LEADER-SUBORDINATE RELATIONS: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE PARADOXICAL
Leader-Subordinate Relations: The Good, the Bad and the Paradoxical
Relaties tussen leidinggevenden en ondergeschikten: The Good, the Bad and the Paradoxical
Thesis
to obtain the degree of Doctor from the Erasmus University Rotterdam
by command of the rector magnificus
Prof. dr. F.A. van der Duijn Schouten
and in accordance with the decision of the Doctorate Board. The public defence shall be held on
Thursday 18th March 2021 at 10:30 hrs by
Benjamin Ashlin Korman, born in Ludwigsburg, Germany
Doctoral Committee
Promoters: Prof.dr. S. R. Giessner
Promoters: Prof.dr. C. Tröster Other members: Dr. D. Stam
Other members: Dr. I. Hoever
Other members: Dr. M. Schweinsberg
Erasmus Research Institute of Management – ERIM
The joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM) and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at the Erasmus University Rotterdam Internet: www.erim.eur.nl
ERIM Electronic Series Portal: repub.eur.nl/ ERIM PhD Series in Research in Management, 511
ERIM reference number: EPS-2021-511 ORG ISBN 978-90-5892-600-5
© 2021, Benjamin Ashlin Korman Design: PanArt, www.panart.nl
This publication (cover and interior) is printed by Tuijtel on recycled paper, BalanceSilk® The ink used is produced from renewable resources and alcohol free fountain solution.
Certifications for the paper and the printing production process: Recycle, EU Ecolabel, FSC®C007225 More info: www.tuijtel.com
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author.
without permission in writing from the author.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This has been a most challenging journey. Fortunately, I had many caring people who helped to guide me, or simply accompany me, along the way. For these people, my supervisors, committee members, friends, and family, I am extremely grateful.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisors, Chris and Steffen, for making this journey even possible. The feedback, knowledge and encouragement that you provided me during the last four years has helped me develop as a researcher and broaden my understanding of organizational psychology, and the realm of science as a whole. Chris, thank you so much for your unwavering support and considerable willingness to sit down with me to discuss psychological theory and statistical methods. I cannot express just how much I learned from you during our time working together. I will forever look back fondly on our impromptu discussions in the gym, where we simultaneously toned our cores and core theoretical contributions. Steffen, thank you so much for promoting me as an external PhD candidate at Erasmus University
Rotterdam and for your help in arranging my research visits there. I’m very grateful for your encouraging words and reassuring feedback, as well as the
time and effort you took to assist me on lab experiments and the recruitment of student participants.
Similarly, I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee for taking the time to read and evaluate this dissertation, as well as for playing their integral role in making my doctoral defense a reality. Thank you Daan Stam, Hannes Leroy, Inga Hoever and Martin
Schweinsberg.
I would also like to thank the friends I’ve made at the Kühne Logistics University and the Respect Research Group for their support in these recent years. Laughing and commiserating with you during the ups and downs of PhD life helped me establish Hamburg as my home and kept me motivated in my scholastic und linguistic pursuits. Your presence made conferences, PhD courses, team meetings and everything in between much more fun than they otherwise might have been.
Furthermore, I would like to thank my paranymphs, Robert and Jenni, for their immeasurable support in the previous years. Robert, you are like a brother to me and I will always be grateful for the encouragement you gave and friendship you showed, even with an ocean and a 9-hour time difference between us. Your extraordinary resilience was, and continues to be, an inspiration for me. Jenni, your incredible support made it possible
for me to write this dissertation. No one has played a bigger role than you in promoting my health, happiness and personal development along this journey. Even on the joyless days, I was comforted by the thought that, by taking up this challenge, I met you. Words cannot express how incredibly grateful I am that I did.
I would also like to recognize two good friends who offered me unique material support while working on this dissertation, Alfredo and Aldo. Alfredo, our research collaboration was an extremely enjoyable and rewarding work experience. Thank you so much for both the incredible opportunity as well as your trust that, together, we would see our project through. And Aldo, many thanks for blessing the cover of this dissertation with your creativity and design skills. Should I ever feel compelled to write a second dissertation, I will again be coming to you for the cover design.
Finally, I would like to thank my wonderful family. You were always there for me, continually reminding me of the importance of my work and the clear progress I had made in my personal development along the way. From proofreading my drafts to sending me delicious Vermont maple syrup or Dutch peanut butter, your encouragement, sympathy and tasty treats kept me moving forward. After having completed this scholastic
gauntlet, I can tell you with full confidence that Emil Faber, founder of Faber College, was right: “Knowledge is good”.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 ……….11
General Introduction CHAPTER 2 ……….27
The Consequences of Incongruent Abusive Supervision: Concerns of Social Exclusion, Shame and Turnover Intentions CHAPTER 3 ………...103
LMXSC and Employees’ Paradoxical Coworker-Directed Behaviors: A Dual-Path Mediation Model Involving Pride CHAPTER 4 ………...165
Victims’ Resistance to Abusive Supervision Promotes Observers’ Helping Behavior CHAPTER 5 ………...221
General Discussion Summary ………...323
Samenvatting ………...325
About the Author ………...327
Portfolio ………...329
CHAPTER 1
Leaders play a pivotal role in the functioning of the teams they lead. How they interact with and treat their subordinates determines in large part the social nature of the team’s work environment. One reason for this is that the interactions between leaders and their subordinates can trickle-down (Mawritz et al., 2012; Mayer et al., 2009), thereby influencing the interactions that subordinates have with one another. These types of social dynamics within work teams are of major consequence for organizations because they can predict the extent to which an organization’s employees are motivated to engage in desirable and productive behaviors (e.g.
helping) (Newman et al., 2017; Walumbwa et al., 2010), as well as
undesirable and costly behaviors (e.g. social undermining, turnover) (Harris et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2015). The aim of this dissertation is to both examine and account for the multifaceted, and at times paradoxical,
consequences that leaders’ interactions with their subordinates can have on individual team members, as well as the team’s overall work environment.
Leaders have more positive relationships with some subordinates and less positive relationships with others (Graen, 1976). This is due to the limited nature of a leader’s resources, both socioemotional (e.g. time, emotional support) and tangible (e.g. high-profile projects, funding) (Erdogan & Bauer, 2013; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). The interactions
between a leader and a single subordinate, however, do not occur in a vacuum. Subordinates can be acutely aware of how both they and their coworkers are treated as a result of the public nature of the leader’s
treatment or on account of coworkers’ communication exchanges following the interaction (Decoster et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2013). Thus, a leader’s interactions with a single subordinate can elicit an array of emotions in the subordinate with whom the leader interacts (Matta & Van Dyne, 2018; Oh & Farh, 2017), as well as other subordinates who observe, or hear about, the interaction (Mitchell et al., 2015; Skarlicki & Kulik, 2004). Emotions, in turn, motivate specific behavioral actions (Frijda, 1986; Smith &
Lazarus, 1990). Via emotional mechanisms, subordinates’ perceptions of their own, or their coworkers’, interactions with the team leader can result in a similarly diverse array of behaviors and behavioral intentions (Matta & Van Dyne, 2018; Oh & Farh, 2017).
This dissertation sheds light on the diverse emotional reactions subordinates experience as a result of their, or their coworkers’, perceived leader treatment and the array of behaviors or behavioral intentions they subsequently report. The first sections of this dissertation (Chapters 2 & 3) will focus on social comparisons of leader treatment, that is, how
treatment that is better or worse than the leader treatment received by their coworkers. In a later section of this dissertation (Chapter 4), the focus of investigation will turn to understanding how, and why, employees may react positively after observing a fellow coworker being mistreated by an abusive leader.
As social beings, humans are motivated to interact with their peers (Fiske, 2019). This interaction provides ample opportunity for individuals to compare themselves with others; they are driven to do this for various reasons. One reason is that social comparisons can provide information regarding an individuals’ status when objective information is unavailable (Festinger, 1954). Status, “the amount of respect, influence, and
prominence each member enjoys in the eyes of others” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 116), is of fundamental importance to individuals (Anderson et al., 2015). By engaging in social comparisons, individuals can gain a better understanding of where they stand relative to others. In fact, people make social comparisons on a daily basis (Spence et al., 2011; Wheeler & Miyake, 1992) and these comparisons have been found to make up 7% of people’s thinking (Summerville & Roese, 2008). This is, in part, because social comparisons with others can be automatic (Bocage-Barthélémy et al., 2018) and even unconscious (Mussweiler et al., 2004).
Broadly speaking, social comparisons can be categorized as either upward or downward in nature (Suls et al., 2002). Whereas upward social comparisons are comparisons people make with others who they perceive as having more resources (e.g. supervisor support), downward social comparisons involve comparisons with those who they perceive as having less resources (Åberg Yngwe et al., 2003). Although social comparisons can motivate employees to demonstrate positive, prosocial behavior (Shipley, 2008), they may similarly (and, as we will see in Chapter 3, simultaneously) encourage negative, aggressive behavior towards their coworkers (Duffy et al., 2006). An increased understanding of social comparisons among employees in organizations is, therefore, of high practical importance (Greenberg et al., 2007).
Individuals compare themselves with proximate others whom they perceive as being similar to themselves (Festinger, 1954; Shah, 1998). In organizations, these proximate others can be one’s coworkers (Greenberg et al., 2007) as team members often share the same supervisor(s), abilities and qualifications (Hu & Liden, 2013). Employees compete and cooperate with their coworkers in an effort to attain and maintain high status in the
organization’s hierarchy (Hogan, 1996; Hogan et al., 1985), along with its associated benefits (e.g. career opportunities). Although some work-related
measures indicative of status can be quantified objectively (e.g. education level, organizational tenure), others lack objective standards. Leader
treatment is one such indicator of status within a group (Tyler, 1989) which lacks objective standards (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Thus, employees are driven to socially compare their perceived leader treatment with that of their coworkers in order to gain a better understanding of their leader
treatment (i.e. status) in their workgroup (Thau et al., 2013; Vidyarthi et al., 2010).
A plethora of previous studies have demonstrated the potential advantages offered to both the organization and its workforce when employees perceive themselves as receiving better leader treatment in comparison to their coworkers. For the focal employees making these
comparisons, these advantages include increased self-esteem, creativity and job satisfaction (Liao et al., 2010; Park et al., 2017; Thau et al., 2013). For their organizations, advantages can include the employee’s increased
organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and job performance (Lee et al., 2019; Thau et al., 2013; Vidyarthi et al., 2010). However, despite the positive effects associated with these downward
social comparisons, such comparisons can also result in negative
as well as their organization (Matta & Van Dyne, 2018). These negative consequences and the emotions associated with them will be examined in Chapters 2 and 3.
As already mentioned, the interactions that leaders have with individual subordinates can also affect other team members. This type of ripple effect is especially consequential in incidents involving abusive supervision, that is, supervisors’ “sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178). This is because abusive supervision is associated with predominantly negative outcomes for the victim, observers of the abuse and the organization as a whole (Mackey et al., 2017; Martinko et al., 2013;
Tepper, 2007). For example, observing a fellow coworker being victimized by the team leader can result in negative emotional experiences for the observing employee (e.g. feelings of anger) and negative outcomes for the organization (e.g. supervisor-directed deviance) (Harris et al., 2013;
Mitchell et al., 2015; Peng & Schaubroeck, 2013). However, although observers may consider it just to penalize perpetrators (Bies & Tripp, 2001; Folger, 2001; Rupp & Bell, 2010), intentionally doing harm to a perpetrator transgresses the same moral mandate transgressed by the perpetrator, which is, that, based on their humanity, everyone should be treated with
self-regard and dignity (Rawls, 1971). In Chapter 4, the observer’s perspective of a victimized coworker’s reaction to abusive supervision will be explored. Specifically, the conditions in which observers may experience positive emotions following the abusive supervision of a coworker and, in turn, act on these emotions with prosocial behavior, will be discussed.
In sum, Chapters 2 and 3 highlight the layers of complexity
underlying social comparisons in the organizational context by accounting for the positive and negative consequences of social comparisons among coworkers. In doing so, this work offers clarity to previous scientific findings that had been considered mixed or unexpected. Chapter 4, on the other hand, focuses on employees who observe the leader’s abuse of a
fellow coworker, revealing the potential for victimized coworkers to inspire observers through their actions. Among the topics presented in the
following chapters, we will illustrate why favorable upward social comparisons can cause concerns of social exclusion and shame, why employees can be motivated to simultaneously help and hinder their coworkers, and why employees who observe abusive supervision of a coworker can be motivated by the victimized coworker to help the abusive supervisor. This dissertation, thereby, offers insight into the good, the bad and the paradoxical arising from leaders’ treatment of their subordinates.
Dissertation Overview
The following 3 chapters explore diverse emotional and behavioral outcomes resulting from leader-subordinate interactions in the workplace. Each of these chapters was written as an independent empirical research paper. These chapters are the result of close collaboration with my
supervisors Christian Tröster and Steffen R. Giessner and, for this reason, I use the term “we” throughout this dissertation to highlight their
involvement in this work.
In Chapter 2, we examine the undesirable effects that can result when employees perceive themselves as receiving more or less abusive supervision relative to their coworkers. Receiving less respect from the leader (e.g. more abusive supervision) than one’s coworkers signals that the focal employee has low status in their work group (Smith et al., 1998) and can result in negative treatment of the focal employee by coworkers
(Mitchell et al., 2015). At the same time, however, individuals who fair better than others (e.g. by receiving less abusive supervision) can also
experience social exclusion concerns (Exline & Lobel, 1999) as they can be the target of others’ envy (Feather, 1994). We, therefore, hypothesize that focal employees who receive less, or more, abusive supervision relative to their coworkers will experience concerns of social exclusion. Social
exclusion represents a threat to one’s social accceptance and elicits feelings of shame (Gilbert, 2007). Shame, in turn, motivates withdrawal behavior, reducing social conflict by removing the individual from the socially-threatening situation (Dickerson et al., 2004; Kemeny et al., 2004). We, therefore, reason that concerns of social exclusion elicit shame in focal employees, driving their intentions to leave the organization (i.e. turnover). We test our theoretical model in one field study and two experiments.
In Chapter 3, we investigate whether employees who perceive themselves as having a better relationship with their leader compared to their coworkers engage in more social undermining. Whereas much research has focused on the idea that being treated better by a leader
compared to one’s coworkers motivates prosocial behavior (i.e. OCB) (Abu Bakar & Connaughton, 2019; Henderson et al., 2008; Hu & Liden, 2013; Vidyarthi et al., 2010), the notion that these same individuals may be motivated by their perceived leader treatment to engage in aggressive, self-interested behavior has been ignored. Drawing on the dual-facetted nature of pride (Tracy & Robins, 2007a, 2007b), we reason that high LMXSC (i.e. the perception of having a better relationship with one’s leader relative to the relationships fellow coworkers have with the leader) elicits both
of accomplishment) because better leader treatment relative to others is associated with higher group status (Tyler, 1989; Tyler & Blader, 2002). Hubristic pride, in turn, motivates aggressive displays of dominance towards others (e.g. social undermining) as a means of gaining and
maintaining deference from others (Cheng et al., 2013). Authentic pride, on the other hand, motivates prosocial, group-oriented behavior (e.g. OCB) as a means of earning others’ respect (Cheng et al., 2013). In sum, we
hypothesize that high LMXSC triggers both social undermining via
hubristic pride as well as coworker-directed OCB via authentic pride. We test our theoretical model in one experiment and two field studies.
In Chapter 4, we explore the emotions felt, and behaviors
demonstrated, by employees observing a victimized coworker resist (i.e. stand up to) an abusive supervisor. Although abusive supervision can anger observers and motivate their supervisor-directed deviance (Chen & Liu, 2019; Mitchell et al., 2015), purposely harming a perpetrator violates the moral mandate that all individuals should be treated with dignity and self-regard (Rawls, 1971). Observers may, therefore, alternatively, be driven to act morally and pro-socially following immoral incidents (Radzik, 2010). Drawing on the moral elevation literature (Pohling & Diessner, 2016;
moral elevation (i.e. admiration for another’s morally-praiseworthy characteristics) when witnessing victimized coworkers stand up to their perpetrators, demonstrating virtues like integrity, courage and resilience in the process. Moral elevation is associated with the desire “to help others and to become a better person” (Haidt, 2000, p. 2) and, thus, will motivate observers to engage in prosocial (i.e. helping) behavior towards both the victimized coworker and abusive supervisor. We hypothesize that
victimized coworkers’ resistance to the abusive supervisor predicts
observers’ coworker-directed and supervisor-directed helping behavior via feelings of elevation. We test our theoretical model in a field study and an experiment.
In Chapter 5, the final chapter of this dissertation, I summarize Chapters 2 - 4 while integrating their independent scientific contributions. With the goal of offering a broader perspective on the overarching topic of leadership, as well as potentially fruitful avenues for future research, I discuss the theoretical and practical applications of our work and the doors it opens for future studies.
Contributions
This dissertation aims to make several contributions to the fields of social comparison, abusive supervision and moral elevation. First, we
incorporate shame into the emotional process theory of abusive supervision (Oh & Farh, 2017), a theory on discrete, negative emotions arising from supervisor abuse and their unique behavioral consequences. Furthermore, we build on Matta and Van Dyne’s (2018) proposition that upward social comparisons regarding differential leader treatment can cause shame in employees by extending this theorizing to include downward social
comparisons regarding differential leader treatment. In doing so, we expose the potential negative consequences of downward social comparisons in the workplace and heed calls for increased investigations on shame in
organizations (Daniels & Robinson, 2019).
Second, this dissertation unveils the negative consequences that can result from LMXSC (e.g. hubristic pride and social undermining). It
thereby advances theory on LMX (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) by
demonstrating that negative consequences arising from variability in LMX among coworkers are not solely due to low LMX employees’ undesirable upward social comparisons. These findings, furthermore, contribute to the scientific discussion on LMX differentiation (Anand et al., 2016;
Henderson et al., 2009; Matta & Van Dyne, 2018) by offering insight into why previous research findings regarding LMX variation in teams have provided mixed, and sometimes contradictory, results.
Finally, this dissertation highlights the positive and prosocial effects that victimized coworkers’ resistance to abusive supervision can have on employees observing the abusive incident. We show that victims’
resistance to an abusive supervisor elicits elevation in observers which, in turn, inspires observers to help both the victimized coworker and abusive supervisor. This work builds on prior studies into the potential benefits of trickle-down abusive supervision (see Taylor and colleagues, 2019) by extending the source of positive outcomes from victims of abusive supervision to include observers of abusive supervision. Until now, the nascent work on observers’ reactions to abusive supervision has painted victimized coworkers as individuals to be helped (Priesemuth, 2013; Priesemuth & Schminke, 2019) or avoided (Mitchell et al., 2015). We instead offer the favorable view that victims can be moral exemplars and, thus, sources of elevation for those observing the abuse.
Declaration of Contributors
Multiple authors contributed to the chapters of this doctoral
dissertation. These include Benjamin A. Korman (BAK), Christian Tröster (CT) and Steffen R. Giessner (SRG). Chapters 2, 3 and 4 were written by BAK under the supervision of CT and SRG. In Chapter 2, Studies 1 - 3 were designed by BAK under the supervision of CT. Data for Studies 1 and
2 were collected using CT’s Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) account. Data for Study 3 was collected in the Erasmus Behavioral Lab under the supervision of SRG. Data for Studies 1 - 3 in Chapter 2 were analyzed by BAK under the supervision of CT. In Chapter 3, Studies 1 - 3 were
designed by BAK under the supervision of CT. Data for Studies 1 - 3 were collected using BAK’s MTurk account. Data for Studies 1 - 3 in Chapter 3 were analyzed by BAK under the supervision of CT. In Chapter 4, Studies 1 and 2 were designed by BAK under the supervision of CT. Data for Studies 1 and 2 were collected using BAK’s MTurk account. Data for Studies 1 and 2 in Chapter 4 were analyzed by BAK under the supervision of CT.
The authorship for Chapters 2, 3 and 4 is as follows: • Korman, Tröster, Giessner
CHAPTER 5
In this dissertation, I highlighted the complex ways in which leader-subordinate relations can affect the social nature of a team’s work
environment. This work extends current psychological theory, clarifies previously reported, yet, unanticipated scientific findings and emphasizes the simultaneously positive and negative outcomes that social comparisons, and even abusive supervision, can trigger in organizations. In the previous chapters, it was discussed why incongruent abusive supervision can cause concerns of social exclusion, shame and turnover intentions, why
employees can be motivated to simultaneously help and undermine their coworkers, and why witnesses to abusive supervision can be inspired by victimized coworkers to act prosocially towards an abusive supervisor. On the following pages, the key takeaways from this research into leader-subordinate relations will be presented, as will avenues for future research and the practical implications of this work.
Overview of Main Findings and Contributions
In Chapter 2, we explored the cognitive appraisals, emotional
reactions and behavioral intentions of employees who perceive themselves as being treated with more or less abusive supervision than their coworkers. A two-wave field study and two experimental vignettes support our theory that employees associate incongruent abusive supervision with concerns of
social exclusion from their coworkers which, in turn, is positively
correlated with employees’ feelings of shame and turnover intentions. Our findings reveal the curvilinear effect that incongruent abusive supervision has on employees’ reactions to abusive supervision and introduce shame as an emotional mechanism capable of accounting for employee responses to supervisor abuse.
Chapter 2 contributes to the abusive supervision literature by
demonstrating that social concerns and social emotions ensue from, and are consequential for predicting employees’ behavioral intentions following abusive supervision. Specifically, we empirically show that employees’ cognitive appraisals of potential exclusion from their coworkers - arising from incongruent leader treatment - are related to their feelings of shame. This work proposes a theoretical extension to Oh and Fahr’s (2017)
emotional process theory and introduces downward social comparisons regarding differential leader treatment as a source of employees’ feelings of shame. Our findings show that perceiving oneself as receiving less abusive supervision than one’s coworkers can have the same shame-inducing effect as when one perceives themselves as receiving more abusive supervision than one’s coworkers. Our theoretical framework also offers a contribution to the scientific literature by accounting for previously reported, yet,
unanticipated results. Unanticipated findings by Fahr and Chen (Study 2; 2014) suggested that employees abused less than their coworkers have lower self-esteem than employees whose coworkers are treated with
comparably low abuse. Backed by experimental support, we help shed light on their finding by showing that such negative psychological effects can stem from employees’ cognitive appraisals of social threat and subsequent feelings of shame elicited from perceptions of incongruence in abusive treatment. Lastly, Chapter 2 builds on previous studies featuring the relationship between upward social comparisons regarding differential leader treatment and employees’ turnover intentions (Graen et al., 1982). We do this by showing that even comparatively favorable supervisory treatment can impel employees to leave their organization. Instead of welcoming comparably favorable treatment, employees appear to prefer equal treatment in workplaces lead by an abusive supervisor (even when this treatment involves abuse to oneself).
In Chapter 3, we tested whether employees who perceive
themselves as having a better relationship with their leader compared to their coworkers engage in more social undermining. An experimental
vignette and two field studies support our theory that high LMXSC (i.e. the perception of having a better relationship with one’s leader relative to the
relationships fellow coworkers have with the leader) triggers both
coworker-directed OCB and social undermining. We propose that these paradoxical behaviors arise from the dual-facets of pride; authentic and hubristic pride.
Chapter 3 contributes to the LMX literature by extending the predictive power of the LMXSC construct as it relates to positive interpersonal behavioral outcomes to include negative interpersonal behavioral outcomes as well. We demonstrate that favorable downward social comparisons regarding LMX can result in similarly destructive coworker-directed behavior that has previously only been associated with upward social comparisons of LMX. To account for this, we draw on recent theory on pride to explain why having a better relationship with one’s
leader can result in both prosocial and dominance-oriented behavior. In doing so, we introduce hubristic and authentic pride as valid emotional mechanisms capable of accounting for diverse and, at times, paradoxical employee behavior. Finally, by focusing on the individual-level experience of leader-subordinate relations, we contribute to the current discussion on LMX differentiation and its associated team-level outcomes. Reliable findings regarding how team-level variance in LMX affects team-level outcomes have been hard to come by (Bauer & Erdogan, 2015). This is due
to mixed findings associating team-level variance in LMX with positive, negative or a lack of effects on team-level outcomes. We suggest that a potential explanation for these mixed findings may lay in the fact that employees with a comparatively better relationship with the leader may simultaneously both help and undermine their coworkers.
In Chapter 4, we tested whether victims’ reactions to abusive
supervision affect the extent to which observers are willing to help both the victim and the abusive supervisor. Findings from a field study utilizing critical incident techniques and an experimental vignette support our theory that victims who stand up for themselves in the face of an abusive
supervisor elicit feelings of elevation (i.e. admiration for virtue) in third parties. Feelings of elevation then motivate third-parties’ to engage in helping behavior towards the victimized-coworker and the abusive supervisor.
Chapter 4 reveals the positive, downstream outcomes that can emerge when employees observe an incident of abusive supervision. By building on prior work introducing abusive supervision as a potential source of prosocial behavior , we extend acts of prosocial behavior arising from victims of abuse to include prosocial behavior demonstrated by observers of abuse. Our work is the first to show that victimized
coworkers’ resistance to an abusive supervisor can motivate observers of the abuse to act prosocially towards both the victim and the abusive supervisor. This is because victims’ resistance to abuse can elicit feelings of elevation in observers which, in turn, motivates prosocial behavior. Our work, therefore, integrates the positive and moral emotion of elevation into deontic justice theory (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Folger, 2001), a theory which has primarily focused on directed anger and perpetrator-directed punishment. Furthermore, this research offers a novel perspective on victims of abusive supervision. Whereas prior work has primarily associated victimization with either weakness and submissiveness or
aggression and vengeance, we emphasize that abusive work conditions can provide an opportunity for individuals to demonstrate their virtue and inner strength. We contribute to theory on abusive supervision by highlighting that victims of abuse can also inspire their coworkers and become sources of elevation for them.
Directions for Future Research
As demonstrated in the previous chapters, leader-subordinate relations can result in a wide array of emotional and behavioral outcomes for subordinates, some of which are positive, others of which are negative. Future studies into the moderating effects on, or limiting conditions of,
these leader-subordinate relations are of high importance. Variables of interest that beg future investigation include psychological characteristics of the employees interacting with (or observing a coworker’s interactions with) the leader, as well as the characteristics of the work environment in which these relationships exist.
In Chapter 2, we introduced the theory that more, or less, abusive supervision relative to that which one’s coworkers receives leads
employees to experience concerns of social exclusion, feelings of shame and intentions to leave their organization. Future studies can build on this theory by exploring which employees are more, or less, susceptible to shame in organizations home to incongruent abusive supervision.
Psychological traits such as proneness to shame (Tangney, 1990) and need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) could be fruitful moderators worthy of future investigation. Employees with a high proneness to shame would be expected to have more extreme shame reactions as a result of
discomforting social comparisons than employees with a low proneness to shame. Similarly, employees with a high need to belong would be expected to be more sensitive to leader-subordinate relations (e.g. incongruent
abusive supervision) and, thus, more likely to experience the social emotion of shame. On the other hand, employees demonstrating sociopathic
tendencies may be less affected by social information arising from social comparisons (Damasio, 1990) and, as a result, less sensitive to shame-inducing social comparisons with coworkers. Future studies could,
moreover, build on the relationship between shame and turnover intentions tested in Chapter 2. Probing other manifestations of employees’ shame-induced withdrawal would be one place to begin. Research into more subtle employee withdrawal behaviors could highlight the developmental stages of employees’ behavioral responses to incongruent abusive supervision over time. For example, employees perceiving themselves as receiving abusive supervision incongruent to that received by their coworkers may initially exhibit withdrawal behavioral by arriving late to work or working more from home. Longitudinal investigations could, therefore, be effective at unveiling a progression of responses to incongruent abusive supervision beginning first with employee lateness and later ending with employee turnover.
In Chapter 3, we presented the theory that upward social
comparisons relating to leader treatment can simultaneously elicit hubristic and authentic pride, in turn motivating social undermining and coworker-directed OCB. Future studies can expand on this theory by studying which employees are more likely to respond with hubristic pride versus authentic
pride, and vice versa. Hubristic pride is a dominance-related emotion (Tracy, Weidman, & Martens, 2014) and future investigations could
explore personality traits potentially moderating employees’ experiences of pride following upward social comparisons relating to leader treatment. Trait narcissism, aggressiveness and Machiavellianism make for potential moderators of interest as these personality characteristics have been thought to predispose individuals to greater feelings of hubristic pride relative to authentic pride (Cheng et al., 2010; Tracy et al., 2009; Tracy & Robins, 2007b). Similarly, a work environment home to within-group competition might skew employees’ emotional reactions towards hubristic pride. In a competitive work environment, individuals may be more likely to respond with feelings of superiority over their coworkers (i.e. hubristic pride). Future research is needed to determine which psychological or environmental conditions skew individuals’ pride reactions towards being predominately hubristic or authentic.
In Chapter 4, we propose and test the theory that employees who witness victimized coworkers standing up to an abusive supervisor
experience elevation and a motivation to help both their abused coworker and abusive supervisor. This research opens the door for future studies looking into how third-party observers’ emotional and behavioral reactions
depend on victimized coworkers’ assertive reactions to abusive supervision. Organizational scholars can build on our findings by testing how
supervisors’ characteristics influence third-parties’ perceptions of assertive victims and, in turn, third-parties’ emotional and behavioral reactions to abusive incidents. Previous work has demonstrated that the formidability of immoral actors determines the intensity of third-parties’ emotional
reactions to victims’ treatment (Jensen & Petersen, 2011). Future studies could, therefore, explore whether victimized coworkers who stand up to an especially formidable abusive supervisor are considered particularly
inspiring by others. Similarly, it could be hypothesized that victimized coworkers perceived as quiet or introverted may be especially inspiring to third parties while standing up to perpetrators. This is because the
unexpectedness of a behavior moderates the extent to which it can elevate observers (van de Ven et al., 2019). Studies such as these would help delineate moderators of elevation in third parties observing abusive incidents in the workplace.
Practical Implications
Leader-subordinate relations play a vital role in determining the success or failure of an organization (Henderson et al., 2009; Martin et al., 2016). However, the interactions comprising these relations are complex
and, as discussed in Chapters 2 – 4, employees can experience a wide array of emotions as a result, each of which is associated with specific action tendencies (Oh & Farh, 2017; Scarantino, 2017). Due to the fact that the social environment of an organization is essential in determining whether employees will help each other, undermine each other or simply leave the organization, a better understanding of leader-subordinate relations within work teams holds high practical value for employees, managers and
organizations as a whole.
The manner in which supervisors treat their subordinates does not occur in a social vacuum (Farh & Chen, 2014; Vidyarthi et al., 2010) and our research highlights subordinates’, at times paradoxical, emotional and behavioral responses to diverse perceptions of leader treatment. In Chapter 2, we demonstrate that, in abusive work environments, employees prefer to be treated in the same manner as their coworkers. Specifically, employees receiving less abusive supervision relative to their coworkers are motivated by concerns of social exclusion and feelings of shame to leave their
organization. These outcomes mirror those reported by employees receiving greater abusive supervision relative to their coworkers. Thus, although we vehemently oppose abusive supervision in any way, shape or form, we explicate one reason why employees who are spared abuse may
be motivated to leave an organization while those who are abused may not be. With this information, supervisors and organizations are better able to understand the negative consequences of abusive supervision and why it could cost them even their most cherished and well-treated employees.
Although employees who perceive themselves as receiving better treatment from their supervisor relative to their coworkers are, in certain contexts, impelled to withdraw from the organization’s social environment, they may also be motivated to socially undermine their coworkers. In
Chapter 3, we demonstrate that hubristic pride (i.e. feelings of superiority) can arise from perceptions of having a better relationship with one’s
supervisor relative to fellow coworkers’ relationships with the supervisor. Hubristic pride can lead to coworker-directed social undermining which, similar to employee turnover, can have frustrating consequences for the organization as a whole (Lee et al., 2016). Based on our findings reported in Chapters 2 and 3, we recommend that supervisors and organizations be wary of any differences in leader treatment that employees may perceive. Although perceptions of having a uniquely positive relationship with one’s leader can have localized positive effects (e.g. authentic pride and OCB) for the focal employee, such thoughts can go to the head of the focal employee and drive them to engage in behavior that cripples their work group’s
performance. Therefore, we recommend that supervisors be attuned to the risks associated with subordinates’ perceptions of differences in leader treatment. Supervisors should first weigh the pros and cons before acting in a way that might confirm such perceptions from their subordinates.
Finally, social interactions in the workplace inevitably involve conflict within teams. However, although conflicts between team members can stymie individual and group performance (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Greer et al., 2011), conflicts, such as those involving abusive supervision, also provide an opportunity for moral exemplars to emerge. In Chapter 4, we show that incidents of abusive supervision can give rise to victimized coworkers who, by standing up to an abusive supervisor, elicit elevation in third parties observing the conflict. These third parties are driven by
feelings of elevation to engage in prosocial helping behavior towards both the victimized coworker and abusive supervisor. One practical implication of this research is that victimized coworkers should be considered
important in determining how fellow subordinates react to overt incidents of abusive supervision. We recommend that organizations support
victimized coworkers and encourage them to assert themselves when faced with an abusive supervisor. The positive effects of doing so (e.g. prosocial behavior) can spread throughout the organization.
Conclusion
My motivation for becoming a social scientist derives from the complex and, at times, perplexing social relations that I have experienced, observed or been a part of. Social relations are multifaceted, due, in part, to the fact that the same event can be interpreted or experienced several
different ways. For example, the perception of being better off than others can, as has been discussed in this dissertation, elicit an array of emotions as diverse as shame, hubristic pride or authentic pride. The field of social comparison and research into the evolutionary bases of emotions offer insight into this complexity. Social comparison theory provides a
framework for which to better comprehend how people (e.g. employees) interpret perceived differences between themselves and others (e.g. their supervisors or coworkers). By understanding how we engage in and
interpret social comparisons, we can better understand why we in turn, feel what we feel and do what we do. Similarly, the evolutionary bases of
emotions help to explain why and how social interactions between
individuals unfold. This dissertation highlights some of the good, the bad and the paradoxical emotional and behavioral outcomes arising from perceived differences in leader-subordinate relations among coworkers. I hope it inspires future researchers to take a more detailed look at how
leader-subordinate relations in the workplace affect employees, managers and organizations as a whole.
REFERENCES
Åberg Yngwe, M., Fritzell, J., Lundberg, O., Diderichsen, F., & Burström, B. (2003). Exploring relative deprivation: Is social comparison a mechanism in the relation between income and health? Social Science & Medicine, 57(8), 1463–1473.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00541-5
Abu Bakar, H., & Connaughton, S. L. (2019). Relative leader-member exchange within work groups: The mediating effect of leader-member conversation quality on group-focused citizenship
behavior. International Journal of Business Communication, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419871677
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The ‘other-praising’ emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2), 105–127.
Allison, S. T., & Burnette, J. (2009). Fairness and preference for underdogs and top dogs. In R. M. Kramer, A. E. Tenbrunsel, & M. H.
Bazerman (Eds.), Social decision making: Social dilemmas, social values, and ethical judgements (pp. 291–314). Psychology Press. Allison, S. T., & Goethals, G. R. (2008). Deifying the dead and
downtrodden: Sympathetic figures as inspirational leaders. In J. B. Ciulla, D. R. Forsyth, M. A. Genovese, G. R. Goethals, L. C. Han, & C. L. Hoyt (Eds.), Leadership at the Crossroads: Leaderships and Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 181–195). Westport, CT: Praeger. Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., & Park, H. S. (2015). LMX Differentiation:
Understanding relational leadership at individual and group levels. In T. N. Bauer & B. Erdogan, (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of leader-member exchange (pp. 263–291). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199326174.013.0007 Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for
status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kring, A. M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.1.116
Aquino, K., & Byron, K. (2002). Dominating interpersonal behavior and perceived victimization in groups: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship. Journal of Management, 28(1), 69–87.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800105
Aquino, K., McFerran, B., & Laven, M. (2011). Moral identity and the experience of moral elevation in response to acts of uncommon goodness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 703–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022540
Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review Psychology, 60, 17 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1146annurev.psych.60.110707.163703.
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(3), 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653
Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality. New York, NY, US: Columbia University Press.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Current emotion research in organizational behavior. Emotion Review, 3(2), 214–224.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910391684
Ashton-James, C. E., & Tracy, J. L. (2012). Pride and prejudice: How feelings about the self influence judgments of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4), 466–476.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211429449
Atwater, L., Kim, K. Y., Witt, A., Latheef, Z., Callison, K., Elkins, T. J., & Zheng, D. (2016). Reactions to abusive supervision: examining the roles of emotions and gender in the USA. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(16), 1874–1899.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1088887
Barnes, C. M., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D. P., & Christian, M. S. (2015). “You wouldn’t like me when I’m sleepy”: Leaders’ sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1419–1437.
Bai, F. (2017). Beyond dominance and competence: A moral virtue theory of status attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(3), 203–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316649297
Barley, S. R. (1991). Contextualizing conflict: Notes on the anthropology of disputes and negotiations. In B. H. Sheppard, M. H. Bazerman, & R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations: Handbook of negotiation research (Vol. 3, pp. 165–202). JAI Press. Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (2000). Affective events-emotions matrix: A
classification of works events and associated emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 36–49). Quorum Books/Greenwood Publishing Group.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142–163.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 800–813.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0
Bentein, K., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R., & Stinglhamber, F.
(2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(3), 468–482.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.468
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1078–1095.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26585791
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. a., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 246–260). Sage Publications, Inc.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2001). A passion for justice: The rationality and morality of revenge. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the
workplace (pp. 197–208). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bocage-Barthélémy, Y., Chatard, A., Jaafari, N., Tello, N., Billieux, J., Daveau, E., & Selimbegović, L. (2018). Automatic social
comparison: Cognitive load facilitates an increase in negative
thought accessibility after thin ideal exposure among women. PLOS ONE, 13(3), e0193200.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193200
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357–1367.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1357
Bowler, W. M., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Paul, J. R. B. (2010). If you’re close with the leader, you must be a brownnose: The role of leader-member relationships in follower, leader, and coworker attributions
of organizational citizenship behavior motives. Human Resource Management Review, 20(4), 309–316.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.04.001
Bowling, N., & Michel, J. (2011). Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates' responses to abusive supervision. Work & Stress, 25(4), 309-320.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.634281
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(4), 403–413.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813505859
Brosi, P., Spörrle, M., Welpe, I. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2016). Two facets of pride and helping. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(5), 976– 988. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2015-0186
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Self-esteem and emotion: Some thoughts about feelings. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27(5), 575–584.
Brown, S. L., & Brown, R. M. (2015). Connecting prosocial behavior to improved physical health: Contributions from the neurobiology of parenting. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 55, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.04.004
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2017). Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (4th ed.). pp. 133–139). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-009
Cameron, K., & Caza, A. (2002). Organizational and leadership virtues and the role of forgiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900103 Cannon, W. B. (1932). The wisdom of the body. New York, NY, US: W W
Norton & Co.
Castille, C. M., Kuyumcu, D., & Bennett, R. J. (2017). Prevailing to the peers’ detriment: Organizational constraints motivate
Machiavellians to undermine their peers. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.026
Chan, M. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0419
Chen, S.-C., & Liu, N.-T. (2019). When and how vicarious abusive supervision leads to bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance: A moderated–mediation model. Personnel Review, 48(7), 1734–1755. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2018-0368
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J.
(2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030398
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334–347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004
Chi, N.-W., Wang, A.-C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2016). Turn the other cheek: The role of morality in promoting prosocial responses to abusive supervision. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), 13117. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.198
Chi, S.-C. S., Friedman, R. A., & Lo, H.-H. (2015). Vicarious shame and psychological distancing following organizational misbehavior. Motivation and Emotion, 39(5), 795–812.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9483-0
Chi, S.-C. S., & Liang, S.-G. (2013). When do subordinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 125–137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.006
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082
Chui, W. H., & Cheng, K. K. (2013). Effects of volunteering experiences and motivations on attitudes toward prisoners: Evidence from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Criminology, 8(2), 103–114.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-012-9148-9
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work
behaviors related to envy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 666–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.666
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural
equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 558– 577. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
Cole, M. S., Shipp, A. J., & Taylor, S. G. (2016). Viewing the interpersonal mistreatment literature through a temporal lens. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(3), 273–302.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386615607095
Coleman, J. S. (1994). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Cook. D. R. (1996) Empirical studies of shame and guilt: the internalized shame scale. In D. L. Nathanson (Eds.), Knowing feeling: Affect, script and psychotherapy. New York: Norton. p. 132-165.
Cox, K. S. (2010). Elevation predicts domain-specific volunteerism 3 months later. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(5), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2010.507468
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure “change”: Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74(1), 68–80.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029382
Cropanzano, R. S., Ambrose, M. L., Skarlicki, D. P., O’Reilly, J., & Kulik, C. T. (2015). The third-party perspective of (in)justice. In R. S. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace (pp. 235–255). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981410.013.10
Cropanzano, R. S., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 1019–1024. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.228
Cropanzano, R. S., Massaro, S., & Becker, W. J. (2017). Deontic justice and organizational neuroscience. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(4), 733–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3056-3 Crozier, R. W. (1998). Self-consciousness in shame: The role of the
“other.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 28(3), 273– 286. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00075
Dalal, R. s., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A within-person approach to work behavior and performance:
Concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1051–1066.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.44636148
Damasio, A. (1990). Individuals with sociopathic behavior caused by frontal damage fail to respond autonomically to social stimuli. Behavioural Brain Research, 41(2), 81–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4328(90)90144-4
Daniels, M. A. (2015). Shame as an alternate mechanism for the abusive supervision-performance relation and the role of power distance values (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
Daniels, M. A., & Robinson, S. L. (2019). The shame of it all: A review of shame in organizational life. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2448-2473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318817604.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78.
Davis, D., Jivet, I., Kizilcec, R. F., Chen, G., Hauff, C., & Houben, G.-J. (2017). Follow the successful crowd: Raising MOOC completion rates through social comparison at scale. Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference on - LAK ’17, 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027411 Decoster, S., Camps, J., Stouten, J., Vandevyvere, L., & Tripp, T. M.
(2013). Standing by your organization: The impact of
organizational identification and abusive supervision on followers’ perceived cohesion and tendency to gossip. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 623–634.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1612-z
de Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 858–866.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.858
de Vyver, J. V., & Abrams, D. (2017). Promoting third-party prosocial behaviour: The potential of moral emotions. In E. van Leeuwen & H. Zagefka (Eds.), Intergroup Helping (pp. 349–368). Springer International Publishing.
Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the social self is threatened: Shame, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1191–1216.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00295.x
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618–634.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4306242
Diessner, R., Iyer, R., Smith, M. M., & Haidt, J. (2013). Who engages with moral beauty? Journal of Moral Education, 42(2), 139–163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2013.785941
Ding, W., Shao, Y., Sun, B., Xie, R., Li, W., & Wang, X. (2018). How can prosocial behavior be motivated? The different roles of moral
judgment, moral elevation, and moral identity among the young Chinese. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00814
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2005). The behavioral reactions of victims to different types of workplace bullying. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 8(4), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-08-04-2005-B001
Dockery, T. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1990). The role of the initial interaction in leader-member exchange. Group & Organization Studies, 15(4), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960119001500405
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70(6), 1327-1343.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069350
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.04.005
Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., & Aquino, K. (2012). A social context model of envy and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 643–666.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0804
Duffy, M. P. & Yamada, D. C. (2018). Workplace bullying and mobbing in the United States. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.
Eaton, J. (2013). The effects of third-party validation and minimization on judgments of the transgressor and the third party: Third parties and forgiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02066.x
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613. https://doi.org/10.2307/256822
Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4(3), 265–287.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810143005
Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. Advances in Measurement and Data Analysis, 350–400.
https://doi.org/10.1037/e576892011-020
Edwards, J. R. (2007). Polynomial regression and response surface
methodology. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 361–372). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891
Eissa, G., & Wyland, R. (2016). Keeping up with the Joneses: The role of envy, relationship conflict, and job performance in social
undermining. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815605020 Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The nature of emotion:
Fundamental questions. New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, L. (1995). Dominance and reproductive success among nonhuman
animals: A cross-species comparison. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(4), 257–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(95)00050-U Ellsworth, P. C., &. Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion.
In R.J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Series in affective science. Handbook of Affective Sciences, (pp. 572–595). Oxford University Press.
Ellsworth, P. C. (2013). Appraisal theory: Old and new questions. Emotion Review, 5(2), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912463617 Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2013). Leader-member exchange (LMX)
N. Bauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations (pp. 407–433). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199755615.013.020
Erickson, T. M., McGuire, A. P., Scarsella, G. M., Crouch, T. A., Lewis, J. A., Eisenlohr, A. P., & Muresan, T. J. (2017). Viral videos and virtue: Moral elevation inductions shift affect and interpersonal goals in daily life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1365163
Exline, J. J., & Lobel, M. (1999). The perils of outperformance: Sensitivity about being the target of a threatening upward comparison.
Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.307
Exline, J. J., Worthington, E. L., Hill, P., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Forgiveness and justice: A research agenda for social and
personality psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_06 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037636
Feather, N. T. (1994). Attitudes toward high achievers and reactions to their fall: Theory and research concerning tall poppies. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 1– 73). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60151-3
Feldman Barrett, L., & Swim, J. K. (1998). Appraisals of prejudice and discrimination. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 11–36). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. F., & Judge, T. A. (2018).
Organizational politics and citizenship: Attributions of
intentionality and construct definition. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution Theory (1st ed., pp. 231–252). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315137926-13
Fessler, D. (2001). Emotions and cost/benefit assessment: The role of shame and self-esteem in risk taking. In R. Selten & G. Gigerenzer (Eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox (pp. 191-214. 2001). Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.
Fessler, D. (2007). From appeasement to conformity: Evolutionary and cultural perspectives on shame, competition, and cooperation. In J. L. Tracy, R.W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious
