Abusive supervision scale

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

New Horizons, Vol.14, No.1, 2020, pp 107-130 DOI:10.2.9270/NH.14.1(20).07

aBusiVE suPErVisiOn: diMEnsiOns & sCalE

M. Muzammil Ghayas and dr. rubina Jabeen

aBsTraCT

This study aims to explore dimensions of abusive

supervision and to develop a scale for measuring abusive

supervision dimensions. Qualitative and quantitative data

were collected from Karachi, Istanbul and Dubai at

different points in time. The final sample comprised of 103

and 506 respondents from Karachi for qualitative and

quantitative data respectively, 447 respondents from

Istanbul and 480 respondents from Dubai. Summative

Content Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis,

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Multiple Regression

analyses were used as analyses techniques. Results

suggested that abusive supervision is a multi-dimensional

construct. The scale was also developed and validated in

all three geographical locations. Furthermore,

dimensions of abusive supervision were found to be

positively associated with turnover intentions.

Keywords: Abusive Supervision, Credit Stealing, Belittling Behavior, Yelling and Scapegoating.

inTrOduCTiOn

Violent and Abusive behaviours are products of psychological issues.

These behaviours have often been the topic of discussion for the

psychologists. A growing number of organizations are now facing the

challenge of abusive supervision. Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler and Ensley (2004)

stated that each year, almost 10 to 16 per cent of the entire workforce in the

United States face abusive supervision regularly. On the other hand, Namie

and Namie (2000) found that 89% of the respondents, who have reported to

be experiencing the workplace bullying, consider their leaders/supervisors

to be the main perpetrator of bullying. Similarly, Rayner, Hoel, and Cooper

(2002) suggested that in 50% of all the workplace bullying cases in Norway,

the supervisor is alleged to be the main perpetrator of bullying. Furthermore,

this percentage climbs to 80% in the United Kingdom (Reyner et al. 2002).

Hence, Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf and Cooper (2005) claimed that the nature of

bullying systems seems to have remained constant.

This abusive supervision, as stated by Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert

(2006), may result in an annual organizational cost of almost US$ 23.8

107

Ghayas, M. M., and Jabeen, R.

billion. This makes abusive supervision an important topic of

organizational psychology. Hence, the topic of abusive supervision has

been able to gain the attention of researchers (e.g. Peng, Schaubroeck,

Chong, & Li, 2019; Caesens, Nguyen, & Stinglhamber, 2019; Tepper,

2000). However, a vast majority of the researchers have studied abusive

supervision as a one–dimensional construct (e.g. Caesens, et al., 2019;

Tepper, 2000). However, Tepper (2007) asserted that there is a need to

study the dimensionality of abusive supervision. In this regard, the study

of Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) loaded the items into two dimensions

namely passive–aggressive abusive behaviour and the active–aggressive

abusive behaviour. However, the study of Mitchell and Ambrose (2007)

does not differentiate between different types of active–aggressive abusive

behaviour and passive–aggressive abusive behaviour. This makes the

dimensionality of abusive supervision relatively under–studied

phenomenon. Hence, Martinko, Harvey, Brees and Mackey (2013)

suggested that the study of Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) was the only

published work on the topic of the dimensionality of abusive supervision;

hence, there exists a need to study the dimensionality of abusive

supervision. Although, it’s been years since Martinko et al., (2013)

reinforced the view of Tepper (2007) that dimensions of abusive

supervision be studied, however, this topic has remained under-researched

to this date and per the best of researcher’s knowledge, the study of

Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) is the only published work on the topic of

dimensionality of abusive supervision. Hence, to fill this gap, the present

research study seeks to study the dimensions of abusive supervision.

Hence, by opening the new horizons of the topic of abusive supervision,

this research significantly contributes to developing a greater

understanding of organizational psychology.

liTEraTurE rEViEw

Theoretical Background

This study is based on leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. Graen

(1995) suggested that leader–member exchange (LMX) theory is a

relationship–based approach to leadership that focuses on the two-way

relationship between leaders and their followers. Hence, basic idea of this

theory is that there exists a relationship among the leaders and followers

and quality of the relationship among the leaders and followers influences

the work outcomes of subordinates (Deluga, 1998). However, these

relations may get affected when supervisors are involved in abusive

108

Abusive Supervision: Dimensions & Scale

supervision and the subordinates may develop negative attitude towards

supervisors.

abusive supervision

Tepper (2000) defined abusive supervision as the “display of hostile

verbal and non-verbal behaviours, excluding physical contact”. Using

derogatory names, silent treatment, and humiliating an employee in front

of other employees are the behaviours that can be categorized as the

abusive supervision (Keashly, 1998; Zellars, Tepper& Duffy, 2002).

dimensions of abusive supervision

Researchers (Tepper, 2000; Zellars et al., 2002; Al–Hawari, Bani–

Melhem & Quratulain, 2019; Peng, et al., 2019; Caesens, et al., 2019) have

studied abusive supervision as a one–dimensional construct. However, the

study of Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) is the only published study that

seeks to investigate abusive supervision as a multi–dimensional construct

(Martinko, Harvey, Brees & Mackey, 2013). Hence, the dimensionality of

abusive supervision is under-researched.

Tepper (2007) evaluated non-physical supervisory hostility constructs

to find similarities of these constructs with abusive supervision on a four-

point criterion to clarify how these constructs overlap and differ from

abusive supervision. However, the criteria of Tepper (2007) seek to

enquire into the constructs in their entirety. Hence, this approach either

suggests that the construct overlaps with the concept of abusive

supervision in its entirety or it rejects the construct in its entirety.

However, when it suggests that the construct differs from abusive

supervision, it may have been the case that this rejection is made on the

basis that one or two dimensions of construct do not fit into the criteria as

suggested by Tepper (2007). In other words, there is a possibility that a

construct does not fit into the criteria although one or two dimensions

overlaps the concept of abusive supervision and can be used as the

dimension of abusive supervision. Hence, this study does not seek to

enquire into the constructs in their entirety but rather seek to enquire into

the dimensions of these constructs.

However, applying criteria suggested by Tepper (2007) on dimensions

of similar constructs rather than applying on constructs in their entirety

makes the third criterion (i.e. whether the construct’s content domain

captures non-hostile behaviour) of Tepper (2007) redundant because the

first criterion (i.e. whether the construct focuses exclusively on hostility

109

Ghayas, M. M., and Jabeen, R.

perpetrated by supervisors against specific subordinate targets) has already

included the term hostility. However, this criterion talks about the

exclusivity on hostility perpetrated by supervisors against specific

subordinate targets. In other words, criterion one and three talks about

different things but there is a need to re–arrange the criteria to avoid

confusion. Hence, this study contextualized and rearranged the criteria

suggested by Tepper (2007) which is given as: (a) whether the construct’s

content (or the part of the construct) domain captures non–hostile

behaviour, (b) whether the construct (or the part of the construct) focuses

exclusively on hostility perpetrated by supervisors against specific

subordinate targets, (c) whether the construct (or the part of the construct)

definition excludes other forms of hostility (e.g., physical and sexual), and

(d) the role that intention plays in the conceptual definition of the construct

(or the part of the construct). It should be noted that this study assumes

that the inability of a construct to meet one criterion provides sufficient

enough reason to stop evaluating it on the subsequent criteria.

ashforth’s Petty Tyranny, yelling and Belittling Behavior Ashforth’s

(1987, 1994) model of petty tyranny is quite similar to the construct of

abusive supervision. Petty tyranny is defined as the oppressive, capricious

and vindicates the use of power by a superior. Ashforth (1994) envision

that petty tyranny consists of six sub-dimensions, namely arbitrariness and

self-aggrandizement, belittling subordinates, lack of consideration, forcing

style of conflict resolution, discouraging initiative, and non–contingent

punishment. However, the majority of dimensions of the petty tyranny

captures the behaviours that cannot be considered as hostile (Tepper, 2007).

Hence, it is a distinct concept than that of abusive supervision. However,

this study differs from the study of Tepper (2007) in a manner that this

study of Tepper (2007) seeks to enquire into the similar constructs in their

entirety, whereas, this research study seeks to enquire into the dimensions

of these constructs, therefore, this study evaluates each dimension of petty

tyranny on a four-point criterion used in the study.

Tepper (2007) stated that lack of consideration and discouraging

initiative dimensions of petty tyranny construct does not necessarily

constitute hostility; therefore, we excluded these dimensions from the

analyses and evaluated the rest of the dimensions on the four-point criteria.

Another dimension that Ashfort (1994) suggested being the dimension

of petty tyranny is the Arbitrariness and self—aggrandizement. Use of

110

Abusive Supervision: Dimensions & Scale

authority for personal gain, playing favourites among the sub–ordinates

and administering the policies of organization unfairly is the typical

example of this dimension (Ashfort, 1994). This dimension can also not

be considered as the dimension of abusive supervision because although

it includes playing favourites among the subordinates and administering

policies unfairly, it does not necessarily mean that it constitutes abuse. For

instance, a supervisor may promote the interests of someone else without

being hostile to you.

Ashforth (1994) proposed that “forcing style of conflict resolution”

where the leader forces followers to accept his point of view is a form of

petty tyranny as well. This can be instrumental in making employees feel

un-empowered. This can also not be considered as a dimension of abusive

supervision because although forcing style of conflict resolution can be

instrumental in making employees feel un-empowered and feeling of being

empowered has a positive association with the positive work outcomes

such as employee engagement (Saleem, Iqbal, Sandhu & Amin, 2018),

however, provision of such an authority is not the prerogative of an

employee. Hence all these dimensions of petty tyranny fail to meet the

requirements of the criterion.

Per Ashforth (1994), another dimension of petty tyranny construct is

non–contingent punishment. The term non-contingent punishment can be

explained as the provision of arbitrary punishment by a supervisor to a

subordinate (Thau, Aquino & Bommer, 2008). Hence, this sort of

punishment is different from contingent punishment which is perceived

by a subordinate to be related to performance (Thau, et al. 2008). Hence,

it is the punishment which is perceived by the employees as unjust

(Ashforth, 1994). Therefore, Thau, et al., (2008) suggested that this

overlaps with the concept of abusive supervision. Although non-contingent

punishment is undoubtedly a hostility but punishment is a broader term

and cannot fit into the dimensionality of abusive supervision as there can

be several types of punishments for instance pay deductions or yelling at

a subordinate. In this regard, it is argued that deducting salary of

employees unfairly is not possible for supervisors as these matters are

governed by policies. However, expressing anger on a subordinate when

subordinate has not done anything can be categorized as a form of non–

contingent punishment (Thau, et al., 2008). This can be categorized as

yelling, which overlaps with the concept of interpersonal injustice which

has been proposed by Colquitt (2001) to be the fourth dimension of

111

Ghayas, M. M., and Jabeen, R.

organizational justice construct. Yelling is certainly a form of hostility

because it is the inherent right of the employees that they are treated with

dignity and respect. Furthermore, the term yelling has been used by

previous researchers (Keashly, 1998) while defining abusive supervision.

Although, this sort of hostility cannot only be attributed to the supervisors,

however, this is often done by hierarchical supervisory agents as well,

because when hierarchical supervisory agents are involved in the abuse,

employees are often left with no choice but to remain silent (Tepper,

2000). Therefore, it is concluded that supervisors are the main perpetrators

of this sort of abuse. Furthermore, it can be argued that although

sometimes physical violence is also accompanied by yelling, however,

yelling it-self does not constitute physical hostility. The last point of the

criteria suggests that hostility is perpetrated intentionally by the

supervisor. Yelling is essentially an act of hostility that is perpetrated

intentionally because it is an active form of aggression. Hence, yelling is

included in this study as a contender for being part of the construct of

abusive supervision.

The term belittling behavior can be defined as the way of making

something or someone seems less important. Ashforth (1994) suggests that

criticizing subordinate in front of others and embarrassing subordinates

are examples of belittling behaviour. Since belittling behaviour involves

making someone seem less important, therefore, this can be categorized

as hostility. Furthermore, although others such as colleagues etc. can also

be involved in this sort of abuse, however, supervisors are main

perpetrators of this hostility because when supervisors are involved in this

sort of abuse, employees are left with no choice but to remain silent

(Tepper, 2000). Moreover, it does not include physical violence.

Furthermore, since belittling involves making someone seems less

important, therefore, it is an active form of aggression and thus an act of

intentional hostility. Hence, it is concluded that belittling behaviour is a

strong contender for being part of the construct of abusive supervision as

it meets the requirements of the four-point criteria.

need for achievement and Credit stealing Jackson (1974) defined

the need for achievement in terms of maintaining high standards and

aspiring to accomplish difficult tasks. Fulfilment of this need provides the

employees with the opportunity to gain recognition. Per the two factor

theory of Herzberg et al. (1959), recognition is one of the motivators.

However, neither the recognition of one’s efforts especially in the form of

112

Abusive Supervision: Dimensions & Scale

appreciation can be characterized as generosity towards a sub-ordinate nor

its absence can be characterized as abuse. It is because a sub-ordinate may

have done something extra–ordinary that may have earned him recognition

or the supervisor may not have thought that he has done anything worthy

of earning him recognition. Hence, recognizing one’s efforts or credit

giving behaviour are broader concepts and do not fit in the concept of

abusive supervision. However, Keashly, et al., (1994) used the term credit

stealing while defining abusive supervision.

In this regard, one may suggest that the concept of credit stealing fits

in the criterion because the matter of subjective judgment that if the

employee has done something extra–ordinary or not is resolved in case of

credit stealing, as no one would have thought or would have been able to

steal the credit of anything if an employee has not done anything

extraordinary. The second criterion suggests that the abuse has to be

directed towards a subordinate by a supervisor. Arguably, this is often done

by hierarchical supervisory agents because it is not easy for others to do

so because the employees may resist this. However, when supervisors are

involved in this sort of abuse, employees are left with no choice but to

remain silent (Tepper, 2000). Furthermore, though it is an immoral act