Abusive Supervision: Insights from a Bruising Workplace

Abusive supervision (AS) is defined as “perceived level of supervisor engagement in a sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Klasmeier et al., 2021). Some examples of such behaviors are, “putting employees down in front of others”, “calling employees’ thoughts/feelings stupid”, or “blaming employees to save themself embarrassment”( Klasmeier et al., 2021).  In this current definition, AS does not depend on whether the boss intends to inflict said hostile behavior or not, as was the case in previous definitions (Krasikova et al., 2013). Rather, the focus is on the subjective experience of the behavior by the subordinate in the interaction. Consequently, the effects of AS on the recipient may differ based on their perception.  There is a body of research on the prevalence of AS and other forms of workplace aggression, as well as associated negative outcomes, such as job exhaustion, stress, negative emotions, and fatigue (Tziner et al., 2023). However, research does not focus on the perspective of the subordinate. Pulling from that, it would be interesting to see in what instances abusive supervision is perceived as abuse versus ‘tough love’.  Liao et al. investigated this relationship, trying to decipher when AS may lead to functional versus dysfunctional behaviors in performance, and if follower perception in any way mediates this relationship. If it is well-documented that AS is a destructive workplace behavior, why is it still present and employed by some leaders in the workplace?  Why don’t employees immediately act to prevent abusive supervision, and don’t actively look out for it? Perhaps there may be some (albeit short-term) benefits that push these leaders to employ such a mode of control.

Liao et al. reported that daily abusive supervision resulted in better task performance of employees the next day, but only when the employee attributed the leader’s intentions as wanting to improve performance and foster growth of the employee. Parallel to that, there were employees whose performance significantly dropped the day after incidents of abusive supervision, but only when the employee perceived the leader’s intention as wanting to cause pain and injury to the employee. So, depending on your internal reasoning of why your boss acted the way they did, you will perceive it as “tough love” versus abuse. 

This is but one study that may shed light on why abusive leadership is still around in the workplace; not only do some employees not view the behavior as abusive, it may even promote task performance, but only if they can explain the behavior away to themselves. Interestingly,when pulling from research on sexual harassment in the workplace, negative effects of sexual harassment were still experienced by the targeted employee, regardless of whether the person perceived themselves as sexually harassed or not (Tepper, 2000). Despite the current definition of AS being centered around target perception, there may be a level of variation in interpreting findings in the AS research, as the harmful effects may even be felt by employees on a health level, without them admitting that said “tough love” is actually abusive. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that abusive behaviors, while possible to explain away on a momentary or day-to-day basis, cannot have a positive pathway to task performance permanently, as it exhausts employees and lowers employee satisfaction in the workplace in the long run.

Due to the detrimental impact of AS, it’s crucial to understand where it stems from. Can we predict abusive supervision in leaders? Is it simply that abusive supervision stems from hunger for power and selfishness to the point of overbearing control? To answer these questions, three mechanisms have been proposed by Tepper et al. (2020): self regulation impairment, identity threat, and social learning. Self-regulation impairment as a predictor suggests that AS comes about as a form of misplaced aggression: managers who are drained of mental resources themselves end up showing aggressive behaviors towards their employees as a form of immediate gratification, a temporary release of their internal negative emotions. Identity threat suggests that being in a position of power makes you more vulnerable to threats about personal confidence, bringing about AS. Finally, the social learning perspective showcases AS as a sort of trickle-down effect: supervisors who have role models or managers who employed AS may come to believe that this is an effective strategy, and employ it themselves. It seems that abusive leadership is possibly  instrumentally integrated into some workplace culture, passed down in a form of creating abusive norms, lack of self-regulation, or through a non-empowering work environment.

Despite the many negative outcomes associated with abusive supervision, there seem to be some pathways that may alleviate the negative effects or even result in superior performance from employees. Not only that, but mechanisms by which abusive supervision can arise are multitudinal, and may come about from all sorts of combinations of trait characteristics and internal factors. Some other outcome measures that have been investigated in this sphere are organizational citizenship behaviors, or OCBs. Organizational citizenship behavior is another metric for assessing employee performance with regards to organizational fit, as it encompasses all proactive behaviors of the employee that are not part of their immediate job description (Klasmeier et al., 2021). Some research even indicates that, relative to laissez-faire leadership, which is absent leadership with no direction, abusive supervision is better for organizational citizenship behavior as it allows employees to see  prototypical leader behavior in terms of decision-making and simply being present (Klasmeier et al., 2021). 

This is not to say that abusive leadership has net positive outcomes. Rather, the aim is to recognize that there are underlying mechanisms on all levels, be it individual or organizational, which guide the prevalence of such behaviors. Moreover, it seems that some employers fundamentally associate hostile behaviors with being a good leader, further exacerbating the issue. In order to regain control of the workplace dynamic, and to foster positive relationships and leader-follower relations, these insights need to be considered. Workers should reflect on what they value in a leader, their own stereotypes of what is good and bad leadership, and on how we may break the cycle of such destructive workplace behavior.  An instrumental workplace issue such as abusive supervision cannot be solved without the admittance of its existence: the environment where AS breeds is mutually influencing, and should be tackled on all levels, from its root causes, to associated behaviors, to employee outcomes. Only then can we foster a culture of respect and support, not of hostility and fear. Only then can we truly cultivate work environments where true leadership thrives without the stain of abuse.