Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Abusive Supervision and Employee Deviance: A Multifoci Justice Perspective

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

Abstract

In order to address the influence of unethical leader behaviors in the form of abusive supervision on subordinates’ retaliatory responses, we meta-analytically examined the impact of abusive supervision on subordinate deviance, inclusive of the role of justice and power distance. Specifically, we investigated the mediating role of supervisory- and organizationally focused justice and the moderating role of power distance as one model explaining why and when abusive supervision is related to subordinate deviance toward supervisors and organizations. With 79 independent sample studies (N = 22,021), we found that abusive supervision was more strongly related to supervisory-focused justice, compared to organizationally focused justice perceptions, and both types of justice perceptions were related to target-similar deviance (deviance toward the supervisor and organization, respectively). Finally, our results showed that the negative implications of abusive supervision were stronger in lower power distance cultures compared to higher power distance cultures.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis

  • Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653–668.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 126–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barling, J., Dupré, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual, ideological, and empirical issues. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations and actors and targets (pp. 65–81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Biron, M. (2010). Negative reciprocity and the association between perceived organizational ethical values and organizational deviance. Human Relations, 63, 875–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, N., & Beehr, T. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates’ responses to abusive supervision. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations, 25, 309–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brees, J., Mackey, J., Martinko, M., & Harvey, P. (2014). The mediating role of perceptions of abusive supervision in the relationship between personality and aggression. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 403–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. R. (1968). The effects of need to maintain face on interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Burton, J., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision: The role of interactional justice and narcissism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 389–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, M. W.-L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 40–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cho, Y., Jang, J., & Jeong, S. (2012). The mediating effects of interactional justice on the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ job attitudes. Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, 34, 180–231. (In Korean).

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chung, H. (2015). A study on the influence of subordinate organizational behavior by abusive supervision behavior: the effect of modification variable of emotional intelligence. Journal of Industrial Economics and Business, 28, 2767–2788. (In Korean).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., & Conlon, D. E. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236.

    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 

  • *Duffy, M. K., & Ferrier, W. J. (2003). Birds of a feather…? How supervisor-subordinate dissimilarity moderates the influence of supervisor behaviors on workplace attitudes. Group and Organization Management, 28, 217–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Duniewicz, K. (2015). Don’t get mad, get even: How employees abused by their supervisor retaliate against the organization and undermine their spouse. Doctoral Dissertation.

  • 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, 1085–1103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Eschleman, K. J., Bowling, N. A., Michel, J. S., & Burns, G. N. (2014). Perceived intent of supervisor as a moderator of the relationships between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviours. Work & Stress, 28, 362–375.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Folger (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Lexington, MA: New Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. (2005). What is the relationship between justice and morality. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 215–246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gabler, C. B., & Hill, R. P. (2015). Abusive supervision, distributive justice, and work-life balance: Perspectives from salespeople and managers. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35, 247–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Garcia, P. R. J. M., Wang, L., Lu, V., Kiazad, K., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2015). When victims become culprits: The role of subordinates’ neuroticism in the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 225–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J., & Alge, B. J. (1998). Aggressive reactions to workplace injustice. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. Collins (Eds.), Monographs in organizational behavior and industrial relations (Vol. 23, pp. 83–117)., Dysfunctional behavior in organizations Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 897–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, S. T., Schaubroek, J. M., Peng, A. C., Lord, R. G., Trevino, L. K., Kozlowski, S. W. J., et al. (2013). Joint influences of individual and work unit abusive supervision on ethical intentions and behaviors: a moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 579–592.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershcovis, S. M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Culture and organizations–Software of the Mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, C., Wu, T.-Y., & Wang, Y.-H. (2011). Measurement equivalence/invariance of the abusive supervision measure across workers from Taiwan and the United States. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 145, 111–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hwang, S., & Chun, B. (2014). The relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Journal of Korean HRD Research, 9, 1–24. (In Korean).

    Google Scholar 

  • *Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Barling, J. (2008). Psychosocial predictors of supervisor-, peer-, subordinate-, and service-provider-targeted aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1401–1411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P. F., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2012). When and how is job embeddedness predictive of turnover? A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1077–1096.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jiang, L., & Wang, R. (2012). Abusive supervision and employees’ deviant behavior: The moderating effects of colleagues’ behaviors and likelihood of punishment. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 214–218. (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepes, S., McDaniel, M. A., Brannick, M. T., & Banks, G. C. (2013). Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the meta-analytic reporting standards). Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 123–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernan, M. C., Watson, S., Chen, F. F., & Kim, T. G. (2011). How cultural values affect the impact of abusive supervision on worker attitudes. Cross Cultural Management, 18, 464–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kim, S. J., & Han, I. (2017). The effect of abusive supervision and trust in supervisor on deviant behavior: The moderating effect of self-control capacity. Journal of Organization and Human Resource Management, 41, 65–94. (In Korean).

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kim, S., Lee, S., & Yun, S. (2013). Knowledge sharing and abusive supervision. Working paper. (In Korean).

  • Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaussner, S. (2014). Engulfed in the abyss: The emergence of abusive supervision as an escalating process of supervisor-subordinate interaction. Human Relations, 67, 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis, R. S. (2013). Successfully combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling: Recommendations and strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 251–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model? Journal of Management, 33, 841–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lee, K. G. (2011). The moderating effects of perceived supervisor’s power and negative affectivity on the relationship between abusive supervision and employees’ workplace deviance. Journal of Human Resource Management Research, 12, 191–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lee, J., Moon, J., Heo, I., & Lee, J. (2014). The effect of abusive supervision on subordinates’ organizational identification and workplace deviance behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society, 15, 2806–2820. (In Korean).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. L., Keeping, L., & Morrison, R. (2014a). Abusive supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 116–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., Morrison, R., & Brown, D. J. (2014b). Blame it on the supervisor or the subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 651–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012a). Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervision and leader-member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 242–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., Wu, L., & Wu, W. (2010). Abusive supervision and subordinate supervisor-directed deviance: The moderating role of traditional values and the mediating role of revenge cognitions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 835–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Liu, W., Liao, J., & Zhang, P. (2012). Inner-mechanisms between abusive supervision and employee creativity. Industrial Engineering and Management, 17, 112–118. (In Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, J. D., Brees, J. R., McAllister, C. P., Zorn, M. L., Martinko, M. J., & Harvey, P. (2016). Victim and culprit? The effects of entitlement and felt accountability on perceptions of abusive supervision and perpetration of workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics, 138, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43, 1940–1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. W., Perrewé, P., Gallagher, V. C., & Brymer, R. A. (2015). Empowered employees as social deviants: The role of abusive supervision. Journal of Business Psychology, 30, 149–162.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S., & Resick, C. (2013). Hostile climates, abusive supervision, and the moderating role of conscientiousness. In Paper presented at the 28th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.

  • *Mawritz, M. B., Greenbaum, R. L., Butts, M., & Graham, K. (2017). I just can’t control myself: A self regulation perspective on the abuse of deviant employees. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 1482–1503.

    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, 325–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mayer, D. M., Thau, S., Workman, K. M., Van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2012). Leader mistreatment, employee hostility, and deviant behaviors: Integrating self-uncertainty and thwarted needs perspectives on deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 24–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Michel, J. S., Newness, K., & Duniewicz, K. (2016). How abusive supervision affects workplace deviance: A moderated-mediation examination of aggressiveness and work-related negative affect. Journal of Business Psychology, 31, 1–22.

    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, 1159–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Morrison, R., Lian, H., Brown, D., & Ferris, L. (2012). Righting a wrong: Does deviance restore justice following abusive supervision? In Paper presented at the 27th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

  • *Nam, K., & Yoo, Y. (2016). The effects of fairness on abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behavior: Focusing on the mediating effect of abusive supervision. Journal of the Korea Content Association, 16, 324–334. (In Korean).

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ng, S. B. C., Chen, G. Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2012). Abusive supervision, silence climate and silence behaviors: A multi-level examination of the mediating processes in China. In Paper presented at International Association for Chinese Management Research Conference.

  • *Ogunfowora, B. (2009). The consequences of ethical leadership: Comparisons with transformational leadership and abusive supervision. Doctoral dissertation.

  • *Ogunfowora, B. (2013). When the abuse is unevenly distributed: the effects of abusive supervision variability on work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 1105–1123.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, L. D. (2011). The influence of abusive supervision on followers’ organizational citizenship behaviors: The hidden costs of abusive supervision. British Journal of Management, 22, 270–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randolph, J. J., & Edmondson, S. (2005). Using the bionomial effect size display (BESD) to present the magnitude of effect sizes to the evaluation audience. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Raymund, J. M. G., Wang, L., Lu, V., Kiazad, K., & Restubog, S. L. (2015). When victim becomes culprits: The role of subordinates’ neuroticism in the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 225–229.

    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, 713–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2000). Meta analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Education Psychology, 74, 166–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). Multifoci justice and social exchange relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D., Shao, R., Jones, K. S., & Liao, H. (2014). The utility of a multifoci approach to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of normative rules, moral accountability, bandwidth-fidelity, and social exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123, 159–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 689–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S. (2013). Employee justice across cultures: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 39, 263–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shao, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2014). Service employees’ reactions to mistreatment by customers: A comparison between North America and East Asia. Personnel Psychology, 67, 23–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The role of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 158–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhard (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 293–310). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sulea, C., Fine, S., Fischmann, G., Sava, F. A., & Dumitru, C. (2013). Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effects of personality. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 196–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tang, G., Chen, H., Zhu, H., & Sun, W. (2012). How personality traits and interactional justice affect abusive supervision: An empirical test in China. In Paper presented at International Association for Chinese Management Research Conference.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 156–167.

    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, 721–732.

    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, 79–92.

    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 perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1009–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Thoroughgood, C. N., Tate, B. W., Sawyer, K. B., & Jacobs, R. (2012). Bad to the bone: Empirically defining and measuring destructive leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19, 230–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997a). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1034–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997b). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865–885.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Vogel, R. M., & Mitchell, M. S. (2015). The motivational effects of diminished self-esteem for employees who experience abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 43, 2218–2251.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Vogel, R. M., Mitchell, M. S., Tepper, B. J., Restubog, S. L., 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, 720–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wang, R., & Jiang, J. (2014). How abusive supervisors influence employees’ voice and silence: The effects of interactional justice and organizational attribution. Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 204–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W., & Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: The mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50, 43–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wei, F., & Si, S. (2013). Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 281–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 531–543.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Liao, Z. (2015). Consequences of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Jo urnal of Management, 32, 959–987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647–680.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haesang Park.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Studies included in the meta-analyses

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, H., Hoobler, J.M., Wu, J. et al. Abusive Supervision and Employee Deviance: A Multifoci Justice Perspective. J Bus Ethics 158, 1113–1131 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3749-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3749-2

Keywords

Navigation