Investigating the precedents of abusive supervision (AS) is a new research direction that could help complete the cause-effect chain of AS. Drawing on moral exclusion theory, we examine the main effect of supervisor perceptions of subordinate performa ...
Investigating the precedents of abusive supervision (AS) is a new research direction that could help complete the cause-effect chain of AS. Drawing on moral exclusion theory, we examine the main effect of supervisor perceptions of subordinate performance on AS, and the moderating effects of a supervisor’s need for achievement and second-level superiors’ close monitoring for first-line supervisors, as key boundary conditions for the relationship. We conducted a time-lagged survey and analyzed 142 matched reports from supervisors and subordinates who had direct reporting relationships with the supervisors. The results indicated that subordinate performance, as rated by the supervisor, was negatively associated with AS. Furthermore, a supervisor’s need for achievement moderated the relationship between subordinate performance and AS, such that the relationship was more negative under a supervisor who has a higher need for achievement. In addition, second-level superiors’ close monitoring for first-line supervisors also moderated the relationship between subordinate performance and AS, such that the relationship was more negative under a higher level of second-level superiors’ close monitoring. These findings highlight the role of subordinate utility in relation to AS, and they promote new knowledge regarding the boundary conditions for the subordinate performance-AS relationship. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Abusive supervision (AS) is a type of destructive leadership behavior, defined as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact”(Tepper, 2000, p. 178). AS impacts organizational performance and members’ quality of life in many negative ways. Scholars estimate that more than 13% of workers in the United States are subject to AS from their immediate supervisors, which is believed to produce a financial loss of $23.8 billion. Many researchers have studied AS over the years, because it causes serious negative effects in organizations and individuals. Most of the existing literature on AS has focused on its impact on individuals and organizations. Through the endeavors of several researchers, an adequate body of findings has been accumulated on the AS-consequence link. Research on the factors affecting AS, has been neglected, leading several scholars to identify a need to study the cause-AS link. Identifying the precedents of AS is a new, preemptive research direction that could help complete the cause-effect chain of AS. As supervisors and subordinates form an interactive relationship, their behaviors are mutually reciprocal (i.e., if a supervisor’s behaviors induce responses from subordinates, then the subordinates’ behaviors can also induce responses from supervisors). Recent studies have identified subordinates’ performance (especially low performance) as a precedent of AS. However, research on the association between subordinate performance and AS is still in an early stage, and much remains to be examined. Specifically, it would be useful to shed light on situations in which the negative effect of subordinate performance on AS can be moderated. Considering the various negative effects of AS, top management and human resources managers must ensure that AS from first-line supervisors is well-managed. It is very difficult to enhance subordinates’ low performance, a key precedent of AS, within a short period of time. A practical alternative may be to identify situational variables that moderate the relationship between subordinate performance and AS, and to manage those situational variables to mitigate the relationship. We designed this study to identify situational variables that moderate the association between subordinate performance and AS. To gain a clearer understanding of negative behaviors in organizations, both personal and environmental factors must be considered. A supervisor’s need for achievement, which is a personal factor known to be beneficial to individual performance, coupled with a subordinate’s low performance, will produce a negative outcome increasing AS. Additionally, second-level superiors’ close monitoring for first-line supervisors, and particularly an excessive form of monitoring that goes beyond an acceptable level to the point of hindering the performance of tasks, is an environmental factor found quite commonly in organizations. When this close monitoring by second-level superiors interacts with subordinates’ low performance, it may also reinforce AS. We, therefore, sought to present and empirically validate a theoretical model to demonstrate that a supervisor’s need for achievement and second-level superiors’ close monitoring for supervisors strengthens the negative relationship between subordinate performance and AS. The first moderating variable suggested in this study, a supervisor’s need for achievement, refers to an individual’s desire or motivation to accomplish a task as well as possible. Generally, it is known to be beneficial to the improvement of individual performance and goal accomplishment. It should be noted that supervisors with a high need for achievement are preoccupied with success, and they focus excessively on subordinates’ task performance to judge the subordinates’ utility, which may result in stronger moral exclusion of subordinates with low performance. Because subordinates’ task performance is an important means for supervisors to accomplish their goals, low performance is especially intolerable for supervisors with a high need for achievement. In extreme cases, it may even trigger anger and frustration. Accordingly, the negative effect of subordinates’ task performance on AS may manifest more strongly in supervisors with a high need for achievement, than in those with a low need for achievement. We suggested and empirically verified a new perspective according to which the interaction between supervisors’ high need for achievement and subordinates’ low task performance increases AS. The second moderator examined in this study was second-level superiors’ close monitoring for first-line supervisors. Close monitoring refers to the continuous and meticulous monitoring of a subordinate to observe whether he or she accurately performs given tasks using the expected methods, and to confirm that the subordinate does not engage in activities opposed by the supervisor. An appropriate level of monitoring is considered effective leadership behavior, because supervisors’ monitoring provides subordinates with information on job priorities. Owing to the pressure of managerial responsibility or doubts about subordinates’ performance, supervisors may sporadically engage in close monitoring that exceeds an acceptable level. We focused on the behavior of supervisors who are closely monitored by their superiors. In an organizational hierarchy, a supervisor is also a subordinate of his or her superior. Accordingly, we included subordinates’ second-level superiors (i.e., the superiors of the first-line supervisors) in the research model in an attempt to expand the scope of traditional AS studies (i.e., the subordinate-supervisor relationship) to the subordinate-supervisor-second-level superior relationship. Second-level superiors’ close monitoring for first-line supervisors infringes the autonomy of the first-line supervisor and damages his or her internal motivation, exhausting his/her limited cognitive resources and compelling him/her to take a short-term view, thereby strengthening the burden to demonstrate stringent management of subordinates in accordance with task performance. Consequently, the negative effect of subordinate performance on AS may be intensified in supervisors who are under close monitoring by their superiors. We suggested and empirically verified a new perspective whereby the interaction between close monitoring of second-level superiors and subordinates’ low task performance increases AS. Because research on the relationship between subordinate performance and AS is still in its infancy, continuous theoretical verifications are needed. Previous studies that have examined the relationship between subordinate performance and AS have explained their negative association with the moral exclusion theory. In the present study, we emphasized a new perspective: supervisors as representatives of their organizations. This introduces a new line of reasoning to the traditional moral exclusion theory and expands its theoretical scope. We also endeavored to incorporate advances in methodologies. Existing studies have been limited in their methods because they could not verify the negative relationship between subordinate performance and AS empirically using time-lagged data. For example, the Hoobler and Brass study (2006) was limited because it was a cross-sectional survey. Although the study by Tepper et al. (2011) adopted a time-lagged design, it could not verify the causal relationship between subordinate performance and AS conclusively, because it analyzed the relationship with questionnaires that were collected at the same time. Furthermore, as in the study by Tepper et al. (2011), Walter et al.’s questionnaire survey (study 2) of office workers (2015) adopted a time-lagged design for the overall study but verified the relationship between subordinate performance and AS with cross-sectional data. To overcome the methodological limitations of preceding studies and verify the causal relationship between subordinate performance and AS conclusively, we collected and analyzed data using a time-lagged design that first measured subordinate performance, and then measured AS at a different time. We conducted a time-lagged survey and analyzed 142 matched reports from supervisors and subordinates who had direct reporting relationships with the supervisors. The results indicated that subordinate performance, as rated by the supervisor, was negatively associated with AS. Furthermore, a supervisor’s need for achievement moderated the relationship between subordinate performance and AS, such that the relationship was more negative under a supervisor who has a higher need for achievement. In addition, second-level superiors’ close monitoring for first-line supervisors also moderated the relationship between subordinate performance and AS, such that the relationship was more negative under a higher level of second-level superiors’ close monitoring. These findings highlight the role of subordinate utility in relation to AS, and they promote new knowledge regarding the boundary conditions for the subordinate performance-AS relationship. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.