Goal-focused abusive leaders: The mitigating role of conscientiousness in subordinates’ counterproductive work behavior

Abstract

When an abusive supervisor exhibits goal-focused leadership, does goal-focused leadership buffer or deteriorate the impact of abusive supervision on subordinates? Although leaders normally exhibit different leadership styles at the same time, little effort has been made to examine how different leadership styles affect subordinates. We also investigate the three-way interaction among abusive supervision, goal-focused leadership, and conscientiousness on counterproductive work behavior (CWB). With two multinational samples, our findings consistently indicate that subordinates exposed to more goal-focused leadership along with abusive supervision are significantly more likely to engage in CWB. In addition, we find a three-way interaction such that the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ CWB is the strongest among subordinates who have low conscientiousness when leaders exhibit a high level of goal-focused leadership.

JEL Classification: D23

Keywords

Abusive supervision conscientiousness counterproductive work behavior goal-focused leadership

1. Introduction

Abusive supervision, defined as leaders’ sustained display of nonphysical hostile behaviors against their subordinates (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2008), has been shown to negatively influence subordinate outcomes in various contexts (Mawritz et al., 2012; Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2008; Wei and Si, 2013). Despite the negative effects of abusive supervision on organizations and employees within organizations, abusive supervision frequently occurs in various contexts across countries (Fischer et al., 2021; Mackey et al., 2017). Although many leaders wield their power carefully, holding leadership power can be destructive (Bendahan et al., 2015), suggesting that some leaders use their power to mistreat their followers (Schmid et al., 2019). Although researchers have suggested that abusive supervision is not always harmful to subordinates (Huai et al., 2022; Liao et al., 2021), we focus on the negative aspect of abusive supervision (which is the most prevalent outcome) in this study.

Given that “abusive supervision undermines individual, unit, and organizational functioning” (Tepper et al., 2017: 145), why do managers tolerate abusive supervision? One possible explanation could be that “many bully bosses are high-performing and goal-oriented with a record of success . . . the people above them know he or she can get the job done” (Torres, 2005). This quotation indicates the co-occurrence of abusive supervision (i.e. poor relational-oriented leadership) and goal-focused leadership (i.e. task-oriented leadership). It further suggests that abusive supervision may be more tolerated by managers when the supervisor also concentrates on achieving goals. Does goal-focused leadership really buffer the negative effects of abusive supervision on subordinates? We do not believe so, but rather it is just a myth held in organizations.

We apply the stressor-emotion model (Spector and Fox, 2005) and the conservation of resources (COR) framework (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) to argue that goal-focused leadership will exacerbate the negative effects of abusive supervision specifically, by increasing subordinates’ counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). The stressor-emotion model suggests that organizational stressors (e.g. abusive supervision) lead to feelings of negative emotions, which motivate subordinates to engage in CWBs. Previous research has shown that when employees perceive a job stressor, they are likely to have negative feelings that lead them to enact CWBs as a strategy to reduce the emotionally unpleasant condition (Penney and Spector, 2005; Spector, 1998) (e.g. they engage in production deviance, which includes taking excessive breaks, working slowly, or working on non-work activities (Dalal, 2005)). The COR framework suggests that coping with abusive supervision depletes employee resources and production deviance activities help replenish these resources. Based on the above, we propose that abusive supervision will lead to increased CWBs. But importantly, our argument suggests that this relationship will be stronger (abusive supervision will increase CWBs to a greater extent) when the supervisor also engages in goal-focused leadership. Goal-focused leadership will impose greater demands (greater stress) and further deplete resources. If these two aspects of leadership interact as we expect, allowing bad behavior that gets results is a bigger problem than just the abusive behavior itself.

We also expect that the joint effect of abusive supervision and goal-focused leadership on CWB hinges on subordinates’ conscientiousness. Conscientiousness, as one of the Big Five personality traits, has consistently been a predictor of work-related outcomes (Barrick et al., 2001; Henle and Gross, 2014). Applying COR theory, Perry et al. (2010) argued that conscientiousness is a personal resource that alleviates emotional exhaustion formed by goal-focused leadership. Indeed, highly conscientious individuals find constructive solutions when faced with demands (McCrae and Johnson, 1992). For example, individuals high (low) in conscientiousness engage in lower (higher) levels of problem drinking in response to abusive supervision (Bamberger and Bacharach, 2006). Thus, highly conscientious subordinates who experience abusive supervision may be less likely to display CWB in a way that might damage their reputation. That is, we expect a three-way interaction in such a way that abusive supervision has the strongest positive relationship with subordinates’ CWB when the leader exhibits high goal-focused leadership and subordinate conscientiousness is low.

We seek to make three major contributions to practitioners and the relevant literatures. First, we contribute to the abusive supervision literature by examining how abusive supervision (i.e. “poor” relational-oriented leadership) affects CWB in the presence of more or less goal-focused leadership (task-oriented leadership). Second, our study also contributes to the goal-focused leadership literature. While acknowledging the positive aspect of goal-focused leadership (Kim et al., 2018), we suggest that goal-focused leadership is not always beneficial to subordinates. We conceptualized goal-focused leadership as a stressor rather than a resource, extending the goal-focused leadership literature by providing a divergent perspective on goal-focused leadership depending on from whom it comes. Third, we further explore how the interactive effect of two different types of leadership (i.e. abusive supervision × goal-focused leadership) is contingent on subordinates’ conscientiousness. According to prior research, the relationships between these two types of leadership and CWB may be modified by subordinates’ conscientiousness, because subordinates’ conscientiousness can serve as a resource for them and is well-aligned with leaders’ goal-setting activities (Colbert and Witt, 2009). In other words, examining a three-way interaction sheds novel light on why and when goal-focused but abusive leaders affect subordinates’ behaviors; see our conceptual model in Figure 1.

2. Theory and hypotheses development

2.1. Abusive supervision and CWB

The effects of abusive supervision on individual followers are generally negative and severe, which also lead to substantial costs to organizations (Dhanani et al., 2021; Mackey et al., 2017; Tepper, 2007; Tepper et al., 2017). Abusive behaviors lead to poor job attitudes (e.g. withdrawal), strain, and CWB among subordinates (Bamberger and Bacharach, 2006; Chi and Liang, 2013; Dunlop and Lee, 2004; Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2004, 2008; Wei and Si, 2013). Krischer et al. (2010) demonstrated that subordinates often engage in CWB (production deviance here) to maintain personal resource levels and to protect against further resource depletion from workplace stress. By engaging in withdrawal behaviors (e.g. leaving early from work), subordinates can protect their resources (Zhong et al., 2023). Thus, CWB may allow subordinates to conserve resources (e.g. time, concentration, and energy) that may help in managing the stress related to abusive supervision.

Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) found that unfair treatment by supervisors causes subordinates’ production deviance (e.g. slowing work). We believe that abusive supervision is positively related to CWB in order to “even the score” and/or gain personal control. Subordinates whose psychological and emotional resources are depleted due to abusive supervision may suffer from an inability to regulate impulses and emotions, as they do not have sufficient resources to regulate their responses, including meeting normative behavioral expectations (Cortina et al., 2022). Employees tend to respond to abusive supervision—a typical relational stressor—with negative emotions such as disappointment, anger, and resentment, which in turn positively affects CWB (Spector and Fox, 2005). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: Abusive supervision is positively related to subordinates’ CWB.

2.2. Moderating role of goal-focused leadership on the relationship between abusive supervision and CWB

Colbert and Witt (2009) defined “goal-focused leadership as leadership that uses policies and practices to communicate organizational goals and align employees’ efforts with these goals” (p. 790). Leadership scholars suggested that leaders significantly affect goal-setting processes by interacting with their subordinates in the organization (Locke and Latham, 2002; Piccolo and Buengeler, 2013). We argue that although goal-focused leadership does not necessarily impose work demands on employees (Perry et al., 2010), it is more likely to serve as a workload demand/stressor rather than as a resource, thus contributing to CWB when accompanied by abusive supervision. We offer two reasons why goal-focused leadership can be a potential stressor rather than a resource. First, abusive supervision, as a major relational stressor, may consume large amounts of subordinates’ personal resources to cope with such behavior (Thau and Mitchell, 2010). Subordinates who have abusive supervisors likely need to spend a large amount of energy to manage such behaviors, lacking resources to focus on individual or organizational goals. Subordinates abused by their leaders expend resources to interpret and understand the experience (Thau and Mitchell, 2010). That is, in order to preserve their limited resources, these subordinates may not engage in work activities requiring high levels of demands such as the fulfillment of assigned goals (Hobfoll, 1989). Due to the above reasons, subordinates may feel more stress when their abusive supervisors emphasize goals, responsibilities, and achievements. According to the conservation of resources framework (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), high levels of relational and workload demand stress may deplete employees’ personal resources that could be used to self-regulate their work behaviors (Wang et al., 2011). We thus argue that in the presence of abusive supervision, goal-focused leadership may act as an additional stressor and exacerbate the negative impact of abusive supervision on subordinates’ behaviors. Simply put, subordinates with limited resources are less likely to successfully complete goals assigned by abusive supervisors, and may, in turn, engage in more CWB as a coping mechanism. This provides a resource-related explanation.

Second, when goal-focused leadership is accompanied by abusive supervision, subordinates may consider the motives of goal-focused leadership from leaders (i.e. perpetrators) as the fulfillment of the leader’s self-interest at the cost of subordinates’ well-being (Nahum-Shani et al., 2014). Accordingly, subordinates may think they have incompatible goals or interests with their leaders and even with their organizations. When their leaders communicate, clarify, and emphasize organizational goals, subordinates may cognitively appraise those goal-focused behaviors exhibited by abusive leaders as a hindrance workload demand stressor, triggering negative emotions toward abusive leaders as well as the organization. Consistent with the stressor-emotion model of CWB (Spector and Fox, 2005), the dual stress from detrimental relationships and workplace workloads associated with goal-focused leadership may be positively related to more negative emotions (Chi and Liang, 2013), which leads to less self-regulation and more CWB (Fox et al., 2001; Fox and Spector, 1999). This reasoning offers an emotion-related explanation. Taken together, the following hypothesis is proposed.

Hypothesis 2: Goal-focused leadership moderates the positive relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ CWB, such that the effect of abusive supervision on subordinates’ CWB is stronger for subordinates who experience a high level of goal-focused leadership.

2.3. A three-way interaction of abusive supervision, goal-focused leadership, and conscientiousness

The interactional perspective suggests that individuals with different personalities may respond differently to contextual cues such as leadership behaviors (Tett and Burnett, 2003). Personality traits differently influence individuals’ perceptions of and reactions to situational stressors (Cullen and Sackett, 2003). Conscientiousness refers to a tendency to be organized and dependable, show self-discipline, act dutifully, aim for achievement, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior (Atkinson et al., 2000; Barrick and Mount, 1991). Individuals who score high in conscientiousness can be described as cautious, self-disciplined, dutiful, and deliberate. They are also highly motivated toward task achievement and have a strong sense of direction (Barrick et al., 2003; Costa and McCrae, 1992). Furthermore, conscientious individuals are more likely to have an interest in taking care of their reputation as responsible and trustworthy subordinates (Bamberger and Bacharach, 2006). Highly conscientious subordinates are more aware of the adverse consequences that may result if they engage in retaliatory actions (Taylor and Kluemper, 2012). By contrast, individuals who score low are more impulsive, self-indulgent, and maladaptive (Costa et al., 1991; De Raad et al., 1992). Scholars have found that individual difference factors (e.g. personality) moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and various outcomes including CWB (Nandkeolyar et al., 2014; Tepper et al., 2001; Wu and Hu, 2013). As conscientious people are more likely to be thorough, reliable, and responsible, they are less likely to commit organizational deviance when they are victims of abusive supervision (Mawritz et al., 2014).

2.3.1. High goal-focused leadership and high conscientiousness

Conscientiousness is inherently compatible with goal-focused leadership behaviors (Perry et al., 2010). Subordinates may experience both relational and work-demand stress when their supervisors simultaneously exhibit abusive supervision and goal-focused leadership. However, this is not necessarily the case for subordinates with a high level of conscientiousness. More specifically, due to the compatibility between goal-focused leadership and conscientiousness, conscientious subordinates are more likely to achieve goals and meet job demands. Goal-focused leaders are likely to thrive with conscientious subordinates, which is supported by extant studies (De Raad et al., 1992). The behaviors of goal-focused leaders—clarifying a task or a goal and providing proper feedback can be additional resources for subordinates who are high on conscientiousness. As such, we expect that those high on conscientiousness are likely to positively respond to this goal-focused leadership style and cognitively appraise it as a less negative work condition even in an abusive supervision context (Perry et al., 2010). Tepper et al. (2001) suggested that conscientiousness plays a significant role in influencing outcomes by interacting with abusive supervision. In this respect, high conscientiousness may attenuate the negative impact of goal-focused leadership on the relationship between abusive supervision and CWB.

2.3.2. High goal-focused leadership and low conscientiousness

When the conscientiousness of subordinates is low and goal-focused leadership is high, subordinates may experience a high level of workload demands, consuming large amounts of personal resources attempting to meet the goal-relevant demands as well as to cope with abusive supervision. Without the resilience provided by high conscientiousness, subordinates are driven to regain resources from the external environment (Hobfoll, 2002). As such, abusive supervision interacted with goal-focused leadership may have the most prominent effect on CWB when subordinates have a low level of conscientiousness. Accordingly, we expect to see the strongest positive relationship between abusive supervision and CWB when goal-focused leadership is high, and subordinates are low in conscientiousness.

2.3.3. Low goal-focused leadership and high conscientiousness

When individuals high in conscientiousness have abusive leaders who are less focused on goals, individuals’ conscientiousness may compensate for negative emotions caused by abusive behavior. According to the COR perspective (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), when stress depletes primary resources (e.g. caused by abusive supervision) people tend to invest other resources to compensate for this resource loss. In this case, subordinates can direct their personal resources to cope with abusive supervision. Otherwise, they will lack the resources to self-regulate their deviant behaviors (Vohs and Heatherton, 2000). Conscientiousness may serve as a secondary resource and therefore help reduce the influence of abusive supervision on CWB when goal-focused leadership is low.

2.3.4. Low goal-focused leadership and low conscientiousness

For subordinates who are low on conscientiousness with leaders who are less focused on goals, the direct effect of abusive supervision on CWB becomes salient. Although these subordinates do not have the pressure from goal-focused leadership, they also do not have the additional resources high conscientiousness provides to cope with relational stress such as abusive supervision. Aryee, Sun, Chen, and Debrah (2008) suggested that personality moderators more strongly affect the perception of abusive supervision than any contextual moderators. In this case, we expect that the positive effect of abusive supervision on CWB is salient but weaker than the case for subordinates who are low on conscientiousness with leaders who are more focused on goals. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3: The abusive supervision-subordinates’ CWB relationship is jointly moderated by goal-focused leadership and conscientiousness. That is, there is a three-way interaction in such a way that the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ CWB is the strongest among subordinates who have low conscientiousness when leaders exhibit a high level of goal-focused leadership.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study 1

3.1.1. Sample and procedure

In all, 435 subordinates in a city government organization in the southwestern United States were recruited to participate in the present study. The response rate of 64% yielded 280 participants. As the data collection was part of an upward feedback study, the subjects did not provide any identifying data (e.g. demographics) except the name of their supervisor. All participation in the survey was fully voluntary. The surveys were completed in on-site training rooms during work hours.

3.1.2. Tests for common method variance

Because all data were self-reported, we cannot rule out the possibility of common method bias. We applied the comprehensive confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) marker technique to test for common method variance because the subjects completed all constructs by using self-report measures (Podsakoff et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2010). Richardson et al. (2009) suggested that a marker variable that is unrelated to the main model is required. We selected a measure of leader effectiveness, a construct included in all surveys which we did not use for this study. The result indicated that common method variance (CMV) only explained 6.8% of the variance, which is below the 25% cutoff. These results suggest that CMV did not play a crucial role in biasing the latent variables and their covariances (Williams et al., 1989). We, therefore, conclude that CMV was not a primary biasing element in our analyses. There are also very few cases where study findings are invalidated by common method bias (Doty and Glick, 1998). Finally, moderated regression is not significantly affected by common method bias (i.e. we tested a three-way-interaction model; Pierce et al., 1993; Siemsen et al., 2010).

3.1.3. Measurement

3.1.3.1. Abusive supervision

Abusive supervision was measured using the five-item abusive supervision scale (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007). An example item is “This supervisor ridicules me.” Participants responded to the items using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). High scores reflected high levels of abusive supervision. (Unless otherwise noted, all scales used these 1–5 agreement scales.)

3.1.3.2. Goal-focused leadership

Participants rated their leaders on five items developed by Colbert and Witt (2009). For example, one item is “This supervisor provides direction and defines priorities.”

3.1.3.3. CWB

We focused on production deviance. Production deviance is under the umbrella of organizational deviance. Production deviance is defined as “the purposeful failure to perform job tasks effectively the way they are supposed to be performed” (Spector et al., 2006: 449). Production deviance includes daydreaming while at work, withholding effort, unexplained absenteeism, and tardiness (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). We assessed production deviance using the production deviance subscale (four items) of the Counterproductive Behavior Checklist (Spector et al., 2006). A sample item is “I have intentionally worked slower than I could have worked.” High scores reflect high levels of production deviance.

3.1.3.4. Conscientiousness

We used the subscale of Saucier’s (1994) Mini Markers (eight items) to measure conscientiousness (e.g. “Organized”). Participants responded on a 9-point scale (1 = extremely inaccurate, 9 = extremely accurate) reflecting how accurate the descriptors were in describing them. High scores indicated high levels of conscientiousness.

3.1.3.5. Control variables

Because individuals who have a low level of emotional stability are more likely to translate a stimulus into negative reactions and interpret it as a threat than those who score high in emotional stability, we controlled for emotional stability (e.g. “touchy”). We used the subscale of Saucier’s (1994) Mini Markers (eight items) to measure emotional stability (Bakker et al., 2006; Johnson and Ostendorf, 1993; McCrae and Johnson, 1992). In so doing, we have some confidence that the results reported here are not simply a function of emotional stability.

3.1.4. Results

3.1.4.1. Measurement model

Before testing our hypotheses, we used AMOS 26 (Arbuckle, 1997) to conduct a CFA to determine the discriminant validity. The five-factor model indicated significantly better fit than other factor models. We thus concluded that the degree of model error is acceptable (χ² (165) = 294.06, p < 0.01; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.91; Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.90; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06). We, therefore, proceeded with hypothesis testing.¹

3.1.4.2. Hypotheses testing

Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables and reliability coefficients are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics, intercorrelation matrix, and reliability estimates in Study 1.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Abusive supervision	2.19	0.84	(0.73)
2. Goal-focused leadership	3.66	0.79	–0.36**	(0.76)
3. Conscientiousness	6.55	1.65	–0.29**	0.32**	(0.76)
4. Emotional stability	6.23	1.43	–0.27**	0.26**	0.69**	(0.70)
5. CWB (production deviance)	2.12	0.99	0.60**	–0.26**	–0.39**	–0.28**	(0.68)

Note. N = 280. Reliability estimates appear in the diagonal. CWB: counterproductive work behavior.

p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

We centered each predictor before we entered it into the model. We employed hierarchical linear regression to test our hypotheses. We included the control variable (emotional stability) at Step 1. We entered the main effects at Step 2. At Step 3, we entered three two-way interaction terms, and the three-way interaction term was entered at Step 4.

As shown in Table 2, at Step 1, the control variable (i.e. emotional stability) reached significance (b = –0.19, SD = 0.05, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 1 proposed that abusive supervision was positively associated with CWB. At Step 2, abusive supervision was significant in predicting CWB (b = 0.65, SD = 0.07, p < 0.01), thus providing support for Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 proposed that goal-focused leadership moderates the positive relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ CWB such that the effect of abusive supervision on subordinates’ CWB is stronger for subordinates who experience a high level of goal-focused leadership. As shown in Table 2, at Step 3, the interaction term between abusive supervision and goal-focused leadership was significant for CWB (b = 0.21, SD = 0.08, p < 0.01).

Table 2.

Hierarchical regression coefficients for counterproductive work behavior: abusive supervision, goal-focused leadership, and conscientiousness in Study 1.

Predictor	Counterproductive work behavior (Production deviance)
Predictor	Model 1B (SE)	Model 2B (SE)	Model 3B (SE)	Model 4B (SE)
Intercept	3.28 (0.29)**	1.95 (0.33)**	1.81 (0.33)**	1.77 (0.32)**
Control variables
Emotional stability	–0.19 (0.05)**	0.03 (0.05)	0.05 (0.05)	0.05 (0.05)
Independent variables
Abusive supervision		0.65 (0.07)**	0.60 (0.07)**	0.61 (0.07)**
Goal-focused leadership		0.03 (0.08)	–0.09 (0.08)	–0.10 (0.08)
Conscientiousness		–0.13 (0.05)**	–0.12 (0.05)*	–0.15 (0.05)**
Two-way interactions
AS × GFL			0.21 (0.08)**	0.24 (0.08)**
AS × conscientiousness			–0.11 (0.04)*	–0.10 (0.04)*
GFL × conscientiousness			–0.07 (0.05)	–0.02 (0.05)
Three-way interaction
AS × GFL × Conscientiousness				–0.14 (0.04)**
F value	17.13**	34.30**	22.34**	22.15**
R ²	0.08	0.41	0.44	0.48

N = 280. AS: abusive supervision; GFL: goal-focused leadership.

p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

Following the recommendation by Aiken and West (1991), we plotted the interactive effects in Figure 2. As suggested, the effect of abusive supervision on CWB was stronger for subordinates who experienced high goal-focused leadership than for those who experienced low goal-focused leadership. The result of a simple slopes test indicated that the abusive supervision and CWB relationship was stronger among subordinates with higher goal-focused leadership (b = 0.85, p < 0.01) than among subordinates with lower goal-focused leadership (b = 0.48, p < 0.01). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported.

Finally, Hypothesis 3 proposed that goal-focused leadership and conscientiousness jointly moderate the abusive supervision-subordinates’ CWB relationship. That is, there is a three-way interaction in such a way that the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ CWB is the strongest among subordinates who have low conscientiousness when leaders exhibit a high level of goal-focused leadership. At Step 4, the three-way interaction term contributed unique variance (b = –0.14, SD = 0.04, p < 0.01, ∆R² = 0.04), and showed a significant effect size (Champoux and Peters, 1987). Hypothesis 3 is thus supported.

Table 3.

Simple slopes in Study 1.

Group	Slope	t
1 (High goal-focused leadership, high conscientiousness)	0.46	3.695**
2 (High goal-focused leadership, low conscientiousness)	1.17	9.566**
3 (Low goal-focused leadership, high conscientiousness)	0.50	4.066**
4 (Low goal-focused leadership, low conscientiousness)	0.48	3.872**
Slope difference
1 and 2		–4.09**
1 and 3		–0.26
1 and 4		–0.11
2 and 3		3.64**
2 and 4		4.28**
3 and 4		0.14

We followed the recommendations by Dawson and Richter’s (2006) to calculate the slope difference tests.

p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

As shown in Figure 3, when subordinates are high (vs. low) on conscientiousness abusive supervision combined with goal-focused leadership results in less CWB. Those who are low on conscientiousness respond by performing CWB to a greater extent than do high conscientiousness subordinates. The interaction plot revealed that abusive supervision, goal-focused leadership, and conscientiousness are related to subordinates’ CWB. The results were supported without the control variable included. In Study 1, all hypotheses were supported. But Study 1 had a significant limitation in using the data of a cross-sectional, self-report nature. In order to replicate the results of Study 1, Study 2 was designed by using co-worker reports of CWB with a time-lagged design. By doing so, we were able to reduce some concerns about common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012).

3.2. Study 2

In Study 2, we conducted a systematic replication of Study 1 with a different sample from South Korea.

3.2.1. Sample and procedure

We administered two online surveys 1 month apart. All employees were administrative staff from four organizations in South Korea (i.e. e-commerce, manufacturing, and IT). We contacted HR managers in each organization to obtain information about participants who were willing to participate in our study. Subordinates’ ratings of abusive supervision, goal-focused leadership, and conscientiousness were collected at Time 1, and CWB toward the organization (CWB-O) was assessed by each co-worker at Time 2.² We focused on a broad facet of CWB rather than production deviance (i.e. one narrow facet of CWB) in Study 2. By doing so, we were able to obtain more generalizable results. We sent our online surveys to 150 subordinates and 150 co-workers. After eliminating questionnaires with more than 50% missing or unusable data, we received 120 completed surveys from subordinates who also had a co-worker’s survey (response rate = 80.0%). Among the respondents, 66.7% were males, and 33.3% were females; the mean tenure in the current organization was 3.65 years; the average tenure with the current direct supervisor was 2.79 years; 10.1% had a high-school degree, 11.2% had a 2-year college degree, 65.2% held a bachelor’s degree, 13.5% held a graduate or doctoral degree.

3.2.2. Measurement

3.2.2.1. Abusive supervision (Time 1)

Abusive supervision was measured by the same items as used in Study 1 (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007). Participants rated their supervisors using a 5-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). (Unless otherwise noted, all scales used in Study 2 used these 1–5 agreement scales.)

3.2.2.2. Goal-focused leadership (Time 1)

The same items were used to measure goal-focused leadership as we used in Study 1 (Colbert and Witt, 2009).

3.2.2.3. Conscientiousness (Time 1)

We used a different measure of conscientiousness to enhance the robustness of the results. We used four items adapted from Donnellan et al. (2006)’s Big Five Mini-IPIP scale to measure subordinates’ conscientiousness. Sample items include “I get chores done right away.” Participants responded on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely inaccurate, 7 = extremely accurate).

3.2.2.4. CWB (Time 2)

CWB was measured by each employee’s co-workers as the referent. We used the scale developed by Yang and Diefendorff (2009) to measure CWB (13 items). An example item is “My coworker takes an additional or a longer break than he or she is allowed to take.” Participants rated their co-workers using a 5-point response scale (α = 0.84). In Study 1, we focused on production deviance because it is a safer response to supervisory abuse than the other forms of CWB (Lord, 1998; Tepper et al., 2001). In order to enhance the generalizability of our findings in Study 1, we attempted to replicate our research findings in Study 2 by focusing on CWB that harms the organization (CWB-O).³

3.2.2.5. Control variables

We included emotional stability as a control variable as we did in Study 1. We used a different measure from that used in Study 1. Donnellan et al. (2006)’s Big Five Mini-IPIP scale (four items) was used to measure emotional stability (e.g. “I have frequent mood swings (R)”). Participants responded on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely inaccurate, 7 = extremely accurate).

3.2.3. Measurement model

Before testing our hypotheses, we conducted a series of CFAs to determine the discriminant validity. Since our sample size is relatively small, the item-to-construct balance technique was used to make three parcels for each construct (Little et al., 2002). We created each parcel by using the three items with the highest loadings to anchor the three parcels. Our 5-factor model fit was a better than other factor models.⁴ We concluded that the degree of model error is acceptable (χ² (80) = 156.26, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.88; RMSEA = 0.09). We, therefore, treated all factors as distinct in the analyses.

3.2.4. Hypotheses testing

Table 4 includes descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability coefficients of the variables studied. Hypothesis 1 stated that abusive supervision is positively related to subordinates’ CWB.

Table 4.

Descriptive statistics, intercorrelation matrix, and reliability estimates in Study 2.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Abusive supervision	1.91	1.01	(0.93)
2. Goal-focused leadership	3.49	0.74	0.03	(0.77)
3. Conscientiousness	5.13	1.17	–0.04	–0.24*	(0.94)
4. Emotional stability	3.27	1.30	–0.04	–0.14	0.30**	(0.84)
5. CWB-O	1.49	0.51	0.28*	0.10	–0.26*	–0.09	(0.84)

N = 120. Reliability estimates appear in the diagonal. CWB-O: counterproductive work behavior toward organization.

p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

As shown in Tables 4 and 5, abusive supervision was positively related to CWB (r = 0.28, p < 0.05; b = 0.09, SD = 0.04, p < 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Hypothesis 2 proposed that goal-focused leadership moderates the positive relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ CWB such that the effect of abusive supervision on subordinates’ CWB is stronger for subordinates who experience a high level of goal-focused leadership. The result of Model 3 (in Table 5) showed that the two-way interaction term was positively significant for CWB (b = 0.26, SD = 0.05, p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 2. As we did in Study 1, we plotted the two-way interaction. The slope of the association between abusive supervision and subordinates’ CWB was positive when goal-focused leadership was higher (b = 0.28, p < 0.01) but was not significantly different from zero when goal-focused leadership was lower (b = −0.10, ns.; see Figure 4). Finally, Hypothesis 3 proposed a three-way interaction of abusive supervision, goal-focused leadership, and conscientiousness on subordinates’ CWB. As shown in Table 5, the three-way interaction term was negatively and significantly related to subordinates’ CWB (b = −0.12, SD = 0.04, p < 0.01, ∆R² = 0.05). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Table 5.

Hierarchical regression coefficients for counterproductive work behavior toward organization: abusive supervision, goal-focused leadership, and conscientiousness in Study 2.

Predictor	Counterproductive work behavior toward organization
	Model 1B (SE)	Model 2B (SE)	Model 3B (SE)	Model 4B (SE)
Intercept	1.39 (0.12)**	1.47 (0.12)**	1.38 (0.11)**	1.33 (0.11)**
Control variables
Emotional stability	–0.03 (0.03)	–0.01 (0.03)	–0.04 (0.03)	–0.05 (0.03)
Independent variables
Abusive supervision		0.09 (0.04)*	0.04 (0.04)	0.02 (0.04)
Goal-focused leadership		0.02 (0.05)	0.02 (0.05)	0.02 (0.05)
Conscientiousness		–0.06 (0.04)^†	–0.04 (0.03)	–0.02 (0.03)
Two-way interactions
AS × GFL			0.26 (0.05)**	0.27 (0.05)**
AS × conscientiousness			0.04 (0.03)	0.08 (0.04)*
GFL × conscientiousness			0.03 (0.04)	0.06 (0.04)
Three-way interaction
AS × GFL × conscientiousness				–0.12 (0.04)**
F value	0.80	2.71*	6.19**	6.94**
R ²	0.01	0.09	0.28	0.33

N = 120. AS: abusive supervision; GFL: goal-focused leadership.

†

p < 0.10. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

In order to explore the three-way interaction, we plotted the relationship between abusive supervision and CWB based on four combinations we created by using goal-focused leadership (±1 SD) and conscientiousness (±1 SD). We display the simple slopes and slope difference test analyses in Table 6, and the corresponding plot of the three-way interaction is presented in Figure 5 (Preacher et al., 2006). As expected, the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ CWB was stronger among subordinates reporting a high level of goal-focused leadership but a low level of conscientiousness. This slope was significantly different from those of the other three groups. Given that the slopes for the two high goal-focused leadership groups (Group 1, high conscientiousness, and Group 2, low conscientiousness) were marginally different from each other (p = 0.051), this result indicated an attenuating effect of high conscientiousness in the relationship between abusive supervision, goal-focused leadership, and subordinates’ CWB. As shown in Figure 5, goal-focused abusive leadership is associated with subordinates’ CWB, and low conscientiousness subordinates respond by performing CWB to a greater extent than high conscientiousness subordinates. The interaction plot revealed that abusive supervision, goal-focused leadership, and conscientiousness are related to subordinates’ CWB. The results were supported without the control variable included. Interestingly, as can be seen from Figures 3 and 5, we found that the slope for the low goal-focused leadership group with low conscientiousness (Group 4), was significantly different from the results found in Study 2. We will revisit this finding in our discussion section.

Table 6.

Simple slopes in Study 2.

Group	Slope	t
1 (High goal-focused leadership, high conscientiousness)	0.17	1.975
2 (High goal-focused leadership, low conscientiousness)	0.30	3.368**
3 (Low goal-focused leadership, high conscientiousness)	0.01	0.091
4 (Low goal-focused leadership, low conscientiousness)	–0.30	–3.435**
Slope difference
1 and 2		–1.15(p = 0.051)
1 and 3		1.63
1 and 4		4.47**
2 and 3		2.71**
2 and 4		5.86**
3 and 4		2.94**

We followed the recommendations by Dawson and Richter’s (2006) to calculate the slope difference tests.

p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

4. General discussion

There is a call for additional effort to integrate different categories of moderators in workplace aggression research (Zhong et al., 2023). Zhong et al. (2023) suggested that investigating how contextual factors and personal factors interact with workplace aggression can contribute to workplace aggression research (e.g. abusive supervision). Our study responds to this call by unpacking critical ways through which, how, and when multiple moderators shape the damage of abusive supervision.

Although abusive supervision as an antecedent to CWB has been identified in numerous studies (c.f., Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007), little is known about boundary conditions on the relationship between abusive supervision and CWB. By testing a three-way interaction effect, we offered additional insights into how two different leadership behaviors and individual factors operate together. According to the person–situation interactionist perspective, the interaction between contextual and personal factors strongly affects the response of subordinates to workplace mistreatment such as abusive supervision (Tett and Burnett, 2003). That is, we uncovered how and whether the moderating effect of a contextual factor (i.e. goal-focused leadership) is modified by an individual factor (i.e. conscientiousness) in an abusive supervision context.

4.1. Theoretical implications

This article advances the relevant literatures by elucidating how and when abusive supervision and goal-oriented leadership interact with conscientiousness to influence CWB. First, the present study is one of the first to empirically examine the interactive effects of leaders’ relational-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors on subordinate outcomes. “There is also good reason to expect that the simultaneous presence of more than one psychological factor may achieve synergistic effects above and beyond their additive impact” (Liang et al., 2012: 76). Wu et al. (2013) emphasized that we need to consider both abusive supervision and workload demands when we examine the stressors induced by supervisors. Consistent with COR theory, our results revealed that goal-focused leadership exhibited by abusive leaders encourages subordinates’ CWB in Studies 1 (United States) and 2 (South Korea) suggesting that subordinates tried to maintain their personal resources by engaging in CWB. We found a positive multiplicative effect of goal-oriented abusive leaders on CWB, implying that a contingency perspective is needed to provide scholars with a comprehensive understanding of how abusive, but goal-focused leaders affect their subordinates and organizations. Our findings suggest a more realistic and broader picture of supervisory abuse in organizations, contributing to the abusive supervision literature.

Somewhat surprisingly, we found that when abusive supervisors exhibited lower levels of goal-focused leadership and subordinates were lower on conscientiousness they displayed less CWB in Study 2. This was not the case in Study 1. A possible reason is the cultural differences between the United States and South Korea, which may cause divergent consequences. For instance, abusive supervision may be a more pervasive leadership style in South Korea than in the United States (e.g. a hierarchical structure and high-status differences; Farh et al., 2007). Thus, South Korean employees may be less sensitive to abusive supervision when an additional potential stressor does not exist (i.e. goal-focused leadership), particularly for subordinates with a low level of conscientiousness. We strongly encourage researchers to examine how cultural differences affect the relationship between abusive supervision, goal-focused leadership, and their consequences (c.f., Kernan et al., 2011).

Second, this article also contributes to the goal-focused leadership literature. Goal-focused leadership is typically viewed in a positive way (Kim et al., 2018). However, even though goal-focused leadership could be helpful for subordinates, it is not always true that this type of leadership is beneficial for them. It is important to note that although goal-focused leadership can serve as a helpful guideline (Kim et al., 2018), it may backfire when it comes from abusive supervisors (Zhong et al., 2023). This is likely due to the dual stress from abusive supervision and goal-focused leadership, making abusive supervision trigger negative emotions and the exhaustion of resources (Hobman et al., 2009). Although goal-focused leadership is supposed to clarify goals and the means to attain them, it also creates pressure to perform from supervisors who are mistreating their employees. They become angry, exhausted, and demotivated thus triggering their CWBs. In our two studies, goal-focused leadership exacerbated the harmful effect of abusive supervision, particularly among subordinates who were low on conscientiousness. When abusive supervision was low, goal-focused leadership did not contribute to CWB. That is, goal-focused leadership can be a stressor in some cases.

Third, as described in stress theories, conscientiousness acts as a personal resource to reduce the impact of strain. Highly conscientious employees are likely to (1) have confidence that they can acquire resources in the future because of their organized support network, (2) be efficient in utilizing their available resources, and (3) be motivated to perform well, all things being equal. Therefore, they are generally unlikely to slack off, even when they must cope with abusive leaders. In contrast, low conscientious employees are likely to slack off in order to conserve personal resources. Scholars, such as Tepper (2007), have argued that it is crucial to explore how subordinates’ personalities affect the way they feel about abusive supervision. This study can narrow this gap in the personality literature by examining how conscientiousness reduces the negative influences under dual stressors such as goal-focused abusive supervision. Relatedly, our findings suggest, consistent with COR theory, that additional personal resources provided by conscientiousness as a resource-enhancing trait can help mitigate the negative impact caused by goal-focused abusive supervision. Kim et al. (2018) provided a call for future research on conscientiousness as an additional moderator with respect to goal-focused leadership. We responded to this call as well.

4.2. Strengths, limitations, and opportunities for future research

To test our hypotheses, we used two different samples (i.e. corporate and non-corporate employees in different countries), providing more generalizability of our findings. Given that Study 1 was cross-sectional, Study 2 reduced some concern about a causal relationship between abusive supervision and CWB by collecting data from different sources at two points in time. This replication allowed us to reach more definitive conclusions from two studies.

Despite several strengths, this article also includes limitations. First, in Study 1, all data are based on self-reports. However, scholars suggested that self-report surveys are not always inferior to other forms of data collection (i.e. reports by others) (Berry et al., 2012; Conway and Lance, 2010; Spector, 2019). Some scholars contend that objective data should be used in deviance research (Robinson and Greenberg, 1998). However, given that organizations can only report CWB when supervisors catch or reprimand subordinates who engage in it (Fox and Spector, 1999), objective data suffers from contamination. In addition, as CWB is often hidden and supervisors may not detect many CWBs (Sackett and DeVore, 2001; Zheng et al., 2019), we used confidential respondents’ self-reports to measure this construct. Nonetheless, subordinates may underreport their CWB because of fear of being caught and reprimanded, which raises a potential problem of self-report bias (Leong and Austin, 2006).

Second, we only examined conscientiousness in this study. Other personal characteristics such as performance goal orientation and proactive personality may also moderate the relationship between goal-focused abusive supervision and CWB. Individuals who are high on performance goal orientation tend to utilize every possibility to push their performance and to outperform others (Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004). Thus, they are less likely to engage in CWB in response to their mistreatment or task-related stressors such as goal-focused leadership than those who are low on performance goal orientation (Kim et al., 2018) if their goal-focused abusive leaders help them achieve their goals. Future researchers also might consider proactive personality as a contingent condition on the relationship between goal-focused abusive leadership and CWB (e.g. whether they are passive or proactive). For example, the effects of abusive supervision on behaviors or performance may not be as severe for passive followers as for proactive followers (see Carsten et al., 2010 for information on types of followership). It would thus be very interesting to examine other personal characteristics as contingent factors that indicate how subordinates are affected differently by abusive supervision and goal-focused leadership.

Third, we adopted the conservation of resources framework by treating abusive supervision and goal-focused leadership as factors that consume the energy available for regulatory activities. But goal-focused leadership as well as abusive supervision are malleable factors that fluctuate over time and thus may cause stress levels and CWBs to fluctuate as well. Thus, future studies should explore how resources within a person change under goal-focused leadership or goal-focused abusive supervision by using an experience sampling method (Beal, 2015). Fourth, we did not account for the performance of the follower. It is possible, albeit not necessarily likely, that many of the individuals reporting a high level of supervisory abuse or goal-focused leadership were poor performers (e.g. Walter et al., 2015). Studies accounting for supervisor ratings of performance and other supervisor perceptions of the follower are likely to inform theory (Tepper et al., 2011; Wu et al., 2009).

Finally, strategic abuse can be positive for subordinates (Huai et al., 2022) or leaders (Ju et al., 2019) in the short term. Future research, examining more nuanced aspects of abusive supervision with goal-focused leadership and/or personality traits can extend existing research by clarifying how and when abusive supervision results in subordinates’ performance improvement and/or CWB.

4.3. Practical implications

Our findings also offer implications for practice. Abusive supervision causes employee absenteeism, turnover, and lower effectiveness, which costs billions of dollars each year for US companies (Mackey et al., 2017; Tepper et al., 2006). Despite these findings over the past two decades, abusive supervision is still prevalent in many organizations. Why do leaders who engage in abusive supervision still get promoted to higher positions? In organizations, abusive supervision is more likely to be tolerated by middle or top managers if those abusive supervisors tend to propel their subordinates to focus on achieving organizational goals and performance. However, our findings show that under this situation, subordinates, especially those low in conscientiousness also engage in CWB. Therefore, organizations should always take action to prevent abusive supervision even if those leaders are also goal-focused, high performers. The most crucial factor to prohibit abusive supervision in organizations is to cultivate a consistent message that abusive supervision is not tolerated. This can be done with organizational policies (Tepper et al., 2008), in addition to the creation of an ethical climate (Victor and Cullen, 1988). That is, abusive supervision should not be endured as it is harmful to employees and may also harm the organization via CWB. In addition, managers need to be mindful of the emotions and stress-induced reactions among employees of abusive and/or goal-focused leaders. This can be done with anonymous surveys of employees about their emotions and their leaders’ behaviors.

Also, because subordinates who are mistreated by the goal-focused supervisor may repay the poor treatment in the future, selection (e.g. filtering out employees who are low in conscientiousness) and leader development efforts (e.g. leadership mentoring, Joo and Cruz, 2023; Joo et al., 2018) as interventions would be helpful to attenuate or avoid the negative implications of abusive supervisors for organizations (Gonzalez-Morales et al., 2018). Leaders should also keep in mind that high goal-focused leadership may lead to more CWB, particularly when combined with abusive supervision. Subordinates may deplete their resources to achieve their tasks or goals, particularly for goal-focused abusive leaders, and engage in CWB to replenish those resources. Thus, it would be important for managers to provide subordinates with flexible recovery time (e.g. psychological detachment, or taking a break) for better performance and psychological well-being (Hunter and Wu, 2016; Qian et al., 2017; Sonnentag and Fritz, 2015). Finally, it is important to note that while those experiencing abusive supervision and goal-focused leadership who were low on conscientiousness engaged in the most deviance, in all cases those experiencing more abusive supervision except one case in Study 2 were more likely to engage in CWB.

5. Conclusion

This study made three major contributions to theory and practice. First, we tested the interaction effect of two leadership types (abusive and goal-focused). We discerned that while goal-focused leadership is typically considered good for organizations, it can have a negative effect if combined with a negative leadership type (abusive). Second, we found that goal-focused leadership is likely perceived as a stressor when it comes from leaders with poor relationship skills which contributes to increases in CWBs. Third, we investigated how a resource-enhancing personality trait (conscientiousness) can help mitigate the negative effect of combined goal-focused abusive leadership if employees are high on this trait. Consistent with predictions based on the stressor-emotion model of CWB and COR theory, the present research speaks to important questions on how and when goal-focused abusive leadership interacts with conscientiousness to affect subordinates’ behaviors. There are clear implications for practitioners to be mindful not only of the negative impact of abusive supervision but its potential to be exacerbated when combined with goal-focused leadership. Abusive supervision should not be tolerated just because it is getting results. These results come at the expense of employee well-being as well as the costs of CWBs. This study provided critical theoretical and practical implications for academics and organizations.

Key Findings and Practical Implications

Abusive supervision leads to counterproductive work behavior.

Goal-focused leadership can be a stressor rather than a resource when it is aligned with abusive supervision, leading to more counterproductive work behavior.

Conscientiousness as a resource-enhancing trait can help mitigate the negative impact caused by goal-focused abusive supervision.

Organizations should always act to prevent abusive supervision even if those leaders are goal-focused and high performers.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and suggestions of Shenjiang Mo and two anonymous reviewers. They also appreciate the generous feedback and support for data collection from Anya Johnson and Alan Witt on an earlier draft of this manuscript. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the Southern Management Association in St. Pete Beach, Florida.

Final transcript accepted on 8 October 2023 by Shenjiang Mo (AE Organisational Behaviour)

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Min-Kyu Joo

Notes

References

Aiken

West

(1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interaction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Arbuckle

(1997) Amos Users’ Guide. Chicago, IL: Small Waters Corporation.

Aryee

Sun

Chen

ZXG

, et al. (2008) Abusive supervision and contextual performance: The mediating role of exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit structure. Management and Organization Review 4: 393–411.

Atkinson

Smith

, et al. (2000) Hilgard’s Introduction to Psychology. 13th ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.

Bakker

Van der Zee

Lewig

, et al. (2006) The relationship between the Big Five personality factors and burnout: A study among volunteer counselors. Journal of Social Psychology 146: 1–20.

Bamberger

Bacharach

(2006) Abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress and subordinate personality into account. Human Relations 59: 723–752.

Barrick

Mount

(1991) The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44: 1–26.

Barrick

Mitchell

Stewart

(2003) Situational and motivational influences on trait-behavior relationships. In: Barrick

Ryan

(eds) Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 60–82.

Barrick

Mount

Judge

(2001) The FFM personality dimensions and job performance: Meta-analysis of meta-analyses. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9: 9–30.

10.

Beal

(2015) ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2: 383–407.

11.

Bendahan

Zehnder

Pralong

, et al. (2015) Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone. The Leadership Quarterly 26: 101–122.

12.

Berry

Carpenter

Barratt

(2012) Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology 97: 613–636.

13.

Carsten

Uhl-Bien

West

, et al. (2010) Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly 21: 543–562.

14.

Champoux

Peters

(1987) Form, effect size and power in moderated regression analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology 60: 243–255.

15.

Chi

SCS

Liang

(2013) When do subordinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly 24: 125–137.

16.

Colbert

Witt

(2009) The role of goal-focused leadership in enabling the expression of conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology 94: 790–796.

17.

Conway

Lance

(2010) What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology 25: 325–334.

18.

Cortina

Hershcovis

Clancy

KBH

(2022) The embodiment of insult: A theory of biobehavioral response to workplace incivility. Journal of Management 48: 738–763.

19.

Costa

McCrae

(1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-factor (NEO-FFI) Inventory Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.

20.

Costa

McCrae

Day

(1991) Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences 12: 887–898.

21.

Cullen

Sackett

(2003) Personality and counterproductive workplace behavior. In: Barrick

Ryan

(eds) Personality and Work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 150–182.

22.

Dalal

(2005) A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 1241–1255.

23.

Dawson

Richter

(2006) Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 917–926.

24.

De Raad

Hendriks

AAJ

Hofstee

WKB

(1992) Towards a refined structure of personality traits. European Journal of Personality 6: 301–319.

25.

Dhanani

LaPalme

Joseph

(2021) How prevalent is workplace mistreatment? A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 42: 1082–1098.

26.

Donnellan

Oswald

Baird

, et al. (2006) The Mini-IPIP Scale: Tine-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment 18: 192–203.

27.

Doty

Glick

(1998) Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods 1: 374–406.

28.

Dunlop

Lee

(2004) Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25: 67–80.

29.

Farh

J-L

Hackett

Liang

(2007) Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal 50: 715–729.

30.

Fischer

Tian

Lee

, et al. (2021) Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink. The Leadership Quarterly 32: 101540.

31.

Fox

Spector

(1999) A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20: 915–931.

32.

Fox

Spector

Miles

(2001) Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior 59: 291–309.

33.

Gonzalez-Morales

Kernan

Becker

, et al. (2018) Defeating abusive supervision: Training supervisors to support subordinates. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 23: 151–162.

34.

Henle

Gross

(2014) What have I done to deserve this? Effects of employee personality and emotion on abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics 122: 461–474.

35.

Hobfoll

(1989) Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist 44: 513–524.

36.

Hobfoll

(2001) The influence of culture, community, and the nested self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review 50: 337–369.

37.

Hobfoll

(2002) Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology 6: 307–324.

38.

Hobman

Restubog

SLD

Bordia

, et al. (2009) Abusive supervision in advising relationships: Investigating the role of social support. Applied Psychology 58: 233–256.

39.

Huai

Lian

Farh

J-L

, et al. (2022) Leaders’ impulsive versus strategic abuse, goal realization, and subsequent supportive behaviors: A self-regulation perspective. Journal of Management. Epub ahead of print 24 October. DOI:10.1177/01492063221132481.

40.

Hunter

(2016) Give me a better break: Choosing workday break activities to maximize resources recovery. Journal of Applied Psychology 101: 302–311.

41.

Janssen

Van Yperen

(2004) Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 47: 368–384.

42.

Johnson

Ostendorf

(1993) Clarification of the Five Factor model with the bridged Big Five-dimensional circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 563–576.

43.

Joo

Cruz

(2023) Formal mentoring and protégés’ leadership development: The roles of protégés’ informal mentoring networks, political skill, and gender. Group & Organization Management. Epub ahead of print 8 February. DOI:10.1177/10596011221150869.

44.

Joo

Atwater

(2018) Formal leadership mentoring and motivation to lead in South Korea. Journal of Vocational Behavior 107: 310–326.

45.

Huang

Liu

, et al. (2019) Supervisory consequences of abusive supervision: An investigation of sense of power, managerial self-efficacy, and task-oriented leadership behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 154: 80–95.

46.

Kernan

Watson

Chen

, et al. (2011) How cultural values affect the impact of abusive supervision on worker attitudes. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 18: 464–484.

47.

Kim

Choi

Vandenberghe

(2018) Goal-focused leadership, leader-member exchange, and task performance: The moderating effects of goal orientations and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Business and Psychology 33: 645–660.

48.

Krischer

Penney

Hunter

(2010) Can counterproductive work behaviors be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 15: 154–166.

49.

Leong

FTL

Austin

(2006) The Psychology Research Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

50.

Liang

Farh

(2012) Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal 55: 71–92.

51.

Liao

Lee

Johnson

, et al. (2021) Seeing from a short-term perspective: When and why daily abusive supervisor behavior yields functional and dysfunctional consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology 106: 377–398.

52.

Little

Cunningham

Shahar

, et al. (2002) To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling 9: 151–173.

53.

Locke

Latham

(2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist 57: 705–717.

54.

Lord

(1998) Characteristics of violence in state government. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 13: 489–504.

55.

McCrae

Johnson

(1992) An introduction to the Five Factor model and its applications. Special issues: The Five Factor model issues and applications. Journal of Personality 60: 175–215.

56.

Mackey

Frieder

Brees

, et al. (2017) Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management 43: 1940–1965.

57.

Mawritz

Dust

Resick

(2014) Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee coping: Does conscientiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology 99: 737–747.

58.

Mawritz

Mayer

Hoobler

, et al. (2012) A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology 65: 325–357.

59.

Mitchell

Ambrose

(2007) Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1159–1168.

60.

Nahum-Shani

Henderson

Lim

, et al. (2014) Supervisor support: Does supervisor support buffer or exacerbate the adverse effects of supervisor undermining? Journal of Applied Psychology 99: 484–503.

61.

Nandkeolyar

Shaffer

, et al. (2014) Surviving an abusive supervisor: The joint roles of conscientiousness and coping strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology 99: 138–150.

62.

Penney

Spector

(2005) Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive workplace behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 777–796.

63.

Perry

Witt

Penney

, et al. (2010) The downside of goal-focused leadership: The role of personality in subordinate exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 1145–1153.

64.

Piccolo

Buengeler

(2013) Leadership and goal setting. In: Locke

Latham

(eds) New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance. New York: Routledge, pp. 357–374.

65.

Pierce

Gardner

Dunham

, et al. (1993) Moderation by organization-based self-esteem of role condition–employee response relationships. Academy of Management Journal 36: 271–288.

66.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Podsakoff

(2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539–569.

67.

Preacher

Curran

Bauer

(2006) Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 31: 437–448.

68.

Qian

Song

Wang

(2017) Abusive supervision and job dissatisfaction: The moderating effects of feedback avoidance and critical thinking. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1–10.

69.

Richardson

Simmering

Sturman

(2009) A tale of three perspectives examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research Methods 12: 762–800.

70.

Robinson

Bennett

(1995) A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal 38: 555–572.

71.

Robinson

Greenberg

(1998) Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants, and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In: Cooper

Rousseau

(eds) Trends in Organizational Behavior. New York: Wiley, pp. 1–30.

72.

Sackett

DeVore

(2001) Counterproductive behaviors at work. In: Anderson

Ones

Sinangil

(eds) Handbook of Industrial Work & Organizational Psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 145–464.

73.

Saucier

(1994) Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment 63: 506–516.

74.

Schmid

Pircher Verdorfer

Peus

(2019) Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest: Theory and measurement of exploitative leadership. Journal of Management 45: 1401–1433.

75.

Siemsen

Roth

Oliveira

(2010) Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods 13: 456–476.

76.

Sonnentag

Fritz

(2015) Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36: S72–S103.

77.

Spector

(1998) A control theory of the job stress process. In: Cooper

(ed.) Theories of Organizational Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 153–169.

78.

Spector

(2019) Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. Journal of Business and Psychology 34: 125–137.

79.

Spector

Fox

(2005) The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior (CWB). In: Fox

Spector

(eds) Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets. Washington, DC: APA Press, pp. 151–174.

80.

Spector

Fox

Penney

, et al. (2006) The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior 68: 446–460.

81.

Taylor

Kluemper

(2012) Linking perceptions of role stress and incivility to workplace aggression: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 17: 316–329.

82.

Tepper

(2000) Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal 43: 178–190.

83.

Tepper

(2007) Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management 33: 261–289.

84.

Tepper

Duffy

Shaw

(2001) Personality moderators of the relationships between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 974–983.

85.

Tepper

Duffy

Henle

, et al. (2006) Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology 59: 101–123.

86.

Tepper

Duffy

Hoobler

, et al. (2004) Moderators of the relationship between employees’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 455–465.

87.

Tepper

Henle

Lambert

, et al. (2008) Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 721–732.

88.

Tepper

Moss

Duffy

(2011) Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal 54: 279–294.

89.

Tepper

Simon

Park

(2017) Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 4: 123–152.

90.

Tett

Burnett

(2003) A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 500–517.

91.

Thau

Mitchell

(2010) Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Test of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 1009–1031.

92.

Torres

(2005) Beastly bosses. Available at: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2005-07-06/news/0507060125_1_bully-bosses-workplace-bullying-pardo

93.

Victor

Cullen

(1988) The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly 33: 101–125.

94.

Vohs

Heatherton

(2000) Self-regulatory failure: A resource-depletion approach. Psychological Science 11: 249–254.

95.

Walter

Lam

Van der Vegt

, et al. (2015) Abusive supervision and subordinate performance: Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology 100: 1056–1072.

96.

Wang

Liao

Zhan

, et al. (2011) Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage against customers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy of Management Journal 54: 312–334.

97.

Wei

(2013) Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 30: 281–296.

98.

Williams

Cote

Buckley

(1989) Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 462–468.

99.

Williams

Hartman

Cavazotte

(2010) Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods 13: 477–514.

100.

Liu

(2009) Abusive supervision and employee performance: Mechanisms of traditionality and trust. Acta Psychologica Sinica 41: 510–518.

101.

(2013) Abusive supervision and subordinate emotional labor: The moderating role of openness personality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43: 956–970.

102.

Yang

(2013) Abusive supervision and workload demands from supervisors: Exploring two types of supervisor-related stressors and their association with strain. Stress and Health 29: 190–198.

103.

Yang

Diefendorff

(2009) The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology 62: 259–295.

104.

Zheng

Qin

Liu

, et al. (2019) Will creative employees always make trouble? Investigating the roles of moral identity and moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics 157: 653–672.

105.

Zhong

Lian

Hershcovis

, et al. (2023) Mitigating or magnifying the harmful influence of workplace aggression: An integrative review. Academy of Management Annals 17: 516–545.