Abusive Supervision

ABUSIVE SUPERVISION

Abusive supervision refers to sustained displays of nonphysical forms of hostility perpetrated by supervisors against their direct reports. 

Examples of behavior that fall within the abusive supervision content domain include public derogation, undermining, and explosive outbursts. 

Key features of the construct are

that abusive supervision refers to ongoing manifestations of hostility rather than discrete episodes and that

abusers may or may not intend to cause harm. 

Hence, for example, yelling at subordinates for the purpose of eliciting greater task performance could be considered abusive. It should also be noted that abusive supervision constitutes a subjective assessment, in the sense that behavior that is perceived to be abusive in one context may not be so perceived in another context, and two subordinates could render different interpretations of the same supervisor behavior. 

Similar concepts that have been the focus of systematic empirical research include bullying, petty tyranny, and downward mobbing.

EPIDEMIOLOGY

According to epidemiological studies, abusive supervision is much more common than physical violence or sexual harassment; one in seven employees reports that his or her current supervisor is abusive, approximately 50% of employees can expect to have an abusive supervisor at some point in their working life, and most abusers target multiple subordinates simultaneously. Half of abusive supervisors are women, most abusers target same-sex victims, and there are sex differences in terms of the ways in which men and women abuse their subordinates; women bullies

engage in more social manipulation (i.e., rumors and insulting comments about one’s personal life), and male bullies engage in more covert aggression, acts

that on the surface appear rational, such as appraising targets unfairly and preventing them from expressing

themselves.

OBSTACLES TO SYSTEMATIC

EMPIRICAL INQUIRY

There are challenges associated with studying abusive supervision, not the least of which is the fact that researchers typically rely on subjective reports as to individuals’ level of exposure. A problem with this

approach to measuring abusive supervision is that some people may underreport their level of exposure because they are reluctant to admit that they have been victimized, whereas others exaggerate their supervisors’ hostility. A related obstacle to conducting valid empirical research is that linking abusive supervision and important outcomes requires gathering data from abused subordinates who are willing to identify themselves. Failing that, perceived abuse cannot be linked

with data collected from independent sources (e.g., observers, supervisors, archival records). A third challenge is that organizations may be hesitant to allow researchers to administer surveys on the topic. What is clear is that although abusive supervision is a lowbase-rate phenomenon that is difficult to study, the research to date consistently suggests that its effects can be severe.

(Rogelberg, 2007)