Mediation Moderation Paper Aphr4

7/29/2019 Mediation Moderation Paper Aphr4

1/18

Abusive supervision and workplace deviance:

the mediating role of interactional justice

and the moderating role of power distance

Wei Wang Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Jiye Mao School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

Weiku Wu School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Jun Liu School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

This study replicates previous studies by examining the effects of abusive supervision on employee

deviant behaviours in the Chinese organisational context. It extends the existing research of abusive

supervision by investigating the mediating role of the perception of interactional justice and the

moderating role of individual-level power distance in the link between abusive supervision and

workplace deviance. Regression analyses on data of 283 employeesupervisor dyads revealed that the

perception of interactional justice mediates the link between abusive supervision and workplace

deviance. We also found that abusive supervision has a stronger negative relationship with the

perception of interactional justice for employees low in power distance than for employees high in

power distance. These findings provide both replications of and extensions to western theories of

abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Practical implications of this study include hints for

reducing both financial and psychological costs of deviant behaviour.

Keywords: abusive supervision, negative reciprocity, perception of interactional justice, power

distance, workplace deviance

Correspondence: Dr Jun Liu, Associate Professor, Department of Organisation and Human

Resources, School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, China; e-mail: junliu@

ruc.edu.cnAccepted for publication 20 April 2011.

Key points

1 Employees subjected to abusive supervision may displace their deviant behaviours

and target the organisation (organisational deviance) and individuals other than thesupervisor (interpersonal deviance).

2 The perceived injustice stemming from abusive supervision is likely to be translated

into workplace deviant behaviours.

3 Employees with low power distance react more negatively to abusive supervisors than

do those with high power distance.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (2012) 50, 4360 doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2011.00004.x

2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd


2/18

In the last decade, a growing body of literature hasfocused on employees deviant behaviours

in the workplace. Bennett and Robinson (2003) defined workplace deviance as a purposeful

behaviour that violates organisational norms and is intended to harm an organisation, its

employees,or both. Typicalworkplace deviance,suchas theft, aggression towardsupervisors,or bullying of subordinates, has a negative impact on organisations, both financially and

psychologically (Robinson and Greenberg 1998). As a member of an organisation, the

employee significantly relies on organisational resources such as pay, social status, informa-

tion, and trust (Foa and Foa 1974, 1980) to fulfil his or her personal and career goals. Such

being the case, why would he or she engage in deviant behaviours and risk losing the

abundant resources provided by the organisation, either by damaging the organisation

irreparably or by losing his or her job? The literature shows that workplace experiences like

frustration, injustice, and threats are antecedents of employee deviance (Bennett and Rob-

inson 2003), and interpersonal mistreatment are primary predictors of workplace deviance(Robinson and Greenberg 1998). In addition, Bies (1999) found that employees perceive

their supervisors as the primary sources of interpersonal mistreatment.

Abusive supervision, defined by Tepper (2000) as a type of destructive leadership,

refers to subordinates perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in sustained

display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviours, excluding physical contact. Abusive

supervision describes a key aspect of interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace that

employees receive at the hands of their supervisor. For instance, Ashforth (1997) found

that abusive supervision triggers employee feelings of frustration, helplessness, and alien-

ation. From the social interactionist perspective (Tedeschi 2001), abusive supervision may

cast employees into negative self-identity, making them weak and ineffectual. However,

people who suffer from abusive supervision often manage to restore their personal iden-

tities (Bies and Tripp 1998), by countering abusive supervision, which shows subordi-

nates strength, courage, and competence (Tedeschi 2001). To restore their personal

identities, employees may seek retaliation to save their face and maintain their personal

honour (Bies and Tripp 1998), taking revenge on their supervisors by engaging in deviant

behaviours (Mitchell and Ambrose 2007; Tepper et al. 2009; Thau and Mitchell 2010;

Thau et al. 2009).

The present study attempts to replicate and extend research on abusive supervision and

employee deviance in the Chinese organisational context. Consistent with previousresearch, we replicate examining the relationship between abusive supervision and

employee workplace deviance. Using this as a foundation, we extend previous work by

developing a moderated mediation model of leader abuse and employee deviance. Specifi-

cally, we propose that abusive supervision depresses employee psychological state (such as

undermining interactional justice perception) and leads to deviant behaviours directed

towards the organisation, the supervisor, and/or non-supervisory co-workers. Our second

objective is to examine the cultural context that facilitates or hinders the effects of abusive

supervision. Specifically, we examine the moderating role of individual power distance,

which is a cultural conception embedded by a person regarding the degree of power thatauthorities should have over employees (Hofstede 1980), on the relationship between

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd44


3/18

abusive supervision and employee perceptions of justice. Our research model is illustrated

in Figure 1.

By examining the model, our study contributes to the research on abusive supervision

and workplace deviance in two major ways. First, we should note that depressing the

negative impact of abusive supervision has become not only more important but also

increasingly challenging, for managers in both developed and developing countries.

However, cultural factors may lead to abusive supervisions being more or less favourable/

acceptable (Tepper 2007), thus these factors may have moderating effects on the relation-

ship between abusive supervision and its outcomes. Therefore, because of cultural

differences, the western findings may not be generalizable to the Chinese context in which

the present study is conducted. Our study is timely in applying the cultural approach to the

investigation of abusive supervision and workplace deviance by including power distance asa contingent factor in the framework. Indeed, China has been a focal interest for recent

management research because of increasing foreign investment in China. Chinese culture

and society have been characterized as having a high level of power distance (Hofstede

1991; Hofstede and Bond 1988). Our effort to investigate the moderating role of power

distance not only deepens the understanding of the nature of Chinese employeesupervisor

dynamics, it also offers a more comprehensive picture of abusive supervision and workplace

deviance association, thereby enriching existing western theories and validating their gen-

eralizability. The second major contribution of our study lies in its design. Most studies in

the field of abusive supervision and deviance have been limited by their correlationaldesigns that is, the use of cross-sectional and single-source data. In this study, we examine

the moderated mediation model using a multi-wave, multi-source design, which provides

methodological implications for other studies.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Abusive supervision and workplace deviance

Individuals heed the interpersonal treatment that they receive from organisational author-

ities (Lind and Tyler 1988). Fair and respectful interpersonal treatment leads people to besatisfied and to believe they are valued (Judge, Scott and Ilies 2006; Skarlicki and Folger

Perception of

interactional

justice

Abusive

supervision

Individual-level

power distance Organisationaldeviance

Supervisor-directeddeviance

Non-supervisoryinterpersonaldeviance

+

_ _

Figure 1 Theoretical model

Wei Wang et al.

2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 45


4/18

1997). According to the social exchange theory, people reciprocate the benefits they receive

in the workplace (Blau 1964; Gouldner 1960). A meta-analysis provided evidence that

interactional justice is positively related to organisational commitment and organisational

citizenship behaviours directed toward individuals (Colquitt et al. 2001). However, thesocial exchange theory also suggests that individuals who perceive harm are more likely to

return negative reactions. Abusive supervision often involves rudeness, hostility, public

criticism, and loud and angry tantrums. This supervisory mistreatment can cause low levels

of perceived organisational justice, leading to higher levels of turnover and psychological

distress, and less favourable attitudes toward the job and the organisation (Tepper 2000). In

addition, abusive supervision has been found to trigger retaliatory and counterproductive

work behaviours in organisations (Jones 2009).

Workplace deviance is a purposeful behaviour that violates organisational norms and is

intended to harm the organisation, its employees, or both (Bennett and Robinson 2003).Robinson and Bennett (1995) developed a widely accepted typology of workplace deviance,

categorising it into two basic types: organisational deviance and interpersonal deviance.

Organisational deviance refers to deviant behaviours directed toward the organisation (e.g.,

shirking work, purposefully extending overtime). Interpersonal deviance refers to deviant

behaviours directed toward individuals (e.g., verbal abuse, sexual harassment). Recent

research suggests that it is meaningful to distinguish between deviant behaviours targeted

toward supervisors and those aimed at other individuals, such as colleagues (Hershcovis

et al. 2007). This research investigates organisational deviance and both types of interper-

sonal deviance as reactions to abusive supervision.

Interpersonal mistreatment is a central component of abusive supervision and a driving

factor in deviant behaviours (Robinson and Greenberg 1998). Ample empirical evidence

suggests that employees respond quite negatively to supervisor mistreatment by engaging in

behaviours that are harmful to the organisation and its members (Aquino, Tripp and Bies

2006; Bies and Tripp 1998; Folger 1993; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007). For example, Folger

(1993) found that supervisors who fail to meet an acceptable standard of demeanour

promote employee retaliation. Bies and Tripp (1998) found that victims of abusive leaders

undermine their supervisors in private as well as openly. Moreover, Aquino, Tripp and Bies

(2006) demonstrated that individuals at the lower level of the organisational hierarchy are

more likely to seek revenge than are higher level individuals.Social exchange theory (Blau 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005; Gouldner 1960)

provides a useful lens for examining the relationship between abusive supervision and

workplace deviance. One of the basic tenets of social exchange theory is reciprocity, or

repayment in kind. Reciprocity is usually thought of positive reciprocity, but negative

reciprocity is also possible. Negative reciprocity refers to negative treatment being returned

or repaid with negative treatment (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). From the social

exchange perspective, employees may repay an abusive supervisor by engaging in deviant

behaviours. According to Mitchell and Ambrose (2007), employees may respond to abusive

supervision by different types of deviant behaviours: retaliating directly against their super-visor and engaging in displaced deviance by targeting the organisation or other individuals.




5/18

In this research, we consider all types of deviant behaviours that employees may conduct

towards supervisors, the organisation, and non-supervisory co-workers.

Supervisor-directed deviant behaviour is a kind of retaliation by employees who seek to

make the wrongdoer pay for a transgression (Skarlicki and Folger 2004). From the socialexchange perspective, when individuals suffer unanticipated punishment, they may become

angry and engage in aggressive behaviours. Prior research also provides evidence that

employees who are subjected to abusive supervision will seek revenge against those who

have harmed them and engage in destructive behaviours that target those whom they

perceive as threatening (Bies and Tripp 1996). A recent meta-analysis demonstrates that,

when individuals attribute responsibility for harm to someone, they respond with anger

and retaliation (Rudolph et al. 2004). Furthermore, empirical evidence has demonstrated

that individuals retaliate against perceived injustices (Greenberg and Alge 1998; Skarlicki

and Folger 1997; Skarlicki, Folger and Tesluk 1999), threats to identity (Aquino and Douglas2003), violations of trust (Bies and Tripp 1996), and personal offense (Aquino, Tripp and

Bies 2001). Following this discussion, we propose:

Hypothesis 1a: Abusive supervision is positively related to supervisor-directed deviance.

Employees may also direct their deviant behaviour toward the organisation (organisa-

tional deviance) or non-supervisory co-workers (interpersonal deviance). According to

Dollard et al. (1939), individuals may displace their deviant behaviours to non-supervisory

targets if it is not possible to retaliate against the abusive supervisor or if the victim fears

further retaliation from the abusive supervisor. The social exchange perspective could also

offer explanations regarding why employees do not engage in direct retaliation against their

abusive supervisors. Employees with normal self-consciousness engage in deviant behav-

iours that are self-serving and benefit themselves unless the anticipated cost exceeds the

anticipated benefits. If the targeting abusive supervisors cannot bring benefits, they turn to

other targets. Thus, retaliation against the source of abuse is not the only deviant behaviour

in which the abused employees may engage: they may vent their retaliation for perceived

abuse from the supervisor on other targets. We assume that individuals subjected to abusive

supervision may displace their deviance behaviour and target the organisation (organisa-

tional deviance) and individuals other than the supervisor (interpersonal deviance). There-

fore, we propose:

Hypothesis 1b: Abusive supervision is positively related to organisational deviance.

Hypothesis 1c: Abusive supervision is positively related to interpersonal deviance.

The mediating role of perception of interactional justice

Tepper (2000) found that abusive supervision negatively influences perceptions of justice,

including interactional, procedural, and distributive justice. In the present study, since we

take a social exchange perspective to build our framework, we regard interactional justice,

which deals with interactional fairness and reflects the quality of social exchange, as par-ticularly relevant to this analysis.

Wei Wang et al.



6/18

According to Bies and Moag (1986), interactional justice refers to the quality of

interpersonal treatment that employees experience when procedures are enacted. More

specifically, Colquitt (2001) defined it as the extent to which employees perceive that they

are treated with dignity in their interpersonal interactions, such as spoken to politely,without improper remarks or prejudicial statements. From the social exchange perspec-

tive, interactional justice, which generally reflects the quality of the exchange between the

individual and his/her supervisor, has been found to be strongly and consistently asso-

ciated with supervisor-directed workplace aggression (Baron, Neuman and Geddes 1999;

Dupr and Barling 2001). In addition, Jones (2009) found that interactional injustice

from an authority was significantly related to supervisor-directed retaliation. When

employees experience interactional injustice, they will be motivated to resolve this

injustice.

The uncertainty management theory (Lind and Van den Bos 2002; Van den Bos andLind 2002) offers both explanations and solutions for employees motivation to retaliate.

According to the theory, one of an individuals life challenges is to cope with uncertainties

in social relationships. Because uncertainty threatens the individuals general sense of self

(Hogg and van Knippenberg 2003), the person must either make it more cognitively

manageable (Van den Bos and Lind 2002) or tolerate it. Within a work context, when an

employee has an abusive supervisor, he or she perceives a high level of uncertainty due to

the loss of personal control. The uncertainty management theory suggests that, when

uncertainty is coupled with unfair treatment like supervisor abuse, employees will respond

negatively against the organisation (Van den Bos and Miedema 2000) because doing so

allows them take personal control of the situation. According to Lind and Van den Bos

(2002, 196), harming the organisation is as much as a goal as protecting the self. The

uncertainty management theory also suggests that, in the organisational context, fairness-

related information from authorities provides a means to cope with uncertainty (Tangirala

and Algae 2006). Thus, the perceived injustice stemming from abusive supervision is likely

to be translated into workplace deviant behaviours, such as organisational theft, aggression

directed toward the supervisor, or bullying of subordinates. Based on this discussion, we

propose:

Hypothesis 2: Employees perception of interactional justice mediates the relationship between

abusive supervision and employees deviant behaviours in the workplace.

The moderating role of individual-level power distance

Although Hofstede (1980) claimed that studies of cultural values were meaningful only

on the societal level, researchers have found that each of Hofstedes value dimensions

vary significantly among individuals within a specific society (Clugston, Howell and

Dorfman 2000; Kirkman and Shapiro 2001). In a review of previous empirical research

that has incorporated Hofstedes cultural values, Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson (2006)

found that more studies examined these values at the individual level than at the

societal level. Since we focus on the moderating effect of power distance on the relation-ship between abusive supervision and the perception of interactional justice (two




7/18

individual-level constructs) in organisational settings, we define and operationalise power

distance at the individual level. According to Clugston, Howell and Dorfman (2000),

individual-level power distance refers to the extent to which an individual accepts the

unequal distribution of power in institutions and organisations. In the organisationalcontext, high power distance prescribes that an important role of employees or subor-

dinates is that of following the orders of the superior. As Kirkman and Shapiro (1997)

stated, employees with high levels of power distance are more willing to allow authorities

to make decisions in the absence of employee participation and are less likely to attempt

to influence the decision-making of authorities than are those with low levels of power

distance.

We argue that, because of their strong deference to authority figures, employees with

high power distance are likely to be more reliant on the positive (rather than the negative)

reciprocity norm than are their counterparts with low power distance. This notion isconsistent with the rationales of power dependence theory (Emerson 1972). For instance,

according to the power dependence theory, in a relationship characterised by power imbal-

ance, such as the employeesupervisor relationship in the Chinese context, the employee

party is more dependent on the supervisor party for valued resources. When there is abusive

supervision, the employees dependence and lack of power constrain his or her capability

and purposeful motivation to seek revenge (Tepper et al. 2009). In this case, the employee

copes with the abusive supervisor without the perception of interactional injustice. Simi-

larly, the deterrence theory suggests the powerless party in a relationship will likely with-

hold retaliation toward the powerful party when the cost is prohibitive. In this case,

employees tolerate supervisor abuse and react less negatively to abusive supervision when

they are characterised by high power distance. Meanwhile, because of their strong belief in

egalitarianism (Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson 2006; Lee, Pillutla and Law 2000), employees

with low power distance are more likely to perceive themselves as being unequally treated

when they are faced with abusive supervision. These employees are sensitive to unequal

interpersonal treatment by their supervisors, thus they tend to perceive interactional injus-

tice more often than those higher in power distance do and react more negatively to abusive

supervision.

Hypothesis 3: Individual-level power distance moderates the relationship between abusive

supervision and employees perception of interactional justice such that the relationship isstronger for those individuals who are lower, rather than higher, in power distance.

Method

Sample and procedure

Survey instruments were distributed to employees and their supervisors in six mid-sized

electronic manufacturing enterprises in Beijing. In order to avoid common method vari-

ance (CMV), we conducted two waves of survey with a nine-month interval. Data collec-

tion was implemented with the assistance of the companies human resource departments.Prior to the survey, researchers and human resource professionals established a list of survey

Wei Wang et al.



8/18

participants. We administered separate questionnaires to 338 employees and their 128

supervisors. Each supervisor was required to report on two to a maximum of six employees.

In the first wave of surveys (Time 1), employees provided information on demography,

abusive supervision, and perception of interactional justice. In the second wave (Time 2),employees provided information on organisational deviance and interpersonal deviance

while supervisors provided information on supervisor-directed deviance. We ultimately

gathered feedback from 300 employees and 128 supervisors. After matching employee

questionnaires and supervisor questionnaires in the two waves, we obtained 283 employee

supervisor dyads for hypothesis testing, with valid response rates of 83.7% and 87.5%,

respectively.

For supervisors, 72.3% of them were male. Thirty per cent were 31 to 35 years old, and

29.5% were 36 to 40 years old. The average period of work experience of supervisors was

12.8 years. For employees, 67.1% of them were male. Twenty-eight percent were 25 to 30years old and 23.3% were 31 to 35 years old. The average period of work experience of

employees was 7.7 years.

Measures

Abusive supervision

We used a 15-item scale developed by Tepper (2000) to measure abusive supervision. A

sample item was My supervisor tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid. Aryee et al.

(2007) used this scale to measure abusive supervision in the Chinese organisational context.

In our study, Cronbachs alpha of the scale was 0.95, indicating satisfactory measuringreliability.

Interactional justice

We used a 9-item scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) to measure interactional

justice, which was reported by employees at Time 1. A sample item was My supervisor

treats me fairly (reverse coded). Cronbachs Alpha of the scale was 0.94.

Power distance

We used a 6-item scale developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988) to measure powerdistance, which was reported by employees at Time 1. Cronbachs alpha of the scale was

0.85.

Workplace deviance

We used Mitchell and Ambroses (2007) 12-item scale to measure organisational deviance,

their 7-item scale to measure non-supervisory interpersonal deviance, and their 10-item

scale to measure supervisor-directed deviance. A sample item was I said something harmful

to my supervisor at work (supervisor-directed deviance). The Cronbachs alpha coeffi-

cients were 0.84, 0.79, and 0.89, for organisational, non-supervisory interpersonal, andsupervisor-directed deviance respectively, indicating satisfactory measuring reliability.




9/18

Control variables

Previous research indicated that individuals demographic variables (age, gender, seniority

and organisational level), as well as positive affectivity and negative affectivity influence

their perception of social interactions (e.g., perception of interactional justice) and deviantbehaviours (Harvey et al. 2007). Therefore, we controlled these variables as Harvey et al.

(2007) did in their research. We used Watson, Clark and Tellegens (1988) scale to measure

positive and negative affectivity. The Cronbachs alphas were 0.95 and 0.91 respectively,

indicating satisfactory measuring reliability.

All of the discussed multi-item variables were measured using 7-point scales. Workplace

deviance was rated on the anchors from 1 standing for never to 7 representing daily; other

variables were rated on the anchors from 1 standing for strongly disagree to 7 representing

strongly agree.

Discriminant validity

Using LISREL 8 (Jreskog and Srbom 1993), we conducted confirmatory factor analyses

(CFAs) to test the psychometric properties of all independent, dependent, mediating,

moderating, and multi-item control variables. In total, 79 items measured our eight latent

constructs (15 items for abusive supervision, 9 items for interactional justice, 6 items for

power distance, 29 items for three types of workplace deviance, 20 items for positive and

negative affectivity). In order to prevent problems arising from including too many indi-

cators in structural models, we reduced the number of indicators via a combination method

creating item-parcels (Landis, Beal and Tesluk 2000). For example, we randomly selected

five items measuring abusive supervision and combined them to a parcel, so that in our CFA

models, the abusive supervision construct had three parcel indicators. Using this process,

we retained three parcel indicators for each of eight latent variables. The combination

method is accepted and used by management researchers when employing structural equa-

tion modelling (SEM) to conduct analyses (e.g. Li, Liang and Crant 2010; Mathieu and

Taylor 2006). In the examined CFA model, there were eight latent factors with 24 corre-

sponding indicators. The eight-factor model fit the data well (c2 = 612.90, d.f. = 224; CFI =

0.93; TLI = 0.90; IFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.08). Against this baseline model, we tested a model

that loaded all the 24 indicators to a grand latent factor. The model did not generate

satisfactory fit to our data (c2 = 1641.39, d.f. = 252; CFI = 0.63; TLI = 0.59; IFI = 0.63;RMSEA = 0.14). Thus, there is evidence for the construct distinctiveness of the studied

variables.

Results

Table 1 reports means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations among studied vari-

ables. Hierarchical regression modelling (HRM) was employed to test our hypotheses (see

Tables 2 and 3). To test the mediating role of interactional justice perception, we applied

Baron and Kennys (1986) procedures. Baron and Kenny (1986) argued that the mediatingeffect should meet the following requirements: 1) the independent variable (i.e. leader

Wei Wang et al.



10/18

political skill) is significantly related to the mediator (i.e. team communication); 2) the

independent variable is significantly related to the dependent variable (i.e. team per-

formance); 3) the mediator is significantly related to the dependent variable; and 4) when

the independent variable and mediator are simultaneously included in the regression

model, the mediators influence is still significant while the independent variables influ-

ence disappears (full mediation) or shrinks in magnitude (partial mediation).

The results in Table 3 indicate that abusive supervision has significantly positive influ-ence on employees organisational deviance (b= 0.20,p < 0.01,M2 in Table 3), interpersonal

deviance (b= 0.19, p < 0.01, M5 in Table 3), and supervisor-directed deviance (b= 0.21, p

< 0.01, M8 in Table 3), thereby supporting hypothesis 1. After introducing the mediator into

the model, the influence of abusive supervision on the three kinds of workplace deviant

behaviours becomes insignificant, while employees perception of interactional justice

maintains a significantly negative influence on them (b= -0.26, p < 0.01, M3 in Table 3; b

= -0.23, p < 0.01, M6 in Table 3; b= -0.26, p < 0.01, M9 in Table 3). Meanwhile, the results

in Table 2 indicate that abusive supervision has a significantly negative influence on

employees perception of interactional justice (b= -

0.41, p

Mediation Moderation Paper Aphr4

Documents

Transcript of Mediation Moderation Paper Aphr4