Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 153, Issue 3, pp 659–673 | Cite as

Victim and Culprit? The Effects of Entitlement and Felt Accountability on Perceptions of Abusive Supervision and Perpetration of Workplace Bullying

  • Jeremy D. MackeyEmail author
  • Jeremy R. Brees
  • Charn P. McAllister
  • Michelle L. Zorn
  • Mark J. Martinko
  • Paul Harvey
Original Paper


Although workplace bullying is common and has universally harmful effects on employees’ outcomes, little is known about workplace bullies. To address this gap in knowledge, we draw from the tenets of social exchange and displaced aggression theories in order to develop and test a model of workplace bullying that incorporates the effects of employees’ individual differences (i.e., entitlement), perceptions of their work environments (i.e., felt accountability), and perceptions of supervisory treatment (i.e., perceptions of abusive supervision) on their tendencies to bully coworkers. The results of mediated moderation analyses that examine responses from two samples of working adults (n Sample 1 = 396; n Sample 2 = 123) support our hypotheses. Specifically, we find evidence of an indirect relationship between entitlement and coworker bullying through perceptions of abusive supervision that is stronger for employees who report lower levels of felt accountability than employees who report higher levels of felt accountability. This study makes important theoretical and practical contributions to abusive supervision research, bullying research, and organizational efforts to promote ethical work environments devoid of interpersonal mistreatment by providing novel insight into how employees’ entitlement and felt accountability combine to influence their tendencies to perceive themselves as victims of abusive supervision and culprits of coworker bullying.


Bullying Abusive supervision Entitlement Accountability Social exchange Displaced aggression 



This study was funded by the study authors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

All of the study authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aguinis, H., & Edwards, J. R. (2014). Methodological wishes for the next decade and how to make wishes come true. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 143–174.Google Scholar
  3. Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 569–595.Google Scholar
  4. Aiken, L., & West, D. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Ammeter, A. P., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., & Goka, H. (2004). A social relationship conceptualization of trust and accountability organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 47–65.Google Scholar
  6. Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSSGoogle Scholar
  7. Avey, J. B., Wu, K., & Holley, E. (2015). The influence of abusive supervision and job embeddedness on citizenship and deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 721–731.Google Scholar
  8. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs: Two extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 125–140.Google Scholar
  9. Baillien, E., Camps, J., Van den Broeck, A., Stouten, J., Godderis, L., Sercu, M., et al. (2016). An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind: Conflict escalation into workplace bullying and the role of distributive conflict behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 415–429.Google Scholar
  10. Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78–102.Google Scholar
  11. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.Google Scholar
  12. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.Google Scholar
  13. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future directions in scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Management, 39(1), 48–75.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.Google Scholar
  19. Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315–318.Google Scholar
  20. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.Google Scholar
  21. Demerouti, E., & Rispens, S. (2014). Improving the image of student-recruited samples: A commentary. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 34–41.Google Scholar
  22. Desimone, J. A., Harms, P. D., & Desimone, A. J. (2015). Best practice recommendations for data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 171–181.Google Scholar
  23. Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  25. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised. Work and Stress, 23(1), 24–44.Google Scholar
  26. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3–30). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  27. Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5, 185–201.Google Scholar
  28. Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., et al. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085–1103.Google Scholar
  29. Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305–323.Google Scholar
  30. Ferris, G. R., Mitchell, T. R., Canavan, P. J., Frink, D. D., & Hopper, H. (1995). Accountability in human resource systems. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum (Eds.), Handbook of human resource management (pp. 175–196). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.Google Scholar
  33. Frink, D. D., Hall, A. T., Perryman, A. A., Ranft, A. L., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., et al. (2008). Meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 27, pp. 177–245). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  34. George, J. M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: Issues and evidence. Journal of Management, 18(2), 185–213.Google Scholar
  35. Giorgi, G., Leon-Perez, J. M., & Arenas, A. (2015). Are bullying behaviors tolerated in some cultures? Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between workplace bullying and job satisfaction among Italian workers. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 227–237.Google Scholar
  36. Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, (2015). An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi: 10.1002/job.2052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G. (2003). Accountability in human resources management. In C. R. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), New directions in human resource management (pp. 29–63). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Harvey, P., Harris, K. J., Gillis, W. E., & Martinko, M. J. (2014). Abusive supervision and the entitled employee. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 204–217.Google Scholar
  39. Harvey, P., & Martinko, M. J. (2009). An empirical examination of the role of attributions in psychological entitlement and its outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 459–476.Google Scholar
  40. Harvey, M., Treadway, D., Heames, J., & Duke, A. (2009). Bullying in the 21st century global organization: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 27–40.Google Scholar
  41. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hochwarter, W. (2014). On the merits of student-recruited sampling: Opinions a decade in the making. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 27–33.Google Scholar
  43. Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling, concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
  45. Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 744–761.Google Scholar
  46. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807.Google Scholar
  47. LaVan, H., & Martin, W. M. (2008). Bullying in the U.S. workplace: Normative and process-oriented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 147–165.Google Scholar
  48. Levine, D. P. (2005). The corrupt organization. Human Relations, 58(6), 723–740.Google Scholar
  49. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173.Google Scholar
  50. Lord, V. B. (1998). Characteristics of violence in state government. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(4), 489–503.Google Scholar
  51. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 837–862.Google Scholar
  52. Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2015). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206315573997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, W. C., Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (2000). Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 670–689.Google Scholar
  54. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S120–S137.Google Scholar
  55. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Mackey, J. D. (2014). Conceptual and empirical confounds in the organizational sciences: An explication and discussion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(8), 1052–1063.Google Scholar
  56. Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2011). The relationship between supervisor personality, supervisors’ perceived stress and workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 637–651.Google Scholar
  57. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.Google Scholar
  58. Miller, N., Pederson, W. C., Earleywine, M., & Pollock, V. E. (2003). A theoretical model of triggered displaced aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 75–97.Google Scholar
  59. Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2012). Employees’ behavioral reactions to supervisor aggression: An examination of individual and situational factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1148–1170.Google Scholar
  60. Montgomery, D., Peck, E., & Vining, G. (2001). Introduction to linear regression analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Namie, G. (2014). 2014 WBI U.S. workplace bullying survey. Retrieved from
  62. Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2009). U.S. workplace bullying: Some basic considerations and consultation interventions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 202–219.Google Scholar
  63. Naumann, S. E., Minsky, B. D., & Strurman, M. C. (2002). The use of the concept “entitlement” in management literature: A historical review, synthesis, and discussion of compensation policy implications. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 145–166.Google Scholar
  64. Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 26(4), 309–332.Google Scholar
  65. Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 955–979.Google Scholar
  66. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  67. O’Leary-Kelly, A., Rosen, C. C., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2016). Who is deserving and who decides: Entitlement as a work-situated phenomenon. Academy of Management Review. doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Parzefall, M.-R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63(6), 761–780.Google Scholar
  69. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
  70. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.Google Scholar
  71. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.Google Scholar
  72. Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890–902.Google Scholar
  73. Robinson, S. (2008). Dysfunctional workplace behavior. In J. Barling & C. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 141–159). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  74. Rogers, W. M., & Schmitt, N. (2004). Parameter recovery and model fit using multidimensional composites: A comparison of four empirical parceling algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(3), 379–412.Google Scholar
  75. Rosenthal, S., & Pittinsky, T. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 617–633.Google Scholar
  76. Ryan, T. P. (1997). Modern regression methods. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  77. Samnani, A.-K. (2013). The early stages of workplace bullying and how it becomes prolonged: The role of culture in predicting target responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(1), 119–132.Google Scholar
  78. Samnani, A. K., & Singh, P. (2015). Workplace bullying: Considering the interaction between individual and work environment. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2653-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schwab, D. P. (1999). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  80. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476.Google Scholar
  81. Snow, J. N., Kern, R. M., & Curlette, W. L. (2001). Identifying personality traits associated with attrition in systematic training for effective parenting groups. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 9, 102–108.Google Scholar
  82. Sperry, L. (2009). Mobbing and bullying: The influence of individual, work group, and organizational dynamics on abusive workplace behavior. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 190–201.Google Scholar
  83. Stone-Romero, E., & Liakhovitski, D. (2002). Strategies for detecting moderator variables: A review of theory and research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 333–372.Google Scholar
  84. Stouten, J., Baillien, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., De Witte, H., & Euwema, M. (2010). Discouraging bullying: The role of ethical leadership and its effects on the work environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 17–27.Google Scholar
  85. Sutton, R. I. (2007). The no asshole rule: Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn’t. New York: Warner Business Books.Google Scholar
  86. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.Google Scholar
  87. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289.Google Scholar
  88. Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 101–109.Google Scholar
  89. Wang, G., Harms, P. D., & Mackey, J. D. (2015). Does it take two to tangle? Subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 487–503.Google Scholar
  90. Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). Structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 543–604.Google Scholar
  91. Wright, T. A., & Sweeney, D. A. (2016). The call for an increased role of replication, extension, and mixed-methods study designs in organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(3), 480–486.Google Scholar
  92. Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. C. (2015). Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2657-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy D. Mackey
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeremy R. Brees
    • 2
  • Charn P. McAllister
    • 3
  • Michelle L. Zorn
    • 4
  • Mark J. Martinko
    • 5
  • Paul Harvey
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Management, Raymond J. Harbert College of BusinessAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management, Kania School of ManagementUniversity of ScrantonScrantonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management, College of BusinessFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  4. 4.Department of Management, Raymond J. Harbert College of BusinessAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  5. 5.School of Business and IndustryFlorida A&M UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  6. 6.Department of Management, Whittemore School of Business and EconomicsUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations