The effect of abusive supervision on organizational citizenship behaviour, and the moderating role of perfectionism.

(1)

Bachelor Thesis

The effect of abusive supervision on

organizational citizenship behaviour, and

the moderating role of perfectionism.

Jonathan Spiering

11827440

Supervisor:

Juliana Guedes Almeida

Bachelor's Thesis and Thesis Seminar Management in the

Digital Age (6013B0510Y)

June 22, 2020

Business Administration

Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Amsterdam

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Jonathan Spiering who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

The effect of abusive supervision on

organizational citizenship behaviour, and the

moderating role of perfectionism

Jonathan Spiering

Faculty of Business & Economics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Companies strive to recruit and maintain cooperative employees; some may do so by promoting organizational citizenship behaviour. To maximize the yields from this positive behaviour, factors which are negatively influencing organizational citizenship behaviour should be minimized. In leadership research, abusive supervision is identified as such a factor. It is suggested to have a negative impact on organizational citizenship behaviour; hence it should be discouraged. Accordingly, I hypothesize that there is a negative relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour. In addition, this negative relationship may vary based on how perfectionistic the leader is. Perfectionism on its own has proven to influence how people behave and perform, especially in achievement-oriented situations. I propose that the level of leader perfectionism will result in a larger effect of abusive supervision on organizational citizenship behaviour. More specifically, I hypothesize that this negative relationship becomes stronger when leaders are highly perfectionistic compared to leaders who are not. I tested these hypotheses with a sample of 94 leader-follower dyads. Both the first and the second hypothesis were supported. This suggests that abusive supervision decreases organizational citizenship behaviour among employees, and the level of leader perfectionism moderates this relationship.

(4)

1. Introduction

With a continuously changing business environment, employee adaptability and autonomy are becoming increasingly important (Leischnig & Kasper-Brauer, 2015). Firms are relying more on employees who have an intrinsic and voluntary drive to achieve organizational goals. This could be achieved through organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) among employees, which refers to performing extra roles voluntarily in the

organizational context (Organ, 1988). These proactive behaviours come from a desire to cooperate, and a certain degree of altruism (Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003). Generally, acts of OCB relate to positive organizational outcomes such as efficiency, productivity, and job performance (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff & Brian, 2009). It contributes to firms’ overall adaptability and performance because it stimulates discretionary decision making and problem-solving capabilities. Furthermore, firms who desire to maintain their competitive edge should stimulate these behaviours as competitive business environments require employee effort and involvement (Detert & Burris, 2007). Whereas positive behaviour is stimulated, negative influences on constructs such as OCB should be counteracted. These negative influences may stem from various forms of destructive leadership.

In recent history of leadership research, abusive supervision (AS) has become of interest as a darker side of leadership, which is proposed to affect OCB negatively (Molino, Cortese & Ghislieri, 2019). This form of destructive leadership has been linked to negative job-related outcomes such as reduced organizational commitment and workplace deviance (Martinko, Harvey, Brees & Mackey, 2013). Employees may therefore fail to realize what their potential contributions to organizational success are; hence inducement for OCB is lost. Thau, Bennett, Mitchell and Marrs (2009) suggested that a poor relationship with a

supervisor due to AS behaviours could lead to employees withholding acts of OCB, as a form of retaliation. Because there is a certain level of reciprocity, the effects of AS and (absence of) OCB can have far reaching effects in the organizational context. A better understanding of these effects and the relationship between AS and OCB could have useful implications for managers and business, therefore the first hypothesis that will be tested in this study states that there is a negative relationship between AS and OCB. Apart from this frequently discussed relationship, this study will also focus on the potential moderating effect of perfectionism. For decades, research has taken increased interest in understanding the relationship between perfectionism, personality, and other life outcomes. How it affects distress and well-being has been studied extensively among clinical populations (Frost,

(5)

Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt, Flett, & Weber, 1994). In the clinical setting, perfectionism is suggested to have mostly negative implications. Contrarily, within corporate culture perfectionism is perceived to increase efficiency (MacDonald, 2011; Peters-Atkinson, 2012). It is therefore considered to be a valuable or desirable trait. Notwithstanding, the effect of perfectionism in the workplace, positive or negative, remains to be investigated further (Fairlie & Flett, 2003). Therefore, this study will explore perfectionism in the workplace, specifically leader perfectionism and how this affects the relationship between AS and OCB.

Perfectionists are known for maintaining high standards, as well as having tendencies of overly critical evaluations of one’s own behaviour (Frost et al., 1990). Although

perfectionists are often more engaged due to their perfect standards (Childs & Stoeber, 2010), it may reflect negatively on others. Over time a discrepancy between a leader’s expectations and the organizational reality may arise, as high targets may not be met. If such a

perfectionistic leader attempts to regain control, whether it is to establish authority or due to their high locus of internal control, their leadership style may become more abusive (Guo, Chiang, & Chien, 2019). To assess this suggested relationship, the second hypothesis states that there is an interaction effect between AS and leader perfectionism, such that the negative relationship between AS and OCB becomes stronger under a perfectionistic leader as

opposed to a non-perfectionistic leader.

Figure 1. moderation model being tested

There have been considerable contributions to our understanding of mechanisms through which the relationship between AS and OCB is affected. This particular research potentially contributes to existing knowledge by testing the effect of AS on OCB when leader perfectionism is proposed to be a moderator. Moreover, it provides information on the effects of perfectionism in the organizational context, which may have useful implications for

leaders and businesses in general. The research report is structured as follows: first, the theoretical framework will be presented by critically assessing the existing literature and

(6)

theories surrounding abusive supervision, organizational citizenship behaviour, and leader perfectionism. Then, the methods will be explained, followed by the results of the research. Afterwards, the findings will be discussed as well as the limitations and implications. At last, a conclusion will be given that summarizes the main findings of my research.

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Organ (1988) wrote a foundational book on organizational citizenship behaviour, or OCB. He defined it as "individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization" (Organ, 1988, p. 4). More recent citations express its

relevance to date (Pearce, 2017; see also De Clercq, Rahman & Haq, 2019). OCB is found to be dynamic in nature, with different implications for individuals (Bolino, Klotz, Turnley & Harvey, 2012). It leverages resources which are currently available to firms because it can readily resolve conflict and failure among employees (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2018). The general notion is that this is overcome by employees who display OCB, as they can relieve managerial tasks and intervene more swiftly.

Generally, there is a consensus that engaging in OCB daily is beneficial for those involved as it is associated with positive affect (Conway, Rogelberg & Pitts, 2009; Glomb, Bhave, Miner & Wall, 2011). Furthermore, the work climate is suggested to influence OCB through job-related outcomes. Cheng, Jiang and Riley (2003) found that an ethical work environment enhances outcomes such as commitment toward the organization and satisfaction with the job. These outcomes have been identified as antecedents of both individual-directed and organizational-directed OCB (Avey, Palanski & Walumbwa, 2011; Kacmar, Bachrach, Harris & Zivnuska, 2011). Someone displaying individual-directed OCB may engage in more socially favourable behaviours such as helping colleagues and

supervisors and caring for their well-being (Lee & Allen, 2002). Organizational-directed OCB is expressed through refraining from deviant actions, adhering to informal rules and high attendance rates. In this paper, I will be focussing on individual-directed OCB, as this will be tested.

(7)

Despite the positive affect it may bring about, OCB is also suggested to come at the expense of meeting goals, thus being costly in terms of progress (Bergeron, 2007). Because time is a valuable asset, and OCB is a time-dependent effort (Bolino et al., 2012), OCB may transfer time from employee to employee regardless of its effectivity. Furthermore, Vigoda-Gadot (2007) suggests that employees who feel pressured to exhibit acts of OCB in the absence of formal rewards may even react negatively.

2.2 Abusive Supervision

Tepper (2000) proposed the construct of abusive supervision, which he defined as: “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178). The outcome of this study suggested, among other results, that practicing abusive supervision has numerous dysfunctional consequences. These consequences have detrimental effects in multiple areas within organizations. Abusive supervision can reduce the

meaningfulness of contributions to and interest in jobs throughout careers (Rafferty & Restubog, 2011). Even emotional exhaustion, depression and burnouts may arise among abused employees (Zhang & Bednall, 2016).

Those who experience AS, or are indirectly targeted, may be urged to retaliate as they perceive injustices (Burroughs, Kearney, & Plax, 1989; McLaughlin, Cody, & Robey, 1980). This can lead to both active retaliation strategies and intentional nonconformance by

employees. These tendencies would be categorized as upward hostility (Tepper, 2007). Although the literature to date suggests that this is less common than a supervisor victimising a subordinate, the reciprocity of these actions may increase workplace hostility.

The consequences of abusive supervision are not exclusively related to abused employees. Research suggests that they who witness actions of abuse, though they are not personally abused, may be affected by these actions (Greenbaum, Mawritz, Mayer & Priesemuth, 2013; Mitchell, Vogel & Folger, 2012; Priesemuth, Schminke, Ambrose & Folger, 2014). Furthermore, the extent to which these actions are taken personally is depending on social standings within the organization (Schaubroeck, Lam & Peng, 2016). Employees who are uncertain about their social standing or position within a team are more likely to be affected by social cues conveyed by abusive supervision. As this may further reduce their understanding of the social worth of a group, their recognition of opportunities to protect and support the group may be lowered. This is in line with the broader finding that

(8)

abusive supervision is negatively linked to the construct of employee engagement (Barnes, Robinson & Collier, 2014). Engaged employees are more likely to augment the effectiveness of organizations through acts of OCB (Kataria, Garg & Rastogi, 2013).

2.3 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and Abusive Supervision

Meta-analytical research suggests that there is a negative relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour (Newman, Schwarz, Cooper & Senjaya, 2017). The relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour has been tested and established across multiple studies (Kacmar, Tillman, Harris & Whitman, 2016; Mackey, Frieder, Perrewé, Gallagher & Brymer, 2015; Zhou, Li, Wan, Zhang & Qiu, 2016). As mentioned before, leaders who practice abusive supervision produce numerous dysfunctional outcomes such as emotional exhaustion and burnout. What makes this more critical to the functioning of organizations is the possible reciprocity of hostility by

employees, as AS may start a behavioural spiral (Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002). It further denotes how acts of AS can have far reaching effects.

As OCB is a time-dependent effort (Bolino et al., 2012), employees manage their time as an asset or resource. Building upon the notion that employees who are explicitly forced to engage in acts of OCB may react negatively (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006), we see that AS as a constant stressor depletes resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Employees who constantly perceive ridicule and criticism due to AS behaviours could potentially override their personal cognitive and emotional processes, leading to less efficiency and loss of time (Lee &

Ashforth, 1990).

AS has also proven to decrease contextual and task performance through and increase in stress (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010). These findings are further supported by Zhang and Bednall’s (2016) conclusion that exhaustion, depression and burnouts may arise among abused employees. These processes fall into the resource perspective of why abusive

supervision affects OCB; Hobfoll (2002) argues that employees experiencing AS behaviours deplete the resources required to engage in OCB, hence the term resource perspective.

Like the resource perspective, the justice perspective has also been adopted by numerous studies (Mackey et al., 2017). From this perspective, the violation of ethical standards which employees are concerned with will make them perceive injustice,

demotivating them to uphold their standards and acts of OCB (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001; Hogan & Emler, 1981). The justice perspective argues that employee’s perceptions of

(9)

fairness are damaged by AS behaviours, decreasing the likelihood of OCB (Folger, 2001; Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). This response is supported by Chan and McAllister’s (2014) moral approach, which suggests that a violation of moral standards will be perceived as injustice. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the social position relative to others and the organization plays a role in perceptions of AS. AS behaviours may deteriorate the

relationship with colleagues and the organization, weakening obligations to participate in OCB and increasing active retaliations (Cropanzano & Byrne, 2000).

From the literature on abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour can be derived how AS negatively affects OCB among employees. It is a well known relationship which has been tested and researched many times before. However, the hypothesized relationship between AS and OCB is what lays the foundation for the second and main hypothesis of my research regarding leader perfectionism.

Hypothesis 1. There is a negative relationship between AS and OCB.

2.4 Abusive Supervision and Perfectionism

While the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour has been well established, a detailed examination of factors, e.g. traits, influencing these variables could further deepen our understanding of this relationship. Through

extending the scope of moderating and mediating mechanisms, based on individual leaders, more context can be provided to previous and upcoming research. I propose leader

perfectionism as an important trait that affects the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour.

Perfectionism is a personality trait characterized by striving for flawlessness and setting exceedingly high standards (Flett and Hewitt 2002; Frost et al. 1990). Normal perfectionists allow for themselves to be less precise if the situation permits it, neurotic perfectionists allow only a small margin for mistakes making them experience lower

satisfaction in their doings (Frost et al., 1990). Apart from these dissimilarities, perfectionists have tendencies for overly critical evaluations of their own behaviour, accompanying their high standards. Stoeber and Otto’s (2006) coinciding definition is as follows: “a personality disposition characterized by striving for flawlessness and setting exceedingly high standards of performance accompanied by overly critical evaluations of one’s behavior” (Stoeber & Otto, 2006, p. 295). This definition, which is similar to Hewitt and Flett’s 1991, has met little resistance in peer reviews over the years, which suggests that its widely agreed upon.

(10)

Self-oriented perfectionism, as opposed to socially prescribed perfectionism, is having perfect expectations of yourself instead of thinking others have these expectations of you (Ozbilir, Day & Catano, 2014). In this research, leader perfectionism will be identified as self-oriented perfectionists. Although this trait has been linked to positive outcomes such as engagement (Childs & Stoeber, 2010), in this case the leader’s engagement, it may reflect negative on others. Khan, Moss, Quratulain and Hameed (2018) noticed that leaders who exercise AS could have the strategic intent to manage subordinates’ impressions to strengthen the status and authority of these leaders. Among perfectionistic leaders, this could result into deficient delegation of authority due to their higher locus of internal control, leading to less effective leadership (Stoeber, 2014). Supplementary to this reasoning, a recent study has concluded that leaders who are losing their sense of control move towards more abusive leadership styles (Guo et al., 2019). This poses a potential pitfall to perfectionistic leaders as they are especially concerned with their own input in relation to the organizational outcome. Such a leader may try to (re)gain more control once organizational outcomes do not meet his high expectations.

Traditionally, research identifies the need for power as one of three basic motives for perfectionism, together with the need for affiliation and achievement (Stoeber, Damian, & Madigan, 2017). The need for power combined with the high locus of internal control among perfectionistic leaders may increase AS behaviours in an effort to maintain control. This gives dimension to Guo et al. (2019) their finding that leaders who lose control resort to abusive supervision. The need for achievement is expressed through motivating employees to achieve success or through motivating employees to avoid failure (Elliot, 2006). These perfectionistic needs may contribute to a discrepancy between expectations and reality in an organization, especially if leader perfectionism results in decreased performance due to acts of AS.

This discrepancy signifies how leader perfectionism may impact the relationship between AS and OCB. Given my review of the literature, AS is linked to negative job-related outcomes (Rafferty & Restubog 2011; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), thus diminishing

antecedents of OCB (Cheng, Jiang & Riley, 2003; Zhang & Bednall, 2016). Moreover, perfectionistic leaders may propagate high standards and challenging organizational goals, while concurrently hindering employees through AS. The combination of AS and leader perfectionism may therefore increase the negative relationship between AS and OCB.

(11)

Hypothesis 2. There is an interaction effect between AS and leader perfectionism, such

that the negative relationship between AS and OCB becomes stronger under a perfectionistic leader as opposed to a non-perfectionistic leader.

3. Methodology

3.1 Participants

In this study, a cross-sectional design was applied. The gathered data was collected by having leaders and followers fill out surveys. In total, 96 dyads have been collected, each dyad consisted of a leader and a follower survey paired together. More variables have been measured than the ones examined in this study, due to the fact that the surveys were part of a larger study. Convenience sampling was used for choosing the respondents, they were sampled through personal contacts of groups of Bachelor students of a European University as part of a course requirement. In total, 9 students were tasked with collecting 11 dyads each, targeting 100 dyads and giving a response rate of 96%. The data collection happened over the course of five weeks. Of the following respondents 60% was female, the ages varied from 18 to 62 (M = 35.210, SD = 13.943), and tenure ranging from 2 to 405 months (M = 77.140, SD = 94.655). The average number of months leaders and followers had worked together was 32 months (SD = 34.698).

3.2 Procedures

Participants received an e-mail inviting them to fill out a Qualtrics survey through a provided link. Both leaders and followers received a unique code which was to be filled out at the start of the survey, this allowed for the dyads to be linked to each other. After

consenting to participate, leaders rated their followers and vice versa in a series of questions relating to leadership. Prior to data collection, the Ethical Committee approved the measures used in these questions (EC 20200420030403). The survey was carried out from May 1st_until June 8th_{. It has resulted in a sample of 96 complete dyads; 94 valid samples were used to test} the hypotheses.

3.3 Measures

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. The dependent variable was measured using

(12)

…-… willingly gives his/her time to help others who have work-related problems.” and “My supervisor …-… shows genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most trying business or personal situations.”. All of the items used were rated on a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 7 being “strongly agree”. Cronbach’s Alpha was .822.

Abusive Supervision. The independent variable was measured using a six-item scale

of Martinko, Harvey, Sikora and Douglas (2011). Sample items for this scale included: “My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others” and “My supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason”. Cronbach’s Alpha was .731.

Perfectionism. The moderator variable was measured using a six-item scale of

Simms et al. (2011), to measure self-oriented perfectionism. Example items are: “Expect nothing less than perfection.”, “Don't consider a task finished until it's perfect.” and “Strive in every way possible to be flawless.”. This scale showed good reliability as Cronbach’s Alpha was .869.

Control variables. To rule out possible alternative explanations of the results, the age

of the follower and the dyadic tenure were controlled for. Older followers have more self-regulatory capabilities; hence they are less vulnerable to social and situational demands (Tsorbatzoudis, Travlos, & Rodafinos, 2013). Additionally, Gross, Carstensen and Tsai (1997) suggest that as followers get older, they gain experience in coping with supervisory misbehaviours. The effects of AS may not be as harmful to older employees as it is to younger ones, thus age affects perceptions of AS. As for the tenure, followers become more adapted to their leaders when their dyadic tenure increases (Nickerson, 1998). This also decreases the likelihood that followers interpret ambiguous supervisory behaviour as abusive (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Therefore, the tenure with the leader may affect the way followers perceive AS.

4. Results

4.1 Analytical Plan

When testing Hypothesis 1, the negative relationship between AS and OCB, linear regression will be applied. OCB is the dependent variable and AS is the independent variable.

(13)

When testing Hypothesis 2, the interaction effect between AS and leader

perfectionism on OCB, the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2018) Model 1 will be applied. AS is the independent variable, leader perfectionism is the moderating variable and OCB is the dependent variable.

4.2 Hypothesis testing

The means, standard deviations and correlation of the variables which were used are shown in table 1 below. This preliminary test of the relationship between the variables shows a significant correlation between the independent and the dependent variable, with -.19*. Therefore, a relationship between AS and OCB becomes apparent.

Follower age negatively correlates with abusive supervision, with -.29**. Because abusive supervision is a follower rated scale, these results implicate that younger employees perceive more abusive supervision than their older colleagues. Remarkably, the followers age also correlates negatively with leader perfectionism, with -.17*.

The dyadic tenure does not significantly correlate with any of the main variables. Lastly, there is a logical significant correlation between age and tenure within the leader (.49**), this will not be discussed further.

In order to test the first hypothesis, a linear regression analysis was performed on the data. Prior to the analysis, I checked if the data met the assumptions of linear regression. To investigate if the relationship between AS and OCB was linear, a scatterplot was created in SPSS. The results show that this relationship is indeed linear (see Appendix). This trend may have occurred due to a lack of variance in the data as the sample contained only 96 dyads. I checked for normality by examining the residuals of my main variables using a P-Plot. The results showed that there is indeed normality (see Appendix). Another scatterplot showed that the residuals were equally variable, confirming the homoscedasticity (see Appendix).

(14)

Collinearity diagnostics rejected the presence of multicollinearity with VIF being 1,002, meaning no predictor variables were highly correlated. Lastly, two of the identified outliers were removed before running the analysis, as the absolute values of the standardized residuals exceeded 2 by a large margin (2.22 and 2.82).

Hypothesis 1 predicts that there is a negative relationship between abusive

supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour. The results support this hypothesis, as the ANOVA table gives an F-value of 3.535 with a p-value of .032 < .05 (1-tailed).

Furthermore, the Beta of the predictor variable abusive supervision is .192 with a p-value of .32. From this Beta can be derived that the predictor variable had a small effect size (Cohen, 1988) on the outcome. Furthermore, model 2 had an R-square of 0.055 whereas model 1 had an R-square of 0.012. Thus, the percentage in explained variability by adding the independent variable went up from 1.2% to 5.5%. This R-square change of 0.043 or 4.3% was significant with a p-value 0.046. The added variable, in this case the independent variable abusive supervision, has improved the model more than would be expected to happen by chance.

Hypothesis 2 suggests that there is an interaction effect between abusive supervision and leader perfectionism, such that the negative relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour becomes stronger under a perfectionistic leader as opposed to a non-perfectionistic leader. To test this hypothesis, PROCESS macro model 1 was used. The model has an R-square of .116 and a p-value of .011. The results support the second hypothesis, as they showed there was a significant interaction effect of abusive supervision and leader perfectionism on organizational citizenship behaviour (b=-0.14, se=0.09, t=-.2.10, p=0.04, CI= -0.26, 0.01), such that abusive supervision was more

negatively related to OCB when leader perfectionism was high (+ 1 SD; b=0.31, se=0.06, t=-3.32, p=0.04, CI= -.49,-.12), than when leader perfectionism was low (- 1 SD; b=0.03,

se=0.09, t=0.39, p=0.69, CI= -0.14, 0.20). The control variables did not affect this outcome as the moderation effect was still present with a p-value of .03 when the controls were added, and the controls had no significance. An overview of the moderation statistics is given in table 2.

(15)

Moreover, the interaction effect only set in among leaders with mean (p=.04) and high (p=.00) levels of perfectionism, not with low levels (p=.69) of perfectionism. This further confirms the hypothesized relationship and its direction. The interaction effect is visually represented in a standard deviation plot. The steepest slope occurs where leader perfectionism was highest, the flattest slope occurs dyads where leader perfectionism was lowest. For below mean leader perfectionism, the line is sloped upward. For mean and above mean leader perfectionism, the negative relationship between AS and OCB becomes apparent from the lines sloping downward.

5. Discussion

This research aims to examine if AS has a negative effect on OCB, and if this effect is strengthened by the level of leader perfectionism. Therefore, the combined effect of AS and leader perfectionism on OCB was examined. Two hypotheses were tested, the first stating there is a negative relationship between AS and OCB. The second hypothesis states that there is an interaction effect between AS and leader perfectionism on OCB, such that the relationship between AS and OCB becomes stronger under a perfectionistic leader as opposed to a non-perfectionistic leader

The results support Hypothesis 1, meaning that a negative relationship between AS and OCB was established from the data. This finding is consistent with the literature, as the negative relationship between AS and OCB has been tested and established across multiple studies (Kacmar et al., 2016; Mackey et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2016). Besides, the

confirmation of the expected outcome of Hypothesis 1 contributes to the validity of previous research on the negative impact AS has on OCB.

(16)

Hypothesis 2 was supported as well, because a strengthening effect of leader

perfectionism on OCB through AS has been found. In this sample, followers who experience higher levels of AS have lower levels of OCB, and this relationship is moderated by the level of leader perfectionism. This interaction effect does not become apparent among leaders with low levels of perfectionism, as this effect was non-significant. The interaction effect could only be established among leaders scoring around the mean or higher on the perfectionism scale. Concretely, leaders with low levels of perfectionism do not affect the relationship between AS and OCB, but leaders with mean or high levels do.

The outcome of this study contributes to the already available literature on unethical leadership, in which abusive supervision plays an important role (Tepper, Simon & Park, 2017). By empirically testing the hypothesized relationship in practice, it improves the available academic knowledge on AS, OCB, and their relationship. The outcome of the second hypothesis gives insight into perfectionism in the organizational context. The established presence of an interaction effect between leader perfectionism and AS on OCB can be used as a foundation for more research. More generally, the insights gained with respect to leader perfectionism provide direction to future research on perfectionism and unethical leadership.

5.1 Limitations and future directions

Regarding the limitations of this study, the fact that only 94 dyads were used for the analysis could have negatively impacted the power of the analytical models, as the data may lack variance. It is likely that a larger sample would have provided more variance, increasing the analytical models’ power. Kim, Chen and Kong (2019) confirmed the negative

relationship between AS and OCB with p < 0.001 (two-tailed) in their research, for which they had a sample size of 261 employees. Furthermore, they ensured sufficient variation in their data by requesting respondents from different firm sizes, industries, ranks and

demographic characteristics. In this research, 91% of the respondents work in the Netherlands and speak Dutch. The homogeneity of the samples used in my study may affect the outcome through a lack variance of the data; a bias may be present as this study is mainly placed in the context of Dutch (business) culture. This also negatively affects how well the outcome can be generalized to other populations. These shortcomings may serve as learning material for future research.

(17)

Furthermore, some of the data may have been biased as AS is a follower rated scale and OCB is a leader rated scale. Consequently, followers rated the level of AS they perceived with their leader, this leader would then rate the level of OCB of the follower. This could potentially contaminate the data of either scale. There may be a relationship between how abusive a leader is and how well he is able to rate acts of OCB among his employees. Additionally, employees’ levels of OCB may influence the way they interpret and rate AS. These specific relationships are not being tested, but the relationship between AS and OCB by itself is.

Lastly, the questionnaires could have been translated to the respondent’s native language in line with the ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (International Test Commission, 2017). This research was conducted in the Netherlands and convenience sampling was used. This logically resulted in a vast majority of Dutch and Dutch speaking respondents. Dutch questionnaires would have ruled out linguistic misunderstandings, this would increase the validity of the scales as they would measure the variables more

accurately.

5.2 Practical implications

This study offers practical implications for management and leaders as it provides them with more information on the relationship between AS and OCB. A negative

relationship was established from the data, which reiterates the importance of addressing AS within organizations. Firms that strive to promote OCB among employees may not benefit to the full if they settle for programs with this sole purpose. Destructive leadership styles such as AS might jeopardize how productive these programs will be, as AS negatively impacts OCB. They may yield more substantial results by establishing a general view on effective leadership, which addresses multiple aspects of a leader (Ayuba, Manafb & Hamzah, 2014). Top-level management could envisage a prototype leader by incorporating both antecedents of AS and OCB. If AS is addressed properly, such leaders can promote OCB more

effectively. By internally communicating what behaviour a prototype leader portrays, for instance by means of a vision or strategy, problems such as AS are tended to and employee efficiency, productivity, and job performance increase through effective promotion of OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2009).

Additionally, more is known about perfectionism as a moderator of the relationship between AS and OCB. An interaction effect between AS and leader perfectionism on OCB

(18)

was established from the data. The role of perfectionism could very well be taken into consideration for a prototype leader as mentioned above. If the negative impact of leader perfectionism is neutralized, the negative relationship between AS and OCB is dampened. Moreover, perfectionism by itself could have positive outcomes as well, depending on how aware leaders are of their own perfectionism (Silverman, 1999). Top-level management could survey perfectionism among leaders in recurring performance appraisals; it is best diagnosed when someone is not succeeding or developing to their satisfaction (Beheshtifar, Mazrae-Sefidi & Moghadam, 2011). If such leaders are mirrored accordingly and become aware of their level of perfectionism, they are more likely to leverage it. This study shows the negative impact of leader perfectionism, while it is concurrently linked to positive outcomes such as increased performance and efficiency (MacDonald, 2011; Peters-Atkinson, 2012). Therefore, this trait requires a balanced response; a high level of leader perfectionism has negative implications, but a low level of leader perfectionism can exclude positive outcomes.

6. Conclusion

Previous research has not yet discovered an effect of leader perfectionism on OCB under AS. Thus, the present study was focused on examining the effect of leader

perfectionism and AS on OCB by empirically testing the hypotheses. The results have shown a negative relationship between AS and OCB. Furthermore, leader perfectionism was indeed found to be a moderator as it is strengthening this effect. These findings have expanded the research on AS. Firstly, by confirming the known relationship between AS and OCB, a contribution has been made to previous research on these subjects. Secondly, by examining the effect of perfectionism with respect to the aforementioned relationship, more knowledge was gained on its moderating role. Moreover, it has provided insight into how perfectionism manifests itself within organizations. Leaders can use these findings to their advantage by leveraging perfectionism, through their own awareness of this trait.

(19)

Reference list

Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target's perspective. Annual review of psychology, 60, 717-741.

Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). When leadership goes unnoticed: The moderating role of follower self-esteem on the relationship between ethical leadership and follower behavior. Journal of business ethics, 98(4), 573-582.

Ayub, S. H., Abd Manaf, N., & Hamzah, M. R. (2014). Leadership: Communicating strategically in the 21st century. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 155, 502-506.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. Journal of occupational health psychology, 22(3), 273.

Barnes, D. C., Collier, J. E., & Robinson, S. (2014). Customer delight and work engagement. Journal of Services Marketing.

Beheshtifar, M., Mazrae-Sefidi, F., & Nekoie Moghadam, M. (2011). Role of perfectionism at workplace. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative

Sciences, 38, 167-173.

Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost?. Academy of Management review, 32(4), 1078-1095.

Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley W. H. & Harvey, J. (2013) Exploring the Dark Side of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34(4), 542– 559. doi: 10.1002/job.1847

Burroughs, N. F., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1989). Compliance‐resistance in the college classroom. Communication Education, 38(3), 214-229.

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

Cheng, B. S., Jiang, D. Y., & Riley, J. H. (2003). Organizational commitment, supervisory commitment, and employee outcomes in the Chinese context: proximal hypothesis or global hypothesis?. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International

Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(3),

(20)

Childs, J. H., & Stoeber, J. (2010). Self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially

prescribed perfectionism in employees: Relationships with burnout and engagement. Journal

of Workplace Behavioral Health, 25(4), 269-281.

Conway, J. M., Rogelberg, S. G., & Pitts, V. E. (2009). Workplace helping:

Interactive effects of personality and momentary positive affect. Human Performance, 22(4), 321-339.

Cropanzano, R., & Byrne, Z. S. (2000). Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational citizenship.

De Clercq, D., Rahman, Z., & Haq, I. U. (2019). Explaining helping behavior in the workplace: The interactive effect of family-to-work conflict and Islamic work ethic. Journal

of Business Ethics, 155(4), 1167-1177.

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?. Academy of management journal, 50(4), 869-884.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of management Journal, 45(2), 331-351.

Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of management studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.

Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation.

Motivation and emotion, 30(2), 111-116.

Fairlie, P., & Flett, G. L. (2003, August). Perfectionism at work: Impacts on burnout, job satisfaction, and depression. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Convention of the

American Psychological Association.

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues.

Folger, R. (2001). Fairness as deonance. Theoretical and cultural perspectives on

organizational justice, 3-33.

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability.

(21)

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive therapy and research, 14(5), 449-468.

Glomb, T. M., Bhave, D. P., Miner, A. G., & Wall, M. (2011). Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational citizenship behaviors in changing mood.

Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 191-223.

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., & Priesemuth, M. (2013). To act out, to withdraw, or to constructively resist? Employee reactions to supervisor abuse of customers and the moderating role of employee moral identity. Human Relations, 66(7), 925-950.

Gross, J.J.; Carstensen, L.L.; Tsai, J.L. (1997). Emotion and Aging: Experience, Expression, and Control. Psychology and Ageing, 12, 590 – 599.

Guo, L., Chiang, J. T. J., & Chien, C. (2019, July). Triggering Boss's Control-Freak: How Avoiding Feedback Makes a Perfectionist Leader Abuse Employees. In Academy of

Management Proceedings, No. 1, p. 15330). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of

Management.

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi‐foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta‐analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 24-44.

Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Weber, C. (1994). Dimensions of perfectionism and suicide ideation. Cognitive therapy and research, 18(5), 439-460.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of

general psychology, 6(4), 307-324.

Hogan, R., & Emler, N. P. (1981). Retributive justice. In The justice motive in social

behavior (pp. 125-143). Springer, Boston, MA.

International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second edition). [www.InTestCom.org]

Kacmar, K. M., Bachrach, D. G., Harris, K. J., & Zivnuska, S. (2011). Fostering good citizenship through ethical leadership: Exploring the moderating role of gender and

(22)

Kacmar, K. M., Tillman, C. J., Harris, K. J., & Whitman, M. V. (2016). Perceptions of ethical leadership as a mediator of the relationship between abusive supervision and work behaviors. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 16(1), 627.

Kataria, A., Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2013). and Innovation. SAGE, 9(3), 249-260.

Khan, A. K., Moss, S., Quratulain, S., & Hameed, I. (2018). When and how subordinate performance leads to abusive supervision: A social dominance perspective.

Journal of Management, 44(7), 2801-2826.

Kim, H., Chen, Y., & Kong, H. (2019). Abusive Supervision and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Networking Behavior. Sustainability, 12(1), 288.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of applied psychology, 87(1), 131.

Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1990). On the meaning of Maslach's three dimensions of burnout. Journal of applied psychology, 75(6), 743.

Leischnig, A., Kasper-Brauer, K. (2015). Employee Adaptive Behavior in Service Enactments. Journal of Business Research, 68 (2), 273-280. doi:

10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.07.008

Lyu, Y., Zhou, X., Li, W., Wan, J., Zhang, J. & Qiu, C. (2016). The impact of abusive supervision on service employees’ proactive customer service performance in the hotel industry. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag., 28, 1992–2012.

MacDonald, A. (2011). How to become a better perfectionist. Retrieved from: http:// www.health.harvard.edu

Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Perrewé, P. L., Gallagher, V. C., & Brymer, R. A. (2015). Empowered employees as social deviants: The role of abusive supervision. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 30(1), 149-162.

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S120-S137.

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

(23)

McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & Robey, C. S. (1980). Situational influences on the selection of strategies to resist compliance-gaining attempts. Human Communication

Research, 7(1), 14-36.

Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2012). Beyond the consequences to the victim: The impact of abusive supervision on third-party observers. Handbook of unethical work behavior: Implications for well-being, 23-43.

Molino, M., Cortese, C. G., & Ghislieri, C. (2019). Unsustainable working conditions: The association of destructive leadership, use of technology, and workload with workaholism and exhaustion. Sustainability, 11(2), 446.

Newman, G. Schwarz, B. Cooper & S. Sendjaya (2017) How Servant Leadership Influences Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of LMX, Empowerment, and Proactive Personality. Journal of Business Ethics 145 (1), 49-62.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, vol. 2(2), 175-220. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Organ, D. W. (1988). Issues in organization and management series.Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com.

Ozbilir, T., Day, A., & Catano, V. M. (2015). Perfectionism at Work: An

Investigation of Adaptive and Maladaptive Perfectionism in the Workplace among Canadian and Turkish Employees. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 252-280.

Pearce, J. L. (2017). Toward an organizational behavior of contract laborers: Their psychological involvement and effects on employee co-workers. Academy of Management journal.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (2006), pp. 295-319 Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Turnbull-Donovan, W., & Mikail, S. F. (1991). The Multidimensional

Perfectionism Scale: Reliability, validity, and psychometric properties in psychiatric samples.

Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3(3), 464.

Peters-Atkinson, K. (2012, 12 September). Persnickety or perfectionist. Retrieved from: http://mondaymornings.madisoncres.com

(24)

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009).

Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 94(1), 122.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior. Oxford University Press.

Priesemuth, M., Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Folger, R. (2014). Abusive supervision climate: A multiple-mediation model of its impact on group outcomes. Academy

of Management Journal, 57(5), 1513-1534.

Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2011). The influence of abusive supervisors on followers' organizational citizenship behaviours: The hidden costs of abusive supervision.

British Journal of Management, 22(2), 270-285.

Schaubroeck, J. M., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2016). Can peers’ ethical and transformational leadership improve coworkers’ service quality? A latent growth analysis.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 133, 45-58.

Silverman, L. K. (1999). Perfectionism. Gifted Education International, 13(3), 216-225.

Simms, L. J., Goldberg, L. R., Roberts, J. E., Watson, D., Welte, J., & Rotterman, J. H. (2011). Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: Introducing the CAT– PD project. Journal of personality assessment, 93(4), 380-389.

Stoeber, J. (2014). How other-oriented perfectionism differs from self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,

36(2), 329-338.

Stoeber, J., & Childs, J. H. (2010). The assessment of self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism: Subscales make a difference. Journal of personality assessment,

92(6), 577-585.

Stoeber, J., Damian, L., & Madigan, D. J. (2017). Perfectionism: A motivational perspective.

Stoeber, J., Otto K. (2006) Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (2006), pp. 295-319

(25)

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of management

journal, 43(2), 178-190.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of management, 33(3), 261-289.

Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review

of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 123-152.

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

Processes, 108(1), 79-92.

Tsorbatzoudis, H., Travlos, A. K., & Rodafinos, A. (2013). Gender and age differences in self-reported aggression of high school students. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 28(8), 1709-1725.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of business and

psychology, 21(3), 377-405.

Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. C. (2016). Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 455-471.

(26)

Appendix

Correlations Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N AS 1,7624 ,70308 94 OCB 5,5027 ,65119 94 PerfL 4,6667 1,06509 94

Follower - What is your age (in years)?

35,46 13,984 94

Follower - How long have you been working with the leader that you have been rating (in months)?

32,51 34,865 94

Correlations

AS OCB PerfL

Follower - What is your age (in

years)?

AS Pearson Correlation 1 -,192* _,053 _-,293**

Sig. (1-tailed) ,032 ,306 ,002

N 94 94 94 94

OCB Pearson Correlation -,192* ₁ _-,070 _,024

Sig. (1-tailed) ,032 ,251 ,410

N 94 94 94 94

PerfL Pearson Correlation ,053 -,070 1 ,174*

Sig. (1-tailed) ,306 ,251 ,047

N 94 94 94 94

Pearson Correlation -,293** _,024 _,174* ₁

(27)

N 94 94 94 94

Pearson Correlation -,050 ,106 -,049 ,485**

Sig. (1-tailed) ,317 ,155 ,321 ,000

N 94 94 94 94

Correlations

Follower - How long have you been working with the leader that you have been

rating (in months)?

AS Pearson Correlation -,050

Sig. (1-tailed) ,317

N 94

OCB Pearson Correlation ,106

N 94

PerfL Pearson Correlation -,049

N 94

Follower - What is your age (in years)? Pearson Correlation ,485**

N 94

Pearson Correlation 1

Sig. (1-tailed)

N 94

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

(28)

Reliability

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 96 100,0

Excludeda ₀ _,0

Total 96 100,0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,731 6 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Abusive Supervision - My

Supervisor: - Makes negative comments about me to others

8,85 14,105 ,454 ,700

Abusive Supervision - My Supervisor: - Gives me the silent treatment

8,74 13,626 ,375 ,719

Abusive Supervision - My Supervisor: - Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason

(29)

Abusive Supervision - My Supervisor: - Is rude to me

8,91 12,233 ,593 ,656

Abusive Supervision -My Supervisor: - Breaks promises he/she makes

8,57 12,331 ,505 ,681

Abusive Supervision - My Supervisor: - Puts me down in front of others

9,05 14,597 ,511 ,697

Reliability

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

N %

Excludeda ₀ _,0

Total 96 100,0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,822 8 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Follower OCB Leader rated -

The follower: - Helps others who have been absent

(30)

Follower OCB Leader rated - The follower: - Willingly gives his/her time to help others who have work-related problems

37,93 25,142 ,552 ,802

Follower OCB Leader rated- The follower: - Adjusts his/her work schedule to accommodate other

employees’ requests for time off

38,60 21,989 ,581 ,797

Follower OCB Leader rated- The follower: - Goes out of the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the team

38,28 24,710 ,292 ,848

Follower OCB Leader rated- The follower: - Shows genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most trying business or personal situations

38,16 24,617 ,594 ,796

Follower OCB Leader rated- The follower: - Gives up time to help others who have work or nonwork problems

38,27 23,631 ,697 ,783

Follower OCB Leader rated- The follower: - Assists others with their duties

38,19 23,312 ,644 ,787

Follower OCB Leader rated- The follower: - Shares personal property with others to help their work

38,74 22,889 ,541 ,802

Reliability

(31)

N %

Excludeda ₀ _,0

Total 96 100,0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ,869 6 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Leader perfectionism - I

expect nothing less than perfection

23,53 26,483 ,760 ,829

Leader perfectionism - I don't consider a task finished until it's perfect

23,69 27,522 ,714 ,838

Leader perfectionism - I am not happy until all the details are taken care of

23,24 28,016 ,657 ,849

Leader perfectionism - I set high standards for myself and others

22,54 33,514 ,535 ,869

Leader perfectionism - I demand perfection in others

(32)

Leader perfectionism - I strive in every way possible to be flawless 23,48 28,021 ,680 ,845 Graph Regression Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 ASb _{. Enter}

a. Dependent Variable: OCB b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summaryb Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

(33)

1 ,134a _,018 _,008 _,68642

a. Predictors: (Constant), AS b. Dependent Variable: OCB

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression ,811 1 ,811 1,722 ,193b

Residual 44,290 94 ,471

Total 45,101 95

a. Dependent Variable: OCB b. Predictors: (Constant), AS Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 5,698 ,189 30,118 ,000 AS -,132 ,100 -,134 -1,312 ,193

a. Dependent Variable: OCB

Residuals Statisticsa

(34)

Predicted Value 5,1929 5,5663 5,4674 ,09240 96

Residual -1,94127 1,43373 ,00000 ,68280 96

Std. Predicted Value -2,971 1,069 ,000 1,000 96

Std. Residual -2,828 2,089 ,000 ,995 96

Charts Regression Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 ASb _{. Enter}

(35)

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 ,134a _,018 _,008 _,68642 a. Predictors: (Constant), AS b. Dependent Variable: OCB

ANOVAa

1 Regression ,811 1 ,811 1,722 ,193b

Residual 44,290 94 ,471

Total 45,101 95

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

Predicted Value 5,1929 5,5663 5,4674 ,09240 96

(36)

Std. Residual -2,828 2,089 ,000 ,995 96

Charts Regression Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 PerfL, ASb _{. Enter}

(37)

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 ,162a _,026 _,005 _,68714

a. Predictors: (Constant), PerfL, AS b. Dependent Variable: OCB

ANOVAa

1 Regression 1,190 2 ,595 1,260 ,288b

Residual 43,911 93 ,472

Total 45,101 95

a. Dependent Variable: OCB b. Predictors: (Constant), PerfL, AS

Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 5,971 ,359 16,639 ,000 AS -,128 ,101 -,130 -1,273 ,206 PerfL -,060 ,067 -,092 -,896 ,373 Coefficientsa Model Collinearity Statistics Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) AS ,998 1,002

(38)

PerfL ,998 1,002

Collinearity Diagnosticsa

Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition Index

Variance Proportions

(Constant) AS PerfL

1 1 2,876 1,000 ,00 ,02 ,01

2 ,101 5,339 ,03 ,90 ,12

3 ,023 11,255 ,96 ,09 ,87

Predicted Value 5,1631 5,7535 5,4674 ,11192 96

Residual -1,89948 1,44565 ,00000 ,67987 96

Std. Residual -2,764 2,104 ,000 ,989 96

(39)

Regression Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 ASb _{. Enter}

Model Summaryb Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change 1 ,192a _,037 _,027 _,64249 _,037 _3,535 Model Summaryb

(40)

Model

Change Statistics

df1 df2 Sig. F Change

1 1 92 ,063

a. Predictors: (Constant), AS b. Dependent Variable: OCB

ANOVAa

1 Regression 1,459 1 1,459 3,535 ,063b

Residual 37,978 92 ,413

Total 39,437 93

Predicted Value 5,1337 5,6385 5,5027 ,12526 94

(41)

Std. Residual -2,309 2,119 ,000 ,995 94

Descriptives

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

AS 96 1,00 3,83 1,7500 ,70129 PerfL 96 1,33 6,67 4,6806 1,05815 Valid N (listwise) 96 Regression Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 Follower - How

long have you been working with the leader that you have been rating (in months)?, Follower - What is your age (in years)?b

. Enter

2 ASb _{. Enter}

(42)

Model Summaryc Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change 1 ,110a _,012 _-,010 _,65430 _,012 _,560 2 ,235b _,055 _,024 _,64349 _,043 _4,081 Model Summaryc Model Change Statistics df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 2 91 ,573 2 1 90 ,046

a. Predictors: (Constant), Follower - How long have you been working with the leader that you have been rating (in months)?, Follower - What is your age (in years)?

b. Predictors: (Constant), Follower - How long have you been working with the leader that you have been rating (in months)?, Follower - What is your age (in years)?, AS

c. Dependent Variable: OCB

ANOVAa

1 Regression ,479 2 ,240 ,560 ,573b Residual 38,958 91 ,428 Total 39,437 93 2 Regression 2,169 3 ,723 1,746 ,163c Residual 37,268 90 ,414 Total 39,437 93

(43)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Follower - How long have you been working with the leader that you have been rating (in months)?, Follower - What is your age (in years)?

c. Predictors: (Constant), Follower - How long have you been working with the leader that you have been rating (in months)?, Follower - What is your age (in years)?, AS

Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 5,487 ,186 29,467

-,002 ,006 -,036 -,301

,002 ,002 ,123 1,033

2 (Constant) 5,953 ,295 20,213

-,005 ,006 -,112 -,913

,003 ,002 ,149 1,266

AS -,202 ,100 -,218 -2,020

Coefficientsa

Model Sig.

1 (Constant) ,000

Follower - What is your age (in years)? ,764

,304

(44)

Follower - What is your age (in years)? ,364

,209

AS ,046

Excluded Variablesa

Model Beta In t Sig.

Partial Correlation Collinearity Statistics Tolerance 1 AS -,218b _-2,020 _,046 _-,208 _,903

b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Follower - How long have you been working with the leader that you have been rating (in months)?, Follower - What is your age (in years)?

Predicted Value 5,1369 5,8487 5,5027 ,15272 94

Residual -1,49715 1,24039 ,00000 ,63303 94

Std. Residual -2,327 1,928 ,000 ,984 94

Descriptives

Descriptive Statistics

(45)

AS 94 1,00 3,83 1,7624 ,70308

PerfL 94 1,33 6,67 4,6667 1,06509

Valid N (listwise) 94

Matrix

Run MATRIX procedure:

************* PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.16.3 ******************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

************************************************************************** Model = 1 Y = OCB X = ZAS M = ZPerfL Sample size 94 ************************************************************************** Outcome: OCB Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,3410 ,1163 ,3872 3,9479 3,0000 90,0000 ,0108 Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 5,5116 ,0643 85,7655 ,0000 5,3839 5,6393 ZPerfL -,0403 ,0646 -,6243 ,5340 -,1687 ,0880 ZAS -,1361 ,0648 -2,1004 ,0385 -,2648 -,0074

(46)

int_1 -,1700 ,0612 -2,7765 ,0067 -,2916 -,0484

Product terms key:

int_1 ZAS X ZPerfL

R-square increase due to interaction(s): R2-chng F df1 df2 p

int_1 ,0757 7,7090 1,0000 90,0000 ,0067

*************************************************************************

Conditional effect of X on Y at values of the moderator(s): ZPerfL Effect se t p LLCI ULCI

-1,0000 ,0339 ,0859 ,3948 ,6939 -,1367 ,2045 ,0000 -,1361 ,0648 -2,1004 ,0385 -,2648 -,0074 1,0000 -,3061 ,0923 -3,3171 ,0013 -,4894 -,1228

Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean. Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator.

Data for visualizing conditional effect of X on Y

Paste text below into a SPSS syntax window and execute to produce plot. DATA LIST FREE/ZAS ZPerfL OCB.

BEGIN DATA. -1,0000 -1,0000 5,5180 ,0000 -1,0000 5,5519 1,0000 -1,0000 5,5858 -1,0000 ,0000 5,6477 ,0000 ,0000 5,5116 1,0000 ,0000 5,3755 -1,0000 1,0000 5,7773

The effect of abusive supervision on organizational citizenship behaviour, and the moderating role of perfectionism.

Bachelor Thesis

The effect of abusive supervision on

organizational citizenship behaviour, and

the moderating role of perfectionism.

Jonathan Spiering

11827440

Supervisor:

Juliana Guedes Almeida

Bachelor's Thesis and Thesis Seminar Management in the

Digital Age (6013B0510Y)

June 22, 2020

Business Administration

Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Amsterdam

Table of Contents

Statement of Originality

The effect of abusive supervision on

organizational citizenship behaviour, and the

moderating role of perfectionism

Jonathan Spiering

Faculty of Business & Economics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

2.2 Abusive Supervision

2.3 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and Abusive Supervision

2.4 Abusive Supervision and Perfectionism

3. Methodology

3.1 Participants

3.2 Procedures

3.3 Measures

4. Results

4.1 Analytical Plan

4.2 Hypothesis testing

5. Discussion

5.1 Limitations and future directions

5.2 Practical implications

6.

Conclusion

Reference list

Appendix