1 TESTING THE INFLUENCE OF LIKABILITY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
WORK STRESS AND SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Business and Economics
April, 2011 BAUKJE HIEMSTRA Student number: s1653857 Badhuisweg 38 9104 DZ Damwoude tel: 06-15529558 e-mail: b.hiemstra.1@student.rug.nl Supervisor: F. Walter
2
ABSTRACT
Stress has been shown to have potentially detrimental effects for both employees and work outcomes. It seems very important to reduce stressful situations. However, not much research has been done about the consequences of stress for supervisors and managers. Therefore, it is interesting to study the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression. To attach an important moderator, I propose that likability has an important influence on the
relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression. The data used for this study were generated by random sampling from students. Every student assumed the role of a manager in a hypothetical company in a scenario study. Results showed that there is an unexpected negative relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression. Furthermore, the results showed that there is indeed a negative relationship between likability and supervisor
3
INDEX
INTRODUCTION ... 4
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES ... 8
Work Stress and Supervisor Aggression ... 8
The Likability of Subordinates and Supervisor Aggression ... 9
Work Stress and Supervisor Aggression: The Moderating Role of Subordinate Likability ... 10
METHODS ... 13
Participants, Design, and Procedure ... 13
Measurement of dependent variable ... 14
RESULTS ... 15
DISCUSSION ... 17
Findings and Practical Implications ... 17
Contribution to literature ... 19
Limitations ... 19
Further Research... 20
APPENDICES ... 23
Appendix 1 General Questions ... 23
Appendix 2 Scenarios ... 26
Appendix 3 Conceptual model ... 29
Appendix 4 Table 1 ... 30
4
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the topic of supervisor aggression1 (i.e. “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in sustained displays of hostile, verbal and non-verbal behaviors excluding physical contact”; Tepper, 2000: 178) has become an interesting issue for both academics and management practitioners because such aggression can have tremendous negative consequences (Inness, Barling & Turner, 2005). Work aggression is an event that can cause people to fear for their well-being (Barling, 1996; Barling, Rogers & Kellaway, 2001; Le Blanc & Kelloway, 2002). Also, as suggested by Barling (1996), stressors emanating from experiences of aggression may affect behavioral outcomes such as work performance. Negative consequences for employees can be poorer general health, decreased job satisfaction, decreased organizational commitment, and increased absenteeism (Tuckey, Dollard, Hosking & Winefeld,2009). Furthermore, Hershovis & Barling (2010) show that the effects of supervisor aggression are more pronounced than for aggression originating from other sources.
Already some research has been done about the antecedents of supervisor aggression. For instance, Douglas & Martinko (2001) found empirical support for the link between trait anger and supervisor aggression.
1
5 In another study, it was found that supervisors who experienced psychological contract breach (i.e. the perception that what they received from their employer fell short of what had been promised) were more abusive toward their subordinates (Hoobler and Brass, 2006).
Also, some research has been done about negative affectivity. Negative affectivity reflects the extent to which individuals generally experience distressing emotions such as hostility, fear and anxiety. Individuals high in negative affectivity are more sensitive and more reactive to negative events. Therefore, supervisors who have high negative affectivity are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior (Höge & Büssing, 2004).
Another important variable that can have consequences on supervisor aggression is work stress. Stress is the product of imbalance between appraisals of environmental demands and individual resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; MacKay, Cousins, Kelly, Lee & Craig, 2004). Stress is an extremely important phenomenon and, as Spector & Fox (2005) noted,; external stressors can lead to counterproductive work behavior. Research has shown, accordingly, that stress is important because it can have negative consequences such as physical and mental health and illness and behavioral/-cognitive responses (Kolvereid, 1982). However, also mentioned by Kolvereid (1982) is that stress is necessary and inevitable and, does not always have negative consequences. Unfortunately, there appears to be an existing gap in the literature on the influence of stress to supervisor aggression. That is why this question will be examined in this research. This research will investigate if stress has a positive or negative relationship with supervisor aggression.
6 of stress depends on other, moderating variables. The moderator examined in this paper is the likability of the subordinates (in the eyes of the supervisor).
The reason to focus on the likability of the subordinates is that there is a lot of evidence that likability has been linked to aggressive behavior. For instance, Mitchell and Liden (1982) found that likability has been linked with organizational punishment. Organizational punishment occurs when supervisors are correcting or modifying a subordinate’s undesirable behavior (e.g. Baron, 1988).
Furthermore, Rubin (1973) states that liking is an essential characteristic of most interpersonal relationships. Therefore, liking is an interesting moderator that can be important in the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression.
Taken together, the following research question will be examined in this paper:
Is there a relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression and is this relationship influenced by the degree of a subordinates’ likability?
7 aggression, people can be aware of the fact that they need to reduce stressful situations. For instance, management can give some training to supervisors on how to handle with and how to react to stressful situations. Furthermore, if possible to prove that liking indeed functions as a moderator, companies can see which subordinates are particularly at risk to suffer from aggression, so companies can make an extra effort to protect these employees.
8
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Work Stress and Supervisor Aggression
It is generally acknowledged that stress originates from the imbalance between appraisals of environmental demands and individual resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Stress can have several negative outcomes such as burn-out and absenteeism from work (Haddow, 2002). However, not all outcomes are well-known. In this part of the research, the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression will be examined.
Some theoretical and empirical studies are available which examine the relationship between work stress and aggression. There are several studies, for example, linking stressors to counterproductive work behavior. For instance, Spector (1975) showed that frustration at work relates to self-reported counterproductive work behavior. Furthermore, Chen and Spector (1992) explored measures of role ambiguity, role conflict, interpersonal conflict, and workload along with organizational constraints. All four correlated with hostility, and all (except workload) correlated significantly with aggression and sabotage (Chen & Spector, 1992).
In another study, Glomb (2002) interviewed employees about their experiences with personal counterproductive work behavior incidents at work. An analysis showed that the most frequent antecedent of an aggressive encounter was a work stressor.
On the base of these and other studies, Spector and Fox’s (2005) theoretical model suggests that there is a relationship between stress experiences and counterproductive work behavior, which is transmitted through individuals negative emotional reactions.
9 Therefore, because supervisor aggression can be seen as a special form of
counterproductive work behavior, we can assume that work stress has a relationship with supervisor aggression. Building upon the mentioned theories and findings, the assumption will be that work stress has a positive relationship with supervisor aggression.
So the following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 1: Work stress is positively related to supervisor aggression.
The Likability of Subordinates and Supervisor Aggression
There is not much research about the role of subordinate likability for supervisor aggression. However, Dobbins and Russell (1986) examined the relationship between likability and leaders’ punishment behavior. They found that leaders’ corrective actions are influenced by their liking for the subordinate. For instance, leaders tended to overpunish subordinates they disliked and underpunish subordinates they liked. Based on these findings, it seems logical to conclude that a leader’s liking of a specific subordinate will reduce his or her tendency to aggress against that subordinate.
Furthermore, some scholars have shown subordinate likability to positively influence supervisors’ performance appraisals (Strauss, Barrick & Connerley, 2001). Again, one might conclude from this research that subordinate likability will render supervisor aggression less likely.
10 aggressively towards subordinates they dislike. In such instances, the supervisor is likely to attach little value to the relationship with this specific subordinate and, by consequences, less likely to refrain from aggressive behavior to maintain this relationship (Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007). If the supervisor likes a specific subordinate, in contrast, I propose he or she is less likely to act aggressively in order to retain a high–quality relation.
Formally:
Hypothesis 2: Subordinate likability is negatively related to supervisor aggression.
Work Stress and Supervisor Aggression: The Moderating Role of Subordinate Likability The last important question in this research is how likability influences the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression.
First, I want to make clear that likability can function as a moderator in certain relationships. For instance, research has shown that liking strengthens the relationship between perceived personality similarity and performance ratings. Even in other contexts, likability can function as a moderator. For instance, Ziegler and Diehl (2001) found that likability influenced the relationship between multiple source information on message scrutiny.
In this research I want to know if likability can function as a moderator in the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression.
11 because stress experiences trigger negative emotions, that, eventually, can result in aggressive action tendencies (Spector & Fox, 2005). Also, as outlined when developing hypothesis 2, supervisors should attach little value to the quality of interpersonal relationships with disliked subordinates. Furthermore, supervisors will not view those subordinates he or she does not like in a favorite light. Therefore, when the supervisor is stressed, he or she will be likely to lash out toward those subordinates because they do attribute the cause of the stress toward these subordinates. So, another reason can be that the supervisor blames the subordinate for the stress the supervisor encounters. Because the supervisor thinks that the subordinate is responsible, the supervisor will react aggressive towards this subordinate. For all the reasons mentioned above I suggest that under the condition of low likability, the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression will also be positive. Under these circumstances, the supervisor has little incentive to refrain from expression the frustration and negative emotions that arise from stress experiences (Spector & Fox, 2005) toward the respective subordinates. This means that the supervisor will not avoid any aggressive behavior. Furthermore, the more stress the supervisor encounters, the more likely he or she will behave aggressively. Under the conditions of low likability; the negative emotions that result from the stress experiences cannot be buffered by the overall feelings for, and the likability of, the subordinate. Therefore, the stress experiences will evoke aggressive behavior toward the subordinate.
12 view those subordinates he or she likes, in a favorable light. Therefore, even if stressed, supervisors might be less likely to lash out toward those subordinates because they do not attribute the cause of the stress toward the subordinates. In line with the last reasoning, the supervisor will not blame the subordinate for his or her stress experiences, and, therefore, will not behave aggressively towards the subordinate.
In other words, if the supervisor likes the subordinate, his or her negative reactions (resulting from stress experiences) toward that subordinate may be buffered with likability therefore diminishing the stress-supervisor linkage.
In conclusion, I suggest that the positive relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression will be more pronounced if subordinate likability is low rather than high.
So, the following hypothesis can be formulated:
13
METHODS
Participants, Design, and Procedure
Eighty students from the Netherlands participated in the study. Some participants were asked for their participation in the study by email, others were asked face-to-face to
participate in the study. The age of the participants varies from 17 to 28 years, the average age is 20.6 years. The participants have different educational backgrounds, but most of them are studying Business Economics or Economics and Management at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. From the respondents, 52.5 % (N= 42) were female and 47.5% (N= 38) male. Because four different scenario’s where set up, the entire group was divided into 4 subgroups. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of these groups.
The procedure was as follows: Each participant read a vignette in which he or she was asked to imagine they would assume the role of a manager in a hypothetical company. The vignette presented a situation in which a subordinate made a minor mistake in task execution. Depending on the experimental condition, the situation was depicted as more or less stressful and the employee as more or less likable. Participants were randomly assigned to a specific condition. They were asked to analyze the situation and complete a questionnaire about the degree to which they think they would act aggressively toward the employee in this situation. This scenario is partially based on the work of Perrewe, Fernandez and Morton (1993). See Appendix 2 for details.
Manipulations
The factors stress (high/low) and likability (high/low) were manipulated in a 2x2 between-subjects design.
14 and including a lot of responsibility. At all times there was stress inherent in his or her job and he or she continuously had to meet extremely tight deadlines. In the low-stress situation the workload was described as quite light and not including a lot of responsibility. There was little stress and little pressure to perform at a high level. Furthermore, it was indicated that the supervisor always had sufficient time for his or her tasks. This manipulation was based on Perrewe, Fernandez and Morton (1993).
The likability of the subordinate was manipulated by depicting in the first situation (high likability) that the subordinate was a very likable person whose coworkers described him as happy and humorous, interesting, and cheerful. In the other situation (low likability) the subordinate was described as unpleasant, rude, conceited, and discourteous. This manipulation was based on Dobbins and Russel (1986) and Anderson (1968).
Measurement of dependent variable
15
RESULTS
Table 1 depicts participants’ mean supervisor aggression scores across all conditions.
--- Table 1 about here ---
To assess the statistical significance of the mean differences depicted above, a univariate analysis of variance has been conducted.
The first hypothesis was the following: Work stress is positively related to supervisor aggression. The analysis demonstrated a main effect for stress (F[1,79] = 42.85, p < .001). As shown in Table 1, the total mean of participants’ supervisor aggression ratings is higher in the low stress conditions (mean = 2.95) than in the high stress conditions (mean = 2.43) So, this means that stress diminishes – rather than enhances - supervisor aggressiveness.
Hence, hypothesis 1 has to be rejected.
16 The last hypothesis was: Subordinate likability moderates the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression. This relationship will be more pronounced if
17
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research was to examine if there is a relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression and if this relationship is moderated by subordinate likability.
Findings and Practical Implications
The first hypothesis, concerning the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression, was assumed to be a positive one. Contrary to my expectations, however, the results show a negative, rather than positive, relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression. Some speculation is needed to address the potential causes for this unexpected finding. A reason can be the fact that because the supervisor encounters a lot of stress, the time to behave aggressively diminishes. The supervisor may simply lack the time and energy to behave aggressively towards subordinates. Hence, supervisors might deliberately refrain from aggressive actions in stressful situations. In practice, this means that stressful situations could represent a buffer for, rather than trigger of, supervisor aggression. Of course, more research is required to uncover the viability of this post-hoc explanation and the robustness of this particular unexpected finding.
The second hypothesis concerned the relationship between likability and supervisor aggression. It was assumed that this relationship is a negative one; the supervisor will behave less aggressively toward a person he or she likes. The present findings support this
18 supervisor-subordinate relations. This might be achieved by, for example, creating and
promoting a cooperative, friendly atmosphere in the organization, by avoiding excessive hierarchies and separation between supervisors and subordinates. Furthermore, organizations can achieve high-quality relations by organizing supervisor-subordinate meetings. For
instance, they can organize a dinner for both supervisors and subordinates, during which both groups have the possibility to get to know each other on a personal level. Also, team-building activities can create a high-quality relationship between supervisors and subordinates. For instance, Klein, Diazgranados, Salas, Huy, Burke, Lyons & Goodwin (2009) examined the effectiveness of team-building activities and found that these activities were positively correlated with affective outcomes and interpersonal relationships in companies. These findings were also present in the study of Woodman & Sherwood (1980) about the effects of team-building activities and team-building interventions.
The last hypothesis dealt with the degree to which liking moderates the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression. Study results demonstrated, however, that there is no significant interaction effect between work stress and subordinate likability, on the one hand, and supervisor aggression, on the other. Hence, my hypothesis was not supported. Therefore, likability does not moderate the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression. So, if a supervisor is in a stressful situation, it does not matter if he or she likes the subordinate or not, the behavior will not change.What reason can be found for this
19 influence on the main effect of subordinate likability. Furthermore, it should be noticed that people are not completely likable or dislikable in real-life settings. The effects of liking are less pronounced in real-life settings in contradiction to this hypothetical setting. Clearly, however, more research is needed, particularly in light of the unexpected, negative relationship between supervisor stress and aggression.
Contribution to literature
These findings contribute to the literature by providing new insights in the
relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression. Mostly, research has been done about the consequences of work stress for subordinates. So, by introducing supervisor aggression as a consequence, a new area has been discovered. Furthermore, this thesis contributes to the literature by introducing likability as a moderator, which is a new
opportunity to look at the topic of work stress and supervisor aggression. Other researchers can continue to work in this area by examining other moderators that can have an influence on the topics mentioned earlier. The findings of this research can be a motive for a thorough research in the direction of likability as a moderator or in the field of other moderators.
Limitations
20 shows. This study can eliminate the risks of letting students assume the role of a manager. Furthermore, there are other limitations that concern the generalizability of this research. This research has been conducted in one country; hence, generalizability beyond the Dutch
context, is strictly speaking, limited. Thus, a similar study should be done in other countries to see if the same results occur as in the present study. Despite the limitations noted, I still think this research and its results are worthwhile; student samples are quite frequently used in organizational and psychological research. For instance Wang, Hongxia, Hengia and Ouyang used student samples in their research about purchasing software in China (2005). Even Pappu, Quester and Cooksey introduced student samples in their research about consumer-based brand equity (2005). Considering, it is merely a first step, this research could pave the way for future research in this area in more realistic contexts.
Further Research
Due to the limitations a second study could be done in a real organizational situation, in which managers could be interviewed. By doing so, examination can take place about the question if the same results occur as in the present study. Furthermore, it is quite interesting to do more research about likability as a moderator. It was assumed that likability moderated the relationship between stress and supervisor aggression in the sense that supervisors should behave more aggressively toward people they do not like. The results show that likability did not has any influence on this relationship. So, it can be interesting to examine if likability as a moderator indeed can have some influence on certain other relationships. Most useful
research could be done about the moderated role of likability, while the results showed that likability did not interact as a moderator in the relationship between work stress and
23
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Questions
Gebaseerd op de tekst hierboven, variërend van 1 (zeer waarschijnlijk) tot 5 (zeer onwaarschijnlijk)
Hoe waarschijnlijk acht je het dat Meijer zich tegenover Romp gaat gedragen in de volgende situaties?
Hij zal..
1. Hem beledigen.
1 2 3 4 5
2.Hem op zijn plaats zetten wanneer Romp vraagtekens heeft bij de werkprocedures
1 2 3 4 5
3. Zijn inzet saboteren
1 2 3 4 5
4. Hem laten weten dat hij hem of iets aan hem niet mag
1 2 3 4 5
5. Slecht over hem praten achter zijn rug om
1 2 3 4 5
6. Zijn gevoelens kwetsen
1 2 3 4 5
7. Hem of zijn ideeën kleineren
1 2 3 4 5
8. Geruchten over hem verspreiden
1 2 3 4 5
9. Hem het idee geven dat hij onbekwaam is
1 2 3 4 5
10. Het werk vertragen om Romp slechter te laten lijken of om hem te vertragen
24
11. Neerbuigend tegen hem praten
1 2 3 4 5
12. Hem demonstratief negeren
1 2 3 4 5
13. Hem niet verdedigen wanneer anderen slecht over hem praten
1 2 3 4 5
14. Hem vernederen
1 2 3 4 5
15. Hem vertellen dat zijn ideeën stom zijn
1 2 3 4 5
16. Zijn privacy binnenvallen
1 2 3 4 5
17. Hem herinneren aan zijn eerder gemaakte fouten en mislukkingen
1 2 3 4 5
18. Hem niet erkenning geven voor moeilijke taken waarvoor veel inzet nodig is
1 2 3 4 5
19. Hem de schuld geven om zichzelf niet in verlegenheid te brengen
1 2 3 4 5
20. Beloften die gemaakt zijn met hem verbreken
1 2 3 4 5
21. Zijn woede uiten wanneer er een andere reden voor is
1 2 3 4 5
22. Negatieve opmerkingen maken over hem tegen anderen
1 2 3 4 5
23. Onbeschoft tegen hem zijn
1 2 3 4 5
24. Het niet toestaan dat Romp samenwerkt met collega’s
1 2 3 4 5
25. Tegen hem liegen
25
Gebaseerd op een schaal van 1 (slecht) tot 5(uitstekend) hoe goed denk je dat jouw Nederlands is?
1 2 3 4 5
Hoe oud ben je? ___ Jaar
26 Appendix 2 Scenarios
Situatie 1: High stress - Likable
CarWorks. is een groot, internationaal bedrijf dat automaterialen produceert en levert. Robbert Meijer
is al vijf jaar werkzaam als hoofd van een afdeling bij CarWorks. De taken van zijn afdeling zijn het
verwerken van interne orders en het coördineren van de materialen voor verdere productie. De
verantwoordelijkheden en opdrachten van Meijer en zijn afdeling zijn erg belangrijk voor het
productieproces. De werklast van Meijer is erg hoog en hij heeft veel verantwoordelijkheid. Hij heeft
altijd te maken met veel stress. Hij staat continu onder veel druk om goed te presteren en moet steeds
zeer extreme deadlines halen.
Jan Romp is een van de ondergeschikten op de afdeling van Meijer. Hij is verantwoordelijk voor de
verwerking en coördinatie van de ladingen naar een van de belangrijkste productiefabrieken van
CarWorks. Alhoewel Romp over het algemeen prima functioneert, maakt hij toch soms zeer geringe
fouten in de coördinatie van enkele van deze complexe materialen. Romp is zeer sympathiek. Zijn
collega’s beschrijven hem als grappig, vrolijk; een interessant en goedgehumeurde man.
Situatie 2: High stress - dislikable
CarWorks. is een groot, internationaal bedrijf dat automaterialen produceert en levert. Robbert Meijer
is al vijf jaar werkzaam als hoofd van een afdeling bij CarWorks. De taken van zijn afdeling zijn het
verwerken van interne orders en het coördineren van de materialen voor verdere productie. De
verantwoordelijkheden en opdrachten van Meijer en zijn afdeling zijn erg belangrijk voor het
productieproces. De werklast van Meijer is erg hoog en hij heeft veel verantwoordelijkheid. Hij heeft
altijd te maken met veel stress. Hij staat continu onder veel druk om goed te presteren en moet steeds
27
Jan Romp is een van de medewerkers op de afdeling van Meijer. Hij is verantwoordelijk voor de
verwerking en coördinatie van de materialen naar een van de belangrijkste productiefabrieken van
CarWorks. Alhoewel Romp over het algemeen prima functioneert, maakt hij toch soms zeer geringe
fouten in de coördinatie van deze materialen. Romp is totaal niet sympathiek. Zijn collega’s
beschrijven hem als onaangenaam en lomp; een verwaande en onbeleefde man.
Situatie 3: Low stress - Likable
CarWorks is een groot, internationaal bedrijf dat automaterialen produceert en levert. Robbert Meijer
is al vijf jaar werkzaam als hoofd van een afdeling bij CarWorks. De taken van zijn afdeling zijn het
verwerken van orders en het coördineren van de materialen voor verdere productie. De
verantwoordelijkheden en opdrachten van Meijer en zijn afdeling zijn erg belangrijk voor het
productieproces. De werklast van Meijer is laag en hij heeft niet veel verantwoordelijkheid. Hij heeft
niet veel te maken met stress. Meijer staat niet onder veel druk om goed te presteren en heeft altijd
voldoende tijd om zijn werk uit te voeren.
Jan Romp is een van de ondergeschikten op de afdeling van Meijer. Hij is verantwoordelijk voor de
verwerking en coördinatie van de ladingen naar een van de belangrijkste productiefabrieken van
CarWorks. Alhoewel Romp over het algemeen prima functioneert, maakt hij toch soms zeer geringe
fouten in de coördinatie van enkele van deze complexe materialen. Romp is zeer sympathiek. Zijn
collega’s beschrijven hem als grappig, vrolijk; een interessant en goedgehumeurde man.
Situatieschets 4: Low stress - Dislikable
CarWorks is een groot, internationaal bedrijf dat automaterialen produceert en levert. Robbert Meijer
is al vijf jaar werkzaam als hoofd van een afdeling bij CarWorks. De taken van zijn afdeling zijn het
verwerken van orders en het coördineren van de materialen voor verdere productie. De
28
productieproces. De werklast van Meijer is laag en hij heeft niet veel verantwoordelijkheid. Hij heeft
niet veel te maken met stress. Meijer staat niet onder veel druk om goed te presteren en heeft altijd
voldoende tijd om zijn werk uit te voeren.
Jan Romp is een van de medewerkers op de afdeling van Meijer. Hij is verantwoordelijk voor de
verwerking en coördinatie van de materialen naar een van de belangrijkste productiefabrieken van
CarWorks. Alhoewel Romp over het algemeen prima functioneert, maakt hij toch soms zeer geringe
fouten in de coördinatie van deze materialen. Romp is totaal niet sympathiek. Zijn collega’s
29 Appendix 3 Conceptual model
This conceptual model has been used during the writing of this thesis. In the first hypothesis the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression has been examined. After that, the relationship between the likability of the subordinate and the supervisor aggression has been researched. At least, the moderated role of likability in the relationship between work stress and supervisor aggression was explored.
30 Appendix 4 Table 1
TABLE 1
Supervisor aggression means by experimental condition
31
REFERENCE LIST
Baron, R. A. 1988. "Negative Effects of Destructive Criticism: Impact on Conflict, Self-Efficacy, and Task Pcvioinvdncc." Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 199-207 Boden, J.M. 2009. Sex differences in the developmental antecedents of aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 32:269-270
Chen, P.Y. & Spector, P.E. 1992. Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 65:177-184
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations:
A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 86: 278-231 Duffy, M.K, Ganster, D.C. & Pagon, M. 2002. Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal. 45: 331-351
Fox, S. & Stallworth, L.E. 2009. Building a framework for two internal organizational
approaches to resolving and preventing workplace bullying: alternative dispute resolution and training. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 61: 220-241
Glomb, T.M. 2002. Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models with data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 7: 20-36
Greenbaum, R. 2009. An examination of an antecedent and consequences of supervisor morally questionable expediency. University of Cental Florida, 90p
Haddow, S.H. 2002. Facing the stress factor. Northern Ontario Business. 23: 17 Hershcovis, M.S. & Barling, L. 2010. Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of organizational behavior. 31: 24-44
Hoobler, J., & Brass, D. 2006. Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology. 91: 1125-1133.
Höge, T. & Büssing, A. 2004. The impact of Sense of Coherence and Negative Affectivity on the Work Stressor – Strain relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 9: 195-205
32 Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P. & Millet, C. 2005. The
experience of work-related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 20: 178-187
Kinman, G. & Jones, F. 2005. Lay representations of workplace stress: What do people really mean when they say they are stressed? Work & Stress. 19: 101-120
Klein, C., Diagrandos, D., Salas, E., Huy, L., Burke, C.S., Lyons, R. & Goodwin, G. 2009. Does team-building work? Small group research. 40: 181-222
Kolvereid, L. 1982. Stress: Organizational consequences and occupational differences. International Studies of Management & Organization. 12: 14-32
Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer Leck, J. & Galperin, B.L. 2006. Workplace Violence and Young Workers. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities & Nations. 5: 49-57
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M.L. 2007. Abusive supervision and Workplace Deviance and the Moderating Effects of Negative Reprocity Beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1159-1168
Mitchell, T. R., & Liden, R. C. 1982. The effects of social context on
performance evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29: 241–256.
Pappu, R., Quester, P. & Cooksey, R.W. 2005. Consumer-brand equity: improving the measurement – empirical evidence. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 14: 142-154 Perrewe, P.L, Fernandez, D.R. & Morton, K.S. 1993. An experimental examination of implicit stress theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 677-686
Rubin, Z. 1973. Liking and loving: An invitation to social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
Scott, B. A. & Judge, T.A. 2009. The popularity contest at work: who wins, why and what do they receive? Journal of Applied Psychology. 94: 20-33
Sperry, L. 2009. Workplace mobbing and bullying: a consulting psychology perspective and overview. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 61: 165-168
Spector, P.E. 1975. Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employees. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60: 635-637
33 Spector, P.E. & Fox, S. 2005. The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work
behavior. Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. 151-174. Tepper, B.J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal. 43: 178-190
Tepper, B.J. 2007. Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations: Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. Journal of Management. 33: 261
Tuckey, M.R., Dollard, M.F., Hosking, P.J. & Winefeld, A.H. 2009. Workplace Bullying: The Role of Psychosocial Work Environment Factors. Ínternational Journal of Stress Management. 16: 215-232
Wang, F., Hongxia, Z., Hengjia, Z. & Ouyang, M. 2005. Purchasing pirated software: an initial examination of Chinese consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 22: 340-351 Woodman, R.W. & Sherwood, J.J. 1980. The Effects of Team Development Intervention: A Field Experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 16: 211-227
