Rethinking abusive supervision: antecedents and reparative mechanisms of abusive supervision, including supervisor frustration, coworker support, guilt, and supervisor OCB in a mediated-moderation model

Abstract

Purpose

Drawing on affective events theory, this study positions role overload and supervisor frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision, leading to supervisor-led organizational citizenship behavior. In a mediated-moderation-sed analysis, we question whether coworker support moderates the relationship between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision and whether guilt mediates between abusive supervision and supervisor-led OCB.

Theoretical framework

This research study is inspired by the assumptions of affective events theory.

Design/methodology/approach

In a time-lagged survey, we collected data from 351 medical supervisors employed in private hospitals in Pakistan. The PROCESS macro is used to perform a mediated-moderation analysis. Furthermore, the research is analyzed based on structural equation modeling (SEM) procedures using the AMOS software, version 26.0.

Findings

The results demonstrate that role overload predicts supervisor frustration, leading to abusive supervision. Moreover, when coworker support is high, the relationship between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision is weaker. Supervisor frustration and guilt mediate the path from role overload to supervisor frustration, abusive supervision, and supervisor OCB, respectively.

Practical & social implications of research

Organizational policymakers should consider role overload as an element that causes stress and frustration among medical supervisors, resulting in abusive behavior towards their subordinates. Thus, some normative measures might be appropriate to reduce abusive supervision in the healthcare sector. Socially, this study can help in combating frustration and aggression among working people, representing a significant proportion of Pakistani society.

Originality/value

The mediators, such as supervisor frustration and guilt, advance our understanding of abusive supervision research.

Keywords:
Abusive supervision; supervisor OCB; guilt; affective events theory; coworker support

1 Introduction

Frustrating experiences at work trigger negative work outcomes (Bernd & Beuren, 2021; Fischer et al., 2021). One of the negative work outcomes is abusive supervision, which has been extensively studied by organizational behavior researchers (Afshan et al., 2022; Kashif et al., 2020; Mannan & Kashif, 2019). Abusive supervision involves continuous and aggressive supervisory behaviors that might or might not be non-physical (Tepper, 2000). It is a holistic concept that includes actions such as scorning subordinates, displaying aggression, and much more. Abusive supervision can result from triggers beyond the control of an abusive supervisor, neglected by organizational behavior researchers (Afshan et al., 2022). Considering the increased frequency of aggressive behaviors at work, scholars and practitioners are interested in abusive supervision (Kashif et al., 2022). However, the dominant research revolves around investigating the destructive impact of abusive supervision, highlighting abusive supervisors as the culprits in an organizational system (Kashif et al., 2020; Mannan & Kashif, 2019; Moin et al., 2021). It is not always the fault of abusive supervisors. Researchers have recommended exploring some of the factors (beyond the control of abusive supervisors) that push supervisors to abuse subordinates (Fischer et al., 2021). Some recent studies have even explored the positive outcomes of abusive supervision (Arain et al., 2020).

One explanation for supervisory abuse could be the amount of work supervisors have to perform (i.e., role overload) (Eissa & Lester, 2017), which might cause frustration. Role overload is when employees are expected to fulfill duties beyond their normal work routine (Rizzo et al., 1970). Employees experiencing role overload feel they do not have enough time to perform other duties because they are assigned additional tasks that go well beyond their job descriptions (Shultz et al., 2010). Role overload frustrates employees. It might result in negative work outcomes, i.e., prohibiting employees from engaging in extra-role behaviors (Montani & Dagenais-Desmarais, 2018), causing stress among family members (Halinski & Duxbury, 2022), and causing frustration among individuals at work (Rafique, 2022). When employees are frustrated, it can lead to supervisor incivility and abuse (Eissa & Lester, 2017; Rafique, 2022), thus threatening positivity at work. Some workplace events can minimize the impact of workplace frustration, i.e., coworker support that minimizes the negative impact of destructive workplace behaviors (De Clercq et al., 2020; Kashif et al., 2021). A balanced yet positive relationship among peers strengthens trust and increases task performance (Rodrigues & Rebelo, 2021). There is evidence that coworker support can strengthen interpersonal relationships at work, thus increasing retention rates (De Clercq et al., 2020). This way, coworker support has the potential to minimize the supervisory frustration arising from role overload perceptions.

Abusive supervision leads to negative work outcomes, and ample research supports this notion (Eissa & Lester, 2017; Fischer et al., 2021; Mannan & Kashif, 2019). However, sometimes abusive supervisors try to recover from a negative perception of abuse and perform some positive actions, i.e., organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Ballalis, 2018; Carpenter et al., 2014; McClean et al., 2021). OCB is a voluntary action performed by members of an organization that goes beyond traditional job duties (Ocampo et al., 2018). Supervisors perform OCB to support their subordinates, i.e., to support their families (Yin et al., 2021), thus increasing employees’ perceptions of job satisfaction (Ballalis, 2018). The dominant stream of recent research presents perceptions about OCB (Tripathi et al., 2023), which can potentially repair damaged relationships at work (Arshad et al., 2021; Rave et al., 2022). Thus, OCB can be positioned as a reparative mechanism, but research in this direction is scarce (Wuttaphan, 2022).

Abusive supervisory behaviors adversely affect employees’ tendency to engage in OCB (Zhang et al., 2019). However, can supervisors who abuse engage in OCB to repair perceptions of abuse? There is some evidence that abusive supervisors try to repair an abusive image by demonstrating a positive attitude towards others (Ilies et al., 2013). This is when supervisors are conscious of their past behaviors and engage in OCB (Lin et al., 2016). One of the explanations for this action could be moral cleansing. The arousal of negative emotional experiences and perceptions might encourage supervisors to perform reparative actions to compensate for their past mistakes (McClean et al., 2021). In this regard, guilt is positioned as a negative emotion. We propose that supervisors might feel guilty after an episode of abuse with their subordinates as it violates the ethics and threatens the moral character of the individuals as supervisors (Liao et al., 2018). When they feel guilt, supervisors are often reported to feel ashamed, thus the desire to repair the negative perceptions in the mind of their subordinates (Ilies et al., 2013). Supervisory guilt is perceived as a justification for abusive behavior (Shen et al., 2022) as well as an enacted cost, thus it has the potential to trigger positive actions as a reparative mechanism (Shum et al., 2020).

Against this background, some important research gaps require our academic attention and set the stage to determine the theoretical contribution of this study. First, there is limited research that investigates role overload and supervisor frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision (Eissa & Lester, 2017; Fischer et al., 2021; Zhang & Bednall, 2016). Much of the research has focused on portraying the ill effects of abusive supervision (Afshan et al., 2022; Fischer et al., 2021; Moin et al., 2021; Zhang & Bednall, 2016). Also, there is extensive research that investigates employee-led abuse, but the process by which individuals become abusive supervisors is unclear (Eissa & Lester, 2017; Zhang & Bednall, 2016). Some researchers have positioned the arousal of negative emotional responses as a consequence of abusive supervision (Afshan et al., 2022; Kashif et al., 2022; Shen et al., 2022). However, what triggers abuse is a question that remains unanswered (Fischer et al., 2021). This is where we position supervisor frustration and role overload as antecedents of abusive supervision. Supervisor frustration as a consequence of role overload, resulting in abusive behaviors by supervisors, is an interesting topic to advance our understanding in this field (Rafique, 2022).

Second, we question if coworker support rendered by peers of a supervisor reduces supervisor frustration, ultimately preventing abusive behaviors. The answer to this question could be another important theoretical contribution to the growing body of knowledge on abusive supervision. There is notable research where coworker support is positioned as resulting in a significant reduction in individual stress (De Clercq et al., 2020; Kashif et al., 2021). However, coworker support might minimize the impact of supervisor frustration resulting from role overload. Thus, minimizing the probability of abusive behavior among supervisors is an important intervention. Recent studies on coworker support have shown promise in minimizing the stress caused by negative work events (De Clercq et al., 2020). More recently, coworker support has been studied from employees' perspectives to mitigate the effects of abusive supervision (Abi Aad et al., 2021; Hao et al., 2022). However, supervisors also need support from their peers. This might intervene between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision. In this study, we reposition coworker support from the perspective of supervisors, which is missed by contemporary researchers (Zhang et al., 2022).

Third, there is limited research to explain how supervisors make some reparative arrangements to minimize the destructive effects of their abusive behaviors (Liao et al., 2018; Shum et al., 2020). Why do supervisors engage in OCB after an abusive episode? What triggers abusive supervisors to engage in OCB? Researchers have tried to address this question and have highlighted that abusive supervisors tend to repair their damaged reputation by performing positive actions (McClean et al., 2021). However, why supervisors perform positive actions is unexplored and is a notable contribution of this study. We contribute to this gap by positioning guilt as a mediating emotion that links abusive supervision with supervisor-led OCB targeted towards employees. The study of guilt as an emotion is important but is restricted to an emotion resulting from ethical judgments and roles (Becker, 2021). In a service context, helping each other is common and efficient for strengthening relationships at work (Kashif et al., 2020). Also, all supervisors are not evil. They are conscious of their actions and tend to recover from a perception of abuse (Ilies et al., 2013; Liao et al., 2018). Abusive supervision can negatively affect OCB among employees (Zhang et al., 2019). However, there is also increasing contradictory evidence that abusive supervision can lead to positive outcomes (Shum et al., 2020). We elaborate on the idea that abusive supervision can lead to positive work outcomes and position guilt as an emotion that links abusive supervision and supervisor-led OCB. This way, we contribute to the limited yet growing body of knowledge in the study of negative emotions and their positive role in improving performance at work (Afshan et al., 2022; Hao et al., 2022; Ilies et al., 2013; Shum et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022). Based on these gaps, we aim to contribute to knowledge by studying the reparatory mechanism of abusive supervision.

In summary, this study makes three significant contributions. First, it presents role overload and supervisor frustration as key contributors to predicting abusive supervision. Second, why abusive supervisors engage in citizenship behaviors when they feel guilt as an emotion is another important question addressed by this study. Third, how coworker support can help even frustrated supervisors not to abuse is an important question to advance organizational behavior research. The remainder of this paper includes a critical appraisal of affective events theory (AET), the hypotheses development, the methods of investigation and analysis, the results of this study, a discussion of the results with theoretical and contextual justifications, the limitations, and future research suggestions, as well as the conclusion section.

2 Affective events theory

This study aims to explore role overload and supervisor frustration as antecedents and supervisor-led OCB via an emotion of guilt as an outcome of abusive supervision. The framework is based on the affective events theory (AET). Various occasions, situations, and events are categorized as affective events (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). These affective events arouse certain emotions among individuals. These events happen to people, and they emotionally react accordingly. Something that happens at a certain place during a specific period and remains memorable is defined as an event (Nguyen et al., 2019). These events trigger emotions and subsequent behaviors among individuals (Reynolds Kueny et al., 2020). Some events frequently happen (i.e., abusive behaviors) and can arouse specific emotions, while others are temporal (i.e., occasional celebrations). We propose that work events such as role overload and resulting supervisor frustration can be critical determinants of abusive supervision, considering supervisory abuse as a consequence of these events (Nguyen et al., 2019). This aligns with one of the assumptions of AET that work events shape individual behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Various models have already been developed based on the assumption that events arouse particular types of feelings, resulting in certain behaviors, i.e., the frustration-aggression model (Berkowitz, 1989) and the stressor-emotion model (Spector & Fox, 2002). Moving forward, we posit that supervisors try to compensate for their negative behaviors in the form of OCB via an emotion of guilt. In this line of research, abusive supervision is also an event that arouses an emotion of guilt, leading to engagement in OCB. Since one of the assumptions of AET is that events happen frequently, we posit a path, i.e., going from abusive supervision to engagement in supervisor-led OCB via guilt. Given the frequency of events, guilt can result from an affective event (i.e., abusive supervision) to repair the relationships at work (Shum et al., 2020). This is in line with another AET assumption that events occur frequently and with a certain level of intensity (Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000). Considering this assumption, we integrate guilt as an emotion in the study of AET, which is missed by contemporary researchers (Nguyen et al., 2019; Reynolds Kueny et al., 2020).

It is also notable that not all supervisors react to events at work in a similar fashion. This is because supervisor personality (Eissa & Lester, 2017), their capacity to absorb pressure (Rave et al., 2022), and their relationships with subordinates and peers might dictate their actions (Yin et al., 2021). In this regard, positive peer support can minimize the dark effects of frustration at work, thus preventing supervisors from abusing their followers (De Clercq et al., 2020; Kashif et al., 2021). Perceptions of emotionally supportive coworkers can moderate the relationship between stress, depression, and frustration caused by abusive supervision (Yin et al., 2021). Even though people may observe undesirable conduct from their abusive supervisors, they may feel a sense of compulsion towards their coworkers (De Clercq et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2022; Kashif et al., 2021). Colleagues know their friends' pain at work and can provide excellent psychological support (Ali & Kashif, 2020).

Some other competing theoretical assumptions could have been followed in this investigation, i.e., conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989). According to the assumptions of COR theory, employee knowledge, attitudes, and emotions are resources (Ampofo & Karatepe, 2022). To protect these resources, employees make several efforts to avoid resource depletion. The resource-based framework is suitable in situations where a supervisor’s abusive behavior triggers negative work outcomes (Bormann & Gellatly, 2021; Feng & Wang, 2019). On the contrarily, we position abusive supervision as triggering positive work behaviors, i.e., supervisor-led OCB driven by an emotion of guilt. Thus, the employment of AET is a better choice than COR theory.

3 Hypotheses development

3.1 Role overload and supervisor frustration

Role overload is a serious problem in the workplace, resulting in negative consequences (Creary & Gordon, 2016; Halinski & Duxbury, 2022; Montani & Dagenais-Desmarais, 2018). Role overload may be defined as a condition resulting from many tasks at work (Rizzo et al., 1970). When people feel over-occupied, they believe there is too much work, given the time to complete these tasks (Shultz et al., 2010). This affects their work temperament and their ability to attain goals (Chen et al., 2021). Different studies have acknowledged role overload as an antecedent of stress and work frustration (Eissa & Lester, 2017; Montani & Dagenais-Desmarais, 2018) and have indicated it as causing permanent depression (Creary & Gordon, 2016). This qualifies perceptions of role overload as a constant event. Role overload affects performance and damages human relations (Rafique, 2022). Despite the extensive research, the adverse effects of role overload concerning abusive supervision have been scarcely examined (Kashif et al., 2020; Shum et al., 2020). When supervisors are overloaded with work, they feel emotionally exhausted, resulting in poor work performance and relationships (She et al., 2019). Considering the assumptions of AET, most people can be frustrated due to overload, with role overload perceptions being considered as a permanent and destructive event (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Recent evidence suggests that a negative event can result in supervisory abuse (Khan, 2021). Based on this evidence and inspired by the assumptions of AET, we propose the following:

H1: Supervisor role overload perceptions trigger supervisor frustration in the workplace.

3.2 Role overload and abusive supervision: mediation of supervisor frustration

Abusive supervision is a threat to the survival of an organizational system, especially when subordinates perceive it as a threat to their self-respect and identity, leading to a weaker relationship between leaders and their followers (Afshan et al., 2022). In line with the assumptions of AET, depression can increase frustration at work (Berkowitz, 1989; Eissa & Lester, 2017). This ultimately contributes to abusive events, i.e., abusive supervision (Eissa & Lester, 2017). Based on the preliminary findings on workplace violence, a perception of role overload might trigger abusive supervision (Khan, 2021). However, there could be some interventions. For instance, role overload alone might not lead to abusive supervision. Recent studies investigating abusive supervision have indicated this gap (Berkowitz, 1989; Eissa & Lester, 2017). There could be a possible intervention of supervisor frustration resulting in abusive supervision. Scholars have indicated supervisor frustration as an affective event (Naeem et al., 2019), but its inclusion as a mediator between role overload and abusive supervision is missed. Based on these observations, we posit that supervisor frustration caused by role overload perceptions might trigger an abusive event. Such a relationship is suggested as extensive research has highlighted negative outcomes of role overload perceptions (Chen et al., 2021; Rafique, 2022). Logically, frustrated managers may be more vicious as a way of overcoming bad feelings (i.e., resulting from role overload perceptions), so they behave in a way their employees perceive as abusive. Thus, we propose that:

H2: The relationship between role overload and abusive supervision is mediated by the supervisor's frustration.

3.3 Abusive supervision and OCB

Organizational citizenship behavior is a voluntary action that goes beyond traditional job descriptions. Employees engaging in OCB can collectively establish a culture of respect and cooperation (Wuttaphan, 2022), thus resulting in positive organizational outcomes. OCB is divided into two categories of actions, i.e., OCB at the individual level and OCB at the organizational level (Ocampo et al., 2018). OCB at the individual level refers to positive behaviors directed at people who do not benefit the organization directly, such as assisting partners with work-related problems and related behaviors. In contrast, OCB at the organizational level refers to activities demonstrating honesty, integrity, and commitment to work to benefit the organization directly. Common examples of OCB are: taking into account customer needs and concerns, helping peers and colleagues, enabling service changes, and helping potential customers to feel satisfied (MacKenzie et al., 2018).

The results of numerous studies demonstrate that negative attitudes and behaviors affect the mental health of individuals, thus resulting in negative consequences, i.e., job dissatisfaction (Tepper, 2000), workplace frustration (Mawritz et al., 2014), communicative deviance (Kashif et al., 2020), and turnover intentions (Zhang et al., 2022). Abusive behaviors damage employee motivation to engage in citizenship behaviors (Ocampo et al., 2018) and damage a positive organizational spirit. Subordinates perform voluntary actions when leaders exhibit positive attitudes and support them (Yin et al., 2021), while they stop engaging in OCB when the opposite is the case (Zhang et al., 2019). According to a study conducted by Tepper (2000), victims of abusive supervision felt their organization was responsible for the abusive behavior of their leaders. Therefore, employees may stop engaging in OCB (Zhang et al., 2019). Extant research supports the notion that employees might opt to engage in some negative actions when constantly criticized and ridiculed to cope with unfavorable events, i.e., abusive supervision (Afshan et al., 2022; Mawritz et al., 2014). Thus, we hypothesize the following:

H3: Abusive supervision is negatively related to OCB.

3.4 Abusive supervision and supervisor OCB: mediation of guilt

People set their own personal standards. A discrepancy in meeting those standards results in a feeling of guilt (Tangney, 1990). Guilt triggers individuals to repair a relationship. Individuals who feel guilty tend to apologize and perform positive actions to support a cause (Tangney et al., 2007). Guilt is aroused when supervisors feel they have violated a behavior (i.e., via abuse) (Shum et al., 2020).

However, supervisors try to overcome this guilt through positive actions (McClean et al., 2021). Similarly, we believe abusive supervisors would like to repair the harmful effects of abusive supervision by engaging in OCB when a feeling of guilt is aroused. There is some evidence to support this notion. Evidence from recent research indicates that supervisors employ reparative actions to overcome this feeling of guilt (Arshad et al., 2021; Ilies et al., 2013). The reparatory mechanism can include a number of actions, i.e., supporting employees, working overtime, and managing their work-life balance (Shum et al., 2020; Yin et al., 2021). However, two conditions need to exist for guilt to result in the performance of a reparatory action. First, there is the existence of an interpersonal transgression—some aggression is exchanged. Second, the actor feels they are responsible for it. These two conditions are met in the case of abusive supervision. First, abusing others violates social norms, and the supervisors might feel responsible for such destructive action at work (Fischer et al., 2021). Evidence suggests that abusive supervision has negative consequences (Afshan et al., 2022; Ampofo & Karatepe, 2022; Arain et al., 2020; Fischer et al., 2021). However, we respectfully challenge this assumption and try to outline a deeper and neglected element—why an abusive supervisor will engage in OCB. There is some work in this direction where researchers have indicated supervisors trying to repair their negative actions and perceptions (Abi Aad et al., 2021; Liao et al., 2018). Thus, we propose that once guilt is aroused, the abusive supervisor would like to repair the damaged relationship and perceptions via engagement in OCB directed towards subordinates. Hence, we hypothesize the following:

H4: Supervisor feelings of guilt mediate between abusive supervision and supervisor OCB.

3.5 Mediated moderation

Peer support refers to a perception of support offered by other colleagues at work (Ng & Sorensen, 2008). Organizational support is general, and coworker support is regarded as a specific type of support, which may include both instrumental and emotional support (Kashif et al., 2021; Kim & Yun, 2015). Recent studies indicate that emotional support is effective in preventing the adverse effects of stress due to abuse from supervisors (De Clercq et al., 2020). Generally, the damaging impact of abusive supervision by a supervisor because of frustration can be minimized with coworker support (De Clercq et al., 2020). Coworker support is extensively studied, but its impact on minimizing supervisor frustration and preventing abuse is never investigated (De Clercq et al., 2020; Hao et al., 2022; Kim & Yun, 2015). As per the assumptions of AET, coworker support is a constant event and can significantly impact human relations at work (Shi et al., 2022). Coworker support can play a significant role in weakening the relationship between supervisor frustration and resulting abusive supervision. This suggests that supervisors who receive coworker support are less likely to engage in abusive behaviors (Eissa & Lester, 2017). Thus, we propose the following:

H5: Perceived coworker support will moderate the strength of the mediated relationship between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision, such that the mediated relationship will be weaker when perceived coworker support is high.

4 Research methods

4.1 Sample and procedures

This study follows the design of a quantitative inquiry. The core objective is to test the proposed hypotheses. Thus, a quantitative research approach is deemed suitable (Arshad et al., 2021). Moreover, a survey-based approach to data collection was chosen to conduct this investigation. The research team collected data from 351 medical supervisors currently employed in private hospitals in Rawalpindi and Islamabad. These medical supervisors were doctors and the administrators of different wards. These people had a supervisory role, managing a team of doctors and nurses. Considering the objectives of this research, supervisors are an appropriate audience. These supervisors work in shifts, i.e., morning and night, almost 40 hours a week. For this study, the private healthcare sector was selected for several reasons. First, there is fierce competition among private hospitals in Pakistan. Thus, such organizations remain sensitive to issues related to supervisory abuse and the resulting consequences. The results of this study therefore have some managerial value. Second, data collection from public sector hospitals is a challenging task. It involves several approvals and takes time due to the high power distance prevailing in Pakistan (Islam et al., 2022). Thus, to ensure some pragmatic value of this study and to save time and preserve motivation to move forward with the study, the selection of private sector hospitals was justified.

Before executing the survey, the research team sought formal approvals from the hospital administration as well as explaining the investigation's aims and ethics protocols. They were assured that the collected data would be kept confidential and used for academic purposes. The respondents were told their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any stage of the investigation without penalty. Finally, they were assured that the names of persons, organizations, and other observations made during this study would not be disclosed. Once formal approvals were obtained, the research team personally visited the private hospitals. At this stage, a number of techniques and approach measures to collect data were adopted. First, considering the challenges associated with data collection, the research team identified one source currently working in a hospital setting. Using a snowball sampling technique, the source was asked to nominate and share the contacts of other personnel working in a similar setting. As the contacts multiplied, the research team continued the data collection. The team approached the potential respondents to hand over the questionnaire for the study. There is ample evidence of a snowball sampling technique being employed by researchers investigating and advancing abusive supervision research (Zhang & Liu, 2018), particularly in a hospital setting (Özkan, 2022). A logical explanation for employing this technique is the challenge of the time consumed to collect data and the scarcity of relationships, without which data collection is not possible.

The survey was conducted in two waves. During wave 1, the questionnaire comprising role overload, supervisor frustration, and abusive supervision as well as coworker support was shared. The collected forms were coded properly so that the same respondent was approached the next time. After three weeks, the same candidates were approached to complete the second survey wave, which comprised guilt and supervisor OCB questions. To ensure the simplicity and accuracy of the time-lagged investigation, we developed an identification code for every employee. Considering the sample size recommendation of at least 200 participants to apply a partial least squares structural equation modeling technique (Hair et al., 2012), we approached 400 people. In response, 351 returned the completed forms, representing a response rate of about 87%, which is remarkable for a time-lagged study on organizational behavior (Afshan et al., 2022). People value human relations in a relationship-based society such as Pakistan (Ali & Kashif, 2020; Kashif et al., 2020; Mannan & Kashif, 2019). Thus, approaching the respondents with a reference resulted in a high response rate. The research team waited for the respondents to complete their work-related tasks, and then the questionnaires were handed over. The research method followed during the data collection stage helped achieve a high response rate. The time-lagged design is highly recommended to strengthen the survey methodology and is a common practice among organizational behavior researchers investigating abusive supervision (Moin et al., 2021).

4.2 Measurements

Role overload: We measured role overload with four items (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Collectively, these items are consistent with the conceptual definition of role overload (RO). The coefficient alpha for this measure was 0.85. It was measured on a seven-point Likert scale with anchors ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Supervisor frustration: The supervisor's frustration is measured by a three-item (Peters & O’Connor, 1980), seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Previous studies have shown adequate internal consistency of this scale, with alpha scores of 0.70 or above (Avey et al., 2015).

Abusive supervision: We measured abusive supervision using a 15-item seven-point Likert scale (Tepper, 2000). Results from previous studies demonstrate this scale has excellent internal consistency, with values of 0.80 or above (Moin et al., 2021).

Coworker support: We measured coworker support using a well-established measure (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002) on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The measure has a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.80 or above, as noticed in recently conducted studies (Kashif et al., 2021).

Guilt: A 17-item scale was used to measure guilt (Cohen et al., 2011) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely). Prior research has identified that the internal consistency of this scale is 0.70 or above.

Supervisor OCB: Supervisor OCB was measured via an eight-item seven-point Likert scale (1 = never to 7 = always) (Deckop et al., 2003). The scale has high internal consistency, with a value of 0.83 or above.

All these measures with their scales are shown in ^{Appendix C}.

5 Data analysis

5.1 Results

The data analysis for this study was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 20.0) and AMOS (version 26.0) following the procedures proposed by other researchers (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The measurement model was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and a path analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses. The sample size of this study is 351, which is an acceptable sample to perform structural equation modeling (SEM) in AMOS, as per the guidelines provided by experts in this field (Hair et al., 2012, 2014). The structural equation modeling technique is preferred when a quantitative inquiry is being performed. This technique has been used by other researchers investigating issues concerning abusive supervision (Afshan et al., 2022).

Table 1 shows the demographic profiling of the sample. Among the respondents, 58% were graduates, 27% had a postgraduate qualification, and 15% had other qualifications. Close to 48% of the sample had more than ten years of experience, which is in line with the objectives of this study. The sample largely comprises individuals who are graduates and have a significant amount of years of work experience. Thus, the sample of this study represents the perceptions of an experienced and educated working class of Pakistan employed in private hospitals.

Table 1
Sample demographics

	Frequency	Percentage
Qualification
Postgraduate	94	27%
Graduate	204	58%
Other	53	15%
Experience
Less than five years	96	27%
5-10 years	86	25%
11-15 years	64	18%
16-20 years	57	16%
More than 20 years	48	14%

5.2 Common method bias

The data for this study are single-sourced and collected via self-report measures. Thus, there could be a possibility of common method bias. The common method bias of the study was explored using Harman's single-factor test. In SPSS, an exploratory factor analysis was performed for this purpose, and it was noticed that the 1^st-factor loading was 18.23%, which is less than 50%. For the un-rotated principal component factor analysis, eight factors were extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, accounting for 67% of the total variance (Bro & Smilde, 2014). Further, it was observed that the highest inter-construct correlation was only 0.769 (see Table 2), which is lower than the recommended 0.90 (Bagozzi et al., 1991). Therefore, common method bias is not a problem in this study.

Table 2
Discriminant validity

	Mean	SD	AS	RO	SF	OCB	CS	GU
1. Abusive Supervision (AS)	4.994	1.427	0.806
Role Overload (RO)	2.719	1.306	0.067	0.836
2. Supervisor Frustration (SF)	4.070	1.243	0.217**	0.308***	0.800
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)	3.936	1.282	0.274**	0.435***	0.769***	0.782
Coworker Support (CS)	3.887	1.333	0.091	-0.065	0.224***	0.308***	0.824
Guilt (GU)	4.582	1.562	0.682**	0.213***	0.313***	0.453***	0.293***	0.963

• Note: The square root of the AVE value is shown on the diagonal. **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Next, the outliers, normality, and multicollinearity data were examined. To identify the outliers, the Mahalanobis distance was examined, and it was noticed that the Mahalanobis distance for all the items was similar to the majority. Skewness and kurtosis were used to test the univariate normality. Table 3 shows that the skewness for all the items ranging between -1.00 and +1.00. The univariate kurtosis is less than 2 for all the variables. Therefore, univariate normality is assured for all the variables (Kline, 2005). A collinearity diagnosis was used to assess multicollinearity. A linear regression was run for all the independent variables by making each independent variable a dependent variable. The variance inflation factor (VIF) for all the variables was less than 3 (O’Brien, 2007). Therefore, no multicollinearity was diagnosed for the variables.

Table 3
Individual measurement model

Construct	Items	Loadings	CR	AVE	Skewness	Kurtosis
Role Overload	RO1	0.79	0.949	0.698	1.085	0.412
	RO2	0.82			1.076	0.69
	RO3	0.881			0.871	0.467
	RO4	0.81			0.722	0.098
	RO5	0.829			0.785	-0.002
	RO6	0.849			0.891	0.396
	RO7	0.853			0.828	0.397
	RO8	0.85			0.843	0.278
Supervisor Frustration	SF1	0.747	0.841	0.639	0.161	0.083
	SF2	0.764			0.232	0.159
	SF3	0.881			0.132	-0.251
Coworker Support	CS1	0.694	0.804	0.678	-0.221	-1.129
	CS2	0.743			-0.265	-1.217
	CS4	0.745			-0.086	-1.408
	CS5	0.776			-0.061	-1.245
	CS6	0.739			-0.075	-1.318
	CS8	0.768			0.409	-1.187
	CS10	0.772			0.312	-1.224
	CS11	0.731			0.172	-1.253
	CS12	0.744			0.021	-1.354
	CS13	0.704			-0.058	-1.269
Abusive Supervision	AS1	0.818	0.96	0.65	-0.914	-0.178
	AS2	0.767			-0.785	-0.009
	AS3	0.795			-0.825	-0.101
	AS4	0.811			-0.801	-0.276
	AS5	0.807			-0.874	0.074
	AS6	0.806			-0.904	0.036
	AS7	0.795			-0.843	-0.126
	AS9	0.81			-0.863	-0.023
	AS10	0.832			-0.885	-0.207
	AS11	0.803			-0.951	0.048
	AS12	0.839			-0.848	-0.238
	AS13	0.774			-0.859	-0.169
	AS14	0.823			-0.83	-0.186
Guilt	G2	0.786	0.963	0.928	-0.447	-1.081
	G4	0.809			-0.38	-1.213
	G5	0.766			-0.626	-0.88
	G6	0.742			-0.433	-1.071
	G7	0.747			-0.598	-0.956
Organizational Citizenship Behavior	OCB1	0.77	0.926	0.611	0.24	-0.048
	OCB2	0.778			-0.156	-0.276
	OCB3	0.754			0.108	-0.09
	OCB4	0.78			0.213	-0.894
	OCB5	0.788			0.073	-0.316
	OCB6	0.804			0.202	-0.416
	OCB7	0.806			0.121	-0.32
	OCB8	0.771			-0.013	-0.518

• Notes: AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability.

5.3 Measurement model analysis

To assess the measurement model, AMOS version 26.0 was employed. The maximum likelihood estimation method was used to test the measurement model of the study. Individual measurement models for each construct were evaluated, and nine items loading less than 0.5 were dropped from the analysis. The convergent and discriminant validity of the model was ensured by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). AVE and CR were calculated by running the Validity and Reliability Test plugin in AMOS. The AVE for all the study constructs is greater than 0.5, and the CR is greater than 0.6. Therefore, convergent validity is confirmed (Hair et al., 2014). Table 3 illustrates all the constructs' AVE and CR values with the factor loadings. The discriminant validity of the model can be verified by comparing the square root of the AVE with the correlations between the six constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). It is observed that the difference between the loadings and the cross-loadings shown in Table 2 are all higher than 0.1 (Hair et al., 2014), confirming the discriminant validity of the model.

A confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the overall measurement model, and the model fit results were evaluated based on the cut-off values proposed by other researchers (Hu & Bentler, 1999). These cut-off values are: the CMIN/DF has to be between 1 and 3, the comparative fit index (CFI) has to be greater than 0.9, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) should be between 0.05 and 0.1, and the standardized root mean square residual should be less than 0.08, while the p of the close fit [PClose] should be greater than 0.05 to accept the model. The model fit results obtained through the CFA are: (χ2= 1650.637, df. = 1059, p < .01, χ2 /df =1.559, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.950, SRMR = 0.049, and PClose = 1.000. This shows a good fit.

5.4 Structural model analysis

After validating the measurement model, the main constructs of the study were calculated in SPSS version 20.0. To test the hypotheses, a path analysis was used in AMOS. Bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 bootstrap samples at a 95% confidence level was run in AMOS to evaluate the structural model and test the five hypotheses. Bias-corrected bootstrapping is one of the best methods to test mediation in structural equation modeling (Cheung & Lau, 2008). Hence, bias-corrected bootstrapping was used in this study too. The interaction term was calculated with the mean-centered variables using SPSS. To model the mediated moderation in the path diagram and to calculate the mediated moderation index, a statistical model of model 14 has been proposed by other researchers (Hayes, 2017). The main constructs of the study are placed in rectangles (ROV- Role Overload, SF- Supervisor Frustration, AB- Abusive Supervision, GU- Guilt, OCB- Organizational Citizenship Behavior, CSW- Coworker Support, CSF x CCF- Interaction term). Arrows between the main constructs of the study show the five hypotheses tested. The results of the test are presented in Table 4.

Table 4
Hypothesis testing

Direct Relationships
Hypothesis	Relationship	Standardized Coefficients	SE	P-Value	Decision
H1	ROV → SF	0.303	0.048	0.000	Supported
H3	AB → OCB	0.014	0.056	0.819	Not Supported
Mediation Analysis
Hypothesis	Relationship	Indirect Effect	Confidence Interval Low	Confidence Interval High	P-Value
H2	ROV → SF→AB	0.06	0.029	0.101	0.000 (Supported)
H4	AB → GU→OCB	0.221	0.158	0.304	0.000 (Supported)
Moderated Indirect Relationships – H5
Probing Moderated Indirect Relationships		Indirect Effect	Confidence Interval Low	Confidence Interval High	P-Value
H5	Low level of Coworker Support	0.059	0.015	0.126	0.009
	High level of Coworker Support	0.060	0.028	0.105	0.000
	Index of Mediated Moderation	0.000	-0.023	0.022	00.976 (Not Supported)

The relationship between role overload and supervisor frustration had a value of 0.303 (p < 0.05), indicating that role overload significantly influences supervisor frustration. Thus, H1 was supported. The hypothesized relationship between role overload and abusive supervision was mediated by supervisor frustration, with a corresponding estimate of 0.06 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H2 was supported. The relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behavior had a value of 0.014 (p > 0.05), indicating an insignificant relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behavior. Thus, H3 was not supported. Guilt mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behavior, with an estimate of 0.221 (p < 0.05). Therefore, H4 was supported. Even though the mediated moderation index shows an insignificant relationship, it is significant when coworker support is high. Further, it was observed that the direct moderation between SF and AB by CSW was also not supported by the findings (0.001, p > 0.05), and this is depicted in 2 (See ^{Appendix B}). Table 4 shows all the hypothesis testing results. According to those results, it is observed that out of the five hypotheses, three are supported by the data. The structural model of the study with the loadings is presented in ^{Appendix A} (1).

6 Discussion

The results of this study can be understood via the context of the service sector and from an affective events theory perspective. The findings of the study suggest that role overload significantly contributes to supervisor frustration. Considering role overload as an affective event, previous researchers have outlined its negative outcomes, i.e., emotional exhaustion and resulting supervisor incivility (Rafique, 2022). Our results contradict the findings of previous studies where role overload is negatively correlated with engagement in OCB at work (Montani & Dagenais-Desmarais, 2018). We outline conditions such as coworker support and the arousal of guilt as an emotion that can lead abusive supervisors to engage in OCB towards their subordinates, which is a unique development in abusive supervision research. Contextually, in a people-intensive service context (i.e., healthcare), when supervisors are assigned additional tasks to meet customer service standards, it adds to their stress (i.e., causing frustration). From a family-oriented cultural perspective, supervisors must devote time to the family. Role overload can thus result in their frustrations. Considering these findings, it is notable that supervisors support their subordinates in managing their work-life balance (Yin et al., 2021). The results are understandable based on these theoretical, contextual, and cultural perspectives.

Uniquely, it was found that role overload causes supervisors to abuse their subordinates via supervisor frustration, which is understandable from an affective events theory perspective. For instance, considering role overload as an affective event, some stress can be caused (i.e., frustration among supervisors), thus resulting in destructive behaviors at work, i.e., abusive supervision. Previous research has presented a different perspective that role overload leads to negative work outcomes (Eissa & Lester, 2017), where abusive supervision is no exception. However, why does role overload cause abusive supervision? Our research answers this important question by explaining one condition, i.e., supervisor frustration.

Similarly, the relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor OCB mediated by a feeling of guilt is understandable. Considering abusive supervision as an affective event, it might arouse an emotion of guilt among supervisors, resulting in engagement in OCB. Since we collected data from a service context where supervisors and their subordinates work in close collaboration and have stronger ties (Kashif et al., 2020), the supervisors, when frustrated, sometimes lose control. This might result in some abusive behaviors that do not indicate that a supervisor is destructive (Afshan et al., 2022; Kashif et al., 2020). Moreover, supervisors and subordinates need support from each other to meet customer service expectations (Afshan et al., 2022; Ali & Kashif, 2020). Thus, to repair the potentially negative consequences of abusive supervision, supervisors might perform voluntary work for their subordinates when they recognize that abusive behavior is unfair. This is where we uniquely position guilt as an emotion, which is a unique finding of this study and provides a different explanation that supercharges the relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor OCB. These results are understandable in a cultural context where human relations are important (Ali & Kashif, 2020; Kashif et al., 2020). From a more theoretical perspective, our research strengthens the assumption of AET that continuity of events at work arouses unique emotions (i.e., guilt) and triggers a particular type of behavior (i.e., supervisor OCB) (Reynolds Kueny et al., 2020; Shum et al., 2020).

Finally, the results confirmed that a high level of coworker support moderates the negative effects of supervisor frustration, thus preventing a frustrated supervisor from abusing his/her subordinates. Stronger evidence shows that coworker support produces positive work outcomes (Kashif et al., 2021). This is also understandable in a service context where role overload might disturb supervisors' health and relationships (Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Creary & Gordon, 2016; Eissa & Lester, 2017; Shultz et al., 2010). Contextually, a service workplace is a combination of various affective events. On one side, where role overload causes frustration, coworkers' support can reduce supervisor frustration. When modeling the mediated moderation, it was found that coworker support alone is not sufficient to explain the relationship between role overload perceptions and engagement in OCB. This unique finding challenges existing assumptions about coworker support (Hao et al., 2022). One explanation could be some organizational and socio-cultural factors that could further explain this relationship.

7 Theoretical implications

The core aim of this study was to present conditions that result in abusive supervision. Moreover, it aimed to show how abusive behavior results in engagement in OCB via the arousal of guilt among supervisors. The study addresses the important question of whether abusive supervision leads to positive work outcomes. We answer this question by proposing a mediating effect of guilt as an emotion that motivates supervisors to repair poor treatment given to subordinates. There is ample research on the dark effects of abusive supervision (Afshan et al., 2022; Mannan & Kashif, 2019; Moin et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2019). However, what causes abusive supervision, especially its relationship with role overload perceptions among supervisors, is scarcely examined (Eissa & Lester, 2017). In addition, ample research has presented negative outcomes of abusive supervision, but the idea that it can lead to some positive work outcomes is yet another unique contribution of this study. Finally, the organizational behavior literature does not thoroughly examine what can prevent frustrated supervisors from abusing their subordinates. We contribute by positioning coworker support as a moderating variable. We contribute to the extant research on abusive supervision and its positive outcomes based on testing these relationships. First, role overload and supervisor frustration are affective events. Second, in a workplace where role overload and supervisor frustration are affective, coworker support is also an affective event (based on the principle of continuity of events in affective events theory). Third, all these affective events arouse a feeling of guilt. Fourth, guilt, as a consequence of these affective yet continuous events, can trigger supervisor OCB as a reparatory mechanism. This study enriches our understanding of affective events and outlines some positive outcomes of abusive supervision as a critical affective event.

8 Managerial implications

Organizations must understand the negative consequences of role overload perceptions, especially in family-oriented societies such as Pakistan. It is also an important element for the family and thus cannot be ignored. Empirical evidence suggests that role overload causes frustration among supervisors, thus resulting in abusive behaviors. Instead of tagging supervisors as abusive and penalizing them, the organization's policymakers should understand service work as a combination of challenging tasks. Policymakers should be mindful when assigning roles to supervisors. This is an important implication based on the findings of this study. Above all, it might not only be the tasks that result in a perception of role overload. Instead, it could be the multiple roles of family management and working together. This is very common in countries such as Pakistan. Even in other countries, organizations should offer familial support to manage family life in a better manner (Yin et al., 2021).

The supervisor's frustration can be reduced by channeling social events at work, which might bring harmony and a feeling of togetherness. This is very important in a service context where people work close to each other, particularly because they feel they are and work as a combined unit (Kashif et al., 2020). Organizational policymakers can even launch on-the-job employee assistance schemes, which might decrease supervisor frustration, thus preventing abuse. In addition, developing a friendly, open, and transparent workplace culture might reduce the probability that a supervisor will be abusive. For instance, when the workload is shared transparently, it might help supervisors to understand that others are also assigned similar types of tasks. This might create a positive impact while minimizing supervisor frustration.

Some coaching programs can be designed for supervisor training, motivating them to repair negative perceptions by performing positive actions, i.e., OCB. Some case studies of successful supervisors may be shared with them to arouse a feeling that abusive manners are indecent and might hurt others and damage the individual's reputation.

9 Limitations and future research directions

This research has some limitations which offer exciting opportunities for future research. Methodologically, the data were collected by following a self-report, cross-sectional research design. Although it served the purpose of this study, the method used to collect the data is not free from common method biases. Generally, supervisors like to attribute their abusive behaviors to organizational factors such as role overload. Thus, we suggest future researchers collect data via longitudinal studies, especially when the aim is to investigate supervisor frustration over time, identifying a few elements which can reshape frustration levels. From a methodological standpoint, another limitation is the use of single-source data. Since we collected data during Covid-19 restrictions, data collection from supervisor-subordinate dyads and multiple levels in a hierarchy was difficult. Thus, future researchers could collect dyadic data, which can be helpful in a more comprehensive examination of abusive supervision, its antecedents, and the consequences. Another limitation was the employment of a quantitative deduction approach to outline and test the hypotheses. We must discover why role overload causes frustrations among supervisors. In this regard, generalization of the findings of this study is limited. The results might need to be more specific.

Moreover, the context-based antecedents of abusive supervision are not explored. Thus, future researchers could conduct a qualitative inquiry to examine these relationships contextually. Furthermore, data could be collected from other sectors, such as the banking, telecoms, and food sectors, to further extend and generalize the findings of this study. Finally, an important intervention could be an in-depth study of these supervisors, and who they are, based on age, gender, rank, and personality.

Theoretically, we positioned role overload as the only affective event which results in supervisor frustration and abuse. However, it might not be the only role-centric reason causing such negative consequences. Thus, future researchers should highlight other role-centric issues, i.e., role ambiguity and conflict. From another theoretical perspective, we conceptualized guilt as an emotion that triggers OCB among supervisors. However, similar emotions, when aroused, can lead to some other interesting outcomes. For instance, it would be interesting to study the consequences of regret or even the arousal of embarrassment as an emotion after episodes of abusive supervision. Theoretically, we positioned supervisor OCB as an outcome of abusive supervision in an interplay with guilt. Future researchers are encouraged to assume an interpretive perspective to explore how supervisors try to repair their relationships with their subordinates after an abusive episode. An interpretive exploration of this reparation could bring unique insights to the study of abusive supervision. A few more interesting research questions warrant our attention. For instance, could specific contextual, religious, cultural, or personality variables incline some supervisors to repair their reputations? Are all supervisors prone to moral cleansing or guilt? Does OCB, as a product of guilt from perpetrating supervisory abuse, erase or reduce the effects of the initial abuse on subordinates/victims? Does this prevent repeat supervisory abuse behavior? The answers to these questions can advance the theory in the field of abusive supervision.

Contextually, we collected data from private-sector hospitals. The hospital setting is a people-intensive work setting, similar to banking, telecoms, food, and fashion retail. Yet, the results cannot be generalized to other sectors. The context might be the same, but the realities of every sector differ. Thus, future researchers should collect data from supervisors working in other sectors to generalize the findings. Furthermore, we recommend future researchers collect data from organizations operating in the manufacturing sector. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the findings by collecting data from two sectors, i.e., services and manufacturing.

10 Conclusion

A significant number of research studies report the negative consequences of abusive supervision. However, there are limited studies where some of the positive consequences of abusive supervision are reported. Furthermore, few studies examine how coworker support buffers the relationship between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision and guilt to mediate between abusive supervision and supervisor OCB. Our research addresses these concerns and presents a unique framework to advance our understanding, considering abusive supervision as an affective event. Taken together, our mediated-moderation model presents a unique role of coworker support in explaining the process going from role overload to supervisor OCB. Our work presents a unique viewpoint, highlighting the reparatory mechanism to explain why an abusive supervisor engages in organizational citizenship behavior towards employees via the mediation of guilt. This way, our study extends the findings of recent studies on moral cleansing related to abusive behaviors at work (McClean et al., 2021; Shum et al., 2020). Organizations can use the results of our study to manage role overload issues associated with supervisory work.

APPENDIX A

Figure A1
Structural Model – Path Model

APPENDIX B

Figure A2
Interaction Plot for Direct Moderation

APPENDIX C A detailed description of the codes related to the main variables of the study

Variable	Items	Code
Role Overload	I feel that other people expect too much of me in my role	RO1
	I do not have enough time to get the job done well	RO2
	I do not have enough help and resources to get the job done well	RO3
	It often seems like I have too much work for one person to do	RO4
	I feel that the number of requests, problems, or complaints I deal with is more than expected	RO5
	I feel that the amount of work I do interferes with how well it is done	RO6
	I feel busy or rushed	RO7
	I feel pressured	RO8
Supervisor Frustration	Trying to get this job done was a very frustrating experience	SF1
	Being frustrated comes with this job	SF2
	Overall, I experienced very little frustration on this job (reverse scored)	SF3
Coworker Support Items	My coworkers assist me with heavy workloads	CS1
	My coworkers go out of their way to help me with work-related problems	CS2
	My coworkers help me when things get demanding	CS3
	My coworkers help me when I’m running behind in my work	CS4
	My coworkers help me with difficult assignments, even when I don’t directly request assistance	CS5
	My coworkers show me where things are that I need to do my job	CS6
	My coworkers compliment me when I succeed at work	CS7
	My coworkers listen to me when I have to get something off my chest	CS8
	My coworkers make an effort to make me feel welcome in the work group	CS9
	My coworkers make an extra effort to understand my problems and concerns	CS10
	My coworkers show concern and courtesy toward me, even when things are difficult	CS11
	My coworkers take a personal interest in me	CS12
	My coworkers take time to listen to my concerns	CS13
	My coworkers try to cheer me up when I’m having a bad day	CS14
Abusive Supervision Items	My supervisor ridicules me	AS1
	My supervisor tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid	AS2
	My supervisor gives me the silent treatment	AS3
	My supervisor puts me down in front of others	AS4
	My supervisor invades my privacy	AS5
	My supervisor reminds me of my past mistakes and failures	AS6
	My supervisor doesn't give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort	AS7
	My supervisor blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment	AS8
	My supervisor breaks promises he/she makes	AS9
	My supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason	AS10
	My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others	AS11
	My supervisor is rude to me	AS12
	My supervisor does not allow me to interact with my coworkers	AS13
	My supervisor tells me I'm incompetent	AS14
	My supervisor lies to me	AS15
Guilt	After realizing you have received too much change at a store, you decide to keep it because the salesclerk does not notice. What is the likelihood that you would feel uncomfortable about keeping the money	G1
	You secretly commit a felony. What is the likelihood that you would feel remorse about breaking the law	G2
	At a coworker’s housewarming party, you spill red wine on their new cream-colored carpet. You cover the stain with a chair so that nobody notices your mess. What is the likelihood that you would feel that the way you acted was pathetic	G3
	You lie to people but they never find out about it. What is the likelihood that you would feel terrible about the lies you told	G4
	You are privately informed that you are the only one in your group that did not make the honor society because you skipped too many days of school. What is the likelihood that this would lead you to become more responsible about attending school	G5
	You reveal a friends’ secret, though your friend never finds out. What is the likelihood that your failure to keep the secret would lead you to exert extra effort to keep secrets in the future	G6
	You strongly defend a point of view in a discussion, and though nobody was aware of it, you realize that you were wrong. What is the likelihood that this would make you think more carefully before you speak	G7
	While discussing a heated subject with friends, you suddenly realize you are shouting though nobody seems to notice. What is the likelihood that you would try to act more considerately toward your friends	G8
Organizational Citizenship Behavior	You have adjusted your work schedule to accommodate other employees' requests for time off	OCB1
	You have helped others who have been absent	OCB2
	You have showed genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most trying business or personal situations	OCB3
	You have offered ideas to improve the functioning of the organization	OCB4
	You have expressed loyalty toward the organization	OCB5
	You have taken action to protect the organization from potential problems	OCB6
	You have demonstrated concern about the image of the organization	OCB7
	You have taken the initiative to troubleshoot and solve technical problems before requesting help from a supervisor	OCB8

• Evaluation process:

  Double Blind Review
• This article is open data
• How to cite: Kashif, M., Naheed, R., & Wijenayake, S. (2023). Rethinking abusive supervision: antecedents and reparative mechanisms of abusive supervision, including supervisor frustration, coworker support, guilt, and supervisor OCB in a mediated-moderation model. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 25(1), p.108-131. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v25i1.4217

• Financial support:

  The authors declare that no financial support was received.

• Open Science:

  Kashif, Muhammad; Naheed, Rehana; Wijenayake , Shanika, 2023, "Supplementary Data - Abusive supervisors are not devils: antecedents and reparative mechanisms of abusive supervision, including supervisor frustration, coworker support, guilt, and supervisor OCB in a mediated-moderation model", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OVU0LA, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:WmvxjfIjS7Fv9YbbairZcw==[fileUNF].

• Copyrights:

  RBGN owns the copyrights of this published content.

• Plagiarism analysis:

  RBGN performs plagiarism analysis on all its articles at the time of submission and after approval of the manuscript using the iThenticate tool.

REFERENCES

• Abi Aad, A., Andrews, M. C., Maalouf, J. T., Kacmar, K. M., & Valle, M. (2021). Easing the multiplicative effects of abusive supervision. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 42(6), 899-911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-02-2021-0066
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-02-2021-0066
• Afshan, G., Kashif, M., Sattayawaksakul, D., Cheewaprakobkit, P., & Wijenayake, S. (2022). Abusive supervision, supervisor undermining, and turnover intentions: Mediation of quiescent silence and desire to seek revenge among Thai banking frontliners. Management Research Review, 45(11), 1479-1502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2021-0240
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2021-0240
• Ali, R., & Kashif, M. (2020). The role of resonant leadership, workplace friendship and serving culture in predicting organizational commitment: The mediating role of compassion at work. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 22(4), 799-819. http://dx.doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v22i4.4085
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v22i4.4085
• Ampofo, E. T., & Karatepe, O. M. (2022). The effect of abusive supervision on turnover intentions: On-the-job embeddedness versus traditional attitudinal constructs. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.80
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.80
• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(103), 411-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
• Arain, G. A., Bukhari, S., Khan, A. K., & Hameed, I. (2020). The impact of abusive supervision on employees’ feedback avoidance and subsequent help-seeking behaviour: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(5), 850-865. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.44
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.44
• Arshad, M., Abid, G., & Torres, F. V. C. (2021). Impact of prosocial motivation on organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of ethical leadership and leader–member exchange. Quality & Quantity, 55(1), 133-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-00997-5
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-00997-5
• 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(3), 721-731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2192-x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2192-x
• Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(34), 21-58.
• Ballalis, H. (2018). The rationale behind the need for organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction. Acta Et Commentationes, 13(2), 97-106.
• Becker, D. (2021). Feeling right about doing right, even if it was difficult? Emotional and behavioral consequences of conflict during ethical consumer decision‐making. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(3), 817-826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.1911
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.1911
• Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59 PMid:2667009.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59
• Bernd, D. C., & Beuren, I. M. (2021). Self-perceptions of organizational justice and burnout in attitudes and behaviors in the work of internal auditors. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 23(3), 422-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v23i3.4110
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v23i3.4110
• Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740-748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.740 PMid:16060790.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.740
• Bormann, K. C., & Gellatly, I. R. (2021). It’s only abusive if I care: The effect of organizational concern on abusive supervision, stress, and work behaviors. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 21(3), 125-136.
• Bro, R., & Smilde, A. K. (2014). Principal component analysis. Analytical Methods, 6(9), 2812-2831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C3AY41907J
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C3AY41907J
• Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. (2014). A meta‐analytic comparison of self‐reported and other‐reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(4), 547-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1909
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1909
• Chen, L., Chen, M., Zhang, H., & Yan, X.-M. (2021). Interrupting the crossover effect of leader’s role overload on employee’s negative affect: The moderating role of self-concordance goal. Journal of Managerial Psychology
• Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 296-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343
• Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 947-966. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022641 PMid:21517196.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022641
• Creary, S. J., & Gordon, J. R. (2016). Role conflict, role overload, and role strain. In C. L. Shehan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of family studies Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs012
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs012
• De Clercq, D., Azeem, M. U., Haq, I. U., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2020). The stress-reducing effect of coworker support on turnover intentions: Moderation by political ineptness and despotic leadership. Journal of Business Research, 111, 12-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.064
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.064
• Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. (2003). Doing unto others: The reciprocity of helping behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(2), 101-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026060419167
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026060419167
• Eissa, G., & Lester, S. W. (2017). Supervisor role overload and frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision: The moderating role of supervisor personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 307-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2123
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2123
• Feng, J., & Wang, C. (2019). Does abusive supervision always promote employees to hide knowledge? From both reactance and COR perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(7), 1455-1474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2018-0737
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2018-0737
• Fischer, T., Tian, A. W., Lee, A., & Hughes, D. J. (2021). Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(6), 101540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101540
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101540
• Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work life: An introduction (Vol. 21). Wiley Online Library.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics Sage Publications Sage CA.
• Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. ((2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
• Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414-433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6
• Halinski, M., & Duxbury, L. (2022). When spouses contribute at home: The impact of spouse dependent care on role overload and stress in dual-earner couples. Community Work & Family In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2022.2100242
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2022.2100242
• Hao, Q., Wei, K., & Zhang, B. (2022). How to attenuate the effects of abusive supervision on knowledge hiding: The neutralizing roles of coworker support and individual characteristics. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(7), 1807-1825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2021-0167
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2021-0167
• Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach Guilford publications.
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 PMid:2648906.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Ilies, R., Peng, A. C., Savani, K., & Dimotakis, N. (2013). Guilty and helpful: An emotion-based reparatory model of voluntary work behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1051-1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034162 PMid:24041120.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034162
• Islam, T., Sharif, S., Ali, H. F., & Jamil, S. (2022). Zooming into paternalistic leadership: Evidence from high power distance culture. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 26(1), 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-05-2021-0149
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-05-2021-0149
• Kashif, M., Gürce, M. Y., Tosun, P., & Wijenayake, S. (2020). Supervisor and customer-driven stressors to predict silence and voice motives: Mediating and moderating roles of anger and self-control. Services Marketing Quarterly, 41(3), 273-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2020.1786247
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2020.1786247
• Kashif, M., Handoko, I., & Lamichhane, R. (2022). Two cooks spoil the broth: Destructive outcomes of supervisor and customer mistreatment in mediating-moderating roles of anger and self-control in an Indonesian context. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10672-022-09419-0
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10672-022-09419-0
• Kashif, M., Petrovskaya, I., Samad, S., & Wijenayake, S. (2021). Leaving in mascot of silence: Organizational determinants of employee turnover intentions in mediating and moderating roles of quiescent silence and coworker support in a Russian context. Central European Management Journal, 29(2), 121-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.48
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.48
• Khan, S. (2021). Do workplace contextual factors engender abusive supervision? Australian Journal of Management, 46(1), 132-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0312896219899435
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0312896219899435
• Kim, S. L., & Yun, S. (2015). The effect of coworker knowledge sharing on performance and its boundary conditions: An interactional perspective. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 575-582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037834 PMid:25198095.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037834
• Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford.
• Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., Johnson, R. E., Liu, W., & Song, Z. (2018). Cleansing my abuse: A reparative response model of perpetrating abusive supervisor behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(9), 1039-1056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000319 PMid:29722999.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000319
• Lin, S.-Y., Chen, H.-C., & Chen, I.-H. (2016). When perceived welfare practices lead to organizational citizenship behavior. Asia Pacific Management Review, 21(4), 204-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2016.04.001
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2016.04.001
• MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2018). Individual and organizational-level. In P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie & N. P. Podsakoff (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of organizational citizenship behavior Oxford University Press.
• Mannan, A., & Kashif, M. (2019). Being abused, dealt unfairly, and ethically conflicting? Quitting occupation in the lap of silence. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 12(1), 22-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-01-2019-0013
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-01-2019-0013
• Mawritz, M. B., Folger, R., & Latham, G. P. (2014). Supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals and abusive supervision: The mediating effects of hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 358-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1879
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1879
• McClean, S. T., Courtright, S. H., Yim, J., & Smith, T. A. (2021). Making nice or faking nice? Exploring supervisors’ two‐faced response to their past abusive behavior. Personnel Psychology, 74(4), 693-719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12424
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12424
• Moin, M. F., Wei, F., Khan, A. N., Ali, A., & Chang, S. C. (2021). Abusive supervision and job outcomes: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Organizational Change Management
• Montani, F., & Dagenais-Desmarais, V. (2018). Unravelling the relationship between role overload and organizational citizenship behaviour: A test of mediating and moderating effects. European Management Journal, 36(6), 757-768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.03.001
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.03.001
• Naeem, M., Weng, Q. D., Ali, A., & Hameed, Z. (2019). An eye for an eye: Does subordinates’ negative workplace gossip lead to supervisor abuse? Personnel Review, 49(1), 284-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2018-0174
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2018-0174
• Ng, T. W., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group & Organization Management, 33(3), 243-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601107313307
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601107313307
• Nguyen, H., Ashkanasy, N. M., Parker, S. L., & Li, Y. (2019). Abusive supervision dispersion: An affective events theory perspective. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 2019(1), 12330. Academy of Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.12330abstract.
• O’brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673-690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
• Ocampo, L., Acedillo, V., Bacunador, A. M., Balo, C. C., Lagdameo, Y. J., & Tupa, N. S. (2018). A historical review of the development of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and its implications for the twenty-first century. Personnel Review, 47(4), 821-862. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2017-0136
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2017-0136
• Özkan, A. H. (2022). Abusive supervision climate and turnover intention: Is it my coworkers or my supervisor ostracizing me? Journal of Nursing Management, 30(6), 1462-1469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13398 PMid:34173999.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13398
• Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 391-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257114
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257114
• Rafique, M. (2022). Supervisor role overload and emotional exhaustion as antecedents of supervisor incivility: The role of time consciousness. Journal of Management & Organization In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.39
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.39
• Rave, R., Itzchakov, G., Weinstein, N., & Reis, H. T. (2022). How to get through hard times: Principals’ listening buffers teachers’ stress on turnover intention and promotes organizational citizenship behavior. Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) Ahead of print. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03529-6 PMid:35967509.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03529-6
• Reynolds Kueny, C. A., Francka, E., Shoss, M. K., Headrick, L., & Erb, K. (2020). Ripple effects of supervisor counterproductive work behavior directed at the organization: Using affective events theory to predict subordinates’ decisions to enact CWB. Human Performance, 33(5), 355-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2020.1791871
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2020.1791871
• Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2391486
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2391486
• Rodrigues, N., & Rebelo, T. (2021). Unfolding the impact of trait emotional intelligence facets and coworker trust on task performance. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 23(3), 470-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v23i3.4111
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v23i3.4111
• Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person-and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 255-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.255 PMid:12002954.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.255
• She, Z., Li, B., Li, Q., London, M., & Yang, B. (2019). The double‐edged sword of coaching: Relationships between managers’ coaching and their feelings of personal accomplishment and role overload. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(2), 245-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21342
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21342
• Shen, W., Evans, R., Liang, L. H., & Brown, D. J. (2022). Bad, mad, or glad? Exploring the relationship between leaders’ appraisals or attributions of their use of abusive supervision and emotional reactions. Applied Psychology
• Shi, X. C., Gordon, S., & Adler, H. (2022). Challenging or hindering? Understanding the daily effects of work stressors on hotel employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 103, 103211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103211
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103211
• Shultz, K. S., Wang, M., & Olson, D. A. (2010). Role overload and underload in relation to occupational stress and health. Stress and Health, 26(2), 99-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.1268
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.1268
• Shum, C., Ausar, K., & Tu, M.-H. (2020). When do abusive leaders experience guilt? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(6), 2239-2256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2019-0474
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2019-0474
• Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00049-9
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00049-9
• Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in proneness to shame and guilt: Development of the self-conscious affect and attribution inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 102-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.102
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.102
• Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 345-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145 PMid:16953797.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145
• Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556375
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556375
• Tripathi, D., Singh, S., & Varma, A. (2023). Perceptions of politics and organizational citizenship behavior: Political skill and conscientiousness as moderators. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 17(1), 170-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JABS-09-2021-0369
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JABS-09-2021-0369
• Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 1-74.
• Wuttaphan, N. (2022). Work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior of frontline workers during COVID-19 in Thailand. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 17(1), 58-71.
• Yin, W., Liao, S., Ouyang, X., Akhtar, M. N., & Zhou, X. (2021). I speak when boss Back up my family: Testing the moderated mediation model of family supportive supervisor behavior and employee voice. Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02215-3
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02215-3
• 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9551-y
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9551-y
• Zhang, L., Liu, X., Xu, S., Yang, L.-Q., & Bednall, T. C. (2019). Why abusive supervision impacts employee OCB and CWB: A meta-analytic review of competing mediating mechanisms. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2474-2497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206318823935
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206318823935
• Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. C. (2016). Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 455-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2657-6
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2657-6
• Zhang, Z., Zheng, S., Luca Pletzer, J., Derks, D., Breevaart, K., & Zhang, X. (2022). How to cope with an abusive leader? Examinations of subordinates’ affective reactions, CWB-O and turnover intentions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 29(4), 389-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15480518221097278
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15480518221097278

Responsible editor:

Alex Anlesinya

Reviewers:

Adebukola Oyewunmi;

Rebecca Dei Mensah

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  14 Apr 2023
• Date of issue
  Jan-Mar 2023

History

• Received
  01 Aug 2022
• Accepted
  06 Mar 2023