ANTECEDENTS OF SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION:
THE ROLES OF SUBORDINATE PERFORMANCE, OUTCOME DEPENDENCE, AND SUBORDINATE LIKABILITY
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
April 19, 2011
ANTECEDENTS OF SUPERVISOR AGGRESSION:
THE ROLES OF SUBORDINATE PERFORMANCE, OUTCOME DEPENDENCE, AND SUBORDINATE LIKABILITY
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
In the past 20 years researchers have increasingly been studying aggressive behaviors that leaders display toward their subordinates. Several different labels have been used to describe these kinds of behavior, including abusive supervision (Tepper, 2007), petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1997), workplace victimization (Aquino, 2000), and supervisor undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). Supervisor aggressive behavior includes physical non-sexual aggressive behaviors enacted by supervisors upon subordinates including, but not limited to, behaviors such as yelling at, ridiculing, and humiliating subordinates.
A substantial number of organizations and their members are affected by abusive supervision, with between 10% and 16% of American workers experiencing abusive supervision on a regular basis (Namie & Namie, 2000). Past research has shown a staggering array of negative subordinate outcomes to be associated with supervisory abuse, such as increased depression and anxiety, job and posttraumatic stress, emotional exhaustion, diminished emotional well-being, lower levels of job and life satisfaction, perceived injustice, and turnover (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Tepper, 2000). But despite these serious consequences, our understanding of the causes of these types of harmful behavior is still fairly limited.
of aggression, factors other than aggressor characteristics should be considered (Aquino et al., 1999).
Since subordinate behavior is an important determinant of a leader’s behavior (Butterfield, Trevino, & Ball, 1996; Farris & Lim, 1969; Green & Mitchell, 1979; Greene, 1975; Herold, 1977), more recent abusive supervision research has focused on finding antecedents that are associated with subordinate traits and characteristics. Most results in this area come from workplace victimization research. Several predictors have been suggested, including victims’ own aggressiveness (Aquino & Bradfield, 2000), conflict management style (Aquino, 2000), organizational citizenship (Aquino & Bommer, 2003), self-determination (Aquino et al., 1999), and several personality factors from the Big 5 (i.e. extraversion, conscientiousness, and emotional stability) (Aquino & Thau, 2009). Furthermore, the victim’s propensity to experience negative affect (trait NA) – which includes emotions such as anger, fear, worry, anxiousness, sadness, and depression – has shown a relatively consistent relationship to victimization (Aquino et al., 1999; Aquino & Thau, 2009). Nevertheless, I suggest that this is only the tip of the iceberg concerning the subordinate-centered approach to explaining supervisor aggressive behavior. There are two areas, in particular, that have been largely neglected in the abusive supervision literature to date. Firstly, while many studies have been attentive to subordinate traits and characteristics, actual subordinate behavior has as yet remained virtually uncharted (a few exceptions in: Aquino & Thau, 2009). And secondly, as was noted by Venkataramani and Dalal (2007), there has been very little investigation into the impact of relationship quality (e.g., liking) and context on harming behaviors.
1979; Podsakoff, 1982; Sims & Manz, 1984), which warrants a deeper investigation into the relationship between performance and supervisor aggression. In the past, subordinate performance levels have been found to influence, for example, leaders’ supportive-consideration vs. punitive-performance emphases, autocratic leader behaviors (Barrow, 1976), closeness of supervision, leader consideration and leader initiating structure (Greene, 1975; Ilgen et al., 1981; Lowin & Craig, 1968), and a leader’s use of positive and negative reinforcers (Podsakoff, 1982) and rewards and penalties (McFillen & New, 1979). In all of these examples, leaders behaved more negatively toward low performers and more positively toward high performers. In accordance with this, I expect that leaders will direct less aggression to high performers than to low performers.
But supervisor aggression cannot be explained without taking into account the work context in which these aggressive behaviors are displayed (Douglas, Kiewitz, Martinko, Harvey, Kim, & Chun, 2008). An important component of this work context that can influence the relationship between performance and supervisors’ aggressive behavior, is supervisors’ dependence on subordinates for the attainment of their own goals (goal/outcome dependence) (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004; Ilgen et al., 1981). This outcome dependence, or “the extent to which supervisory rewards are contingent upon subordinate performance” (Moss & Martinko, 1998: 262), ensures that supervisors have a stake in their subordinates’ performance (Larson, 1986). Supervisors’ outcome dependence may therefore enhance the salience of subordinate performance levels, and influence supervisors’ consequent behavior. Thus, I anticipate that a supervisor’s outcome dependence with regard to a specific subordinate will moderate the relation between subordinate performance and supervisor aggression.
(Lefkowitz, 2000; Schraeder & Simpson, 2006; Varma & Pichler, 2007; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), and punishments (Dobbins & Russell, 1986). Essentially, liked subordinates have been shown to evoke more positive, less negative behavior from leaders than disliked subordinates. I consequently cast subordinate likability as an additional moderator that will influence the joint role of subordinate performance and outcome dependence for supervisor aggression.
All in all, I propose a three-way interaction as depicted in Figure 1, in which performance, outcome dependence, and likability interact to jointly influence supervisor aggression. This conceptual model will be tested by ways of a scenario-based experiment. The purpose of this study is to increase our understanding of supervisors’ aggressive behavior. I will add to, and build on, previous studies that have used a subordinate-centered approach to explaining supervisor aggressive behavior (e.g., Aquino & Lamertz, 2004; Aquino & Thau, 2009). Specifically, current study uniquely contributes to this research field by examining several antecedents to add the roles of (a) subordinate behavior (performance), (b) work context (outcome dependence), and (c) relationship quality (subordinate likability), in shaping supervisor aggression.
--- Insert Figure 1 about here ---
HYPOTHESES Performance and supervisor aggression
2009). Poor performing subordinates can provide both this threatening stimulus, as well as a source of frustration and discomfort for their supervisor when they interfere with supervisors’ goal attainment (Salin, 2003; Spector, 1978). These goals can include physical objects (e.g. rewards), or symbolic, social entities such as status or praise (Spector, 1978). Perceived loss of face, for example, can provoke strong expressions of anger (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Supervisors may even feel a desire to go beyond a mere expression of anger, and aggress to take revenge or retaliate against the source of frustration (Spector, 1978) as a form of negative reciprocity for harming their outcomes (Aquino & Bommer, 2003; Andersson & Pearson, 1999).
behavior (e.g. poor subordinate performance) (Butterfield et al., 1996). As was previously touched upon, the level at which a subordinate performs has a clear impact on a leader’s punitive behavior (Barrow, 1976; McFillen & New, 1979; Podsakoff, 1982). As one would suppose, low performing subordinates are punished more frequently and more severely than subordinates who display a higher level of performance (e.g., Barrow, 1976; McFillen & New, 1979; Podsakoff, 1982; Trahan & Steiner, 1994). A similar relationship is described by Cuddy, Fiske and Glick (2007), who found that groups that are perceived as incompetent elicit more (passive) harm (e.g., neglecting, ignoring, excluding) than those that are viewed as competent.
Consistent with this argumentation, I expect that supervisors will behave less aggressively toward high performing subordinates than toward those who perform poorly. I propose a negative relationship between the level of subordinate performance and supervisor aggression.
H1: Subordinates will be subjected to less supervisor aggression when they perform at a high level, relative to performing at a low level.
Outcome dependence, performance and supervisor aggression
rather than low, outcome dependence, influencing leaders’ consequent behavior. Research into leader feedback behavior has, for example, supported this by showing that supervisors who are not dependent on their subordinates’ performance provide their subordinates with less feedback than dependent supervisors (Larson, 1986).
More specifically, if supervisors’ outcome dependence is low, their behavior should not be strongly influenced by the level of subordinate performance. Under conditions of low outcome dependence, poor performing subordinates will not interfere with a supervisor’s goal attainment, because the supervisor is not dependent on subordinate performance for his/her goals (i.e. rewards) (Spector, 1978). Instead, supervisors are principally influencing their own rewards, with their own performance (Turban et al., 1990). Subordinates’ poor performance will therefore not be a source of frustration and discomfort for their supervisor, and subsequent angry reactions, retaliation and/or revenge are not likely to be provoked by subordinate performance levels in this condition (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Ramirez, 2009; Spector, 1978). Neither will supervisors feel they need to improve subordinate performance in order to secure their outcomes. This means that aggression is not likely to be used to send a message, provide feedback, or administer punishment (Butterfield et al., 1996; Larson, 1986; Tepper, 2007). High performing subordinates in the low outcome dependence condition will, on the other hand, not contribute to the supervisor’s rewards and may even be seen as rivals, possibly posing a threat to the supervisor’s own career (Salin, 2003). The “perceived consequences” (O’Leary-Kelly & Newman, 2003: 622) of aggressing against high performers will also be considerably lower than under conditions of high outcome dependence, because subordinate performance does not influence the supervisor’s rewards (O’Leary-Kelly & Newman, 2003; Salin, 2003).
goals are supported by high subordinate performance and harmed by low performance. High performers are now instrumental to supervisors’ goal attainment (Aquino & Lamertz, 2004), and the “costs of bullying” (Salin, 2003: 1220) them will be perceived as much higher than with low outcome dependence. After all, supervisors will plausibly thwart their own interests by aggressing against these subordinates. Poor performers, on the other hand, are now interfering with the supervisor’s goal attainment, and as such, are a source of frustration (Spector, 1978). This frustration in turn may induce (interpersonal) aggression (Ramirez, 2009; Spector, 1978), e.g. as a form of retaliation for harming their outcomes (Aquino & Bommer, 2003), or even as revenge to express perceived loss of face, and anger (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). The desire to restore their outcomes can also lead supervisors to use instrumental aggression in an attempt to bring about improvements in subordinate performance, e.g. through feedback, punishment, or by simply sending the message that mistakes will not be tolerated (Butterfield et al., 1996; Larson, 1986; Tepper, 2007).
Hence, where outcome dependence is low, the effects of subordinate performance levels on supervisors’ aggressive behavior should be minimal. Conversely, supervisors who are highly dependent on their subordinates’ performance should aggress less against those subordinates who contribute to their goals (high performers), than against those who hurt their goals (low performers). Taken together, outcome dependence is likely to influence the role of subordinate performance for supervisor aggression, increasing the influence of subordinate performance under conditions of high dependence, while minimizing its influence under low dependence.
As indicated earlier, I generally do not expect high subordinate performance to evoke high levels of supervisor aggression. With likable subordinates, however, even low performance may not be a source of supervisor frustration, largely irrespective of the supervisor’s degree of outcome dependence on the respective subordinates. In other words, I anticipate that the interactive effect of outcome dependence and subordinate performance on supervisor aggression will only be present under conditions of low subordinate likability. In the performance appraisal literature, there is much evidence to suggest that the degree to which a supervisor values a subordinate’s performance is related to his/her liking of the subordinate (Cardy & Dobbins, 1986; Dobbins & Russell, 1986; Schraeder & Simpson, 2006; Varma & Pichler, 2007; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). This occurs because liking has an impact on supervisors’ use of information and subsequent objectivity, suggesting that supervisors may be more likely to discipline disliked subordinates than liked subordinates, especially in ambiguous situations (i.e., when evidence is weak) (Fandt, Labig, & Urich, 1990). Hence, the way a supervisor perceives and judges a subordinate’s performance will inevitably be colored by his/her liking for that subordinate, and influence the supervisor’s ensuing actions (Cardy & Dobbins, 1986; Dobbins & Russell, 1986; Fandt et al., 1990; Turban et al., 1990).
poor performers (Dobbins & Russell, 1986). In short, disliked employees are treated more negatively by their supervisors than their likable colleagues. This also manifests itself in supervisors’ increased willingness to actively harm, or harass, dislikable employees, rather than likable employees (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999; Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007).
All in all, this theory and evidence suggest that likable subordinates are an unlikely target of supervisor aggression, and I propose that the role of likability will be strong enough to override the interactive relationship between subordinate performance and outcome dependence, on the one hand, with supervisor aggression, on the other, under conditions of high likability. Independent of the level of a subordinate’s performance and how dependent a supervisor is on this performance, I do not expect highly likable subordinates to suffer from supervisor aggression to a large degree. Dislikable subordinates, however, may be a more viable target for supervisor aggression. As outlined before, I put forward that supervisors are particularly likely to aggress against these dislikable subordinates when they display inferior performance and supervisors are dependent on such performance for the attainment of their own goals. I therefore propose the following three-way interactive relationship.
H3: Likability moderates the joint influence of outcome dependence and subordinate performance on supervisor aggression. Subordinate performance is only negatively related with supervisor aggression under conditions of high outcome dependence and low likability.
METHODS Participants and procedures
excluded because of missing data, and one because of inadequate English reading ability (self-reported). The participant group included 117 Bachelor students in their second or third year, and 67 Master students. The mean age of the respondents was 22.2 years (SD = 2.5). Fifty percent of the respondents were female. Eighty-eight percent had the Dutch nationality.
Data were gathered on three separate occasions over a three week period. The first two occasions were after a second and a third year exam, the third was in class in a Master-level course. Students were asked to read a short scenario and fill out a corresponding survey. Participants were told that participation was voluntary and was part of thesis research. They were asked to directly return their completed surveys to the researcher. Participants were ensured that their answers would be treated confidentially and used for research purposes only. Both the scenario and the questionnaire were presented in English.
The participants read one of eight possible scenario conditions (ns ranged from 21 to 24 per condition) to which they were randomly assigned. The scenario described a hypothetical situation in which the participant has management responsibilities and interacts with a subordinate. All read a description stating the following: (1) Imagine that you are the team leader of a market research team at Intergoods Inc. (2) Intergoods is a large corporation in the consumer goods industry. (3) It is your job to manage and coordinate research projects for the non-food division of the organization. (4) Under your supervision is a research team that consists of five members. (5) One of your direct reports is Paul Visser. (6) For your most recent project, a sample of at least 150 people needs to be contacted and interviewed on their likes and preferences regarding a new product. (7) You assigned this important task to Paul. (8) You need this information to be gathered by the end of the week.
was likable or dislikable. After reading the scenario, the questionnaire assessed the participants’ likelihood of engaging in aggressive behaviors toward Paul Visser.
Manipulations
Performance (low versus high) manipulation. Participants in the low performance condition read that: “On the day of the deadline you find out that Paul has only contacted 109 people, and is not at all ready to report any findings. This is the level at which Paul usually performs.” Meanwhile, participants in the high performance condition read that: “On the day of the deadline you find out that Paul has contacted 160 people, and even compiled a preliminary report that highlights his most important findings. This is the level at which Paul usually performs.” These conditions were created based on the performance manipulations used by Meeker and Elliott (1987).
Outcome dependence (low versus high) manipulation. Participants in the low dependence condition read that: “Managers at Intergoods are rewarded based on their individual performances. Hence, your individual compensation depends on your own performance to a large extent.” Meanwhile, participants in the high dependence condition read that: “Managers at Intergoods are rewarded based on the total performance of both the manager and their subordinates. Hence, your individual compensation depends both on your own and your subordinates’ performance to a large extent.” The outcome dependence conditions were based on the individual and cooperative reward conditions in Turban et al. (1990).
interesting and cheerful person.” These conditions were composed based on Cardy and Dobbins (1986) and Dobbins and Russell (1986).
Dependent variable
Supervisor aggression. I measured supervisor aggression using 9 items of the Ashforth (1997) Petty Tyrant Scale. All items were rephrased in the active voice to describe aggressive behaviors toward the designated subordinate. I selected these items from the original scale, to only include (a) behaviors or actions, concerning (b) a specific subordinate, that are (c) harmful, and (d) are credible in light of the situation description. Respondents were asked to indicate how likely they would be to engage in these aggressive behaviors as supervisors toward their subordinate Paul Visser. Example items include “Yell at him”, “Treat him in a condescending or patronizing manner”, and “Blame him for your mistakes”. All items were assessed using a seven-point Likert-type scale (where 1 = highly unlikely; 4 = moderately likely; 7 = highly likely). The supervisor aggression items were averaged into a single index. The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.84.
Control variable
I controlled for participants’ gender (1 = male, 2 = female), as male and female leaders have been shown to respond differently to subordinate performance and likability (Dobbins, 1986) and engage in aggressive behavior to different extents (Barling, Dupré, & Kelloway, 2009; Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998).
Manipulation check items
likability, participants were asked to rate the subordinate’s likableness on a scale from 1 (very dislikable) to 7 (very likable).
RESULTS Manipulation checks
Analyses of variance performed on the manipulation check scores indicated that all three manipulations had the intended effects. The performance manipulation significantly influenced participants’ perceptions of the subordinate’s level of performance (M = 3.34, SD = 1.04 versus M = 5.09, SD = 1.29), F(1, 182) = 102.10, p < .001. Similarly, participants rated their dependence on subordinates higher in the high dependence condition (M = 5.16, SD = 1.07), than in the low dependence condition (M = 4.82, SD = 1.13), F(1, 181) = 4.337, p < .05. The likability manipulation had a significant effect on the participants’ liking for the subordinate. The participants liked the subordinate more in the likable (M = 4.86, SD = 1.15) than in the dislikable condition (M = 3.29, SD = 1.23), F(1, 183) = 80.443, p < .001.
Hypothesis tests
Hypotheses were tested using a full 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA design that included main effects for all three manipulated variables, all possible combinations of two-way interactions, and the three-way interaction. Results of the three-way analyses of variance are presented in Table 1.
--- Insert Table 1 about here ---
participants displayed higher levels of supervisor aggression when confronted with a low performing subordinate (M = 2.51) as opposed to a high performing subordinate (M = 2.23), F(1, 175) = 5.072, p < .05.
Hypothesis 2 stated that a supervisor’s outcome dependence on a specific subordinate would moderate the influence of that subordinate’s performance on supervisor aggression. The negative relationship was hypothesized to be more pronounced at high than at low levels of outcome dependence. This prediction was not supported. There was no significant two-way interaction between performance and outcome dependence (F(1, 175) = .431, p = .45).
difference between high and low performing subordinates was only significant under conditions of high outcome dependence and low likability (p < .01).
--- Insert Figures 2 and 3 about here ---
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to add to the subordinate-centered approach to explaining supervisor aggressive behavior by examining the joint influence of subordinate performance, outcome dependence, and subordinate likability, in shaping supervisor aggression. I tested three hypotheses, two of which were supported. I found both a negative influence of subordinate performance on supervisor aggression, as well as a three-way interaction effect of subordinate performance, outcome dependence, and subordinate likability, on supervisor aggression. The proposed performance - dependence two-way interaction, however, was not supported by the data.
the additional moderator from the third hypothesis, likability, is required. In other words, I assume Hypothesis 2 was not supported because this two-way interaction was qualified by a significant three-way interaction between performance, outcome dependence, and likability (viz., H3). This third supported hypothesis again showed that poor performing subordinates are subjected to higher levels of supervisor aggression, however, the negative relationship between subordinate performance and supervisor aggression was shown to only be significant when supervisors were highly dependent on their subordinates for the attainment of their goals (i.e. rewards), and the target subordinate was dislikable.
The findings regarding the moderating roles of outcome dependence and likability in the emergence of supervisor aggression nuance existing views of the effects of goal/outcome (inter)dependence. While generally supposed to enhance cooperative and helping behaviors (Turban et al., 1990), and decrease task and relationship conflict (Medina, Munduate, & Guerra, 2008), outcome dependence also appears to have adverse effects, regarding disliked subordinates who perform poorly, suggesting that the perceived frustration of diminished rewards might make supervisors more likely to lash out when a subordinate they dislike is clearly underperforming. Additionally, the present findings support the interpretation of Moss and Martinko (1998) that having leaders’ own outcomes tied to their subordinates’ success creates a very salient performance setting for leaders, although only under conditions of low subordinate liking. Lastly, despite the fact that I neither hypothesized nor found liking to have a main effect on aggression, the role of liking in the three-way interaction effect in any case increases our understanding of the important consequences of affect in supervisor-subordinate interactions (Turban et al., 1990).
previously understudied areas of subordinate behaviors, relational characteristics, and work context (Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007).
Practical implications
From a practical perspective, this research has several implications. Firstly, these insights can be instrumental to supervisors who are trying to overcome aggressive tendencies, increasing their awareness of critical factors that can trigger aggression. Leaders should especially be cautious of the negative effects that can develop from disliking certain subordinates. Although affective reactions cannot always be voluntarily controlled (Zajonc, 1980), awareness and acknowledgement of differences in liking for different subordinates could enhance supervisors’ ability to treat subordinates less aggressively, and more equally. Furthermore, supervisors may curtail their dislike for specific subordinates by simply getting to know them better. While this may seem counterintuitive, getting to know a person increases the chance of finding similarities (e.g., similarity of opinions, attitudes and values, pastimes, motivation and other personality attributes), which in turn may generate liking for that person (Adams, 2005; Cialdini, 2001; Lefkowitz, 2000). Organizations may support efforts to develop stronger interpersonal relationships by creating opportunities for bonding in the form of, for instance, team building activities or social events.
Finally, even though disliked subordinates are more likely to become targets of supervisor aggression, they are not powerless to defend themselves against victimization (Aquino & Bommer, 2003). Subordinates may want to enhance their social attractiveness, and reduce their consequent likelihood of being targeted, by drawing on (supervisor-focused) influence tactics. One possible influence tactic that could help create higher liking is displaying organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). Employees who engage in OCBs to a high extent – or at the very least avoid being perceived as poor citizens – are less likely to be victimized (Aquino & Bommer, 2003). After all, subordinates who perform OCBs make their supervisor’s job easier, which may enhance the supervisor’s liking for the subordinate (Allen & Rush, 1998).
Limitations
There are some limitations to this study that should be noted. The use of a scenario-based survey has some obvious shortcomings. As Murphy, Herr, Lockhart and Maguire (1986) explained, performance information about ‘paper people’ is usually less ambiguous than observed performance, which quite possibly explains why average effect size tends to be larger in most paper people studies.
In addition, there is the general ‘artificiality’ of the scenario methodology, which tends to limit the external validity and generalizability of findings (Mook, 1983). However, the purpose of this study was to test a theory, rather than generalizing the findings across situations (Mook, 1983). Using a scenario methodology also allowed me to separate subordinate performance and likability, which is difficult to accomplish in field studies.
are representative of ‘people in general’, ‘adults’, or other individuals (Peterson, 2001), once again affecting the external validity and generalizability. However, experimental research using student samples is often employed as a ‘first step’, to test predicted relationships with an eye toward maximizing internal validity, before replication on broader samples and application to problems in the field (Fiske, 2008; Henry, 2008; Mook, 1983), and as I stated before, the results of this study were not intended to be generalized to other populations. I consequently put forward that future research is needed to test these hypotheses in field settings, using representative workplace samples, as to identify the conditions under which these findings can be generalized.
Finally, in all conditions of the scenario, the target subordinate was male. Yet, as was found by Dobbins (1986), female leaders respond less harshly toward female poorly performing subordinates than toward male poorly performing subordinates, while male leaders respond equally toward male and female subordinates. Hence, the same study with a female target subordinate may yield different results. In addition, as male and female leaders differ both in their responses to the likableness of subordinates (Dobbins, 1986), and in the extent of their aggressiveness (Barling et al., 2009), it might be interesting to not just control for supervisor gender, but explore the differences between male and female supervisor aggression. Of particular interest might be the effect of supervisor gender on the use of different types of aggressive behavior. Although men are generally more aggressive than women, men tend to apply more overt forms of aggression, while women tend to employ covert, indirect forms that are more subtle (Björkqvist, Österman, & Lagerspetz, 1994; Verona, Reed, Curtin, & Pole, 2007). This might occur because women feel constrained by social norms discouraging female aggression, and therefore choose a more covert approach to aggression (Verona et al., 2007).
In addition to the directions proposed in relation to this study’s limitations, there are several other promising paths for future research. First of all, there are more instances of subordinate behavior that could be relevant as instigators of supervisor aggression. The current study was focused on examining the role of subordinates’ typical level of performance. For a more comprehensive image of the influence of subordinate performance, future research may expand this concept to include changes in performance. Increasing and decreasing levels of subordinate performance have been shown by Barrow (1976) to have differing impacts on leaders’ behavioral style. Another possible avenue to explore is the role of feedback-seeking behavior by subordinates. While feedback-seeking behavior may on the one hand reassure the supervisor that a subordinate is willing to improve his/her performance and thus weaken the need for instrumental aggression, other supervisors may conversely react harshly to feedback-seeking poor performers, due to an intolerance of failure (Moss & Sanchez, 2004).
their feelings toward that person and may create stronger affect differences (Turban et al., 1990).
Finally, as O’Leary-Kelly and Newman (2003) suggested in relation to antisocial work behaviors, there may be other contextual factors (other than supervisor outcome dependence) that could constrain or facilitate individuals’ aggressive actions. Main recommendations for future inquiry include effects of the perceived consequences or costs of aggressive behavior. The perceived costs of aggressive actions will influence whether, or conceivably how, the aggressive intentions are enacted. The severity of aggression may be decreased or modified when potential costs are perceived as high, or the aggression may be redirected to evade undesirable consequences (O’Leary-Kelly & Newman, 2003). These perceived costs may be lower, for example, in the context of large and bureaucratic organizations, or organizational cultures that lack policies against bullying, monitoring policies, and punishments for those who engage in destructive behaviors (Salin, 2003).
Conclusion
REFERENCES
Adams, S.M. 2005. Positive affect and feedback-giving behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20: 24-42.
Aharoni, E., Weintraub, L.L., & Fridlund, A.J. 2007. No skin off my back: Retribution deficits in psychopathic motives for punishment. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25: 869-889.
Allen, T.D., & Rush, M.C. 1998. The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 247-260.
Andersson, L.M., & Pearson, C.M. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24: 452-471.
Aquino, K. 2000. Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26: 171-193.
Aquino, K., & Bommer, W.H. 2003. Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
victimization. Organization Science, 14: 374-385.
Aquino, K., & Bradfield, M. 2000. Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role of situational factors and victim characteristics. Organization Science, 11: 525-537. Aquino, K., Grover, S.L., & Bradfield, M. 1999. The effects of negative affectivity,
hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 260-272.
Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. 2004. A relational model of workplace victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied
Aquino, K., & Thau, S. 2009. Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 717-741.
Ashforth, B.E. 1997. Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of
antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14: 126-140.
Barling, J., Dupré, K.E., & Kelloway, E.K. 2009. Predicting workplace aggression and violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 671-692.
Barrow, J.C. 1976. Worker performance and task complexity as causal determinants of leader behavior style and flexibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 433-440.
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Lagerspetz, K.M.J. 1994. Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20: 27-33.
Butterfield, K.D., Trevino, L.K., & Ball, G.A. 1996. Punishment from the manager’s
perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1479-1512.
Cardy, R.L., & Dobbins, G.H. 1986. Affect and appraisal accuracy: Liking as an integral dimension in evaluating performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 672-678. 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.
Cialdini, R.B. 2001. Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9): 72-79.
Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T., & Glick, P. 2007. The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92: 631-648. DeNisi, A.S., & Kluger, A.N. 2000. Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be
Dobbins, G.H. 1986. Equity vs. Equality: Sex differences in leadership. Sex Roles, 15: 513- 525.
Dobbins, G.H., & Russell, J.M. 1986. The biasing effects of subordinate likeableness on leaders’ responses to poor performers: A laboratory and a field study. Personnel Psychology, 39: 759-777.
Douglas, S.C., Kiewitz, C., Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Kim, Y., & Chun, J. 2008.
Cognitions, emotions, and evaluations: An elaboration likelihood model for workplace aggression. Academy of Management Review, 33: 425-451.
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 331-351.
Fandt, P.M., Labig, C.E., & Urich, A.L. 1990. Evidence and the liking bias: Effects on managers’ disciplinary actions. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 3: 253-265.
Farris, G.F., & Lim, F.G. 1969. Effects of performance on leadership, cohesiveness,
influence, satisfaction, and subsequent performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53: 490-497.
Fiske, S.T. 2008. Perseverence furthers: Aims of and sympathy for both student and nonstudent sampling. Psychological Inquiry, 19: 106-107.
Fiske, S.T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A.C., & Glick, P. 1999. (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55: 473-489.
Green, S.G., & Mitchell, T.R. 1979. Attributional processes of leaders in leader-member interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23: 429-458. Greene, C.N. 1975. The reciprocal nature of influence between leader and subordinate.
Hauge, L.J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. 2009. Individual and situational predictors of workplace bullying: Why do perpetrators engage in the bullying of others? Work & Stress, 23: 349-358.
Henry, P.J. 2008. Student sampling as a theoretical problem. Psychological Inquiry, 19: 114- 126.
Herold, D.M. 1977. Two-way influence processes in leader-follower dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 20: 224-237.
Ilgen, D.R., Mitchell, T.R., & Fredrickson, J.W. 1981. Poor performers: Supervisors’ and subordinates’ responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27: 386-410.
James, L.R., & White, J.F. 1983. Cross-situational specificity in managers’ perceptions of subordinate performance, attributions, and leader behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 36: 809-856.
Larson, J.R. 1986. Supervisors’ performance feedback to subordinates: The impact of
subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37: 391-408.
Lefkowitz, J. 2000. The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance ratings: A literature review and proposed causal model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 67-85.
Lowin, A., & Craig, J.R. 1968. The influence of level of performance on managerial style: An experimental object-lesson in the ambiguity of correlational data. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3: 440-458.
McFillen, J.M., & New, J.R. 1979. Situational determinants of supervisor attributions and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 22: 793-809.
competitive contexts. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17: 349-362.
Meeker, B.F., & Elliott, G.C. 1987. Counting the costs: Equity and the allocation of negative group products. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50: 7-15.
Mook, D.G. 1983. In defense of external validity. American Psychologist, 38: 379-387. Moss, S.E., & Martinko, M.J. 1998. The effects of performance attributions and outcome
dependence on leader feedback behavior following poor subordinate performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 259-274.
Moss, S.E., & Sanchez, J.I. 2004. Are your employees avoiding you? Managerial strategies for closing the feedback gap. Academy of Management Executive, 18: 32-44.
Murphy, K.R., Herr, B.M., Lockhart, M.C., & Maguire, E. 1986. Evaluating the performance of paper people. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 654-661.
Namie, G., & Namie, R. 2000. The bully at work. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W., & Glew, D.J. 1996. Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21: 225-253.
O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., & Newman, J.L. 2003. The implications of performance feedback research for understanding antisocial work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 13: 605-629.
Peterson, R.A. 2001. On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28: 450-461.
Podsakoff, P.M. 1982. Determinants of a supervisor’s use of rewards and punishments: A literature review and suggestions for further research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29: 58-83.
101.
Roberts, M.C. 1985. A plea for professional civility. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16: 474.
Robinson, S.L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. 1998. Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 658-672.
Salin, D. 2003. Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56: 1213-1232.
Schraeder, M., & Simpson, J. 2006. How similarity and liking affect performance appraisals. The Journal for Quality & Participation, 29: 34-40.
Sims, H.P., & Manz, C.C. 1984. Observing leader verbal behavior: Toward reciprocal determinism in leadership theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 222-232. Spector, P.E. 1978. Organizational frustration: A model and review of the literature.
Personnel Psychology, 31: 815-829.
Storms, P.L., & Spector, P.E. 1987. Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioural reactions: The moderating effect of locus of control. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 60: 227-234.
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: 261-289.
subordinate and the reward context on the treatment and evaluation of that subordinate. Motivation and Emotion, 14: 215-233.
Varma, A., & Pichler, S. 2007. Interpersonal affect: Does it really bias performance appraisals? Journal of Labor Research, 28: 397-412.
Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R.S. 2007. Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92: 952-966.
Verona, E., Reed, A., Curtin, J.J., & Pole, M. 2007. Gender differences in emotional and overt/covert aggressive responses to stress. Aggressive Behavior, 33: 261-271. Wayne, S.J., & Ferris, G.R. 1990. Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in
supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 487-499.
TABLE 1
Analyses of variance for supervisor aggression
Variable Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Control variable Gender 6.33 1 6.33 8.49** Independent variables Performance 3.78 1 3.78 5.07* Dependence 0.03 1 0.03 0.04 Likability 0.82 1 0.82 1.10 Interactions Performance x dependence 0.43 1 0.43 0.58 Performance x likability 0.39 1 0.39 0.52 Dependence x likability 0.38 1 0.38 0.45 Performance x dependence x likability 3.17 1 3.17 4.25* * p < 0.05
FIGURE 1
Proposed three-way interaction model
FIGURE 2
Mean supervisor aggression toward dislikable subordinates
FIGURE 3
