-
Beyond the Individual Victim: Multilevel Consequences of
AbusiveSupervision in Teams
Crystal I. C. FarhMichigan State University
Zhijun ChenUniversity of Western Australia
We conceptualize a multilevel framework that examines the
manifestation of abusive supervision in teamsettings and its
implications for the team and individual members. Drawing on
Hackmans (1992)typology of ambient and discretionary team stimuli,
our model features team-level abusive supervision(the average level
of abuse reported by team members) and individual-level abusive
supervision assimultaneous and interacting forces. We further draw
on team-relevant theories of social influence todelineate two
proximal outcomes of abusemembers organization-based self-esteem
(OBSE) at theindividual level and relationship conflict at the team
levelthat channel the independent and interactiveeffects of
individual- and team-level abuse onto team members voice, team-role
performance, andturnover intentions. Results from a field study and
a scenario study provided support for these multilevelpathways. We
conclude that abusive supervision in team settings holds toxic
consequences for the teamand individual, and offer practical
implications as well as suggestions for future research on
abusivesupervision as a multilevel phenomenon.
Keywords: abusive supervision, teamwork behavior, multilevel,
teams
Defined as the extent to which supervisors engage in
thesustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors,
ex-cluding physical contact (Tepper, 2000, p. 178), abusive
super-vision has received increasing attention from scholars and
practi-tioners due to its prevalence and detrimental impact in
theworkplace. To date, research has linked abusive supervision
tovictims decreased organizational commitment, job performance,and
citizenship behavior, as well as increased psychological dis-tress,
counterproductive behaviors, deviance, and turnover (e.g.,reviewed
in Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013; Tepper,2007).
Although the majority of this work has focused on theconsequences
of abuse for targeted victims, more recent researchhas begun to
examine the effects of abuse on individuals residingin
interdependent team contexts. Particularly as modern organiza-tions
are increasingly team based, there is a need to understandhow abuse
is manifested in team settings, its implications for theteam, and
its impact on members cognitions, attitudes, and be-haviors toward
the team.
Relevant to this question, two streams of research have
inves-tigated the effects of abusive supervision in group settings.
The
first examines group-level abusive supervision as aggregated
per-ceptions of abuse attributed to a common leader by members of
thesame group. Research has linked this aggregate construct to
col-lective problem drinking, counterproductive behaviors, and
devi-ance (Bamberger & Bacharach, 2006; Detert, Trevio, Burris,
&Andiappan, 2007; Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, &
Marinova,2012; Ogunfowora, 2013). A second approach examines the
ex-perience of individual victims of abuse in the presence of
group-level abuse. This research has shown that higher or lower
levels ofaggregated abuse in the group modify the way individuals
interpretand respond to their own individualized experiences of
abuse (e.g.,Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon, 2006a;
Duffy, Shaw,Scott, & Tepper, 2006; Hannah et al., 2013; Peng,
Schaubroeck, &Li, 2013). Together, existing frameworks imply
that abuse residesand exerts consequences at the individual and
group levels ofanalysis simultaneously.
To inform understanding of abusive supervision in team
set-tings, however, existing approaches remain limited in three
as-pects. First, much of prior research has relied on
individual-leveltheories such as justice (Bies & Moag, 1986),
social exchange(Blau, 1964), and stress (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984) to explaingroup-level consequences of abuse (e.g., Detert et
al., 2007).While these theories may appropriately generalize to a
group ofindependent members, they do not account for the
heightenedinterdependence inherent to teams (Guzzo & Shea,
1992) or howabusive supervision occurring in team settings can
produce sharedways of thinking and acting among its members
(Hackman, 1992).There is thus a need to employ team-relevant
theories and pro-cesses to adequately assess team-relevant
consequences of abuse.Supporting this idea, a recent study
(Priesemuth, Schminke, Am-brose, & Folger, 2013) showed
preliminary evidence that sharedperceptions of abuse can shape
shared team cognitions like teamefficacy and identification;
however, research is needed to under-
This article was published Online First August 11, 2014.Crystal
I. C. Farh, College of Business, Michigan State University;
Zhijun Chen, Business School, University of Western Australia.We
thank Mo Wang for his valuable and constructive guidance in the
review process. We also owe gratitude to Larry Farh, Russ
Johnson, JohnSchaubroeck, Huiwen Lian, and Jian Liang for their
developmental com-ments on earlier versions of this article.
Finally, we thank Michael Howefor his assistance with data
collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
CrystalI. C. Farh, College of Business, Michigan State University,
632 BogueStreet, N475, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail:
[email protected]
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
Journal of Applied Psychology 2014 American Psychological
Association2014, Vol. 99, No. 6, 10741095 0021-9010/14/$12.00
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037636
1074
-
stand how abusive supervision in team settings
fundamentallyalters the social and behavioral fabric of the
team.
Team-relevant theories are also needed to explain the effects
ofabuse on individual team members responses toward the
team.Ironically, although much research has examined
individualizedexperiences of abuse in group settings (e.g., Duffy,
Ganster, et al.,2006; Hannah et al., 2013; Peng et al., 2013), this
work hasfocused primarily on individuals responses toward the
abusiveleader or organization (e.g., deviance, counterproductive
behav-iors, retaliation; reviewed in Martinko et al., 2013), none
of whichcapture responses relating to the team itself. There is
thus a needto clarify the individualteam interface and specify how
individ-ualized experiences of abuse in team settings shape
membersteam-relevant cognitions (e.g., perceptions of self-concept
in theteam), attitudes (e.g., willingness to stay in the team), and
behav-iors (e.g., proactive and teamwork actions). Because these
team-relevant responses constitute important ways that members
con-tribute to overall team functioning (G. Chen, Sharma,
Edinger,Shapiro, & Farh, 2011; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, &
Gilson, 2008),examining them as consequences enables us to
understand themicroprocesses of how abuse in team settings
potentially harmsteam effectiveness. Relatedly, as prior research
has focused pri-marily on the experiences of targeted victims in
group settings,new theory is needed to assess ways that nontargeted
membersmay be affected, simply by being a part of an abusive
teamenvironment.
Finally, much of prior research has taken a piecemeal approachto
examining the effects of abuse in team settings, focusing
onindividual consequences while ignoring the impact of
aggregatedabuse on the team (e.g., Peng et al., 2013), or focusing
on group-level consequences while ignoring individual differences
in expe-rience among its members (e.g., Priesemuth et al., 2013).
Thisapproach is unfortunate because it precludes us from knowing
howindividual- versus team-level consequences of abuse differ
fromeach other, or how their respective pathways interact to
simulta-neously impact the team as well as the individuals that
compose it.There is thus a need for a new framework that better
reflects themultilevel reality of leadership influences on team
systems (G.Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Hackman, 1992), and draws on
team-relevant theories to specify the unique pathways and
dual-levelmechanisms linking individual- and team-level abuse to
membersresponses to the team. Absent such a framework, scholars
andpractitioners may grossly underestimate the broader costs of
abusefor the collective and the individuals residing in it.
In view of these needs, our objective is to delineate and test
amultilevel model of abusive supervision in teams. Drawing
onHackmans (1992) typology of ambient and discretionary
teamstimuli, we feature team-level abusive supervision (the
averagelevel of abuse reported by team members) and
individual-levelabusive supervision and as dual-level inputs to the
teams socialsystem, and further draw on multilevel theories of
leadership (G.Chen & Kanfer, 2006) to delineate individual-,
cross-, and team-level pathways by which individual- and team-level
abuse affectsmembers team-relevant cognitions, attitudes, and
behaviors. Wethen integrate across theories of social influence in
teamsthegroup-value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), social learning
theory(Bandura, 1971), and social comparison theory
(Festinger,1954)to specify members organization-based
self-esteem
(OBSE) and team relationship conflict as dual-level
mediatorslinking individual- and team-level abuse to members
outcomes.
Our model contributes to the abusive supervision literature
inthree ways. First, we shed light on the multilevel nature of
abusein teams by demonstrating it to be an individual- and
team-levelinput into the teams social system. Second, we identify
uniqueindividual-, team-, and cross-level pathways by which
abusivesupervision affects teams, and introduce member OBSE and
teamrelationship conflict as new proximal outcomes in team
settings.Finally, we link abusive supervision to members
team-relevantcognitions, attitudes, and behaviors, thereby
illuminating a tripar-tite of microprocesses through which abuse
potentially harms teameffectiveness. Together, our framework
addresses calls to betterunderstand abusive supervision as a
multilevel phenomenon (Tep-per, 2007), expand the realm of theories
delineating consequencesof abuse (Martinko et al., 2013), and
uncover new mechanisms andconsequences of abuse at both the team
and individual levels ofanalysis (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah,
2007).
Theory and Hypotheses
Overall Framework
In accordance with multilevel leadership theories in teams
(G.Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Hackman, 1992), we conceptualize
abusivesupervision in team settings as both discretionary and
ambient innature. As a discretionary input, individual-level abuse
reflectsthe degree of targeted abuse perceived by an individual
member,whereas team-level abuse (an ambient input) reflects the
overall,aggregated levels of abuse perceived by members of the
team.Discretionary inputs are thought to create individualized
experi-ences and explain why members of the same team may
exhibitdifferential cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. In
contrast, ambi-ent inputs shape elements of the teams social
universe, affectingall members belonging to that system, regardless
of discretionarytreatment. Multilevel leadership theories model
discretionary andambient inputs as parallel forces affecting
proximal outcomes atthe individual and team levels of analysis
(e.g., G. Chen, Kirkman,Kanfer, & Allen, 2007), and as forces
that intersect, such thatambient inputs (and their proximal
outcomes) exert top-down,cross-level influences on how individual
members experience andrespond to discretionary treatment (Kozlowski
& Klein, 2000).Prior research also indicates that individual-
and team-level leaderinfluences on the team are distinct (Liao
& Chuang, 2007)forinstance, discretionary treatment by the
leader is thought to influ-ence members attitudes and behaviors by
altering their self-concept (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993),
whereas ambient treat-ment is thought to transform the teams shared
ways of thinkingand interacting (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks,
2001).
Together, multilevel leadership theories indicate that a
multi-level framework for abusive supervision should consist
ofindividual-, cross-, and team-level pathways, each explained
bydifferential theoretical mechanisms. Within this multilevel
infra-structure, we turn to three social influence theories of
teamseachof which is well positioned to inform the pathways in our
frame-work. Consistent with the self-concept model of
discretionaryleader treatment, we first draw on the group-value
model (Lind &Tyler, 1988) to delineate the individual-level
pathway. The group-value model explains how individualized leader
treatment signals
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1075ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS
dHighlight
-
a given members self-concept in relation to the team. In
particu-lar, we propose that individualized abuse negatively
affects mem-bers perceptions of their self-worth and standing in
the teamthatis, their OBSE (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, &
Dunham, 1989).To supplement the group-value model and delineate
cross-leveleffects, we draw on social comparison theory (Festinger,
1954) toassess how team-level abusive supervisionan indicator of
howcomparable others are treatedexerts top-down moderating
influ-ences on these self-concept processes. Finally, we rely on
sociallearning theory (Bandura, 1971) to delineate the team-level
path-way because it explains why exposure to ambient abuse infects
thesocial system of the team. In particular, we propose that
sociallearning mechanisms facilitate the translation of ambient
abuseinto laterally dysfunctional interpersonal interactionsthat
is,team relationship conflict (Jehn, 1995). Integration of the
group-value, social comparison, and social learning theories within
amultilevel leadership infrastructure informs the unique
mecha-nisms along each pathway and enables a more complete
under-standing of the effects of abuse in teams beyond any one
theoryalone (K. J. Mayer & Sparrowe, 2013).
Beyond specifying member OBSE and team relationship con-flict as
proximal outcomes, we further assess the distal effects
ofindividual- and team-level abuse on members voice (i.e.,
behav-iors aimed at improving team processes; LePine & Van
Dyne,1998), team-role performance (i.e., behaviors aimed at
promotingcooperation and coordination in the team; Welbourne,
Johnson, &Erez, 1998), and low turnover intentions (i.e., a
willingness toremain in the team and maintain its viability over
time; Hackman,1987). These responses to the team represent
meaningful ways thatindividuals contribute to team effectiveness
(G. Chen et al., 2011)and correspond well with our stated objective
to examine a broaderset of team-relevant outcomes associated with
abuse in teams. Ouroverarching model appears in Figure 1.
Individual-Level Consequences ofAbusive Supervision
Individual-level abusive supervision refers to the leaders
sus-tained display of hostile verbal or nonverbal behaviors toward
aparticular team member. The impact of individualized abuse
ontargeted members can be assessed with the group-value model(Lind
& Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989). In contrast to traditional
social-exchange models of justice and instrumental desires for
favorable
outcomes (Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998), the
group-value model is grounded in social identification theory (Hogg
&Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), which suggests that
mem-bers primary concerns about self-concept in relation to the
teamlends intrinsic value to the meaning of leader individualized
treat-ment. The group-value model posits that members use
individual-ized treatment from authority figures of teams (e.g.,
the teamleader) as relational information about their position
within a team,which in turn shapes their self-concept and
perceptions of self-worth (Smith et al., 1998; Tyler, Degoey, &
Smith, 1996). Becauseleader treatment symbolizes how other members
of the team valuean individual, members who are treated with
respect, politeness,and dignity are signaled to have higher status
and value to the team(Tyler, 1989), whereas negative treatment
signals ones low posi-tion in the team. In turn, members treated
favorably developpositive evaluations of their self-worth, while
members treatedunfavorably develop self-concepts associated with
inferiority, ex-clusion, and feelings of worthlessness (Leary,
Tambor, Terdal, &Downs, 1995; Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Applied to abusive supervision in teams, the group-value
modelsuggests that individualized abuse should decrease a
membersperceived self-worth or standing in the team. Capturing this
notionis OBSE (Gardner & Pierce, 1998), defined as an
individualsevaluation of his or her personal adequacy and
worthiness as anorganizational member (Gardner & Pierce, 1998,
p. 50). Substan-tial empirical evidence suggests that favorable
leader treatmentfor example, managerial respect (Pierce et al.,
1989), charismaticleadership (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003), and
leadermemberexchange (Heck, Bedeian, & Day, 2005)relates
positively tomember OBSE. On the flipside, indicators of
unfavorable leadertreatment reflected in abusive supervisionthat
is, targeted publicridicule, rudeness, coercion, and tantrums
(Tepper, 2000)likelyreduces member OBSE. Supporting these
arguments, preliminaryevidence has shown abusive supervision and
poor interpersonaltreatment to lower context-specific self-esteem
(Burton &Hoobler, 2006; Ferris, Spence, Brown, & Heller,
2012; Rafferty &Restubog, 2011). Although these studies were
conducted amongindividuals outside team settings, we expect the
effects of individ-ualized abuse on member OBSE to be strengthened
in team con-texts, where social identity processes are heightened.
Thus, asrepresenting a form of targeted devaluation of individual
members,we propose that
Figure 1. Theoretical model. H hypothesis.
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1076 FARH AND CHEN
dHighlight
dHighlight
-
Hypothesis 1: Individual-level abusive supervision is
nega-tively related to member OBSE.
Moderating Effect of Team-LevelAbusive Supervision
An underlying assumption of the group-value model is thatleader
treatment is differentiated across members, which in
turncontributes variance in perceived self-worth within groups
(Tyler,1989). Differential treatment, however, creates the
opportunity formembers to engage in social comparisons, which can
strengthen orweaken members self-concept evaluations following
individual-ized treatment (Thau, Trster, Aquino, Pillutla, & De
Cremer,2013). The relationship between individual-level abuse and
mem-ber OBSE thus depends in part on how the leader is perceived
tobehave toward comparable others in the team. Capturing
thisnotion, Festingers (1954) social comparison theory is grounded
intwo assumptions: (a) people are motivated to make assessments
oftheir own capabilities, attitudes, and self-worth, and (b)
theseself-assessments are driven by comparisons with similar
others(e.g., fellow team members). In line with these assumptions,
weexpect social comparisons to occur in team settings affected
byabusive supervision due to the availability of comparable
othersand the uncertainty and need for sense making associated
withabuse (Priesemuth et al., 2013).
Accordingly, we propose that member OBSE is shaped notmerely by
experiences of individualized abuse, but also by theabusive
experiences of members of the team in general. In teamsettings,
high team-level abusive supervision describes a situationwhere, on
average, team members feel that they have been per-sonally
victimized by the team leader. A recent article on collegefootball
coaches made note of how teams can differ in regard to theaverage
team-level abuse they experience, where some coacheshurl abusive
comments at all members of the team (with somemembers receiving
more abuse than others) and other coaches usefew abusive comments
at all (Adelson, 2012). Importantly, abusivesupervision is not a
private affair in team settings. In fact, severalbehavioral items
composing abusefor example, my supervisorputs me down in front of
others, makes negative commentsabout me to others, and does not
allow me to interact with mycoworkers (Tepper, 2000)explicitly
invoke a larger audience.Further, because of the enhanced
transparency afforded by inter-dependent work settings, even
abusive behaviors enacted in privateare likely to become known to
other members (Priesemuth et al.,2013). Team-level abusive
supervision can thus be thought of as aproperty of the team that
factors into the social comparison processof individual team
members.
According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954),
onesself-evaluations are lowered or enhanced depending on how
fa-vorably or unfavorably his or her experiences compare with
therelevant experiences of referent others. In the case of
abusivesupervision, the average level of abuse in the team
constitutes anappropriate comparison point for any given member of
the team.If, on average, others experiences of abuse are low, the
focalmember perceiving high individualized abuse will feel
singledout, and the negative effects of individual-level abuse on
OBSEwill be exacerbated. Because social comparison processes
causethe focal member to realize that there is an alternative
reality inwhich the leader is less abusive toward members and that
less
abusive reality is not extended to the self (Duffy, Ganster, et
al.,2006), the focal member makes increasingly negative
attributionsfrom the leaders treatment about his or her
self-concept and statusin the team (Bowling & Beehr, 2006).
Thus, above and beyond theabsolute effects of individual-level
abuse, when ones individual-ized abuse is high and team-level abuse
is low, the negative impactof individual-level abusive supervision
on OBSE is strengthened.
In contrast, if the average experience of abuse among membersis
high, individual-level abuse will hurt the focal members OBSEto a
lesser extent. Perceiving that one is treated similarly poorly
toothers in the team leads to neither favorable nor unfavorable
socialcomparisons, because the focal member sees no alternative
realityin which the leader treats members less abusively (Duffy,
Ganster,et al., 2006). Being included in the abuse even when
individual-level abusive supervision is high can cause the focal
member torealize that he or she is not worse off than others,
counteract thefocal members inferred low standing relative to
others in the team,and effectively mitigate the negative linkage
between individual-level abuse and member OBSE. These arguments are
consistentwith research showing that negative attitudinal and
behavioralreactions to supervisor abusive treatment were weaker
when ag-gregate levels of abuse were high in the social context,
andstronger when a correspondingly low level of abuse was found
inthe social context (reflecting the singled-out-for-abuse
effect;Duffy, Ganster, et al., 2006; Duffy, Shaw, et al., 2006;
Peng et al.,2013). Thus, we expect the impact of individual-level
abuse onOBSE to be moderated by how much abuse is experienced by
theteam as whole.
Hypothesis 2: The negative relationship between individual-level
abusive supervision and member OBSE is more negativewhen team-level
abusive supervision is low and less negativewhen team-level abusive
supervision is high.
Team Consequences of Abusive SupervisionBeyond serving as a
shared reference point affecting the social
comparison processes of individual members, team-level abusealso
constitutes an ambient, team stimulus (Chan, 1998) thatinfluences
how both abused and nonabused members of the teamshould interact to
achieve collective goals (Ilgen, Hollenbeck,Johnson, & Jundt,
2005; Zaccaro et al., 2001). The impact ofteam-level abuse on team
processes can be assessed using sociallearning theory. Although
social learning theory (Bandura, 1971)has been utilized to explain
the modeling of abusive supervisionbetween higher and lower level
managers (Lian, Ferris, & Brown,2012; Liu, Liao, & Loi,
2012; Mawritz et al., 2012), here we arguethat team-level abuse
produces interpersonal difficulties that im-pair the social
functioning of the team.
According to social learning theory, individuals intentionally
orunintentionally acquire social behavior either through direct
expe-rience or by observing behavioral models (Bandura, 1971).
Inparticular, emulation of behavior is more likely to occur
whenattention (i.e., the observer attends to the model of the
behavior)and retention is high (i.e., the observer remembers the
observedbehavior). Abusive behavior enacted by the team leader
serves asa salient example for how members of the team are and
ought tobe treated on an interpersonal level (Salancik &
Pfeffer, 1978).Being exposed to high team abuse can cause members
to learn
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1077ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS
dHighlight
dHighlight
-
negative, devaluing behaviors from the leader and treat
fellowmembers with aggression and hostility. Particularly in a
contextwhere multiple members of the team are abused (i.e.,
team-levelabusive supervision is high), the leaders negative
treatment acrossmembers creates a strong interaction norm that is
further rein-forced as members emulate devaluing behaviors among
them-selves.
These social learning mechanisms may also be actively
perpet-uated as more and more members of the team are
personallyabused. Victims of abuse experience anger, frustration,
and adesire to retaliate against the abuser (Lian et al., 2012).
However,because of power differentials between leaders and
members,abused victims may choose instead to act out their
aggression onother team members (Marcus-Newhall, Pedersen, Carlson,
&Miller, 2000; M. S. Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Abused
membersmay in fact direct their hostilities toward less abused
members ofthe team out of resentment, causing negative
interpersonal inter-actions to spread among both abused and
nonabused members ofthe team. It is also unlikely that abused
members will unite withfellow victims to break the cycle of abuse
(Sherif, Harvey, White,Hood, & Sherif, 1961) because they feel
less able to protectthemselves or help others to resist an abusive
leader. Even thosewho experience less abuse may find it risky to
side with abusedteam members, as doing so may invite abuse upon
themselves.This lack of motivation among both more and less abused
mem-bers to go against the tide increases the likelihood that
sociallearning mechanisms will prevail (Glomb & Liao, 2003),
creatingwidespread relationship tension among team members.
When interactions among team members are characterized bypoor
treatment, negative emotionality, and interpersonal attacks,the
team experiences high team relationship conflict (Jehn,
1995).Sometimes referred to as affective or emotional conflict,
teamrelationship conflict reflects collective interpersonal
hostilitiesamong members that are nonproductive and unrelated to
the teamtask (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de Wit, Greer, &
Jehn, 2012).Team relationship conflict is found to emerge from
negative teamexperiences (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003), such as
widespread ha-rassment (Raver & Gelfand, 2006) or the distrust
and devaluationof fellow members (Curseu & Schruijer, 2010;
Jehn & Mannix,2001; Simons & Peterson, 2000). As a negative
ambient influence,we expect team-level abusive supervision will
increase team rela-tionship conflict. Indirectly supporting these
arguments, some ev-idence suggests that group-level abuse increases
collective inter-personal deviance (Mawritz et al., 2012).
Hypothesis 3: Team-level abusive supervision is
positivelyrelated to team relationship conflict.
Consequences for Members Responsesto the Team
Team members contribute to team effectiveness by
proactivelyexpressing constructive changes to status quo (i.e.,
voice), promot-ing cooperation within the team (i.e., team-role
performance), andintending to remain in the team and ensure its
longevity (i.e., lowturnover intentions; G. Chen et al., 2011).
Research has shown thatsuch team-benefiting behaviors and attitudes
are higher whenmembers feel sufficiently influential in the social
context to con-tribute in these ways (Liang, Farh, & Farh,
2012) and are suffi-
ciently motivated to help the team (G. Chen & Gogus,
2008).When one or more of these conditions are not met, members
areless likely to exhibit these behaviors or attitudes. We argue
thatthrough lowered member OBSE and increased team
relationshipconflict, individual- and team-level abuse will
uniquely reducemembers voice and team-role performance, while
increasing theirturnover intentions.
OBSE plays an important role in driving employee
motivation,working-related attitudes, and behavior (Pierce &
Gardner, 2004).Because individuals act in ways that are consistent
with theirself-views (Korman, 1970; Swann, 1997), individuals with
higherOBSE are more likely to engage in behaviors and possess
attitudestoward the team that align with their feelings of
competency andvalue in the group (Pierce et al., 1989). Members
with higherOBSE will engage in more team-focused contributions and
be lesslikely to leave the team because they believe they have the
capa-bility and influence to impact the team in positive ways.
Incontrast, members with lower OBSE will refrain from doing so
inorder to align their contributions to the level of their
self-views.Indeed, empirical research has shown positive influences
of mem-ber OBSE on voice (Liang et al., 2012) and citizenship
behaviors(Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004) and negative influences on
memberturnover intentions (Gardner & Pierce, 1998). As such, we
alsoexpect member OBSE to transmit the effects of abusive
supervi-sion onto members team-relevant responses. This mediation
path-way is consistent with the group-value model, which theorizes
aclear link between the quality of leader treatment, members
self-relevant judgments, and members willingness to exhibit
group-benefiting behaviors and attitudes (Smith & Tyler, 1997).
Further,because member OBSE is hypothesized to be the joint
function ofindividual- and team-level abusive supervision, we
expect OBSEto transmit these mediated effects more strongly when
individualabuse is high and team abuse is low.
Hypothesis 4: Individual member OBSE is positively relatedto
member (a) voice and (b) team-role performance and neg-atively
related to member (c) turnover intentions.Hypothesis 5: The
indirect effects of individual-level abusivesupervision on member
(a) voice, (b) team-role performance,and (c) turnover intentions
(via OBSE) are moderated byteam-level abusive supervision, such
that these mediationpathways are stronger when team-level abusive
supervision islow and weaker when team-level abusive supervision is
high.
Whereas member OBSE promotes team-relevant responses pri-marily
out of self-consistency mechanisms, we argue that teamrelationship
conflict reduces members contributions as a demoti-vating social
context. Prior research has shown teams with highrelationship
conflict to experience negative emotionality (Jehn,1997), a
decreased willingness to work collaboratively for thegood of the
team (Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008), andlowered
interpersonal trust among team members (Rispens,Greer, & Jehn,
2007). The inherently demotivating nature of acontext marked by
relationship conflict likely reduces membersliking of other
members, desire to behave in ways that benefit thecollective, and
their willingness to remain in the team (Jehn, 1995).Research has
also demonstrated a negative relationship betweenteam relationship
conflict and individual helping (De Dreu & VanVianen, 2001; Ng
& Van Dyne, 2005), a behavior akin to team-
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1078 FARH AND CHEN
dHighlight
dHighlight
-
role performance. Likewise, because hostile interactions in
theteam make it unlikely that ones ideas will translate into
increasedteam effectiveness, members may believe it to be futile to
bring upsuggestions or concerns (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu,
2008), likelydemotivating voice. Finally, relationship conflict
represents a stateof interpersonal disintegration that weakens
individual memberssocial embeddedness in the team, leading to
higher turnover in-tentions (T. R. Mitchell, Holtom, Lee,
Sablynski, & Erez, 2001).Supporting these arguments, prior
research has shown a negativeeffect of team relationship conflict
on individual team membersinnovative and teamwork behaviors and a
positive effect on theirturnover intentions (G. Chen et al., 2011).
Also indirectly support-ing our arguments, research has linked
higher relationship conflictto members withdrawals of effort from
the task (Jehn, 1995) andlowered team creativity (Farh, Lee, &
Farh, 2010) and teamfunctioning (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001;
Jehn & Mannix, 2001;Rau, 2005). Thus, we expect team
relationship conflict to exert across-level negative effect on
members contributions to the team,and transmit the negative effects
of team abuse onto membersteam-relevant behaviors and
attitudes.
Hypothesis 6: Team relationship conflict is negatively relatedto
member (a) voice and (b) team-role performance and pos-itively
related to member (c) turnover intentions.Hypothesis 7: The
indirect effects of team-level abusive su-pervision on member (a)
voice, (b) team-role performance,and (c) turnover intentions are
mediated by team relationshipconflict.
Overview of StudiesWe conducted two studies: a field study
involving intact teams
in actual organizations to establish external validity and a
scenarioexperiment to provide a constructive replication of our
fieldstudys findings (Lykken, 1968), establish causality of our
theory,and control for other potential mediators. We employed a
scenarioexperiment because prior research utilizing such a design
hasreliably captured the influence of leader treatment on
individualsgroup-oriented attitudes and behaviors (e.g., De Cremer
& vanKnippenberg, 2002), intended deviance (e.g., D. M. Mayer,
Thau,Workman, Van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2012), and self-concept
(e.g.,De Cremer, van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Mullenders,
&Stinglhamber, 2005). Results of high realism scenario
experimentshave also been successfully replicated in field
settings, demon-strating high psychological fidelity across
cultures and continents(G. Chen et al., 2011). Finally, because the
field study examinedthe effects of individual- and team-level
abusive supervision ononly one dependent variable (voice), the
scenario experiment wascritical for examining our proposed effects
on all three dependentvariables (voice, team-role performance, and
turnover intentions).Thus, including both the field and scenario
study in our investi-gation enabled us to test our entire
theoretical model and benefitfrom the strengths of each
methodological approach.
Study 1
MethodSample, design, and procedures. Study 1 involved 295
em-
ployees from 51 teams across 10 firms in China.
Organizational
sponsors enabled us to identify true teams (i.e., members
reportingto the same team leader and worked interdependently to
achieveshared goals). Participants were recruited through the human
re-lations office and informed that the purpose of the study was
toexamine the leadership styles and group dynamics within eachfirm.
Participants were also assured of confidentiality through ourdata
collection procedure (see below). Informed consent was ob-tained
prior to the commencement of the data collection. Exclud-ing cases
with missing data, our overall response rate was 95% forindividual
participants (N 280) and 98% for teams (N 50).The high response
rate was facilitated by the organizational spon-sors enthusiastic
support to participate in the study, as well astheir willingness to
allow us to administer the survey in personduring one of the teams
monthly meetings, a time when nearly allteam members and leaders
would be available. The teams in oursample were diverse, performing
functions such as technical sup-port, internal monitoring, research
and development, and customerservice. Team size ranged from four to
seven members (M 5.60). The average team member was 35.33 years old
(SD 5.68)and had worked in their teams for 39.74 months (SD
40.58).Fifty-six percent were female, 7% held high school or
associateddegrees, 66% held bachelor degrees, and the rest held
mastersdegrees or higher.
Team leaders distributed surveys to each member of their
re-spective teams, and leaders and members responses werematched
via numerical codes. Given the sensitive nature of thestudy and to
ensure confidentiality, responses were sealed inenvelopes and
returned directly to a member of the research team,who was on site
during the data collection process. Members ratedtheir personal
experiences of abusive supervision, OBSE, and teamrelationship
conflict. As control variables, members also ratedtheir leaders
empowering leadership, their own power distanceorientation and
collectivism, and their teams task conflict. Teamleaders rated each
members voice behavior. As another controlvariable, external
leaders (immediate supervisors of the teamleader) rated each teams
task performance.
Measures. All survey instruments were administered in Chi-nese
following the translation and back-translation proceduresoutlined
in Brislin (1990). Aside from the conflict measures, allitems used
7-point Likert-type response categories anchored at 1(strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Members rated teamrelationship and
task conflict with anchors ranging from never (1)to always (7).
Where appropriate, we note precedence for the useof these scales in
a Chinese context. Descriptive statistics andcorrelations among our
studys variables are shown in Table 1.
Individual- and team-level abusive supervision. Abusive
su-pervision was assessed with Aryee et al.s (2007) 10-item
versionof Teppers (2000) original scale (e.g., My supervisor blames
meto save himself/herself embarrassment; .91). To
captureindividualized experiences of abuse, we group mean centered
eachmembers abusive supervision score. Additionally, members
dem-onstrated sufficient intermember agreement and reliability to
jus-tify aggregation to the team level (rwg(j) with a uniform
expectedvariance distribution .94; ICC(1) .15, F(49, 231) 1.81, p
.01; ICC(2) .45; LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Therefore,
team-level abusive supervision was operationalized as the mean
ofmembers responses.
Individual team member OBSE. Reflecting ones self-concept in the
team, 10 items were adapted to the team context
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1079ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
-
Tabl
e1
Mea
ns,S
tand
ard
Dev
iatio
ns,a
nd
Corr
elat
ions
Amon
gVa
riabl
esin
Stud
y1
Var
iabl
eM
SD1
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1617
18
Leve
l1(N
280)
1.Te
amm
embe
rvoic
e5.
051.
10(.9
5)2.
Indi
vidu
al-le
velA
S2.
141.
01
.16
(.91)
3.Te
am-le
velA
Sa2.
140.
53
.22
.52
(.91)
4.Te
amm
embe
rOBS
E5.
340.
95.21
.36
.21
(.94)
5.Te
am-le
velO
BSEa
5.34
0.46
.19
.22
.42
.49
(.94)
6.Te
amre
latio
nshi
pco
nfli
ct2.
630.
81
.21
.47
.38
.18
.13
(.8
6)7.
Team
rela
tions
hip
confli
cta
2.63
0.50
.32
.32
.62
.10
.20
.62
(.86)
8.Te
amm
embe
rgen
derb
0.56
0.50
.16
.09
.03
.13
.11
.10
.20
9.Te
amm
embe
rage
35.3
35.
68.05
.18
.10
.16
.15
.11
.05
.08
10.T
eam
mem
bere
duca
tionc
2.18
0.55
.04
.01
.07
.07
.04
.05
.02
.13
.05
11.P
ower
dista
nce
orie
ntat
ion
2.71
0.84
.01
.11
.08
.03
.06
.04
.02
.03
.07
.05
(.71)
12.C
olle
ctiv
ism5.
180.
90.03
.24
.24
.24
.22
.23
.24
.02
.06
.04
.06
(.78)
13.T
eam
task
confli
ct3.
530.
74
.05
.20
.24
.06
.07
.46
.31
.01
.01
.13
.12
.10
(.74)
14.T
eam
task
confli
cta
3.53
0.40
.07
.23
.43
.06
.12
.35
.56
.05
.01
.08
.01
.08
.55
(.74)
15.T
eam
-leve
lEL
5.44
0.49
.15
.45
.31
.46
.28
.37
.30
.03
.18
.04
.08
.33
.10
.10
(.94)
16.T
eam
-leve
lELa
5.78
0.77
.30
.30
.58
.26
.53
.34
.56
.16
.13
.07
.03
.26
.10
.18
.53
(.94)
17.T
eam
task
perfo
rman
cea
5.78
0.77
.10
.09
.19
.12
.23
.01
.04
.08
.11
.07
.01
.05
.01
.02
.19
.37
(.82)
18.T
eam
size
5.85
0.55
.04
.17
.34
.04
.07
.02
.05
.05
.09
.02
.12
.03
.09
.16
.04
.10
.20
Leve
l2(N
50)
1.Te
am-le
velA
S
2.Te
amre
latio
nshi
pco
nfli
ct.62
3.Te
am-le
velO
BSE
.43
.20
4.Te
amta
skco
nfli
ct.42
.54
.11
5.Te
am-le
velE
L
.59
.57
.53
.17
6.Te
amta
skpe
rform
ance
.21
.07
.22
.02
.37
7.Te
amsiz
e
.36
.04
.08
.16
.09
.24
Note
.R
elia
bilit
yes
timat
es(co
effici
enta
lpha
)are
on
the
diag
onal
.AS
abus
ive
supe
rvisi
on;O
BSE
org
aniz
atio
n-ba
sed
self-
este
em;E
L
empo
wer
ing
lead
ersh
ip.
aTe
amsc
ore
sas
signe
dto
each
team
mem
ber.
bG
ende
r:0
fem
ale,
1
mal
e.c
Educ
atio
nle
vel:
1
asso
ciat
e,2
bach
elor
,3
mas
ter
s,4
PhD
.
p
.05
.
p
.01
(two-t
ailed
).
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1080 FARH AND CHEN
-
from the OBSE scale developed by Pierce et al. (1989) ( .94;In
this team, I can make a difference). This scale has also
shownsufficient validity and reliability in the Chinese context
(e.g., Z. X.Chen & Aryee, 2007).
Team relationship conflict. Members rated their teams
rela-tionship conflict using a four-item scale (Pelled, Eisenhardt,
&Xin, 1999), shown to be reliable and valid in the Chinese
context(Farh et al., 2010; e.g., Excluding your team leader, how
muchtension is there among the members of your team?).
Supportingthe aggregation of members ratings, median intermember
agree-ment (rwg(j)) across teams was .95; ICC(1) was .26, F(49,
231) 3.01, p .01; and ICC(2) was .67. Additionally, because
thesecoefficients were comparable to measures of relationship
conflictin prior research (cf. G. Chen et al., 2011), we averaged
membersresponses.
Individual team member voice. The team leader rated eachmembers
voice behavior using the 10-item scale constructed byLiang et al.
(2012) in the Chinese context, which assessed bothprohibitive voice
( .93; e.g., Calling management attention todysfunctional
activities) and promotive voice ( .95; e.g.,Speaking up with ideas
for new projects that might benefit theteam). The intercorrelation
between the two dimensions was high(r .75, p .01; .95). A
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)supported a two-factor model with
a second-order factor ((33)2 131.94, root-mean-square error of
approximation [RMSEA] .10,comparative fit index [CFI] .99,
TuckerLewis index [TLI] .98, root-mean-square residual [SRMR]
.03),1 which fit the databetter than an alternative model with the
two types of voice asseparate indicators ((2)2 144.46, p .01, RMSEA
.15,CFI .95). Because our interest was on overall constructive
voicerather than its subdimensions (Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014),
weaveraged them into a single score.
Control variables. To provide a rigorous test of our model,
wecontrolled for several individual and team factors known
toinfluence member voice.2 Following prior voice research
(e.g.,LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Liang et al., 2012), we
controlled forteam member age (in years), gender (1 male, 2
female), andeducational level (1 associate, 2 bachelor, 3 master,
and4 PhD). Additionally, given the potential influence of
culturalvalues on voice and team behavior (Botero & Van Dyne,
2009;Liang, Huang, & Chen, 2013), we controlled for members
powerdistance orientation (Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Managers
shouldseldom ask for the opinions of employees; .71) and
collec-tivism (Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Group welfare is more
impor-tant than individual needs; .78).
At the team level, we controlled for team size, as larger
teamstend to experience more conflict than smaller teams (Farh et
al.,2010). We also controlled for task conflict (Pelled et al.,
1999) dueto the high correlation between task and relationship
conflict (DeDreu & Weingart, 2003) and the potential conceptual
overlapbetween task conflict and voice behavior. Task conflict was
as-sessed with the four-item scale by Pelled et al. (1999) (
.74)and was aggregated to the team level (median rwg(j) across
teams.94; ICC(1) .17, F(49, 231) 2.18, p .01; ICC(2) .55).Further,
to demonstrate abusive supervision exerted influence onour outcomes
above and beyond the effects of supportive leader-ship behaviors
(G. Chen et al., 2011), we controlled for the effectsof empowering
leadership at both the individual and team levels.Team members
rated their leader on a 14-item empowering lead-
ership scale developed by Kirkman and Rosen (1999) ( .94).We
used group-centered ratings to reflect individual-level empow-ering
leadership and averaged members ratings to capture em-powering
leadership at the team level (median rwg(j) acrossteams .96, ICC(1)
.17, F(49, 231) 1.92, p .01; ICC(2) .53). Additionally, to assess
the unique effects of team relationshipconflict on voice above and
beyond aggregations of individualmembers OBSE, we controlled for
team-level OBSE (medianrwg(j) .96, ICC(1) .08, F(49, 231) 1.51, p
.05; ICC(2) .34). Finally, we controlled for team performance
because poorperformance is positively associated with abusive
supervision(Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011) and relationship
conflict (Jehn &Mannix, 2001).We relied on external leaders
(immediate supervi-sors of the team leader) to provide third-party
ratings of teamperformance using the scale constructed by Carson,
Tesluk, andMarrone (2007) ( .82, e.g., This team is effective in
meetingmy expectations in terms of the quality of their final
output).
Analyses and ResultsWe conducted a series of CFAs to examine the
discriminant
validity of team-member-rated constructs in our model.
Althoughseveral constructs were ultimately aggregated and analyzed
at theteam level, we examined them at the individual level to
establishtheir discriminant validity. A four-factor baseline model
composedof abusive supervision, team relationship conflict, task
conflict,and OBSE fit the data well ((344)2 1425.41, RMSEA .10,CFI
.93; TLI .92, SRMR .06). This baseline model fit thedata better
than alternative models in which (a) abusive supervi-sion and team
relationship conflict were set to equal 1 ((1)2 477.10, p .01,
RMSEA .13, CFI .90) and (b) task andrelationship conflict were set
to equal 1 ((1)2 257.95, p .01,RMSEA .12, CFI .92). Together, these
analyses demonstratedthe discriminant validity of the member-rated
variables in ourmodel. Further, because ratings of members voice
were nestedwithin leaders, we utilized two-level hierarchical
linear modeling(Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to address the
violation of noninde-pendence of observations and to examine
cross-level interactioneffects. We also used a sample bootstrapping
approach that pro-vided bias-corrected confidence intervals to test
the mediatingeffects of OBSE and relationship conflict (Hayes,
2013). Ourresults are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Hypothesis testing. Hypothesis 1 proposed a negative
rela-tionship between individual-level abusive supervision and
memberOBSE. As shown in Model 3 of Table 2, individual-level
abusewas negatively related to OBSE ( .20, p .01),
supportingHypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 predicted a cross-level
interactioneffect between team- and individual-level abuse on
members
1 We acknowledge that our RMSEA indices here and elsewhere
arehigher than ideal. However, in view of other fit indices, we
have someindication that our theorized models exhibited acceptable
fit. In this case,the second-order factor model fit the data better
than an alternative modelwith two separate factors for voice.
Hence, in addition to our theoreticalreasons for examining overall
voice, we had sufficient empirical reason tocollapse the two types
of voice into one factor.
2 Our results reached the same levels of significance and were
in thesame direction regardless of whether or not we included the
controlvariables. Results without the control variables are
available from theauthors upon request.
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1081ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
-
OBSE. As shown in Model 5 and Figure 2, this interaction
effectwas significant ( .11, p .05). The negative
relationshipbetween individual abuse and OBSE was stronger when
team levelabuse was low (simple slope .32, p .05, supporting
thesingled-out effect) but was weaker when team level abuse washigh
(simple slope .08, ns), demonstrating support for
Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship
be-tween team-level abuse and team relationship conflict. As
shownin Model 2 of Table 2, even after controlling for team
performanceand empowering leadership, team-level abuse related
positively toteam relationship conflict ( .27, p .01), supporting
Hypoth-esis 3. Hypothesis 4a stated that individual members
OBSE
Table 2Hierarchical Linear Modeling Regression Results of Study
1
Variable
Team relationship conflict Team member OBSE Team member
voice
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Level 1 (N 280)Team member gendera .24 (.11) .22 (.11) .27 (.12)
.07 (.14) .01 (.12)Team member age .01 (.01) .01 (.01) .02 (.01)
.01 (.01) .02 (.01)Team member educationb .03 (.08) .07 (.08) .07
(.08) .05 (.10) .03 (.09)Power distance orientation .01 (.06) .01
(.06) .06 (.07) .02 (.07) .00 (.07)Collectivism .10 (.06) .10 (.06)
.13 (.06) .09 (.06) .11 (.05)Individual-level EL .37 (.08) .45
(.08) .02 (.07) .08 (.07)Individual-level AS .20 (.05) .38 (.06)
.11 (.06) .07 (.07)Team member OBSE .18 (.06)
Level 2 (N 50)Team size .02 (.09) .09 (.09) .16 (.13) .08 (.13)
.04 (.13) .05 (.23) .01 (.15)Team task performance .08 (.07) .07
(.07) .01 (.07) .00 (.07) .04 (.08) .06 (.14) .03 (.09)Team task
conflict .56 (.13) .46 (.13) .28 (.14) .40 (.15) .42 (.16) .11
(.27) .32 (.26)Team-level EL .56 (.11) .40 (.13) .43 (.11) .25
(.12) .23 (.15) .55 (.27) .31 (.20)Team-level AS .27 (.13) .16
(.06) .14 (.07) .16 (.14) .02 (.11)Team-level OBSE .19 (.25)Team
relationship conflict .29 (.13)
Team-Level AS Individual-Level AS .11 (.04)Note. Standard errors
are in parentheses. OBSE organization-based self-esteem; EL
empowering leadership; AS abusive supervision.a Gender: 0 female, 1
male. b Education level: 1 associate, 2 bachelor, 3 masters, 4 PhD.
p .05. p .01 (two-tailed).
Table 3Bootstrapping Results: Indirect Effects of Team-Level
Abusive Supervision (AS) and Individual-Level AS on Outcome
Variables
Indirect effect
Team member voiceTeam member team-role
performanceTeam member
turnover intentions
95% CI 95% CI 95% CI
Study 1Individual-level AS OBSE DV
Low .14 [.32, .03]M .08 [.17, .02]High .03 [.10, .02]
Team-level AS Relationship conflict DVM .39 [.61, .18]
Study 2Individual-level AS (manipulation) OBSE DV
Low .35 [.69, .14] .45 [.74, .22] .72 [.39, 1.11]M .18 [.35,
.07] .26 [.45, .10] .42 [.24, .67]High .06 [.23, .07] .13 [.34,
.02] .23 [.03, .50]
Team-level AS (manipulation) Relationship conflict DVM .09 [.19,
.02] .12 [.25, .03] .20 [.05, .39]
Individual-level AS (perception) OBSE DVLow .14 [.29, .00] .23
[.46, .05] .36 [.02, .70]M .10 [.18, .03] .14 [.26, .04] .27 [.08,
.41]High .07 [.15, .01] .07 [.24, .02] .19 [.03, .36]
Team-level AS (perception) Relationship conflict DVM .07 [.13,
.03] .09 [.17, .05] .14 [.07, .24]
Note. CI confidence interval; OBSE organization-based
self-esteem; DV dependent variable. p .01 (two-tailed).
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1082 FARH AND CHEN
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
-
should positively relate to their voice behavior, whereas
Hypoth-esis 6a proposed a negative linkage between team
relationshipconflict and member voice. Additionally, according to
our theo-retical model, the two effects should occur
simultaneously. Insupport of this prediction, OBSE related
positively to membervoice ( .18, p .01) and team relationship
conflict wasnegatively related to voice ( .29, p .05) in the same
model(Model 7 of Table 2), even after controlling for team OBSE at
theteam level. Thus, Hypotheses 4a and 6a received full
support.
Hypothesis 5a predicted the negative indirect relationship
be-tween individual abuse and member voice (via OBSE) would
bemoderated by team-level abuse, such that the mediation pathway
isstronger when team-level abuse is low and weaker when team-level
abuse is high. As shown in Table 3, results showed that
thisindirect effect was significant when team-level abuse was low(
.14, p .01, 99% CI [.32, .03]). When team-levelabuse was high,
however, the indirect effect through OBSE wasnonsignificant ( .03,
ns, 95% CI [.10, .02]). Thus, Hypoth-esis 5a received support.
Hypothesis 7a predicted that team rela-tionship conflict would
mediate the negative relationship betweenteam-level abuse and
members voice. As shown in Model 7 ofTable 2, after including team
relationship conflict, team-levelabuse did not relate to individual
members voice ( .02, ns).In Table 3, this indirect effect of
team-level abuse on team membervoice (via relationship conflict)
was significant ( .39, p .01, 99% CI [.61, .18]). Moreover, it was
team relationshipconflict ( .29, p .05) rather than team-level OBSE
( .19, ns) that mediated the negative impact of team-level abuse
onmember voice. This finding suggests that team-level abuse
affectsmember outcomes above and beyond aggregated consequences
ofindividual abuse, and demonstrates that team- and
individual-levelabuse influences member voice via different
pathways. Thus,Hypothesis 7a was supported.
DiscussionThe results of Study 1 provided support for our
multilevel model
and hypotheses pertaining to member voice. Further, in line
withthe notion that negative events affect individuals more
powerfully
and saliently than positive events (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,
Finke-nauer, & Vohs, 2001; Taylor, 1991), we demonstrated that
abusivesupervision is distinct from and operates in team settings
indepen-dently of supportive forms of leadership such as
empoweringleadership. In Study 2, we sought to replicate these
findings in acontrolled environment to increase internal validity,
rule out alter-native mechanisms identified in other studies not
measured inStudy 1 (e.g., interpersonal justice perceptions, team
identification,collective efficacy; Priesemuth et al., 2013;
Tepper, 2000), andexamine whether member OBSE and team relationship
conflictmediated the influences of abusive supervision on members
voice,team-role performance, and turnover intentions.
Study 2
MethodSample, design, and procedure. Study 2 involved 276
un-
dergraduate business majors (49.6% women and 50.4% men; meanage
20.94 years, SD 1.41) enrolled at a large midwesternuniversity in
the United States. Participants voluntarily partici-pated in the
study for extra credit and were randomly assigned toa 2
(individual-level abusive supervision: high vs. low) 2(team-level
abusive supervision: high vs. low) between-subjectsdesign. Upon
arriving to the laboratory and after completing anunrelated task on
stock price forecasting, each participant wasassigned to a computer
terminal and was presented with thescenario experiment through an
online survey. Participants werefirst assessed on several
individual differences in cultural orienta-tion and then read one
of four scenarios, each of which instructedparticipants to imagine
they were members of a critical four-member undergraduate task
force in the business school (adaptedfrom the scenario manipulation
in G. Chen et al., 2011). To holdtask performance constant (as in
Study 1), participants were toldthat the task force was struggling
to meet deadlines and progresswas slow.
In each scenario, participants were presented with a set of
foure-mail messages sent to them by their team leader and two
5.00
6.00
7.00
Low Individual-level Abusive Supervision
High Individual-level Abusive Supervision
Low Team-level Abusive Supervision
High Team-level Abusive SupervisionO
rgan
izat
ion-
base
d se
lf-es
t
Figure 2. Plot of the interaction between individual- and
team-level abusive supervision on individualmembers
organization-based self-esteem.
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1083ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
-
additional task force members. The e-mail contents
distinguishedthe four conditions by containing our manipulation of
high versuslow individual-level abuse and high versus low
team-level abuse.The complete text of the manipulations appear in
AppendicesAD. The order of manipulations for individual and team
abusivesupervision was counterbalanced. Following the scenarios,
partic-ipants completed manipulation checks, measures of OBSE
andteam relationship conflict, and their intended voice,
team-roleperformance, and turnover intentions. Participants also
completedmeasures of alternative mediators as controls.
Manipulations.Individual-level abusive supervision. Participants
received a
personalized e-mail from the team leader. In the high
individualabuse condition, the leaders e-mail acknowledged the
difficultiesencountered by the task force and ended with several
negative andbelittling comments about the participants specific
contributionsand competence. In the low individual abuse condition,
partici-pants also received an e-mail acknowledging the slow
progress ofthe team. However, rather than expressing a personal
attack, thee-mail maintained a respectful, neutral tone. The two
manipula-tions were identical in word count.
Team-level abusive supervision. The manipulation of team-level
abuse involved a single e-mail message from the team
leaderaddressed to the entire team, as well as two additional
messagessent from and addressed to members of the team only. In the
highteam abuse condition, the leaders e-mail attributed current
chal-lenges encountered to the teams failures and publically
ridiculedthe input of two of the teams members. Following the
leaderse-mail, the participant received an e-mail exchange among
twomembers of the team that complained about how difficult
theleader was to work with and recounted abusive experiences
withthe leader (e.g., failing to give team members credit for
theirideas, rude and condescending behavior, and giving members
thesilent treatment). The leader and team member e-mails
collectivelypainted a situation where the participant both observes
the leaderabusing the entire team in group e-mail and hears about
theindividualized abuse experienced by two other members of
theteam.
In the low team abuse condition, the leaders e-mail
attributedcurrent challenges encountered by the team to mistakes
made early
on, but noted that making mistakes is part of the learning
process.The e-mail encouraged the team to stay focused and
committed tothe task, and ended with an update that several of the
teammembers suggestions were included in the final report
deliveredto the dean. The participant then received e-mails among
twomembers that discussed their experiences working with the
leader(e.g., the leader gave straightforward feedback, credited
teammembers for their ideas, and was responsive in e-mail
communi-cation). The three messages were designed to create a
situationwhere the participant observes the leader interacting with
the teamin a neutral tone and hears about the neutral but
respectful treat-ment others received from the leader. The two
manipulations wereidentical in word count.
Measures. Descriptive statistics, internal consistency
reliabil-ity coefficients, and correlations of our core measures
are reportedin Table 4. Unless noted otherwise, all items were
rated on a5-point Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree, 5
stronglyagree).
Individual team member OBSE. OBSE was assessed with thesame 10
items from Study 1. These items were from Pierce et al.s(1989)
scale, adapted to the team context ( .96).
Team member voice. Participants intended voice was as-sessed
with the same 10-item scale used in Study 1, and the twodimensions
were moderately correlated (r .42, p .01; .86). A CFA showed a
two-factor model with a second-order factor((23)2 94.88, RMSEA .11,
CFI .96, TLI .93, SRMR .09) fit the data better than an alternative
model with the two typesof voice as separate indicators ((2)2 7.97,
p .01, RMSEA .14, CFI .92). As in Study 1, given our focus on
capturingoverall voice, we averaged the two dimensions.
Member team-role performance. Participants reported
theirintention to engage in team-role performance behaviors based
onthe four-item scale from Welbourne et al. (1998) (I will
respondto the needs of others in the Task Force; .88).
Member turnover intention. Participants reported their
inten-tion to leave the task force on a four-item scale from
Kelloway,Gottlieb, and Barham (1999) (I will think about leaving
this TaskForce; .93).
Team relationship conflict. Team relationship conflict
wasassessed with eight items that captured the extent to which
the
Table 4Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among
Variables in Study 2
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Individual AS (manipulation) 0.48 0.50 2. Team AS
(manipulation) 0.50 0.50 .05 3. Individual AS (perception) 2.71
1.07 .66 .33 (.97)4. Team AS (perception) 3.08 1.15 .27 .70 .61
(.97)5. Team member OBSE 3.41 0.90 .51 .07 .60 .25 (.96)6. Team
relationship conflict 2.82 0.83 .30 .29 .48 .49 .39 (.94)7. Team
member voice 3.50 0.61 .22 .00 .30 .16 .34 .26 (.86)8. Team-role
performance 3.91 0.69 .16 .02 .30 .16 .36 .28 .56 (.88)9. Turnover
intentions 3.16 1.00 .29 .18 .43 .41 .45 .47 .22 .34 (.93)
10. Power distance orientation 2.11 0.47 .04 .00 .00 .09 .01 .11
.09 .14 .09 (.53)11. Collectivism 3.41 0.54 .02 .14 .04 .07 .14 .05
.04 .14 .07 .07 (.71)12. Interpersonal justice 2.97 1.21 .64 .35
.88 .64 .58 .50 .25 .26 .46 .03 .04 (.96)13. Collective efficacy
2.82 0.68 .29 .33 .51 .58 .48 .62 .27 .31 .54 .05 .01 .53 (.87)14.
Team identification 3.15 0.90 .17 .18 .27 .06 .54 .32 .29 .48 .39
.04 .12 .27 .37 (.83)Note. N 250. Reliability estimates
(coefficient alpha) are on the diagonal. AS abusive supervision;
OBSE organization-based self-esteem. p .05 (two-tailed). p .01.
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1084 FARH AND CHEN
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
-
participants interactions with fellow members of team were
likelyto be characterized by negative emotion, relationship
tension,unproductive personal attacks, and disagreements on
interpersonalissues and personal values (e.g., Jehn, 1995; Pelled
et al., 1999).Cronbachs alpha for this composite measure was
.94.
Manipulation checks. For individual-level abuse,
participantsindicated how strongly they agreed with the same
10-item measureof abusive supervision utilized in Study 1 ( .97).
To captureteam-level abusive supervision, we used a referent-shift
adaptationof the items. Participants indicated the extent to which
their teamleader exhibited abusive behavior toward the team (e.g.,
My taskforce leader makes negative comments about team members
toothers, ridicules members of this team, tells team membersthat
they are incompetent; .97). With the individual-levelabuse
manipulation check as outcome, analysis of variance testsindicated
a main effect for the individual-level abuse condition(mean high
individual abuse 3.49, mean low individual abuse2.04), F(1, 274)
230.59, p .01, 2 .46. With the team-levelabusive supervision
manipulation check as outcome, analysis ofvariance tests indicated
a main effect for the team-level abusecondition (mean high team
abuse 3.91, mean low team abuse 2.29), F(1, 274) 269.51, p .01, 2
.50. These resultsprovide strong evidence for the efficacy and
validity of the twomanipulations featured in our scenarios.
In addition, participants completed three questions assessing
therealism of the scenario used in Chen et al. (2011) (It is
realisticthat I might experience a supervisor like J. P., It is
realistic thatI might experience team-events like those described
above in theTask Force, and At some point during my career, I will
probablyencounter a situation like the one described above; .71).
Themean score across these items (M 3.89) indicated that
partici-pants generally agreed the scenario was realistic. We
further in-cluded several items to ensure that participants read
the scenariocarefully. Participants were asked to indicate the
performanceprogress of the task force. Participants who indicated
that teamperformance was excellent were considered to have failed
themanipulation check. After dropping these participants, as well
asthose who indicated the scenario was low in realism (those
scoringlower than a 3), our final sample consisted of 250
individuals(retaining 90.6% of our sample) randomly assigned across
the fourconditions.
Additional variables. Several additional variables were
as-sessed as control variables. Participants responded to a
four-itemmeasure of interpersonal justice (Colquitt, Conlon,
Wesson, Por-ter, & Ng, 2001; My leader has treated me in a
polite manner; .96), a four-item measure of team identification
(Allen &Meyer, 1990; I feel a strong sense of belonging to my
team; .87), and a six-item measure of team collective efficacy
(Riggs,Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, & Hooker, 1994; This team
hasabove average ability; .83). Participants also responded to
asix-item measure of power distance orientation (Dorfman &
How-ell, 1988; Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of
em-ployees; .53)3 and collectivism (Dorfman & Howell,
1988;Group welfare is more important than individual needs; .71)to
enable comparisons across our findings in Study 1 (a China-based
sample) and Study 2 (a U.S.-based sample). Also, to assessthe
different types of emotions participants might have experi-enced
across conditions, we asked participants to respond to thePositive
and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark,
& Tellegen, 1988), consisting of 10 positive (e.g.,
interested,excited, enthusiastic; .89) and 10 negative adjectives
(e.g.,afraid, guilty, scared; .91). Participants were asked to
de-scribe the way they felt after reading the scenarios.
Analyses and ResultsWe conducted a series of CFAs to test
whether the measures we
used are distinguishable from each other. First, we ran a
12-factorbaseline model composed of team- and individual-level
abusivesupervision (perceptions), relationship conflict, OBSE,
voice,team-role performance, turnover intentions, interpersonal
justice,team identification, collective efficacy, power distance
orientation,and collectivism. Results showed that this baseline
model fit thedata well ((3173)2 6055.07, RMSEA .06, CFI .96, TLI
.96, SRMR .06) and fit the data better than competing modelsin
which (a) team- and individual-level abuse were set to equal 1((1)2
4633.25, p .01, RMSEA .10, CFI .94), (b)team-level abuse and team
relationship conflict were combined asone factor ((1)2 1711.4, p
.01, RMSEA .08, CFI .95),and (c) individual-level abuse and OBSE
were combined as onefactor ((1)2 3696.13, p .01, RMSEA .09, CFI
.95).These analyses demonstrated the discriminant validity of the
mea-sured variables in our model. To test our hypotheses, we
usedhierarchical regression. Because we used scenarios to
manipulateteam and individual abuse, we tested our hypotheses using
bothmanipulated and perceived abuse as independent variables.
Wealso used the same sample bootstrapping approach in Study 1
totest the mediating effects of OBSE and relationship
conflict(Hayes, 2013). Tables 3, 5, and 6 summarize our
results.
Hypothesis testing. Hypothesis 1 predicted that individual-level
abuse would be negatively related to member OBSE. Sup-porting this
hypothesis, as shown in Table 5, we found that boththe manipulated
( .51, p .05) and perceived abuse( .70, p .05) negatively predicted
OBSE (Model 4).Hypothesis 2 predicted that individual-level abuse
would be morenegatively related to OBSE when team-level abuse was
low. Asshown in Model 5, the interaction terms between individual-
andteam-level abuse manipulations ( .19, p .05) and perceptions(
.16, p .05) were significant. Shown in Figures 3 and 4, thenegative
relationship between the individual abuse and OBSE wasstronger when
team abuse is lower than higher. Simple slopesanalyses showed that
manipulated individual abuse related morenegatively to OBSE when
team abuse was low ( .62, p .05) than when team abuse was high (
.40, p .05).Similarly, perceptual measures of abuse related more
negatively toOBSE when team abuse was low ( .90, p .05) than
whenteam abuse was high ( .63, p .05), supporting Hypothesis2.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that team-level abuse would positivelyrelate
to team relationship conflict. Model 2 shows that the positive
3 Because Dorfman and Howells (1988) measure of power
distanceorientation was designed to assess numerous domains of
supervisor-subordinate interaction across various forms of power,
the measure hashistorically suffered from lower levels of
reliability, often falling below the.70 cut off (including a
Cronbachs alpha of .51 in the original study).Nonetheless, the
measure has been shown to meaningfully capture indi-vidual
differences in power distance values, and we elected to include it
asa control variable in order to compare our findings across our
China- andU.S.-based samples.
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1085ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
dHighlight
-
impact of team abuse on relationship conflict was significant
forboth manipulated ( .20, p .05) and perceived team abuse( .19, p
.05), supporting Hypothesis 3.
Hypotheses 4 and 6 proposed that member OBSE and
teamrelationship conflict would simultaneously influence
membersvoice, team-role performance, and turnover intentions. After
con-trolling for manipulated abuse at the individual and team
levels,OBSE related positively to member voice ( .21, p .05;Model
7, Table 5) and team-role performance ( .17, p .01;
Model 2, Table 6) and negatively to turnover intentions( .32, p
.01; Model 6, Table 6), while team relationshipconflict was
negatively related to voice ( .22, p .05; Model7, Table 5) and
team-role performance ( .27, p .01);Model 2, Table 6) and
positively to turnover intentions ( .42,p .01; Model 6, Table 6).
Likewise, after controlling for per-ceived abuse at the individual
and team levels, OBSE relatedpositively to voice ( .17, p .05;
Model 7, Table 5) andteam-role performance ( .13, p .05; Model 2,
Table 6) and
Table 5Regression Results of Study 2: Effects on Team
Relationship Conflict, Member OBSE, and Member Voice
Variable
Team relationshipconflict Team member OBSE Team member voice
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Model 9
Manipulated abusive supervisionPower distance orientation .16
(.11) .16 (.10) .01 (.13) .02 (.10) .02 (.10) .09 (.08) .05 (.08)
.11 (.08) .06 (.08)Collectivism .04 (.09) .01 (.08) .14 (.11) .13
(.09) .14 (.09) .04 (.07) .01 (.07) .01 (.07) .04 (.07)Individual
AS (manipulation) .35 (.09) .51 (.10) .62 (.14) .28 (.11) .03 (.12)
.09 (.10) .14 (.08)Team AS (manipulation) .20 (.09) .08 (.10) .03
(.14) .05 (.11) .05 (.11) .04 (.09) .11 (.08)Individual Team AS
(manipulation) .19 (.20) .10 (.15) .03 (.15)Individual OBSE .21
(.05) .13 (.06)Team relationship conflict .22 (.06) .18
(.06)Interpersonal justice .02 (.05)Team identification .12
(.05)Collective efficacy .11 (.07)
Perceived abusive supervisionPower distance orientation .16
(.11) .17 (.09) .00 (.13) .00 (.10) .02 (.10) .06 (.08) .04 (.08)
.11 (.08) .05 (.08)Collectivism .04 (.09) .05 (.08) .13 (.11) .10
(.09) .09 (.09) .01 (.07) .00 (.07) .01 (.07) .03 (.07)Individual
AS (perception) .40 (.05) .70 (.05) .77 (.06) .39 (.05) .18 (.06)
.13 (.07) .12 (.05)Team AS (perception) .19 (.05) .18 (.05) .29
(.06) .15 (.05) .11 (.05) .03 (.04) .05 (.04)Individual Team AS
(perception) .16 (.04) .20 (.03) .14 (.03)Individual OBSE .17 (.05)
.11 (.06)Team relationship conflict .16 (.06) .16
(.06)Interpersonal justice .07 (.07)Team identification .12
(.05)Collective efficacy .08 (.08)Note. N 250. Standard errors are
in parentheses. OBSE organization-based self-esteem; AS abusive
supervision. p .05 (two-tailed).
1.50
2.50
Low Individual-level Abusive High Individual-level Abusive
Low Team-level Abusive Supervision (Manipulation)High Team-level
Abusive Supervision (Manipulation)
Low Individual-level Abusive Supervision (Manipulation)
High Individual-level Abusive Supervision (Manipulation)
Mem
ber O
BSE
Figure 3. Plot of the interaction between individual- and
team-level abusive supervision manipulations onindividual members
organization-based self-esteem (OBSE).
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1086 FARH AND CHEN
dHighlight
dHighlight
-
negatively to turnover intentions ( .29, p .01; Model 6,Table
6), while team relationship conflict was negatively related tovoice
( .16, p .05; Model 7, Table 5) and team-roleperformance ( .24, p
.01; (Model 2, Table 6) and posi-tively to turnover intentions (
.38, p .01; Model 6, Table 6).We further examined whether OBSE and
team relationshipconflict were significantly related to voice,
team-role perfor-mance, and turnover intentions in the presence of
other poten-tial mediators at the individual and team levels. As
shown in
Tables 5 and 6, after controlling for interpersonal justice
per-ceptions, team identification, and team collective
efficacy,OBSE and team relationship conflict remained
significantlyrelated to the outcome variables we proposed. Thus,
Hypothe-ses 4 and 6 were supported.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that the indirect relationships
betweenindividual abuse and member voice, team-role performance,
andturnover intentions (via OBSE) would be moderated by
team-levelabuse, such that the respective mediation pathways would
be
1.50
2.50
3.50
4.50
Low Individual-level Abusive Supervision (Perception)
High Individual-level Abusive Supervision (Perception)
Low Team-level Abusive Supervision (Perception)High Team-level
Abusive Supervision (Perception)
Low Individual-level Abusive Supervision (Perception)
High Individual-level Abusive Supervision (Perception)
Mem
ber O
BSE
Figure 4. Plot of the interaction between individual- and
team-level abusive supervision perceptions onindividual members
organization-based self-esteem (OBSE).
Table 6Regression Results of Study 2: Effects on Member
Team-Role Performance and Turnover Intentions
Variable
Team member team-role performance Team member turnover
intentions
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model
8
Manipulated abusive supervisionPower distance orientation .20
(.09) .13 (.09) .20 (.09) .14 (.08) .20 (.13) .32 (.12) .20 (.12)
.30 (.11)Collectivism .18 (.08) .14 (.08) .11 (.08) .13 (.07) .20
(.11) .12 (.10) .06 (.10) .13 (.10)Individual AS (manipulation) .29
(.12) .15 (.13) .10 (.11) .04 (.08) .79 (.17) .06 (.17) .12 (.15)
.19 (.11)Team AS (manipulation) .10 (.12) .09 (.12) .01 (.10) .07
(.09) .60 (.17) .31 (.16) .25 (.13) .17 (.12)Individual Team AS
(manipulation) .12 (.17) .14 (.16) .49 (.24) .06 (.22)Individual
OBSE .17 (.06) .23 (.06) .32 (.08) .37 (.08)Team relationship
conflict .27 (.06) .16 (.07) .42 (.09) .23 (.09)Interpersonal
justice .07 (.06) .22 (.07)Team identification .29 (.05) .22
(.07)Collective efficacy .03 (.08) .45 (.10)
Perceived abusive supervisionPower distance orientation .18
(.09) .14 (.09) .20 (.09) .15 (.08) .18 (.12) .25 (.12) .15 (.12)
.28 (.11)Collectivism .15 (.08) .15 (.08) .12 (.08) .12 (.07) .14
(.11) .13 (.10) .08 (.10) .11 (.10)Individual AS (perception) .21
(.05) .04 (.06) .12 (.08) .07 (.05) .29 (.07) .03 (.08) .06 (.11)
.09 (.06)Team AS (perception) .04 (.05) .01 (.05) .03 (.05) .01
(.05) .17 (.07) .22 (.07) .23 (.06) .10 (.06)Individual Team AS
(perception) .04 (.03) .00 (.03) .05 (.05) .03 (.04)Individual OBSE
.13 (.06) .21 (.06) .29 (.08) .37 (.08)Team relationship conflict
.24 (.07) .13 (.07) .38 (.09) .14 (.10) .21 (.09)Interpersonal
justice .05 (.07)Team identification .28 (.05) .21 (.07)Collective
efficacy .01 (.08) .38 (.11)Note. N 250. Standard errors are in
parentheses. OBSE organization-based self-esteem; AS abusive
supervision. p .05 (two-tailed). p .01 (two-tailed).
This
docu
men
tis
copy
right
edby
the
Am
eric
anPs
ycho
logi
calA
ssoc
iatio
nor
one
ofi
tsal
lied
publ
isher
s.Th
isar
ticle
isin
tend
edso
lely
fort
hepe
rson
aluse
oft
hein
divi
dual
use
ran
dis
not
tobe
diss
emin
ated
broa
dly.
1087ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS
dHighlight
dHighlight
-
stronger when team-level abuse was low and weaker when
team-level abuse was high. As shown in the lower panel of Table 3,
theindirect effect of individual abuse on voice through OBSE
wassignificant when team-level abuse was low (for manipulated
abuse, .35, p .01, 99% CI [.69, .14]; for perceived abuse, .14, p
.01, 99% CI [.29, .00]). Similarly, whenteam-level abuse was low,
there was a stronger indirect effect viaOBSE from individual abuse
to team-role performance (for ma-nipulated abuse, .45, p .01, 99%
CI [.74, .22]; forperceived abuse, .23, p .01, 99% CI [.46, .05])
andturnover intentions (for manipulated abuse, .72, p .01, 99%CI
[.39, 1.11]; for perceptions of abuse, .36, p .01, 99% CI[.02,
.70]). When team-level abuse was high, however, theseindirect
effects were weaker for voice (for manipulated abuse, .06, ns, 95%
CI [.23, .07]; for perceived abuse, .07,ns, 95% CI [.15, .01]),
team-role performance (for manipulatedabuse, .13, ns, 99% CI [.34,
.02]; for perceived abuse, .07, ns, 99% CI [.24, .02]), and
turnover intentions (formanipulated abuse, .23, p .01, 99% CI [.03,
.50]; forperceived abuse, .19, p .01, 99% CI [.03, .36]).
Takentogether, Hypothesis 5 received strong support.
Finally, Hypothesis 7 predicted that team relationship
conflictwould mediate the linkage between team-level abuse and
mem-bers voice, team-role performance, and turnover intentions.
Asshown in Table 3, these indirect effects were significant for
mem-ber voice (for manipulated abuse, .09, p .01, 99% CI[.19, .02];
for perceived abuse, .07, p .01, 99% CI[.13, .03]), team-role
performance (for manipulated abuse, .12, p .01, 99% CI [.25, .03];
for perceived abuse, .09, p .01, 99% [CI.17,.05]), and turnover
intentions(for manipulated abuse, .20, p .01, 99% CI [.05, .39];
forperceived abuse, .14, p .01, 99% CI [.07, .24]). Thus,Hypothesis
7 was supported.
Supplementary analyses. Although our hypotheses centeredon the
condition of being singled out for abuse, one of our
statedobjectives was to better understand how abusive supervision
af-fected all members of the team. Hence, we sought to examine
howindividuals in the spared conditionthat is, members subjectedto
low individual abuse but high team abusemight fare. Utilizingthe
PANAS (Watson et al., 1988), we assessed the state emotionsof
participants following each manipulated condition. Compared
toparticipants whose teams experienced low abuse, participants
inthe lo