CHAPTER 8
EXPLAINING HOSTILE ACTIONS
Integrating Theories of
Abusive Supervision and Conflict Asymmetry
In this chapter, we apply a conflict asymmetry theoretical framework and introduce a stage model describing how conflict raised by a subordinate triggers abusive supervision, what hostile actions supervisors are likely to use, and the consequences of these hostile actions for target, supervisor, and other organizational observers. We argue that any type of conflict (task, process, or relationship conflict) raised by the subordinate may trigger hostile actions from the supervisor. Our standpoint is that this happens because of how supervisors perceive and interpret the conflict with their subordinate. To inspire empirical research we suggest some interesting lines of future inquiry and conclude with a discussion of the practical implications of this model.
INTRODUCTION
Abusive supervision is a significant social problem: targets of abuse suffer personally (e.g., depression), abusive actions affect the functioning of organizations (e.g., reduced productivity), and abusive supervision may even lead to societal disasters (e.g., shooting incidents, hostage takings). We define abusive supervision as hostile actions perpetrated by hierarchically more powerful supervisors against less powerful targets. These hostile actions range from socially excluding the target to physical assault. Why supervisors may act hostile is still not quite clear, since past research has paid more attention to the consequences of abusive supervision rather than the antecedents (Tepper, 2007). In this chapter, we argue that asymmetrical conflict perceptions between supervisors and subordinates can easily escalate into abusive supervision. Past research on abusive supervision has largely focused on the perspective of the target of abuse (e.g., Aquino & Thau, 2009; Tepper, 2000), therefore, we lack insight into the perspective and motivation of the abusive supervisor (for an exception see Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007). A few empirical studies suggest that supervisors act in an abusive manner towards subordinates when they perceive injustice or wrongdoing by the organization; and this effect gets stronger when the abusive supervisor also has an adverse personality profile, such as one that reflects affective negativity or general authoritarianism (Aryee et al., 2007; Hoobler & Brass, 2006). In addition, Tepper (2007) suggests in his review article that the research on abusive leadership is rather phenomenon-driven and is in need of theory. In this chapter, we apply a conflict asymmetry theoretic framework (Jehn & Rispens, 2008; Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher, 2010) to introduce a stage model that describes how conflict with a subordinate triggers abusive supervision, what hostile actions supervisors are likely to use, and the consequences of these hostile actions for target, and other organizational observers.
Definitions of Constructs: What Are We Talking About?
Before introducing our stage model of abusive supervision, we first want to introduce our core constructs. In this paragraph, we define the constructs that are central to our theoretical model. As said before, we define abusive supervision as hostile actions perpetrated by a hierarchically powerful supervisor against a less powerful target. A hierarchically powerful supervisor refers to a person who occupies a higher position in the hierarchy than the target. For example, a team supervisor is higher in the organizational hierarchy than a team member. This distinction can also be applied to other (organizational) settings such as a teacher versus a student. A target of abusive supervision is an individual who occupies a lower position in the hierarchical ranks (i.e., a subordinate) who, consequently, exhibits less power and who is the focus of hostile actions perpetrated by a supervisor.
Power is defined as the relative ability of an individual to control or influence others (French & Raven, 1959; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Overbeck & Park, 2001) and in organizational settings the construct of power is closely linked to hierarchical positions. Thus, a team supervisor is better able to control or influence a team member than vice versa, because of the resources (e.g., the possibility of firing a team member) that are available to occupants of higher hierarchical positions.
Hostile actions are behavioral manifestations aimed to hurt another party and to restore what the supervisor believes is damaged (e.g., respect, power). In the case of abusive supervision, these actions are executed by the more powerful supervisors. These hostile actions refer to specific behaviors such as socially excluding, isolating, minimizing, chastising, and punishing the powerless target.
In general, conflict is defined as perceived incompatibilities (Boulding, 1962) by the parties involved, and is an inevitable aspect of organizational life. Conflict has been studied in various contexts ranging from the conflict dynamics between married couples (e.g., Gottman & Krokoff, 1989) to managing conflict between nations (e.g., Hopmann, 1996). Interorganizational relationships can also be marked by conflicts (e.g., Pondy, 1969; Putnam & Poole, 1987). Within organizations, conflicts can occur between coworkers or workgroup members (e.g., Amason, 1996; Giebels & Janssen, 2005; Jehn, 1995; Rispens, Greer, & Jehn, 2007), between groups or departments (e.g., Nauta, De Dreu, & Van der Vaart, 2002), or between an employee and supervisor (e.g., Rahim, Antonioni, & Psenicka, 2001). Conflicts usually involve two or more parties, each of which may have different perceptions about the conflict. That is, the conflicting parties can disagree about the level of conflict between them (Jehn et al., 2010) or they can disagree about the type of conflict (cf. Jehn & Rispens, 2008). We explain this concept of conflict asymmetry in more detail in the following section.
A CONFLICT ASYMMETRY THEORETIC FRAMEWORK: A STAGE MODEL
Conflicts between supervisors and subordinates may occur for a number of reasons. However, a typical distinction within the conflict research tradition is between task, relationship, and process conflict (e.g., Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jehn & Rispens, 2008). Task conflicts center on the content of the work, whereas relationship conflicts are disputes regarding personality clashes or value differences (Jehn, 1995). Process conflicts are disagreements about logistical and distribution issues such as how task accomplishment should proceed, who’s responsible for what, or how things should be delegated (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). An abundance of research has investigated the positive and negative consequences of these three conflict types on outcomes such as performance, satisfaction, turnover intentions, and extra-role behaviors (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Giebels & Janssen, 2005; Greer, Jehn, & Mannix, 2008; Jehn, 1995; Rispens et al., 2007; Rispens, Greer, Jehn, & Thatcher, 2009). However, these past studies have, in general, focused upon conflict among peers.
“Vertical” disputes (i.e., between supervisors and subordinates) have not received as much attention in past research as other facets of conflict. Previous research on conflict in the superior-subordinate context, focused mostly on role conflict (e.g., Schaubroeck, Ganster, Sime, & Ditman, 1993) or on supervisors’ conflict management styles (e.g., Rahim & Buntzman, 1989). However, less attention has been given to the process of conflict between supervisors and subordinates and how those conflicts can escalate into abusive behavior. In the first part of the stage model (see Figure 8.1), we argue that any type of conflict raised by the subordinate may trigger hostile actions from the supervisor. Our standpoint is that this happens because of how supervisors perceive and interpret the conflict with their subordinate.
Stage 1: Conflict as Trigger
When subordinates enter a conflict with their supervisor, there is the chance of escalation. Conflict escalation is defined as an increase of both the intensity of the conflict and the severity of tactics used in pursuing it (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Wall & Callister, 1995). One common model within the conflict research tradition about escalation is the aggressor-defender model (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). In this model the conflicting parties see the other as the aggressor and the self as the victim or the defender. The aggressor, who has a goal that is in conflict with the other party, begins with mild conflict tactics, and moves to stronger ones if the mild tactics do not work. The defender reacts, which fuels the escalation process. In our conflict asymmetry framework of abusive supervision, the aggressor would be the subordinate as perceived by the supervisor and the defender would be the supervisor. We propose that any type of conflict may trigger abusive supervision (see also Figure 8.1). It may be easier to imagine that when a supervisor dislikes a subordinate (i.e., a relationship conflict) that hostile actions are more likely to occur than when they have a task dispute. However, according to our reasoning, it does not matter whether the conflict is actually about the process, the task, or the relationship; what we argue is that the mere perception of the conflict type by the supervisor matters.
Figure 8.1. Stage model of abusive supervision.
Stage 2: Conflict Asymmetry
The most critical aspect of conflict and how it may lead to abusive behavior is the way in which supervisors perceive and interpret the conflict (Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2008; Sitkin & Bies, 1993). How people perceive the world is influenced by many individual differences, such as, for example, experience, or, personality. These individual differences affect interests, values, and mental scripts which in turn shape the lens through which people perceive and interpret the world around them, leading them to pay attention to certain stimuli but to ignore others (John & Robbins, 1994). An abundance of research has demonstrated that individuals working together in organizations are often dissimilar in terms of experience, personality, skills, and values (e.g., Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). It is, therefore, likely that any two people may differ in their perception of the same phenomenon. Indeed, recent conflict research revealed that individual team members may differ dramatically in their perception of the level of conflict within a team (Bono, Boles, Judge, & Lauver, 2002; Jehn & Chatman, 2000; Jehn et al., 2010; Pelled, 1996). That is, where one team member may perceive there is hardly any conflict in the team another may perceive that the team is characterized by high levels of conflict (see also Figure 8.2). Furthermore, it is also possible that conflicting parties differ in their perception of the content of the conflict. Whereas one party may be convinced that the issue is task related, the opposing party may perceive the conflict as a personal attack (cf. Jehn & Rispens, 2008; Rispens, 2009; Simons & Peterson, 2000). For example, the subordinate may believe the dispute solely centers on the task whereas the supervisor may perceive the disagreement as a relationship conflict.
A factor that is likely to influence how a conflict between supervisor and subordinate is perceived by the involved parties is, of course, the difference in hierarchical position or power. Social psychological research on social power reveals that those in power differ significantly from those lacking power in terms of cognition, but also in affect and behavior. The majority of studies imply that having power (rather than lacking power) increases abstract thinking, deindividuation of subordinates, reliance on heuristics and stereotypes, less perspective taking, and, positive risk perceptions (e.g., Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Keltner et al., 2003; Smith & Trope, 2006). In addition, numerous studies have shown that those in power display more positive emotions and affect (e.g., Sutton & Davidson, 1997). Regarding actual behavior, empirical research suggests that high power individuals are more willing to take risks (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006) and that individuals with heightened power break social norms more often. For example, Ward and Keltner (as cited in Keltner et al., 2003) found that randomly assigned group supervisors in three-person groups were more likely to grab cookies with no restraint, eat more of them, and chew with their mouths open. To summarize, research on social power has demonstrated that an individual’s level of power influences perceptions, cognition, and behavior. We therefore expect that supervisors perceive conflicts with subordinates differently than how subordinates perceive those conflicts, and that supervisors are likely to act differently because of their higher power position.
Figure 8.2. Examples of conflict asymmetry in workgroups.
Only a few studies have investigated conflicts between supervisors and subordinates. One study by Xin and Pelled (2003) investigated whether conflicts between supervisors and subordinates have the same structure and dynamic as conflicts among peers (where there are no power differences). Where previous research consistently confirmed that task and relationship conflict are distinguishable constructs (e.g., Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995), Xin and Pelled’s study suggests that superiors only perceive pure emotional (i.e., relationship) conflicts or mixed conflict (i.e., a combination of relationship and task conflict aspects) with their subordinates. Similarly, a recent study implies that power differences can explain how people perceive a conflict; supervisors are more likely to focus upon the socioemotional side of conflict whereas employees (powerless) are more likely to center upon the instrumental-task aspect of the conflict (Rispens & Giebels, 2009). These empirical findings are, we argue, crucial for understanding the causes of abusive leadership.
Among peers, task conflicts can lead to an increase in performance (e.g., Jehn, 1995) or decision making quality (Amason, 1996). However, based on the scant research on conflicts between supervisors and subordinates, this seems unlikely for vertical task conflicts. No matter if and how the subordinate perceives the conflict with the supervisor (at least partially), supervisors are likely to perceive the conflict as a relationship conflict. There is not necessarily a correspondence between objective events and the interpretation or perception of conflict (cf. Korsgaard, Jeong, Mahony, & Pitariu, 2008). Supervisors may perceive the subordinate as criticizing or challenging them, which may be difficult for supervisors to accept. Supervisors may perceive those criticisms as an insult to their position (Xin & Pelled, 2003) because typically, supervisors are expected to have more knowledge and experience (Tsui, Xin, & Egan, 1995). In addition, supervisors may feel their social standing or reputation is threatened (Fast & Chen, 2009) when a subordinate engages in task or process conflict with them (cf. Xin & Pelled, 2003). Therefore, we propose that supervisors are likely to perceive task or process conflicts as relationship conflicts. Past conflict research has demonstrated the negative consequences of relationship conflict for individual well-being (e.g., De Dreu, Van Dierendonck, & Dijkstra, 2004), performance (e.g., Jehn, 1995), and the relationship quality between the fighting parties (Xin & Pelled, 2003).
In sum, we expect supervisors to perceive any conflict with their subordinate as a personal attack. As a consequence they are likely to feel disrespected and attacked by their subordinate. In addition, relationship conflicts are characterized by heightened feelings of anger (e.g., Jehn, 1997). Supervisors are likely to react according to their feelings of disrespect, anger, and being attacked. Research by Baron, Neuman, and Geddes (1999) shows that individuals who feel attacked by others justify their own acts of aggression against the attackers. When supervisors perceive to be under attack, they are likely to reciprocate in order to get even or to restore the power balance. Several studies have shown that in social interactions individuals reciprocate the other’s unpleasant or aggressive behaviors (Burgoon, Le-Poire, & Rosenthal, 1995). This “getting even” will fuel the conflict escalation process in which both the intensity of the conflict and the severity of tactics used in pursuing it are increased (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986; Wall & Callister, 1995). Specifically regarding powerholders (i.e., supervisors), recent research demonstrates that when they feel incompetent in their power role powerholders are more likely to display aggressive behavior (Fast & Chen, 2009). Individuals who have a high power position are more likely to use threats and punishments (De Dreu, Giebels, & Van de Vliert, 1998) which is consistent with the literature on abusive supervision. Thus, in the second stage of the phase model we expect that the supervisor will perceive the conflict as a relationship dispute, even if the subordinate raised an issue related to the task or the work process. In the following section, we will elaborate upon the hostile actions that follow leaders’ conflict perceptions.
Stage 3: Hostile Actions
Supervisors who perceive a relationship conflict; that is, they feel personally attacked by the subordinate (regardless the actual conflict types) may decide to engage in hostile actions to establish elimination, control, or, derogation (cf. Berdahl, 2008) (see also Figure 8.1). Elimination refers to a range of hostile actions aimed to get rid of the threat. Elimination can occur on the social level by excluding the subordinate, to segregate the subordinate, or to deny opportunities to the subordinate. For example, a supervisor could decide to not inform the subordinate of important decisions regarding the tasks, not to invite the target to a department meeting, or to ignore the input from a target during a meeting. On the economic level elimination refers to, for example, restriction of financial resources and on the physical level elimination refers to, in the extreme, murder.
Control is another method the supervisor can use (Berdahl, 2008). Supervisors in general have the opportunity to control valued resources or outcomes and they can use this control to bribe or threaten the subordinate to coerce. Control can be executed by social approval or rejection. In addition, it may be exerted with economic coercion (e.g., by hiring “yes men”) or to use physical force (e.g., torture or assault).
The third set of hostile actions supervisor may use is to establish derogation (Berdahl, 2008). It involves representing the subordinate as incompetent or immoral with the goal of preventing anyone taking the subordinate seriously. Supervisors can accomplish derogation by applying slander or stereotyping, for instance. Targets may also be sabotaged and even assaulted and humiliated.
Once a target is socially excluded and isolated, it becomes easy, or at least easier, for the supervisor to turn to derogation. We argue that abusive supervisors may slander and/or stereotype the socially excluded target, portraying the target as incompetent and “difficult” to others, in order to find coalition partners, or followers.
In sum, supervisors who perceive to be involved in a relationship conflict with a subordinate have an array of hostile actions to choose from. What remains rather vague in the literature on abusive leadership is what the supervisors may gain or think they may gain from these actions. We will elaborate upon this gap in the literature in the following section, in which we examine the consequences of abusive supervision. We not only pay attention to the supervisory point of view, but we will also consider the consequences for the targets of abusive supervision, and the effect this has on others in the workgroup or department.
Stage 4: The Consequences
Supervisor Outcomes
Recent research seems to suggest that powerful individuals are less capable of empathizing with a less powerful individual and how they think and feel (Galinsky, Magee, Inesi, & Gruenfeld, 2006). These authors conclude that it is a psychological state that makes perspective taking less likely; high-power individuals are less focused on the meaningful psychological experiences of those around them. In case of abusive supervision, we propose that supervisors may not care about what negative psychological effect the hostile behavior has on an individual.
Regarding the behavior of the supervisor, the assumption we make is that abusive supervision is a means to an end (cf. Ferris, Zinko, Brouer, Buckley, & Harvey, 2007; Tepper, 2007) and not necessarily a mere consequence of trait or character (Kellerman, 2004). That is, we believe the ultimate goal of applying hostile actions towards a target by a supervisor is to reestablish the power balance or power hierarchy by harming the target. As we described earlier, supervisors can choose between many hostile actions ranging from socially excluding the target to elimination of the target. In addition, applying hostile actions towards a target may also serve as a way of releasing frustration or to get even with the subordinate. Thus, supervisors may feel relieved or satisfied after displaying hostile actions towards the target. Specifically, when supervisors perceive that they have succeeded and re-established the power balance.
Of course, being abusive may also have negative consequences for supervisors, specifically when those actions get noticed by others. When the abuse is observed by others in organizations where abuse is not condoned, the supervisor may lose her or his job. Nevertheless, although the negative consequences can be severe, the literature on abusive supervision suggests that supervisors are often likely to get away with hostile actions. One way abusive supervisors are able to remain in their position is by gaining coalition partners or followers, which we will discuss in more detail below.
Target Responses
Whereas abusive supervisors try to reestablish the power balance, we argue that abused targets try to gain feelings of control. That is, targets are searching for ways to bring about change (Tjosvold & Wisse, 2009) such that they are no longer targets of the abuse. To establish a heightened sense of control targets can choose between exit, loyalty, or voice (Berdahl, 2008; Hirschman, 1970). An abused target may exit the situation, either physically (e.g., call in sick or quitting their job) or psychologically (i.e., emotional and social withdrawal). Research indeed reports a positive relationship between abusive supervision and absenteeism (Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001). In addition, reduced commitment and increased intentions to quit are positive correlates with abusive supervision (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Tepper, 2000), as well as reduced task performance (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007).
Loyalty refers to a course of action that increases targets’ feelings of control by being loyal to and obeying the abusive supervisor. Targets may perceive that being loyal and obeying will stop the hostile actions. Loyalty does not challenge the power status-quo, rather it restores it. And a positive consequence is the performance increase (Ferris et al., 2007; cf. Salin, 2003) which is likely to positively affect the subordinate (“best loyal subordinate” etc.).
Voice challenges the status quo, and is the most risky course of action abused targets may take. Risky in the sense that the abusive supervisor will portray the target as “difficult” or a “troublemaker.” Voice is the only way to increase targets’ feelings of control while staying in the relationship with the abusive supervisor. In the abusive supervision literature, a lot of attention has been paid recently to what we refer to as displaced voice (i.e., when actions speak rather than words). Empirical studies suggest an association between abusive supervision and organization deviance (e.g., Duffy et al., 2002; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009). According to Tepper (2000), because targets of abusive supervisors view the organization as partly to blame, they aim their deviance behaviors at the organization. In addition, research by Zellars, Tepper, and Duffy (2002) concluded that victims of abusive supervision restore their sense of control by withholding voluntary citizenship behaviors (e.g., helping a colleague) that would otherwise benefit the organization. Consistent with Frone’s (2000) findings, this would suggest that conflict with supervisors affects outcomes of organizational relevance while conflict with coworkers impact those of personal relevance. Another aspect of voice that has not received as much attention as the deviance hypothesis, is employee resistance (for an exception see Tepper et al., 2001), and that targets may actively seek coalition partners to exercise voice.
How targets will react is of course dependent upon if and how they perceive the hostile actions by the supervisor, and what type of hostile actions the abuser employs. For example, being socially excluded can be a process that is not necessarily immediately recognized by the target. Many studies examining the effects of social exclusion manipulated the construct in a laboratory environment (e.g., Van Beest, Van Dijk, & Wilke, 2003) in which social exclusion is almost immediately recognized by the target. However, in the “real organizational world” it is more likely that this process evolves gradually, leading the target to realize it only after it is too late. If the abusive supervisor uses increased control and monitoring, or threatens to withhold a promotion, this may result in increased anxiety, stress and, consequently, the development of burnout by the target.
Consequences for Others: When Observers Become Followers
In addition to the focal actors (the abusive leader and the subordinate target), in most organizations there are often other individuals who initially are observers of the abuse but ultimately get involved. We refer to these individuals as followers. Followers have not been as extensively studied as (abusive) supervisors, yet they play a pivotal role in the spread of hostile actions. Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser (2007) recently emphasized the role of followers and abusive supervision. These authors distinguish two types of followers that support abusive supervision: conformers and colluders. Conformers support abusive supervisors out of fear whereas colluders actively participate in the hostile actions of supervisors. Padilla et al. argue that conformers are motivated by a prevention focus (Higgins, 1997), that is, to minimize the negative consequences of not complying with the abusive supervisor. Colluders are thought to act with a promotion focus (Higgins, 1997), meaning that they try to personally benefit from going along with the abusive supervisor. Both types of followers support the hostile actions of leaders because of unmet needs and insecurity (conformers) or because of self-promotion (colluders). And, obviously, this affects targets in a negative way for they perceive to be surrounded by nonsupportive coworkers who may even actively engage in the hostile behaviors.
We like to add a third type of followers that Padilla et al. (2007) did not address. We refer to these followers as oblivious. Oblivious followers are those who get manipulated by the abusive supervisor to join in the hostile actions. An example may help to clarify our point here. Often, abusive supervisors will socially exclude the victim. Once the target is isolated, or during the process of isolation, the leader may choose to increase control. For example, the supervisor may decide to overtly increase monitoring the target’s work activities and outcomes. Increased monitoring is a signal to co-workers that the target is not performing as he or she should be. Being closely monitored means that target has less opportunity for self-monitoring, which has been found to increase the likelihood of emotional exhaustion (Wharton, 1993), and emotional exhaustion has been found to be related to absenteeism (Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2002). More so, close monitoring causes targets to withhold citizenship or extra-role behaviors (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993) which is likely to get noticed by coworkers since citizenship behaviors are often characterized by a strong reciprocity norm (Ng & Van Dyne, 2005). When targets are not adhering to the reciprocity norm (i.e., when coworkers observe that the target is bailing out) this can lead to negative impressions by the coworkers, who, as a result, may decide to ignore the target as a form of punishment for not doing what he or she ought to do (i.e., ostracism; Williams, 1997). Thus, whether intentional or not, abusive supervisors may manipulate followers (i.e., other subordinates) in such a way that the “oblivious” will join in the hostile actions.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter we have introduced a conflict asymmetry framework to study abusive supervision. We have presented a stage model in which subordinates act as a trigger by engaging in a task or process conflict with their supervisor. Based on how the supervisor perceives the conflict, hostile actions are likely to be employed, with various consequences for the target, the supervisor, and the followers. This framework is a first step in what we hope will inspire future research.
Our framework can be broadened and deepened, when the interactive process of abusive supervision is added onto our model. That is, a focus on the roles of both parties which is sorely needed provides theoretical foundations for understanding how the process of abuse unfolds over time. In this chapter, we have suggested that one key aspect of how targets will react to hostile actions is whether or not the target is aware of those actions. When abusive supervisors apply implicit or covert actions such as exclusion, targets do not necessarily immediately recognize these actions (Stewart, Bing, Davison, Woehr, & McIntyre, 2009). Targets are likely to choose different behavioral reactions depending on the type or felt severity of the abuse (Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Being socially excluded by the abusive leader may trigger different behavior than being verbally abused in front of others.
In addition, we urge researchers to investigate how abusive supervision breeds followers. To be able to understand how this process works empirically, a multilevel and longitudinal research design is necessary. When applying a multilevel design, researchers are also able to include organizational context variables that may moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and the emergence of followers, such as complex change or other forms of uncertainty in the organizational realm. For example, a period of radical organizational change is likely to influence interpersonal interactions and behaviors. During times of downsizing supervisors may perceive that hostile actions are functional or a necessary evil (Margolis & Molinsky, 2008) in determining who stays and who does not. In addition, times of change are characterized by increased feelings of uncertainty, which may make supervisors more sensitive to conflicts with subordinates.
The framework of how asymmetric conflict perceptions can escalate into abusive supervision has several implications for both leaders and organizations. Regarding abusive supervisors, the research seems to suggest that they are less capable to empathize with the perspective of targets (Galinsky et al., 2006). In general, those in power experience less compassion (Van Kleef, Oveis, Van der Löwe, LuoKogan, Goetz, & Keltner, 2008). Supervisors should be made aware of these findings, which we believe is a necessary step in order to diminish the emergence of abusive supervision. Furthermore, as studies on asymmetrical conflict perceptions suggest (Jehn et al., 2010; Xin & Pelled, 2003), supervisors are likely to perceive and interpret conflict triggered by subordinates as a personal attack, regardless of the subordinates’ motive. Awareness on the part of supervisors may enhance their use of asking more questions, to regulate their own emotions even more than they may already do, in situations of conflict. It is necessary for supervisors to require more information from the subordinate regarding the conflict. Supervisors should try to inform themselves in those situations, to prevent their own feelings of respect and authority from getting hurt, and also to prevent escalation of the conflict into hostile actions. More so, supervisors need to be aware that fear is not a good motivator. Although employing hostile actions may release supervisors’ frustration or anger, in the long run employees do not want to work for or with someone who makes them afraid. Fear is linked to urges to escape (i.e., turnover, absenteeism), and narrows down people’s information processing capacity (cf. Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Öhman, & Mineka, 2001), which in turn will decrease their performance.
Organizations have to watch out for abusive supervisors. The literature suggests that organizations can prevent abusive supervision by encouraging a culture in which abuse and hostile actions are not tolerated (Tepper, 2007). For example, by developing clear policies on how to act when abusive supervision is observed or by installing a formal third party (e.g., mediator, ombudsperson). Organizations can also play a role in harnessing employees by offering workshops or training on how to deal or cope with abusive supervisors. In addition, employees can be trained in how to engage in or handle a conflict with their supervisor.
The stage model we proposed in this chapter we hope will inspire future research and theorizing on abusive supervision. The negative consequences of abusive supervision for targets, organizations, and the society as a whole, are evident. Which means that researchers should pursue the quest to find ways to empower targets, to inform (potential) abusers, and ultimately, to diminish the negative effects of abusive supervision.
REFERENCES
Amason, A. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for the top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-148.
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511-536.
Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717-741.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191-201.
Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the type A behavior pattern. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 281-296.
Behfar, K., Peterson, R., Mannix, E., & Trochim, W. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170-188.
Berdahl, J. L. (2008). Introduction: Social power in action. Social Justice Research, 21, 255-262.
Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., & Lauver, K. J. 2002. The role of personality in task and relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 30, 311-334.
Boulding, K. (1962). Conflict and defense. New York: Harper & Row.
Burgoon, J. K., Le-Poire, B. A., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Effects of preinteraction expectancies and target communication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 287-321.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Giebels, E., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Social motives and trust in integrative negotiation: The disruptive effects on punitive capability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 408-422.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Van Dierendonck, D., & Dijkstra, M. T. M. (2004). Conflict at work and individual well-being. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 6-26.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.
Deery, S., Iverson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Work relationships in telephone call centres: Understanding emotional exhaustion and employee withdrawal. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 471-496.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331-351.
Fast, N. J., & Chen, S. (2009). When the boss feels inadequate: Power, incompetence, and aggression. Psychological Science, 20, 1406-1413.
Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2007). Strategic bullying as a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 195-206.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 313-332.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). Bases of Social Power. In D. Carwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246-255.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068-1074.
Giebels, E. & Janssen, O. (2005). Conflict stress and reduced wellbeing at work: The buffering effect of third-party help. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 137-155.
Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction—a longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 47-52.
Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation: An exploration of the interrelationships between task, relationship, and process conflict. Small Group Research, 39, 278-302.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252-263.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain, American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125-1133.
Hopmann, P. T. (1996). Negotiation process & the resolution of international conflicts. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187-242.
Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J.A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 56-73.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238-251.
Jehn, K. A., & Rispens, S. (2008). Conflict in workgroups. In C.I. Cooper & J. Barlings (Eds.): Handbook of Organizational Behavior, : Micro Approaches (Vol. 1, pp. 262-276). Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE.
Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2010). The effects of conflict asymmetry on workgroup and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53.
John, O. P., & Robbins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 205-219.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.
Korsgaard, M. A., Jeong, S. S., Mahony, D. M., & Pitariu, A. H. (2008). A multilevel view of intragroup conflict. Journal of Management, 34, 1222-1252.
Margolis, J. D., & Molinsky, A. (2008). Navigating the bind of necessary evils: Psychological engagement and the production of interpersonally sensitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 847-872.
Nauta, A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van der Vaart, T. (2002). Social value orientation, organizational goal concerns and interdepartmental problem solving behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 199-213.
Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2005). Antecedents and performance consequences of helping behavior in work groups: A multi-level analysis. Group and Organization Management, 30, 514-540.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556.
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483-522.
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2008). An integrative model of experiencing and responding to mistreatment at work. Academy of Management Review, 33, 76-96.
Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: Superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 549-565.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007), The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, vulnerable followers, and conducive environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Relational demography and perceptions of group conflict and performance: A field investigation. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 7, 230–246.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box, An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28.
Pondy, L. R. (1969). Varieties of organizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 499-506.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. New York: Random House.
Putnam, L. L., & Poole, M. S. (1987). Conflict and negotiation. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 549-599). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Rahim, M. A., & Buntzman, G. F. (1989). Supervisory power bases, styles of handling conflict with subordinates, and subordinate performance and satisfaction. Journal of Psychology, 123, 195-210.
Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C. (2001). A structural equations model of leader power, subordinates’ styles of handling conflict, and job performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 191-211.
Rispens, S. (2009). When conflicts don’t escalate: The influence of conflict characteristics on the co-occurrence of task and relationship conflict in teams. Paper submitted for publication.
Rispens, S., & Giebels, E. (2009, August). Making sense of he said she said: The influence of power on 3rd parties’ conflict perceptions. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
Rispens, S., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2007). It could be worse: A study on the alleviating roles of trust and connectedness in intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18, 325-344.
Rispens, S., Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2009). It’s not so bad after all: How relational closeness buffers the effect of relationship conflict on helpful and deviant group behaviors. Paper submitted for publication.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56, 1213-1232.
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., Sime, W. E., & Ditman, D. (1993). A field experiment testing supervisory role clarification. Personnel Psychology, 46, 1-25.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111.
Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. (1993). Social accounts in conflict situations: Using explanations to manage conflict. Human Relations, 46, 349-370.
Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578-596.
Stewart, S. M., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Woehr, D. J., & McIntyre, M. D. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: A non-self-report measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 207-215.
Sutton, S. K., & Davidson, R. J. (1997). Prefrontal brain asymmetry: A biological-substrate of the behavioral approach and inhibition systems. Psychological Science, 8, 204-120.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationships between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974-983.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 79-92.
Tjosvold, D., & Wisse, B. (2009). Introduction. In D. Tjosvold & B. Wisse (Eds.), Power and Interdependence in organizations (pp. 2–13). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A., Xin, K., & Egan, T. D. (1995). Relational demography: The missing link in vertical dyadic linkage. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 97-129). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Van Beest, I., Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (2003). The excluded player in coalition formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 237-247.
Van Kleef, G. A., Oveis, C., Van der Löwe, I., LuoKogan, A., Goetz, J., & Keltner, D. (2008). Power, distress, and compassion: Turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. Psychological Science, 19, 1315-1322.
Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21, 515-558.
Wharton, A. S. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the job. Work and Occupations, 20, 205-232.
Williams, K. D. (1997). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 133-170). New York: Plenum Press.
Xin, K. R., & Pelled, L. H. (2003). Supervisor-subordinate conflict and perceptions of leadership behavior: A field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 25-40.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068-1076.