POWER DISTANCE AND COLLECTIVISTIC ORIENTATION FOR PERCEPTIONS OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION

THE ROLE OF

POWER DISTANCE AND COLLECTIVISTIC ORIENTATION FOR PERCEPTIONS OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION

Master thesis, MScHRM

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

March 4, 2012

FROUKJE VAN DER MEER Student number: 1747819

Noordersingel 78 9251 BP Burgum

tel.: +31 (0)511-463838 / +31 (0)6-30771650 e-mail: f.van.der.meer.3@student.rug.nl

Supervisor/university F. Walter

THE ROLE OF

POWER DISTANCE AND COLLECTIVISTIC ORIENTATION FOR PERCEPTIONS OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION

ABSTRACT

The present study examined the role of power distance orientation and collectivistic orientation of a subordinate on his or her perceptions of abusive supervisor behavior. It is proposed that subordinates with low power distance orientation perceive abusive supervisor behavior as more abusive than subordinates with high power distance orientation. Also, it is proposed that subordinates with low collectivistic orientation perceive abusive supervisor behavior as more abusive than subordinates with high collectivistic orientation. Hypotheses were tested using a scenario survey design. Participants for this study were people coming from different cultures across the world: students and people who have a job. A significant correlation between power distance orientation and perceived abusive supervision was found, whereas the correlation between collectivistic orientation and perceived abusive supervision was not significant. On the contrary of what I proposed, I found that subordinates with a high power distance orientation perceive abusive supervisor behavior as more abusive than

subordinates with a low power distance orientation. Also, I found that there is no relationship

between a subordinate’s collectivistic orientation and his or her perceptions of abusive

supervisor behavior.

THE ROLE OF

POWER DISTANCE AND COLLECTIVISTIC ORIENTATION FOR PERCEPTIONS OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION

Within the past twenty years, a lot of study has been done on the “dark or destructive side of supervisory behavior” (Tepper, 2007: 262), referred to as abusive supervision. Tepper (2000: 178) defines abusive supervision as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact.” Abusive supervision can have a great impact on subordinates. It has been shown to affect subordinates’ “work related resistance behavior, antisocial and deviant behavior, performance consequences (including both in-role performance

contributions and extra-role or citizenship performance), psychological well-being, and family well-being” (Tepper, 2007: 274-278) negatively. Logically, this has a great effect on the organization’s performance.

Although abusive supervision relates closely to supervisor aggression, both concepts are no substitutes for each other. Where supervisor aggressiveness is intended to cause harm, abusive supervision is not (Tepper, 2007), although it obviously can cause harm. The

definition of abusive supervision does, furthermore, involve a subjective judgment regarding whether a subordinate perceives behavior of a supervisor as abusive or not. In other words, abusive supervision has explicitly been defined as a perceptual phenomenon (Tepper, 2007).

Surprisingly, then, there is very little research on what drives such subjective perceptions of

abusive supervision (Martinko, Harvey, Sikora, & Douglas, 2011). Previous work on the

antecedents of abusive supervision has typically tried to explain why supervisors actually

engage in such behavior (e.g., Tepper, 2007; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009). Given

abusive supervision’s subjective features, however, it seems possible that different

subordinates may perceive the same supervisor behavior as more or less aggressive. With few exceptions (Bond, Wan, Leung, & Giacalone, 1985; Martinko et al., 2011), previous research has neglected this notion. Thus, I examined this issue in the present study.

Even though perceptions of abusive supervision can certainly be influenced by numerous individual and contextual characteristics, in this study, I will specifically focus on subordinates’ cultural value orientation. “Cultural values represent the implicitly or explicitly shared abstract ideas about what is good, right, and desirable in a society” (Schwartz, 1999:

25). Green, Deschamps, & Páez (2005) mention that a lot of cross-cultural studies treat nations or cultural groups as cultural entities, “thereby neglecting sources of variation within cultural contexts and treating national cultures as homogeneous and territorially defined units”

(Green et al., 2005: 322), while there are a lot of differences between individuals and groups within nations. Regional, ethnic and religious culture, for instance, cause differences within nations, and also someone’s personal experiences and personality (Hofstede, 1994).

“Individual values reflect the unique experience of the individual as well as the normative influence of culture” (Cleveland, Erdoğan, Arıkan, & Poyraz, 2010: 936). Therefore, it is appropriate to focus on an individual’s cultural value orientation, i.e. “individually held cultural values and beliefs” (Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009: 744).

In particular, I will focus on the role of subordinates’ power distance orientation and

collectivistic/individualistic orientation as antecedents of subordinates’ abusive supervision

perceptions (cf. Hofstede, 1994). In general, power distance refers to “the extent to which the

less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect

that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 1994: 39). Individualism refers to, generally

speaking, “a preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individualists are

expected to take care of themselves and their immediate family only”, and collectivism refers

to the opposite. In general, collectivism means: “A preference for a tightly-knit framework in

society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede, 1994: 71). The dimension of power distance in particular has been relevant to leadership research, as it is important regarding how supervisors are perceived (Kirkman et al., 2009; Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2011).

Collectivistic/individualistic orientation (after, referred to as collectivistic orientation – to simplify) is another crucial dimension of cultural value orientation that is found by Hofstede (1994). Cultural value orientation influences how an individual thinks, feels and acts

(Hofstede, 1994), which makes it an important phenomenon that could, potentially, shape the perceptual aspects of abusive supervision.

Taken together, this research focuses on the role of subordinates’ power distance and collectivistic orientation as key influencing factors for their perceptions of abusive

supervision. This is interesting, since this concept has almost completely been ignored in previous studies – researchers mostly did not include cross-cultural influences before (Tepper, 2007). Also, as mentioned earlier, the perceptual aspect of abusive supervision has only been researched before by Bond et al. (1985) and Martinko et al. (2011). However, Martinko et al.

(2011) have focused on “subordinates’ attribution styles and their perceptions of the quality of

their Leader-Member Exchange relationships” (Martinko et al., 2011: 752), while I focus on a

subordinate’s cultural value orientation. Besides, Bond et al. (1985) have explored cultural

collectivism and power distance of Hong Kong Chinese and Americans. Thus, they focus in

their research on cultural collectivism and power distance of a society as a whole, while I

focus on power distance and collectivistic orientation of an individual. Considering this, I

research a new point of view – a perspective that has never been researched before. My study

offers empirical, as well as theoretical, evidence to help further understanding this field of

study.

HYPOTHESES The Moderating Role of Power Distance Orientation

The fundamental issue of power distance is how a society handles inequalities among people (Hofstede, 1994). An individual, who has a high power distance orientation,

acknowledges a hierarchical order, which does not need to be further justified (Hofstede, 1994). They consider supervisors as better and more elite (Lian et al., 2011; Kirkman et al., 2009), which makes them respect and trust such authorities (Sully de Luque & Sommer, 2000; Lian et al., 2011). An individual, who has a low power distance orientation, makes every effort to achieve equality of power and insists on further explanation when inequality of power occurs (Hofstede, 1994). To them, supervisors are approachable and they expect to build personalized relationships with them, to create a stronger social connection (Lian et al., 2011).

Tepper (2007) argues that people who are high in power distance orientation perceive abusive supervision as less impactful, since inequality between superiors and inferiors is more acceptable for them. Consequently, unfavorable supervisory treatment is perceived as more justified (Kim & Leung, 2007). They hold the belief not to go against their superiors and accept and comply with the decisions supervisors make (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994; Lian et al., 2011). To them, supervisors are viewed as high-status people (Kirkman et al., 2009) and they are more proofed against abusive supervision, like insults and criticism (Bond et al., 1985; Leung, Su, & Morris, 2001; Lian et al., 2011), than people who are low in power distance orientation. To the latter, superiors and inferiors are perceived as equal (Hofstede, 1994). “Given that people care more about how they are treated by those with whom they have connections” (Lian et al., 2011: 3), low power distance oriented people are more affected when they have to deal with abusive supervision (Major, Zubek, Cooper, Cozzarelli, &

Richards, 1997). This “violates norms for how individuals should interact” (Lian et al., 2011:

3). The more a low power distance oriented person perceives a supervisory act as illegitimate, the more negative he will evaluate the supervisor who performs the act (Bond et al., 1985).

Therefore, logically, I expect that subordinates with low power distance orientation perceive abusive supervisor behavior as more abusive than subordinates with high power distance orientation. Several studies support this expectation, since high power distance oriented individuals tend to accept and are more open-minded to criticism and insults of authorities (Bond et al., 1985; Leung et al., 2001). Thus, abusive supervisor behavior can be perceived relatively non-hostile by them. On the contrary, low power distance oriented subordinates consider themselves as equal to their supervisors and perceive such behavior as uncommon – such behavior is “more likely to be considered rude, harsh, or demeaning” (Lian et al., 2011). Hence, the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 1. Subordinates with low power distance orientation perceive abusive supervisor behavior as more abusive than subordinates with high power distance orientation.

The Moderating Role of Collectivistic Orientation

A basic element of collectivistic orientation is shown when someone’s self-image is

described in terms of “I” or “we” (Hofstede, 1994). Characteristics of a low collectivistic

oriented person are “independence, autonomy, self-reliance, uniqueness, achievement

orientation, and competition” (Green et al., 2005: 322). A low collectivistic oriented person

takes responsibility for and is in charge of his or her own actions (Green et al., 2005). The

needs, wishes, desires, and goals of an individual are superior compared to group or collective

goals (Hofstede, 1994). Features of a high collectivistic oriented person are characterized by

having “a sense of duty toward one’s group, interdependence with others, a desire for social

harmony, and conformity with group norms” (Green et al., 2005: 322). In this view, the behavior and attitudes of such an individual “are determined by norms or demands of the in- group such as extended family, close-knit community” (Green et al., 2005: 322) or, as in my study, organizational teams. A high collectivistic oriented person sacrifices his or her own personal needs and goals for the sake of a common good (Hofstede, 1994). A high

collectivistic oriented subordinate tends to be highly committed to the organization and supervisor, as well as group goals – instead of pursuing his or her own goals (Earley, 1989;

Jung & Avolio, 1999).

Bond et al. (1985) point out that it is of importance whether abusive behavior is coming from an in-group or out-group member, since high collectivistic oriented subordinates are socialized to keep the integrity of the group. Low collectivistic oriented subordinates consider this as unfair – that is, if there are distinctions made between status and in-group and out-group members (Bond et al., 1985). From the perspective of low collectivistic oriented subordinates, people, including for instance their superiors, should be treated equally.

Therefore, it seems logical that abusive supervision is more offensive to them than to high

collectivistic oriented subordinates. Also, high collectivistic oriented subordinates give, in

general, a high priority to the subordinate-supervisor relationship and consider cooperation to

be important (Parkes, Bochner, & Schneider, 2001). It is important to monitor the well-being

of the group as a whole instead of the individual’s well-being – “individual initiative is

socially frowned upon” (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994: 238). Moreover, supervisors might be

somewhat idealized, as high collectivistic oriented subordinates are highly committed to the

organization and supervisor, as mentioned before. Thus, it seems reasonable that high

collectivistic oriented people might perceive abusive supervision as less impactful than low

collectivistic oriented subordinates, who think, in general, the opposite.

As a logical outcome, I therefore expect that subordinates with low collectivistic orientation perceive abusive supervisor behavior as more abusive than subordinates with high collectivistic orientation. Several studies support this expectation, since high collectivistic oriented subordinates favor more a collective identity and behavior that is in line with the group (Earley, 1993; Hui, 1988). They do not support direct-inquiry behavior, because individual attention should not be given too much to the individual or the group (Sully de Luque & Sommer, 2000). “Further, this behavior reflects honor to the group and sacrifice of self” (Sully de Luque & Sommer, 2000: 840). Low collectivistic oriented subordinates favor more an individual identity, where “looking after one's self is paramount” (Sully de Luque &

Sommer, 2000: 840) and where, for instance, ego protection is important (Larson, 1989).

Thus, it seems reasonable that low collectivistic oriented people will find abusive behavior more offensive, since priority is given to their individual well-being. Therefore, the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 2. Subordinates with low collectivistic orientation perceive abusive supervisor behavior as more abusive than subordinates with high collectivistic orientation.

METHOD Participants and Procedure

Hypotheses were tested using a scenario survey design. Participants for this study

were people coming from different cultures across the world. I asked people in my network to

answer or spread the questionnaire and I went to an international student house to collect the

data. 65% of the respondents were international students studying at a university in the Dutch

city Groningen; the other 35% were non-Dutch people who work in the Netherlands (5%) or

in other countries across the world (30%). 120 questionnaires were spread. Survey data was received from a total of 81 respondents, thus there was a total response rate of 67.5%. The average age of the respondents was 24.7 years (range = 19-52 years). 50.6% were male and 49.4% female. The average work experience of the respondents was 3.1 years (range = 0-34 years), where 20% did not have any work experience.

The survey started with a number of questions on power distance orientation and collectivistic orientation. Then, participants were presented with a scenario. They were asked to picture themselves in a subordinate role in an organizational setting.

Specifically, deducted from the scenario of Kim, Rosen, & Lee (2009), a scenario was developed concerning a new type of material, which could emit a very small amount of toxin during the production process. Although this amount of toxin fell within the legal limit, it might still pose a long-term risk to the health of the production workers. During a team meeting, the supervisor argued that the new type of material was safe and legal and that it was greatly beneficial to thousands of individuals. Nevertheless, the subordinate continued to have serious concerns about health issues in the production process, and expressed these concerns during the team meeting. The supervisor responded to this comment in a relatively aggressive way by saying: “No, I couldn’t disagree more – this is really ridiculous! You know, you come up with these kind of things all the time! I mean, think about the company for once! There is really no doubt that the production process is safe and legal. Besides, do you have any idea how long we’ve been working on this and how badly we need the success? Really, this is typical… I just don’t get it. We are going to move on with this project – now stop holding us back.”

Subsequently, after having read the scenario, participants rated the degree to which

they perceived the supervisor to be abusive. In so doing, I was able to examine differences in

participants’ perceptions of abusive supervision. This study design enabled me to examine

whether differences in cultural value orientation (i.e. power distance orientation and collectivistic orientation) lead individuals to perceive abusive supervision differently, although all participants were, in fact, confronted with the same supervisory behavior.

Measures

Scales and items were drawn from the literature. Statements about power distance and collectivism were found in the literature of Earley & Erez (1997: 178-179) – 10 items about self versus group-focus (i.e. collectivism), 8 items about power differential (i.e. power distance). Statements concerning abusive supervision items were depicted from the literature of Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon (2002: 340) – 7 items – and Tepper (2000: 189-190) – also 7 items. Responses were coded on Likert-type scales, with 1 for “strongly disagree” and 5 for

“strongly agree”. Cronbach’s alpha was .65 for power distance orientation, .74 for collectivism, and .88 for abusive supervision. Furthermore, I controlled for gender.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlation matrix for the variables in this study.

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Perceived Abusive Supervision 3.38 .72 --

2. Power Distance Orientation 2.65 .56 .23* --

3. Collectivistic Orientation 3.97 .48 -.15 -.03 --

4. Gender

.51 .49 .16 -.04 -.09 --

* p ≤ 0.05

aGender coded as 0 = male, 1 = female

Examination of table 1 indicates a significant correlation between power distance orientation and perceived abusive supervision (r = .23, p ≤ 0.05), whereas the correlation between collectivistic orientation and perceived abusive supervision was not significant.

Moreover, as seen in table 1, there was no significant correlation between the control variable gender and the variables perceived abusive supervision, power distance orientation and collectivistic orientation.

TABLE 2 Regression Output

Variable Perceived Abusive Supervision

Power Distance Orientation .23*

Collectivistic Orientation -.13

Gender .15

R

(adj. R

) .10

(.06)

Note: standardized values are reported

* p < 0.05 + p < 0.10

To test my hypotheses, I regressed ratings of perceived abusive supervision on participants’ power distance orientation, collectivistic orientation, and gender (see table 2).

Corroborating the bivariate correlation results, power distance orientation and perceived

abusive supervision were positively related (β = .23, p < 0.05). Thus, results failed to support

hypothesis 1. Actually, the opposite relationship was shown – subordinates with high power

distance orientation perceive abusive supervisor behavior as more abusive than subordinates

with low power distance orientation. Furthermore, results failed to support hypothesis 2,

because collectivistic orientation and perceived abusive supervision were not significantly

related (β = -.13, p = ns).

DISCUSSION

The present study examined the role of a subordinate’s power distance orientation and collectivistic orientation on his or her perceptions of abusive supervisor behavior. On the contrary of what I proposed, I found that subordinates with a high power distance orientation perceive abusive supervisor behavior as more abusive than subordinates with a low power distance orientation. Also, I found that there is no relationship between a subordinate’s collectivistic orientation and his or her perceptions of abusive supervisor behavior.

What can be the reason why my hypothesis concerning power distance orientation cannot be supported, and, in fact, show results that illustrate the contrary? Lian et al. (2011: 3) mention that – compared with individuals low in power distance orientation – “individuals high in power distance orientation are more likely to use supervisors as behavioral models.”

For high distance oriented subordinates, supervisors symbolize individuals who can be learned from (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994). Since high power distance oriented subordinates take example by their supervisors, it seems reasonable that there is more weight given to them – supervisors function as a role-model, thus their actions will possibly be enlarged when it comes to the perception of high power distance oriented individuals. Consequently, this might have the result that abusive behavior is more strongly condemned, given that the standards towards supervisors are higher.

As mentioned, there is no relationship found between a subordinate’s collectivistic

orientation and his or her perceptions of abusive supervisor behavior. Although the literature

study made my hypothesis reasonable, the scenario survey design did not find a significant

relation. Apparently, it seems that someone’s collectivistic orientation does not influence

whether a subordinate perceives abusive behavior of a supervisor as more or less abusive. A

possible explanation might relate to the fact that individualists are expected to take care of

themselves and their immediate family, and that collectivists take care of their relatives or

members of a particular in-group (Hofstede, 1994). Thus, individualists as well as collectivists take care of themselves or another person or group. When abusive supervisor behavior

appears, high collectivistic oriented subordinates as well as low collectivistic oriented subordinates might perceive abusive behavior as equally abusive, since it affects the

individual or the group. Hence, both might be equally offended, given that they sympathize with the group or themselves. As a result, differences between perceptions on abusive supervisor behavior do not occur concerning a subordinate’s collectivistic orientation, only the object of sympathy they feel for.

My results add to the existing body of literature by giving a new perspective by researching the perceptual phenomenon of abusive supervisor behavior, where I research the role of someone’s cultural value orientation. Nevertheless, this is just a starting point – it is advised to go more in-depth, to understand this field of research more clearly. Perhaps, future research can focus on other cultural value orientations of an individual, e.g. masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1994), or other factors that influence someone’s perception of abusive supervisor behavior, e.g. subordinates’ hostile attribution style (Martinko et al., 2011).

Limitations

Like all studies, my study also has several limitations. First, the respondents who answered my questionnaire were mostly students and the average age was 24.7 years. 20%

never worked before and the average work experience was 3.1 years. It might be difficult for

these students to identify themselves with a subordinate in relation to a supervisor that

demonstrates abusive behavior. Moreover, and secondly, this study contains a scenario, not a

real life working situation. Respondents need to imagine the working situation instead of

living it. Thus, they need to respond to a hypothetical situation. Nevertheless, it gives insights

in people’s psychological processes. Also, in a real life working situation – as described in the

scenario – it would be difficult to research the perception on abusive supervisor behavior and the role of cultural value orientation on this, because subordinates might be, for instance, afraid to lose their job or give socially acceptable answers. In addition, there are ethical concerns when actual abusive supervision would be manipulated. Furthermore, causality cannot be ascertained, given my study’s correlation design.

Practical Implications

Although, based on my results, there is no significant relationship between a subordinate’s collectivistic orientation and his or her perceptions of abusive supervisor behavior, cultural value orientation can play a role in subordinates’ perceptions of abusive behavior performed by supervisors. Power distance orientation of an individual is, for instance, playing a role in these perceptions of abusive supervision. Organizations should keep this in mind. Organizations should be aware of a subordinate’s power distance orientation, since high power distance oriented individuals have different perceptions on supervisors and organizations than low power distance oriented individuals (Hofstede, 1994).

Like mentioned before in the hypotheses section, high power distance oriented subordinates acknowledge, for instance, a hierarchical order, which does not need to be further justified (Hofstede, 1994), and consider supervisors as better and more elite (Lian et al., 2011;

Kirkman et al., 2009), which make them respect and trust such authorities (Sully de Luque &

Sommer, 2000; Lian et al., 2011). Low power distance oriented subordinates, on the contrary, make every effort to achieve equality of power and insist on further explanation when

inequality of power occurs (Hofstede, 1994). To them, supervisors are approachable and they

expect to build personalized relationships with them (Lian et al., 2011). Organizations should

be well aware of such differences that are formed by subordinates’ cultural value orientation,

since this shapes the perceptions subordinates have on supervisors and organizations.

Future Research Directions

In my study, I only researched the influence of power distance orientation and collectivistic orientation, but there are several more cultural value orientations. Hofstede (1994), for instance, mentions uncertainty avoidance as an influencing factor on an

individual’s perceptions, as well as masculinity versus femininity. It might be interesting to research the relationship of different aspects of cultural value orientation for perceptions on abusive supervision. Also, other influencing factors than cultural value orientation might be interesting to research, like, for example, the big five factors of personality, given that there is very little research on what drives the subjective perception of abusive supervision.

Furthermore, additional research can be done by choosing respondents who are actual subordinates and who have significant work experience. It might increase the level of

imagination and reliability when answering questions concerning a scenario like the one used

in my study. Moreover, moderators as social class, level of education and age might be

researched to study their role on perceptions of abusive supervision in relation to someone’s

cultural value orientation.

REFERENCES

Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job- related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(2), 233-257.

Bond, M. H., Wan, K., Leung, K., & Giacalone, R. A. (1985). How are responses to verbal insult related to cultural collectivism and power distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 111-127.

Cleveland, M., Erdoğan, S., Arıkan, G., & Poyraz, T. (2010). Cosmopolitanism, individual- level values and cultural-level values: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Business Research, 64, 934-943.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.

Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331-351.

Earley, G. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People's Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565-581.

Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319-348.

Earley, P. C., & Erez, M. 1997. The transplanted executive: why you need to understand how workers in other countries see the world differently. New York: Oxford University Press.

Green, E. G. T., Deschamps, J. C., & Páez, D. (2005). Variation of individualism and collectivism within and between 20 countries. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 36(3), 321-339.

Hofstede, G. 1994. Allemaal andersdenkenden: Omgaan met cultuurverschillen. Amsterdam:

Uitgeverij Contact.

Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in

Personality, 22, 17-36.

Jung, D., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers' cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 208-218.

Kim, T., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 83-95.

Kim, T., Rosen, B., & Lee, D. (2009). South Korean managerial reactions to voicing discontent: The effects of employee attitude and employee communication styles.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1001-1018.

Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J., 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.

Larson, I. R., Jr. (1989). The dynamic interplay between employees' feedback-seeking strategies and supervisors' delivery of performance feedback. Academy of Management Review, 14, 408-422.

Leung, K., Su, S., & Morris, M. W. (2001). When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Human Relations, 54, 1155-1187.

Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2011). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied

Psychology, advance online publication.

Major, B., Zubek, J. M., Cooper, M. L., Cozzarelli, C., & Richards, C. (1997). Mixed

messages: Implications of social conflict and social support within close relationships

for adjustment to a stressful life event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

72, 1349-1363.

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011). Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’ attribution styles. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 751-764.

Parkes, L. P., Bochner, S., & Schneider, S. K. (2001). Person-organisation fit across cultures:

An empirical investigation of individualism and collectivism. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1), 81-108.

Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23-47.

Sully de Luque, M. F., & Sommer, S. M. (2000). The impact of culture on feedback-seeking behavior: An integrated model and propositions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 829-849.

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

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

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 & Human

Decision Processes, 108, 79-92.