Is Abusive Supervision Always “Toxic” to Work Engagement? – A Moderated Nonlinear Mediation Model
PDF

Keywords

Abusive supervision
Promotion-focus
Prevention-focus
Work engagement
Proactive personality

DOI

10.36922/ssr.v4i1.1315

Abstract

Abusive supervision is often regarded as a “toxic” factor, which has a negative impact. However, latest research has shown that it has a positive side. Based on the regulatory focus and conservation of resources (COR) theory, this paper discusses the double-edged sword effect of abusive supervision on work engagement. The results of hierarchical regression and bootstrapping on 331 samples showed that there is an inverted U-shaped curve relationship between abusive supervision and work engagement, in which situational regulatory focus plays a differential mediating role between them; that is, abusive supervision through inverted U-shaped stimulation on promotion-focus and positive induction on prevention-focus affects work engagement; proactive personality moderates the inverted U-shaped effect of abusive supervision on work engagement, meanwhile it moderates the inverted U-shaped mediating role of promotion-focus and the linear mediating role of prevention-focus. This study provides a new reference for organization on how to control abusive management in practice.

 

References

Monje Amor A, Abeal Vázquez JP, Faíña JA, 2020, Transformational Leadership and work Engagement: Exploring the Mediating Role of Structural Empowerment. European Management Journal, 38(1): 169-178.

Wang JZ, Li Q, Song JQ, et al., 2020, The Influence of Abusive Supervision on Employees’ Turnover Intention: The Moderating Effects Test of Optimistic Explanatory Style Based on Positive Organizational Behavior. Chinese Journal of Management, 17(5): 688-696.

Shen CG, Yang J, 2020, The Relationship Between Abusive Supervision and Subordinates’ Feedback Avoidance Behavior: A Mediated Moderation Model. Management Review, 32(2): 244-253.

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, 2016, Defining and Measuring Work Engagement: Bringing Clarity to the Concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(2): 91-95.

Yang KJ, Wang Z, Yan XF, 2018, Abusive Supervision and Career Success: A Chain Mediating Model. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26(4): 179-183.

Tepper BJ, 2007, Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations: Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3): 261-289.

Ma J, Zhang Y, 2021, Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child: Exploring the Positive, Negative and Net Effects of Abusive Supervision. Journal of Industrial Engineering/ Engineering Management, 35(2): 26-35.

Lee S, Yun S, Srivastava A, 2013, Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship Between Abusive Supervision and Creativity in South Korea. Leadership Quarterly, 24(5): 724-731.

Zhan XH, Yang DT, Lian ZZ, 2018, The Relationship between Proactive Personality and Employee Creativity: The Mediation Effect of Work Engagement and Personal Learning. Soft Science, 32(4): 82-85.

Bakker AB, Oerlemans WGM, 2019, Daily Job Crafting and Momentary Work Engagement: A Self-Determination and Self-Regulation Perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112(6): 417-430.

Zhang H, Li W, Lang Y, 2019, Regulatory Focus in Leadership Research: From the Perspective of Paradox Theory. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(4): 711-725.

Hobfoll SE, 1989, Conservation of Resources. A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress. American Psychologist, 44(3): 513-524.

Crant J, 2000, Proactive Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3): 435-462.

Yang JZ, Li XD, 2019, Research on the Proactive Personality to the Performance of Deviant Innovation: the Mediation of Innovation Catalysis and the Moderation of Transformational Leadership Behavior. Forecasting, 38(4): 17-23.

Tepper BJ, Simon L, Park HM, 2017, Abusive Supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4: 123-152.

Wang T, Chen CH, Song YX, 2019, A Research on the Double-Edge Effect of Challenging Stressors on Employees’ Innovative Behavior. Nankai Business Review, 22(5): 90-100.

Zhang J, Liu J, 2018, Is Abusive Supervision an Absolute Devil? Literature Review and Research Agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(3): 719-744.

Higgins ET, 1997, Beyond Pleasure and Pain. American Psychologist, 52(12): 1280-1300.

Wang J, Zhang Z, Yang N, 2020, The Effects of Work Stress on Employee Creativity Based on Regulatory Focus Theory. Journal of Industrial Engineering/ Engineering Management, 34(2): 161-171.

Vonrosenberg J, 2019, Cognitive Appraisal and Stress Performance: The Threat/Challenge Matrix and Its Implications on Performance. Air Medical Journal, 38(5): 331-333.

Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M, 2006, The Measurement of Work Engagement with a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4): 701-716.

Harris K, Harvey P, Kacmar K, 2011, Abusive supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5): 1010-1023.

Zhou Q, Hirst G, Shipton H, 2012, Context Matters: Combined Influence of Participation and Intellectual Stimulation on the Promotion Focus-Employee Creativity Relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7): 894-909.

Parker S, Collins C, 2010, Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating Multiple Proactive Behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(2): 633-662.

Edwards JR, Lambert LS, 2007, Methods for Integrating Moderation and Mediation: A General Analytical Framework Using Moderated Path Analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1): 1-22.

Aiken LS, West SG, 1991, Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Baron RM, Kenny DA, 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.

Oh JK, Farh CIC, 2017, An Emotional Process Theory of How Subordinates Appraise, Experience, and Respond to Abusive Supervision Over Time. Academy of Management Review, 42(2): 207-232.