Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees' workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis

By Bennett J. Tepper, J. Carr, Denise M. Breaux, S. Geider, Changya Hu, Wei Hua. 2009

630 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We conducted a two-study examination of relationships between abusive supervision and subordinates' workplace deviance. Consistent with predictions derived from power/dependence theory, the results of a cross-sectional study with employees from three organizations suggest that abusive supervision is more strongly associated with subordinates' organization deviance and supervisor-directed deviance when subordinates' intention to quit is higher. The results also support the prediction that when intention to quit is higher, abusive supervision is more strongly associated with supervisor-directed deviance than with organization-directed deviance. These results were replicated in a second study, a two-wave investigation of people employed in a variety of industries and occupations.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2a35b6ef5c050c1a0fc30cc32a5889030e4d3acc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance (2012, background): “When supervisors, who represent agents of the organization, treat them poorly, employees may feel that they are not valued and respected by their organizations and therefore engage in organizational deviance to get even (Tepper et al., 2009; Thau et al., 2009).”
Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies (2017, result): “In support of this view, Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) found that many employees engaged in deviance as a response to abusive supervisors (similar to the findings of Schaubhut, Adams, & Jex, 2004; Tepper et al., 2009).”
The Dark Side of Leadership: A Three-Level Investigation of the Cascading Effect of Abusive Supervision on Employee Creativity (2012, background): “Consequently, the influence on creativity of negative leader behaviors such as abusive supervision, which has been found to occur frequently in organizational contexts (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2009 ), has generally been left unexplored.”
Defeating the Toxic Boss: The Nature of Toxic Leadership and the Role of Followers (2020, background): “Dark leadership styles seem to be prevalent in contemporary organizations, resulting in a host of negative outcomes such as poor individual performance (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007; Tepper, 2000), workplace deviance (Krasikova et al., 2013; Tepper et al., 2009), and unethical work behaviors (Ha”
Workplace bullying and employee silence (2017, background): “…(e.g. job dissatisfaction, increased intention to quit; Giorgi et al., 2015; Glasø et al., 2011; Glambek et al., 2014; Houshmand et al., 2012; Tepper et al., 2009); and by engaging in revenge and retaliatory behaviors (e.g. increased workplace deviance and neglect; Kwan et al., 2016;…”
A Tale of Two Sample Sources: Do Results from Online Panel Data and Conventional Data Converge? (2018, neutral): “…2014 N MTurk 208 L 0.93 OC 0.86 0.21 Salvaggio 2014 N MTurk 208 L 0.93 TOI 0.87 − 0.3 Schultz 2009 N StudyResponse 723 NA 0.9 JS 0.85 − 0.2 Schultz 2009 N StudyResponse 723 PA 0.92 JS 0.85 0.25 Scott & Zweig 2008 N StudyResponse 312 NA 0.9 JS 0.9 − 0.25 Shao 2010 N StudyResponse 162…”
Leaders' responses to creative deviance: Differential effects on subsequent creative deviance and creative performance (2016, background): “Manipulation is experienced by employees as a form of abusive supervision (Tepper et al., 2009) and makes employees feel that, even if they manage to create a winning creative product, the leader will likely claim the glory for it (Liu et al., 2012).”
Abusive Supervision and Employee Deviance: A Multifoci Justice Perspective (2017, positive): “Thus, employees who experience abusive supervision can directly express their aggression to the supervisor by engaging in deviant behaviors, even though the behaviors may result in lost rewards, punishment, or counter-retaliation (Aquino et al. 2006; Tepper et al. 2009).”
To act out, to withdraw, or to constructively resist? Employee reactions to supervisor abuse of customers and the moderating role of employee moral identity (2013, background): “often examined as a form of retaliation (e.g. Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2009; Thau and Mitchell, 2010), our results suggest that employees high in moral identity are less inclined to engage in organizational deviance as a way of getting back at supervisors for abusing customers.”