ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AS AN ANTECEDENT OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION: THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON JOB SATISFACTION
Master Thesis
M.Sc. Human Resource Management (HRM)
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 11, 2017
TINA MANOLOVA NIKOLOVA
Student number: S3227634
Boterdiep 9
9712LH Groningen
Tel: +359 887 80 27 67
e-mail: t.m.nikolova@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: Jacoba Oedzes
Faculty of Business and Economics – Department of HRM/OB
2 ABSTRACT
The research explores the organizational level antecedents of abusive supervision in the workplace. It examines the effects of the different types of organizational structure – mechanistic or organic – on abusive supervision. It further examines the relationship between organizational structure and job satisfaction and advances the argument that mechanistic structures will lead to lower levels of job satisfaction, while organic structures will be marked by higher levels of job satisfaction. Ultimately, it is proposed that abusive supervision plays a major role as one of the main mediating mechanisms between organizational structure and job satisfaction. The hypotheses advanced in the research were tested and analysed through a field study, conducted among 146 team members from 34 teams across diverse business settings. The hypothesized relationships were supported by the findings of this research.
3
INTRODUCTION
In 2007, more than 13.6% of the US workforce was affected by abusive supervision (Tepper, 2007), while in 2014 this number has doubled (WTI, 2014). The financial losses, which organizations in the US suffer because of abusive supervision, amount to almost $24 billion per year (Tepper, Duffy, Henle & Lambert, 2006). The wide spread of abusive supervision has been recognized as a major challenge for contemporary practical enterprise management, and has become a field of increased scholarly attention.
4
The purpose of this study is to examine one of the possible organizational level antecedents of abusive supervision in the workplace. Specifically, I will argue that different types of organizational structure, namely mechanistic versus organic, can provide a fertile ground for abusive supervision to thrive on or alternatively provide a working context where such supervision is less likely to occur (Aryee, Chen & Debrah, 2008). The two types of organizational structure examined in this study are characterized by centralization of authority and close supervision (mechanistic), and decentralization of authority and the decision-making processes as well as a consultative form of communication (organic). Mechanistic structures provide prerequisites for abusive leadership behavior because their features exacerbate the power imbalance between supervisors and subordinates. In contrast, more organic structures provide a work environment where abusive supervision will be less likely to occur due to the decentralization which provides less latitude and tolerance for abusive supervision (Ashforth, 1994).
In addition, since mechanistic structures induce abusive supervision, this will lead to lower levels of job satisfaction in these specific structures. On the other hand, the structure of organic organizations facilitates higher levels of job satisfaction because abusive supervision is less likely to occur. Hence, this research will examine the effect of organizational structure on employees’ job satisfaction mediated by abusive supervision.
5
contribute to the existing literature by examining an important mediator of these relationships: abusive supervision.
On the practical level, companies can generate knowledge about organizational causes that trigger supervisors to become abusive. Thus, by understanding the possible outcomes of different types of organizational structure, companies may be able to decrease abusive supervision. Consequently, the study can also motivate business actors to change their organizational structure to more organic in order to both reduce financial losses induced by abusive leadership and increase the level of their employees’ job satisfaction.
THEORY
Organizational structure and abusive supervision
Organizational structure is described as the “way in which labor is divided into distinct tasks and coordination is achieved among them” (Mintzberg, 1979). According to Burns and
Stalker (1969) organizational structures can be divided into two main categories: mechanistic and organic. Mechanistic structures are characterized by centralization of control and authority, vertical hierarchy of communication and strict following of rules and procedures. In other words, such organizational structures are defined as ideal-type bureaucracy (Weber, 1947) with extensive task specialization and standardization. In contrast to mechanistic structures, organic structures are characterized by decentralization of control and authority, horizontal line of communication and low levels of task specialization and standardization. In addition, they are marked by having less emphasis on formal rules and procedures than mechanistic structures (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Slevin & Covin, 1997).
6
occurrence and spread of abusive supervision higher, whereas the features of organic structures (mainly decentralization of decision making and consultative form of communication) create a context where the odds for the proliferation of abusive supervision are lower.
By being in formal positions of authority, supervisors have legitimate power over their subordinates (e.g. the ability to control punishments and rewards) (French & Raven, 1959; Yukl, 2004; Yukl & Falbe, 1991). In terms of power, both organizational structures (mechanistic and organic) have similar power differences but the way this power plays out is different. In more mechanistic structures, the power imbalance between subordinates and leaders is higher due to the vertical hierarchy of communication, and it also emphasizes dominance and conformity, which may lead to the emergence and tolerance of overbearing supervision (Aryee et al., 2008). These high power imbalances might be used by leaders for taking advantage of their position as well as for treating their subordinates unfairly. In addition, because there is more power to leaders, employees have less autonomy and less power to regulate the workload. All of this shows that structure is very important because it determines the way in which power is distributed. Thus, organizational structure can be perceived as an antecedent of abusive supervision.
7
subordinates and supervisors, thus minimizing the supervisors’ tendency to be overbearing
and to subsequently engage in abusive supervision (Aryee et al., 2008). On the other hand, when the powers of planning and decision making are concentrated within the high hierarchical levels of the organization (as is the case with mechanistic structures), the leaders who enjoy these privileges have the normative channels to justify their abusive behavior (i.e.
“the company’s internal rules of procedure make me the boss, so do as I say or else…”).
Alternatively, decentralization of authority and control translates to a distribution of power in a more horizontal way, thus undermining the risk of abusive supervision. For example, a leader in an organic organization might coordinate the efforts of his/her team or be in charge of their performance quality assessment but might also be an active participant in the task completion. In such a scenario, he or she might be more inclined to lead by the principle “do
as I do, not as I say” and refrain from abusive behavior because he or she shares both
responsibility and power with his/her subordinates.
On the basis of the above-mentioned arguments and research evidence, I hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1: Organizational structure is an antecedent of abusive supervision where the presence of abusive supervision is higher in mechanistic structures and lower in organic structures.
Organizational structure and job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is defined as “the reaction of an employee against his/her occupation or organization” (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Previous research has widely examined the
8
regulations as compared to mechanistic ones. Thus, there will be more open lines of communication between employees and by that additional restrictions will be removed. Consequently, employees working within more organically structured organizations will report higher levels of job satisfaction, because they will enjoy a certain degree of latitude and flexibility in the workplace (Ashforth, 1994).
In contrast to the organic structured organization, a mechanistic one will lead to lower levels of job satisfaction. According to Burns and Stalker (1961), mechanistic structure is one in which upper level managers divide tasks into specialized units. Such type of organization is governed by strict rules within a hierarchical system, where the upper-level management governs the organization by making decisions, and dictates these decisions to lower-level employees for completion. Therefore, communication within the organization is vertical and provides formal networks only between immediate supervisors and subordinates (Burns & Stalker, 1961). Taking into consideration these arguments, I hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2: Organizational structure leads to job satisfaction.
The mediating role of abusive supervision
The presence of abusive supervision is a very important factor which can decrease the levels of satisfaction among employees (Keashly, Trott & MacLean, 1994).Thus,I argue that the effect of organizational structure on employees’ job satisfaction is mediated by abusive
supervision.
9
(Burns & Stalker, 1961). Such kind of a relationship between a superior and a subordinate might lead to the supervisor’s engagement in abusive behaviors. Examples of such leadership
behavior include (but are not limited to): shouting at one’s subordinates, criticizing them in front of others, threatening them with losing their job, withholding needed information from them, giving them the silent treatment and ridiculing them in public (Keashly, 1998; Tepper, 2000). Confronting subordinates in a disrespectful way has a negative impact on their job satisfaction. Consequently, such behaviors would lead to lower levels of job satisfaction.
In contrast, the decentralization of authority and the horizontal way of communication in organic structures, would provide for a work environment where abusive supervision is less likely to occur. It is argued that creating a positive working environment between supervisors and subordinates will lead to higher levels of job satisfaction. (Ahmad, Khattak& Ahmad, 2016). Taking into consideration all of the above-mentioned arguments, I hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3: The effect of organizational structure on employees’ job satisfaction is mediated by abusive supervision.
10
Figure 1: Conceptual Model
H1
H2 H3
METHODOLOGY Sample and procedure
In order to test the research hypotheses and to draw further conclusions, I collected data among a diverse sample of organizational teams. The data were collected along with a team of 4 fellow researchers. Several conditions had to be met by teams to be suitable for participation in this study. First, each team had to consist of 4 to 13 members, including the supervisor. Furthermore, at least two out of four criteria needed to be met. The criteria were the following: (a) team members to have common goals; (b) team members to be interdependent; (c) team members to be jointly accountable; and (d) the team to hold regular meetings (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Researchers used their personal network to identify teams. Also, to evoke the interest for the research and to request cooperation, multiple teams were contacted by phone or face to face.
Before distributing the questionnaire, the content and purpose of the study was explained to each team in order to familiarize them with the scope of the research. In addition, all teams were assured that the data collection is strictly confidential. Once all team members agreed to participate and the above mentioned conditions were met, two questionnaires were sent out. One of the questionnaires was developed especially for the leaders and the other one for the
Organizational Structure
Abusive Supervision
11
team members. The questionnaires were available in both Dutch and English depending on the language spoken in the team and were distributed accordingly. On one hand, leaders were asked to provide information about the organizational structure of the company. On the other hand, team members were asked to rate their leader’s behavior and to answer questions related to the degree of their job satisfaction. In order to obtain additional information about the sample, questions were included regarding the specifics of the organization itself as well as the industry. At the end of the questionnaire, both the leaders and the team members were asked demographic questions. The data was collected within a time frame of three weeks.
The questionnaires were distributed to a total of 58 teams. 54 of the 58 individual team leaders replied, thus accounting to a high response rate of 93%. Regarding the team members, 217 were asked and 171 responded, thus resulting in a 79% response rate. 20 teams were excluded from the analysis because they either did not finish the entire questionnaire, or had a low percentage of participating members (less than 50% of the team members answered the questionnaire). Where the percentage of missing values of individuals was low, the mean was used to replace the missing scores. Therefore, the final sample consisted of 34 team leaders and 112 subordinates.
12
Team members had a 3.37 years (SD = 3.86) average tenure within the organization and a 2.75 years (SD = 2.70) average tenure within their team. The leaders were part of the organization for 12 years on average (SD = 9.68) and were part of the team for 7.55 years (SD = 6.51). Regarding the educational level, 40% of the team members answered that they had Higher-professional education (HBO) while 22.5% of them stated that they hold a Middle-level applied education (MBO). As for the team leaders, 44.1% have acquired HBO whereas 23.5% have a Master’s degree. 43.7% of the employees were male and respectively 56.3%
were female. For the leaders the percentages were similar - 47.1% were male and 52.9% were female. The average age of the team members was 35.97 years old (SD = 8.72) and for the
team leaders - 44.41 years old (SD = 10.64).
Measures
Organizational structure. Organizational structure was measured by using Khandwalla’s
(1976/1977) seven-item scale. Leaders’ responses were indicated on a seven-point scale where 1 indicated that the organization is more mechanistic, 4 indicated that the philosophies are balanced within the organization, and 7 indicated that the organization is more organic. Sample items included: “highly structured channels of communication and restricted access to important information” vs. “open channels of communication with important information flowing freely throughout the organization” (see Appendix A for all the items). Cronbach’s alpha for the combined seven-scale was significantly high, resulting in 0.84.
Abusive supervision. Fifteen items were used to measure abusive supervision, as
developed by Tepper (2000). Each of the items started with the statement: “My immediate supervisor…” and a sample item continued as the following: “… ridicules me” (see Appendix
fifteen-13
item scale was sufficiently high (0.97) and aggregating statistics supported the aggregation to the team level where ICC1 = .28, ICC2 = .62, and mean rwg = .79.
Job satisfaction was measured by using a four-item scale, adapted from Van der Vegt et al. (2001). The four items were the following: “Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job”, “My work never bores me”, “Taking into consideration all things about this job, I am very satisfied with my job”, and “I would like to keep doing this job”. The scale followed a 7-point response model where 1 corresponded to “strongly disagree” and 7 was matched to “strongly agree”. Cronbach’s alpha for the combined four-item scale was sufficiently high
(0.91) and aggregating statistics supported the aggregation to the team level where ICC1 = .08, ICC2 = .17, and mean rwg = .84.
Control variables. Data on different control variables were collected in order to control
the differences between groups and their influence on the data. The questionnaires included general questions about gender, age and tenure within the organization and within the team which are used for a correlation analysis with the main variables. Gender was measured as a dichotomous variable and coded such that 0 represented male and 1- female. As a number of studies show women report more victimization than men (Aquino & Bradfield, 2000). The control variable “gender diversity” was created in order to show the diversity in each team by
calculating the percentage of females. As for age, according to previous research, younger employees engage in workplace aggression more often than their counterparts (Baron, Neuman & Geddes, 1999). Age was measured in years and the control variable “age diversity” was used to establish the average age within a team. Average tenure within the
14 Data Analysis
The conceptual model of the study is tested on a team level. Therefore, the collected individual-level data was aggregated to the group level. Furthermore, the research hypotheses were tested using the PROCESS macro for SPSS developed by Andrew Hayes, specifically model 4 (Hayes, 2013). Predictor variables were standardized. In addition, a Sobel test was used to show the significance of the mediator-effect. With the use of the test, the indirect effect of the independent variable “organizational structure” on the dependent variable “job satisfaction” was investigated through the mediating variable “abusive supervision”.
RESULTS Correlation results
Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations and Pearson correlations between the main and control variables of this study. As it was predicted, organizational structure, abusive supervision and job satisfaction were correlated significantly. First, organizational structure and abusive supervision were negatively correlated (r = -.49, p < .001), meaning that when organizational structure is closer to organic, abusive supervision decreases. Second, abusive supervision had strong negative correlation with job satisfaction (r = -.79, p < .001), thus when abusive supervision increases, the levels of job satisfaction among employees decreases. Third, organizational structure and job satisfaction were positively correlated (r = .42, p <
.01), meaning that when organizational structure is closer to organic, job satisfaction
increases.
“Age diversity” had a strong negative correlation with abusive supervision (r = -.47, p <
.001). Thus, age was further included in the regression analysis. Since none of the other three
15
tenure within the team) had a significant correlation to the key variables of this research, they were excluded from the further analysis.
Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Gender diversity 56.30 38.49 1
2. Age diversity 35.97 8.72 -.09 1
3. Average team tenure within the org.
3.37
3.86 .29 .59*** 1
4. Average tenure within the team
2.75 2.70 .29 .63*** .79*** 1 5. Organizational Structure1 4.76 1.25 .06 .17 .11 .18 1 6. Abusive Supervision2 1.49 .99 .18 -.47*** -.09 -.12 -.49*** 1 7. Job Satisfaction 5.41 .97 -.33 .29 -.05 -.14 .42** -.79*** 1
Note. N=34 teams ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05 (two-tailed significance)
1 1 = mechanistic; 7 = organic
21 = never; 7 = always
Normality testing
16
transformation was done. After the transformation, the skewness for abusive supervision changed to 2.384 and kurtosis to 5.43, which is still problematic. This can be explained by the fact that most of the participants in the study score 1 on abusive supervision. Thus, due to the insignificant change between before and after the transformation analysis, I continued the further analysis with the untransformed variable of abusive supervision.
Table 2.
Skewness & Kurtosis
Skewness S.E. of skewness Kurtosis S.E. of kurtosis Age diversity .267 .403 -.330 .788 Organizational Structure -.783 .403 .647 .788 Abusive Supervision 3.159 .403 9.887 .788 Job satisfaction -1.495 .403 2.867 .788 Note: N=34 Hypotheses Testing
Table 3 shows the results of the regression analysis, examining the main and the mediation effects of the key variables, including “age diversity” as a control variable.
Hypothesis 1 proposed that organizational structure is an antecedent of abusive supervision. As seen in Model 1 from Table 3, organizational structure (B = -.42, p < .01) did show a significant negative effect on abusive supervision, as expected. The model shows a 39% explanation of variance (R2). Therefore, hypothesis 1 is supported by the findings.
17
Hypothesis 3 proposed that the effect of organizational structure on the employees’ job
satisfaction is mediated by abusive supervision. The regression analysis of Model 3 shows that the effect of organizational structure on job satisfaction is not significant (B = .05, p >
.05), while abusive supervision has strong negative correlation with job satisfaction (B = -.75, p < .001). As a prerequisite for mediation, organizational structure is supposed to have a
18 Table 3.
Results of Regression Analysis
Variables B SE t R2
Model 0:
Outcome: Abusive Supervision (Constant)
Age
Model 1:
Outcome: Abusive Supervision
1.50*** -.47** .15 .15 9.83 -3.05 .22 .39 (Constant) 1.65** .59 2.76 Organizational Structure -.42** .14 -2.97 Age -.04** .01 -2.84 Model 2: .23
Outcome: Job Satisfaction
(Constant) 5.41*** .15 35.88
Organizational Structure .37* .15 2.41
Age
Model 3:
Outcome: Job Satisfaction (Constant) Abusive Supervision Organizational Structure Age .21 5.41*** -.75*** .05 -.08 Effect .15 .11 .14 .12 .12 SE 1.40 48.83 -5.23 .43 -.67 LL95% CI .59 UL 95% CI
Total effect of Organizational Structure On Job Satisfaction
Indirect effect of Organizational Structure On Job Satisfaction
Normal theory tests for indirect effect
.37* .31 Effect .31 .12 .17 SE .12 .05 .00 Z 2.55* .69 .66
19 DISCUSSION
The purpose of the current research was to examine organizational structure as an antecedent of abusive supervision and further to develop and test the role of abusive supervision as one of the main mediating mechanisms between organizational structure and job satisfaction. As predicted, the findings were consistent with the hypothesized model. These findings revealed that organizational structure is an antecedent of abusive supervision such that employees working in more mechanistically structured organizations would be more likely to experience abusive supervision. I further assumed that organizational structure leads to job satisfaction. Thus, it was suggested that the presence of organic structures is positively related to an increase in job satisfaction among employees. Moreover, I hypothesized that the effect of organizational structure on the employees’ job satisfaction is mediated by abusive
supervision.
Theoretical implications
The findings of this study complement the literature of abusive supervision in several ways. To begin with, research on this phenomenon has largely focused on examining the consequences of abusive behaviors while “the left side of the equation” is missing. Examining
20
provide a constraining context for abusive supervision. Thus, the research suggests that the presence of abusive supervision is stronger within mechanistic organizations and weaker within organic organizations.
Moreover, although the study is in line with previous findings about the positive relationship between organizational structure and job satisfaction (Maedows, 1980), the results from this research revealed these relationships to be mediated by abusive supervision. Therefore, this study contributes to the existing literature by examining the different types of organizations and their effects on abusive supervision, thus resulting in lower or higher levels of job satisfaction. Hence, it was confirmed that mechanistic organizations lead to abusive supervision followed by lower levels of job satisfaction, whereas organic organizations provide a work environment where abusive supervision is more limited, which results in higher levels of employees’ satisfaction.
Practical implications
21
supervision as well as the significant capacity that abusive supervision has as a mediator of the structure-satisfaction relationship.
To reduce the presence of abusive supervision on the workplace, organizations may want to consider changing their structures to having fewer rules and regulations, thus providing employees with flexibility. Moreover, instead of having strictly formal networks between immediate supervisors and subordinates, organizations might want to adapt horizontal ways of communication, which will allow employees to collaborate with one another. Such type of communication results in employees working together and generating new ideas, rather than upper-level managers delivering decisions (Burns & Stalker, 1962). For example, organizations can limit the influence of supervisors by empowering its employees to be more involved in the decision-making processes or, if the previous is not applicable, to introduce a whistle-blower policy for instances where abusive supervision is detected. In order to improve the organization’s mistreatment-reduction climate, policies and practices can be established that give employees’ autonomy. This would also reduce occurrences of abusive
supervision as well as enhance employees’ job satisfaction (Yang et al., 2014). However, regardless of whether an organization is “organic” or “mechanistic” the research highlights
the important role that abusive supervision plays as a mediator between organizational structure and job satisfaction. The findings of the study demonstrate that if an organization desires to shift the balance in a desired direction, it should recognize the role of abusive supervision and tackle the problem directly.
General limitations and future research
22
causality among the different variables of this study (Rumelt, 1991). If the data had been collected at different points of time, this would have led to different conclusions. For instance, the extent to which supervisors engage in abusive behaviours may change over time due to situational factors such as the level of difficulty of their tasks. Another conclusion might be that the model is reverse, meaning that abusive supervision leads to organizational structure. To fully address this limitation, future research which uses longitudinal design will be needed to confirm or reject the results of the study.
Second, the research is limited by the fact that the abusive supervision variable has a problematic distribution. Most of the participants in this research scored 1 on abusive supervision. Thus, the variable strongly violates the normality distribution. Even after transformation analysis was done, the variable remained skewed (skewness = 2.384). In addition, the size of the sample was small, consisting of 34 different teams and, as such, it holds low statistical power (Stone & Rosopa, 2016). Thus, it is advised that future research uses larger sample sizes.
Third, the mediation model might benefit from having one or more moderators. Future research could consider moderators such as supervisor traits, for example, in order to answer the questions of “when” and “how” supervisor traits can mitigate or enhance the
organizational structure-abusive supervision relationship. For example, superior agreeableness and conscientiousness could mitigate the effect of mechanistic structures on abusive supervision. This is because such type of supervisor is more likely to cooperate and agree with his/her subordinates (McCrae & John, 1992) despite the presence of high power imbalances in these organizational structures.
23
examine other possible organizational characteristics, such as culture, for example. In addition, future research can further develop the model of this study by examining which mechanistic characteristic causes the increase of abusive supervision the most.
Conclusion
24
REFERENCES:
Ahmad, W., Khattak A.J., & Ahmad, G. (2016). Impact of abusive supervision on job satisfaction and turnover intention: role of power distance as a moderator. City
University Research Journal, Vol. 06, Number 01, 122-136.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions. Sage: London.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 295–305.
Aryee, S., Sun, L.-Y., Chen, Z. X. G. & Debrah, Y. A. (2008). Abusive Supervision and Contextual Performance: The Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion and the Moderating Role of Work Unit Structure. Management and Organization Review, 4: 393–411. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00118.x.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47: 755–778.
Ashforth, B. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14: 126–140.
Aquino, K., & Bardfield, M. (2000). Perceived victimization in the workplace: the role of situational factors and victim characteristics. Organization Science, 11 (5), 525-537.
Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. (2006). Abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress, and subordinate personality into account. Human
25
Baron RA, Neuman JH, Geddes D. (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the type A behavior pattern. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 281–296
Bowen, H. P., Wiersema, M. F. (1999). Matching Method to Paradigm in Strategy Research: Limitations of Cross–sectional Analysis and some Methodological Alternatives.
Strategic Management Journal, 20: 625–636.
Bulmer, M. (1979). Concepts in the analyses of qualitative data. The Sociological
Review, 27: 651–677. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1979.tb00354.x
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Chaudhuri, K., Reilly T. K., & Spencer A. D. (2014). Job satisfaction, Age and Tenure: A Generalized Dynamic Random Effects Model. Applied institute for research in
economics (AIRE), C23, C25, J28
Dupre, K. A., & Day, A. L. (2007). The effects of supportive management and job quality on the turnover intentions and health of military personnel. Human Resource
Management,46, 185–201.
Eissa, G., & Lester, S. W. (2017) Supervisor role overload and frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision: The moderating role of supervisor personality. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 38: 307–326.
French JRP Jr. & Raven B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright D (Ed.), Studies
in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute of
26
Hackman, J. R. & G. R. Oldham (1975). “Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta- analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251-273.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business
Review, 81(1), 87–96.
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133.
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues.
Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1: 85–117.
Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and victims, 9(4), 341-357.
Kelloway, E. K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005). Poor leadership. Handbook of work stress, 89-112.
Khandwalla, P. N. (1976/1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Industrial and organizational
psychology, vol. 12: 333–375. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
27
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011). Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’ attribution styles. Leadership Quarterly, 22,
751–764.
Mawritz, M. B., Folger, R., & Latham, G. P. (2014). Supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals and abusive supervision: The mediating effects of hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 358–372.
McCrae, R. R. and John, O. P. (1992), An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its
Applications. Journal of Personality, 60: 175–215.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
McFarlane-Ossmann, G. & Curtis, C. (2011). An Investigation of Cultural Influence on Perceptions of Abusive Supervision. Poster Session Track 2: Subject Area: Hospitality and Tourism Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Meadows, I. S. G. (1980). Organic structure and innovation in small work groups. Human
Relations, 33, 369-382.
Mintzberg, H. (1979).The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1159–1168.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2012). Employees’ behavioral reactions to supervisor
aggression: An examination of individual and situational factors. Journal of Applied
28
Mitchell, O., Mackenzie, D. L., Styve, G. J., & Gover, A. R. (2000). The impact of individual, organizational, and environmental attributes on voluntary turnover among juvenile correctional staff members. Justice Quarterly, 17(2), 333-357.
Namie G., Christensen D. & Philips D. (2014). WBI U.S. Workplace Bullying Survey.
Workplace Bullying Institute.
Oldham R. G. & Hackman J. R., (2009). Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: comparing alternative frameworks. Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 26, No 1, pp. 66-83.
Palanski, M., Avey, J.B. & Jiraporn, N. J Bus Ethics (2014). The effects of ethical leadership
and abusive supervision on job search behaviors in the turnover process, 121: 135.
doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1690-6.
Paoline, E. A., Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2006). ACalm and Happy Keeper of the Keys The Impact of ACAViews, Relations With Coworkers, and Policy Views on the Job Stress and Job Satisfaction of Correctional Staff. The Prison Journal, 86(2), 182-205.
Richman, J. A., Flaherty, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., & Christensen, M. L. (1992). Mental
health consequences and correlates of reported medical student abuse. Jama, 267(5),
692-694.
Rumelt, R. P. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12 (3): 167–185.
29
Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of context. Journal of Management, 23: 189–209.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction : Application, Assessment, Causes, and
Consequences. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Stone, D. L., & Rosopa, P. J. (2016). The Advantages and Limitations of Using Meta-analysis in Human Resource Management Research. Human Resource Management
Review,27(1), 1-7.
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(3), 261-289.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279–294.
Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van der Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51-69.
Walter, F., Lam, C. K., van der Vegt, G. S., Huang, X., & Miao, Q. (2015). Abusive supervision and subordinate performance: Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1056–1072.
30
Press.
Wu, T. Y., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and boundaries. Group & Organization Management, 34, 143–169.
Yang, L.-Q., Caughlin, D. E., Gazica, M. W., Truxillo, D. M., & Spector, P. E. (2014). Workplace mistreatment climate and potential employee and organizational outcomes: A meta-analytic review from the target’s perspective. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 19(3), 315
Yukl G. (2004). Use power effectively. In Locke EA (Ed.), Handbook of principles of
organizational behavior (pp. 242–247). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Yukl, G. (2014). Leadership in Organizations, Eighth Edition, Pearson Education Inc.
Yukl G., & Falbe CM. (1991). The importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416–423.
31
APPENDIX A: SURVEY ITEMS
Organizational Structure (Khandwalla, 1976/1977)
Highly structured channels of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Open channels of communication with communication and important information flowing restricted access to important freely throughout the organization. information.
A uniform 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Managers’ operating styles range
managerial style throughout freely from the very formal to the informal. the organization.
Giving 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Letting the expert in a
the most say in decision given situation have the most say in decision making to formal line managers. making, even if this means temporary bypassing of formal line of authority.
Holding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Adapting freely to
fast to tried and true changing circumstances without too management principles despite much concern for past practice. any changes in business
conditions.
Always 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Getting things
getting personnel to follow the done, even if it means disregarding formally laid down formal procedures.
procedures.
32
operations by means of dependence on informal relationships sophisticated control and and the norm of cooperation for getting
information systems. things done.
Getting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Letting the
line and staff personnel to requirements of the situation and the adhere closely to formal job individual’s personality define proper descriptions. on-job behavior.
Abusive Supervision (Tepper, 2000) “My immediate supervisor…”
1. Ridicules me.
2. Tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid. 3. Gives me the silent treatment.
4. Puts me down in front of others. 5. Invades my privacy.
6. Reminds me of my past mistakes and failures.
7. Doesn’t give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort. 8. Blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment. 9. Breaks promises he/she makes.
10. Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason. 11. Makes negative comments about me to others.
12. Is rude to me.
13. Does not allow me to interact with my coworkers. 14. Tells me I am incompetent.
33
Job Satisfaction (Adapted from Van der Vegt et al., 2001) 1. Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job. 2. My work never bores me.
