ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL?
THE MODERATING INFLUENCE OF TEAM IDENTIFICATION ON
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBSERVED ABUSIVE
SUPERVISION AND HELPING BEHAVIOR IN TEAMS
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 12, 2014
2
ABSTRACT
This research examines the relationship between observed abusive supervision, team identification and helping behavior. The leading research question is: To what extent does
observed abusive supervision stimulate helping behavior in teams and how is this relationship influenced by team identification? First, I state that a team member’s perceptions of abusive
supervision toward teammates influence this member’s helping behavior toward teammates. Second, I hypothesize that team identification has an immediate positive relationship with helping behavior. And finally, I hypothesize that a team member’s identification with the team moderates the relationship between observed abusive supervision and helping behavior. This relationship will be more strongly positive under conditions of higher rather than lower team identification. Results showed, however, that the hypotheses were not supported. This research contributes to the body of work examining abusive supervision, because there is a lack of empirical research on the potentially positive outcomes of abusive supervision in general and
observed abusive supervision in particular. More specifically, the outcomes of this research
may provide insights on how subordinates react when perceiving abusive supervision towards fellow team members.
Keywords: Observed abusive supervision, team identification, helping behavior, social
3
INTRODUCTION
For more than a decade, researchers have studied the negative effects of abusive supervision on subordinates, such as psychological distress, negative work attitudes, subordinates’ counterproductive work behavior, and aggression towards a victim’s supervisor, employer and family (Tepper, 2007; Hershcovis & Barling, 2010). Tepper (2000: 178) defines abusive supervision as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact.” Behavior associated with abusive supervision is exemplified by yelling, lying, breaking promises, and publicly denigrating and blaming subordinates for the leaders’ mistakes (Tepper, 2007).
4 Importantly, however, social identity theory further suggests that perceived external threat to the team (such as observed abusive supervision) should only trigger positive behaviors toward team members (such as helping behavior) if a team member identifies with the team to a relatively great extent (Nadler, Harpaz-Gorodeisky, & Ben-David, 2009). Team identification can be defined as part of an individual’s self-concept in which he/she acknowledges and values being part of the team and shares norms and behavior codes with teammates that develop into a sense of cohesion and interdependency (Solansky, 2010). Members who strongly identify with their team perceive a sense of oneness with the team and experience the successes and failures of the team as their own successes and failures (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Foote, 1951; Tolman, 1943). I anticipate that team identification will moderate the relation between observed abusive supervision and helping behavior because helping an abused teammate brings certain risks to the help-giver (e.g., supervisor retaliation; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002; Kim, Smith & Brigham, 1998). Thus, there has to be a certain degree of bonding between the help-giver and the abused teammate for the help-giver to engage in helping behavior, despite these risks.
5 *** Figure 1. Conceptual Model ***
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Observed Abusive Supervision and Helping BehaviorI propose, first of all, that a team member’s observation of abusive supervision toward teammates may influence this member’s helping behavior toward other members of the team. Importantly, however, it is hard to predict whether this influence will be positive or negative, as there are competing theoretical perspectives in this regard. On the one hand, a social identity perspective on intergroup relations suggests that threats toward one’s in-group are experienced as threats to one’s own personal identity and, thus, induce protective responses – such as helping behavior toward other members of the in-group (Nadler, Harpaz-Gorodeisky, & Ben-David, 2009; Miller, Maner & Vaugn Becker, 2010). So, one could expect that when a team member observes a fellow teammate being abused, this member will try to help the victim to cope with this aversive experience. This means that when team members perceive that their leader directs abusive behavior toward other team members, they might display helping behaviors in order to protect the abused team member against the common threat (i.e., the abusive leader).
6 fear retaliation from an abusive supervisor may, then, believe solidary activities (e.g. helping behavior) toward the abused teammate will likely provoke further acts of aggression against themselves, particularly when the harm-doer has greater power (Sears, 1948). Furthermore, subordinates who depend on their supervisor for valued resources (e.g., promotions, feedback, raises, and continued employment), may be negatively affected by engaging in helping behavior. Therefore it will be less likely that an abused teammate receives help from the observer.
To summarize, distinct theoretical perspectives suggest that observed abusive supervision might either strengthen or diminish helping behavior. To disentangle these conflicting predictions, I will introduce a moderating variable in this linkage (i.e., a member’s identification with the team as a whole).
Team Identification and Helping Behavior
Before turning toward the moderating role of team identification, I will first highlight the potential main effect of this variable on helping behavior. According to social identity theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) individuals strive toward a positive self-image, which is not only based on their personal identity, but also on their social identity, which derives from social groups they are a member of. As a result, their group and their evaluation of that group becomes important for their self-image. Accordingly, Blader & Tyler (2009) state that identification encourages a sense of belonging, pride, and respect, which boosts compliance with team norms and stimulates employees’ need to seek acceptance by behaving in a way that is beneficial for the team. Therefore, I expect that greater team identification will positively influence helping behavior in teams.
7 Bommer (1996). The first principle suggests that a highly identified individual perceives him- or herself as psychologically intertwined with the fate of the group. Due to these feelings, it is more likely that close emotional ties and higher trust appear in high identity teams than in less cohesive groups. This would encourage members to give more assistance. Consequently, there are stronger feelings of attraction toward fellow team members which may stimulate team members’ willingness to help one another. This deeper sense of group identity may evoke a greater willingness to help team members.
The second principle adds to this by stating that a highly identified individual is personally experiencing the successes and failures of the group as his or her own successes and failures (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). This may also encourage the individual to take the team’s perspective and goals as his or her own. Furthermore, it means that the other members of the team play a substantial role in an individual’s definition of the self. Helping those others out through acts of citizenship thus makes sense as it is effectively contributing to helping oneself (Van Knippenberg, Van Dick, & Tavares 2007). Besides, there is a more intense desire to be a group member and therefore a greater need to demonstrate loyalty to fellow team members. These arguments lead to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: A member’s identification with the team is positively related with this
member’s helping behavior towards fellow teammates.
The Moderating Role of Team Identification
8 individual personally perceives an abused teammate as an in-group member (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Thus, I pose that observed abusive supervision only triggers helping behavior if the focal team member strongly identifies with his or her team. For that reason, I will explore the moderating influence of team identification on the relationship between observed abusive supervision and helping behavior.
As noted before, social identity theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) states that members of teams with high identification (a) perceive the team’s fate as their own, (b) personally experience the team’s successes and failures as their own, and (c) define themselves in terms of the team they work in. Moreover, high identity team members, tend to have a biased manner in which they perceive others. These biases reflect overly positive appraisals of in-group members and unjustly negative appraisals of those in out-groups. Researchers have found strong evidence of these biases (Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001; Branscombe & Wann, 1994), commonly referred to as in-group favoritism and out-group
derogation, respectively. According to social identity theory, (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979), both in-group favoritism and out-group derogation can help individuals to maintain a positive social identity. Members are particularly likely to engage in these identity-maintenance strategies when (a) they feel a strong identification with the group and (b) their identity has been threatened in some way. Consequently, this means that when team identification is high, fellow team members will be seen as in-group members, rather than
out-group members. Conversely, when team identification is low, team members will perceive the
other team members as out-group members, rather than in-group members since they feel no commitment to the team or its components.
In-group team members are generally supported when threatened (e.g., by an abusive
9 After all, they may have inferred that people who are alike have the same characteristics, or are involved in situations that increase the likelihood of accidents.
Furthermore, because high identified team members perceive the successes and failures of the team as their own successes and failures, it is beneficial that the team’s performance is optimized. When team members are being abused by their supervisor, this may negatively influence the team’s performance (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006; Tepper, 2007; Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011). So not only for the team, but also for the sake of team members as individuals, it is best when none of the team members are being victimized by an abusive supervisor. Therefore I claim that members of groups in which team identification is high, will be more likely to accept the entailed risks and efforts and try to help their abused team members.
With low team identification, victims of abusive supervision are less likely to be regarded as in-group members and more likely to be regarded as out-group members and, thus, they are less likely to receive help from other team members. This has multiple reasons. First, when team identification is low, team members feel that only their own performance is important, rather than the collective performance (i.e., team members are not interested in successes or failures of other team members). Since giving help to an abused team mate can be dangerous and effortful, it is less likely for team members to engage in helping an abused team member when they perceive him/her as an out-group member. Presumably they will not take the risk of being abused by the supervisor themselves for granted and their willingness to help the victim will decrease.
10 attributions (e.g., “it is their own fault”) toward them. Consequently, when being abused,
out-group members are less likely to receive help.
Hypothesis 2: A member’s identification with the team moderates the relationship
between observed abusive supervision toward teammates and team member’s helping behavior towards his or her teammates. This relationship will be positive only under conditions of relatively high team identification.
METHODOLOGY
Sample and ProcedureData for this study came from 31 individuals who work in teams in different organizations in the Netherlands. The participants derived from different sectors, e.g. army, education, technology and healthcare (response rate: 93%). 17 out of 31 participants (54.8%) were male and 14 (45.2%) were female. The mean age was 30.1 years (SD = 9.6) and ranged from 18 to 58 years. More specifically, 20 employees (64.5%) were 30 years or younger, 7 employees (22.6%) were between 31 and 45 years, and 3 employees (9.7%) were 46 or older. The average participant held a higher vocational education. More specifically, 3 (9.7%) participants had a secondary school degree, 9 (29.0%) held a lower vocational education, 12 (38.7%) held a higher vocational education and 7 (22.6%) participants had a university degree.
11 Measurement instruments
Observed Abusive Supervision. A reformulated version of the fifteen abusive supervision items
of Tepper (2000) was used to measure the observed abusive behavior of a respondent’s supervisor towards other team members. The participants used a five-point response scale from 1 “I cannot remember him/her ever using this behavior towards other team members,” to 5 “He/she uses this behavior very often towards other team members,” to report the frequency with which their supervisor used abusive behaviors. The items were prefaced with the statement: “My boss…” A referent shift was used to measure observed abusive behavior towards a respondent’s team members, instead of the respondent him-/herself. The list of items can be found in the appendix, some examples of items were: “Ridicules other team member(s),” “Tells other team member(s) his/her thoughts or feelings are stupid,” “Puts other team member(s) down in front of others,” Cronbach’s α was .84.
Team identification. Team identification was measured using four items from a study of
12 team identification on a five point Likert-scale ranging from 1 ‘totally disagree’ to 5 ‘fully agree’.
Helping behavior. The respondents assessed their own helping behavior by using four
items from MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter’s (1991) helping scale, which was developed and validated with data from individuals working in a wide variety of organizational settings. The items were “I am always ready to help or to lend a helping hand to those around me,” “I am willing to give of my time to help others who have work related problems,” “I help other team members with heavy workloads,” and “I help others who have been absent”. Cronbach’s α for these four items was .84. Participants were requested to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the statements by responding to them on a five point Likert-scale ranging from 1 ‘totally disagree’ to 5 ‘fully agree’.
Control variables. Finally, I controlled for two variables in order to reduce the
possibility of unmeasured influences biasing my results. First, gender was used as a control variable because it can influence the degree of helping behavior (Eagly & Crowley, 1986). Second, age will be used as a control variable because it is positively related to helping behavior (Midlarsky & Hannah, 1989).
Data analysis
13
RESULTS
Descriptives and correlations
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all study variables. Notably, observed abusive supervision was not significantly related to helping behavior (r = -.01, p = n.s.). Furthermore, the assumed positive influence of team identification and helping behavior was not significantly correlated. Given that the control variables were not significantly related with the dependent variable, I followed Becker’s (2005) recommendations and omitted the control variables from hypotheses testing.
*** Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations ***
Results of the moderated hierarchical regression analysis are depicted in Table 2. As shown in the second step of the regression analysis, there was an insignificant relationship between observed abusive supervision and helping behavior after taking into account the effects of the control variables (ß = .02, p = n.s.). Similarly, step 2 of the regression analysis showed that team identification has no significant effect on helping behavior (ß = .10, p = n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was rejected. Finally, the third step of the regression analyses tested Hypothesis 2 by inserting the interaction term of observed abusive supervision and team identification. As Table 2 shows, this interaction term was not significantly related to helping behavior (ß = -.32,
p = n.s.), so Hypothesis 2 is rejected as well.
14
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to examine the potential role of observed abusive supervision rather than abusive supervision that is directed towards an employee him- or herself on helping behavior. Although I did not anticipate a direct relationship between observed abusive supervision and helping behavior, I expected (a) a positive relationship between team identification and helping behavior (Hypotheses 1), and (b) a moderating effect of team identification on the relationship between observed abusive supervision and helping behavior (Hypothesis 2). However, my results suggest that both hypotheses are not supported. In this section, different possible explanations will be provided in order to better understand these results.
First, as I mentioned in the introduction, most prior research on abusive supervision focuses on the negative consequences of abusive supervision. For example, Keashly, Trott, & MacLean (1994) found that abusive supervision is associated with follower’s dissatisfaction and elevated levels of psychological distress (see also Richman, Flaherty, Rospenda, & Christensen, 1992; Tepper, 2000; 2007). But, more important, previous research also found that abusive supervision has a negative impact on the relationships coworkers have with each other. For example, employees who are confronted with an abusive supervisor engage in less organizational citizenship behaviors toward their coworkers (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007) and display more negative behavior toward coworkers of their work group (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Thus, having an abusive supervisor may have a negative influence on the relationship between team members, causing to decrease their willingness to help each other.
15 personality of both help giver and receiver are related to helping behavior. Measuring and controlling for these variables would have provided a more rigid test of my hypotheses.
Third and finally, the sample size in this study was relatively small. I obtained data from only 31 followers, which might be too small to draw confident conclusions. Therefore, the results might be insignificant, and it is necessary to treat the results with caution. Future research could achieve higher generalizability by collecting data from a larger sample.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
This study was conducted by using a survey where responses of employees, working in a variety of organizations in different industries in The Netherlands were assessed. Due to the diversity in organizations of respondents, generalizability of the findings is increased. Nevertheless, this study contains a number limitations that call for attention in interpreting the results. First, as noted before, the relatively small sample size deserves mentioning, as it may limit the generalizability of the study. Also the lack of important controls can be seen as a limitation to this study.
16 influence the outcomes of the study is Power Distance. Hofstede defines Power Distance as “the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations accept and expect that power is distributed unequally”. It can be argued that when Power Distance is high, abusive supervision will more likely be accepted and less likely to be perceived as being abusive behavior. According to Hofstede (1980), the Netherlands scores relatively low on Power Distance where other European countries like Belgium, Poland, and Italy score medium and other countries like USA, Russia and China score relatively high in this matter. The same goes for Individualism/Collectivism, on which Netherlands scores relatively high, but especially Eastern European countries like Croatia, Romania, and Slovenia score rather low. Therefore, to increase generalizability in the future, data should be obtained from different geographical locations with diverse scores on cultural dimensions.
Third, I note that the data from only one employee per team has been obtained. For better generalizability, data from more team members should be gathered.
17 respondents tend to present themselves in a favorable light, regardless of their true feelings about an issue or topic.
A final limitation of this study concerns the low levels of observed abusive supervision reported in my sample (mean = 1.44). However, as stated by Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska (2007), this finding is in line with previous research on abusive supervision (e.g., Tepper et al. 2004; Tepper, 2000). Moreover, as I was unable to reveal a significant interaction effect between observed abusive supervision and helping behavior, these low levels of observed abusive supervision might have been of concern for the data analysis.
Besides addressing these limitations, several other directions for future research arise from this study. Since observed abusive supervision is new in the body of abusive supervision research, future studies should further focus on potential implications of observed abusive supervision. Future research could determine which influence the observation of abusive supervision has on individuals and on groups. For instance, it could be interesting to research the consequences of observed abusive supervision on the observer’s performance, on the observer’s relation with the supervisor and on his or her relation with the abused team member.
18 Practical Implications
The present research suggests that observed abusive supervision and team identification are not related to helping behavior. This means that team members who observe fellow team members being abused by the supervisor, are not more willing to help the victims of abusive supervision. This effect might give abusive supervisors a free pass to maintain abusive since victims and observers will be less likely to report the behavior or speak up for themselves. In that way, no efforts are being made to create an environment in which supervisors do not act abusively. The current study did not found any of the following, however, it has been proven by many studies (Tepper, 2007; Hershcovis & Barling, 2010) that abusive supervision in organizations is highly destructive (e.g. for employee well-being). Therefore, organizations should try to prevent the existence of abusive supervision by creating a culture that does not permit abusive supervision, by implementing zero-tolerance policies, and by training employees how to respond in an appropriate way to abusive supervision (Innes, LeBlanc, & Barling, 2008).
Conclusion
19
REFERENCES
Aryee, S., Chen, Z.X., Sun, L.Y., & Debrah, Y.A. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1): 191 – 201.
Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20 – 39.
Barnes, C. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wagner, D. T., DeRue, S. S., Nahrgang, J. D., & Schwind, K. M. 2008. Harmful help: the costs of backing-up behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 529 – 539.
Becker, T.E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: a qualitative analysis with recommendation. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3): 274 – 289.
Bergami, M., & Baggozzi, R.P. 2000. Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4): 555 – 577.
Blader, S.L. & Tyler, T.R. 2009. Testing and extending the group engagement model: linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 445 – 464.
Branscombe, N.R., & Wann, D.L. 1994. Collective self-esteem consequences of out-group derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24: 641 – 657.
20 Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, O., & Sears, R. 1939. Frustration and aggression.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dukerich, J.M., Golden, B.R., & Shortell, S.M. 2002. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47:507 – 533.
Eagly, A.H., & Crowley, M. 1986. Gender and helping behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100: 283 – 308.
Ehrhart, M.G., & Naumann, S.E. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 960 – 974.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. 1999. Social identity: Context, Commitment, Content. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Fiske, D.W., 1982. Convergent-discriminant validation in measurements and research strategies. Forms of validity in research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Foote, N.N. 1951. Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 16: 14 – 21.
Harris, K.J., Kacmar, K.M., & Zivnuska, S. 2007. An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 252 – 263.
Hershcovis, M.S., & Barling, J. 2010. Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5): 587 – 888.
Hofstede, G.H. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills/London/New Delhi, Sage.
21 Inness, M., LeBlanc, M.M., & Barling, J. Psychological predictors of supervisor-, peer-, and service provider-targeted aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6): 1401 – 1411.
Keashly, L., Trott, V., MacLean, L.M. 1994. Abusive behavior in the workplace: a preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9: 341 – 357.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Fetter, R. 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123 – 150.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., & Zaccaro, S.J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356 – 376. Merecz, D., Drabek, M., & Mościcka, A. 2009. International Journal of Occupational
Medicine and Environmental Health, 22(3): 243 – 260.
Midlarsky, E. & Hannah, M.E. 1989. The generous elderly: naturalistic studies of donations across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 4(3): 346 – 351.
Miller, S.L., Maner, J.K, & Vaughn Becker, D. 2010. Self-protective biases in group categorization: threat cues shape the psychological boundary between “us” and “them”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1): 62 – 77.
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.
22 Nadler, A., Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G., & Ben-David, Y. 2009. Defensive Helping: threat to group identity, ingroup identification, status stability, and common group identity as determinants of intergroup help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5): 823 – 834.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.M., & Bommer, W.H., 1996. Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2): 259 – 298.
Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S.B. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2): 262 – 270.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.M., Lee, J. & Podsakoff, N.P. 2003. Common method variance in behavioral research a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879 – 903.
Porter, C.O.L.H., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., Ellis, A.P.J., West, B.J., & Moon, H. 2003. Backing up behavior in teams: The role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 391 – 403.
Richman, J., Flaherty, J., Rospenda, K, & Christensen, M. 1992. Mental health consequences and correlates of medical student abuse. Journal of the American Medical Association, 276: 692 – 694.
Solansky, S.T., 2010. Team identification: a determining factor of performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(3): 247 – 258.
23 Stapel, D.A., Reicher, S.D., & Spears, R. 1994. Social identity, availability and the perception
of risk. Social cognition, 12: 1 – 7.
Stouten, J., & Tripp, T.M. 2009. Claiming more than equality: should leaders ask for forgiveness? The Leadership Quarterly, 20: 287 – 298.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. 1986. The social of identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Nelson, Chicago.
Tepper, B.J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2): 178 – 190.
Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Henle, C.A., & Shurer Lambert, L. 2006. Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel psychology, 59: 101 – 123. Tepper, B.J., Moss, S.E., Lockhart, D.E., & Carr, J.C. 2007. Abusive supervision, upward
maintenance communication, and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1169 – 1180.
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(2): 279 – 294.
Tolman, E.C. 1943. Identification and the post-war world. Psychological Review, 38: 141 – 148.
24 Van Knippenberg, D., Van Dick, R. & Tavares, S. 2007. Social identity and social exchange: Identification, support and withdrawal from the job. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37: 457 – 477.
Wann, D.L., Melnick, M.J., Russell, G.W., & Pease, D.G. 2001. Sport fans: the psychology and
social impact of spectators. New York: Routledge.
25 TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variables M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. AGE 30.07 9.57 -
2. GENDER 1.45 .51 .14 -
3. OBS. ABUSIVE SUPERVISION 1.45 .39 .18 .00 - 4. HELPING BEHAVIOR 3.74 .93 .19 -.15 -.01 - 5. TEAM IDENTIFICATION 4.00 .70 .31 -.03 -.21 .18 -
Note. N = 31.
26 TABLE 2
Moderated Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Variables Entered Helping Behavior
Step 1 Age Gender R2 .18 -.01 .03 Step 2 Age Gender
Observed Abusive Supervision Team Identification ΔR2 R2 .13 .01 .02 .10 .02 .05 Step 3 Age Gender
Observed Abusive Supervision Team Identification
Observed Abusive Supervision * Team Identification ΔR2 R2 .08 .02 -.11 .16 -.32 .08 .13
27 FIGURE 1
Conceptual Model
Observed abusive
supervision Helping behavior
