Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Double Jeopardy: Subordinates’ Worldviews and Poor Performance as Predictors of Abusive Supervision

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To test a moderated mediation model where a positive relationship between subordinates’ perceptions of a dangerous world—the extent to which an individual views the world as a dangerous place—and supervisory abuse is mediated by their submission to authority figures, and that this relationship is heightened for more poorly performing employees.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Data were obtained from 173 subordinates and 45 supervisors working in different private sector organizations in Pakistan.

Findings

Our model was supported. It appears that subordinates’ dangerous worldviews are positively associated with their perceptions of abusive supervision and that this is because such views are likely to lead to greater submission to authority figures. But this is only for those employees who are performing more poorly.

Implications

We highlight the possibility that individual differences (worldviews, attitudes to authority figures, and performance levels) may lead employees to become victims of abusive supervision. As such, our research informs organizations on how they may better support supervisors in managing effectively their subordinate relationships and, in particular, subordinate poor performance.

Originality/Value

We add to recent work exploring subordinate-focused antecedents of abusive supervision, finding support for the salience of the previously untested constructs of individual worldviews, authoritarian submission, and individual job performance. In so doing we also extend research on dangerous worldviews into a new organizational setting. Finally, our research takes place within a new Pakistani context, adding to the burgeoning non-US based body of empirical work into the antecedents and consequences of abusive supervision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, D. G. (2006). Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness and turnover? Journal of Management, 32, 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 491–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., & Bradfield, M. (2000). Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role of situational factors and victim characteristics. Organization Science, 11, 525–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D. G. (1999). The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 260–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1023–1034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4 user’s reference guide. Chicago: SmallWaters Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Avey, J. B., Wu, K., & Holley, E. (2015). The influence of abusive supervision and job embeddedness on citizenship and deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 721–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, H. E., & Feldman, D. C. (1991). Linking organizational socialization tactics with corporate human resource management strategies. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bashir, A., & Hanif, R. (2011). Prevalence and forms of workplace bullying among telecommunication personnel in Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3, 634–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beugre, C. D. (2007). A cultural perspective of organizational justice. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Bennett, M. M., & Watson, C. P. (2010). Target personality and workplace victimization: A prospective analysis. Work and Stress, 24, 140–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., Spreitzer, G., Mishra, A., Hochwarter, W., Pepper, L., & Weinberg, J. (2004). Perceived control as an antidote to the negative effects of layoffs on survivors’ organizational commitment and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 76–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of Management Review, 39, 44–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohrs, J. C., Asbrock, F., & Sibley, C. G. (2012a). Friend or foe, champ or chump? Social conformity and superiority goals activate warmth- versus competence-based social categorization schemas. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 471–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohrs, J. C., Kampfe-Hargrave, N., & Riemann, R. (2012b). Individual differences in ideological attitudes and prejudice: Evidence from peer-report data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 343–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohrs, J. C., & Stelzl, M. (2010). How ideological attitudes predict host society members’ attitudes toward immigrants: Exploring cross-national differences. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 673–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortina, L. M., Lonsway, K. L., Magley, V. J., Freeman, L. V., Collinsworth, L. L., Hunter, M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). What’s gender got to do with it? Incivility in the federal courts. Law and Social Inquiry, 27, 235–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Credé, M., Harms, P., Niehorster, S., & Gaye-Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 874–888.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decoster, S., Camps, J., Stouten, J., Vandevyvere, L., & Tripp, T. M. (2013). Standing by your organization: The impact of organizational identification and abusive supervision on followers’ perceived cohesion and tendency to gossip. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 623–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 41–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially moderate intergroup effects on prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 24, 583–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, D. C. (1994). Who’s socializing whom? The impact of socializing newcomers on insiders, work groups, and organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 213–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funke, F. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26, 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, R. M. (2009). How our worldviews shape our practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26, 405–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (2003). An analysis of empirical research on the scope of justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 311–323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., Harris, R. B., & Cast, M. (2013). An investigation of abusive supervision, vicarious abusive supervision, and their joint impacts. Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 38–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henle, C. A., & Gross, M. A. (2013). Ethical behavior and regional environments: The effects of culture, values, and trust. Employee Rights & Responsibilities Journal, 25, 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henle, C. A., & Gross, M. A. (2014). What did I do to deserve this? Effects of employee personality and emotion on abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 461–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, T., & Yousaf, I. (2011). Organization culture and employees’ satisfaction: A study in private sector of Pakistan. Journal of Quality and Technology Management, 7, 15–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. A., & Martens, M. L. (2009). The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of trust certainty in justice–criteria relationships: The formation and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1025–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemmelmeier, M., Burnstein, E., Krumov, K., Genkova, P., Kanagawa, C., Hirshberg, M., et al. (2003). Individualism, collectivism, and authoritarianism in seven societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 304–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kervyn, N., Yzerbyt, V., & Judd, C. (2010). Compensation between warmth and competence: Antecedents and consequences of a negative relation between the two fundamental dimensions of social perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 21, 155–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, A. K., Quratulain, S., & Bell, C. M. (2014). Episodic envy and counterproductive work behavior: Is more justice always good? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 128–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S. N., Qureshi, I. M., & Ahmad, H. I. (2010). Abusive supervision and negative employee outcomes. European Journal of Social Sciences, 15, 490–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Get smarty pants: Cognitive ability, personality, and victimization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 889–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense-making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011). Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’ attribution styles. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 751–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meade, A. W., Watson, A. M., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2007). Assessing common methods bias in organizational research. In 22nd annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.

  • Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mowle, T. S. (2003). Worldviews in foreign policy: Realism, liberalism, and external conflict. Political Psychology, 24, 561–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthen, B. O. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 22, 376–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neves, P. (2014). Taking it out on survivors: Submissive employees, downsizing, and abusive supervision. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 507–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, D. (2009). I can’t put a smiley face on: Working-class masculinity, emotional labour and service work in the “New economy”. Gender, Work & Organization, 16, 300–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opotow, S. (1995). Drawing the line: Social categorization and moral exclusion. In B. Bunker & J. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict cooperation, and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton Deutsch (pp. 347–369). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opotow, S., & Weiss, L. (2000). Denial and exclusion in environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, A., Hogan, R. T., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palanski, M., Avey, J. B., & Jiraporn, N. (2014). The effects of ethical leadership and abusive supervision on job search behaviors in the turnover process. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 116–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 561–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, M. (1993). The culture of conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Socialization tactics and newcomer information acquisition. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 48–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56, 1213–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B., White, S., & Paul, M. (1998). Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 150–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sire, J. W. (2004). The universe next door: A basic worldview catalog (4th ed.). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationships between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455–465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tietjen, M. A., & Myers, R. M. (1998). Motivation and job satisfaction. Management Decision, 36, 226–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, J. B., & Tews, M. (2005). Construct validity of a general training climate scale. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 353–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unal, A. F., Warren, D. E., & Chen, C. C. (2012). The normative foundations of unethical supervision in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., & Roets, A. (2007). The intervening role of social worldviews in the relationship between the five-factor model of personality and social attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 21, 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G., Harms, P. D., & Mackey, J. D. (2015). Does it take two to tangle? Subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 483–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, T.-Y., & Hu, C. (2013). Abusive supervision and subordinate emotional labor: The moderating role of openness personality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 956–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zapf, D., Escartín, J., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2011). Empirical findings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace. Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 75–105). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business and Economics, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

    Abdul Karim Khan

  2. Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan

    Samina Quratulain

  3. Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK

    Jonathan R. Crawshaw

Authors
  1. Abdul Karim Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samina Quratulain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonathan R. Crawshaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdul Karim Khan.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Factor loadings
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, A.K., Quratulain, S. & Crawshaw, J.R. Double Jeopardy: Subordinates’ Worldviews and Poor Performance as Predictors of Abusive Supervision. J Bus Psychol 32, 165–178 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9442-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9442-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation