Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Abusive Supervision, Psychological Distress, and Silence: The Effects of Gender Dissimilarity Between Supervisors and Subordinates

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

Abstract

Previous research has shed light on the detrimental effects of abusive supervision. To extend this area of research, we draw upon conservation of resources theory to propose (a) a causal relationship between abusive supervision and psychological distress, (b) a mediating role of psychological distress on the relationship between abusive supervision and employee silence, and (c) a moderating effect of the supervisor–subordinate relational context (i.e., gender dissimilarity) on the mediating effect of abusive supervision on silence. Through an experimental study (Study 1), we found the causal path linking abusive supervision and psychological distress. Results of both the experimental study and a field study (Study 2) provided evidence that psychological distress mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and silence. Lastly, we found support that this mediation effect was contingent upon the relational context in Study 2 but not in Study 1. We discuss implications for theory and practice.

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

Notes

  1. We also tested our hypotheses controlling for supervisor gender, subordinate gender, age, and job tenure. The results are comparable with those reported in our paper without any control variables.

  2. We also tested our hypotheses controlling for supervisor gender, subordinate gender, age, marital status, and dyadic tenure. The results are comparable with those reported in our paper without any control variables.

References

  • Afridi, F., Li, S. X., & Ren, Y. (2015). Social identity and inequality: The impact of China’s hukou system. Journal of Public Economics, 123, 17–29.

    Article  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(1), 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009). Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175–202). Bingley, England: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Leadership in the Asian century: Lessons from GLOBE. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 5(3), 150–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avery, D. R., Wang, M., Volpone, S. D., & Zhou, L. (2013). Different strokes for different folks: The impact of sex dissimilarity in the empowerment–performance relationship. Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 757–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avey, J. B., Wu, K., & Holley, E. (2014). The influence of abusive supervision and job embeddedness on citizenship and deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 721–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, M. Z., Mossholder, K. W., Feild, H. S., & Armenakis, A. A. (2014). Transformational leadership, interactional justice, and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of supervisor–subordinate racial and gender dissimilarity. Group and Organization Management, 39(6), 691–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. L. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 44–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congdon, E. L., Novack, M. A., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2016). Gesture in experimental studies: How videotape technology can advance psychological theory. Organizational Research Methods. doi:10.1177/1094428116654548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derogatis, L. R. (1993). BSI brief symptom inventory. Administration, scoring, and procedures manual (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

    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), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farh, C. I. C., & Chen, Z. (2014). Beyond the individual victim: Multilevel consequences of abusive supervision in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1074–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. L., Yan, M., Lim, V., Chen, Y., & Fatimah, S. (2016). An approach/avoidance framework of workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1777–1800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, S., Linnehan, F., Greenhaus, J. H., & Weer, C. H. (2006). The impact of gender similarity, racial similarity, and work culture on family-supportive supervision. Group and Organization Management, 31(4), 420–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried, Y., Rowland, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1984). The physiological measurement of work stress: A critique. Personnel Psychology, 37(4), 583–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, M. H., Haugen, J. A., & Manning, D. J. (1994). Victims as “narrative critics”: Factors influencing rejoinders and evaluative responses to offenders’ accounts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 691–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in Conservation of Resources Theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364.

    Article  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. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 252–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resource theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (2nd ed., pp. 57–80). New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006). When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 175–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, A. E. (2009). Global migration and South Korea: Foreign workers, foreign brides and the making of a multicultural society. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(1), 70–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. L., Kim, M., & Yun, S. (2015). Knowledge sharing, abusive supervision, and support: A social exchange perspective. Group and Organization Management, 40(5), 599–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. L., & Yun, S. (2015). The effect of coworker knowledge sharing on performance and its boundary conditions: An interactional Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 575–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 163–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klapper, A., Dotsch, R., van Rooij, I., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2016). Do we spontaneously form stable trustworthiness impressions from facial appearance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 655–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., Yun, S., & Srivastava, A. (2013). Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between abusive supervision and creativity in South Korea. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 724–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Implicit theory measures: Reliability and validity data for adults and children. Columbia University.

  • Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. (2013). Abusive supervision and employee well-being: The moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62(2), 308–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W., Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2013). The relational antecedents of voice targeted at different leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 841–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luksyte, A., Avery, D. R., & Yeo, G. (2015). It is worse when you do it: Examining the interactive effects of coworker presenteeism and demographic similarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1107–1123.

    Article  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 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., & Resick, C. J. (2014). Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee coping: Does conscientiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 737–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, C. D., Ostrom, T. M., Tyner, L. K., & Mitchell, M. L. (1985). Person perception in heterogeneous groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1449–1459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 1159–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2015). Third parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1040–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annuals, 5, 373–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W., See, K. E., & Pan, C. (2015). An approach-inhibition model of employee silence: The joint effects of personal sense of power and target openness. Personnel Psychology, 68(3), 547–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Nandkeolyar, A. K., Shaffer, J. A., Li, A., Ekkirala, S., & Bagger, J. (2014). Surviving an abusive supervisor: The joint roles of conscientiousness and coping strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 138–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 216–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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(1), 135–146.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2015). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 713–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 342–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaubroeck, J., Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Mitra, A. (2008). An under-met and over-met expectations model of employee reactions to merit raises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 424–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., & Hannah, S. T. (2016). The role of peer respect in linking abusive supervision to follower outcomes: Dual moderation of group potency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 356–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. The 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 721–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1169–1180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1009–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior–subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2004). The cognitive activation theory of stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29(5), 567–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varma, A., & Stroh, L. K. (2001). The impact of same-sex LMX dyads on performance evaluations. Human Resource Management, 40(4), 309–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, R. M., Mitchell, M. S., Tepper, B. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Hu, C., Hua, W., et al. (2015). A cross-cultural examination of subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 720–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G., Harms, P. D., & Mackey, J. D. (2014). Does it take two to tangle? Subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, J. H., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, K. M. (2001). Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decisions in same- and cross-gender cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 179–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weathington, B. L., Cunningham, C. J. L., & Pittenger, D. J. (2010). Research methods for the behavioral and social sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Holmes, O. (2014). Abusive supervision and feedback avoidance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 38–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 477–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of International Business and Management, Nottingham University Business School China, 199 Taikang East Road, AB 381, Ningbo, 315100, China

      Joon Hyung Park

    2. Department of Management, College of Business, Southern Illinois University, Rehn Hall, 207A, 1025 Lincoln Drive, Carbondale, IL, 62901-4627, USA

      Min Z. Carter

    3. Department of Management, C.T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, 334 Melcher Hall, 310G, Houston, TX, 77204-6021, USA

      Richard S. DeFrank

    4. Bank of China Ningbo Branch, 139 Yaohang Jie, Ningbo, 315010, China

      Qianwen Deng

    Authors
    1. Joon Hyung Park
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Min Z. Carter
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Richard S. DeFrank
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Qianwen Deng
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Joon Hyung Park.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflict of interest

    The author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict 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

    Study 1: The research project has been reviewed according to the ethical review processes in place in the University of Nottingham Ningbo. These processes are governed by the University’s Code of Research Conduct and Research Ethics. Any questions regarding human rights as a research subject may be addressed to UNNC Research Ethics Sub-Committee Coordinator: Joanna.Huang@nottingham.edu.cn. Please refer to http://www.nottingham.edu.cn/en/research/researchethics/unnc-research-code-of-conduct.aspx. An anonymous online-based questionnaire was distributed to the participants and the data was treated anonymously and confidentially. The participant information sheet was shown to them and they were asked to choose “agree” or “disagree” button to participate in the survey. Study 2: The research project has been reviewed according to the ethical review processes in place in the University of Houston. These processes are governed by the University of Houston committee for the protection of human subjects. Any questions regarding human rights as a research subject may be addressed to the University of Houston committee for the protection of human subjects (713-743-9204). Please refer to http://www.uh.edu/research/compliance/irb-cphs/. Informed consent was obtained from individual participants who completed the paper survey. Some participants preferred an online version of the survey. The data was treated anonymously and confidentially. Informed consent was shown to them and they were asked to choose “agree” or “disagree” button to participate in the survey.

    Additional information

    Joon Hyung Park and Min Z. Carter contributed equally to this work.

    Appendix: Scenarios

    Appendix: Scenarios

    Scenario 1 (Low Abusive Supervision/Gender Similarity)

    (1) Participant’s gender = male

    (Part 1) A conversation with your supervisor (male)

    Jun Li (李军) is your direct supervisor. He has worked in the current organization for 15 years. He asked you to prepare some reports similar to those you have done many times. After completing the reports, you entered his office and presented the reports to be signed. He skimmed through them and spotted a few mistakes. He told you, “There are a few mistakes. Please don’t make the same mistakes in the future. However, you made some interesting and useful points in the report. It seems that you have paid attention to what I advised. I can tell you have made improvement in these two months!”He said encouragingly, “I value your contributions and your competence to deliver high quality work. Please keep up the good work.”

    (Part 2) In an office meeting

    Jun Li (李军) is usually patient even when he doesn’t get the answers that he wants in an office meeting. He asked you a question in a meeting. You couldn’t answer the question quickly, because it was a bit vague. As you were thinking about how to address his question, he said, “Maybe my question wasn’t clear. Well, let me rephrase it;” and he continued by addressing your colleagues at the meeting, “Also, I appreciate input from all of you. Please feel free to chime in with your perspectives.”

    (2) Participant’s gender = female

    (Part 1) A conversation with your supervisor (female)

    Meimei Han (韩梅梅) is your direct supervisor. She has worked in the current organization for 15 years. She asked you to prepare some reports similar to those you have done many times. After completing the reports, you entered her office and presented the reports to be signed. She skimmed through them and spotted a few mistakes. She told you, “There are a few mistakes. Please don’t make the same mistakes in the future. However, you made some interesting and useful points in the report. It seems that you have paid attention to what I advised. I can tell you have made improvement in these two months!”She said encouragingly, “I value your contributions and your competence to deliver high quality work. Please keep up the good work.”

    (Part 2) In an office meeting

    Meimei Han (韩梅梅) is usually patient even when she doesn’t get the answers that she wants in an office meeting. She asked you a question in a meeting. You couldn’t answer the question quickly, because it was a bit vague. As you were thinking about how to address her question, she said, “Maybe my question wasn’t clear. Well, let me rephrase it;” and she continued by addressing your colleagues at the meeting, “Also, I appreciate input from all of you. Please feel free to chime in with your perspectives.”

    Scenario 2 (High Abusive Supervision/Gender Similarity)

    (1) Participant’s gender = male

    (Part 1) A conversation with your supervisor (male)

    Jun Li (李军) is your direct supervisor. He has worked in the current organization for 15 years. He asked you to prepare some reports similar to those you have done many times. After completing the reports, you entered his office and presented the reports to be signed. He skimmed through them and spotted a few mistakes. He raised his voice, “There are so many mistakes! How many times do I need to tell you? What were you thinking? Why didn’t you pay attention to what I advised? Two months ago you made the exact same mistakes!” He said sarcastically, “I have serious doubts about your competence and your contributions. Just don’t disappoint us, okay?”

    (Part 2) In an office meeting

    Jun Li (李军) becomes really irritated when he doesn’t get the answers that he wants in an office meeting. He asked you a question in a meeting. You couldn’t answer it quickly, because it was a bit vague. As you were thinking about how to address his question, he made sarcastic remarks in front of your colleagues at the meeting, “Didn’t you receive a business degree? You graduated from XYZ University, right?” He shook his head and mumbled, “What a waste of time,” but your colleagues could hear it.

    (2) Participant’s gender = female

    (Part 1) A conversation with your supervisor (female)

    Meimei Han (韩梅梅) is your direct supervisor. She has worked in the current organization for 15 years. She asked you to prepare some reports similar to those you have done many times. After completing the reports, you entered her office and presented the reports to be signed. She skimmed through them and spotted a few mistakes. She raised her voice, “There are so many mistakes! How many times do I need to tell you? What were you thinking? Why didn’t you pay attention to what I advised? Two months ago you made the exact same mistakes!” She said sarcastically, “I have serious doubts about your competence and your contributions. Just don’t disappoint us, okay?”

    (Part 2) In an office meeting

    Meimei Han (韩梅梅) becomes irritated when she doesn’t get the answers that she wants in an office meeting. She asked you a question in a meeting. You couldn’t answer it quickly, because it was a bit vague. As you were thinking about how to address her question, she made sarcastic remarks in front of your colleagues at the meeting, “Didn’t you receive a business degree? You graduated from XYZ University, right?” She shook her head and mumbled, “What a waste of time,” but your colleagues could hear it.

    Scenario 3 (Low Abusive Supervision/Gender Dissimilarity)

    (1) Participant’s gender = male

    (Part 1) A conversation with your supervisor (female)

    Meimei Han (韩梅梅) is your direct supervisor. She has worked in the current organization for 15 years. She asked you to prepare some reports similar to those you have done many times. After completing the reports, you entered her office and presented the reports to be signed. She skimmed through them and spotted a few mistakes. She told you, “There are a few mistakes. Please don’t make the same mistakes in the future. However, you made some interesting and useful points in the report. It seems that you have paid attention to what I advised. I can tell you have made improvement in these two months!” She said encouragingly, “I value your contributions and your competence to deliver high quality work. Please keep up the good work.”

    (Part 2) In an office meeting

    Meimei Han (韩梅梅) is usually patient even when she doesn’t get the answers that she wants in an office meeting. She asked you a question in a meeting. You couldn’t answer the question quickly, because it was a bit vague. As you were thinking about how to address her question, she said, “Maybe my question wasn’t clear. Well, let me rephrase it;” and she continued by addressing your colleagues at the meeting, “Also, I appreciate input from all of you. Please feel free to chime in with your perspectives.”

    (2) Participant’s gender = female

    (Part 1) A conversation with your supervisor (male)

    Jun Li (李军) is your direct supervisor. He has worked in the current organization for 15 years. He asked you to prepare some reports similar to those you have done many times. After completing the reports, you entered his office and presented the reports to be signed. He skimmed through them and spotted a few mistakes. He told you, “There are a few mistakes. Please don’t make the same mistakes in the future. However, you made some interesting and useful points in the report. It seems that you have paid attention to what I advised. I can tell you have made improvement in these two months!” He said encouragingly, “I value your contributions and your competence to deliver high quality work. Please keep up the good work.”

    (Part 2) In an office meeting

    Jun Li (李军) is usually patient even when he doesn’t get the answers that he wants in an office meeting. He asked you a question in a meeting. You couldn’t answer the question quickly, because it was a bit vague. As you were thinking about how to address his question, he said, “Maybe my question wasn’t clear. Well, let me rephrase it;” and he continued by addressing your colleagues at the meeting, “Also, I appreciate input from all of you. Please feel free to chime in with your perspectives.”

    Scenario 4 (High Abusive Supervision/Gender Dissimilarity)

    (1) Participant’s gender = male (female)

    (Part 1) A conversation with your supervisor (female)

    Meimei Han (韩梅梅) is your direct supervisor. She has worked in the current organization for 15 years. She asked you to prepare some reports similar to those you have done many times. After completing the reports, you entered her office and presented the reports to be signed. She skimmed through them and spotted a few mistakes. She raised her voice, “There are so many mistakes! How many times do I need to tell you? What were you thinking? Why didn’t you pay attention to what I advised? Two months ago you made the exact same mistakes!” She said sarcastically, “I have serious doubts about your competence and your contributions. Just don’t disappoint us, okay?”

    (Part 2) In an office meeting

    Meimei Han (韩梅梅) becomes irritated when she doesn’t get the answers that she wants in an office meeting. She asked you a question in a meeting. You couldn’t answer it quickly, because it was a bit vague. As you were thinking about how to address her question, she made sarcastic remarks in front of your colleagues at the meeting, “Didn’t you receive a business degree? You graduated from XYZ University, right?” She shook her head and mumbled, “What a waste of time,” but your colleagues could hear it.

    (2) Participant’s gender = female

    (Part 1) A conversation with your supervisor (male)

    Jun Li (李军) is your direct supervisor. He has worked in the current organization for 15 years. He asked you to prepare some reports similar to those you have done many times. After completing the reports, you entered his office and presented the reports to be signed. He skimmed through them and spotted a few mistakes. He raised his voice, “There are so many mistakes! How many times do I need to tell you? What were you thinking? Why didn’t you pay attention to what I advised? Two months ago you made the exact same mistakes!” He said sarcastically, “I have serious doubts about your competence and your contributions. Just don’t disappoint us, okay?”

    (Part 2) In an office meeting

    Jun Li (李军) becomes really irritated when he doesn’t get the answers that he wants in an office meeting. He asked you a question in a meeting. You couldn’t answer it quickly, because it was a bit vague. As you were thinking about how to address his question, he made sarcastic remarks in front of your colleagues at the meeting, “Didn’t you receive a business degree? You graduated from XYZ University, right?” He shook his head and mumbled, “What a waste of time,” but your colleagues could hear it.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Park, J.H., Carter, M.Z., DeFrank, R.S. et al. Abusive Supervision, Psychological Distress, and Silence: The Effects of Gender Dissimilarity Between Supervisors and Subordinates. J Bus Ethics 153, 775–792 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3384-3

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3384-3

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation