Subordinate Self-esteem and Abusive Supervision.

Abstract

While physical acts of workplace violence have received much attention in the popular press in recent years, academic researchers have begun investigating lesser forms of workplace mistreatment (e.g., Neuman and Baron, 1997). While less sensational perhaps, verbal and passive forms of aggression, such as yelling, bullying, and humiliation, not only happen more frequently than active violence but can also be extremely damaging, contributing ultimately to workplace stress and target demoralization (Keashly, 1998). Some studies suggest that workplace violence occurs in 20% of workplaces (Romano, 1994), yet almost twice that many workplaces are the site of more subtle, verbally harassing behavior or thoughtless, negative acts (Bjorkqvist et al., 1994). Understanding the ramifications of workplace aggression is important in the quest to foster an emotionally healthy workforce. Patterns of negative interaction can be dangerous in that they threaten to damage organizations, careers, and people (Masuch, 1985). In our study we tested hypotheses designed to uncover deleterious consequences for subordinates when they perceive their bosses' behavior to be abusive. A handful of studies have investigated the consequences of abusive behavior in managers. Tepper and colleagues (2000, 2004) found that abusive supervisors engendered subordinate turnover, work-family conflict, job and life dissatisfaction and psychological distress. Congruently, Duffy and Ferrier (2003) found that abusive supervision was a significant predictor of subordinate distrust and low organizational commitment. Hence, we identified abusive supervision as a workplace stressor that has serious implications for organizational members and, in particular, abused subordinates. The negative consequences of abusive supervision on subordinate emotional well-being have frequently been alluded to in previous work (e.g., Tepper, 2000), but have not been tested conclusively in the form of low subordinate self-esteem. This research seeks to underscore the relationship between supervisors' abusive behavior and subordinate self-esteem and to explore whether gender influences this relationship. In the sections that follow, we provide some background on abusive supervision and then link this to employee serf-esteem. We then describe the study we undertook to examine the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinate self-esteem and discuss implications for research and practice. THEORY AND BACKGROUND Abusive Supervision Abusive supervision has evolved from earlier, related constructs such as petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1997) and non-physical workplace aggression (Neuman and Baron, 1997). This construct has recently been defined as the display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact (Tepper, 2000: 178). It is a subjective assessment made by employees regarding their supervisor's behavior toward them. Examples of abusive supervision include a boss demeaning, belittling, undermining, or taking credit for the work of a subordinate. These behaviors reflect indifference, hostility, and oftentimes deviance (Tepper, 2000). Abusive supervision is specific to the supervisor-subordinate dyad and colored by the status, power, and resource differentials common to that relationship. Because bosses are commonly the gatekeepers to employee advancement, compensation, and feedback, when this relationship is a dysfunctional one, it stands to have particularly salient and devastating consequences for employees. Early evidence points to abused subordinates experiencing greater psychological distress, job and life dissatisfaction, and intentions to quit their jobs, as compared to non-abused colleagues (Keashly et al., 1994). Ashforth (1997) found that a more general type of antisocial organizational behavior, petty tyranny, was positively related to subordinate frustration, reactance, helplessness, and work alienation, and negatively related to work unit cohesiveness, work performance, and leader endorsement. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 128 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.