The Dark Side of Leadership: A Review of Literature on Abusive Supervision

Ashok Kumar Goute
Associate Professor, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Department of Human Resource Management and Soft Skills, IBS Hyderabad (Under IFHE - A Deemed to be University u/s 3 of the UGC Act, 1956), Hyderabad, Telangana, India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: ashok.kumar@ibsindia.org

Avanthika Goute
Associate Program Manager, Great Lakes E-Learning Services Private Limited, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. E-mail: avanthiashoksid@gmail.com

N Akbar Jan
Assistant Professor, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Department of Human Resource Management and Soft skills, IBS Hyderabad (Under IFHE - A Deemed to be University u/s 3 of the UGC Act, 1956), Hyderabad, Telangana, India. E-mail: akbarjan.1975@gmail.com; akbarjan75@ibsindia.org

The role of managers and supervisors is becoming more important in the modern VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity) world and the emerging new normal of post-Covid. The different styles of leadership produce different outcomes for the organization. Similarly, one of the dark sides of leadership, i.e., abusive supervision, brings out outcomes that are of greater concern for organizations across the globe. The present literature review of abusive supervision is intended to highlight the aspects more relevant to organizational behavior domain. The study also elaborates the relationships of abusive supervision with other organizationally important variables, including relevant mediators and moderators. The various opportunities for future research like relationship of abusive supervision with organizational culture, injustice, and organizational citizenship behavior have been identified.

Introduction

Managers and supervisors play an important role in influencing the performance of their reporting teams and the well-being of the team members. The role of managers and supervisors is becoming even more important in the modern VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity) world and the emerging post-Covid 'new normal'. This has made aspects of the dark side of leadership such as abusive supervision a matter of greater concern for organizations across the globe.

Abusive supervision can be expressed as the subordinate's insight on the supervisor's unfriendly behavior. It refers to both linguistic and non-linguistic behavior. Abusive supervision generally pertains to workplace; however, it is not restricted to workplace alone. It is more prominent than physical harassment or sexual harassment. Abusive supervision is a destructive kind of leadership under which the direct reports take a lot of stress and strain. Tepper (2000) defined abusive supervision as "subordinates' perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact". The examples of abusive behaviors may include undermining the contribution by the subordinates, derogatory comments on subordinates in front of others and explosive outburst by supervisors. It also includes dissonant behavior, opprobrium, mockery, breach of promise, invasion of privacy and also silent treatment. Abusive supervision affects multiple areas in the organization. It leads to disobeying of the orders, increase in the attrition, decrease in the performance, resistance from the employees, low in conscientiousness and many more.

The key element of the construct is that abusive supervision indicates ongoing manifestations of hostility instead of discrete episodes and the abusers may or may not like to cause harm. For example, scolding an employee for eliciting higher performance may be considered abusive. It may be noted that abusive supervision constitutes subjective perception of subordinates as two subordinates may view the behavior of the supervisor differently and also a behavior considered as abusive in one context may not be viewed so in another context.

Several earlier reviews that exist summarized the findings mostly using meta-analysis about antecedents, consequences of abusive supervision, synthesized theoretical frameworks, reviewed abusive supervision in specific contexts, and identified gaps within the literature (e.g., Zhang and Bednall, 2016; Mackey et al., 2017; Park et al., 2019; and Yu et al., 2020). In contrast, our review of literature starts with the seminal work of Tepper (2000) and covers literature till date on abusive supervision appeared in the top tier journals of organizational behavior (e.g., Journal of Organizational Behavior and Academy of Management Journal).

Tepper (2000) introduced the concept of abusive supervision and found that abusive supervision gave rise to many unfunctional consequences. The reaction of subordinates to abusive supervision depends on the experiences of injustice in their life. He also found that some consequences of abusive supervision are more visible among the subordinates who are working with minimum mobility. Subordinates who considered their supervisor to be abusive prefer to quit their job, and if they could not quit their job, then they go through psychological distress. The study indicated that future research can be on the links between abusive supervision and injustice; and abusive supervision and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB).

Tepper et al. (2001) studied the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinate's resistance with respect to their personality moderators. They provided further evidence about the damaging effect in the organizations, and variables which explain the responses of employees to the perceived injustice. Abusive supervision does not impact all the subordinates in a similar way. If the subordinate's diligence was lower, then the relation between subordinate's constructive resistance and abusive supervision was stronger, and the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates' dysfunctional resistance was stronger among subordinates who were lower in conscientiousness than among subordinates who were higher in conscientiousness. They suggested that future research could be explored on the sub-dimensions of Big Five Dimensions, i.e., Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, as suggested by Costa et al. (1991). And also, the situational variables which contribute to the abusive behavior of the supervisor and how the subordinates respond to that type of abusive supervision.

Zellars et al. (2002) studied the relationship between abusive supervision and OCB. They found that there is a direct relationship between the behavior of supervisor and OCB. The relationship between abusive supervision and subordinate's OCB was stronger among subordinates who perceived OCB as extra role behavior when compared with those defining OCB as in-role behavior and this effect was totally mediated by the interactive effect of procedural justice and OCB role definitions. Researchers can further explore whether abusive supervision is a cause or effect of subordinate's OCB; analyze whether abusive supervisors rate their direct reports more brutally than the non-abusive supervisors; to explore if impression management determines OCB performance; and to explore the abused subordinate's explanations for their respective supervisor's behavior.

Bamberger and Bacharach (2006) explored the link between abusive supervision and subordinate's problem drinking with particular reference to subordinate's personality traits like conscientiousness and agreeableness. They found that subordinates who are working under more abusive supervisors were more likely to have problem drinking, and found that there is a direct link between abusive supervision and subordinate's problem drinking depending upon their sensitivity and agreeableness. Researchers can explore if the above findings are applicable to non-blue-collar occupations. They can identify the configurations of personality which might impact the individual's response to the abuse and to the stress related to the abuse. They can also analyze the impact of abusive supervision on the subordinate's problem drinking considering the organizational voicing system. Tepper et al. (2007) studied abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinate's psychological distress. They opined that the strength of relationship depends on the way the subordinate uses maintenance communication. If the subordinate fails to speak up, then he may be associated with psychological distress. The subordinates who face more abuse have more distress. The subordinates who were abused by the supervisors did not maintain proper communication with their supervisor and there was no proper relationship between them. The future researchers can investigate the communication of an abused subordinate, and can also explore the short-term effects of communication using the various outcomes like daily moods.

Tepper et al. (2011) focused on the predictors of abusive supervision and the supervisor's perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict and subordinate performance. The study found that if a supervisor perceives deep-level dissimilarity, then the performance of subordinates will be lower, and this will again lead to abusive supervision. The supervisor's perception of deep-level dissimilarity remained a very important contributor to abusive supervision. The conflict of relationship had not mediated the correlation between abusive supervision and perceived deep-level dissimilarity. They also suggested that the models linking perceived relationship conflict and abusive supervision should account for supervisor perceptions of subordinate performance. Further work can be done by using the designs which consider all the variables. Further, researchers can also explore if it can be applicable to other industries as well.

Xu et al. (2012) explored the work behaviors and abusive supervision with the mediating role of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX). The study found that LMX supports a pessimistic association of abusive supervision and OCB. The study also pointed out that the social-exchange relationship between supervisors and subordinates might play a crucial role in knowing the consequences and the influencing mechanism of abusive supervision. They also found that there is a pessimistic association between abusive supervision and employee work relation. Researchers can work to uncover the fluctuations of reciprocal exchange between the subordinates and their abusive supervisors. They can explore the circumstances which lead the abused subordinates to pick up a fight with their abusive supervisor. They can also explore the boundary conditions that moderate the negative exchanges.

Liu et al. (2012) explored the dark side of leadership and the impact of abusive supervision on employee creativity. They have explored the role of negative aspects in leadership which play a role in employee creativity. In a hierarchy, the leaders at the lower level may imitate the leaders at the higher level, e.g., abusive behavior. It further describes the trickle-down model of leadership. The creativity of the team member depends on the attributions of the followers and the team leader himself. Abusive supervision builds a negative relationship between the subordinate creativity and supervisor. The budding researchers can test if subordinate motivation can act as a linking process between supervisor and subordinate creativity. They can explore the cascading effects of abusive supervision. The individual differences variables can also be measured. The employee's ability to build the relation with the leaders can also be studied.

Ogunfowora (2013) examined the consequences of a dispersion-based conceptualization of unit-level abusive supervision or abusive supervision variability. The study extended the literature by providing support for the distinction between abusive supervision as an idiosyncratic, individual-level experience and abusive supervision as a collective phenomenon. The analysis has been done at the individual and unit level. There is a visible cross level effect of abusive supervision that had correlated negatively with organizational affective commitment, leader ethicality, and satisfaction of the leader. The study suggested that the future research may be conducted using the method that would have been to ask each respondent to report the extent to which the supervisor is equally or differentially abusive toward employees of the unit in order to test the replicability of the findings. The researchers can check if the finding is generally applicable across the industries.

Lian et al. (2014) focused on retaliation and abusive supervision in the context of self-control framework. The absence of both capacity and motivation results in the strongest relation between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed aggression. They also found punishment-based motivation exerts a stronger effect than reward-based motivation. The study suggests self-control is needed for employees to overcome urges to retaliate against those who treat them poorly. In future, researchers can further explore using multisource data. They can untangle the causal relation between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed aggression. Future researchers are advised to directly assess motivation to self-control as an inner force, rather than using external forces like supervisory power. The impact of abusive supervision at intra-individual level can also be explored. Priesemuth et al. (2014) examined abusive supervision climate with reference to mediation effect on the group outcomes. The study found that the abusive supervision has its impact at the individual level and also at the group level and hence impacts the teamwork processes and also affects the whole working environment. Abusive supervision is more than an individual level phenomenon. The role of social identity or collective efficacy can be considered while understanding abusive supervision. The study shows that an abusive climate impacts group outcomes. Future researchers can consider other variables which affect abusive supervision climate and task processes in teams. The impact of group efficacy literature and group identity on abusive supervision, and the patterns of full and partial mediation result also points to future research opportunities.

Whitman et al. (2014) focused on the feedback avoidance due to abusive supervision and also the role of emotional exhaustion. The study found that when an employee is abused, he is emotionally exhausted and tends to avoid the feedback. And, feedback avoidance was also associated with further exhaustion indicating a loss spiral. Subordinates who think that they cannot forecast or manage the abusers will experience exhaustion. The subordinates withdraw from the supervisors in a stressful situation in order to adjust to the situation. The avoidance of feedback may not be an appropriate strategy to cope with the abuse. Future researchers can explore the study across other industries. They can also explore the role of gender in the case of abuse and feedback avoidance. They can further explore the role of performance in the abusive supervision with relationship to feedback avoidance. It is possible that manager may engage in abusive behavior toward subordinates because of poor performance, and subordinates may actively engage in feedback avoidance because they know they have performed poorly. Mawritz et al. (2014) explored the supervisor's exceedingly difficult goals and abusive supervision. There is an alliance between the assigned job goals that are perceived as difficult and abusive supervisory behavior. There is a relation between the supervisor allotted difficult goals and their subsequent abusive behavior. They have explained why goals that are appraised by a supervisor as exceedingly difficult might become related to abusive supervision. As for future research, the relationships can be tested in a laboratory and different data collection methods can be used. The group level impact can also be studied in this area. It will be helpful to study the supervisors who set exceedingly difficult goals for their subordinates in terms of their efforts to address their own abuse.

Burton et al. (2014) attempted to understand the internal, external, and relational attributions for abusive supervision. As per the study, external and internal attributions are strongly impacting the supervisor abuse. Also, the aggressive and non-aggressive behavioral responses also impact the abusive supervision. The authors suggested that future studies might build on research examining the trust repair process and assess trust as an alternative mechanism through which causal attributions for perceived supervisory abuse relate to employees' aggressive and citizenship behaviors. Future research might also examine individual difference variables that could affect the relationships proposed in this study. The study on positive or negative attitude could provide more details for abusive supervision. The relational attributions for the perceived abuse and their respective potential antecedents and the consequences can also be studied.

Barnes et al. (2015) studied leader's sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement. Supervisor sleep quality was associated with daily abusive behaviors through the mediator of daily ego depletion. A supervisor's quality of sleep impacts the outcomes of subordinates; secondarily, it increases the abusive behavior of the supervisor daily. The daily sleep of leaders is an antecedent to daily abusive behavior of supervisor and work unit engagement. The quality and quantity of the sleep of the supervisor are the predictors of abusive supervision. The future researchers can explore the supervisor's day-level workload, day-level stress, and day-level health- and wellbeing-related variables. Further, the sleep quality and quantity of the supervisor and the subordinates can be explored. Also, the sleep's effect on fatigue and ego depletion can be differentiated. They can also explore the consistency of the behavior of the leader.

Vogel et al. (2015) studied the effect of abusive supervision on cross-cultural perceptions of the subordinate. The interactions between subordinates differ according to their culture. The study found that the values and norms of the prevailing country culture shape subordinates' orientation toward status difference. Abusive supervision was reported to a greater extent by Confucian Asian subordinates than Anglo subordinates and the cultural norms are important to consider especially with regard to the construction of interpersonal fairness perceptions. The researchers can explore the generalizability of these models in other industries and can explore the possibilities of abuse across different cultures.

Courtright et al. (2016) worked on the self-regulatory perspective of antecedents of abusive supervision. They found that the abusive supervision is getting support from a self-regulatory resource depletion. Many antecedents of abusive supervision are identified. The relationship between the FWC and abusive supervision is stronger in female supervisors than the men supervisors. Researchers can explore the impact of ego depletion and aggressive behaviors on the interplay of cognitive and emotional processes. More antecedents to abusive supervision and a greater number of models can be explored. The researchers can also explore the impact of gender on antecedents of abusive supervision and workplace aggression.

Lam et al. (2017) studied abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion of supervisor and also studied supervisor self-monitoring and perceived subordinate performance as moderators. The authors discovered that supervisor's emotional exhaustion is an important risk factor for subordinate's perceptions of abusive supervision. The study threw more light on resource conservation process which may give rise to abusive supervision and also consequences and boundary conditions of supervisors' resource deprivation. Future researchers can explore the steps which the organization can take in order to reduce the abusive supervision. Future research may uncover the extent to which supervisors' exhaustion has broad repercussions for their overall leadership effectiveness. Future studies may also draw from Conservation of Resources (COR)-based perspective to consider the relationship between emotional exhaustion and other supervisory behaviors and leadership outcomes.

Eissa and Lester (2017) studied the supervisors role overload and frustration which act as antecedents of abusive supervision and also the role of supervisor personality. The author explored frustration and role overload as antecedents and base for abusive supervision. The study found that the supervisors' personality traits also influence the process multiple times along the mediational path from role overload to abusive supervision. Certain work situations might also act as undesirable events and these events are likely to induce negative emotional reactions and these negative emotional reactions trigger negative behavioral reactions (e.g., abuse). Various research designs can be used for future research. This research can be done at group level and the impact at the group level can be studied. Future research could benefit from investigating other affective work events such as role conflict, role ambiguity, or autonomy and other negative emotions such as fear, shame, or guilt, all of which could possibly trigger and contribute to abusive supervision in the workplace. The three variables which might affect the abusive supervision can be explored-supervisors' personality, subordinates' personality, and the prevailing culture in the organization.

Yu et al. (2018) studied the consequences of downward envy and also models of supervisory leader self-improvement, abusive supervision and self-esteem threat. The authors found that there is an impact of downward envy on the behavior of supervisory leaders. They explored the technique and the situations which link the downward envy and adaptive responses. In order to feel better about themselves, supervisory leaders considered that downward abuse can cause damage to their direct reports. The supervisors prefer to choose self-improvement over abusive supervision to reduce the gaps with the envied subordinates. Researchers can further explore the reformatory value of abusive supervision and self-improvement. There are many factors which can give rise to downward envy (e.g., popularity and physical attractiveness) and they can be studied in future research. The reactions of downward envy can be explored.

Wang et al. (2018) studied if anger expression helps or harms the leader effectiveness in the context of competence-based versus integrity-based violations and abusive supervision. The authors contributed a lot on anger and leadership in many ways. Effective leadership can be achieved only when the leader is clear when he has to express his anger and when he has to suppress it. The interpersonal effects of anger can be an important moral function in the leadership process. Anger can enhance perceived leader effectiveness when expressed in the right situation and by the right person. The future researchers can explore whether anger expression can be more effective when it is expressed by a charismatic leader. They can study if gender is impacting the response of followers.

Haggard and Park (2018) studied Perceived Supervisor Remorse (PSR), abusive supervision, and LMX. The study found that the supervisors who abuse their subordinates also feel guilty for abusing them. PSR reduces the indirect effects of abusive supervision on turnover intentions and Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE). This indirect effect operates through LMX and interactional justice. PSR also has a direct impact on OBSE and subordinate's resistance. The future researchers can study the antecedents, consequences, and boundary conditions. They can also study the trustworthiness of the supervisor and how repeated acts of abuse followed by remorse might change the effectiveness of remorseful expressions over time. A longitudinal study can explore the limits of abuse and guilt cycle. The impact of culture on abusive supervision can also be explored.

McAllister et al. (2018) studied the relationship between job tension and abusive supervision and the role of self-regulation in them. The authors found the differences between the two forms of self-regulation, i.e., trait and state self-regulation, and highlight how they differentially predicted job tension. The study found that state self-regulation was related with decreased job tension. They also integrated the social exchange theory and ego depletion theory to explain why trait and state self-regulation can differentially predict outcomes of strain in the workplace. The have provided good and new concepts to the application of ego depletion theory within abusive supervision research. The future researchers can study this concept for large organizations and entire sub-population simultaneously. They can also explore the role of trait and state self-regulation in affecting the individual perception and behavior. They can also explore the various methods that subordinates use to release their job tension that comes out of abusive supervision.

Mackey et al. (2018) studied the implications of examining the relationships between targets of social exchange behaviors and inconsistent sources of social exchange perceptions, which is referred to as social exchange source-target misalignment. The results of the study show evidence that abusive supervision is indirectly and negatively related to OCBs directed toward organizations through perceived organizational obstruction. This indirect conditional effect is stronger for subordinates who perceive higher levels of supervisor organizational embodiment than others. The results showed the utility of studying social exchange source-target misalignment because of match of Supervisor Organizational Embodiment (SOE) and perceived organizational obstruction might help explain why and how the relationships between subordinates' positive organizational outcomes and abusive supervision are stronger for a few subordinates than others. This study encourages future researchers to build on their findings by examining how negative and positive social exchange perceptions change in various perceptions and behaviors. Liang et al. (2018) have tested the time-lagged relationship between employee physical health and abusive supervision in a one year-longitudinal cross-lagged investigation. In addition, they tested rumination as a cognitive process which mediates the time-lagged relationship while modeling other relevant motivational and social mediators. This study contributes to theory by not only identifying rumination as a causal mechanism by which abusive supervision leads to somatic complaints but also laying to rest competing explanations through a straightforward process of theory pruning. The study's findings show that chronic exposure to abusive supervision can have a negative impact on the individual's physical health. The study majorly suggested future studies to investigate the relationships between additional employee outcomes and rumination; and also, to examine the potential mediation effect of cortisol and conditional effect of age.

Shao et al. (2018) took a counterintuitive approach to third-party reactions to peer abusive supervision and suggests that observers may actually increase their effort levels in response to peer abusive supervision. They also found out that own abuse and observed abuse were differently responded by the prevention-focused employees. Their study also contributed to the agenda of the research by not only indicating when self-protective third-party responses are more likely to come out but also indicating why observers might take a self-protective stance against peer abusive supervision. With regard to future study, they suggested to have longitudinal study to explore the long-term motivational effects of peer-abusive supervision. They also suggested empirical examination of moderating effects of promotion focus on how people respond to own and peer-abusive supervision. The future research should also consider other ways to evade potential mistreatment such as ignoring the abuses altogether (Skarlicki et al., 2005 and 2015), denigrating the direct victims (Lerner, 1980), or colluding with the abusive supervisor (Padilla et al., 2007).

Yu et al. (2020) provided practitioners and researchers with a grasp of abusive supervision that is prevalent in hospitality industry. They conducted exhaustive review of abusive supervision by investigating research design, antecedents, mechanisms and consequences of abusive supervision. They suggested future scholars to find out employee withdrawal behavior at work as an outcome of abusive supervision in hospitality industry and to find out why the behavior is not significantly related with abusive supervision; to find out supervisor-level outcomes and expand the findings for larger impact; to find the relationship between psychological wellbeing and abusive supervision in hospitality sector; and to explore on the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational structure. Fischer et al. (2021) reported a critical and systematic review of research on abusive supervision and provided an extensive catalogue of abusive supervision's correlates like moderators, mediators, outcomes and antecedents. They recognized four challenges that are facing abusive supervision. First, conceptualization of abusive supervision is done in a confused way that combines leaders' behavior with subjective evaluations of followers. Second, the researchers consider how conceptual confusion is reflected in and undermines dominant measurement tools. Third, they presumed that abusive supervision is a phenomenon reported rarely. Fourth, they recognized and reviewed overdependence on surveys that are cross-sectional and portrayal experiments. With regard to future research, they suggested that scholars seek external variation source in their studies and study abusive supervision as an interactionist and therefore longitudinal phenomenon.

Conclusion
We have reviewed 28 research papers on abusive supervision published in top tier journals of organizational behavior (i.e., Journal of Organizational Behavior, Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Human Relations, Leadership Quarterly, and International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management). The review tries to clarify and explain the concept of abusive supervision. The review also elaborates the relationships of abusive supervision with other organizationally important variables, including relevant mediators and moderators. This paper further highlights possible future research opportunities which would inspire future researchers to take up the research on abusive supervision forward. We hope that practitioners will find this paper useful to address the issues related to abusive supervision and improve the performance and well-being of employees in the organizations.

Future Research: The paper highlights various opportunities for further research on abusive supervision. These include relationship of abusive supervision with organization culture, injustice, OCB, Big Five personality dimensions, self-regulation, gender, role ambiguity, and various emotions. Future researchers can also explore variations of abusive supervision within a team, as well as across organizations and industries. Future researchers may also explore temporal variations of abusive supervision across day of time, week of month, or weather conditions. They can also expand research to explore abusive supervision climates in teams, organizations, and industries. Another area of potential exploration would be influences of different aspects of rumination and social exchange on abusive supervision. Also, effects of abusive supervision on victim, teammate, and outsiders may be different. The communication strategies and styles of abused subordinates can be another area of future research.

Abusive supervision has been studied largely in the western context. Given that abusive supervision is defined based on the perceptions of the subordinates, the societal culture may influence these perceptions. India has unique organizational and societal context as compared to western countries (Sanaria, 2016). Therefore, it would be relevant for future researchers to study abusive supervision in the Indian context.

These are some of the important and relevant aspects of abusive supervision research which can enable future researchers to contribute towards theory building related to this dark side of leadership.

References

1. Bamberger P A and Bacharach S B (2006), "Abusive Supervision and Subordinate Problem Drinking: Taking Resistance, Stress and Subordinate Personality into Account", Human Relations, Vol. 59, No. 6, pp. 723-752.
2. Barnes C M, Lucianetti L, Bhave D P and Christian M S (2015), "You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Sleepy: Leaders' Sleep, Daily Abusive Supervision, and Work Unit Engagement", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58, No. 5, pp. 1419-1437.
3. Burton J P, Taylor S G and Barber L K (2014), "Understanding Internal, External, and Relational Attributions for Abusive Supervision", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 871-891.
4. Costa Jr P T, McCrae R R and Dye D A (1991), "Facet Scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO Personality Inventory", Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 12, No. 9, pp. 887-898.
5. Courtright S H, Gardner R G, Smith T A et al. (2016), "My Family Made Me Do It: A Cross-Domain, Self-Regulatory Perspective on Antecedents to Abusive Supervision", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59, No. 5, pp. 1630-1652.
6. Eissa G and Lester S W (2017), "Supervisor Role Overload and Frustration as Antecedents of Abusive Supervision: The Moderating Role of Supervisor Personality", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 307-326.
7. Fischer T, Tian A W, Lee A and Hughes D J (2021), "Abusive Supervision: A Systematic Review and Fundamental Rethink", The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 6, 101540.
8. Haggard D L and Park H M (2018), "Perceived Supervisor Remorse, Abusive Supervision and LMX", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 10, pp. 1252-1267.
9. Lam C K, Walter F and Huang X (2017), "Supervisors' Emotional Exhaustion and Abusive Supervision: The Moderating Roles of Perceived Subordinate Performance and Supervisor Self-Monitoring", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp. 1151-1166.
10. Lerner M J (1980), "The Belief in a Just World", in The Belief in a Just World. Perspectives in Social Psychology, pp. 9-30, Springer, Boston, MA.
11. Lian H, Brown D J, Ferris D L et al. (2014), "Abusive Supervision and Retaliation: A Self-Control Framework", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 116-139.
12. Liang L H, Hanig S, Evans R et al. (2018), "Why is Your Boss Making You Sick? A Longitudinal Investigation Modeling Time-Lagged Relations Between Abusive Supervision and Employee Physical Health", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 9, pp. 1050-1065.
13. Liu D, Liao H and Loi R (2012), "The Dark Side of Leadership: A Three-Level Investigation of the Cascading Effect of Abusive Supervision on Employee Creativity", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55, No. 5, pp. 1187-1212.
14. Mackey J D, Frieder R E, Brees J R and Martinko M J (2017), "Abusive Supervision: A Meta-Analysis and Empirical Review", Journal of Management, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 1940-1965.
15. Mackey J D, Mcallister C P, Brees J R et al. (2018), "Perceived Organizational Obstruction: A Mediator That Addresses Source-Target Misalignment Between Abusive Supervision and OCBs", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 10, pp. 1283-1295.
16. Mawritz M B, Folger R and Latham G P (2014), "Supervisors' Exceedingly Difficult Goals and Abusive Supervision: The Mediating Effects of Hindrance Stress, Anger, and Anxiety", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 358-372.
17. McAllister C P, Mackey J D and Perrewe P L (2018), "The Role of Self-Regulation in the Relationship Between Abusive Supervision and Job Tension", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 416-428.
18. Ogunfowora B (2013), "When the Abuse is Unevenly Distributed: The Effects of Abusive Supervision Variability on Work Attitudes and Behaviors", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1105-1123.
19. Padilla A, Hogan R and Kaiser R B (2007), "The Toxic Triangle: Destructive Leaders, Susceptible Followers and Conducive Environments", The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 176-194.
20. Park H, Hoobler J M, Wu J et al. (2019), "Abusive Supervision and Employee Deviance: A Multifoci Justice Perspective", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 158, No. 4, pp. 1113-1131.
21. Priesemuth M, Schminke M, Ambrose M L and Folger R (2014), "Abusive Supervision Climate: A Multiple-Mediation Model of Its Impact on Group Outcomes", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57, No. 5, pp. 1513-1534.
22. Sanaria A D (2016), "A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Impression Management Strategies Used by Women In Indian Organizations", South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 25-39.
23. Shao P, Li A and Mawritz M (2018), "Self-Protective Reactions to Peer Abusive Supervision: The Moderating Role of Prevention Focus and the Mediating Role of Performance Instrumentality", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 12-25.
24. Skarlicki D P and Latham G P (2005), "How Can Training Be Used to Foster Organizational Justice?" in J Greenberg and J A Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice, pp. 499-522.
25. Skarlicki D P, O'Reilly J and Kulik C T (2015), "The Third Party Perspective on (in) Justice", in R Cropanzano and M A Ambrose (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Justice in Work Organizations, pp. 235-255, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
26. Tepper B J (2000), "Consequences of Abusive Supervision", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 178-190.
27. Tepper B J, Duffy M K and Shaw J D (2001), "Personality Moderators of the Relationship Between Abusive Supervision and Subordinates' Resistance", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp. 974-983.
28. Tepper B J, Moss S E, Lockhart D E and Carr J C (2007), "Abusive Supervision, Upward Maintenance Communication, and Subordinates' Psychological Distress", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 1169-1180.
29. Tepper B J, Moss S E and Duffy M K (2011), "Predictors of Abusive Supervision: Supervisor Perceptions of Deep-Level Dissimilarity, Relationship Conflict and Subordinate Performance", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 279-294.
30. Vogel R M, Mitchell M S, Tepper B J et al. (2015), "A Crosscultural Examination of Subordinates' Perceptions of and Reactions to Abusive Supervision", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 720-745.
31. Wang L, Restubog S, Shao B et al. (2018), "Does Anger Expression Help or Harm Leader Effectiveness? The Role of Competence-Based Versus Integrity-Based Violations and Abusive Supervision", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 1050-1072.
32. Whitman M V, Halbesleben J R and Holmes IV O (2014), "Abusive Supervision and Feedback Avoidance: The Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 38-53.
33. Xu E, Huang X, Lam C K and Miao Q (2012), "Abusive Supervision and Work Behaviors: The Mediating Role of LMX", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 531-543.
34. Yu L, Duffy M K and Tepper B J (2018), "Consequences of Downward Envy: A Model of Self-Esteem Threat, Abusive Supervision and Supervisory Leader Self-Improvement", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61, No. 6, pp. 2296-2318.
35. Yu Y, Xu S, Li G and Kong H (2020), "A Systematic Review of Research on Abusive Supervision in Hospitality and Tourism", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 2473-2496.
36. Zellars K L, Tepper B J and Duffy M K (2002), "Abusive Supervision and Subordinates' Organizational Citizenship Behavior", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 6, pp. 1068-1076.
37. Zhang Y and Bednall T C (2016), "Antecedents of Abusive Supervision: A Meta-Analytic Review", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 139, No. 3, pp. 455-471.