Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T00:42:39.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abusive Supervision and Contextual Performance: The Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion and the Moderating Role of Work Unit Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Samuel Aryee ,
Li-Yun Sun ,
Zhen Xiong George Chen  and
Yaw A. Debrah
Samuel Aryee
Affiliation:
Aston University, UK
Li-Yun Sun
Affiliation:
Macau University of Science and Technology, China
Zhen Xiong George Chen
Affiliation:
The Australian National University, Australia
Yaw A. Debrah
Affiliation:
Swansea University, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the processes linking abusive supervision to employee contextual performance by focusing on the mediating influence of emotional exhaustion and the moderating influence of work unit structure. Data were obtained from 285 subordinate–supervisor dyads from three manufacturing companies in north-eastern China. The results revealed that: (i) emotional exhaustion mediated the relationships between abusive supervision and the contextual performance dimensions of interpersonal facilitation and job dedication; and (ii) work unit structure moderated these relationships such that the relationships were stronger in mechanistic than in organic work unit structures.

Keywords

abusive supervisioncontextual performanceemotional exhaustionwork unit structure苛责式督导情绪疲惫工作单位结构下属的职外表现
Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , November 2008 , pp. 393 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. 2003. Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 295–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. 1999. Tit for tat: The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24: 452–472.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. 1994. Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47: 755–778.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. 1997. Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14: 126–140.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. 2006. Abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress, and subordinate personality into account. Human Relations, 59: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. 2000. Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 349–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. 1998. Two faces of the powerless: Coping with tyranny. In Kramer, R. M. & Neale, M. A. (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: 203–219. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggression and analysis. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organization: Foundations, extentions, and new directions: 349–381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S.J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include clement of contextual performance. In Schmitt, N., Borman, W. C. & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations: 71–98. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In Triandis, H. C. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2): 389–444. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. 2003. The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58: 160–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 331–351.Google Scholar
Farh, J. L., Cannella, A. A. Jr & Lee, C. 2006. Approaches to scale development in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 2: 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. 2001. Counterproductive work behavior in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59: 291–309.Google Scholar
Gaines, J., & Jermier, J. M. 1983. Emotional exhaustion in a high stress organization. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 567–586.Google Scholar
Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. 2007. Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on employee negative outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 264–280.Google Scholar
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new approach at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44: 513–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoobler, J., & Brass, D. 2006. Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1125–1133.Google Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. 2001. LISREL 8.50. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.Google Scholar
Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. 1992. Stress in organizations. In Dunnette, M. D., Hough, J. M. R., & Triandis, H. C. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4): 571–650. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Keashly, L. 1998. Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1: 85–117.Google Scholar
Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. 1994. Abusive behavior in the workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9: 341–357.Google Scholar
Khandwalla, P. N. 1976/1977. The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. 1998. Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. 1990. On the meaning of Maslach's three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 630–640.Google Scholar
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. 1996. A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 123–133.Google Scholar
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. 1986. Maslach burnout inventory (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. 2008. Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 498–512.Google Scholar
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatments on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 738–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintzberg, H. 1979. The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
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: 1159–1168.Google Scholar
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 475–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10: 85–97.Google Scholar
Raundenbush, S., & Bryk, A. 2002. Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Shirom, A. 1989. Burnout in work organizations. In Cooper, C. L. & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology: 25–48. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. 1997. Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of context. Journal of Management, 23: 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological methodology: 290–312. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. 2007. High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 558–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepper, B.J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepper, B. J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33: 261–289.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. 2006. Procedural justice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59: 101–123.Google Scholar
Tierney, P., & Tepper, B. J. 2007. Introduction to the Leadership Quarterly special issue: Destructive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 18: 171–173.Google Scholar
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1996. Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 525–531.Google Scholar
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063–1070.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Wilk, S. L., & Moynihan, L. M. 2005. Display rule ‘regulators’: The relationship between supervisors and worker emotional exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 917–927.Google Scholar
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, K. M. 2002. Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 1068–1076.Google Scholar
Zhang, K., Song, L. J., Hackett, R. D., & Bycio, P. 2006. Cultural boundary of expectancy theory-based performance management: A commentary on DeNisi and Pritchard's performance improvement model. Management and Organization Review, 2: 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar