Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Victim and Culprit? The Effects of Entitlement and Felt Accountability on Perceptions of Abusive Supervision and Perpetration of Workplace Bullying

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

Abstract

Although workplace bullying is common and has universally harmful effects on employees’ outcomes, little is known about workplace bullies. To address this gap in knowledge, we draw from the tenets of social exchange and displaced aggression theories in order to develop and test a model of workplace bullying that incorporates the effects of employees’ individual differences (i.e., entitlement), perceptions of their work environments (i.e., felt accountability), and perceptions of supervisory treatment (i.e., perceptions of abusive supervision) on their tendencies to bully coworkers. The results of mediated moderation analyses that examine responses from two samples of working adults (n Sample 1 = 396; n Sample 2 = 123) support our hypotheses. Specifically, we find evidence of an indirect relationship between entitlement and coworker bullying through perceptions of abusive supervision that is stronger for employees who report lower levels of felt accountability than employees who report higher levels of felt accountability. This study makes important theoretical and practical contributions to abusive supervision research, bullying research, and organizational efforts to promote ethical work environments devoid of interpersonal mistreatment by providing novel insight into how employees’ entitlement and felt accountability combine to influence their tendencies to perceive themselves as victims of abusive supervision and culprits of coworker bullying.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Edwards, J. R. (2014). Methodological wishes for the next decade and how to make wishes come true. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 143–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 569–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L., & West, D. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., & Goka, H. (2004). A social relationship conceptualization of trust and accountability organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 47–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: Two extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baillien, E., Camps, J., Van den Broeck, A., Stouten, J., Godderis, L., Sercu, M., et al. (2016). An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind: Conflict escalation into workplace bullying and the role of distributive conflict behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 415–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future directions in scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Management, 39(1), 48–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demerouti, E., & Rispens, S. (2014). Improving the image of student-recruited samples: A commentary. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, J. A., Harms, P. D., & Desimone, A. J. (2015). Best practice recommendations for data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 171–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    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), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3–30). London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5, 185–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., et al. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085–1103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, G. R., Mitchell, T. R., Canavan, P. J., Frink, D. D., & Hopper, H. (1995). Accountability in human resource systems. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of human resource management (pp. 175–196). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frink, D. D., Hall, A. T., Perryman, A. A., Ranft, A. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., et al. (2008). Meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 27, pp. 177–245). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: Issues and evidence. Journal of Management, 18(2), 185–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, G., Leon-Perez, J. M., & Arenas, A. (2015). Are bullying behaviors tolerated in some cultures? Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between workplace bullying and job satisfaction among Italian workers. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 227–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, (2015). An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi:10.1002/job.2052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G. (2003). Accountability in human resources management. In C. R. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), New directions in human resource management (pp. 29–63). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, P., Harris, K. J., Gillis, W. E., & Martinko, M. J. (2014). Abusive supervision and the entitled employee. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 204–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2009). An empirical examination of the role of attributions in psychological entitlement and its outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 459–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, M., Treadway, D., Heames, J., & Duke, A. (2009). Bullying in the 21st century global organization: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 27–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochwarter, W. (2014). On the merits of student-recruited sampling: Opinions a decade in the making. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling, concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 744–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaVan, H., & Martin, W. M. (2008). Bullying in the U.S. workplace: Normative and process-oriented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 147–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, D. P. (2005). The corrupt organization. Human Relations, 58(6), 723–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, V. B. (1998). Characteristics of violence in state government. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(4), 489–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 837–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2015). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206315573997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, W. C., Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (2000). Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 670–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S120–S137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Mackey, J. D. (2014). Conceptual and empirical confounds in the organizational sciences: An explication and discussion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(8), 1052–1063.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2011). The relationship between supervisor personality, supervisors’ perceived stress and workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 637–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, N., Pederson, W. C., Earleywine, M., & Pollock, V. E. (2003). A theoretical model of triggered displaced aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 75–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2012). Employees’ behavioral reactions to supervisor aggression: An examination of individual and situational factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1148–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, D., Peck, E., & Vining, G. (2001). Introduction to linear regression analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Namie, G. (2014). 2014 WBI U.S. workplace bullying survey. Retrieved from http://workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/WBI-2014-US-Survey.pdf

  • Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2009). U.S. workplace bullying: Some basic considerations and consultation interventions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 202–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naumann, S. E., Minsky, B. D., & Strurman, M. C. (2002). The use of the concept “entitlement” in management literature: A historical review, synthesis, and discussion of compensation policy implications. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 145–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 26(4), 309–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 955–979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary-Kelly, A., Rosen, C. C., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2016). Who is deserving and who decides: Entitlement as a work-situated phenomenon. Academy of Management Review. doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parzefall, M.-R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63(6), 761–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. (2008). Dysfunctional workplace behavior. In J. Barling & C. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 141–159). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, W. M., & Schmitt, N. (2004). Parameter recovery and model fit using multidimensional composites: A comparison of four empirical parceling algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 379–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, S., & Pittinsky, T. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, T. P. (1997). Modern regression methods. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samnani, A.-K. (2013). The early stages of workplace bullying and how it becomes prolonged: The role of culture in predicting target responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(1), 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samnani, A. K., & Singh, P. (2015). Workplace bullying: Considering the interaction between individual and work environment. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2653-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, D. P. (1999). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, J. N., Kern, R. M., & Curlette, W. L. (2001). Identifying personality traits associated with attrition in systematic training for effective parenting groups. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 9, 102–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperry, L. (2009). Mobbing and bullying: The influence of individual, work group, and organizational dynamics on abusive workplace behavior. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 190–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone-Romero, E., & Liakhovitski, D. (2002). Strategies for detecting moderator variables: A review of theory and research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 333–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stouten, J., Baillien, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., De Witte, H., & Euwema, M. (2010). Discouraging bullying: The role of ethical leadership and its effects on the work environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. I. (2007). The no asshole rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn’t. New York: Warner Business Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 101–109.

    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(2), 487–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). Structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 543–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, T. A., & Sweeney, D. A. (2016). The call for an increased role of replication, extension, and mixed-methods study designs in organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(3), 480–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. C. (2015). Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2657-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the study authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Raymond J. Harbert College of Business, Auburn University, 441 Lowder Business Building, 405 W. Magnolia Avenue, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA

    Jeremy D. Mackey

  2. Department of Management, Kania School of Management, University of Scranton, Brennan Hall 400, 320 Madison Avenue, Scranton, PA, 18510, USA

    Jeremy R. Brees

  3. Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University, 821 Academic Way, P. O. Box 3061110, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA

    Charn P. McAllister

  4. Department of Management, Raymond J. Harbert College of Business, Auburn University, 447 Lowder Business Building, 405 W. Magnolia Avenue, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA

    Michelle L. Zorn

  5. School of Business and Industry, Florida A&M University, North 435, 500 Gamble Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32307, USA

    Mark J. Martinko

  6. Department of Management, Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA

    Paul Harvey

Authors
  1. Jeremy D. Mackey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy R. Brees
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charn P. McAllister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michelle L. Zorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark J. Martinko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul Harvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy D. Mackey.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All of the study authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix: Coworker Bullying Scale Items

Appendix: Coworker Bullying Scale Items

  1. 1.

    I sometimes make fun of and tease others about their work.

  2. 2.

    I enjoy hearing gossip and sharing rumors about others.

  3. 3.

    I ignore and exclude some co-workers from activities.

  4. 4.

    I comment to others about some co-workers’ attitudes and private lives.

  5. 5.

    I sometimes suggest that some co-workers should quit their job.

  6. 6.

    I remind co-workers of prior errors and mistakes they have made.

  7. 7.

    I cringe sometimes when co-workers approach me that I don’t like.

  8. 8.

    I have been known to carry out practical jokes on others at work.

  9. 9.

    I sometimes accuse co-workers of things.

  10. 10.

    I tease and use sarcasm with co-workers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mackey, J.D., Brees, J.R., McAllister, C.P. et al. Victim and Culprit? The Effects of Entitlement and Felt Accountability on Perceptions of Abusive Supervision and Perpetration of Workplace Bullying. J Bus Ethics 153, 659–673 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3348-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3348-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation