The Trickle-Down Effect of Abusive Supervision: The Moderating Effects of Supervisors’ Task Performance and Employee Promotion Focus

Abstract

Drawing on both social learning theory and conservation of resources theory, our research examines the trickle-down effect of abusive supervision across three hierarchical levels: managers, supervisors, and employees. Specifically, we investigate the positive relationship between abusive manager behavior and emotional exhaustion through abusive supervisor behavior. In addition, we explore supervisor task performance as a situational factor and employee promotion focus as an individual factor in the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and emotional exhaustion. Using data from 190 supervisor–subordinate dyads, the results provide support for our trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Moreover, our results show that the positive relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and emotional exhaustion is stronger when supervisor task performance or employee promotion focus is high. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.

Keywords

abusive supervision trickle-down effect supervisors’ task performance promotion focus emotional exhaustion

Abusive supervisor behavior defined as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178) has received considerable attention over the past two decades (Martinko et al., 2013). Studies have reported that abusive supervision leads to deleterious outcomes including aggression, reduced organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), low performance, low knowledge sharing, high workplace deviance, and psychological distress. (e.g., S. L. Kim et al., 2015; Mackey et al., 2017; Mawritz et al., 2012). In this study, we investigate the trickle-down model of abusive behavior across three hierarchical levels (i.e., managers, supervisors, and employees). Integrating both social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) and conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989), we demonstrate how abusive manager behavior affects subordinates’ abusive behavior (abusive supervisor behavior), which ultimately leads to employees’ emotional exhaustion. More important, this study intends to identify under what conditions the negative impacts of abusive supervisor behavior on employees’ emotional exhaustion are more or less detrimental to employees. Given the negative outcomes of abusive supervisor behavior (Mackey et al., 2017; Mawritz et al., 2012), it is necessary to identify the key contexts that affect the behavior–outcomes relationship. Drawing from the interactional perspective, we propose supervisors’ task performance and employee promotion focus as key moderators in the relationship bWetween abusive supervisor behavior and an employee’s emotional exhaustion.

Although much is known about the deleterious outcomes associated with abusive supervision, there are still issues that need to be addressed. Our research attempts to make three contributions to the abusive supervision literature. First, this research develops the trickle-down model of abusive behavior on employee emotional exhaustion. Although understanding the predictors of abusive supervisor behavior is important for preventing its detrimental effects, the majority of research in this area has focused on the consequences of abusive supervisor behavior (Mackey et al., 2017). This research investigates a supervisor-level factor as a predictor and exhibits how abusive manager behavior evokes abusive supervisor behavior based on social learning theory. Since leaders hold high positions and power in the workplace, it is likely that supervisors working under an abusive manager consider their managers to be appropriate role models to learn from, and thus imitate their abusive behavior (Mawritz et al., 2012). Furthermore, prior research investigated the trickle-down effect of abusive behavior on work group interpersonal deviance (Mawritz et al., 2012) and creativity (D. Liu et al., 2012). This research explores an employee’s emotional exhaustion as an individual outcome of the trickle-down effect of abusive behavior, which has not been examined to date. In addition to social learning theory, this research takes COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and exhibits how abusive supervisors working under an abusive manager lead to an increase in employees’ emotional exhaustion by depleting their resources.

Second, this research applies an interactional perspective and examines supervisors’ task performance and employee promotion focus affecting the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and emotional exhaustion, a topic that has not received much attention. Although scholars have pointed out the importance of contextual factors, myriad studies have ignored such factors in the relationship between abusive supervision and outcomes (Y. Zhang & Liao, 2015). This research explores situational and personal factors simultaneously and investigates how these key moderators influence the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and emotional exhaustion in employees. Among various factors, we direct our attention on a supervisor’s task performance and employee promotion focus because these have been considered important situational and personal factors in today’s competitive and dynamic workplace. It is encouraged that a supervisor exhibit high task performance (Campbell et al., 2017) and employees demonstrate their promotion-focused orientation, since an organization aims to achieve challenging and innovative tasks (Johnson et al., 2017). However, we assume that these desirable factors could be more vulnerable or bring more detrimental outcomes when their supervisor demonstrates abusive behavior. Specifically, we suggest that employees working under a high-performing supervisor perceive that their leader holds a high level of status or power (E. Kim & Glomb, 2014), and thus the negative effect of their abusive behavior on emotional exhaustion could be stronger. Those employees are likely to deplete more resources and suffer more from their high performing but abusive supervisor’s behavior, which leads to a high level of emotional exhaustion based on COR theory.

Our research also applies the regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 2000) and investigates employee promotion focus as an individual moderator in the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and emotional exhaustion. Within this theory, two motivational systems labeled promotion focus and prevention focus are distinctive and independent. While promotion focus is concerned with growth and nurturance, prevention focus is concerned with the need for security and safety (Byron et al., 2018). In this research, we select promotion focus as a key personal moderator since this trait is considered a desirable characteristic in dynamic and challenging business environments (Lanaj et al., 2012). However, if promotion-focused employees are working under an abusive supervisor, they will not be able to express this orientation. According to the regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), when an employee’s regulatory focus is incongruent with his or her working context, the employee does not “feel right” about it which may result in a depletion of resources. Thus, we expect that the impact of abusive supervisor behavior could be more detrimental for promotion-focused employees, leading to emotional exhaustion based on COR theory.

Third, we conduct the trickle-down model of abusive behavior research in the high power distance culture of South Korea (Hofstede, 1980; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Although scholars have noted the necessity of conducting research using non-U.S. samples, there has not been much research on abusive supervision outside of the United States (Martinko et al., 2013). As Tepper (2007) notes, “abusive supervision occurs more frequently in countries with high power distance” (p. 283); it is important to examine the effect of abusive supervision across countries, under different national cultures (Y. Zhang & Liao, 2015). To address this gap, this research is conducted in South Korea where the power distance is high (Hofstede, 1980; S. L. Kim et al., 2017). In such a cultural context, employees tend to easily accept and imitate supervisors’ behaviors. Thus, we expect supervisors to view the behavior of an abusive manager as acceptable and follow it by exhibiting abusive behavior toward their subordinates. Figure 1 presents our conceptual model.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

The Mediating Effect of Abusive Supervisor Behavior

Abusive supervision is a low base rate phenomenon in most organizations (Tepper, 2007). Approximately 13.6% of U.S. workers have reported experiencing abusive supervisor behavior (Schat et al., 2006). However, the cost of abusive supervisor behavior is substantial, estimated at $23.8 billion on an annual basis (Tepper et al., 2006). From this perspective, a great deal of leadership research has focused on leaders’ abusive behavior, given its detrimental effect on individual and organizational outcomes (Martinko et al., 2013). Abusive supervisors often criticize their subordinates publicly, shout at them, intimidate them, use aggressive eye contact with them, withhold necessary information from them, ridicule them, and give them the “silent treatment” (Keashly, 1998; Tepper, 2000). Past research on abusive supervisor behavior has focused on its negative consequences, including attitudes, behaviors, and psychological distress (Harris et al., 2007; S. L. Kim et al., 2016). Considering the negative effect of abusive supervisor behavior, it is worthwhile to investigate which factors prompt it. Recently, studies have begun to examine several factors as antecedents of abusive supervisor behavior such as supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals, hindrance stress, supervisor role overload, and supervisor hostility (Eissa & Lester, 2017; Liang et al., 2016; Mawritz et al., 2014; Tepper et al., 2011). In this research, we examine the trickle-down model of abusive behavior by exploring abusive manager behavior as a predictor of abusive supervisor behavior, based on social learning theory.

According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1986), individuals learn and emulate the behavior of role models by watching them. In an organization, employees observe the behaviors of key actors, including supervisors and coworkers. A recent review of abusive supervision (Tepper et al., 2017) highlights the importance of social learning theory to understand antecedents of abusive supervisor behavior, and suggests role models, organizational norms, and country culture as critical contextual factors supporting this perspective. Given their strong influence in organizations, leaders are often regarded as role models (Brown & Treviño, 2014; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Mayer et al., 2009). In this context, employees are likely to learn how they should act and what is expected of them by watching their leaders (Brown & Treviño, 2014). Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) examined how employees view their ethical leaders as role models and follow their behaviors by exhibiting positive behaviors such as personal initiative. Mawritz et al. (2012) exhibited that a high level of abusive behavior from a manager could serve as a determinant of a supervisor’s abusive behavior. Since a manager’s behavior is salient to his or her followers, a supervisor working under an abusive manager attends to the behavior of the abusive manager.

Moreover, this research is conducted in South Korea, an Asian country, which is characterized by high power distance (Hofstede, 1980). Since individuals in high power distance cultures understand hierarchical status differences between supervisors and employees, they tend to respect and easily accept the behaviors of authority figures (S. L. Kim et al., 2017; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Employees are likely to regard this behavior as a cultural norm within the organization (Vogel et al., 2015). Accordingly, supervisors in high power distance cultures should be more likely to follow and imitate the behaviors of their managers, consistent with social learning theory. Thus, we expect that a supervisor working under an abusive manager will be likely to imitate the manager and display similar abusive behaviors toward his or her subordinates in such cultural contexts.

Emotional exhaustion “refers to feelings of being overextended and depleted of one’s emotional and physical resources” (Maslach & Leiter, 2008, p. 498) and generates negative consequences for individuals, as well as organizations (Cropanzano et al., 2003). Recognizing its negative effects, researchers have investigated the factors of employees’ emotional exhaustion such as perceived workload, job stressors, surface acting, and work–family conflict (Hülsheger et al., 2013; Y. Liu et al., 2015; Sonnentag et al., 2010). Moreover, scholars have identified supervisor factors such as abusive supervision as predictors of employee emotional exhaustion (Carlson et al., 2012; Chi & Liang, 2013; Lee, Kim, & Yun, 2018; Peltokorpi, 2019; Wheeler et al., 2013; Whitman et al., 2014; Wu & Hu, 2009; Y. Zhang et al., 2019). According to COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), psychological stress occurs when there is “(a) the threat of a net loss of resources, (b) the net loss of resources, or (c) a lack of resource gain following the investment of resources” (p. 516). Employees working under an abusive supervisor possess a limited pool of resources owing to the abusive supervisor, which leads to a high level of emotional exhaustion based on COR theory (Lee et al., 2018). Thus, this research suggests emotional exhaustion as a critical psychological outcome of abusive supervisor behavior.

Although the consequences of abusive manager behavior are detrimental to the organization, the impact of abusive manager behavior does not directly affect low-level employees owing to the hierarchical distance between their respective positions (Mawritz et al., 2012). Thus, we argue that abusive supervisor behavior performs a mediating role in the relationship between abusive manager behavior and emotional exhaustion. When managers exhibit abusive behavior toward their direct subordinates—supervisors, in this case—the supervisor is then likely to imitate these behaviors by demonstrating abusive behavior toward his or her direct subordinates based on social learning theory (D. Liu et al., 2012). Employees who experience this mistreatment and hostile behavior from their supervisors tend to feel worried and frustrated while dealing with abusive supervisors, which drains their resources (Harris et al., 2007). Moreover, abused employees are likely to spend their time and energy attempting to figure out why they are being abused. Interpreting the causes of abuse and finding methods to handle the abusive supervisor may be necessary to avoid further abuse but will lead to the consumption of substantial amounts of resources (Thau & Mitchell, 2010). Thus, abused employees experience high levels of emotional demands, beyond what they can psychologically handle, thus resulting in the depletion of resources (Wheeler et al., 2013). Prior studies have demonstrated how resource depletion leads to emotional exhaustion (Lee et al., 2018; Wheeler et al., 2013). Drawing from both social learning theory and COR theory, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 1: Abusive supervisor behavior mediates the relationship between abusive manager behavior and employee emotional exhaustion.

The Moderating Effect of Supervisor Task Performance

Although abusive supervisor behavior leads to detrimental outcomes, the negative effect of abusive supervision changes depending on contexts (Chi & Liang, 2013; Y. Zhang & Liao, 2015). Given the significant influence of supervisor behavior in the workplace (Behrendt et al., 2017), a supervisor’s task performance could be a significant cue that may alter the impact of abusive supervisor behavior on employee emotional exhaustion. For example, a high-performing supervisor is perceived as high status or as a strong power holder in an organization (E. Kim & Glomb, 2014), as he or she has the ability to influence subordinates to a great degree. Thus, the negative influence of abusive supervisor behavior is likely to be stronger for those employees who perceive their supervisor to be high performing; this would deplete the resources of employees more. Moreover, since those employees cannot take revenge on their high-performing but abusive supervisor because of their relatively low power or status (Tepper et al., 2009), employees feel helpless and experience draining of resources; this may result in high emotional exhaustion based on COR theory. Considering high-performing supervisors as strong role models, abused employees working under a high-performing supervisor may attribute the cause of a supervisor’s abusiveness to their own actions (e.g., Eberly et al., 2011). Therefore, these employees are likely to spend their valuable resources by blaming their own incompetence or poor capabilities.

In contrast, when employees perceive their abusive supervisor to be a poor performer, they may not perceive that a lower-performing supervisor represents the organization and view the supervisor as a relatively weak or powerless actor in the workplace. Thus, employees working under a low-performing supervisor are likely to make an external attribution that their supervisor is fully responsible for their abusiveness (e.g., Burton et al., 2014). In this context, employees may not blame themselves; thus the effect of abusive supervisor behavior is less likely to be stronger among these employees, which may lead to lower levels of emotional exhaustion. Hence, we hypothesize the following.

Hypothesis 2: Supervisor task performance moderates the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and employee emotional exhaustion such that the relationship is stronger when supervisor task performance is high, as opposed to when it is low.

The Moderating Effect of Employee Promotion Focus

Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) addresses how people with different motivational orientations shape their own behaviors toward a goal. While promotion focus concentrates on pursuing ideals and accomplishing a goal, prevention focus concentrates on fulfilling responsibilities and avoiding loss (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Prior studies have noted how these two types of regulatory focus are uniquely related to task performance, creativity, OCB, and safety performance (Lanaj et al., 2012; Neubert et al., 2008; Wallace et al., 2009). Moreover, scholars have started to identify regulatory focus as an important moderator that changes the relationship between leader behavior and individual outcomes (Hamstra et al., 2014). In line with prior research, this research specifically investigates employee promotion focus as an individual moderator in the abusive supervisor–emotional exhaustion relationship.

Although abusive supervisor behavior increases employee emotional exhaustion, the effect varies depending on individual factors (Mackey et al., 2013). Scholars have examined individual factors that influence the relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion, such as susceptibility to emotional contagion, resource management ability, and social adaptability skills (e.g., Frieder et al., 2015). In challenging environments, promotion focus is an oft highlighted characteristic, as promotion-focused employees tend to exhibit proactive and enthusiastic attitudes and produce positive work outcomes (Byron et al., 2018). However, previous research did not examine contexts that could be harmful to such employees. In this research, we predict that the detrimental effect of abusive supervisor behavior on emotional exhaustion is stronger for employees with a high promotion focus because the promotion-focused orientation does not match the context of abusive supervisor behavior.

According to the regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), employees tend to experience positive feelings and exhibit constructive behaviors when their regulatory focus is congruent with the environmental context. Similarly, employees feel uncomfortable and do not exhibit positive behaviors when their regulatory focus does not fit with their environmental context. For example, Hamstra et al. (2014) highlight the critical role of promotion focus fit and found that employees with a high promotion focus perceive more value when their leaders exhibit transformational behaviors. In this research, we argue that promotion-focused employees do not experience fit when their supervisor exhibits abusive behavior because it does not foster an adequate environment that encourages such employees to demonstrate their own orientations.

As risk takers, promotion-focused employees are concerned with growth and aspirations and have goals to accomplish future gains (Kark et al., 2018). However, where there is an abusive supervisor, promotion-focused employees will not be able to take risks or adopt challenging behaviors to achieve their goals. Instead, they consume their resources to deal with the abusive supervisor and follow his or her directions, which may lead to a high level of emotional exhaustion based on COR theory. Scholars have reported that abused employees suffer from psychological distress, anger, depression, and anxiety (Y. Zhang & Liao, 2015). Abusive supervision lowers employees’ self-image and self-esteem and hampers their intrinsic motivation (Vogel & Mitchell, 2017; H. Zhang et al., 2014). When employees experience a low level of self-esteem or intrinsic motivation, they are less likely to perform challenging behavior (Ohly & Fritz, 2007). Thus, it is difficult to expect them to activate values that are focused on pursuing gains and achieving challenging goals, which is the orientation of a promotion focus (Byron et al., 2018). Due to this misfit, promotion-focused employees who cannot express their orientations deplete their emotional resources, leading to stress and high emotional exhaustion. Integrating regulatory fit theory and COR theory, we hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 3: Employee promotion focus moderates the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and employee emotional exhaustion such that the relationship is stronger when employee promotion focus is high, as opposed to when it is low.

Method

Participants and Procedures

The participants in this study were full-time employees enrolled in an executive master of business administration course at a university in South Korea. These employees worked in a wide range of industries, from the service industry to the manufacturing industry. Separate questionnaires were developed and distributed to employees and their direct supervisors. All the respondents were assured confidentiality of their responses. We included a cover letter, questionnaire, and stamped envelope in each survey package so that respondents could return their surveys directly to the researchers. The surveys were matched on return via an identification number created by the researchers. Survey packages were initially distributed to 210 independent subordinate–supervisor dyads. We received 199 subordinate responses and 200 supervisor responses, with response rates of 94.8% and 95.3%, respectively. After matching subordinate surveys with their supervisor surveys and eliminating responses with missing information, 190 matched subordinate–supervisor dyads were used for this study. Of the subordinates, 73% were male; their average age was 35.35 years (SD = 5.41), and they had worked, on average, for 6.28 years in their current organization (SD = 5.18). Of the supervisors, 90% were male; their average age was 43.65 years (SD = 4.88), and their average organizational tenure was 13.05 years (SD = 6.70).

Measures

All measures used in this study were translated from English into Korean and then back into English by two independent bilingual translators, to obtain equivalency of meaning (Brislin, 1980). Subordinates responded to questions measuring abusive supervisor behavior, supervisor task performance, promotion focus, emotional exhaustion, and control variables. A subordinate’s supervisor indicated abusive manager behavior. All items were measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

Abusive Manager Behavior

Abusive manager behavior was measured with 15 items, based on Tepper’s (2000) research, and evaluated by a subordinate’s direct supervisor. This measurement asked participants to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements such as “My immediate supervisor tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid” and “puts me down in front of others.” The internal consistency coefficient for abusive supervisor behavior was .97 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [.96, .97]).

Abusive Supervisor Behavior

Abusive supervisor behavior was also measured using 15 items from Tepper’s (2000) research and evaluated by a supervisor’s immediate subordinate. The internal consistency coefficient for abusive supervisor behavior was .96, 95% CI [.95, .97].

Supervisor Task Performance

Supervisor task performance was measured using seven items from Williams and Anderson (1991). Sample items read, “My supervisor adequately completes assigned duties” and “My supervisor meets formal performance requirements of the job.” The internal consistency coefficient for this scale was .90, 95% CI [.88, .92].

Promotion Focus

Promotion focus was measured using nine items from the Work Regulatory Focus scale (Neubert et al., 2008). Sample items read, “I tend to take risks at work to achieve success” and “I focus on accomplishing job tasks that will further my advancement.” The Cronbach’s α for this scale was .88, 95% CI [.86, .91].

Emotional Exhaustion

To measure emotional exhaustion, we used a nine-item measurement adopted from the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Sample items were “I feel emotionally drained from my work” and “I feel frustrated by my job.” The internal consistency coefficient for this scale was .94, 95% CI [.93, .95].

Control Variables

In our statistical analysis, we controlled the potential influences of gender, age, tenure with direct supervisors, and employee prevention focus. Gender was measured as a dichotomous variable, with 1 for male and 2 for female, and age was measured in years. Tenure with direct supervisor was measured as the number of years spent working with the current supervisor. Employee prevention focus was measured using nine items from the Work Regulatory Focus scale (Neubert et al., 2008). Sample items were “I am very careful to avoid exposing myself to potential losses at work” and “I focus my attention on avoiding failure at work.”

Results

Before testing our hypotheses, we conducted conﬁrmatory factor analyses using AMOS software to investigate the adequacy of our hypothesized measurement model. To maintain a favorable parameter to sample size ratio (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998), we created two-item parcels with one item left for each variable of this model because all variables have odd numbers of items (Little et al., 2002). The results suggested that our hypothesized five-factor model (i.e., abusive manager behavior, abusive supervisor behavior, supervisor task performance, promotion focus, emotional exhaustion) provided a reasonable ﬁt to the data: χ²(395) = 836.16, p < .001; comparative fit index (CFI) = .92; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .90; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07. We also compared the model fit with a series of alternative models. For example, the four-factor model, in which we combined abusive supervisor behavior and supervisor task performance into one factor, provided a poorer ﬁt to the data: χ²(399) = 1260.49, p < .001; CFI = .84; TLI = .81; RMSEA = .10. Similarly, the three-factor model, in which we combined the abusive supervisor behavior, supervisor task performance, and promotion focus into one factor, χ²(402) = 1691.41, p < .001; CFI = .76; TLI = .72; RMSEA = .13, and the two-factor model, in which we combined the abusive supervisor behavior, supervisor task performance, promotion focus, and emotional exhaustion into one factor, χ²(404) = 2366.47, p < .001; CFI = .63; TLI = .58; RMSEA = .16, provided a significantly poor fit to the data. Overall, the results of conﬁrmatory factor analyses showed that our hypothesized measurement model suggested the best fit to the data.

Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among key variables are shown in Table 1. As presented in Table 1, abusive manager behavior was positively correlated with abusive supervisor behavior (r = .22, p < .01), and abusive supervisor behavior was positively correlated with employee emotional exhaustion (r = .35, p < .001). Furthermore, the internal consistency of all measures was satisfactory and consistent with previous research. In addition, although we collected data from two different sources, we checked the possibility of common method variance. First, we conducted Harman’s one-factor test. The result suggested that the first factor accounted for only 27.06% of the overall variance, thereby indicating that common method variance was not a problem in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Second, this study utilized a confirmatory factor analysis approach. The results for the one-factor model indicated a significantly poor fit, χ²(405) = 3893.91, p < .001; CFI = .35; TLI = .26; RMSEA = .21, in comparison with the original model, which maintains the notion that common method variance was not perceived as a substantial risk in this study.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations Among Variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Gender^a	1.27	0.45
2. Age^a	35.35	5.41	−.40***
3. Tenure with Supervisor^a	2.75	2.60	−.03	.21**
4. Employee Prevention Focus^a	5.25	0.71	.01	.08	−.03
5. Abusive Manager Behavior^b	1.97	0.95	−.01	.05	.24**	−.07	(.97)
6. Abusive Supervisor Behavior^a	1.73	0.86	.04	.02	.10	−.09	.22**	(.96)
7. Supervisor Task Performance^a	5.82	0.86	−.08	−.02	−.18*	.14	−.17*	−.61***	(.90)
8. Employee Promotion Focus^a	4.94	0.83	−.23**	.08	.00	.28***	−.01	−.07	.06	(.88)
9. Emotional Exhaustion^a	3.71	1.23	.18*	−.05	−.01	.01	.15*	.35***	−.27***	−.08	(.94)

Note. N = 190. Reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses.

These variables were measured from focal employees. ^bSupervisor rating.

p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Hypothesis 1 proposes a trickle-down effect of abusive supervision on employee emotional exhaustion; that is, abusive supervisor behavior serves as a mediator for the relationship between abusive manager behavior and employee emotional exhaustion. As shown in Model 2 in Table 2, abusive manager behavior is positively associated with abusive supervisor behavior (β = .20, p < .01). In addition, Model 5 in Table 2 shows a significant positive influence of abusive supervisor behavior on employee emotional exhaustion (β = .33, p < .001). In Models 4 and 5, the effect of abusive manager behavior on emotional exhaustion is not significant, with a strong presence of abusive supervisor behavior (β = .10, ns in Model 5 vs. β = .17, p < .05, in Model 4). Both increases in F value and R² from Model 4 to Model 5 are significant (ΔF = 22.63, p < .001, ΔR² = .10). The results indicate that abusive supervisor behavior fully mediates the relationship between abusive manager behavior and employee emotional exhaustion (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Results for Simple Mediation.^a

	Abusive Supervisor Behavior		Emotional Exhaustion
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Step 1. Control variables ^b
Gender	.06 [−.18, .42[	.06 [−.18, .41]	.19* [.09, .95]	.19* [.09, .94]	.17* [.06, .86]
Age	.04 [−.02, .03]	.04 [−.02, .03]	.02 [−.03, .04]	.02 [−.03, .04]	.01 [−.03, .04]
Tenure With Supervisor	.10 [−.02, .08]	.05 [−.03, .07]	−.01 [−.07, .07]	−.05 [−.09, .05]	−.06 [−.10, .04]
Employee Prevention Focus	−.09 [−.29, .06]	−.08 [−.27, .08]	.00 [−.25, .25]	.01 [−.23, .27]	.04 [−.17, .30]
Step 2. Main effect
Abusive Manager Behavior		.20** [.05, .32]		.17* [.03, .41]	.10 [−.05, .31]
Step 3. Main effect
Abusive Supervisor Behavior					.33*** [.28, .68]
Overall F	1.04	2.37*	1.54	2.27*	5.89***
Adjusted R²	.00	.04	.01	.03	.13
ΔF		7.54**		5.08*	22.63***
ΔR²		.04		.03	.10

Indirect effect and significance using normal distribution
	Value	SE	z	p
Sobel	.09	.04	2.34	.02
Bootstrap results for indirect effect
	Effect	SE	LL 95% CI	UL 95% CI
Effect	.09	.04	.02	.18

Note. N = 190. 95% CIs are in brackets. Bootstrap sample size = 10,000.

Entries are standardized regression coefficients. ^bVariables are standardized variables.

p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Additionally, we conducted a Sobel test to further assess the mediating effect of abusive supervisor behavior. The results in Table 2 show that the indirect effect of abusive supervisor behavior on employee emotional exhaustion is significant (p = .02). Furthermore, we used the bootstrapping method to test the significance of this mediating process. The method estimates a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval by bootstrapping 10,000 samples (Preacher et al., 2007). The confidence interval of employee emotional exhaustion is from .02 to .18, which excludes zero and thus indicates that the indirect effect of abusive manager behavior on emotional exhaustion of employees is statistically significant. Hypothesis 1 is thus supported.

Hypothesis 2 predicts that a supervisor’s task performance moderates the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and employee emotional exhaustion. The results of Model 5 in Table 3 indicate that the coefficient for the interaction term involving abusive supervisor behavior and supervisor task performance is positive and statistically significant (β = .21, p < .05), and the incremental variance accounted for by the interaction term is significant (ΔF = 6.08, p < .01). To further explore this interaction effect, we plotted the results using the procedure suggested by Aiken and West (1991). In Figure 2, the positive relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and employee emotional exhaustion becomes stronger when supervisor task performance is high, compared with when it is low. Moreover, we conducted simple slope tests. The results confirmed that abusive supervisor behavior has a stronger positive effect on employee emotional exhaustion when supervisor task performance is high (+1 SD; β = .47, t = 4.06, p < .001), compared with when it is low (−1 SD; β = .23, t = 2.71, p < .01). These results support Hypothesis 2.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Results for Moderation.^a

	Emotional Exhaustion
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Step 1. Control variables^b
Gender	.19* [.09, .95]	.19* [.09, .94]	.17* [.06, .86]	.15* [.00, .84]	.17* [.07, .88]
Age	.02 [−.03, .04]	.02 [−.03, .04]	.01 [−.03, .04]	.01 [−.03, .04]	.05 [−.02, .04]
Tenure with Supervisor	−.01 [−.07, .07]	−.05 [−.09, .05]	−.06 [−.10, .04]	−.07 [−.10, .03]	−.05 [−.09, .04]
Employee Prevention Focus	.00 [−.25, .25]	.01 [−.23, .27]	.04 [−.17, .30]	.06 [−.15, .35]	.03 [−.19, .30]
Step 2. Main effect
Abusive Manager Behavior		.17* [.03, .41]	.10 [−.05, .31]	.10 [−.05, .31]	.08 [−.08, .29]
Step 3. Main effect
ASB			.33*** [.28, .68]	.28** [.15, .65]	.35*** [.25, .76]
Step 4. Main effect
Supervisor Task Performance				−.09 [−.38, .12]	−.17 [−.49, .01]
Employee Promotion Focus				−.04 [−.27, .16]	−.02 [−.24, .17]
Step 5. Moderating effect
ASB × Supervisor Task Performance					.21* [.04, .36]
ASB × Employee Promotion Focus					.19** [.10, .61]
Overall F	1.54	2.27*	5.89***	4.56***	5.07***
Adjusted R²	.01	.03	.13	.13	.18
ΔF		5.08*	22.63***	.63	6.08**
ΔR²		.03	.10	.01	.05

Note. N = 190. 95% confidence intervals are in brackets. ASB = Abusive Supervisor Behavior.

Entries are standardized regression coefficients. ^bVariables are standardized variables.

p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001 (two-tailed).

In addition, Hypothesis 3, which predicts the moderating effect of employee promotion focus on the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and employee emotional exhaustion, is supported (β = .19, p < .01). As shown in Figure 3, the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and employee emotional exhaustion is stronger when employee promotion focus is high, rather than low. Simple slope tests show that the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and employee emotional exhaustion is not significant when employee promotion focus is low (−1 SD; β = .15, t = 1.26, ns). However, when employee promotion focus is high (+1 SD), the relationship is significant and positive (β = .56, t = 4.69, p < .001). Therefore, as expected, abusive supervisor behavior has a stronger effect on employee emotional exhaustion among individuals who are high, rather than low in promotion focus. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Additionally, though we examined a three-way interaction among abusive supervisor behavior, supervisor task performance, and employee promotion focus on employee emotional exhaustion, as an exploratory test, the results were not significant.

Discussion

Applying social learning theory and COR theory, this research is built on a trickle-down model. It shows how abusive manager behavior influences abusive supervisor behavior, which subsequently increases the level of employee emotional exhaustion. Moreover, our findings exhibit the situational and individual factors that moderate the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and emotional exhaustion. Our results support the theory that the detrimental effects of abusive supervisors on emotional exhaustion are stronger when supervisor task performance or employee promotion focus is high.

Theoretical Implications

There are various theoretical implications to this study. First, our study was designed to contribute to the abusive supervision literature by examining the trickle-down effect model of abusive behavior across three hierarchical levels on employee’s emotional exhaustion. Prior research has mainly focused on outcomes of abusive supervisor behavior despite the fact that finding predictors of abusive supervision is important to reduce the negative effects of abusive supervision in the workplace (Mackey et al., 2017). Recognizing this, research has begun investigating subordinate and supervisor predictors of abusive supervision (Martinko et al., 2013). As supervisor-level factors, scholars have examined supervisor job stressors as critical antecedents of abusive supervision, including perceptions of emotional exhaustion, injustice, and conflict with peers (Burton et al., 2012; Eissa & Lester, 2017; Liang et al., 2016). It may be worthwhile exploring other manager-level factors as antecedents of abusive supervisor behavior such as managers’ characteristics or motivations in future research.

In addition, our research examined situational and individual factors as moderators that worsen the negative impact of abusive supervisor behavior on emotional exhaustion to deepen our understanding of abusive supervision. Previous studies have investigated several situational factors such as organizational support and justice that mitigate the negative effects of abusive supervision on outcomes (S. L. Kim et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2018). Moreover, Wu and Hu (2009) concluded that the positive relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion worsened for employees with high levels of susceptibility to emotional contagion. Frieder et al. (2015) revealed that this positive relationship is strongest when an individual’s voice behavior and resource management ability are low. Mackey et al. (2013) investigated the moderating role of social adaptability and determined that when employees possess greater social adaptability, the effect of abusive supervision on their level of emotional exhaustion is attenuated. In the future, it would be worthwhile to apply an interactional perspective and investigate other moderators that influence the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and individual outcomes. For example, supervisor factors, such as supervisor’s expertise or conscientiousness, can be selected as moderators that affect the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and individual outcomes. When the abusive supervisor exhibits high expertise or conscientiousness, the impact of abusive supervisor behavior on the employee’s emotional exhaustion is likely to be strengthened.

Second, an important contribution of this study is to demonstrate the significant position of leaders as role models in the workplace. Our research highlighted how upper- and lower-level leaders might act as role models and influence employee outcomes. Prior studies have applied social learning theory and investigated leaders’ constructive behaviors, such as leaders’ OCB, as a predictor of pro-social behaviors (Yaffe & Kark, 2011). Brown and Treviño (2014) have shown the positive relationship between ethical role models and leaders’ ethical behavior. Through the application of social learning theory, this study demonstrated how supervisors observe and learn their manager’s abusive behavior by exhibiting abusive behavior toward their own subordinates. Our findings exhibit that social learning theory is applied to both destructive and constructive leader behaviors.

As this research is conducted in the Asian context of South Korea, a high power distance culture, the influence of abusive manager behavior is likely to lead to abusive supervisor behavior. Employees working in high power distance cultures are likely to regard supervisors as strong role models to follow in the workplace (S. L. Kim et al., 2017). Moreover, our research highlighted how the role of supervisors varied depending on their task performance. As high-performing supervisors are praised and encouraged in the workplace (Campbell et al., 2017), such supervisors’ behavior is particularly stronger in high power distance cultures. Our slope test findings exhibited that low-performing supervisors are harmful for employees’ emotional exhaustion regardless of the level of abusive supervisor behavior; however, the impact of abusive supervisor behavior on emotional exhaustion is stronger when employees perceive their supervisor to be high-performing. In future research, it would be worthwhile applying social learning theory and examining how the influence of a leader is different depending on the context of different national cultures. For example, employees working in a low power distance culture may not follow or imitate the behavior of their supervisor to a great extent, since the behavioral impact of the leader is likely to be lower in such a context.

Furthermore, the results of the slope test show that low-performing supervisors are harmful for employees’ emotional exhaustion regardless of the level of abusive supervisor behavior. Although we did not hypothesize and anticipate this result, we believe that it is worthwhile to investigate the reasons why employees working with low-performing supervisors may perceive a high level of emotional exhaustion, even in the context of low level of abusive supervisor behavior. It is possible that those employees may not expect to receive any insightful ideals or valuable know-how from their low-performing supervisor. Future research may explore this possibility and examine the negative influence of low-performing supervisors on employees’ various outcomes, including job satisfaction and task performance.

Our research examined the interactive effect of positive and negative aspects of leaders. Prior research has explored the moderating role of leader–member exchange (LMX) in the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational deviance through basic needs satisfaction (Lian et al., 2012). The findings revealed that the detrimental effect of abusive supervisor behavior has a greater effect on the basic needs satisfaction of employees whose LMX is high. In line with prior research, we examined how supervisor task performance acts as a moderator and alters the impact of abusive supervisor behavior on emotional exhaustion. Although a high level of supervisor task performance is predicted to be desirable in the workplace, our results showed the possibility that it can exacerbate the negative influence of abusive supervisor behavior on employee emotional exhaustion. In future research, it would be meaningful to investigate how high-performing supervisors influence the effect of constructive leadership on individual outcomes. Since employees are likely to view high-performing supervisors as strong role models, the effect of supportive or empowering leadership on outcomes is likely to be stronger.

Third, the findings from this research add value to the regulatory focus literature. Applying the regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), our findings exhibit how promotion-focused employees do not fit with abusive supervisor behavior, leading to a high level of emotional exhaustion. Since promotion-focused employees value challenging goals and autonomous desires, they tend to exhibit constructive behaviors (Johnson et al., 2017). Past research has noted the benefits of promotion focus on various work outcomes such as high levels of task performance, innovation, and OCB (Smith et al., 2016). However, Smith et al. (2016) recently identified a negative aspect of promotion focus. Their research revealed how promotion-focused employees could be seen as opportunistic and self-serving, particularly when these employees possess negative traits. Similarly, our results are meaningful and demonstrate that employees with a high level of promotion focus may be vulnerable to abusive supervisor behavior and suffer more emotional exhaustion by depleting their resources based on COR theory. It is worthwhile conducting further research to examine other situations that may elicit the negative aspects of promotion focus.

Finally, we shed light on the emotional exhaustion literature by investigating the abusive behaviors of managers and supervisors as predictors of emotional exhaustion. Previous studies have identified individual, job, and supervisor factors as significant predictors of emotional exhaustion (Arnold, 2017; Hülsheger et al., 2013; Sonnentag et al., 2010). Among various supervisor factors, scholars have noted transformational, ethical, and participative leadership, as well as LMX as determinants of emotional exhaustion (Arnold, 2017; Chughtai et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2018; Mulki et al., 2006; Schermuly & Meyer, 2016; Zheng et al., 2015). For example, Schermuly and Meyer (2016) showed that LMX is positively related to employee empowerment, which reduces the level of their emotional exhaustion. Mulki et al. (2006) have demonstrated how emotional exhaustion mediates the effect of participative leadership on job satisfaction. Moreover, prior research has investigated the positive relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion (Chi & Liang, 2013; Lee et al., 2018; Peltokorpi, 2019; Whitman et al., 2014; Y. Zhang et al., 2019). Our research contributes to the literature regarding emotional exhaustion by linking the abusive manager–employee emotional exhaustion relationship through abusive supervisor behavior. More importantly, we explore the moderating effects of supervisors’ task performance and employee promotion focus in the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and employee emotional exhaustion. Future research may investigate various manager behaviors, such as ethical behavior, and examine how ethical managers can reduce the level of employees’ emotional exhaustion through ethical supervisor behaviors.

Managerial Implications

Our study also has practical implications, as our findings highlight the negative consequences of leaders’ abusive behavior in the workplace. Our results exhibit how abusive manager behavior is detrimental because it triggers supervisor’s abusive behavior, which, in turn, has a harmful effect on employees and leads to their emotional exhaustion. These findings highlight an important consideration that organizations should adopt policies or procedures to reduce abusive behavior in the workplace. Prior studies have noted that supervisors demonstrate abusive behavior when they experience negative organizational conditions, such as psychological contract violations, interactional injustice, and workplace stress (Aryee et al., 2007; Burton et al., 2012; Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Thus, organizations should focus on implementing practices that promote justice and fairness in the workplace, which may be helpful for reducing a supervisor’s negative organizational perception.

Our results suggest that organizations should strive to develop training programs to decrease the negative impacts of abusive behavior in the workplace. First, organizations should provide leadership training, not only for first-line managers, but also for high-level managers, to prevent this negative aspect of leadership. As supervisors tend to follow the behavior of managers, high-level managers need to understand how their abusive behavior influences the attitudes and behavior of supervisors and employees. According to social learning theory, all types of manager behavior are observed and imitated by lower-level employees in the workplace. Consequently, it is important for leaders at all levels to be positive role models and exhibit constructive behaviors.

In addition, our research demonstrates the critical role of supervisor task performance in the relationship between abusive supervisor behavior and emotional exhaustion. Since it is important to retain top performers, organizations tend to look for ways to attract and retain such employees (Cappelli & Keller, 2014). However, our findings suggest a possible negative aspect of high-performing supervisors. Given the dynamic and competitive modern-day work environment, it is possible that top performers at the manager level show aggressive or abusive behavior toward their subordinates to achieve challenging goals. In this respect, organizations should be aware that high-performing supervisors could strengthen the negative influence of abusive supervisor behavior on employee emotional exhaustion. Thus, organizations should create positive work environments to prevent abusive behavior in the workplace.

Another practical implication derives from our examination of the moderating role of employee regulatory focus. Prior research has shown the positive effects of promotion focus on various outcomes (Lanaj et al., 2012). However, our findings demonstrate that employees with high promotion focus can experience a high level of emotional exhaustion in the context of abusive supervisor behavior. Organizations should therefore pay more attention to finding solutions to mitigate the negative consequences of abusive supervisor behavior for such employees.

Limitations and Future Research

As with most studies, our research is not without limitations. First, we used a cross-sectional design and thus cannot test the causal processes. Future research should adopt a longitudinal design to clarify the causal basis of the relationships. Second, common method bias could be a problem. To reduce this bias, we collected data from two different sources—the employees and their supervisors. For example, to enhance the objectivity of the data, we used the supervisors’ data for abusive manager behavior, whereas we used the employees’ data for other variables, such as abusive supervisor behavior, emotional exhaustion, supervisors’ task performance, and promotion focus. Moreover, because common method bias is less likely to be a reason for significant interaction effects (Evans, 1985), our major results may not be substantially affected by it. Nevertheless, future research may consider the use of various methods to avoid this potential issue.

A third limitation of our study is that other variables may influence our model. For example, our research used only one dependent variable: emotional exhaustion. It may be interesting to examine various outcomes, such as job-related performance, in future research. Moreover, we did not measure any role model variables in this study, although we used a role-modeling perspective to explain the trickle-down effect. In future research, it would be beneficial to measure and test whether subordinates perceive their leader as a role model or not. In addition, our research did not assess how employees perceive the extent that they are abused relative to other group members—that is, as compared to the group mean of abusive supervision (Schaubroeck et al., 2016). Although employees experience supervisors’ abusive behavior, the negative impact of abusive supervisor behavior may not be strong if they perceive less abuse, compared to their group members. Future research may examine the trickle-down effect of relative abusive supervision and its boundary conditions. In addition, researchers should conduct future research across different cultures to increase the generalizability of the findings as our research was conducted in a high power distance culture. Finally, since each supervisor-subordinate dyad may have been aware that his or her dyad was being surveyed, this awareness may have influenced subordinate or supervisor responses to some degree. Thus, it might be beneficial to avoid such issues in future studies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Incheon National University (International Cooperative) Research Grant in 2017.

ORCID iD

Seckyoung Loretta Kim

Author Biographies

Seckyoung Loretta Kim is an associate professor at the College of Business Administration, Incheon National University, Republic of Korea. Her current research interests include leadership, proactivity, and knowledge sharing. Her recent work appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology, The Leadership Quarterly, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Group & Organization Management, and other journals.

Soojin Lee is an associate professor in the College of Business Administration at Chonnam National University in South Korea. Her special areas of research include leadership, motivation, and performance. Her research appeared in several journals including the Leadership Quarterly, the Group & Organization Management, The Journal of Business Ethics, and the Journal of Business Research.

Seokhwa Yun is a professor at the College of Business Administration at Seoul National University, Korea. His special areas of research include leadership, employee’s extra-role behaviors, and knowledge management. His research has appeared in journals such as Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, to name a few. He served as an ad hoc reviewer for major journals including the Academy of Management Review and the Journal of Applied Psychology.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Arnold

K. A.

(2017). Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 381-393. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000062

Aryee

Chen

Z. X.

Sun

L. Y.

Debrah

Y. A.

(2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191-201. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000062

Bagozzi

R. P.

Edwards

J. R.

(1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 45-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100104

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Behrendt

Matz

Göritz

A. S.

(2017). An integrative model of leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 229-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.002

Brislin

(1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In Triandis

H. C.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-culture psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389-444). Allyn & Bacon.

Brockner

Higgins

E. T.

(2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35-66. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2972

10.

Brown

M. E.

Treviño

L. K.

(2014). Do role models matter? An investigation of role modeling as an antecedent of perceived ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 587-598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9255-0

11.

Burton

J. P.

Hoobler

J. M.

Scheuer

M. L.

(2012). Supervisor workplace stress and abusive supervision: The buffering effect of exercise. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(3), 271-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9255-0

12.

Burton

J. P.

Taylor

S. G.

Barber

L. K.

(2014). Understanding internal, external, and relational attributions for abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(6), 871-891. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1939

13.

Byron

Peterson

S. J.

Zhang

LePine

J. A.

(2018). Realizing challenges and guarding against threats: Interactive effects of regulatory focus and stress on performance. Journal of Management, 44(8), 3011-3037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316658349

14.

Campbell

E. M.

Liao

Chuang

Zhou

Dong

(2017). Hot shots and cool reception? An expanded view of social consequences for high performers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(5), 845-866. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000183

15.

Cappelli

Keller

J. R.

(2014). Talent management: Conceptual approaches and practical challenges. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 305-331. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091314

16.

Carlson

Ferguson

Hunter

Whitten

(2012). Abusive supervision and work–family conflict: The path through emotional labor and burnout. Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 849-859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.003

17.

Chi

S. C. S.

Liang

S. G.

(2013). When do subordinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates' emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.006

18.

Chughtai

Byrne

Flood

(2015). Linking ethical leadership to employee well-being: The role of trust in supervisor. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 653-663.

19.

Cropanzano

Rupp

D. E.

Byrne

Z. S.

(2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160-169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.160

20.

Den Hartog

D. N.

Belschak

F. D

. (2012). Work engagement and Machiavellianism in the ethical leadership process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1296-4

21.

Eberly

M. B.

Holley

E. C.

Johnson

M. D.

Mitchell

T. R.

(2011). Beyond internal and external: A dyadic theory of relational attributions. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 731-753. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0371

22.

Eissa

Lester

S. W.

(2017). Supervisor role overload and frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision: The moderating role of supervisor personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2123

23.

Evans

M. G.

(1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90002-0

24.

Frieder

R. E.

Hochwarter

W. A.

DeOrtentiis

P. S.

(2015). Attenuating the negative effects of abusive supervision: The role of proactive voice behavior and resource management ability. Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 821-837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.06.001

25.

Hamstra

M. R.

Sassenberg

Van Yperen

N. W.

Wisse

(2014). Followers feel valued—When leaders’ regulatory focus makes leaders exhibit behavior that fits followers' regulatory focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 34-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.11.003

26.

Harris

K. J.

Kacmar

K. M.

Zivnuska

(2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 252-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.007

27.

Higgins

E. T.

(1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280

28.

Higgins

E. T.

(2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217-1230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217

29.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

30.

Hofstede

G. H.

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

31.

Hoobler

J. M.

Brass

D. J.

(2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125-1133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125

32.

Hülsheger

U. R.

Alberts

H. J.

Feinholdt

Lang

J. W.

(2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310-325. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031313

33.

Johnson

R. E.

King

D. D.

Lin

S. H. J.

Scott

B. A.

Walker

E. M. J.

Wang

(2017). Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140(May), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.03.002

34.

Kark

Van Dijk

Vashdi

D. R.

(2018). Motivated or demotivated to be creative: The role of self-regulatory focus in transformational and transactional leadership processes. Applied Psychology, 67(1), 186-224. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12122

35.

Keashly

(1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 85-117. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v01n01_05

36.

Kim

Glomb

T. M.

(2014). Victimization of high performers: The roles of envy and work group identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 619-634. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035789

37.

Kim

S. L.

Han

Son

S. Y.

Yun

(2017). Exchange ideology in supervisor-subordinate dyads, LMX, and knowledge sharing: A social exchange perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(1), 147-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9483-y

38.

Kim

S. L.

Kim

Yun

(2015). Knowledge sharing, abusive supervision, and support: A social exchange perspective. Group & Organization Management, 40(5), 599-624. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115577514

39.

Kim

S. L.

Lee

Yun

(2016). Abusive supervision, knowledge sharing, and individual factors: A conservation-of-resources perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(6), 1106-1120. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2015-0169

40.

Lanaj

Chang

C.-H.

Johnson

R. E.

(2012). Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 998-1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027723

41.

Lee

Kim

S. L.

Yun

(2018). A moderated mediation model of the relationship between abusive supervision and knowledge sharing. Leadership Quarterly, 29(3), 403-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.09.001

42.

Lian

Ferris

D. L.

Brown

D. J.

(2012). Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.003

43.

Liang

L. H.

Lian

Brown

D. J.

Ferris

D. L.

Hanig

Keeping

L. M.

(2016). Why are abusive supervisors abusive? A dual-system self-control model. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1385-1406. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0651

44.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

Shahar

Widaman

K. F.

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

45.

Liu

Liao

Loi

(2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1187-1212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0400

46.

Liu

Wang

Chang

C.-H.

Shi

Zhou

Shao

(2015). Work–family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and displaced aggression toward others: The moderating roles of workplace interpersonal conflict and perceived managerial family support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 793-808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038387

47.

Mackey

J. D.

Ellen

B. P.

Hochwarter

W. A.

Ferris

G. R.

(2013). Subordinate social adaptability and the consequences of abusive supervision perceptions in two samples. Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 732-746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.003

48.

Mackey

J. D.

Frieder

R. E.

Brees

J. R.

Martinko

M. J.

(2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940-1965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573997

49.

Martinko

M. J.

Harvey

Brees

J. R.

Mackey

(2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(Suppl. 1), 120-137. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1888

50.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

(1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2(2), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205

51.

Maslach

Leiter

M. P.

(2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.498

52.

Mawritz

M. B.

Mayer

D. M.

Hoobler

J. M.

Wayne

S. J.

Marinova

S. V.

(2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 325-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01246.x

53.

Mawritz

M. B.

Folger

Latham

G. P.

(2014). Supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals and abusive supervision: The mediating effects of hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 358-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1879

54.

Mayer

D. M.

Kuenzi

Greenbaum

Bardes

Salvador

(2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002

55.

Mulki

J. P.

Jaramillo

Locander

W. B.

(2006). Emotional exhaustion and organizational deviance: Can the right job and a leader's style make a difference? Journal of Business Research, 59(12), 1222-1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.001

56.

Neubert

M. J.

Kacmar

K. M.

Carlson

D. S.

Chonko

L. B.

Roberts

J. A.

(2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220-1233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012695

57.

Ohly

Fritz

(2007). Challenging the status quo: What motivates proactive behaviour? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 623-629. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X180360

58.

Peltokorpi

(2019). Abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion: the moderating role of power distance orientation and the mediating role of interaction avoidance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 57(3), 251-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12188

59.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

60.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

61.

Schat

A. C. H.

Frone

M. R.

Kelloway

E. K.

(2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression in the US workforce: findings from a national study’. In Kelloway

E. K.

Barling

Hurrell

J. J. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47-89). Sage.

62.

Schaubroeck

J. M.

Peng

A. C.

Hannah

S. T.

(2016). The role of peer respect in linking abusive supervision to follower outcomes: Dual moderation of group potency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 267-278. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000050

63.

Schermuly

C. C.

Meyer

(2016). Good relationships at work: The effects of leader–member exchange and team–member exchange on psychological empowerment, emotional exhaustion, and depression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(5), 673-691. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2060

64.

Shin

S. J.

Zhou

(2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703-714. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040662

65.

Smith

M. B.

Wallace

J. C.

Jordan

(2016). When the dark ones become darker: How promotion focus moderates the effects of the dark triad on supervisor performance ratings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 236-254. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2038

66.

Sonnentag

Kuttler

Fritz

(2010). Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 355-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.005

67.

Tepper

B. J.

(2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375

68.

Tepper

B. J.

(2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812

69.

Tepper

B. J.

Carr

J. C.

Breaux

D. M.

Geider

Hua

(2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 156-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.004

70.

Tepper

B. J.

Duffy

M. K.

Henle

C. A.

Lambert

L. S.

(2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x

71.

Tepper

B. J.

Moss

S.E.

Duffy

M. K.

(2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263085

72.

Tepper

B. J.

Simon

Park

H. M.

(2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(January), 123-152. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062539

73.

Thau

Mitchell

M. S.

(2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1009-1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020540

74.

Vogel

R. M.

Mitchell

M. S.

(2017). The motivational effects of diminished self-esteem for employees who experience abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 43(7), 2218-2251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314566462

75.

Vogel

R. M.

Mitchell

M. S.

Tepper

B. J.

Restubog

S. L.

Hua

Huang

J. C.

(2015). A cross-cultural examination of subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 720-745. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1984

76.

Wallace

J. C.

Edwards

B. D.

Arnold

Frazier

M. L.

Finch

D. M.

(2009). Work stressors, role-based performance, and the moderating influence of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 254-262. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013090

77.

Wheeler

A. R.

Halbesleben

J. R.

Whitman

M. V.

(2013). The interactive effects of abusive supervision and entitlement on emotional exhaustion and co-worker abuse. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 477-496. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12034

78.

Whitman

M. V.

Halbesleben

J. R.

Holmes

IV . (2014). Abusive supervision and feedback avoidance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 38-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1852

79.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E.

(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305

80.

T.-Y.

(2009). Abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and boundaries. Group and Organization Management, 34(2), 143-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331217

81.

Yaffe

Kark

(2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 806-826. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022464

82.

Zhang

Kwan

H. K.

Zhang

L. Z.

(2014). High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1151-1174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312460681

83.

Zhang

Liao

(2015). Consequences of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(4), 959-987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9425-0

84.

Zhang

Liu

Yang

L. Q.

Bednall

T. C.

(2019). Why abusive supervision impacts employee OCB and CWB: A meta-analytic review of competing mediating mechanisms. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2474-2497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318823935

85.

Zheng

Witt

L. A.

Waite

David

E. M.

van Driel

McDonald

D. P.

Callison

K. R.

Crepeau

L. J.

(2015). Effects of ethical leadership on emotional exhaustion in high moral intensity situations. Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 732-748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.01.006