The Effects of Abusive Supervision

Abusive Supervision & Cognitive Appraisal

Introduction

People are social beings. Our acquaintances beget both benefits and

consequences. Interpersonal conflict arising from supervisors, colleagues, and client

interactions is a form of stress commonly found at work (Kuhns, 2008). Recently,

increasing interest has sparked research towards abusive supervision and its negative

consequences. Empirical research has found that abusive supervision leads to increased

turnover, less favorable attitudes, increased conflict between relationships, and lower in-

role and extra-role behaviors (Tepper, 2000).

Abusive supervision is a “subordinate’s perception 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). It is considered a form of

counterproductive workplace behavior which is opposite to the organization’s interests

(Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Abusive supervision is perceptual in nature and based on an

individual’s subjective assessment (Tepper, 2001). That is, some individuals may view

their supervisor’s behavior as abusive in one situation and non abusive in another.

Furthermore, two subordinates may differ in their assessment of a common supervisor’s

actions. When confronted with abusive supervisory behaviors, subordinates may be

unwilling to admit that they have experienced abusive supervision by their supervisors,

while others may exaggerate their supervisor’s hostility.

Abusive supervision has a downward influence effect (Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw,

2001). A supervisor’s negative actions tend to “flow downhill” (Hoobler & Brass, 2006,

p. 1125) towards weaker individuals. “Individuals rarely abuse targets who are more

powerful than themselves” (Lord, 1998 as cited in Tepper et al., 2001, p. 974), “it is

1


unlikely that abused subordinates will reciprocate by abusing their supervisor” (Tepper et

al., 2001). Abusive supervision is also characterized as continuous and persistent over

time. Supervisor’s hostile behaviors are expected to occur until the subordinate

terminates the relationship, the supervisor terminates the relationship, or the supervisor

changes his/her behavior. Some common examples of abusive supervision include

humiliating or ridiculing someone in public, intimidating by use of threats of job loss,

withholding needed information, taking undue credit, invasion of privacy, aggressive eye

contact, giving silent treatment, using derogatory names, and both yelling and screaming

at employees (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper,

Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006).

Recent studies identified similar themes associated with abusive supervision.

However, abusive supervision is a separate and distinct construct from petty tyranny

(Ashforth, 1997), bullying (Schuster, 1996), workplace harassment (Bowling & Beehr,

2006), and workplace victimization and aggression (Aquino & Bradfield, 2000; Neuman

& Baron, 1998, as cited in Dietz, Robinson, Folger, Baron, & Schulz, 2003).

Similar to abusive supervision, petty tyranny describes an individual’s tendency

to lord over his/her power to others. It captures hostile acts where its direction flows

downward coming from its superiors down to its subordinates (Ashforth, 1997; Tepper,

2007). Examples of petty tyranny include use authority for personal gain, administer

organizational policies unfairly, discourage initiative, and displays low levels of

consideration (Ashforth, 1997). Abusive supervisions’ distinct difference is that it

comprises only the behaviors that are viewed as hostile (Tepper, 2007), while petty

tyranny may not be necessarily viewed as hostile acts.

2


Bullying is the occurrence of social exclusion and terrorization towards others

involving all organizational members (Schuster, 1996). Its manifestations include the

intention of negative consequences, attacks involving one or more culprits, and

repetitions over a longer period of time towards their victims (Schuster, 1996). Similar to

abusive supervision, bullying involves the constant exposure to intimidating behaviors in

the organization. In contrast, abusive supervision does not involve physical contact and

only works in a downward direction focused on weaker subordinates.

Workplace harassment is interpersonal behaviors or actions intentionally directed

to harming other employees within the working environment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). It

includes obscene movements, dirty stares, intimidations, shouting, demeaning and in

extreme cases physical assault, and even killing (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). It differs

greatly from abusive supervision because physical violence is present and expected in

cases of harassment whereas no assault is found in cases of abusive supervision.

Victimization is an individual’s self-perception of having been exposed either

momentarily or repeatedly to injurious actions emanating from one or more persons

(Aquino & Bradfield, 2000). Abusive supervision is comparable to workplace

victimization in that both constructs deal with an individual’s perception of abuse.

However, abusive supervision specifically deals with perceived abuse emanating from

one’s superior and is not considered to be a violation of norms in the workplace

(Rogelberg, 2006). Another distinction is that the content domain of workplace

victimization includes the physical manifestation of hostility (Tepper, 2007) that is

represented by statements like “pushed or punched you” (Aquino, 2000 as cited in

Tepper, 2007, p. 180). Lastly, the construct of workplace victimization presupposes that

3


the intention of the perpetrator of abuse is to harm, while the construct of abusive

supervision primarily heeds that the abuser has no intention to harm but rather desires to

bring forth improvements in performance (Tepper, 2007).

Workplace aggression consists of an individual efforts’ to harm coworkers and

even the organization currently employing the individual (Dupre, Inness, Connelly,

Barling, & Hoption, 2006). It corresponds to harm-doing that is intentional and includes

psychological as well as physical injury (Neuman & Baron, 1998, as cited in Dietz et al.,

2003). Furthermore, workplace aggression may not always come from those of a higher

position than the subject of the aggression, but may also emanate from a co-worker and

or subordinate (Tepper, 2007). Abusive supervision is different because it shows hostility

by supervisors to their subordinates (Tepper, 2000).

Few research reports have examined the antecedents of abusive supervision.

These include authoritarian leadership style (Aryee et al., 2007), interactional and

procedural injustice experiences of supervisors’ (Aryee et al., 2007; Tepper et al., 2006),

and psychological contract breach (Hoobler & Brass, 2006).

Authoritarian leadership was found to be positively related to abusive supervision

(Aryee et al., 2007). Authoritarianism is a form of leadership that demands obedience and

absolute authority over subordinates. According to the theory of leadership effectiveness

(Fiedler, 1967 as cited in Aryee et al., 2007), the individuals’ underlying need structure

motivates his/her behavior in different leadership situations. Authoritarians are known for

making independent decisions and displaying personal dominance over subordinates, in

order for the leader to satisfy his/her need for control he/she would likely engage in

abusive supervision over weaker employees.

4


Procedural injustice is directly related to abusive supervision (Tepper et al.,

2006). Procedural justice is defined as subjective views of fairness in which

organizational representatives make allocation decisions for resources (Tepper et al.,

2006). A supervisor experiences injustice when he/she is denied voice and his/her

decisions are disrespectfully accepted by colleagues, producing feelings of resentment,

and a desire to get even. The supervisor dwelling in a depressed state lashes out hostile

behaviors, experiencing a decline in performance and increased difficulty with his/her

interpersonal relationship. According to the displaced aggression theory (Thau, Bennett,

Mitchell, & Marrs, 2008), this form of injustice provides for the supervisors aggressive

actions toward subordinates, allowing them to regain their lost sense of control and power

(Tepper et al., 2006).

Hoobler and Brass (2006) reported a positive relationship between the

psychological contract breach experienced by supervisors and abusive supervision.

Psychological contract breach occurs when there is a mismatch in implicit or explicit

promises made by the employer and what employees feel they are entitled to (Rousseau,

1995). Supervisors experiencing psychological contract breach may exhibit abusive

behavior towards their subordinates due to the supervisor’s hostile-attribution bias.

Hostile-attribution bias considers the interaction between a situation and the person’s

cognitive assessment of projecting blame unto others (Adams & John, 1997 as cited in

Hoobler & Brass, 2006). The supervisor when experiencing psychological contract

breach believes someone has acted violently towards him/her, the supervisor reacts by

passing the fault to the subordinate, displaying hostile behaviors towards them.

5


Previous studies have also shown the negative consequences of abusive

supervision. These are lower life and job satisfaction (Tepper, 2000; Valle, 2005),

increased job stress (Tepper, 2000; Valle, 2005), lower normative and affective

commitment (Tepper, 2000), high intentions to turnover (Ashforth, 1997; Tepper, 2000;

Valle, 2005), reduced performance (Hoobler & Brass, 2006), and increased work-family

undermining (Hoobler & Brass, 2006).

Abusive supervision is negatively related to job satisfaction (Tepper, 2000; Valle,

2005). Job satisfaction refers to the level an individual likes or dislikes his/her job.

Abusive supervisors continuously display hostile behaviors towards their subordinates

(Tepper, 2000). According to the referent cognition theory (Aquino, Griffeth, Allen, &

Hom, 1997), hostile actions displayed by the supervisor account for the subordinates’

perceived injustice. Moreover, existing negative experiences allow subordinate

dissatisfaction to increase. Having no job mobility and few alternatives to release work-

related stress, subordinates’ job satisfaction abruptly declines (Tepper, 2000).

Job stress refers to psychological and physiological changes that interact between

the individual and his work environment causing differences in normal performance

(Shirom, 1982). Abusive supervision was found to be positively related to job stress

(Tepper, 2000; Valle, 2005). According to the equity theory (Adam & Freedman, 1976 as

cited in Tepper, 2000), a supervisor’s exercise of hostility towards subordinates leads to

an increase in the inequality perceived by the individual. The theory recognizes that

subordinates’ anger and the desire for restitution is not only exhibited when they

recognize inequality but it also involves self-esteem being damaged in effect increasing

the psychological distress received and leading to increased levels of job stress.

6


Abusive supervision was found to be positively related to turnover intentions

(Tepper, 2000; Valle, 2005; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). Turnover intentions refer to

an individual’s conscious choice to leave the organization (Tett & Meyer, 1993 as cited

in Hemdi, 2006). Following on the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), abusive

supervision through its actions exhibited creates a poor-relationship or negative social

exchange (Aryee et al., 2007). Subordinates recognize an injustice due to negative work-

related incidents done by the supervisor, this results to subordinates’ retaliation by

reporting higher rates of intention to leave the organization (Tepper, 2000).

Research directs abusive supervision to be a form of organizational injustice

indicated by emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and depression (Tepper, 2001). Abusive

supervision, a form of interpersonal conflict, is a facet of power deliberately intended to

create a negative working environment between supervisor and subordinate within the

organization and causes negative outcomes (Valle, 2005). The function of a supervisor is

to oversee the productivity and progress of employees in fostering an effective workforce

through synergy. Understanding abusive supervision and subordinate reactions is the key

toward fostering an organizationally effective workforce. Stressful environments

frequently lead to negative consequences, but certain personality attributes find otherwise

(Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993) and even suggest positive outcomes.

The study intends to determine if negative work environments can facilitate

positive outcomes, systematically investigating the mediating role of threat and challenge

appraisal to abusive supervision and in-role performance, moderated by employee

conscientiousness. That is, if an employee is experiencing abusive supervision and

he/she perceives it as a challenge, he/she will more likely have higher in-role

7


performance. This study contributes to existing literature in examining whether abusive

supervision could lead to positive consequences.

The appraisal process should be a factor in the measurement of psychological

stress (Lazarus, DeLongis, Folkman, & Gruen, 1985); the perception of an employee on

abusive supervision, whether it would be a threat or a challenge, affects their

performance. Subordinates’ perception of anxiety and distress has been shown to affect

actual in-role performance (Skinner & Brewer, 2002). Thus, abusive supervision

mediated by cognitive appraisals of threat and challenge can be related to in-role

performance.

Cognitive appraisal, specifically appraisals of threat and challenge refer to

“disposition to appraise ongoing relationships with the environment consistently on one

way or another” (Lazarus, 1991 as cited in Barrick et al., 1993, p. 138). Colbert, Mount,

Harter, Witt, and Barrick (2004) argued that negative perception such as threat may lead

to lower performance. Thus, employees who have unfavorable perception toward their

stressful work situation such as abusive supervisors are more likely to have lower in-role

performance. Employees who deal with stressful work-related situations like abusive

supervision with favorable challenge perceptions are more likely to overcome obstacles

and have higher in-role performance.

Personality factors may also influence the reaction of a subordinate towards

abusive supervision. One most valid predictor of job performance prevalent in studies is

conscientiousness (Hough et al., 1990 as cited in Barrick et al., 1993). Shmid and Hunter

(1992 as cited in Barrick et al., 1993) suggested that conscientiousness should be

discussed with a central role in models that seek to explain job performance.

8


Conscientiousness as a moderating variable may buffer the effect of abusive

supervision based on the perception of the subordinate, illustrating that abusive

supervision may lead to facilitate positive outcomes depending on how the subordinates’

perceive such behavior acted by the supervisor towards them. Conscientiousness dictates

how an individual follows his/her own conscience and shares the need to exercise self-

control (Costa & McCrae, 1992 as cited in Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Those who are high

on conscientiousness are characterized as self-disciplined, dutiful, and deliberate in their

actions (Costa & McCrae, 1992 as cited in Hurtz & Donovan, 2000) while those low on

conscientiousness are characterized as impulsive, passive-aggressive, and maladaptive

(Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991, as cited in Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Highly conscientious

individuals are likely to exert more effort and maintain high level of effort despite

holding unfavorable perceptions in the workplace (Colbert et al., 2004). The attribution

theory states that behavior exhibited on an individual may be judged differently

depending on the meaning attributed to the displayed behavior (Robbins, 2005). People

with high conscientiousness attribute that they are in control or self-responsible, which

leads them with a challenge appraisal, thinking that they can overcome any threat with

confidence (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985 as cited in Skinner & Brewer, 2002). On the other

hand, people low on conscientiousness will appraise that abusive supervision is a threat.

Conscientiousness will be the moderating variable between abusive supervision and

threat and challenge appraisals to determine if the level of conscientiousness of an

individual can alter how abusive supervision will be perceived.

This research study will benefit the call center industry by enhancing employees’

in-role job performance contributing to bottom line results in terms of increased profit,

9


increased customer value and satisfaction, and increased competitive advantage. Through

proper assessment of incoming employees, organizational effectively and efficiency is

maximized and leads to lower levels of turnover, increased employee performance and

improved service quality for industry customers. Perceiving abusive supervision as a

threat can be costly (Tepper et al., 2006) because it is viewed as detrimental supervisory

behavior. Task performance among these employees may improve allowing better-quality

outcomes for the organization; in addition this study applies the possible positive effects

of abusive supervision in an organizational setting. Examining abusive supervision helps

us to understand its effect on subordinates, allowing organizations to control the

supervisor-subordinate relationship could be important in eliciting desired performance

objectives and work outcomes.

Theory and Hypotheses

In-role Behavior

In-role behaviors are “behaviors that are recognized by formal rewards systems

and part of the requirements as described in job descriptions” (Williams & Anderson,

1991, p. 606). Employees’ appraised with excellent in-role performance contribute to

organizational requirements and goals by devotedly completing task responsibilities that

are expected in their positions or line of work. In-role behaviors focus on employee

duties and responsibilities included in the job descriptions. These are organizational

content-related functions that contribute to the effective running of business processes. In

contrast, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is a beneficial form of organizational

performance and refers to any “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or

explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes

10


efficient and effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4 as cited in

Williams & Anderson, 1991). In-role performance, OCBO (benefits the organization),

and OCBI (benefits individuals in the organization) are separate forms of performance

(Williams & Anderson, 1991). This study focuses on the more applicable dimension, in-

role performance (e.g., finishing assigned tasks on time, abiding by company policies,

fulfills duties as specified in the job description), because these are work required

behaviors which contribute to organizational success. An organization satisfactorily

completing obligatory duties and responsibilities initially meet the customer’s need for

service and value, ultimately resulting to organizational success and profit.

Previous empirical studies have found that role ambiguity (MacKenzie,

Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1998), role conflict (MacKenzie et al., 1998), stress (Fried,

Shirom, Gilboa, & Cooper, 2008), organizational commitment (Williams & Anderson,

1991), job satisfaction (Fried et al., 2008; Williams & Anderson, 1991), job involvement

(Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002), self-efficacy (Soodak & Podell, 1996 as

cited in Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000), collective efficacy (Soodak & Podell, 1996 as

cited in Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000) and the effect of propensity to leave (Fried et

al., 2008) were antecedents of job performance.

Role ambiguity is negatively related to in-role behavior (MacKenzie et al., 1998).

Role ambiguity occurs when the behaviors expected for the role are unclear or undefined.

This is experienced when an employee is uncertain about his role expectations

(MacKenzie et al., 1998). From a cognitive perspective, role ambiguity results in lower

in-role performance because they feel that they do not have the information necessary to

perform their job adequately. From a motivational perspective, “role ambiguity results in

11


lower performance because role ambiguity weakens the links between effort-to-

performance and performance-to-reward expectancies” (Jackson & Schuler, 1985, p. 43).

Ultimately, an employee who does not know what to do cannot fulfill the requirements of

his/her job.

Job satisfaction is positively related to performance (Fried et al., 2008). Job

satisfaction is an individual’s evaluation of his/her job, emotional reactions to events

happening on the job, and other job related interactional objectives (Hulin & Judge, 2003

as cited in Fried et al., 2008). Based on the social exchange theory, employees with high

job satisfaction are keener to perform better in their jobs because they perceive that they

have an obligation to reciprocate feelings of content coming from their employers. They

are viewed as more productive and consider it a pleasure to exceed performance

expectations.

Fried et al. (2008) found that there is a direct relationship between stress and job

performance. Stress is conceptualized as an individual’s appraisal of the environment as

challenging and exceeding his/her resources which endangers his/her well-being

(Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986a). Following this conceptual approach,

stress can be viewed as threatening or harmful to the individual, forcing them to invest

time and energy in coping with the stress (Fried et al., 2008). Work-related stress

therefore diverts the individual’s attention from performing job functions toward

managing stress that leads to decreased performance (Beehr & Baghat, 1985 as cited in

Fried et al., 2008). In addition, high levels of stress are believed to narrow an individual’s

perceptual awareness. As a result, overlooking performance related information and

further affecting their performance (Cohen, 1980 as cited in Fried et al., 2008).

12


This study posits that abusive supervision will lead to lower performance. The

social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) could be

used as explanatory frameworks in supporting the negative influence of abusive

supervision to performance. The social exchange theory holds that an individual

rendering services to another individual can expect that the receiving party will be able to

provide something in return (Blau, 1964). Further, the norm of reciprocity supports that

the other party is required to return the favor through interaction when an individual has

done something (Gouldner, 1960). Past studies reported that abusive supervision

develops a negative social exchange (Aryee et al., 2007). Thus, a superior through its

negative action displayed creates a negative influence on how subordinates will

reciprocate their actions. Employees will not feel obligated to demonstrate behaviors that

provide organizational goals such as good performance.

Applying the theory in a negative case, a supervisor who engages his/her

subordinates’ into a stressful abusive relationship cannot expect to elicit greater task

performance. Rather, the stressful situation will cause subordinate performance to

become worse. Work-related stress can narrow an individuals’ perceptual attention

(Cohen, 1980 as cited in Fried et al., 2008). This would cause abused employees to focus

on the stressful situation at hand and ignore performance-related duties and

responsibilities which can greatly affect their organization. Abusive supervision gives

negative perceptions through hostile actions displayed (Tepper, 2000) suggesting

negative consequences to a poor supervisor-subordinate relationship (Aryee et al., 2007).

Therefore, it is predicted that:

Hypothesis 1: Abusive supervision is negatively related to in-role performance.

13


Threat and Challenge Appraisal

Stress influences a person’s adaptational outcomes such as well-being and social

functioning (Lazarus et al., 1985). However, the scope of stress involves a much bigger

picture. It encompasses the person’s appraisal of the relationship between environmental

demands and personal agendas (Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002; Lazarus et al., 1985). This

study will apply cognitive appraisal as a mediating variable in the relationship between

abusive supervision and in-role performance.

Supervisor’s abusiveness is directed towards subordinates to increase their task

performance (Tepper, 2007). This situation allows subordinates’ to report increasing

levels of stress because the demands of the supervisor exceed his/her available resources

(Lazarus & Folkman, 1986 as cited in Krohne, 2002). Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984)

research argued that individuals manifest different responses to their stressful encounters

depending on how they appraise the situation. Using the cognitive appraisal theory of

stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), the individual’s interpretation of the circumstances,

rather than the occurrence itself, would determine how he/she would appraise the

situation. In addition, only after the individual appraises the situation will he/she then

consider it as either threatening or challenging (Hart, 2006).

The cognitive appraisal paradigm involves two components, threat appraisal or

challenge appraisal. Cognitive appraisal involves the individuals’ understanding with

regards to his/her values and beliefs within social settings. “Appraisal refers to the extent

to which decision-makers perceive a situation as an opportunity and the extent to which

they perceive it to be a threat” (Skinner, 1995 as cited in White, Varadarajan, & Dacin,

2003, p. 3; Lazarus, 1991). In a specific situation, a challenge appraisal is perceived when

14


the individual recognizes an opportunity for self-development or a benefit to his/her well-

being. A threat appraisal simply demonstrates that the situation is uncertain and

ambiguous, a potential danger is involved, which may cause harm to the well-being of the

individual.

Past empirical studies have reported that employee voice (Sinclair, Martin, &

Croll, 2002), perceptions of security measures (Sinclair et al., 2002), absence of task

knowledge and abilities (Blascovich, Mendes, Tomako, Salomon, & Seery, 2003), and

job security (Kraimer, Wayne, Liden, & Sparrowe, 2005) are reported antecedents of

threat appraisal.

Employee voice is negatively related to threat appraisal (Sinclair et al., 2002).

Voice is defined as an effort of an individual to change an unsatisfactory situation rather

than escape from it (Hirschman, 1970). An argument presented in an empirical study by

Barling (1996) proposed that high levels of control which can be shown through

employee’s voice reduced the fear of loss or harm that will happen in the future.

Employees’ increased control facilitates coping capabilities and resources in order for

them to handle stress, minimizing the perception of threat appraisal (Sinclair et al., 2002).

Full-time employees’ perceived job security is negatively related to threat

perceptions involving temporary workers (Kraimer et al., 2005). Perceived job security is

a psychological state where expectations of future job continuity from workers vary

within the organization (Pearce, 1998). According to social cognition theory (Fiske &

Taylor, 1991 as cited in Kraimer et al., 2005), an individual’s approach toward an object

influences his/her behaviors towards that object. When the individual believes that the

15


company will not replace him/her with a temporary worker, the individual does not

perceive the temporary worker as a danger. Thus, minimizing threat perceptions.

Research reports several consequences of threat appraisal. These are negatively

intoned emotional responses (e.g., worry, concern, distress, anxiety and fear: Scholtz,

2000), threat to self-integrity (Scholtz, 2000), immobilized coping, altered self-esteem

(Scholtz, 2000), and low performance (Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002; Kraimer et al.,

2005).

Negatively intoned emotional responses are directly related to an individuals’

threat appraisal (Scholtz, 2000).Worry is characterized by “a feeling of uneasiness or

discomfort, whereas concern means heightened awareness or interest” (Scholtz, 2000, p.

27). Distress “can occur when the perception of threat is taxing or overwhelming to the

psyche” (Scholtz, 2000, p. 27). This is evidenced by emotional pain and suffering.

Anxiety and fear pertain to “emotional states that are associated with increased

sympathetic nervous discharge that contributes to feelings of apprehension, stress, and

tension” (Topp et al., 1998, p. 853 as cited in Scholtz, 2000). When individuals perceive

threat within the environment, they believe that they are unable to cope with these

problems. Individuals exhibit negative emotions as physical manifestations of decreased

personal well-being. These emotions are further intensified as the person experiences

increased threat throughout the circumstances.

Previous studies found a negative relationship between the threat perceptions of

employees’ with low levels of job security and job performance (Drach-Zahavy & Erez,

2002; Kraimer et al., 2005). The theory of social cognition (Fiske & Taylor, 1991 as cited

in Kraimer et al., 2005) states that an individual’s attitude toward an object influences

16


their behaviors towards that object. Applying the theory, individuals with low levels of

job security have less favorable attitudes with the use of temporary workers within the

organization because they place a risk of replacing their function within the company. In

effect, the high threat perceptions of the employees that the temporary workers may

replace them lead to decreased levels in employee job performance.

Moorse (1997 as cited in Scholtz, 2000) identified that patterns of response to

threats have a direct relation against self-integrity. These patterns of response include

vigilance and disruption. Vigilance is portrayed as “suspicion, feeling overwhelmed and

attempting to maintain control” (Scholtz, 2000, p. 28), whereas disruption is

characterized as “being in shattered reality… experiencing a haze of disorientation”

(Moorse, 1997, p. 29 as cited in Scholtz, 2000). A person who is experiencing uncertainty

as a result of threat appraisal will have a hard time to regaining a sense of self-control,

allowing for the responses of vigilance and disruption.

Job security (Kraimer et al., 2005) is reported to be an antecedent of challenge

appraisal. Full-time employee’s perceived job security is positively related to challenge

perceptions involving temporary workers (Kraimer et al., 2005). A psychological contract

represents the perceived contributions employees owe their employer and the incentives

owed to them. Perceived job security, referred to as job continuity with the specific

organization, influences employee agreements with the use of temporary workers given

that high-perceived job security arranges a psychological contract based on mutual trust

with the organization, which is important in how employees perceive temporary workers.

When employees believe that the organization uses temporary workers due to external

factors such as increased business demands, with no implicit intention to harm the mutual

17


trust they share, they perceive temporary workers as a challenge and a benefit to the

organization.

Past studies have reported higher coping strategies (Lazarus, 1991), lower

subjective stress (Lazarus, 1991), higher perceptions of performance (Lazarus, 1991), job

performance (Kraimer et al., 2005), positive emotions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;

Lazarus, Kanner, & Folkman, 1980), and high adaptation to change (Drach-Zahavy &

Erez, 2002) to be consequences of challenge appraisal.

Challenge appraisal is directly related to higher coping strategies (Lazarus, 1991).

Following the process of challenge appraisal, the individual selects coping strategies to

deal with present stressful situations. Individual coping strategies are said to be

influenced by the individual’s perception of controllability (Lazarus, 1991). Individuals

who perceive stressors to be controllable elicit more proactive coping mechanisms (e.g.,

less complaining behaviors: Nyer, 1997) than uncontrollable stressors allowing for

improved coping strategies.

Challenge appraisal is directly related to perception of performance (Lazarus,

1991). Higher perception of benefits involving performance is represented by

“expectations of favorable performance, certainty of performance level, perception of

increased control and anticipation of effort” (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985 as cited in Skinner

& Brewer, 2002, p.679). Individuals who perceive challenge appraisal in relation to the

environment will lead to more beneficial perceptions of the effects challenge on their

performance.

There is a positive relationship between the challenge perceptions of employees’

with high levels of job security and job performance (Kraimer et al., 2005). Employees

18


with high levels of job security are more likely to believe that temporary workers are

beneficial. Based on the social cognition theory, because employees' high level of job

security is being reinforced by the benefits of temporary workers, consistent with

psychological contracts between themselves and the organization, they perceive a

challenge appraisal. Employees respond to these benefits by being more productive and

increasing performance to boost their contributions to the organization (Rousseau &

McLean Parks, 1993 as cited in Kraimer et al., 2005).

Individuals have a diverse understanding of circumstances. Cognitive appraisals

as a mediating variable can create differential outcomes depending on the individual’s

perception erratic to either success or failure for his/her welfare.

Chen and Matthews (2001) studied the mediating effects of cognitive appraisal

between socioeconomic-status and heightened cardiovascular reactivity among

adolescents and children. Their longitudinal study demonstrated that children with lower

socioeconomic-status are more inclined to perceive ambiguous situations as containing

hostile intent leading to threat appraisals, manifested by greater anger in these situations

because of their potential for harm. In contrast, a neutral situation was not associated with

hostile perceptions of anger. Cumulative effects between threat appraisals and reaction

responses are more pronounced for African American children who were retested an

average of three years later as compared to half-white American children. This may be

because of their experiences with racism and other life-stressors (Chen & Matthews,

2001).

Another study provided cognitive appraisal as a mediator between cognitive style

and manager’s recommendation. White et al., (2003) examined that an extrovert-

19


judgmental-intuitive-thinking manager would perceive a situation as more controllable.

This is because their outgoing personality alongside a proactive judgmental style allows

them to lower views of uncertainty and risk. An intuitive and thinking cognitive style is

associated with a more adaptive, ambitious, and openness to experience personality style

(McIntyre, Wheatley, & Uhr, 1996 as cited in White et al., 2003) which increases a

tolerance for risk. Managers with this cognitive style appraise the situation as a challenge

because their traits allow them to spot opportunities and benefits, directly affecting their

recommendations and decisions.

Cognitive appraisal depends on an individuals’ perceived encounter on whether or

not an encounter with the environment is beneficial to his/her well-being (Folkman et al.,

1986a; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen; 1986b; Lazarus, 1991).

Abusive supervision is perceived individually based on subjective assessments’ (Tepper,

2001). Supervisor’s abusing their subordinates produce a stressful working environment

in the organization, and subordinates’ individually recognize these environments. When

the subordinate recognizes that supervisory abuse could be an advantage toward the

development of his/her abilities, challenge appraisal could increase subordinate

performance in the direction of personal success. On the other hand, a subordinate who

perceives the supervisor’s abuse as a threat to himself/herself may intensify its negative

consequences allowing his/her performance to further reduce and harm the organization.

The attribution theory (Heider, 1958 as cited in Tepper, 2004) can be used to

support the framework and establish the relation of the subordinate’s cognitive appraisal

between the environment-individual relationships. The attribution theory (Heider, 1958

as cited in Tepper, 2004) states that an individual’s decision regarding a response to a

20


particular behavior is largely manipulated through how he/she perceives the cause of

action. In this case, abusive supervision is the particular behavior subordinates are

responding to, this allows us to hypothesize that the stress involved can be viewed as

either a threat or challenge to the individual (Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002) and in turn

determines the subordinates’ level of job performance. Applying the theory, a person’s

cognitive appraisals can affect his/her performance. Subordinates’ individual appraisals

are responses to different behaviors within their surroundings. Depending on how

subordinates perceive these behaviors, we can be able to determine their actions.

Abusive supervision is a form of environmental input which causes an individual

to experience a stressful situation. During the appraisal process, the individual judges

what gains or benefits, as an outcome, he/she can obtain from the encounter (Folkman et

al., 1986a; Folkman et al., 1986b; Lazarus, 1991). “The significance of the situation is

evaluated in terms of the individual’s well-being as either an opportunity for self-growth

or as a risk” (Drach-Zahavy & Erez, 2002, p. 669). When the individual perceives the

situation as a possible chance for self-growth together with identifying coping strategies

for the encounter, the stressful situation is appraised as a challenge (Drach-Zahavy &

Erez, 2002). Therefore, increased abusive supervision appraised as benefit extends to an

individual’s positive emotion (Skinner & Brewer, 2002), believing the situation can be

overcome leads to increased in-role performance. In contrast, when the individual only

perceives failure and negative outcomes the situation is appraised as a threat to his/her

well-being; increased abusive supervision is associated with potential harm for oneself.

Anxiety and fear is increased directing to lower in-role performance. Our study predicts

that:

21


Hypothesis 2: Challenge perception will mediate the relationship between abusive

supervision and in-role job performance.

Hypothesis 3: Threat perception will mediate the relationship between abusive

supervision and in-role job performance.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness can be defined as reliable and careful in line with dictates of an

individuals’ conscience linked with commitments to doing the right thing and ethical

concerns (Moon, 2001). Individuals high in conscientiousness carefully and correctly

perform work tasks because they are characterized as being organized, disciplined,

diligent, dependable, and methodical (Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002). Thus, they

seek to accomplish their obligations (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002) regardless of

external environmental factors. Research shows a steady relationship between personality

factors and job performance (Barrick et al., 2002). A good predictor of various aspects of

job performance is conscientiousness (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Barrick & Mount, 1992

as cited in Fallon, Avis, Kudisch, Gornet, & Frost, 2000) regardless of the individual’s

job (Barrick et al. 2002; Barrick & Mount, 1991). Conversely, individuals low in

conscientiousness are said to be unreliable, disorganized, undisciplined, lazy and careless.

These low conscientious individuals are commonly those being late for work, miss

deadlines, disregard important responsibilities and bridge toward being deviant persons.

Conscientiousness is found to be an antecedent of work performance (Barrick et

al., 2002; Barrick et al., 1993; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Robertson, Baron, Gibbons,

MacIver, & Nyfield, 2000) propensity to withhold effort (Colbert et al., 2004), compound

trait of integrity (Reisert & Conte, 2004), motivation (Barrick et al., 1993; Colbert et al.,

22


2004; Witt et al., 2002), self-esteem (Costa et al., 1991 as cited in Costa & McCrae,

1998), supervisor’s willingness to rehire and employee attendance (Fallon et al., 2000).

Conscientiousness is positively related to work performance (Barrick et al., 2002;

Barrick & Mount, 1991; Robertson et al., 2000). Work performance refers to expected

behaviors needed for accomplishing work-related tasks. Employees who are high in

conscientiousness are those that seek to set personal goals and work towards

accomplishing these goals, they seek to accomplish their obligations (Barrick et al.,

2002). Increased perception of organizational support among highly conscientious

employees enhances work performance; when employees feel that the organization shows

concern and considers their goals and values, they reciprocate such actions with increased

performance (Colbert et al., 2004).

Conscientiousness is positively related to motivation (Barrick et al., 1993; Colbert

et al., 2004; Witt et al., 2002). Motivation is a “psychological process involved with the

arousal, direction, intensity, and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal oriented”

(Mitchell, 1997, p. 60 as cited in Barrick et al., 2002). A conscientious person tends to

identify his/her goals and regulate his/her personal behaviors toward that goal. Highly

conscientious individuals are able to identify situations within the organization that give

them more opportunities for self-development, this allows for positive perceptions toward

the organization eventually increasing motivation.

Conscientiousness is negatively related to withholding effort (Colbert et al.,

2004).Withholding effort is non-compliant behavior and is considered a form of

organizational deviance (Colbert et al., 2004); these include not doing anything, not

completing the tasks given, and not taking responsibility. Low conscientious individuals

23


are characterized as having negative perceptions concerning their work. Employees who

are low in conscientiousness are undutiful, undependable, and not diligent with regards to

their work. Thus, employees who have negative perceptions concerning their work are

inclined to reciprocate by engaging in deviant behaviors such as withholding effort to the

organization.

Past studies have reported that an individual’s perception towards negative work

experience can be altered through personality variables (Cullen & Sackett, 2003) leading

to a behavior consistent with the individual’s personality (Colbert et al., 2004).

Personality traits can function as antecedents to the cognitive appraisal process

(Hemenover & Dienstbier, 1996). Gallagher (1990 as cited in Hemenover & Dienstbier,

1996) previously linked extraversion and neuroticism with cognitive appraisals,

Hemenover and Dienstbier (1996, p. 302) explain that, “extroverts will attend most to the

positive elements of a situation, while neurotics will attend most to the negative elements,

resulting in more positive or challenge appraisals for extroverts and more negative or

threat appraisals for neurotics”.

Existing literature examined that conscientiousness moderated the effects of

organizational size on organizational attractiveness (Lievens, Decaesteker, Coetsier, &

Geirnaert, 2001), conscientiousness also moderated the relationship between gender role

and peer-reported leadership (Weathington & Moldenhauer, 2008).

Common traits found in highly conscientious individuals and emergent leaders are

achievement and dependability. Pfeffer and Salancik (1975 as cited in Weathington &

Moldenhauer, 2008) applied the role theory in arguing that men engage largely in more

task activities and women in social activity. Individuals scoring high in both

24


conscientiousness and masculinity may possibly show signs of leadership potential

(Weathington & Moldenhauer, 2008), as compared to an individual low in masculinity

but high in conscientiousness, who is viewed as a responsible team member instead of a

leader. The traits present along with the notion that males are more involved in task or

duty related activities support that highly conscientious male individuals are more likely

to become leaders within their groups.

In a study by Lievens et al. (2001), individuals high in conscientiousness were

reported to be more attracted to large sized organizations as compared to low

conscientious individuals. The expectancy theory argues that large sized organizations

would be more instrumental for high conscientious individuals to achieve their goals.

This is because large organizations have more potential (e.g., higher salary and more

career opportunities: Lievens et al., 2001) in the perspective of high conscientious

individuals. In effect, their strong desire to achieve personal goals would be more

attainable when employed in these larger organizations.

This study posits that conscientiousness will moderate the relationship between

abusive supervision and an individual’s cognitive appraisal. The attribution theory

(Heider, 1958 as cited in Tepper, 2004) will be used as a framework to support the

moderating role of conscientiousness. The attribution theory holds that behavior

exhibited on an individual may be judged differently depending on the meaning attributed

by the person to the displayed behavior (Robbins, 2005). Personality factors dictate how

an individual reacts to situations in the environment. As such, a highly conscientious

individual exercising self control may lead to outcomes that are constructive to the

organization. In contrast, low conscientious individuals characterized by being impulsive,

25


passive-aggressive, and maladaptive (Costa et al., 1991, as cited in Hurtz & Donovan,

2000) could lead to outcomes dangerous to the organization.

Applying the theory in a personality perspective, a highly conscientious

individual experiencing abusive supervision will undertake higher cognitive appraisal as

compared to low conscientious individuals. This is because a highly conscientious

individual will perceive increased benefits when experiencing abusive supervision.

Attributing actions displayed by the abusive supervisor as a challenge because the trait

present in the individual allows him/her to recognize an opportunity for self-

improvement.

A low conscientious individual experiencing abusive supervision will less like

appraise the situation as compared to a high conscientious individual because low

conscientious individuals will perceive higher threat when experiencing abusive

supervision. They attribute that they are not in control of the situation and perceive a

danger towards their personal well-being. Personality plays a key role on how individuals

respond to a negative work environment, allowing to either a threat or challenge

appraisal. We predict that:

Hypotheses 4: Conscientiousness will moderate the relationship between abusive

supervision and threat appraisal.

Hypotheses 5: Conscientiousness will moderate the relationship between abusive

supervision and challenge appraisal.

Method

26


Research Design

The study is path analytical in nature. Path analysis is a suitable method to capture

relationship between variables in this study because it provides information about

underlying causal processes through approximating the magnitude of linkages between

variables (Asher, 1983). Variables of the study include: abusive supervision (exogenous

variable) challenge and threat appraisal (mediating variable), conscientiousness

(moderating variable) and in-role performance (endogenous variable: see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Proposed Conceptual Model

Participants

Data was collected from rank-and-file employees of call-centers and business

processing organizations around Metro Manila. The call-center industry is now a fast

growing industry in the Philippines. Likewise, business process outsourcing

organizations are also a booming industry within the country. These are centralized help-

desk offices used for providing assistance to customers through services and telephone

calls. Studying the prevalence of abusive supervision among these organizations is

Abusive Supervision

Challenge Appraisal

Threat Appraisal

Conscientiousness

In-role Performance

27


relevant in determining their performance since they deal directly with clients. A

decrease in the quality of service received by the client will decrease the organization’s

overall value. Customer satisfaction is a means of attaining competitive advantage, by

analyzing key behaviors in the supervisor-subordinate relationship. We could determine

employees’ job performance and move towards increasing the benefits and value to be

received by the customer. The sampling strategy employed in gathering the data was

convenience sampling. This non-probability method will be utilized because it generally

assumes a homogenous population and also because of the convenience it offers to the

researchers (Blay, 2005). For this study, the group was able to distribute 168 survey

questionnaires to 11 different business processing organizations across Metro Manila and

retrieved 150 valid survey questionnaires. Majority of the respondents were female (60%)

with an average tenure of 1.49 years, and average age of 25.33 years.

Measures

Abusive supervision was measured using the measure developed by Tepper

(2000). It consists of 15 items and measures the frequency with which supervisors

engaged in perceived abusive behaviors. The 7 point Likert-type scale has a sample item

of “ridicules me”. This scale yielded a coefficient alpha of .95.

Cognitive appraisal (challenge and threat appraisal) was measured using the

cognitive appraisal scale developed by Skinner and Brewer (2002). The threat appraisal

subscale consists of one item from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scale (Spielberger,

Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983 as cited in Skinner & Brewer, 2002) and the

remaining nine items from the Self-Presentation Concerns Questionnaire (Skinner &

Brewer, 1999 as cited in Skinner & Brewer, 2002). A sample item includes “I worry that

28


I will say or do the wrong things”. The challenge appraisal subscale, on the other hand,

consists of eight items where one item is taken from the Optimism–Pessimism

Questionnaire (Norem & Cantor, 1986) and the remaining items developed by Skinner

and Brewer (2002) reflected the challenge theoretical conceptualization. A sample item

includes “I tend to focus more on the positive aspects of any situation”. This study

reported coefficient alphas of .94 for threat appraisal and .92 for challenge appraisal.

Conscientiousness was measured using the Big Five factor markers developed by

Goldberg (1992). Only the questions regarding conscientiousness will be used, this

consisted of seven items with a seven-point scale where it describes the traits present.

One item included is “disorganized” to “organized” where “1” describes the individual as

disorganized and “7” describes the individual as organized. This scale yielded a

coefficient alpha of .92.

Performance was measured using the measure developed by Williams and

Anderson (1991 as cited in Moideenkutty, 2005). It consists of four items with responses

ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (1-7). One item includes

“adequately completes responsibilities”. Coefficient alpha of the scale was .93.

Procedure

A letter of request was presented to the heads of the human resource departments

of several business process outsourcing organizations to determine if it would be possible

for the group to administer a survey to their employees. When granted permission, survey

questionnaires were distributed to the participants; to assure confidentiality of the

respondents, questionnaires were coded using the first two letters of their first name, last

two letters of their last name, and the month and year of birth in numerical format,

29


accomplished survey questionnaires were sealed in envelopes before they were returned.

Accomplished survey questionnaires were collected one week after they were sent out.

Data Analysis

Multiple regression analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) was utilized by the researchers

to assess the hypotheses provided in this study. Multiple regression analysis allows

efficient operation where a wide-ranging system of equation and large array of data are

represented compactly (Netter, Kutner, Nachtsheim, &Wasserman, 1996).

The mediation model was tested using the prescriptions identified by Baron and

Kenny (1986). The four step procedure includes: Regress (1) independent variable to

dependent variable, (2) independent variable to mediating variable, (3) moderating

variable to dependent variable. If all preliminary conditions are met, the fourth step is to

simultaneously regress the independent variable and moderating variable to the

dependent variable.

To examine the hypothesized relationships we utilized hierarchical multiple

regression analysis similar to that of Aiken and West (1991). The following steps were

undertaken: Control variables were entered in the first step of the regression equation.

The centered moderator and centered independent variables were entered second to test

for main effects. The interactive term between the independent and moderator variable

were entered to examine the moderating effects. The scaled scores for the independent

and moderator variable was centered at their mean to reduce multicollinearity.

Results

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviation, and correlation of study variables.

Mean results indicated that respondents experienced low levels of abusive supervision

30


(M=2.07), slightly low levels of threat appraisal (M=3.44), and high levels of challenge

appraisal (M=5.71). Moreover, respondents indicated slightly high levels of

conscientiousness (M=5.45) and manifested high levels of in-role performance (M=5.84).

Hypothesis 1 predicted that abusive supervision is negatively related to in-role

performance. Using hierarchical regression, the control variables of gender, age, and

tenure were entered in the first step. Results revealed that gender, age, and tenure did not

influence in-role performance. Using the mediation analysis prescribed by Baron and

Kenny (1986), Step 2A of Table 2 showed that the addition of abusive supervision

contributed to an additional variance in in-role behavior (β=-.20, p<.01). The results

provided support for Hypotheses 1.

Proceeding to Step 2B, results indicated that threat appraisal had a negative

relationship with in-role behavior (β=-.20, p<.01). However, challenge appraisal had a

positive relationship with in-role performance (β=.44, p<.01). Satisfying the preliminary

conditions, Step 2C examined the mediating role of threat and challenge appraisal in the

relationship between abusive supervision and in-role performance. Simultaneously

regressing abusive supervision, threat appraisal, and benefit appraisal diminished the

significance of abusive supervision to in-role performance (from β=-.20, p<.01 to β=-.01,

ns). This shows that threat and challenge appraisal fully mediated the relationship

between abusive supervision to in-role performance. Furthermore, the Sobel test

revealed that the indirect path from perceived abusive supervision to in-role performance

through threat (z=-2.21, p<.05) and challenge (z=-2.75, p<.01) appraisal were significant.

Results indicated that Hypotheses 2 and 3 were fully supported (See Figure 2).

31


Table 1

Study 1 Means, Standard Deviation (S.D.), and Inter-correlations

M S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gender n.a. n.a.

2. Age 25.33 4.02 -.18*

3. Tenure 1.49 .59 .15 .40**

4. Abusive supervision 2.07 1.13 .03 -.13 .16* (.95)

5. Threat appraisal 3.44 1.39 .25** .11 .09 .38** (.94)

6. Challenge appraisal 5.71 1.11 -.15 .01 .01 -.24** -.26** (.93)

7. Conscientiousness 5.45 1.12 -.18* .10 -.01 -.32** -.17* .34** (.93)

8. In-role performance 5.84 1.04 -.13 .09 .02 -.20* -.32** .49** .38** (.93)

**p<.01, *p<.05

32


Table 2

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Study 1 Examining the Mediating Role of Appraisal

In-role performance

Outcomes

Predictors:

Step 1:

Gender -.12 -.13 -.01 -.01

Age .08 .06 .06 .06

Tenure -.03 -.05 .02 .01

Step 2A:

Abusive supervision -.20*

Step 2B:

Threat appraisal -.20**

Challenge appraisal .44**

Step 2C:

Abusive supervision -.01

Threat appraisal -.20*

Benefit appraisal .44**

F 1.15 6.01* 26.75** 17.72**

Adjusted R2 .00 .04 .26 .26

∆R2 .04 .27 .27

**p<.01, *p<.05

33

Abusive Supervision

Challenge Appraisal

Threat Appraisal

In-role Performance


Figure 2

Final Model

-.25** .44*

.39** -.20*

-.01

Hypothesis 4 and 5 predicted that conscientiousness will moderate the relationship

between abusive supervision, and threat (4) and challenge (5) appraisal. Using the procedure

identified by Aiken and West (1991), Step 3 of Table 3 showed that conscientiousness did not

moderate the relationship between abusive supervision to threat (β=.11, ns) and challenge

(β=.13, ns) appraisal. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 and 5 were not supported.

Discussion

The present study did not support the argument that negative work environments could

facilitate positive outcomes. Abusive supervision is a negative phenomenon and its effects are

viewed as harmful to the organization (Tepper, 2000). Consequently, subordinates’ perception of

abusive supervision is negatively related to in-role behavior. Challenge and threat appraisal

mediated the negative relationship between abusive supervision and in-role behavior. Subjective

perceptions of abusive supervision have shown to be negative and connote organizational

injustice (Tepper, 2001) altering employees’ in-role behaviors.

34


Table 3

Hierarchical Regression Analysis Examining the Moderating Role of Conscientiousness

Outcome Threat Appraisal Challenge Appraisal

Step 1: Control Variables

Gender .25** .25** .24** -.16 -.11 -.09

Age -.14 -.11 -.12 -.02 -.06 -.05

Tenure .18* .23** .24** -.01 -.01 -.02

Step 2: Main Effect

Abusive supervision (ABS) .40** .42** -.16 -.19*

Conscientiousness (CONS) .01 -.02 .28** .32**

Step 3: Interaction Effect

ABS x CONS .11 -.13

F 4.92** 14.05** 1.89 1.18 10.78** 2.22

Adjusted R2 .07 .21 .22 .00 .12 .13

∆R2 .15 .01 .13 .01

**p<.05, *p<.01

35


There is a negative relationship between abusive supervision and in-role behavior.

Abusive supervision creates an intimidating atmosphere (Aryee et al., 2007; Mitchell &

Ambrose, 2007; Tepper 2000) that overwhelms the individual’s capacity to react positively in

fulfilling his/her duties and responsibilities. According to Aryee, Chen, Debrah, and Sun (2007),

supervisors displaying high abusive behaviors create unconstructive paradigms that influence the

employees’ unproductive performance. The theoretical model of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960)

expounds that the abusive actions coming from the supervisor is countered or returned with

unproductivity which can account for subordinates’ low in-role performance. When subordinates

perceive their supervisor’s actions as abusive they get even by decreasing their work

contributions, this is because the stress perceived generate a threat to their well-being (Folkman

et al., 1986a). In the BPO setting, supervisors strain their members to produce outputs.

Subordinates are expected to accomplish projects within targeted dates so that they can acquire

new projects; which are their major sources of revenue. If subordinates do not meet their goals,

they are likely to be evaluated with low in in-role performance by the supervisor and appraised

as stumpy contributors to organizational success.

In line with our expectations, the study supported our hypotheses that cognitive

appraisals mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and in-role performance.

Subordinates view abusive supervision in a pessimistic manner leading to low challenge

appraisals and increased threat appraisals manifested by lower in-role behaviors. It is a trend that

has affected an increasing number of organizations and their members (Harvey, Stoner,

Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007). An example is when a supervisor shouts, “Get it done!”

Subordinates can evaluate the supervisor’s action as a form of “unnecessary domineering”.

These negative actions are known to certainly produce tension in the supervisor-subordinate

36


relationship (Ashforth, 1997). Furthermore, subordinates having lower challenge appraisals and

higher threat appraisals become complacent with the work involved and would not exert effort to

increase their contributions to the organization.

In call centers and BPO’s, employees’ performance affects the desired efficiency of the

organization (Brown, Gans, Mandelbaum, Sakov, Zeltyn, & Zhao, 2005), supervisors who are

being abusive in the workplace can be recognized by the subordinates as being unsupportive and

discouraging. Abusive supervision influences workplace negativity such as work frustration,

organizational injustice, and helplessness (Tepper, 2000) which can serve as the reason for

subordinates’ unproductiveness. Employees, when being pressured by their supervisors to do

their jobs, specifically attending calls or engaging with customers given an exact for completion,

will consider that they are being coerced. Supervisors’ abuse subordinates to send messages that

mistakes will not be tolerated or bring forth higher task performance (Tepper, 2007), eventually

subordinates believe that there is a threat to their being making them less productive and settling

on activities that are not valuable to the success of the organization.

Applying the attribution theory (Heider, 1958 as cited in Tepper, 2004), the supervisor’s

action are appraised as intimidating, daunting, and being reprimanded for not meeting deadlines;

the situation is an expression of abuse towards him/her in getting the job done. Since the

subordinates recognizes the higher authority of the supervisor, any form of abuse received is

conceived as more disturbing because it can affect one’s image and career (Burton & Hoobler,

2006; Harvey et al., 2007) which leads them to question both their self-worth and contributions

they can provide for the organization (Burton & Hoobler, 2006; Harvey et al., 2007). As a result

of the working condition the subordinate is experiencing, his/her capacity to perform in

accordance with the organization’s goals and interests will be different (Angle & Perry, 1981).

37


The present study did not support the argument that conscientiousness moderated the

relationship between abusive supervision and cognitive appraisals: challenge and threat

appraisals. There are few empirical studies that tackle the issue of conscientiousness as a

moderating variable between stress, dissatisfaction, justice and counterproductive workplace

behaviors (Barrick & Ryan, 2003). Barrick and Ryan’s (2003 as cited in Jelenik & Morf, 1995;

Watson & Hubbard, 1996) literature suggested that in response to a stressful situation,

conscientious individuals are more engaged in active planning, less maladaptive coping, and

more support seeking behavior as compared to non conscientious individuals. Conscientious

individuals may resort to avoiding the supervisor or escape avoidance (Storm & Rothmann,

2003) as a means of evading the abuse. They may also unburden themselves by confiding with

co-workers, friends, and family to dissipate their high levels of stress. Research suggested that

conscientious individuals go out of their way to seek out more constructive behaviors in dealing

with stress, dissatisfaction, and injustice (Barrick & Ryan, 2003). In application, we reason that

conscientiousness did not moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and cognitive

appraisals because highly conscientious individuals proactively seek out methods that lessen

stress (Watson & Hubbard, 1996 as cited in O’Connor & O’Conner, 2004) before he/she reaches

the appraisal process, therefore his/her conscientiousness will not affect his/her in-role

performance.

Recently, a small yet growing number of researches are being provided (Aryee et al.,

2007; Ashforth, 1994; Tepper, 2000) with regards to different forms of nonphysical treatments

present in workplace (Neuman & Baron, 1997) such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000).

Studies have provided that it is a low base rate phenomenon which is difficult to study and have

proven that it can generate severe effects (Tepper, 2000). Our study provides robust explanations

38


that support abusive supervision as a negative occurrence present in the workplace. The

advancement of the ability to track cognitive appraisals lies on emergent researches that create

evidences in supporting cognitive mediation on emotionally related physiology and behavior

(Tomaka, Blascovich, Kibler, & Ernst, 1997). Tomaka, Blascovich, Kibler, and Ernst (1997)

further suggest that researchers should examine more on the effect of situational and personality

factors in determining responses of behaviors related to stress, which in our study abusive

supervision is a form of stress. Our study contributes to the limited literature of cognitive

appraisals adding support to cognitive appraisals associated with variables used in the

organizational setting.

The study has several implications. Subordinates experiencing abusive supervision show

a decrease in their in-role performance. With that, the study can be used as a tool for

management to create constructive actions in dealing with supervisors that carry out actions

considered as abusive for subordinates. Management can construct a feedback mechanism where

abusive actions can be reported to be able to create a good working environment. Supervisors in

these organizations need to be monitored to lessen the detrimental effect towards the

organization, especially if there are increasing reports of tension in the supervisor-subordinate

relationships. Secondly, cognitive appraisals mediate the relationship of abusive supervision and

in-role performance. Management should develop guidelines and train managers in supervising

subordinates in a professional manner. Furthermore, the implications of abusive supervision can

be discussed to subordinates and supervisors alike to shed light on how it affects subordinates

and their performance, and how it impacts the organization in a greater perspective. Lastly, they

can give out surveys to assess what subordinates perceive regarding their working environments

and supervisor-subordinate relationships, monitoring these situations and then generating plans

39


conducive to these working environments and relationships will greatly contribute to the

organization’s success.

It is important to note that there are limitations to this study. First, the research design of

the study is cross-sectional. Hence, causal relationship among variables cannot be inferred.

Future research may conduct a long-term study of the variables through a longitudinal research

design to address the causality limitation of this study. Second, we utilized samples from call-

centers and BPO industries only, limiting the generalizability of the results. Upcoming studies

may opt to apply the study to a more specific industry, particularly fields wherein abusive

supervision may be predominantly occurring, such as military organizations and educational

institutions, since these are settings where supervision is required to closely monitor performance

(Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). Third, all data gathered were measured via self-report survey. Although

self-report may be the only way to quantify several kinds of psychological processes, it requires

substantiation by the use of other methods such as doing physiological assessment and observing

the respondent’s behavior (Folkman et al., 1986). Future research may consider using such

methods to avoid suffering from common method variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Tang,

Restubog, Cayayan, 2005).

This study has a number of suggestions for possible future research. Researchers suggest

that replication is needed to completely establish the results of the study. For example, the

personality variable agreeableness can strengthen the relationship of abusive supervision and

threat and benefit appraisal since it is considered as the primary concept in assessing individual

differences (Witt et al., 2002). These differences may affect their individual perceptions of

abusive supervision on whether it would be a threat or a challenge to them. Lastly, we propose

researchers to consider using emotional intelligence as a moderator. Emotional intelligence

40


reflects an individual’s skill in mastering self-awareness, self-management, social awareness,

and relationship management which translates into job success (Goleman, 2001). Emotional

intelligence, a faceted variable, could have more chances of moderation between abusive

supervision and cognitive appraisal because it consists of more components, and is proven to be

good indicators of work performance (Goleman, 2001).

Negative working conditions entail negative consequences. Robert Katz (1955 p.34, as

cited by Gowing in Cherniss & Goleman, 2001) argued that performance in the workplace is

dependent on “the way the individual perceives (and recognizes the perceptions of) his superiors,

equals, and subordinates, and in the way he behaves subsequently”. Bearing in mind the critical

notion that all individuals carry different values and have distinct personalities regardless of

position or organizations is key to understanding employee performance in relation to abusive

supervision. The most outstanding and productive organizations do not necessarily have perfect

leaders and excellent employees but rather they have a working environment - positive or

negative, along with a number of other factors, that allow the members to jive collectively and

contribute to their becoming the best organizations. Finally, researchers must be proactive in

analyzing both the organizational setting (culture, values, etc.) and the individuals (personality,

motivators, values, etc.) to determine outcomes in relation to that specific industry or

organization.

41


References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and

organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (1), 1-14.

Aquino, K., & Bradfield, M. (2000). Perceived victimization in the workplace: the role of

situational factors and victim characteristics. Organization Science, 11 (5), 525-537.

Aquino, K., Griffeth, R. W., Allen, D. G., & Hom, P. W. (1997). Integrating justice constructs

into the turnover process: a test of a referent cognitions model. Academy of Management

Journal, 40 (5), 1208–1228.

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive

supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (1), 191-

201.

Asher, S. R. (1983). Social competence and peer status: recent advances and future directions.

Child Development, 54, 1427–1434.

Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents

and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14 (2), 126-140.

Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, psychological experience, and consequences of workplace

violence. In VandenBos, G. and Bulatao, E. Q. (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying

risks and developing solutions. 24-49. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological

Association.

42


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, 1173-118.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of

sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 78 (5), 715–722.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test

of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87 (1) 43-51.

Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteem and abusive supervision. Journal

of Managerial Issues, 18 (3), 340.

Bemmels, B. (1991). Attribution theory and discipline arbitration. Industrial and Labor

Relations Review, 44 (3), 548 –562.

Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Tomaka, J., Salomon, K., & Seery, M. (2003). The robust nature

of biopsychosocial model challenge and threat: A reply to Wright and Kriby. Personality

and Social Psychology Review, 7 (3), 234-243.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. NY: Wiley & Sons.

Blay, B. E. (2005). Elementary Statistics, Manila, Philippines De La Salle University Press.

Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A

theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (5) 998–1012.

43


Brown, L., Gans, N., Mandelbaum, A., Sakov, A., Shen, H., Zeltyn, S., & Zhao, L. (2005).

Statistical analysis of a telephone call center: A queueing-science perspective. Journal of

the American Statistical Association, 100 (469), 36-50.

Chen, E., & Matthews, K. A. (2001). Cognitive appraisal biases: An approach to understanding

the relation between socioeconomic status and cardiovascular reactivity in children. The

Society of Behavioral Medicine, 23 (2), 101-111.

Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive

effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (4), 599-609.

Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Six approaches to the explication of facet-level traits:

Examples from conscientiousness. European Journal of Personality, 12, 117-134.

Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of

personality and in organizations. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Diefendorff, J., Brown, D., Kamin, A., & Lord, B. (2002). Examining the roles of job

involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviours and

job performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23, 93-108.

Dietz, J., Robinson, S. L., Folger, R., Baron, R. A., & Schulz, M. (2003). The impact of

community violence and an organization's procedural justice climate on workplace

aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 317-326.

Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance

relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 667-682.

Dupré, K., Inness, M., Connelly, C., Barling, J., & Hoption, C. (2006). Workplace Aggression

inTeenage part-time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 987-997.

44


Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (5), 992-1003.

Fallon, J. D., Avis, J. M., Kudisch, J. D., Gornet, T. P., & Frost, A. (2000). Conscientiousness as

a predictor of productive and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 15, 339–349.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & Delongis, A. (1986a). Appraisal, coping, health

status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50

(3), 571-579.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R.S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986b). Dynamics

of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.

Fried, Y., Shirom, A., Gilboa, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). The mediating effects of job

satisfaction and propensity to leave on role stress-job performance relationships:

Combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. International Journal of

Stress Management, 15 (4), 325- 328.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Cumpulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of the

good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 36

(1), 78-93.

Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for Big-Five factor structure. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (6), 1216–1229.

Gouldner, Alvin W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25 (2), 161-178.

45


Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007) Coping with abusive supervision:

The neutralizing effects of ingratiation an positive affect on negative employee outcomes.

The Leadership Quarterly, 18 264-280.

Hemdi, M. A. (2006). Turnover Intentions of Hotel Employees: The Role of Human Resource

Management Practices,Trust in Organization, and Affective Phd Thesis, Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Universiti Sainsm, Malaysia.

Hemenover, S. H. & Dienstbier, R. A. (1996). Prediction of stress appraisals from mastery,

extraversion, neuroticism, and general appraisal tendencies. Motivation and Emotion, 20

(4), 299-317.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations,

and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hoobler, J., & Brass, D. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced

aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (5) 1125-1133.

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (6), 869-879.

Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R.S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on

role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.

Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). The role of job security in

understanding the relationship between employees' perceptions of temporary workers and

employees' performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 389-398.

46


Kuhns, A. (2008). The role of emotional regulation in the relationship between abusive

supervision and outcomes. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, University of Wisconsin

Oshkosh, Oshkosh.

Lazarus, R. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. NY: Springer

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion.

American Psychologist, 46 (8), 819-824.

Lazarus, R. S., DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Gruen, R. (1985). Stress and adaptational

outcomes: The problem of confounded measures. American Psychology, 40, 770-779.

Lazarus, R. S., Kanner, A. D., Folkman, S. (1980). Emotions: A cognitive phemenological

analysis. NY: Academic Press, 189-218.

Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C., Coetsier, P., & Geirnaert, J. (2001). Organizational attractiveness

for prospective applicants: A person-organization fit perspective. International

Association for Applied Psychology, 50 (1), 30-51.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents and

consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing,

62(3), 87-98.

Mitchell, M.S., & Ambrose, M.L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the

moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4),

1159-1168.

Moideenkutty, U. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior and developmental experiences:

Do role definitions moderate the relationship? Journal of Behavioral amd Applied

Management, 6 (2), 91-108.

47


Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty achievement striving in escalation of

commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 533-540.

Netter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical

models (4th ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.

Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Defensive pessimism: ‘‘Harnessing” anxiety as motivation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1208–1217.

Nyer, P. (1997). A study of the relationships between cognitive appraisals and consumption

emotions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4). 296–304.

O’Connor, D.B. & O’Connor R.C. (2004). Perceived changes in food intake in response to

stress: role of conscientiousness. Stress and Health 20, 270-291.

Pearce, J. L. (1998). Job security, but not for the reasons you might think: The example of

contingent workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 5, 31-45.

Reisert, E., & Conte, J. M. (2004). Relationships between conscientiousness sub-factors and

constructive and destructive behavioral intentions. Journal of Business and Psychology,

19, 69–84.

Robbins , S. P (2005). Organizational behavior 11th ed . Upper Saddle River. NJ: Pearson.

Robertson, I. T., Baron, H., Gibbons, P. J., MacIver, R., & Nyfield, G. (2000). Conscientiousness

and managerial performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

73, 171-180.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and

unwritten agreements. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Scholtz, S. (2000). Threat: concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 35 (4), 23-29.

48


Schuster, B. (1996). Rejection, exclusion and harassment at work and in schools: An integration

of results from research on mobbing, bullying, and peer rejection. European

Psychologist, 1 (4), 293-317.

Shirom, A. (1982). What is organizational stress? A facet analytic conceptualisation. Journal of

Occupational Behaviour, 3, 21–37.

Sinclair, R. R., Martin, J. E., & Croll, L. W., (2002). A threat-appraisal perspective on

employees’ fears about antisocial workplace behavior. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology. 7 (1), 37-56

Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to

stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (3) 678-

692.

Somech, A. & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The

relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role

behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649-659.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,

43 (2), 178-190.

Tepper, B. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and

interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2). 197-

215.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in formal organizations: Review, synthesis and

research agenda. Journal of Management, 33 (3), 261-289.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Schurer-Lambert, L., (2006). Procedural injustice,

victim precipitation and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123.

49


Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., & Shaw, J.D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship

between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86 (5), 974-983.

Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2008). How management style

moderates relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An

uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes

Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kibler, J., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Cognitive and Physiological

Antecedents of Threat and Challenge Appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 73 (1), 63-72.

Valle, M. (2005). A preliminary model of abusive supervision in organizations. Southern

Business Review, 30 (2), 27-35.

Weathington, B. L. & Moldenhauer, H. A. (2008). Gender role and personality as predictors of

peer and self leadership evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4 (1), 7-14.

White, J. C., Varadarajan, P. R., & Dacin, P. A. (2003). Market situation interpretation and

response: The role of cognitive style, organizational culture, and information use. Journal

of Marketing, 64, 63-79.

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.

Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The interactive effects of

conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

87(1) 164-169.

50


Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. & Duffy, M.K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’

organisational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068-1076.

51

The Effects of Abusive Supervision

Documents

Transcript of The Effects of Abusive Supervision