When Core Self-Evaluations Influence Employees’ Deviant Reactions to Abusive Supervision: The Moderating Role of Cognitive Ability

  • Donald H. Kluemper
  • Kevin W. Mossholder
  • Dan Ispas
  • Mark N. Bing
  • Dragos Iliescu
  • Alexandra Ilie
Original Paper
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Viewing workplace deviance within a victim precipitation framework, we explore how abusive supervisors target subordinates low in core self-evaluations (CSE) to explain when such employees respond by engaging in workplace deviance. We theorize that employees who are lower in CSE receive more abusive supervision, which generates subsequent harmful reactions toward supervisors, peers, and the organization. This occurs primarily when employees lack sufficient cognitive resources in dealing with supervisor abuse. We test, replicate, and extend our theoretical model in three empirical studies. Results demonstrate that lower employee CSE drew more abusive supervision and led low-CSE employees to exhibit workplace deviance. This abusive supervision mediation effect was stronger for employees with comparatively lower cognitive ability levels. The findings are discussed with regard to theoretical and ethical issues in confronting employee abuse.

Keywords

Core self-evaluations Abusive supervision Deviance Cognitive ability Moderated mediation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We lament the passing of Mark Bing, our friend and colleague. We wish to acknowledge Shannon G. Taylor for his assistance with this manuscript, Maureen L. Ambrose and James P. Burton for comments made on earlier versions of this manuscript, and Wonderlic Inc. for providing gratis copies of their measure of cognitive ability.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict 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 Declaration Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. This article does not contain any studies performed using animals.

References

  1. Aiken, S. L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.Google Scholar
  4. Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26, 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1023–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aryee, S., Sun, L.-Y., Chen, Z. X. G., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ashforth, B. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1997). The ubiquity and potency of labelling in organizations. Organization Science, 8, 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett, R., & Robinson, S. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, S5–S18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carpenter, N. C., Rangel, B., Jeon, G., & Cottrell, J. (2017). Are supervisors and coworkers likely to witness employee counterproductive work behavior? An investigation of observability and self-observer convergence. Personnel Psychology, 70, 843–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chang, C.-H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38, 81–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen, G. (2012). Evaluating the core: Critical assessment of core self-evaluations theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Connelly, B. S., & Hülsheger, U. R. (2012). A narrower scope or a clearer lens for personality? Examining sources of observers’ advantages over self-reports for predicting performance. Journal of Personality, 80, 603–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  21. Coyne, I., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2000). Predicting workplace victim status from personality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9, 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Davis, R. D., & Rostow, C. D. (2007). Cognitive ability predicts objectively measured counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 616–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Lian, H., & Keeping, L. M. (2009). When does self-esteem relate to deviant behavior? The role of contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1345–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2010). Instrumental counterproductive work behavior and the theory of planned behavior: A “cold cognitive” approach to complement “hot affective” theories of CWB. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), The “dark” side of management (pp. 93–114). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  31. Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Agreement among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 656–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 486–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grant, A. M. (2013). Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: The role of emotion regulation in employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1703–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Henle, C. A., & Gross, M. A. (2014). What have I done to deserve this? Effects of employee personality and emotion on abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 461–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2007). Towards a relational model of workplace aggression. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 268–284). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Hulin, C. L. (1987). A psychometric theory of evaluations of item and scale translations: Fidelity across languages. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ilie, A., Penney, L., Ispas, D., & Iliescu, D. (2012). The role of trait anger in the stressor-CWB relationship: Convergent findings from multiple samples and methodologies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61, 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Iliescu, D., & Livinţi, R. (2008). Romanian manual for GAMA—General ability measure for adults. Cluj-Napoca: Odiseea.Google Scholar
  42. International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.intestcom.org/. Accessed 7 Feb 2018.
  43. Ispas, D., Iliescu, D., Ilie, A., & Johnson, R. E. (2010). Examining the criterion related validity of the general mental ability measure for adults: A two sample investigation. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18, 224–227.Google Scholar
  44. Ispas, D., Iliescu, D., Ilie, A., & Johnson, R. E. (2014). Exploring the cross-cultural generalizability of the five factor model of personality: The Romanian NEO PI-R. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 1074–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions—Towards a new psychology of trauma. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  46. Joo, B.-K., Jeung, C.-W., & Yoon, H. J. (2010). Investigating the influences of core self-evaluations, job autonomy, and intrinsic motivation on in-role job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits-self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Dimotakis, N. (2010). Are health and happiness the product of wisdom? The relationship of general mental ability to educational and occupational attainment, health, and well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 454–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2011). Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organizational context. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kamer, B., & Annen, H. (2010). The role of core self-evaluations in predicting performance appraisal reactions. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 21–48). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Tang, R. L. (2012). Sins of the parents: Self-control as a buffer between supervisors’ previous experience of family undermining and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervision. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 869–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kluemper, D. H., DeGroot, T., & Choi, S. (2013). Emotion management ability: Predicting task performance, citizenship, and deviance. Journal of Management, 39, 878–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kluemper, D. H., McLarty, B., & Bing, M. N. (2015). Acquaintance ratings of the big five personality traits: Incremental validity beyond and interactive effects with self-reports in the prediction of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (edited by Dorwin Cartwright.). Oxford: Harpers.Google Scholar
  59. Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012a). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012b). 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. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mackey, J. D., Brees, J. R., McAllister, C. P., Zorn, M., Martinko, M. J., & Harvey, P. (2016). Victim and culprit? The effects of entitlement and felt accountability on perceptions of abusive supervision and perpetration of workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3348-7.Google Scholar
  64. Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43, 1940–1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S120–S137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McRae, K. (2016). Cognitive emotion regulation: A review of theory and scientific findings. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Milam, A. C., Spitzmueller, C., & Penney, L. M. (2009). Investigating individual differences among targets of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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, 1148–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Morgan, A. B., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2000). A meta-analytic review of the relation between antisocial behavior and neuropsychological measures of executive function. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. (2011). Human resource systems and helping in organizations: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 36, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Naglieri, J. A., & Bardos, A. N. (1997). General ability measure for adults. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.Google Scholar
  77. Neves, P. (2014). Taking it out on survivors: Submissive employees, downsizing, and abusive supervision. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 507–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  79. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  80. Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7–18.Google Scholar
  81. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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, 65, 539–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2010). The cost of bad behavior. Organizational Dynamics, 39, 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rode, J. C., Judge, T. A., & Sun, J. M. (2012). Incremental validity of core self-evaluations in the presence of other self-concept traits: An investigation of applied psychology criteria in the United States and China. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19, 326–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schinkel, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Anderson, N. (2004). The impact of selection encounters on applicants: An experimental study into feedback effects after a negative selection decision. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 162–173.Google Scholar
  89. Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2009). The popularity contest at work: Who wins, why, and what do they receive? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sears, G., & Holmvall, C. (2010). The joint influence of supervisor and subordinate emotional intelligence on leader-member exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 593–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shapiro, D. L., Boss, A. D., Salas, S., Tangirala, S., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2011). When are transgressing leaders punitively judged? An empirical test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 412–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking workplace incivility to citizenship performance: The combined effects of affective commitment and conscientiousness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 878–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Taylor, S. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking perceptions of role stress and incivility to workplace aggression: The moderating role of personality. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 316–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1009–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Turner, S. F., Cardinal, L. B., & Burton, R. M. (2015). Research design for mixed methods: A triangulation-based framework and roadmap. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wei, F., & Si, S. (2013). Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2010). The anatomy of anger: An integrative cognitive model of trait anger and reactive aggression. Journal of Personality, 78, 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wilkowski, B. M., Robinson, M. D., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2010). How does cognitive control reduce anger and aggression? The role of conflict monitoring and forgiveness processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 830–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wonderlic Inc. (2002). Wonderlic personnel test and scholastic level exam user’s manual. Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic Inc.Google Scholar
  110. Wu, T. Y., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and boundaries. Group and Organization Management, 34, 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zhang, Y., & Liao, Z. (2015). Consequences of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32, 959–987.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9425-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald H. Kluemper
    • 1
  • Kevin W. Mossholder
    • 2
  • Dan Ispas
    • 3
  • Mark N. Bing
    • 4
  • Dragos Iliescu
    • 5
  • Alexandra Ilie
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Managerial StudiesUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of ManagementAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyIllinois State UniversityNormalUSA
  4. 4.Department of ManagementUniversity of MississippiUniversityUSA
  5. 5.Department of Psychology, National School of Political and Administrative StudiesUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations