullying in the high-tech industry in Northern Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.011

40.

Hong

Kim

Choi

E. K.

Park

C. G.

(2021). Workplace bullying and different levels of post-traumatic stress symptoms of nurses: A quantile regression approach for effective coping strategies. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(6), 1445–1453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13388

41.

Hou

Yuan

(2018). Frontline disruptive leadership and new generation employees’ innovative behaviour in China: The moderating role of emotional intelligence. Asia Pacific Business Review, 24(4), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2018.1451126

42.

Hsieh

Wang

Shen

(2018). Predictors of depressive symptoms among psychiatric nurses who suffered from workplace violence. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 74(2), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13451

43.

Hsieh

Y. H.

Wang

H. H.

S. C.

(2019). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between workplace bullying, mental health and an intention to leave among nurses in Taiwan. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 32(2), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01322

44.

Hsu

F.-S.

Liu

Tsaur

S.-H.

(2019). The impact of workplace bullying on hotel employees’ well-being. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1702–1719. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2018-0330

45.

H.-H. H.

“Sunny

”

Lai

H.-S.

“Herman

”

King

(2020). Restaurant employee service sabotage and customer deviant behaviors: The moderating role of corporate reputation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44(7), 1126–1152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020936331

46.

Huang

L. C.

Lin

C. C.

S. C.

(2020). The relationship between abusive supervision and employee’s reaction: The job demands-resources model perspective. Personnel Review, 49(9), 2035–2054. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-01-2019-0002

47.

Huo

Lam

Chen

(2012). Am I the only one this supervisor is laughing at? Effects of aggressive humor on employee strain and addictive behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 65(4), 859–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12004

48.

Zhan

Garden

Wang

Shi

(2018). Employees’ reactions to customer mistreatment: The moderating role of human resource management practices. Work and Stress, 32(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1330836

49.

ILO. (2016). China decent work country programme 2016-2020. Author.

50.

ILO. (2019). The general conference of the International Labour Organization. C190 - Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190).

51.

ILO/ICN/WHO/PSI. (2003). Framework guidelines for addressing workplace violence in the health sector. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/activities/workplace/en/

52.

Jiang

(2016). How abusive supervision and abusive supervisory climate influence salesperson creativity and sales team effectiveness in China. Management Decision, 54(2), 455–475. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-07-2015-0302

53.

Jiang

Tang

T. L.-P.

(2016). Abusive supervision and poor creativity: The social cognitive and social comparison perspectives. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), 16264. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.16264abstract

54.

Khan

N. A.

Khan

A. N.

Moin

M. F.

Pitafi

A. H.

(2021). A trail of chaos: How psychopathic leadership influence employee satisfaction and turnover intention via self-efficacy in tourism enterprises. Journal of Leisure Research, 52(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1785359

55.

Kim

C. S.

Aggarwal

(2016). The customer is king: Culture-based unintended consequences of modern marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(3), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcm-01-2015-1273

56.

Kim

Markus

S., R., H.

, (2002). Freedom of speech and freedom of silence: An analysis of talking as a cultural practice. In Shweder

R. A.

Minow

Markus

H. R.

(Eds.), Engaging cultural differences: The multicultural challenge in liberal democracies (pp. 432–452). Russell Sage Foundation.

57.

Kim

M.-S.

Duda

J. L.

(2003). The coping process: Cognitive appraisals of stress, coping strategies, and coping effectiveness. The Sport Psychologist, 17(4), 406–425. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.17.4.406

58.

Y. Y.

Liu

Wang

C. J.

Liao

H. Y.

Liao

Y. M.

Chen

H. M.

(2020). Determinants of workplace bullying types and their relationship with depression among female nurses. The Journal of Nursing Research: JNR, 28(3), e92–e97.

59.

Kuo

Chen

(2021). Chinese workers allege forced labor, abuses in Xi’s ‘Belt and Road’ program. The Washington Post.

60.

Kwok

Law

Y. K.

K. E.

Y. C.

Cheung

M. H.

Fung

Kwok

Tong

Yen

P. F.

Leung

W. C.

(2006). Prevalence of workplace violence against nurses in Hong Kong (included in systematic review). Xianggang Yi Xue za Zhi/Hong Kong Academy of Medicine, 12(1), 6–9.

61.

Dong

(2021). Association between different forms of elder mistreatment and cognitive change. Journal of Aging and Health, 33(3-4), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264320976772

62.

(2021). Does psychological capital mediate between workplace violence and depressive symptoms among doctors and nurses in Chinese general hospitals? Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 199–206. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S293843

63.

Lin

Wang

Chen

(2013). Abusive supervision and employee well-being: The moderating effect of power distance orientation. Psychologie Appliquee, 62(2), 308–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00520.x

64.

Liu

Zhu

Wang

Men

(2021). Protecting nurses from mistreatment by patients: A cross-sectional study on the roles of emotional contagion susceptibility and emotional regulation ability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6331. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126331

65.

Liu

Zheng

Liu

Wang

You

(2019). Workplace violence against nurses, job satisfaction, burnout, and patient safety in Chinese hospitals. Nursing Outlook, 67(5), 558–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2019.04.006

66.

Liu

Xiao

Wang

(2020). Experienced workplace incivility, anger, guilt, and family satisfaction: The double-edged effect of narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109642

67.

Liu

Gul

Zhang

Raza

Usman

(2021). Abusive supervision and suicidal ideation: The potential role of meaning in life. Deviant Behavior, 42(12), 1513–1524. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1757195

68.

Liu

Gul

Zhang

Usman

(2020). Abusive supervision and suicidal ideation: The mediating role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Death Studies, 44(9), 578–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2019.1609134

69.

Liu

Song

Koopmann

Wang

Chang

C. H.

Shi

(2017). Eating your feelings? Testing a model of employees’ work-related stressors, sleep quality, and unhealthy eating. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(8), 1237–1258.

70.

Qian

Han

Z. R.

Jin

(2016). Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of perceived organizational support and political skill on employees’ burnout. Current Psychology, 35(1), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9363-5

71.

(2021). Does psychological capital Mediate between workplace violence and depressive symptoms among doctors and nurses in Chinese general hospitals? Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 199–206. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S293843

72.

Lugosi

(2019). Deviance, deviant behaviour and hospitality management: Sources, forms and drivers. Tourism Management, 74, 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.014

73.

Dong

Wang

S. B.

Zhang

C. H.

Ungvari

G. S.

Xiang

Y. T.

Xiang

Y. T.

(2020). Prevalence of workplace violence against health-care professionals in China: A comprehensive meta-analysis of observational surveys. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 21(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018774429

74.

Magnavita

Di Stasio

Capitanelli

Lops

E. A.

Chirico

Garbarino

(2019). Sleep problems and workplace violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 997. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00997

75.

Magnavita

Heponiemi

(2012). Violence towards health care workers in a public health care facility in Italy: A repeated cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research, 12(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-108

76.

McCord

M. A.

Joseph

D. L.

Dhanani

L. Y.

Beus

J. M.

(2018). A meta-analysis of sex and race differences in perceived workplace mistreatment. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(2), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000250

77.

Ming

(2021). China’s High Court warns employers’‘996’ schedule illegal. VOA News.

78.

Mitchell

M. S.

Vogel

R. M.

Folger

(2015). Third parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1040–1055. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000002

79.

Nielsen

M. B.

Harris

Pallesen

Einarsen

S. V.

(2020). Workplace bullying and sleep - A systematic review and meta-analysis of the research literature. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 51, 101289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2020.101289

80.

Nyberg

Kecklund

Hanson

L. M.

Rajaleid

(2021). Workplace violence and health in human service industries: A systematic review of prospective and longitudinal studies. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 78(2), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106450

81.

J. K.

Farh

C. I. C.

(2017). An emotional process theory of how subordinates appraise, experience, and respond to abusive supervision over time. The Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0347

82.

Okubo

C. V. C.

Martins

J. T.

Malaquias

T. D. S. M.

Galdino

M. J. Q.

Haddad

M. D. C. F. L.

Cardelli

A. A. M.

Silveira

R. C. C. P

. (2022). Effectiveness of the interventions against workplace violence suffered by health and support professionals: A meta-analysis. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 30, e3638. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.5923.3638

83.

OSHA. (2020). Occupational safety and health administration. Author.

84.

Pacheco

E. C. R. L.

Bártolo

Rodrigues

Pereira

Duarte

J. C.

Silva

C. F.

(2021). Impact of psychological aggression at the workplace on Employees’ Health: A systematic review of personal outcomes and prevention strategies. Psychological Reports, 124(3), 929–976. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119875598

85.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

&Moher

. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

86.

Pai

Lee

(2011). Risk factors for workplace violence in clinical registered nurses in Taiwan. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20(9-10), 1405–1412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03650.x

87.

Park

I. J.

Kim

P. B.

Jung

Yun

Hai

(2021). A diary study of work consequences for hotel employees victimized by supervisor from a demand-resource perspective on employee emotions (included in systematic review). International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102714

88.

Peng

Luo

Zhong

Yang

Huang

Sun

Wang

Song

(2022). Association between workplace bullying and nurses’ professional quality of life: The mediating role of resilience. Journal of Nursing Management, 30, 1549–1558. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13471

89.

Pien

Chen

Liang

Cheng

(2015). Associations of neighborhood-level workplace violence with workers’ mental distress problems: A multilevel analysis of Taiwanese employees. Journal of Occupational Health, 57(6), 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.15-0132-oa

90.

Pien

Cheng

(2019). Internal workplace violence from colleagues is more strongly associated with poor health outcomes in nurses than violence from patients and families. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 75(4), 793–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13887

91.

Wei

Liu

(2020). The influence of mistreatment by patients on job satisfaction and turnover intention among Chinese Nurses: A three-wave survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1256. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041256

92.

Qian

Song

Wang

(2017). Abusive supervision and job dissatisfaction: The moderating effects of feedback avoidance and critical thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 00496. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00496

93.

Qian

Wang

Han

Z. R.

Wang

(2015). Mental health risks among nurses under abusive supervision: The moderating roles of job role ambiguity and patients’ lack of reciprocity. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 9(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-015-0014-x

94.

Qiao

Zhang

Jia

(2021). Their pain, our pleasure: How and when Peer Abusive Supervision leads to third parties’ Schadenfreude and Work Engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(4), 695–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04315-4

95.

Qin

Huang

Johnson

R. E.

(2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An Investigation of recovery and Work Engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1951–1975. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1325

96.

Rasool

S. F.

Wang

Tang

Saeed

Iqbal

(2021). How toxic workplace environment effects the employee engagement: The mediating role of organizational support and employee wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052294

97.

Schilpzand

De Pater

I. E.

Erez

(2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S57–S88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1976

98.

Schilpzand

Hekman

D. R.

Mitchell

T. R.

(2015). An inductively generated typology and process model of workplace courage. Organization Science, 26(1), 52–77. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0928

99.

Shaffer

M. A.

Joplin

J. R. W.

Bell

M. P.

Lau

Oguz

(2000). Gender discrimination and Job-Related outcomes: A cross-cultural comparison of working women in the United States and China. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(3), 395–427. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1748

100.

Shi

Guo

Zhang

Xie

Wang

Sun

Dong

Sun

Fan

(2018). Impact of workplace incivility against new nurses on job burn-out: A cross-sectional study in China. BMJ Open, 8(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020461

101.

Sims

R. L.

Sun

(2012). Witnessing workplace bullying and the Chinese manufacturing employee. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941211193839

102.

Sirey

J. A.

Minor

Berman

(2020). Intersectionality of elder abuse and mental health issues: Needs and interventions for victims. In Geffner

White

J. W.

Hamberger

L. K.

Rosenbaum

Vaughan-Eden

Vieth

V. I.

, (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal violence and abuse across the lifespan (pp. 1–14). Springer International Publishing.

103.

Sommovigo

Setti

Argentero

O’Shea

(2019). The impact of customer incivility and verbal aggression on service providers: A systematic review. Work, 62(1), 59–86. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-182842

104.

Song

Liu

Wang

Lanaj

Johnson

R. E.

Shi

(2018). A social mindfulness approach to understanding experienced customer mistreatment: A within-person field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0448

105.

Sui

Liu

Jia

Wang

Yang

(2019). Associations of workplace violence and psychological capital with depressive symptoms and burn-out among doctors in Liaoning, China: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 9(5), e024186. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024186

106.

Sun

Gao

Shi

Xie

Wang

Zhang

Liu

Duan

Liu

Zhang

Fan

(2017). Workplace violence, psychological stress, sleep quality and subjective health in Chinese doctors: A large cross-sectional study (in systematic review). BMJ Open, 7(12), e017182. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017182

107.

Tan

Xia

(2021). Predictors on workplace suicidal ideation: From a social interaction perspective. Current Psychology, 42(8), 6131–6141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01928-9

108.

Tepper

B. J.

(2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375

109.

Tong

Chong

Johnson

R. E.

(2019). The indirect relations of workplace incivility with emotional exhaustion and supportive behaviors via self-blame: The moderating roles of observed incivility and trait emotional control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(8), 931–946. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2399

110.

Usman

Liu

Zhang

Ghani

Gul

(2022). Why do employees struggle to thrive in the workplaces? A look at the impact of abusive supervision. Personnel Review, 51, 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-04-2019-0213

111.

Vogel

R. M.

Mitchell

M. S.

Tepper

B. J.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Hua

Huang

(2015). A cross-cultural examination of subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 720–745. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1984

112.

Wang

C. C.

Hsieh

H. H.

Wang

Y. D.

(2020). Abusive supervision and employee engagement and satisfaction: The mediating role of employee silence. Personnel Review, 49(9), 1845–1858. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-04-2019-0147

113.

Wang

Zhang

Sun

(2021). The effect of workplace violence on depression among medical staff in China: The mediating role of interpersonal distrust. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 94(3), 557–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-020-01607-5

114.

Wang

I.-A.

Lin

S.-Y.

Chen

Y.-S.

S.-T.

(2021). The influences of abusive supervision on job satisfaction and mental health: The path through emotional labor. Personnel Review, 51(2), 823–838. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2018-0465

115.

Wang

Liu

Liao

Gong

Kammeyer-Mueller

Shi

(2013). Can’t get it out of my mind: Employee rumination after customer mistreatment and negative mood in the next morning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 989–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033656

116.

Wang

Chan

D. K.

(2020). Subordinate reactions to ethical leaders’ abusive behavior: A multiple-wave study. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(3), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12222

117.

Wang

Jiang

Yang

Shing Chan

D. K.

(2016). Chinese employees’ psychological responses to abusive supervisors. Psychological Reports, 118(3), 810–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116644369

118.

Weiss

H. M.

Russel

(1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, cause and consequences of affective experiences at work. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (vol.18, pp. 1–74). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

119.

Willness

C. R.

Steel

Lee

(2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 127–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x

120.

T.-Y.

Chung

P. F.

Liao

H.-Y.

P.-Y.

Yeh

Y.-J.

(2019). Role ambiguity and economic hardship as the moderators of the relation between abusive supervision and job burnout: An Application of uncertainty management theory. The Journal of General Psychology, 146(4), 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2019.1585323

121.

Xie

Zhao

Zhang

Yuan

Cheung

C. H.

Xiang

(2021). Workplace violence and its association with quality of life among mental health professionals in China during the COVID-19 pandemic (in systematic review). Journal of Psychiatric Research, 135, 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.01.023

122.

Yang

B. X.

Stone

T. E.

Petrini

M. A.

Morris

D. L.

(2018). Incidence, type, related factors, and effect of workplace violence on Mental Health Nurses: A cross-sectional survey. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 32(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2017.09.013

123.

Yang

J. H.

Lin

C. C.

Fang

S. C.

Huang

C. Y.

(2019). An uncertainty management theory on the effects of abusive supervision: The moderating role of future orientation. Management Decision, 57(11), 3079–3095. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-06-2017-0604

124.

Yeh

C. J.

Inman

A. C.

Kim

A. B.

Okubo

(2006). Asian American families’ collectivistic coping strategies in response to 9/11. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(1), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.12.1.134

125.

Yoo

Kim

J. I.

Park

(2016). Relationship of workplace violence and perpetrators on sleep disturbance-data from the 4th Korean working conditions survey. Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 28(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40557-016-0142-z

126.

Kong

(2020). A systematic review of research on abusive supervision in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(7), 2473–2496. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-12-2019-1004

127.

Zeng

J.-Y.

F.-R.

Xiang

Y.-T.

Y.-K.

Ungvari

G. S.

Newhouse

D. S. F.

Lai

K. Y. C.

L.-Y.

Ding

Y.-M.

Tang

W.-K.

P.-P.

Hou

Z.-J.

Chiu

H. F. K.

(2013). Frequency and risk factors of workplace violence on psychiatric nurses and its impact on their quality of life in China. Psychiatry Research, 210(2), 510–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.06.013

128.

Zhang

(2021). Workplace victimization and discrimination in China: A Nationwide Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1-2), 957–975. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517729403

129.

Zhang

Zhou

Z. E.

Liu

Shi

Xiao

(2022). Too depleted to control yourself? Effect of customer mistreatment on after-work maladaptive behaviours through self-control capacity impairment. Psychologie Appliquee, 71, 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12310

130.

Zhang

S. E.

Liu

Wang

Shi

Xie

Cang

Sun

Fan

(2018). Impact of workplace violence and compassionate behaviour in hospitals on stress, sleep quality and subjective health status among Chinese nurses: A cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open, 8(10), e019373. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019373

131.

Zhang

Kaiser

Nie

Sousa-Poza

(2019). Why are Chinese workers so unhappy? A comparative cross-national analysis of job satisfaction, job expectations, and job attributes. PLoS One, 14(9), e0222715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222715

132.

Zhou

(2020). Digital Labour Platforms and labour protection in China. International Labour Organization. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—asia/—ro-bangkok/—ilo-beijing/documents/publication/wcms_757923.pdf

133.

Zhou

Rasool

S. F.

Yang

Asghar

M. Z.

(2021). Exploring the relationship between despotic leadership and job satisfaction: The role of self efficacy and leader-member exchange. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5307. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105307

134.

Zhou

Z. E.

Yan

Che

X. X.

Meier

L. L.

(2015). Effect of workplace incivility on end-of-work negative affect: Examining individual and organizational moderators in a daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038167

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB

1.49 MB