EMPLOYEE REACTIONS TO ABUSIVE SUPERVISION:

EMPLOYEE REACTIONS TO ABUSIVE SUPERVISION:

BEHAVIOUR

June 8

2016

Pauline Ewa Stickel

(s2367793)

Friesestraatweg 326, 9718 NT Groningen p.e.stickel@student.rug.nl

Supervisor

Dr. K.M. Bijlsma-Frankema

Master Thesis - MSc Programme Human Resource Management Faculty of Economics and Business - University of Groningen

Acknowledgment: I would like to thank Katinka Bijlsma-Frankema for her enthusiasm towards

Abstract

The present study investigates the mediating effect of distrust on the relationship between abusive supervision and negative gossiping behaviour, as well as between abusive supervision and OCBI. Further, it tests to which extent the relation between abusive supervision and distrust is moderated by perceived supervisory narcissism. Based on literature review, we proposed that individuals experiencing abusive supervision exert more negative gossiping behaviour about their supervisor and engage in less OCBI. We further expected distrust to mediate this relation. In addition, we hypothesised that the relationship between abusive supervision and distrust is stronger if supervisors are also perceived as narcissistic. An experiment was conducted with 231 international students in the Netherlands, using an autobiographic recall paradigm. The findings suggested a positive relationship between abusive supervision and gossiping, but no significant relation to OCBI. Distrust was a strong mediator between the relation of abusive supervision and gossip and a full mediator between abusive supervision and OCBI. Due to an unacceptable overlap between narcissism items and the distrust scale, the proposed moderator was reduced to two items. One item regarding perceived supervisory rule following (which might be indicative of narcissism, as high supervisory rule following likely leaves little room for narcissistic behaviour) moderated the relation between abusive supervision and distrust, such that the relation between abusive supervision and distrust was stronger at high levels of supervisory rule following rather than low levels.

Employee Reactions to Abusive Supervision:

Distrust, Gossiping, and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour 13% of the US workforce has been a target of an abusive leader, or has experienced similar forms of hostility at the workplace (Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006) such as being treated hostilely, or being belittled by a supervisor in front of colleagues (Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008; Tepper, 2000). Abusive supervision is described as subordinates' perceptions of harmful,

non-physical supervisory behaviour (Tepper, 2000; Asforth, 1994). Much is known about the adverse consequences of experiencing abusive supervision, such as turnover intentions, or work and family related conflicts (Tepper, 2000). Tepper, Henle, Duffy and Lambert (2006) estimated the annual costs for U.S. employers resulting from abusive supervision to be 23.8 billion dollars, caused, amongst others, by increased healthcare costs, or turnover. As a reaction to experiencing abusive supervision, employees might engage directly in revenge behaviours by, for example, engaging in supervisor-targeted aggression (Hershcovis et al., 2007) or supervisor-directed deviant behaviour (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Further, literature on the social exchange theory suggests that individuals are motivated to reciprocate positive, as well as negative outcomes, in an attempt to restore balance in a relationship (Blau, 1986; Decoster, Camps, Stouten, Vandevyvere, & Tripp, 2013). In this research we

In this study, distrust is proposed to mediate the relation between abusive supervision and the employee behaviours we study as reaction to it, gossiping and OCBI. In contrast to trust, distrust is a relatively scarcely researched concept

(Bijlsma-Frankema, Sitkin, & Weibel, 2015). Distrust is described as a psychological state wherein employees develop an unwillingness to accept their apparent state of vulnerability, due to overarching negative expectations of their supervisors’ intentions or behaviours (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015). The relation between abusive

supervision and distrust has not been studied so far, which is somewhat surprising, given that distrust is a psychological state and a reaction to harmful, vulnerability inducing behaviour, whilst abusive supervision is typified as harmful behaviour. This gives an appealing reason to study the relation between both concepts, as an abusive supervisor can be expected to induce vulnerability and thereby engender distrust. In turn, subordinates might retaliate their supervisor in an attempt to reduce their inacceptable state of perceived vulnerability, evoked by distrust. Nevertheless, counterintuitive to what one would expect, existing research has failed to find evidence for direct retaliation behaviours as a response to distrust, such as reducing effort at work (personal information from K. Bijlsma-Frankema - based on work in progress). In addition, subordinates have even been found to work harder when developing distrust towards their abusive superior (Bies & Tripp, 1996). Taking this into consideration, we hypothesise that enacting in directly visible retaliation

behaviours might enhance rather than decrease subordinates’ perceived vulnerability, on which distrust is built. As a consequence, distrust might explain why subordinates opt for more subtle ways to enact revenge on their supervisor, such as talking

for both behaviours. Abusive supervision and distrust furthermore have in common to be studied in relation to harmful organisational outcomes. Distrust has been related to limited mutual learning due to restricted knowledge sharing (Bijlsma-Frankema, 2004), intergroup tension and conflicts (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006), reduced willingness to disclose personal information (Cho, 2006), and turnover intentions (Costigan, Insinga, Berman, Kranas, & Kureshov, 2011). In addition to that, like abusive supervision, distrust has also been found to relate to revengeful behaviours (Bies & Tripp, 1996; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007).

Past research has found several subordinate characteristics to be noteworthy moderators for abusive supervision. For example, when employees have attributed their supervisor’s abusive behaviour to injurious, rather than constructive motives, their negative reactions towards the adverse treatment were strengthened (Horowitz et al., 2006; Tepper, 2007). Further, previous research has investigated narcissism as an antecedent to abusive supervision (Hansbrough & Jones, 2014), or narcissism as an employee characteristic, fostering the negative outcomes of abusive supervision (Burton & Hoobler, 2011). The American Psychiatric Association (2000) defines narcissism as a personality disorder, and Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006) typified narcissistic leaders as “individuals driven by arrogance and self-absorption” (p. 617).

We expect that, if employees interpret their supervisor’s intention of acting abusive stemming from their supervisor’s internal desire to exploit and intentionally abuse them in order to gain self-affirmation and enhance his/her own benefits, rather than stemming from inflicted non-personalistic intentions, like experienced

are expected to continue, given the perceived stability of personality traits. Narcissism explanations, furthermore, rule out explanations pointing to factors the supervisor does not control, such as situational factors. Furthermore, past research has found that only personalistic or malevolence attributions of an abusive supervisor are related to revengeful behaviours (Bies & Tripp, 1996). It is thus expected that perceived supervisory narcissism will aggravate the effect of abusive supervision on distrust as well as on subsequent employee behaviour and its effects on gossip and OCBI.

Concluding, the main research aim of this paper is to investigate the mediating role of distrust on the relationship between abusive supervision and negative

gossiping and the relation between abusive supervision and OBCI. The second research aim is to examine whether supervisory narcissism influences the effect of abusive supervision on distrust, and through distrust, on OCBI and negative gossiping (the conceptual research model can be found in Figure 1). In summary, we propose the following research question:

Is abusive supervision, as perceived by subordinates, related to negative gossiping about the supervisor and OCBI?

Theoretical Framework Abusive supervision

Tepper (2000) defines abusive supervision as “subordinates' perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours, excluding physical contact” (p. 178). Actions associated with an abusive supervisor include belittling or embarrassing employees, as well as exerting non-contingent punishments and arbitrariness (Ashforth, 1994). Abusive supervision has been found to lead to many undesirable outcomes, such as emotional exhaustion of employees (Aryee, Sun, Chen, Xiong, & Debrah, 2008; Wu, Liu, & Liu, 2009), organisational deviance (Tepper et al., 2008), supervisor-directed deviance (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), subordinate problem drinking behaviour (Bamberger & Bacharach, 2006), and increased turnover intentions (Tepper et al., 2009). Gabler, Nagy and Hill (2014) have shown that organisational commitment is decreased by abusive supervisory behaviour. In addition to that, Shao, Resick, and Hargis (2011) propose that supervisors might act as a role model to their employees. Thus, when acting in an abusive way, these superiors might legitimise employees’ beliefs of “winning at all costs” (Hargis, 2011; p. 1070), thereby fostering harmful behaviours towards the supervisor, co-workers, or the organisation as a whole.

Negative Gossiping Behaviour

powerlessness, feelings of anxiety, the “coffee-klatch” that allows for unrestricted gossiping, and finally, perceived injustice in the allocation of power or rewards.

Dunbar (2004) argues from an evolutionary perspective that gossip might serve as a means to exchange social information, which has been necessary for survival and to reduce freeriding. In addition, gossiping might work as some sort of social comparison by offering relief from suppression (Wert & Salovey, 2004). The reason for this is its equalising effect, whereby imagining supervisors as ordinary people, levels them with subordinates (De Sousa, 1994). Further, negative gossiping might enhance perceptions of the gossiper’s coercive power (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). This is due to the fact that the information might for example contain career damaging information and therefore constitute an implicit threat to the recipient (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Duffy, Ganster and Pagon (2002) describe negative gossiping as a form of deviant employee behaviour that potentially harms an organisation and threatens its norms.

Besides its negative consequences, gossiping is also defined as a harmless social activity that fosters bonding (Dunbar, 2004). Additionally, previous research has found positive outcomes of gossiping behaviour, such as social enjoyment and information gathering by individuals who are gossiping among themselves (Beersma & Van Kleef, 2012; Goodman & Ben-Zeʼev, 1994).

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

organisational objectives if necessary. OCB has been found to improve overall organisational performance (Posdakoff & Mackenzie, 1994) and is likely improving the organisational efficiency and effectiveness, through, amongst others, increasing innovation and adaptability (Organ, 1988). Existing research distinguishes two forms of OCB, namely OCBO, which is behaviour directed at benefitting the organisation, and OBCI, which is directly benefitting specific individuals (e.g. helping others who have been absent; Williams, 1991). OCBO has been conceptualised as generalised compliance, which aims at avoiding punishments or attaining rewards. OCBI on the other hand, has been conceptualised as altruistic behaviour, which occurs in the absence of any external remuneration (Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Williams, 1991). In the current research, we will focus on the OCBI dimension, as it seems to be

particularly interesting to investigate the effect of abusive supervision on the selfless, individual level of citizenship behaviour directed at the supervisor, rather than the overall organisational level. This is due to the fact that we expect that as a reaction to an abusive supervisor, subordinates might want to seek targeted and subtle vengeance on their supervisor and solely reducing extra-role, altruistic behaviour might be a less visible way to do so.

Abusive Supervision and Negative Gossiping. Employees may react

adversely to abusive supervision in various ways. In line with the social exchange theory, in an attempt to restore balance in a relationship, individuals are motivated to reciprocate valued behaviour, as well as negatively reciprocate unfavourable

and wanting to inflict damage on the supervisor in turn, have mediated the relation between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance (Liu, Kwong Kwan, Wu, & Wu, 2010). Thus, drawing on the social exchange theory, employees might retaliate an abusive supervisor by engaging in gossiping behaviour (Decoster et al., 2013). In this context, we expect that negative gossiping could be seen as a way to enact revenge in order to get even, as it will invisibly harm the supervisor’s reputation and power in an organisation, with a low chance of being noticed by him/her.

Hypothesis 1a: Abusive supervision has a positive effect on employees’ negative gossiping behaviour about their supervisor.

Abusive Supervision and OCBI. In a similar line of argumentation, the

social exchange theory might also relate abusive supervision and decreased OCBI towards the supervisor, serving as a means to engage in negative reciprocity (Decoster et al., 2013). Bies and Tripp (1996) have investigated the consequences of abusive supervision and found that subordinates experiencing abusive supervision have the tendency to rehabilitate their personal honour by engaging in behaviours that lead to subsequent detrimental organisational outcomes, as for example withholding general OCB’s (e.g. withholding support, working less, arriving late). Thus, we hypothesise that as a reaction to abusive supervision, subordinates might reduce their OCBI as a means to retaliate against their supervisor and restore a balance in their relationship. We assume that subordinates might reduce their OCBI’s, as they cannot be blamed for reducing their altruistic extra-role behaviours, which in addition might also not be directly discernible by their superior.

Distrust

Research has extensively demonstrated the effects of building and maintaining an adequate level of trust in organisations (Dayan, Di Benedetto, & Colak, 2009; Hernández-Espallardo & Arcas-Lario, 2008). Organisational trust between managers and subordinates is generally related to positive organisational outcomes, such as decreased turnover intentions, improved communication, and increased knowledge sharing (Mishra & Morrissey, 1990; Wickramasinghe & Widyaratne, 2012).

Contrarily to what stands to reason, researchers have questioned the assumption that distrust is just the opposite of trust on a trust-distrust continuum (e.g., Keyton & Smith, 2009). Instead, distrust has been described as a related, but different theoretical construct (Elsbach, Stigliani, & Stroud, 2012; Keyton & Smith, 2009).

Bijlsma-Frankma, Sitkin, and Weibel (2015) define distrust as a subordinate’s “unwillingness to accept vulnerability, based on pervasive negative perceptions of the other person’s motives, intentions or behaviours” (p.1020). Individuals who are no longer willing to accept this constant state of negative alertness start distrusting the other person (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015). Indicating dissatisfaction with employees,

disrespect, and unfairness in treatment are proposed to be antecedents to engendering distrust (Elsbach et al., 2012). As a consequence, distrust has been shown to reduce people’s willingness to disclose personal information (Cho, 2006) and increase avoidance of interaction (Bies & Tripp, 1996).

Abusive Supervision and Distrust. We think that investigating the

behaviour and that abusive supervision is typified as harmful behaviour. Thus, abusive supervision can be expected to raise the vulnerability experience by the subordinate, thereby engendering distrust. According to Bies and Tripp (1996), there are two apparent consequences of abusive supervision that can lead to distrust, namely a damaged sense of civic order and a damaged identity. A damaged sense of identity is experienced when people feel that they are a victim of interpersonal attacks, such as public criticism (e.g. a boss openly ridiculing an employee for insufficient performance), an unfair accusation (e.g. a boss who is accusing an employee for doing something that he/she did himself/herself), or experiencing an insult to one’s self or collective (e.g. receiving a sexist comment); (Bies & Tripp, 1996). A damaged sense of civic order occurs when subordinates perceive violations of rules (e.g. breaching a contract, or retrospectively changing the rules), violations of honour (e.g. lying, stealing, or breaking promises), or an abusive authority (e.g. an intolerable boss who is harsh, exploitative and over demanding, or a corrupt boss, who is abusing to satisfy his selfish needs); (Bies & Tripp, 1996). In other words, Bies and Tripp (1996) state that experiencing an abusive authority can evoke a damaged sense of civic order, which leads to distrust. We indeed expect that distrust is a consequence of experiencing an abusive leader, because the damaging behaviour on part of the supervisor likely enhances subordinates’ perceived vulnerability, which might evoke feelings of distrust.

their supervisor for the adverse treatment (e.g. Bies & Tripp, 1996; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Based on these insights we formulated Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 2: Abusive supervision is positively related to distrust.

Distrust and Negative Gossiping Behaviour. Bies and Tripp (1996) have

found “bad mouthing” as a related consequence of distrust, as stated by one of their participants: “A few bad words about him… here, there, and everywhere. Nobody will want to work with that snake,” (p. 257), serving as an attempt to re-balance the relationship between the subordinate and the supervisor. As Bies and Tripp (1996) argue, the moment individuals are no longer willing to accept their state of unwanted vulnerability they start distrusting the other party (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015). Thus, we expect that a supervisor’s abusive treatment might elicit distrust, and as a consequence, may lead employees to engage in certain behaviours to rehabilitate their personal honour and to shield them from the increased experienced vulnerability.

motivated to look for more subtle ways to “pay back” their supervisor for their adverse treatment.

Summarising, we expect that negative gossiping serves as a subtle means to reciprocate and revenge an abusive supervisor. We further hypothesise that distrust mediates this relation, because subordinates likely wish to reduce and shield them from the perceived state of vulnerability caused by their abusive treatment, which in turn explains their retaliative negative gossiping behaviour.

Hypothesis 3a: Distrust mediates the relation between abusive supervision and negative gossiping behaviour about the supervisor.

Distrust and OCBI. Organ and Konovsky (1989) have suggested that

displaying OCB’s represents a voluntary exchange relation between the organisation and the individual, which is likely to be uphold by long-term fairness expectations and trust. However, we assume that if this trust relationship is violated and distrust is engendered by unfair and adverse treatments, restrained OCB’s would be a likely consequence. This may be explained by the subordinate’s desire to retaliate their supervisor in a subtle way, whereby reducing extra-role behaviours (i.a. OCBI) might not be directly noticeable by their superior. We expect distrust to mediate the relation between abusive supervision and reduced OCBI, because subordinates likely wish to enact subtle revenge on their superior and at the same time reduce their state of perceived vulnerability, caused by their adverse treatment.

Hypothesis 3b: Distrust mediates the relation between abusive supervision and employees’ OCBI towards the supervisor.

Narcissism

empathy“ (p. 685). Rosenthal and Pittinsky (2006) depicted narcissistic leaders as “individuals whose aspirations, judgments, and decisions, both good and bad, are driven by unyielding arrogance and self-absorption” (p. 617). Narcissism manifests itself in exploitative behaviour towards others, in order to foster the narcissists’ self-affirmation (Horowitz et al., 2006). Narcissists are very prone to be arrogant and conceited and tend to show disrespect towards others around them (Horowitz et al., 2006). In the short term, narcissists are likely to be perceived as talkative and

charming (Spain, Harms, & LeBreton, 2014). However, Paulhus (1998) noted that the initial positive effects of narcissists’ behaviour (e.g. self-enhancement and promotion) on their subordinates are prone to ware off on the long term, changing into stable perceptions of arrogance, offensiveness, and hostility.

Narcissism as a Moderator. We expect that supervisors who are abusive and

additionally displaying narcissistic traits are prone to be perceived as arrogant and disrespectful, whereby the narcissistic behaviour is likely attributed to a supervisor’s stable and inherent personality characteristic. Bies and Tripp (1996) point to the importance of cognitive appraisals following trust violations. The authors have differentiated between three distinct attributional processes, which are important for the manifestation of subordinates’ revenge behaviours. Most interesting to our research is the responsibility attribution act responsibility, which describes the

characteristics, thus, abusive supervision by a perceived narcissist will probably be explained by personalistic (it is in his/her personal characteristic) or malevolence (it is his/her negative intentions) attributions.

In line with that, Liu, Liao, and Loi (2012) have investigated the role of causal attributions that employees make to explain adverse supervisory behaviour. The authors have found that abusive supervision has a more detrimental effect on employee creativity when their supervisor’s behaviour is attributed to a motive to cause injury rather than a motive to promote performance. Thus, having a perceived narcissistic supervisor, whose adverse behaviour is explained in terms of his/her personal characteristics, or negative intentions, might have an aggravating negative effect on subordinate’s workplace performance.

If this line of reasoning is applied to the abusive supervision – distrust relations, it may be conjectured that non-personalistic explanations do not lead to distrust, while personalistic and malevolence do. We hypothesise that this might be due to the fact that inferring the narcissistic behaviour to internal and stable

supervisory personality characteristics likely increases the subordinate’s perceived vulnerability, as the adverse treatment is expected to remain stable and continue into the future.

behaviours, we hypothesise that making this attribution enhances the effect of abusive supervision, through distrust on retaliative behaviours, such as negative gossip or reduced OCBI.

Summarising, we expect supervisory narcissism as an underlying condition to aggravate the relation between abusive supervision and distrust, and on gossiping behaviour about the supervisor and OCBI. Accordingly, the fourth and fifth hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 4: Perceived supervisory narcissism moderates the influence of perceived abusive supervision on distrust. Such that the influence of abusive supervision on employees’ distrust is stronger for supervisors that are perceived as high in narcissistic traits than for supervisors that are low in narcissistic traits.

Hypothesis 5a: Perceived supervisory narcissism moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and OCBI, which is mediated by distrust. Such that the

relationship of abusive supervision and OCBI, which is mediated by distrust, is stronger for supervisors that are perceived as high in narcissistic traits than for supervisors that are low in narcissistic traits.

Hypothesis 5b: Perceived supervisory narcissism moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and negative gossiping behaviour about the supervisor, which is mediated by distrust. Such that the relationship between abusive supervision and negative gossiping behaviour, which is mediated by distrust, is stronger for

Figure 1

Conceptual research model

Method Participants and Design

The sample used for our study consisted of 231 undergraduate students from a Dutch University. The sample was comprised of 122 female and 109 male students and consisted of students with different nationalities, namely Dutch (145), German (15), and 71 others. The ages ranged from 18 to 34 years (M= 21.85 years, SD = 2.56) and the average relationship tenure with their supervisor that respondents referred to in the experimental manipulation was 17,03 months (SD= 24,73). The participants took part in the study either as a part of their undergraduate programme in an exchange for four research points, or for a compensation of eight euros. Their confidentiality and anonymity was assured beforehand. Data was collected within a time frame of two weeks. The students were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions (distrust present, N= 115 vs. distrust not present, N= 116). On average, participants took 39,82 minutes to complete the whole questionnaire

Excluded Participants. Eight participants that were not able to recall a

situation for the autobiographic recall paradigm that was necessary for an effective manipulation were excluded. Further, all 38 participants that indicated that we should not use their data were excluded as well.

Procedure

The experiment was conducted in a laboratory at the Faculty of Economics and Business. Upon arrival, the participants read a small briefing about the

experiment and were subsequently seated in separate computer cubicles. All further instructions were displayed on screen. An autobiographic recall paradigm was used to test the hypotheses (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008). The advantages of this method are that it enhances external validity, meaningfulness, and relevance, as participants are asked to recall an actual personalised distrust experience (Godwin et al., 2014). At the beginning, all participants were informed that the experiment is about “Your

experience of a reaction towards a specific type of person who supervised you for instance in a student job, in a union, or in a voluntary work setting.” (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2016, p. 16). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions and asked to give a brief description of the person, the context, and the situation they were imagining. Students in the first condition (distrust absent) were given the following instructions: “Think back about a supervisor of who you thought ‘I do not feel distrust towards that person, for instance because you thought that they had the best intentions for you, that they did not prioritise their own wellbeing over your own wellbeing, and that they would never abuse you”.

you, that they did prioritise their own wellbeing over your own wellbeing, and that they would not hesitate to abuse you”.

Subsequently, participants were asked to fill in an eight-item distrust scale, in order to check for the manipulation. Apart from this, participants were asked to fill in a 15-item abusive supervision scale to test for antecedents. For the purpose of

checking for a moderating effect, participants completed a 15-item scale to measure supervisory narcissism. Finally, students were asked to fill in a scale about OCBI and gossiping behaviour in order to test for the hypothesised outcomes of the

manipulation. The relevant questions for this research were part of a larger pool of questionnaires.

Measures

Distrust. Distrust was measured by using eight items from a distrust scale by

Bijlsma-Frankema, et al. (2015) Three items were taken from the cynical distrust scale (Greenglass & Julkunen, 1989) and the caution scale (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). The response categories were measured using a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree) (e.g. “I am afraid that my superior will behave in a way that will be to my disadvantage”, or “My superior puts up a noble front, to cover his/her less noble intentions”); (α= .93).

Abusive Supervision. Abusive supervision was measured by using 15 items

from a scale by Tepper (2000). Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("I cannot remember him/her ever using this behaviour with me") to 5 ("He/she uses this behaviour very often with me") to which extent their boss engaged in certain behaviours. Sample items include for example “Invades my

Perceived Supervisory Narcissism. Perceived supervisory narcissism was

measured using a 15-item scale (Nathanson, 2001). Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (Totally untrue) to 5 (totally true), to what extent their supervisor engaged in certain behaviours. Sample items were i.a. “Manipulates people to get what he/she wants”, or “Cheats to get ahead”,

(α = .36).

Gossiping Behaviour. Gossiping behaviour was measured using a 5-point

Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) by using the four items of the gossip scale by Wittek and Wielers (1998), modified and based on the original scale of Ellwardt (2011). Sample items include “At work I sometimes complain about my supervisor while s(he) is absent”, or “I feel treated badly by my supervisor, I talk about this to my colleagues”, (α = .92).

OCBI. In order to measure OCBI the collated scale by Lee and Allen (2002)

was transformed to make it suitable for testing the proposed relationships. That is, items were rephrased, so they would refer to the subordinate-supervisor relationship. Participants indicated on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), to which extent they were engaging in these behaviours (e.g. “Showed genuine concern and courtesy toward my supervisor, even under the most trying business or personal situations”, or “Willingly give your time to help my supervisor if s(he) has work-related problems.”); (α = .89).

Control Variables. Four potential confounding variables were controlled for.

organisational tenure on abusive supervision and subordinates’ responses to it (Jiang, Wang, & Lin, 2016). In addition, we controlled for participants’ nationality, because research by Kernan, Watson, Chen and Kim (2011) has shown that differences in cultural values moderate the effect of abusive supervision on employees’ attitudes. All measurement scales can be found in the Appendix A.

Results Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were made with the software package IBM SPSS. The significance level that was used throughout the entire analysis was a .05 alpha level. We conducted exploratory and forced factor analyses to test the expected factor structure of all main variables. Further, in order to check for internal reliability, we computed Cronbach’s Alpha for each measurement scale. In addition, a Shapiro-Wilk test was computed in order to check for the assumption of normal distribution of all scales. Mediation and moderation effects were tested using the Hayes approach (Hayes, 2013). Beforehand, we standardised all values by centring them around their mean.

Factor Analysis

Initially, we conducted a forced five-component factor analysis in order to check for the factorability of all scale items used. A principle component analysis was used on all 48 items, using an orthogonal Varimax analysis with Kaiser rotation (see Appendix B). As a reference, we used .20 as the criterion value difference. The eigenvalues of all five factors extracted explained cumulatively 57,71% of the

and engaged in risky behaviour. Thus, both items do not necessarily represent the core definition of a perceived narcissist, which is why it is highly probable that the current research measured a different construct. As a consequence, in all further analyses caution should be used for interpreting the results for narcissism. We think however, that the item about supervisory rule following might give some indication of

narcissism, as low rule following might give the supervisor more room for narcissistic behaviour than high rule following.

We conducted another principle component factor analysis on the remaining 30 items, with the five components explaining 65.81% of the variance. All remaining items had high factor loadings above .5, and cross loadings below our criterion value difference of .2. All factors appeared to lie within the acceptable range, and

successfully distinguished themselves from the other scales. Table 1 displays the final factor-loading matrix.

Table 1

Factor loadings and communalities based on a forced principle components analysis with Varimax, Kaiser rotation for 30 items (N = 231)

Abusive Supervision

Distrust OCBI Gossip Narcissism

Abusive Supervision 1. Ridiculed me .71 .27

Abusive Supervision 2. Told me my thoughts or feelings are stupid

.72

Abusive Supervision 3. Gave me the silent treatment .54 .26 .21 Abusive Supervision 4. Put me down in front of

others

.74 .28

Abusive Supervision 6. Reminded me of my past mistakes and failures

.63

Abusive Supervision 8. Blamed me to save himself/herself embarrassment

.69 .38 Abusive Supervision 10. Expressed anger at me

when he/she was mad for another reason

.65 .24 Abusive Supervision 11. Made negative comments

about me to others

.74 .25

Abusive Supervision 14. Told me I'm incompetent .78 Distrust 1. I expected that my supervisor did not

always have my best interest in mind.

.25 .72 .21

Distrust 2. I feared that my supervisor would treat me unfairly.

.26 .75 .25

Distrust 3. I was afraid that my superior would behave in a way that would be to my disadvantage.

.23 .78 .22

Distrust 4. My superior appeared mainly interested in her/his own well-being.

.24 .76 Distrust 5. My superior would lie if that suited

his/her purpose

.33 .72 .27

Distrust 6. If I was not alert, my superior would take advantage of me.

.23 .81 Distrust 7. I suspect that my superior would drop me

like a brick if that suited his/her purpose.

.36 .71 .27

Distrust 8. My superior put up a noble front, to cover his/her less noble intentions.

.22 .74

Narcissism 11. My supervisor was impulsive, risk taking

.63 Narcissism 13R. My supervisor always followed the

rules

.27 .75

OCBI 1. I helped my supervisor when he/she has been absent.

.81 OCBI 2. I willingly gave my time to help my

supervisor if s(he) has work-related problems.

.85 OCBI 3. I showed genuine concern and courtesy

toward my supervisor, even under the most trying business or personal situations.

.72

OCBI 4. I gave up time to help my supervisor if s(he) had work or non-work problems.

.81 OCBI 5. I assisted my supervisor with his/her

duties.

.82 OCBI 6. I shared personal property with my

supervisor to help his/her work.

.73

Gossip 1. At work I sometimes complained about my supervisor while s(he) was absent

.22 .85

Gossip 2. I sometimes criticized my supervisor for a negative characteristic while s(he) was absent

.25 .22 .84

Gossip 3. If I felt treated badly by my supervisor, I talked about this to my colleagues

.22 .22 .78

Gossip 4. I sometimes made a negative comment on the behavior of my supervisor when s(he) was not around

.25 .84

Preliminary Analysis