See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301578583
Ineffective Leadership and Employees' Negative Outcomes: The Mediating
Effect of Anxiety and Depression
Article in International Journal of Stress Management · April 2016
DOI: 10.1037/str0000030
CITATIONS
READS
25
3,883
3 authors, including:
Daniel P. Meltzer
Cong Liu
Hofstra University
Hofstra University
5 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS
32 PUBLICATIONS 827 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Understanding human behavior through attachment. View project
Workplace Conflict Project View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Cong Liu on 05 December 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
International Journal of Stress Management
Ineffective Leadership and Employees’ Negative Outcomes:
The Mediating Effect of Anxiety and Depression
Lindsay S. Pyc, Daniel P. Meltzer, and Cong Liu
Online First Publication, April 21, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000030
CITATION
Pyc, L. S., Meltzer, D. P., & Liu, C. (2016, April 21). Ineffective Leadership and Employees’
Negative Outcomes: The Mediating Effect of Anxiety and Depression. International Journal of
Stress Management. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000030
International Journal of Stress Management
2016, Vol. 23, No. 2, 000
© 2016 American Psychological Association
1072-5245/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000030
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Ineffective Leadership and Employees’ Negative
Outcomes: The Mediating Effect of Anxiety
and Depression
Lindsay S. Pyc
Daniel P. Meltzer and Cong Liu
McKinsey & Company,
Chicago, Illinois
Hofstra University
Past research has shown that abusive supervision is linked to negative outcomes
for employees, chiefly employees’ counterproductive work behaviors directed at
organizations. This study examined the relationships between two types of
ineffective supervision (abusive supervision and authoritarian leadership style)
and employees’ distal negative outcomes (e.g., exhaustion, physical symptoms,
job dissatisfaction, intention to quit, and poor job performance) in a sample of
232 nurses and 24 supervisors. In addition, this study examined how emotional
reactions (anxiety and depression) mediated the negative relationships between
ineffective leadership and employees’ distal outcomes. The results suggested
that both types of ineffective leadership were related to similar negative employee outcomes, and anxiety and depression mediated these relationships. The
conclusions from this study contribute to the ineffective leadership literature
through connecting previous findings on abusive supervision with those of
authoritarian leadership style. Organizations can utilize these results to raise
awareness among supervisors about the implications their behaviors in the
workplace have on employees’ welfare and on organizational effectiveness.
Keywords: abusive supervision, authoritarian leadership style, negative employee
outcomes, anxiety, depression
The effects of abusive supervision have been estimated to cost organizations in the United States $23.8 billion annually through employees’ health
care costs, productivity, and absenteeism (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert,
2006). Given this figure, organizations should have a strong stance on the
issue; however, Schat, Frone, and Kelloway (2006) found that 13.6% of
employees in the United States report having experienced abusive supervision. As a recently studied job stressor (e.g., Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011;
Lindsay S. Pyc, McKinsey & Company, Chicago, Illinois; Daniel P. Meltzer and Cong
Liu, Department of Psychology, Hofstra University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lindsay S. Pyc, 6374
Jennifer Drive, Lockport, NY 14094. E-mail: lindsayspyc@gmail.com
1
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2
PYC, MELTZER, AND LIU
Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013), abusive supervision involves the
continual exposure of an employee to mistreatment by a supervisor. Abusive
supervision, defined by Tepper (2000) as the “subordinates’ perceptions of
the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile
verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (p. 178), is a
type of interpersonal workplace deviant behavior that is committed by a
supervisor on a subordinate. The subordinate is the victim of a violation of
interpersonal fairness, which can then result in a decrease in positive attitudes
and behaviors by the subordinate (Tepper, 2000).
As a workplace mistreatment variable (Hershcovis, 2011), abusive supervision has been associated with employees’ role conflict, turnover, and
decreased justice perceptions, commitment, and satisfaction (Ashforth, 1997;
Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004;
Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). It even impacts employees’ psychological
welfare, psychological distress, and physical well-being (Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007). Abusive supervision has been linked to
decreased subordinates’ job performance (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska,
2007), and a 2007 study by Mitchell and Ambrose shows that abusive
supervision likely increases employees’ tendency to engage in negative
behaviors toward both the company and their supervisors.
Extending abusive supervision to another ineffective leadership variable,
authoritarian leadership style (ALS, Fiedler, 1967) refers to dogmatic, rigid,
and rule-bound type of management style. ALS has been the subject of
research dating back to the leadership styles identified by Lewin and Lippitt
in 1938 (Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, 1971). In the 1950s, Adorno and
colleagues identified a personality syndrome that they called authoritarianism, which is characterized by a rigid adherence to the norm, submission to
authority, and stereotyping (Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009). A
measure of authoritarian personality features four main factors: leadership/
dominance, achievement orientation, interpersonal conflict, and verbal
hostility (Heaven, 1985). Working under such conditions is difficult and
stressful.
ALS has been positively related to abusive supervision and has shown a
moderating effect on supervisors’ perceptions of interactional justice–
abusive supervision relationship (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007). ALS
also has the potential to negatively affect employees’ well-being. Employees
with supervisors who demonstrate ALS may struggle for a fair amount of job
autonomy. Lack of autonomy has been shown to relate to a variety of job
strains (Spector, 1986). Therefore, we predicted that ALS would be related to
more job strains and negative work outcomes. The first set of research
questions included an examination of negative outcomes (e.g., exhaustion,
physical symptoms, job dissatisfaction, intention to quit, and poor job per-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES
3
formance) that employees experienced as a result of abusive supervision or
ALS.
Abusive leadership and ALS are frequently thought of as connected;
however, they are theoretically discrete. Authoritarian leadership style
may often be perceived as petty and punitive, and the focus remains on the
content of the work (Fiedler, 1967). Abusive supervision may occur in the
workplace but have little to do with the work itself (Tepper, 2000). Such
abuse may include violations of personal privacy, general rudeness, or
displaced anger. Although the dogmatic and punitive nature of authoritarian leadership style may relate to the occurrence of these behaviors,
their occurrence is not a given; additionally, these behaviors may occur
absent of an authoritarian leadership style. For this reason, we believe that
these two leadership variables will likely be perceived as related to each
other, while representing their unique content domains. Prior research
(Aryee et al., 2007) has suggested that ALS was only moderately related
to abusive supervision.
Job strains (e.g., exhaustion and physical symptoms) and the negative
work outcomes of job dissatisfaction, turnover intention, and poor performance are considered distal outcomes of job stressors because they
develop after repeated exposures to stressors (Maslach & Schaufeli,
1993). Although the job stressor–strain relationship has been wellestablished in the literature, fewer studies have examined the underlying
stress process (Hart & Cooper, 2002). According to the emotion-centered
model of the occupational stress process, negative emotions play central
roles in mediating the relationships between job stressors and strains and
negative outcomes (Spector & Goh, 2001). This model is particularly
relevant to supervisor-related stressors because these stressors create
situations in which employees have limited power to vent their negative
emotions due to their lower hierarchical position. Therefore, the second
set of research questions was to examine anxiety and depression as
potential mediating variables on the relationships between abusive supervision or ALS and distal negative outcomes.
In summary, there were two research goals of this study. First, we
investigated ineffective leadership such as abusive supervision and ALS
as two unique job stressors. Second, we postulated that ineffective leadership would relate to employees’ negative emotions, and these negative
emotions, in the long run, would relate to distal outcomes. We argue that
the negative emotions of anxiety and depression are particularly relevant
because supervisors are at higher hierarchical status. Consequently, employees may passively accept misconduct from the supervisor, internalize
this mistreatment because of the inherent power imbalance in the supervisor–subordinate relationship, and experience anxiety and depression.
4
PYC, MELTZER, AND LIU
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Anxiety and Depression Mediate the Relationships Between Abusive
Supervision and Employees’ Distal Outcomes
Tepper et al. (2009) described abusive supervision as the “expression of
non-physical hostility supervisors perpetrate against their direct reports (e.g.,
derogation, explosive outbursts, and undermining)” (p. 156). Similarly, Thau
et al. (2009) described it as, “employees’ perceptions of what they believe are
purposeful and unfair supervisor mistreatment” (p. 80). These definitions
recognize that the abuser does necessarily have a willful intent to act in an
abusive manner. Abusive supervision has been related to negative distal
outcomes, such as decreased job and life satisfaction, decreased normative
and affective commitment (Tepper, 2000), and decreased organizational
citizenship behaviors (Zellars et al., 2002; Aryee et al., 2007).
The mechanism through which abusive supervision is related to employees’ distal negative outcomes has not been fully understood. The Institute for
Social Research (ISR) model of stress (French & Kahn, 1962; Katz & Kahn,
1978) provides some guidelines regarding how job stressors relate to distal
outcomes. The ISR model starts with the objective environment. This refers
to any physical stressors (e.g., noise, lights, and chair arrangements) and
psychological stressors (e.g., abusive supervision, interpersonal relations, and
role ambiguity) in the work environment. The second step of the model is the
psychological environment. This represents how each individual employee
perceives the objective environment. The third step of the ISR model is
employees’ responses to their perceived stressors. This step refers to employees’ negative emotions or the multitude of negative ways employees may
respond when faced with stressors. The last step of the model is the ramifying
consequence of stressors. This refers to mental and physical health and
disease that may result for employees (e.g., burnout and physical symptoms)
and organizational ineffectiveness (e.g., job dissatisfaction, intention to quit,
or poor performance). According to the ISR model, negative emotions of
anxiety and depression could be the responses to abusive supervision that
result in distal outcomes of exhaustion, physical symptoms, job dissatisfaction, turnover intention, and poor performance.
Spector and Goh’s (2001) work on an emotion-centered model of occupational stress process provides further support toward the suspected mediating effect of negative emotions. Spector and Goh (2001) suggested that “a
job that induces frequent negative emotions, especially when those emotions
are attributed to coworkers, supervisors, or top management, is likely to lead
to job dissatisfaction” (p. 207). Abusive supervision is likely to elicit negative
emotions that employees bear inside. According to Fiske (1992), a feature of
the supervisor–subordinate relationship is that supervisors are at a higher
level with more power and resources. After receiving mistreatment from a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES
5
supervisor, an employee may feel angry. However, employees are unlikely to
channel their frustration back at their supervisor because of the asymmetry of
power and possible risk of reprisals (Bies & Tripp, 1998), and so anger may
quickly subside into anxiety and even depression. We proposed that these
internal feelings of anxiety and depression resulted in strains, such as burnout
and physical symptoms. Because of unreleased anxiety and depression,
employees would also suffer from low job satisfaction, poor performance,
and eventually, intention to quit. In other words, when an employee experiences negative emotions in the workplace, especially when these emotions
are directed toward a supervisor, they must be suppressed and managed so as
to maintain appropriate workplace appearances. Therefore, these negative
emotions are typically internalized by the employee, potentially building
toward the eventual distal negative outcomes.
Research has provided indirect support to the above predictions regarding the mediating effect of anxiety and depression. The majority of the
existing literature connecting abusive supervision to employee distress and
well-being outcomes focused on strains and exhaustion (e.g., Martinko et al.,
2013). Recently, the research has focused on more specific psychological
well-being outcomes, such as our proposed mediators, depression (Haggard,
Robert, & Rose, 2011; Tepper et al., 2007) and anxiety (Hobman et al., 2009;
Tepper et al., 2007). In each of these studies, perceptions of abusive supervision have been associated with higher levels of the negative emotions than
with other distal outcomes. Consistently, Tepper (2000) showed a positive
relationship between perceptions of abusive supervision and levels of both
anxiety and depression.
Spector and Goh’s (2001) emotion-centered model of the occupational
health stress process predicts that the negative emotions of anxiety and
depression are directly linked to distal negative outcomes. Supporting this
argument, Maertz and Campion (1998) showed that frequent negative emotions were likely to induce more turnover, indicated by expected favorability
of turnover and intention to turnover. Regarding the mediating effect of
negative emotions, Le Roy, Bastounis, and Minibas-Poussard (2012) found
that anger and fear mediated the relationship between perceived interactional
justice and counterproductive work behaviors. In another mediational study,
Tepper (2000) found that employees’ perceptions of justice mediated the
relationship between abusive supervision and the subordinates’ distal outcomes, such as job and life satisfaction, organizational commitment, workto-family and family-to-work conflict, psychological distress, and voluntary
turnover. As a violation of organizational justice, abusive supervision is
related to anxiety and depression, which Spector and Goh (2001) suggested
would relate to job strains (e.g., exhaustion and physical symptoms) and
negative work outcomes (e.g., job dissatisfaction, intention to quit, and poor
job performance).
6
PYC, MELTZER, AND LIU
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Hypothesis 1a: Anxiety mediates the relationships between abusive
supervision and employees’ distal negative outcomes, specifically exhaustion, physical symptoms, job dissatisfaction, intention to quit, and
poor job performance.
Hypothesis 1b: Depression mediates the relationships between abusive
supervision and employees’ distal negative outcomes, specifically exhaustion, physical symptoms, job dissatisfaction, intention to quit, and
poor job performance.
Anxiety and Depression Mediate the Relationships Between
Authoritarian Leadership Style and Employees’ Distal Outcomes
Leaders who have a strong underlying need for structure will have
tendencies to gravitate toward initiation of structure, determinations of what
needs to be done, enacting of policies and rules, punishment of disobedience,
and reward of compliance. Like abusive supervision, an employee facing
ALS would continually be exposed to the dogmatic management style of his
or her supervisor. Though researched less frequently, authoritarian leadership
and its contrast with other leadership styles were more frequently studied in
the 1960s and 1970s. For example, Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum (1971)
conducted an experiment comparing group performance, speed, and satisfaction under authoritarian and democratic leadership styles (DLS), in stress and
nonstress situations. In this experiment they found that in general, subjects
performed slower in the ALS condition than in the DLS condition. In
addition, when stress level was low, performance quality suffered more in the
ALS condition than in the DLS condition. These results suggested that ALS
reflects ineffective leadership.
With a dogmatic and rule-bound leadership style, employees may feel a
decreased sense of autonomy as the supervisor closely monitors their performance. Job autonomy refers to the degree to which an employee has
freedom in determining how to carry out work tasks and work scheduling
(Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Karasek’s (1979) job demand-control (JDC)
model provides theoretical support for the detrimental effects of lack of job
autonomy. The strain hypothesis posits that high job demands paired with
low job control creates high-strain jobs in which an employee is most likely
to experience negative job strains (De Witte, Verhofstadt, & Omey, 2007).
As an important job stressor, lack of job autonomy has been related to various
forms of job strains (Spector, 1986). A correlation study using a sample of
university employees by Mark and Smith (2012) showed significant correlations between decision authority (a subfactor of job control, defined as the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES
7
degree to which employees can make autonomous decisions regarding their
work) and both anxiety and depression.
Leadership research also provides support for the negative effect of ALS
on employees’ anxiety and depression. ALS is similar to the transactional
leadership style of management by exception, which “is characterized by
actively monitoring subordinate deviations from performance standards”
(Lyons & Schneider, 2009, p. 738). Lyons and Schneider (2009) showed that
a management-by-exception style by a supervisor led to a subordinate’s
increased threat appraisal, negative affect, and reduced task self-efficacy and
sense of social support. Through the increased negative affect and decreased
social support, it seems reasonable to suspect a similar style of ALS could
lead to employees’ anxiety or depression.
Taken together, we proposed that ALS reflected ineffective leadership
and could function as an important job stressor. Similar to abusive supervision, ALS imposes unfair treatment from one’s superior. As proposed by
Spector and Goh (2001), this unfair treatment could result in negative
emotions such as anxiety or depression. Over time, this anxiety or depression
would relate to negative distal outcomes that may take longer to manifest,
such as exhaustion, physical symptoms, performance changes, changes in job
satisfaction, or intention to quit.
Hypothesis 2a: Anxiety mediates the relationships between ALS and
employees’ distal negative outcomes, including exhaustion, physical
symptoms, job dissatisfaction, intention to quit, and poor job
performance.
Hypothesis 2b: Depression mediates the relationships between ALS and
employees’ distal negative outcomes, including exhaustion, physical
symptoms, job dissatisfaction, intention to quit, and poor job
performance.
Method
Participants
The participants were from a large not-for-profit home health care
agency based in the northeast United States. The agency employs almost
15,000 staff members, with more than 2,200 nurses, and serves over 100,000
patients. The participants included coordinator of care nurses (n ⫽ 232), who
were on average 43.0 years old, reported working for the agency for 9.0
years, and 87.1% were female. An independent rating of nurse performance
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8
PYC, MELTZER, AND LIU
was collected from their supervisors (n ⫽ 24), resulting in matched nurse–
supervisor pairs with an average working relationship of 3.2 years. The mean
number of nurses each supervisor reported supervising was 17.2 nurses,
ranging from 5 nurses to 40 nurses.
The nurses completed scales designed to measure their experienced
abusive supervision, ALS, anxiety, depression, exhaustion, physical symptoms, job satisfaction, and intention to quit. The supervisors completed scales
designed to evaluate the in-role job performance of the nurses.
Procedure
Hard copy, anonymous surveys were distributed at nursing staff meetings to the target participants. Each nurse was provided with two surveys–a
nurse survey to complete and a supervisor survey to have his or her supervisor complete. The nurse was asked to place a unique code of their choosing
on both of the surveys for matching purposes during data analysis (e.g.,
LSP815). The nurse at no point revealed his or her unique code to the
researcher. Additionally, the nurse was asked to write his or her name on a
removable label on the supervisor survey, which the researcher collected and
gave to the supervisors. Because each supervisor received multiple surveys to
complete from their team of nurses (the average number of surveys each
supervisor received was nine), the nurse attached a label with his or her name
to the supervisor survey so that the supervisor was able to complete the items
with that particular nurse in mind. The supervisors discarded the name labels
after completing the survey to assure anonymity. The supervisors submitted
the survey directly to the researcher.
Measures
Abusive supervision. The 15-item Abusive Supervision Scale was used
(Tepper, 2000). Participants indicated the extent to which their supervisor
performed each behavior using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (I cannot
remember him/her ever using this behavior with me) to 5 (He/she uses this
behavior very often with me). An example item is, “My boss tells me my
thoughts or feelings are stupid.” Tepper and colleagues (e.g., Tepper et al.,
2006; Tepper et al., 2007) examined the psychometric properties of the
survey and concluded that the items served as adequate measures of the
abusive supervision. The reliability coefficient was .95.
Authoritarian leadership style. A nine-item scale was used (Cheng,
Chou, Wu, Huang & Farh, 2004). Participants rated the extent to which they
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES
9
agreed using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). An example item is, “My supervisor asks me to obey his/her instructions completely.” The reliability coefficient was .86.
Anxiety. A four-item subscale of the Emotional Strain Scale was used
(Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975). Participants were
instructed to indicate how often they have experienced each item over the
past month using a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (never or a little) to 4 (most
of the time). An example item is, “I have felt jittery.” The reliability
coefficient was .69.
Depression. Depression was assessed using a five-item subscale of
the Emotional Strain Scale (Caplan et al., 1975). Participants described
how they have felt during the past week using a four-point scale, ranging
from 1 (rarely or none of the time [less than 1 day]) to 4 (most or all of
the time [5 to 7 days]). An example item is “I could not ‘get going’.” The
reliability coefficient was .78.
The measure of anxiety used a timeframe of one month while the
measure of depression used a timeframe of one week. The different timeframes were considered appropriate in assessing the correspondent emotions
(Caplan et al., 1975). Previous research has assessed different emotions with
different timeframes (e.g., Begley & Czajka, 1993; Liu, Yang, & Nauta,
2013).
Exhaustion. A five-item subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory
(Maslach & Jackson, 1981) was used to measure exhaustion. Participants
were instructed to indicate how often, if ever, they have experienced each
item using a 7-point scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (daily). An example
item is, “I feel emotionally drained from my work.” The reliability coefficient
was .90.
Physical symptoms. The 18-item Physical Symptoms Inventory was
used (Spector & Jex, 1998). Participants indicated how often they have
experienced each item over the last 30 days on a 3-point scale, ranging from
1 (no) to 3 (yes, and I saw a doctor). An example item is, “An upset stomach
or nausea.” The total symptom score was computed by adding the have
symptom and doctor symptom responses. The reliability coefficient was .88.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was assessed using a three-item measure (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). Participants indicated to
what extent they agreed or disagreed with each item on a 6-point scale,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). An example item is,
“All in all, I am satisfied with my job.” The reliability coefficient was .80.
Intention to quit. Intention to quit was assessed using a one-item measure (Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988). Participants answered the question on a
5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (extremely often). The item is,
“How often have you seriously considered quitting?”
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10
PYC, MELTZER, AND LIU
Job performance (supervisor-rated). To reduce the self-serving bias, we
asked supervisors to rate the performance of the nurses. The five-item
In-Role Job Performance Scale was used (Williams & Anderson, 1991).
Supervisors indicated their agreement or disagreement with each of the items
regarding a specific nurse at work on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). An example is, “Adequately completes
assigned duties.” The item scores were averaged together to form total scores
for in-role job performance. The reliability coefficient was .93.
Information on participants’ gender, age, and tenure with current supervisor/subordinate, tenure with the organization, number of subordinates, and
job title was collected.
Results
Descriptives, internal reliability coefficients, and intercorrelations among
study variables are presented in Table 1. Because abusive supervision and
ALS reported by the same source significantly related with each other (r ⫽
.42, p ⬍ .01), we used structural equation modeling to test the discriminant
validity of these two types of leadership styles. First, we examined the
measurement model specifying four factors: abusive supervision, ALS, anxiety, and depression. Data provided an adequate fit to the four-factor model,
␹2(489) ⫽ 1577.21, NNFI ⫽ .91, CFI ⫽ .92, SRMR ⫽ .08. Second, we
examined a three-factor model, with abusive supervision and ALS collapsed
together. The fit was less satisfactory in the three-factor model, ␹2(492) ⫽
2078.50, NNFI ⫽ .87, CFI ⫽ .88, SRMR ⫽ .11. Moving from the four-factor
Table 1
Correlations Among Variables and Variable Descriptives (N ⫽ 232)
Measure
1
2
3
4
1. Abusive supervision .95
2. Authoritarian
leadership style
.42** .86
3. Anxiety
.21** .20** .69
4. Depression
.23** .16** .47** .78
5. Exhaustion
.13
.15** .37** .35**
6. Physical symptoms
.27*
.30** .36** .37**
7. Job satisfaction
⫺.19** ⫺.20** ⫺.43** ⫺.38**
8. Intention to quit
.24** .12
.32** .26**
9. Job performance
(supervisor⫺rated) ⫺.10 ⫺.17** ⫺.20** ⫺.15*
M
1.18
2.53
1.67
1.35
SD
.47
.73
.53
.51
5
6
7
.90
.22*
.88
⫺.43** ⫺.16
.80
**
.36
.22* ⫺.55**
⫺.14** ⫺.16
2.54
4.17
1.27
3.84
8
9
—
.21** ⫺.10 .93
5.12
2.07 5.82
.96
.94 .86
Note. All data except job performance were provided by nurses (Nnurse ⫽ 109 –232).
Job performance data were provided by supervisors (Nsupervisor ⫽ 24).
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES
11
model to the three-factor model, the chi-square increased significantly,
⌬␹2(3) ⫽ 501.29, p ⬍ .01, indicating that the four-factor model provides a
better fit for the data than the three-factor model. This decision is supported
in the prior literature, as abusive supervision and ALS have been studied as
related but separate variables (e.g., Aryee et al., 2007; Martinko et al., 2013).
We used bootstrapping procedures (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) with 5,000
resamples to test the indirect effect of ineffective leadership on employee
outcomes via depression and anxiety. Preacher and Hayes’ (2004) SPSS
Mediation Macro was used to conduct these bootstrapping analyses. The
results of the bootstrapping analysis were considered significant if the 95%
bias-corrected confidence interval for indirect effect excludes zero (Preacher
& Hayes, 2004). When the indirect effect was significant, full mediation was
indicated if the direct effect became insignificant. Alternatively, partial
mediation was indicated if the direct effect was still significant (see Table 2
and Table 3).
Hypotheses 1a and 1b stated that abusive supervision would be related to
employee outcomes (i.e., exhaustion, physical symptoms, job satisfaction,
intention to quit, and supervisor-rated job performance) through the mediating processes of anxiety and depression. As can be seen in Table 2, results for
Hypothesis 1a were such that full mediation effects were indicated for the
Table 2
Anxiety/Depression Mediates the Relationship Between Abusive Supervision and Employees’
Distal Outcomes
95%
confidence
interval
Measure
Anxiety
Exhaustion
Physical symptoms
Job satisfaction
Intention to quit
Performance
(supervisor-rated)
Depression
Exhaustion
Physical symptoms
Job satisfaction
Intention to quit
Performance
(supervisor-rated)
IV¡M
.22**
.26***
Direct
effect
Indirect
effect
Total
effect
Lower
limit
Upper
limit
.88***
.15
2.02** 2.05
**
⫺.60
⫺.25
.38***
.39**
.20***
.83**
⫺.13***
.09***
.34
2.91*
⫺.38**
.48***
.06
.15
⫺.29
.02
.42
2.14
⫺.04
.21
⫺.25*
⫺.05*
⫺.18
⫺.16
⫺.01
.85***
.13
2.39** 2.09
***
⫺.66
⫺.22
.40***
.38**
.22***
.81
⫺.17***
.11***
.34
2.91*
⫺.38**
.48***
.09
⫺.01
⫺.35
.03
.46
2.52
⫺.07
.24
⫺.22
⫺.06
⫺.18
⫺.17
M¡DV
⫺.13
⫺.13
.001
Note. All data except job performance were provided by nurses (Nnurse ⫽ 109 –232). Job
performance data were provided by supervisors (Nsupervisor ⫽ 24). Bootstrap sample size ⫽
5,000. IV ⫽ Independent Variable; M ⫽ Mediator; DV ⫽ Dependent Variable.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
12
PYC, MELTZER, AND LIU
Table 3
Anxiety/Depression Mediates the Relationship Between Authoritarian Leadership Style and
Employees’ Distal Outcomes
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
95% confidence
interval
Measure
IV¡M
Anxiety
Exhaustion
Physical symptoms
Job satisfaction
Intention to quit
Performance
(supervisor-rated)
Depression
Exhaustion
Physical symptoms
Job satisfaction
Intention to quit
Performance
(supervisor-rated)
.14**
*
.12
M¡DV
Direct
effect
Indirect
effect
Total
effect
Lower
limit
Upper
limit
.87***
1.98**
⫺.60***
.42***
.14
1.14*
⫺.17*
.11
.12***
.35***
⫺.08***
.06***
.26*
1.48*
⫺.26**
.16
.02
.03
⫺.17
.01
.25
1.07
⫺.02
.14
⫺.23*
⫺.16*
⫺.03**
⫺.20*
⫺.10
⫺.001
.84***
2.38**
⫺.66***
.46***
.16
1.17*
⫺.18*
.11
.09***
.31
⫺.07***
.06
.26*
1.48**
⫺.26**
.16
.002
⫺.05
⫺.17
⫺.003
.22
.93
⫺.001
.14
⫺.21
⫺.17*
.03
⫺.20*
⫺.09
.002
Note. All data except job performance were provided by nurses (Nnurse ⫽ 109 –232). Job
performance data were provided by supervisors (Nsupervisor ⫽ 24). Bootstrap sample size ⫽
5,000. IV ⫽ Independent Variable; M ⫽ Mediator; DV ⫽ Dependent Variable.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
effects of abusive supervision through anxiety onto exhaustion (.07, .46),
physical symptoms (.27, 2.19), job satisfaction (⫺.36, ⫺.06), and job performance rated by supervisors (⫺.19, ⫺.02), whereas partial mediation was
indicated for the effects of abusive supervision through anxiety onto intention
to quit (.04, .27). Hypothesis 1a was fully supported. Results for hypothesis
1b were such that full mediation effects were indicated for the effects of
abusive supervision through depression onto exhaustion (.08, .48) and job
satisfaction (⫺.37, ⫺.07), while partial mediation was indicated for the
effects of abusive supervision through depression onto intention to quit (.03,
.25). Hypothesis 1b was partially supported.
Hypotheses 2a and 2b stated that ALS would be related to employee
outcomes (i.e., exhaustion, physical symptoms, job satisfaction, intention to
quit, and supervisor-rated job performance) through the mediating processes
of anxiety and depression. As can be seen in Table 3, results for Hypothesis
2a were such that full mediation was indicated for the effects of ALS through
anxiety onto exhaustion (.04, .26) and intention to quit (.02, .17), whereas
partial mediation was indicated for the effects of ALS through anxiety onto
physical symptoms (.02, 1.07), job satisfaction (⫺.21, ⫺.03), and job performance rated by supervisors (⫺.12, ⫺.01). Hypothesis 2a was fully supported. Results for Hypothesis 2b were such that full mediation was indicated
for the effects of ALS through depression onto exhaustion (.01, .23), whereas
INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES
13
partial mediation was indicated for the effects of ALS through depression
onto job satisfaction (⫺.17, ⫺.001). Hypothesis 2b was partially supported.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Discussion
The primary aim of the present study was to determine whether the
influence of ineffective leadership on employees was mediated by depression
and anxiety. Abusive supervision was significantly related to anxiety, depression, physical symptoms, job dissatisfaction, and intention to quit. Authoritarian leadership style was significantly related to anxiety, depression,
exhaustion, physical symptoms, job satisfaction, and supervisor-rated job
performance. The magnitude of the correlation coefficients was similar to the
ones reported in previous studies (e.g., Aryee et al., 2007; Tepper, 2000).
We found that anxiety significantly mediated both abusive supervision
and ALS in relation to exhaustion, physical symptoms, job dissatisfaction,
intention to quit, and poor job performance rated by supervisors. Depression
significantly mediated abusive supervision in relation to exhaustion, job
dissatisfaction, and turnover intentions; depression also significantly mediated ALS in relation to exhaustion and job dissatisfaction.
This examination of mediating variables and outcome variables showed
evidence of the similarities between abusive supervision and ALS. Both
leadership styles were seen to exhibit controlling behaviors, and reflected and
enforced a high power imbalance between supervisors and subordinates. A
closer examination of these results yielded evidence that these two leadership
styles were distinct but related (r ⫽ .42, p ⬍ .01). The moderate intercorrelation and confirmatory factor analysis supporting the four-factor model
rather than the collapsed three-factor model provided evidence of the distinction.
Although the detrimental effect of abusive supervision has been known,
similar effects from ALS have seldom been written of. Although not defined
in a negative way, our study showed that ALS related to more negative
employee outcomes. Although the directions of the relationships between
abusive supervision and ALS to outcome measures through the mediating
emotions were consistent, the magnitudes were not. Within our mediation
model, the path from abusive supervision to anxiety was r ⫽ .22 and r ⫽ .26
to depression, whereas these paths are r ⫽ .14 for ALS to anxiety and r ⫽
.12 for ALS to depression. This may suggest that while individuals are
emotionally impacted by the dogmatic and punitive leadership style, the more
personal nature of abusive supervision takes a larger emotional toll on
employees.
One common feature shared by abusive supervision and ALS is that they
present sustained controlling behaviors enacted by supervisors. Employees
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
14
PYC, MELTZER, AND LIU
may perceive both types of leadership as invasive to their need for job
autonomy. Abusive supervision could present a threat to employees’ job
autonomy by derogating their job performance. ALS could threaten employees’ job autonomy by closely monitoring their work behaviors. A related
construct is conflict with one’s supervisor, which was found to be negatively
related to employees’ job autonomy (Liu, Liu, Spector, & Shi, 2011). Liu et
al. (2011) found that half of supervisor conflict was attributable to lack of job
control experienced by employees. In addition, sustaining control may soften
supervisor– employee relationships, as job autonomy buffered supervisor
conflict–job strain relationships (Liu et al., 2011). Taken together, we suspect
that the amount of control granted by a certain type of leadership may be
critical to employees’ well-being and outcomes (e.g., Liu et al., 2013).
Improving supervisor-subordinate relationships may rely on how much control the supervisor is willing and able to provide employees.
A second feature shared by abusive supervision and ALS is that both
shape the image of a supervisor, who could be the representative agent of an
organization (e.g., Karriker & Williams, 2009). Both abusive supervision and
ALS reflect a lack of mutual respect, which employees could perceive as
violations of organizational justice. Tepper (2000) found that abusive supervision was negatively related to distributive justice, procedural justice, and
interactional justice. Because supervisors represent an organization’s management, the ineffective leadership styles or behaviors could be antecedents
of organizational injustice, which then relate to employees’ job strains and
negative outcomes.
The third common feature shared by abusive supervision and ALS is that
they are both top-down behaviors. Because of the imbalanced power between
a supervisor and an employee, these top-down behaviors may exacerbate the
hierarchy between the two parties. Subordinates may have few options when
interacting with leaders who use abusive or authoritarian styles. Past research
has shown that leadership styles affect employees’ emotional level (George,
2000). Lyons and Schneider (2009) found that participants in the transactional-management by exception condition showed greater increases in negative affect. Furthermore, the hierarchical disparity between supervisors and
employees may be especially significant in terms of eliciting negative emotions that are directed internally, such as anxiety and depression. These
negative emotions will play a significant role in the relationships of abusive
supervision or ALS on one hand and negative outcomes of employees on the
other. Without being able to vent negative emotions toward the powerful
supervisor, the subordinates are more likely to develop long-term symptoms,
such as burnout or physical disease. To organizations, these internal negative
emotions could be determining factors predictive of job dissatisfaction,
intention to quit, and poor job performance.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES
15
The results of the current study suggest that there may be a group of
leadership styles that are detrimental to employees’ health and well-being.
These leadership styles share some common features, such as being controlling, having a lack of mutual respect, or enforcing top-down management.
This study may provide some insights to the inconsistent findings regarding
the JDC model (Karasek, 1979; Van Der Doef & Maes, 1999). For instance,
when employees do not have control from their supervisors, they are especially anxious and depressed. So in future examinations of JDC model, we
should examine the source of control or the lack thereof. The results from the
present study indicate that a supervisor’s election to implement abusive or
authoritarian techniques in the management of his or her subordinates is
likely to increase the anxiety and depression experienced by those subordinates, which will in turn result in job strains and negative work outcomes.
As we have noted, there are three common features of these two leadership styles and future research may benefit from further investigating the
dissimilarities between these two leadership styles. The current research
views ineffective leadership styles holistically, revealing patterns of similarities. Further investigation, could identify unique aspects of these leadership
styles that may be responsible for the resultant strains and outcomes. Future
studies could also benefit from using longitudinal designs to examine the mediating effect of negative emotions. Researchers can closely examine the temporal
relationships between ineffective leadership, employees’ negative emotions, and
employees’ negative attitudes, as well as the temporal relationships between
employees’ negative emotions, their work attitude, and future work behaviors,
such as job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, or counterproductive work behaviors.
It is worth mentioning that although the current dataset may appear to be
nested in teams under each supervisor, the reality of the situation was that the
supervisors and nurses had largely one-on-one relationships with each other
rather than team-based ones. Because each nurse worked individually and
reported into the supervisor remotely, it was expected that the consistency of
opinion regarding the supervisor’s leadership style would be very low.
One-way random intraclass correlations (ICC[1]; McGraw & Wong, 1996)
were used to assess the consistency in nurses’ ratings of the supervisor’s
abusive supervision and authoritarian leadership style. The resulting ICC(1)’s
were in the low range for both abusive supervision (ICC[1] ⬎ .01) and ALS
(ICC[1] ⫽ .18; Cicchetti, 1994), indicating these leadership variables were
not perceived consistently across nurses. Nesting the data in teams was
therefore deemed to be unnecessary for use in the hypothesis tests of the
present study. Nonetheless, future studies should obtain data from more
teams, and it would be interesting to examine abusive supervision and ALS
at the team level.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
16
PYC, MELTZER, AND LIU
The current research has some limitations. There may be issues associated with the specific sample used and its unique qualities. For example, the
nurses report to an office only twice a month and are otherwise isolated from
coworkers and supervisors. Additionally, the nature of their job requires
adherence to strict guidelines. These factors will limit the generalization of
results both within and outside of the health care industry. Future studies
should investigate more types of jobs and different types of industries to
better generalize these research conclusions. It would also be interesting to
use samples from more traditional workplace settings where supervisors and
subordinates interact in a face-to-face manner with each other and within
teams on a daily basis.
Moreover, the current study relied mainly on a self-report cross-sectional
sample. Because of the use of this design, no causal conclusions can be made,
and it is possible that correlations among variables may be due to the mindset
of the participant at the time of data collection. That said, we obtained a job
performance measure from supervisors. The significant results of performance indicated that the common method bias was not likely. Nonetheless,
it is beneficial in future research to measure ineffective supervision and
subordinate outcomes in a more objective manner. For example, obtaining
ratings from coworkers or others in the workplace may be an additional
method of acquiring a more objective measure of ineffective leadership. This
addition may help any common method variance that is operating due to
having a single rater respond to most items on a survey at one time point.
Also, future studies should use a longitudinal design or an experimental
design to examine the causal relationships between ineffective leadership,
employee outcomes, and the mediating effect of negative emotions on these
relationships.
Finally, we used a single item to measure intention to quit. It is more
preferable to use a multi-item measure. However, single-item measures have
showed convergent validity with multi-item measures (e.g., Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997; West, Dyrbye, Satele, Sloan, & Shanafelt, 2012). This
single-measure of intention to quit has demonstrated predictive validities
(e.g., Spector et al., 1988; Yang, Liu, Nauta, Caughlin, & Spector, 2016). In
our study, we found that the single-item measure of intention to quit significantly related to abusive supervision, anxiety, depression, exhaustion, physical symptom, and job satisfaction (see Table 1). These results are consistent
with the nomological network of turnover intentions. Therefore, we proceeded with this measure of turnover intentions. Nevertheless, future studies
may benefit from attempting to replicate these research findings using a
multi-item measure intention to quit.
Bearing those limitations in mind, there are several practical implications
that organizations can action on. In regards to supervisors, practitioners
should reinforce their supervisor-training efforts with education on manage-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES
17
ment styles. This should include training supervisors to resist relying too
heavily on an authoritarian style, while also refraining from abuse. Managers
need to be aware of how their management styles can relate to employeebased outcomes. This research also reinforces the importance of mental
health education for both supervisors and subordinates. That is, if anxiety and
depression can be better understood then so will the negative effects of
abusive supervision and authoritarian leadership. Mental health garners a lot
of attention outside of the workplace, often in doctor/patient terms, but it may
be beneficial to educate managers and employees on recognizing and helping
to address possible issues in themselves and their coworkers.
Organizations can use this research to help educate and create awareness
for subordinates around workplace mistreatment. Having a common language to discuss mistreatment, along with judicious and well-communicated
policies around how workplace misconduct is handled within the organization can benefit employees. Having the common language to talk about this
topic is important since employees are at an inherent disadvantage due to the
power-differential that exists between them and their supervisor within the
workplace. This will lead to an environment in which subordinates feel
comfortable identifying and documenting supervisor mistreatment, which is
one of the first steps in putting a stop to abusive supervision.
The case presented in this study against the reliance on abusive or
authoritarian leadership styles is two-pronged. Performance-conscious managers and organizations should attempt to avoid these ineffective leadership
styles because of their negative effect on organizational outcomes. Additionally, managers and organizations that are concerned with the emotional
well-being of employees should avoid these ineffective styles due to their
negative effect on emotions and other personal outcomes. These arguments
and the supporting evidence presented in this and similar studies should be
enough to reduce the incidence of these behaviors in the workplace; however,
it would be foolish to imagine this research will end the use of these
ineffective leadership styles. Nonetheless, we feel an ethical duty to provide
this evidence in the case against the use of these leadership styles in the hope
that their impact on employees will be diminished over time.
References
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of
abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
191–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191
Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 126 –140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.1997.tb00124.x
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
18
PYC, MELTZER, AND LIU
Begley, T. M., & Czajka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of commitment
on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational change. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 552–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.552
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Revenge in organization: The good, the bad, and the ugly.
In R. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Non-violent dysfunctional behavior (pp. 49 – 67). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational
Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job
demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences (HEW Publ. No.
(NIOSH) 75–160). U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare.
Cheng, B.-S., Chou, L.-F., Wu, T.-Y., Huang, M.-P., & Farh, J.-L. (2004). Paternalistic
leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 89 –117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-839X.2004.00137.x
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and
standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284 –
290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
De Witte, H., Verhofstadt, E., & Omey, E. (2007). Testing Karasek’s learning and strain
hypotheses on young workers in their first job. Work and Stress, 21, 131–141. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1080/02678370701405866
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069350
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of
social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689 –723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033295X.99.4.689
French, J. R. P., Jr. & Kahn, R. L. (1962). Work, health and satisfaction. Journal of Social
Issues, 18, 1– 47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1962.tb00415.x
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human
Relations, 53, 1027–1041. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726700538001
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 60, 159 –170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076546
Haggard, D. L., Robert, C., & Rose, A. J. (2011). Co-rumination in the workplace: Adjustment
trade-offs for men and women who engage in excessive discussions of workplace
problems. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 27– 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10869-010-9169-2
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision
as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship.
The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.007
Hart, P. M., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Occupational stress: Toward a more integrated framework.
In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 93–114). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1985). Construction and validation of a measure of authoritarian personality. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 49, 545–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4905_17
Hershcovis, M. (2011). ‘Incivility, social undermining, bullying . . . oh my!’: A call to reconcile
constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32,
499 –519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.689
Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2009). Abusive supervision in
advising relationships: Investigating the role of social support. Applied Psychology, 58,
233–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00330.x
Karasek, R. A. J. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for
job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
2392498
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
INEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES
19
Karriker, J. H., & Williams, M. L. (2009). Organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behavior: A mediated multifoci model? Journal of Management, 35, 112–135. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/0149206307309265
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Le Roy, J., Bastounis, M., & Minibas-Poussard, J. (2012). Interactional Justice and Counterproductive Work Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Negative Emotions. Social Behavior
and Personality: An International Journal, 40, 1341–1355. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp
.2012.40.8.1341
Liu, C., Liu, Y., Spector, P. E., & Shi, L. (2011). The interaction of job autonomy and conflict
with supervisor in China and the United States: A qualitative and quantitative comparison.
International Journal of Stress Management, 18, 222–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0024752
Liu, C., Yang, L.-Q., & Nauta, M. M. (2013). Examining the mediating effect of supervisor
conflict on procedural injustice-job strain relations: The function of power distance.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 64 –74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0030889
Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2009). The effects of leadership style on stress outcomes. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 737–748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.010
Maertz, C. P., Jr., & Campion, M. A. (1998). 25 years of voluntary turnover research: A review
and critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial
and organizational psychology: 1998 (pp. 49 – 81). West Sussex, England: Wiley.
Mark, G., & Smith, A. P. (2012). Effects of occupational stress, job characteristics, coping, and
attributional style on the mental health and job satisfaction of university employees.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 25, 63–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.548088
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 120–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1888
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 2, 99 –113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205
Maslach, C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1993). Historical and conceptual development of burnout. In
W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 1–16). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients.
Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and
the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1159 –1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects
in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36,
717–731. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Rosenbaum, L. L., & Rosenbaum, W. B. (1971). Morale and productivity consequences of
group leadership style, stress, and type of task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55,
343–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0031458
Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression
in the U.S. workforce: Findings for a national study. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J.
Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47– 89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976947.n4
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning
autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/001872678603901104
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective, health,
and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 11–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.1.11
Spector, P. E., & Goh, A. (2001). The role of emotions in the occupational stress process. In
P. L. Perrewe= & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being:
Vol. 1. Exploring theoretical mechanisms and perspectives (pp. 195–232). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3555(01)01013-7
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
20
PYC, MELTZER, AND LIU
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors
and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 3, 356 –367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.356
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 178 –190. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556375
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive
supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 156 –167. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.004
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural Injustice, Victim
Precipitation, and Abusive Supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationships between
coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 455–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.455
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions
of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263085
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward
maintenance communication, and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1169 –1180. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159918
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style
moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An
uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 79 –92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.06.003
Van Der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control(-support) model and psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress, 13,
87–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026783799296084
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are
single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247
West, C. P., Dyrbye, L. N., Satele, D. V., Sloan, J. A., & Shanafelt, T. D. (2012). Concurrent
validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout
assessment. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27, 1445–1452. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s11606-012-2015-7
Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,
601– 617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305
Yang, L., Liu, C., Nauta, M. M., Caughlin, D. E., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Be mindful of what
you impose on your colleagues: Implications of social burden for burdenees’ well-being,
attitudes, and counterproductive work behavior. Stress and Health, 32, 70 – 83.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068 –1076.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068
Received November 13, 2015
Revision received February 2, 2016
Accepted March 7, 2016 䡲
View publication stats