Organizational BehaviorArticle Attached
Microsoft Word - Document13 Assignment Instructions Journal Article For this assignment, you will select an article from the Journal of Organizational Behavior. You will write a 500–750-word review of the article. Your article needs to discuss or investigate one or more aspects of organizational behavior as it relates to your Final Project topic; (Stress, Anger, and Violence in the Workplace) it does not need to be comprehensive. The article should be one written within the last decade. In your article review, complete the following tasks. At the top of the page, cite the article’s source using APA style. Then, answer these four questions, in one paragraph each: o What did you learn? o What surprised you? o What do you want to learn more about? o How might you apply what you learned to your Final Project in this course? Antecedents of Abusive Supervision: a Meta-analytic Review Antecedents of Abusive Supervision: a Meta-analytic Review Yucheng Zhang1 • Timothy C. Bednall2 Received: 18 December 2014 / Accepted: 30 March 2015 / Published online: 25 April 2015 � Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 Abstract Recent studies of organizational behavior have witnessed a growing interest in unethical leadership, leading to the development of abusive supervision re- search. Given the increasing interest in the causes of abu- sive supervision, this study proposes an organizing framework for its antecedents and tests it using meta ana- lysis. Based on an analysis of effect sizes drawn from 74 studies, comprising 30,063 participants, the relationship between abusive supervision and different antecedent categories are examined. The results generally support expected relationships across the four categories of abusive antecedents, including: supervisor related antecedents, or- ganization related antecedents, subordinate related an- tecedents, and demographic characteristics of both supervisors and subordinates. In addition, possible mod- erators that can also influence the relationships between abusive supervision and its antecedents are also examined. The significance and implications of different level factors in explaining abusive supervision are discussed. Keywords Abusive supervision � Meta analysis � Supervisor related antecedents � Organization related antecedents � Subordinate related antecedents Introduction Abusive supervision—‘‘subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding phy- sical contact’’ (Tepper 2000)—is an extremely salient phenomenon in organizations (Tepper et al. 2006). Schat et al. (2006) estimated that more than 13.6 % of employees have observed abusive supervision at work, or have di- rectly experienced it from their immediate supervisor. Numerous surveys have found that that 65–75 % of em- ployees reported that their boss was the worst part of their jobs in any given organization (e.g., Hogan and Kaiser 2005). The consequences of abusive supervision include increased healthcare costs, workplace withdrawal, and lost productivity (Tepper et al. 2006). It is important to un- derstand how organizations can minimize the occurrence of abusive supervision. Therefore, investigating the an- tecedents of abusive supervision is both necessary and urgent. Although the consequences of abusive supervision are well known, its antecedents initially received less research attention (Martinko et al. 2013). The seminal work on abusive supervision by Tepper (2000) investigated the consequences of abusive supervision. Most subsequent studies continued this focus and also examined moderators of the effects of abusive supervision (e.g., Harris et al. 2005; Inness et al. 2005; Tepper et al. 2001, 2004). A recent meta-analysis summarized the research findings on the consequences of abusive supervision (Schyns and Schilling 2013).1 However, a meta-analytic review of the & Yucheng Zhang yucheng.eason.zhang@gmail.com Timothy C. Bednall tbednall@swin.edu.au 1 Research Institute of Economics and Management, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China 2 Department of Leadership and Management, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia 1 Schyns and Schilling (2013) conducted a meta-analysis on destructive leadership, which contains abusive supervision as one type of destructive leadership. 123 J Bus Ethics (2016) 139:455–471 DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2657-6 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-015-2657-6&domain=pdf http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10551-015-2657-6&domain=pdf antecedents of abusive supervision has not yet been pro- duced. Until 2007, Tepper (2007) only identified three studies on the antecedents of abusive supervision in his review. Empirical research on the antecedents of abusive su- pervision only started to proliferate during the last 5 years (e.g., Harris et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2012; Wu and Hu 2009). This growth likely resulted from earlier re- search findings that abusive supervision has a deleterious effect on employees, including their in role performance (Harris et al. 2007), well-being (Lin et al. 2013), and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Zellars et al. 2002). As the outcomes of abusive supervision have now been well studied, a continued focus on its consequences is unlikely to yield strong theoretical contributions. Thus, an increasing number of scholars have shifted their at- tention from the consequences of abusive supervision to its antecedents (Martinko et al. 2013; Tepper et al. 2011). Although two narrative reviews of abusive supervision antecedents have been published (Martinko et al. 2013; Tepper 2007), a quantitative analysis of antecedents is still lacking. A meta-analysis provides at least three advantages over narrative reviews. First, meta-analysis provides a systematic process for collecting primary studies and ap- plying inclusion criteria. This process ensures a near ex- haustive coverage of the relevant literature on the topic of the meta-analysis. Second, meta-analysis combines find- ings from previous studies, and tests the relationship be- tween the variables of interest. In doing so, inconsistent findings can be analyzed, quantified and ultimately re- solved. Third, meta-analysis enables sample level mod- erators to be tested, in order to explain any heterogeneity in findings across studies. Ultimately, meta-analysis provides greater reliability and generalizability of results, and may yield theoretical insights that are not apparent in individual studies. The objectives of this meta-analysis are fourfold. First, this meta-analysis empirically tests the relationships be- tween abusive supervision and its antecedents in previous studies, so that the inconsistent findings across studies can be resolved. Second, this meta-analysis tests a set of moderators thought to influence the relationship between abusive supervision and its antecedents. Third, based on the insights previous reviews (Martinko et al. 2013; Tepper 2007) and findings from this meta-analysis, a theoretical framework is proposed. Finally, this meta-analysis builds on previous reviews of abusive supervision by focusing specifically its antecedents. As most research has examined the consequences of abusive supervision (Schyns and Schilling 2013), a meta analysis of its antecedents is ur- gently needed to balance the research. Antecedents of Abusive Supervision: a Proposed Theoretical Framework This paper builds on the theoretical framework proposed in the reviews carried out by Tepper (2007) and Martinko et al. (2013). The antecedents of abusive supervision can broadly be categorized into supervisor related antecedents, organization related antecedents, subordinate related an- tecedents and demographic characteristics of supervisors and subordinates. Figure 1 presents the theoretical model. Variables in this model were selected according to the empirical research conducted so far on the antecedents of abusive supervision. Supervisor related antecedents comprise constructs based on supervisors’ characteristics, including supervisors’ state, leadership style and personality traits (Aryee et al. 2007; Hoobler and Brass 2006). Aggressive norms and the use of sanctions are classified into organization related an- tecedents as these variables describe the characteristics of an organization (Restubog et al. 2011). Subordinate related antecedents include employees’ personality traits and cul- tural characteristics (Lian et al. 2012a). Although empirical studies normally use demographic variables of supervisors and subordinates as control variables, the previous meta analysis of the relationships between demographic variables and workplace aggression showed that there are significant relationships between demographic variables and work- place aggression (Bowling and Beehr 2006). Focusing on abusive supervision as a specific type of workplace ag- gression, this study investigates the role of demographic characteristics. In theorizing that demographic characteris- tics produce unique effects, they are neither classified into supervisor related antecedents nor subordinate related an- tecedents, but rather placed into an independent category. Supervisor Related Antecedents Stressors and Negative Affective State Supervisors’ interactions with higher organizational levels influence their affective state and behavior towards their subordinates (Hoobler and Hu 2013). As Aryee et al. (2007) trickle down model suggests, unequal treatment stemming from higher levels of the organization influences supervisors and consequently subordinates. Moreover, supervisors’ negative states can also result from negative interactions with their co workers. Harris et al. (2011) found that supervisors who experienced more co worker conflicts engaged in greater abusive behavior towards their subordinates. The relation- ship between supervisors’ affective states and abusive su- pervision can be explained by research on displaced aggression, which holds that people tend to be aggressive to 456 Y. Zhang, T. C. Bednall 123 one party because they were mistreated by another party (Hoobler and Brass 2006; Restubog et al. 2011). Compared with other people in the organization, subordinates are a relatively safe target to vent supervisors’ negative state since subordinates have low retaliatory power (Tepper et al. 2006). For supervisors who regularly experience such stressors, abusing subordinates is an emotion focus coping strategy to alleviate the negative state and stress. On the contrary, supervisors with more positive affective state will be less likely to display abusive behaviors due to their relatively less need to cope with stress. In the current limited number of studies, the focus is on organizational justice of supervisors’ positive state. Colquitt et al. (2013) proposed an affect based perspective to understand the relationship between organizational justice and its out- comes. Supervisors, who have more positive affect, may behave less abusively (Colquitt et al. 2001). Hence the following hypothesis is presented: Hypothesis 1a Abusive supervision is positively related to stressors that produce a negative affective state (supervisors’ negative experiences, supervisors’ negative affect, supervi- sor stress, and lack of interactional and procedural justice). Supervisor Leadership Style Based on the definition of (Yukl 2006, p. 8), supervisors organize subordinates to accomplish shared objectives. Supervisor-related antecedents Stressors and negative affective state (H1a) Supervisor interactional justice (-), Supervisor procedural justice (-), Supervisors' negative experiences (+), Supervisors' negative affect (+), Supervisor stress (+) Supervisors' leadership style (H1b) Ethical leadership (-), Supportive leadership (-), Transformational leadership (-), Authoritarian leadership style (+), Unethical leadership (+) Supervisors' characteristics (H1c) Supervisor EI (-), Supervisor power (+), Supervisors' Machiavellianism (+) Abusive Supervision Organization related antecedents (H2) Organizational sanctions (-), Aggressive norm (+) Subordinate related antecedents (H3) Political skill (-), Stability (-), Cynical attribution (+), Negative affectivity (+), Power distance (+), Supervisor directed attribution (+), Traditionality (+), Narcissism (+), Neuroticism (+), Conscientiousness (-), Extraversion (-), Agreeableness (-) Demographic characteristics of supervisors and subordinates (H4) Supervisors' age (-), Supervisors' gender (+), Subordinates’ organizational tenure (-), Subordinates’ age (+), Subordinates’ gender (+), Working