Their Pain, Our Pleasure: How and When Peer Abusive Supervision Leads to Third Parties’ Schadenfreude and Work Engagement
Abusive supervision negatively affects its direct victims. However, recent studies have begun to explore how abusive supervision affects third parties (peer abusive supervision). We use the emotion-based process model of schadenfreude as a basis to suggest that third parties will experience schadenfreude and increase their work engagement as a response to peer abusive supervision (PAS). Furthermore, we suggest that the context of competitive goal interdependence facilitates the indirect relationship between PAS and third parties’ work engagement on schadenfreude. We use a mixed-method approach to test our hypotheses. Data from an experimental study conducted by facial expression analysis technology (Study 1, a 2 × 2 design, N = 104) and a multi‐wave field study (Study 2, N = 229) generally support our hypotheses. Overall, our study extends PAS literature and meaningfully informs practitioners who aim to promote ethical workplace environments.
KeywordsAbusive supervision Peer abusive supervision Schadenfreude Goal interdependence Work engagement
This study was funded by grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.71672139) and (Grant No.71932007), and was sponsored by Humanities and Social Science Talent Plan of Shaanxi University.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. Handbook of social cognition, 1, 1–40.Google Scholar
- Habetinova, L., & Noussair, C. (2015). Charitable Giving, Emotions, and the Default Effect. (CentER Discussion Paper; Vol. 2015–043). Tilburg: Department of Economics.Google Scholar
- Harman, H. H. (1960). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Jiang, W., Gu, Q., & Tang, T. L.-P. (2017). Do victims of supervisor bullying suffer from poor creativity? Social cognitive and social comparison perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 157, 884–885.Google Scholar
- John, W. S. (2004). Rammer jammer yellow hammer: A journey into the heart of fan mania. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
- Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
- Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, 12, 10–24.Google Scholar
- Skarlicki, D. P., O’Reilly, J., & Kulik, C. T. (2015). The third party perspective of (in)justice. In R. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 235–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.Google Scholar
- Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: Atheoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequencesof affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organization behavior: anannual series of analytical essays and critical reviews. Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar