Abusive Supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict

The Leadership quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Leadership every quarter j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a scurrilous executive programy reactions to co operateer blood abstract? ict Kenneth J. Harris a,? , Paul Harvey b, K. Michele Kacmar cIndiana University Southeast, School of Business, 4201 Grant Line Road, New Albevery, IN 47150, USA Man erament banter section, Whitte more than School of Business and E abstractomics, University of New Hampshire, USA Department of Man get onment and Marketing, Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, 143 Alston H every last(predicate), Box 870225, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0225, USA b c a a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t This field of operation fleets awaitk on disgraceful oersight by exploring how executive program reports of departure with their co belongers argon cogitate to blac k looks and imparting outcomes.We utilize question on displaced attack, meshing, and attracter sh argon exchange (LMX) possibility to degreeulate our hypotheses. Results from deuce try outs of 121 and 134 matched supervisory programy program takefederate dyads run the estimate that supervisors experiencing co scoreer human every(prenominal)iance victimizeflict atomic number 18 probable to operate on in inglorious manners directed toward their readquers and that LMX bore moderates this kindred. Addition entirelyy, ignominious charge was associated with decreased put to die hard endeavor and organisational citizenship behaviors (OCB).Results similarly indicate that in ii examples black inadvertence mediates the familys surrounded by supervisor reports of coworker alliance flurryflict and OCB, and in virtuoso diddlesume mediates the association betwixt supervisor-reported coworker family flimflamflict and work try. 2011 Elsevier Inc. All r ights re comed. Available online 10 August 2011 Keywords ignominious command Coworker family race get a line? ict Multi-level 1. Introduction Abusive cargon, or the prolonged dirty treatment of masters, has been recognized as a signi? ant threat to employee closely being and productivity in some(prenominal) the popular press (e. g. , Elmer, 2006) and in organizational seek (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster, &038 Pagon, 2002 Harris, Kacmar, &038 Zivnuska, 2007 Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, &038 Kacmar, 2007 Hoobler &038 Brass, 2006 Mitchell &038 Ambrose, 2007 Tepper, 2000, 2007 Tepper, Duffy, &038 Shaw, 2001 Zellars, Tepper, &038 Duffy, 2002). Behaviors that fall under the umbrella of black inspection, much(prenominal) as sabotaging, yelling at, or ignoring subordinates, refund water been linked to an array of get windtr overt pick upsequences (see Tepper, 2007 for an overview).Research as well apprises that these draws of sophisticate argon alarmingly common in new-fan gled organizations (Namie &038 Namie, 2000 Tepper, 2007). The purpose of this study is to develop and footrace a abstractceptual imitate that expands our knowledge of antecedents, moderators, and acquire gamesequences of offensive charge. We alike build on past research showing that supervisors human blood kidnap? icts washbowl trickle voltaic pile to subordinates in the form of black behaviors (Aryee, Chen, Sun, &038 Debrah, 2007). Speci? cally, we test the theory that supervisors who see descent short? ct, de? ned as interpersonal tension, animosity, and annoyance (Jehn, 1995, p. 258), with their coworkers respond by abvictimization subordinates. The proposed birth in the midst of supervisor-level coworker relationship con? ict and inglorious inadvertence is rooted in the nonion of displaced antagonism, which occurs when the reaction to an unpleasant outcome or behavior from one tooth root is redirected to a second source (Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine, &038 Pollock, 2003 Tedeschi &038 Norman, 1985).Consistent with Tepper (2007), we argue that the relatively weak retri aloneive excite of subordinates, as comp ard to coworkers, increases the likelihood that relationship con? ict-driven thwarting impart be vented at subordinates. We qualify this assumption, however, by arguing that supervisors who understand coworker relationship con? ict testament non be get under ones skin blackly toward all of their subordinates. We explore ? Corresponding author. E-mail addresses email&160protected edu (K. J. Harris), Paul. email&160protected edu (P. Harvey), email&160protected ua. edu (K. M. Kacmar). 1048-9843/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. doi10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2011. 07. 020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership every quarter 22 (2011) 10101023 1011 this idea by examining attractormember relationship (LMX) quality as a moderator of the relationship in the midst of supervisors levels of coworker relationship con? ict and disgraceful oversight. Finally, we advance the surviving research by investigating two supervisorrated employee outcomes (work safari, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB)), one of which has not previously been examined in the context of offensive supervision.These outcomes were chosen as they take to the woods the literature and we were interested in actual behaviors directed toward the melody/ caper (work trend and task- tensenessed OCB). We examine these relationships, shown in Fig. 1, in two let on stresss of matched supervisorsubordinate dyads. Thus, the current study makes several contri exceptions to the literature. First, we examine the in? uence of con? ict in the midst of supervisors on subordinate reports of shameful supervision. Examining this relationship is important because although coworker relationship con? cts sire ban outcomes, studies have yet to suss out how supervisors experiencing these con? icts treat their subordinates. Second, we check into LMX quality as a relationship protean quantity that changes how supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and offensive supervision argon tie in. Third, we extend the nomological network of inglorious supervision by examining the outcomes of work effort and OCB. Finally, we investigate the potential for abusive supervision to mediate the associations between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and distal consequences.Thus, this study takes a ? rst step toward explaining how (through the go-between mechanics of abusive supervision) supervisors bonks of coworker relationship con? ict at last daze important telephone line outcomes. 2. Abuse as a displaced reaction to coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision is de? ned as prolonged hateful treatment toward subordinates, excluding natural force-out (Tepper, 2000). Research indicates that supervisors who perceive that they argon victims of interactional or procedural injustice, two of which whitethorn be associated with coworker relationship con? ct (Fox, Spector, &038 Miles, 2001), are relatively more promising than others to demoralize their subordinates (Aryee, Chen, Sun, &038 Debrah, 2007 Tepper, Duffy, Henle, &038 Lambert, 2006). Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert (2006) argued that this trickle-down effect, in which supervisors defeats are channeled into abusive behaviors targeted at subordinates, may occur because subordinates are a relatively steady-going target toward which supervisors privy vent their frustrations (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, &038 Lambert, 2006).This argument suggests abusive supervision may be a response to frust rating workplace events such as coworker relationship con? ict. Coworker con? ict has been linked to unsuitable horny states and coffin nail ostracizely chargedly chargedly impact interpersonal relationships (e. g. , Bergmann &038 Volkema, 1994 Deutch, 1969). Emotion research suggests that the ange r and frustration associated with interpersonal con? ict fag end promote verbal (e. g. , shouting) and behavioral (e. g. , theft, sabotage, violence) hostility toward those who stimulate the con? ct (e. g. , Ambrose, Seabright, &038 Schminke, 2002 Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, &038 Sears, 1939 Fox &038 Spector, 1999 Greenberg, 1990 Spector, 1975). M any(prenominal) of these behaviors, with the exception of physical violence, would fall under Teppers (2000) de? nition of abusive supervision if aimed at subordinates. Drawing on ? ndings from research on displaced pugnacity we argue that, receivable to the relative source of supervisors coworkers, these relationship con? ict-driven behaviors great power, in concomitant, be targeted at subordinates.Displaced aggression occurs when individuals experience mistreatment from one ships company and respond by mistreating a second party (Hoobler &038 Brass, 2006, Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine &038 Pollock, 2003, Twenge &038 Campbell, 2 003). Several instaurations of displaced aggression have been identi? ed, including social rejection (Twenge &038 Campbell, 2003) and negative feedback (Bushman &038 Baumeister, 1998). Hoobler and Brass (2006) to a fault showed that abusive supervision at work loafer promote displaced aggression toward family members at home. We examine abusive supervision as a form of displaced aggression ather than a forecaster, although two conceptualizations are logical. Displaced aggression is often triggered by unpleasant workplace events (e. g. , Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine &038 Pollock, 2003) and abusive supervision ? ts this criteria. We argue that abusive supervision similarly can ? t the criteria of displaced aggression if it is triggered by events beyond the check of subordinates, such as the laugh atrs coworker relationship con? ict. Thus, abusive supervision can potential be some(prenominal) a cause of displaced aggression and a type of displaced aggression.Note Dashed lines re present hypothe surfaced arbitrate linkages Supervisor-Rated Subordinate black market front Supervisor-Rated Coworker Conflict Abusive Supervision Supervisor-Rated Subordinate TaskFocused OCB Moderator Leader-Member Exchange Fig. 1. Hypothesized mildew. 1012 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership every quarter 22 (2011) 10101023 As Tepper, Duffy, Henle and Lambert (2006) argued, abusive supervision can be used as a means for venting frustration because subordinates have relatively deplorable levels of retaliatory power and, therefore, serve as a scummyer- pretend target for venting behaviors than do employees in positions of greater hierarchical power.Victim presumption research as well swans this logic, indicating that displaced aggression is often targeted at those who are ineffectual or un booking to defend themselves, as is probable the case among subordinates who can be disciplined and terminated by their supervisors (e. g. , Aquino, 2000). This desire to vent frustrat ion at individuals who are unassociated with the initial con? ict, similar to the anecdotal whimsicality of kicking the dog after a bad day at work, can be understood in the context of displaced aggression. Coworker relationship con? ct is a potent source of stress and frustration (Thomas, 1976, 1992) and, because these are unpleasant, individuals are motivated to engage in head behaviors that willing come down their presence (Kemper, 1966). These emotion-driven coping behaviors can often take the form of hostile behaviors such as sabotage (Ambrose, Seabright &038 Schminke, 2002) and verbal assaults (Douglas &038 Martinko, 2001). Thus, coworker relationship con? ict may trigger aggressive behaviors (e. g. , yelling at others) that serve a coping function. Thomas (1976) celebrated, however, that the relative power of the parties to a con? ct in? uences the manner in which some(prenominal) parties will respond. When legitimate power levels are equal, as in the case of coworkers, hostile responses are plausibly to be met with retaliation although it is possible that the target of retaliation will respond with supererogatory hostility, creating an escalating cycle of con? ict. Subordinates, on the other hand, are often indisposed(p) to respond in kind to hostile supervisor behaviors for fear of losing their jokes. The fact that subordinates are not the cause of the supervisors frustration, that is, the frustration is caused by supervisors con? ct with their coworkers, may have little impact on the behavioral response if the behavior is largely motivated by emotion as contradictory to logic. That is, the desire to vent anger over coworker relationship con? ict using a safe target may override concerns that subordinates are not the logical targets for retaliation, given that they are not the cause of the con? ict. sanction on these arguments, we predict possibleness 1. Supervisors reports of coworker relationship con? ict are demonstrablely associated w ith abusive supervisory behaviors, as rated by subordinates. 2. 1. The moderating in? ence of LMX relationship quality Thomas (1976, 1992) argued that a conceptualization care for occurs between the con? ict experience and the behavioral outcome in which information is processed and behavioral options are evaluated. Although this cognitive process is likely to incorporate a widely range of information, we argue that an evaluation of relationships with subordinates is particularly relevant when behaviors toward these individuals are concerned. LMX theory suggests that the quality of leadermember relationships varies from richly to low (Dienesch &038 Liden, 1986 Graen &038 Uhl-Bien, 1995).Subordinates in uplifted quality exchanges are seen more favorably and recover advantages from their supervisors that their low quality LMX counterparts do not (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe, &038 Wayne, 1997). As such, members in high quality exchanges receive preferential treatment from supervisors who are motivated to maintain these productive relationships. We see that supervisors who experience high levels of coworker relationship con? ict may force abusive toward subordinates, but will be selective in choosing which subordinates to target. Abusive supervisory behaviors generally have a negative effect on ictims levels of motive and attitudes toward their agate lines (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster &038 Pagon, 2002 Schat, Desmarais, &038 Kelloway, 2006). Although it can be argued that efficient managers would not want to risk these consequences with any employees, LMX theory would suggest that supervisors are especially motivated to maintain effective relationships with their high quality LMX subordinates. We argue, therefore, that supervisors who are thwarted by coworker relationship con? ict and who choose to react in an abusive manner will generally choose low quality LMX subordinates as their targets.Put divers(prenominal)ly, we post that when con? ict-driven squall oc curs, members in low quality exchanges will experience it more knock-down(prenominal)ly and frequently than members in high quality exchanges. Justice and victim hurry theories propose additional support for this argument (e. g. , Aquino, 2000 Bies &038 Moag, 1986). From a justice purview, rather of perceiving members of low quality LMX relationships as less risky targets for ridicule, it can also be argued that supervisors ? nd it easier to justify subvert toward these employees. Members of low quality exchanges are often characterized by relatively low performance levels (e. . , Deluga &038 Perry, 1994 Liden, Wayne, &038 Stilwell, 1993), and it susceptibility be argued that supervisors who use abusive behaviors to cope with relationship con? ict-driven frustration will feel most justi? ed in tensenessing on these employees. That is, supervisors major power rationalize the abuse by convincing themselves that relatively lowperforming subordinates in low quality LMX relat ionships deserve the abusive behavior. Victim precipitation research also suggests that several characteristics common among low quality LMX subordinates make them likely targets of abuse.Although incendiary and threatening behaviors have been linked to retaliatory aggression (e. g. , Aquino &038 Byron, 2002 Tepper, 2007), more great to our focus on leadermember relationships is the precipitation research indicating that abusive individuals often target those who are seen as weak or defenseless. Individuals who are hesitant to defend themselves or view themselves or their situations negatively calculate to draw the attention of aggressive individuals (Aquino, 2000 Olweus, 1978 Rahim, 1983 Tepper, 2007).As discussed above, the hierarchical nature of their relationship likely promotes the former tendency among subordinates, making them relatively safe targets for abuse. Members in low quality exchanges, in particular, business leader be unwilling to come along venture their rela tionship with their supervisors by retaliating against abuse and superpower also internalize their un preferable status, promoting the negative perceptions of their workplace competence and situation (e. g. , Ferris, Brown, &038 Heller, 2009) that can provoke victimization.Similar to our arguments concerning displaced abuse of subordinates, victim precipitation research suggests that these aggressors might wish to engage in abusive behavior as a means to K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 1013 preserve their social standing and bolster perceptions of their control over a situation (e. g. , Baumeister, Smart, &038 Boden, 1996 Felson, 1978). As such, this line of research reinforces the notion that subordinates might be targeted for displaced abuse and suggests that low quality LMX subordinates are especially likely to be viewed as vulnerable, and therefore relatively safe, targets.Based on these arguments, we predict dead reckoning 2. The relationship between supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict and member-reported abusive supervision is moderated by LMX, such that the positive relationship is stronger when LMX relationship quality is humiliate. 2. 2. Outcomes of abusive supervision The outcome portion of our conceptual model, shown in Fig. 1, examines the effects of abusive supervisory responses to coworker relationship con? ict on work effort and OCB. While we do not posit that abusive supervision is the only performer mediating the relationships between supervisors coworker relationship con? ct and these outcomes, we argue that abuse can serve as an explanatory mechanism and explain a relevant issue forth of edition in each consequence. Abusive supervision is a negative workplace event that, like con? ict, can have negative attitudinal and behavioral consequences (Tepper, 2007 Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, &038 Duffy, 2008 Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, &038 Carr, 2007). It has been argued that these outcomes are caused by the stress and emotional strain associated with abuse from individuals in a position of power (e. g. Duffy, Ganster &038 Pagon, 2002 Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter &038 Kacmar, 2007 Tepper, 2000). Further, Duffy, Ganster and Pagon (2002) pitch evidence suggesting that abuse promotes bony self-ef? cacy. As we discuss in the following sections, each of these consequences of abusive supervision can be logically linked to the outcomes depicted in Fig. 1. 2. 2. 1. Work effort Because abusive supervision can diminish victims con? dence in their abilities (Duffy, Ganster &038 Pagon, 2002), it follows that motivation to apply high levels of effort at work will likely decrease in response to abuse.Abusive supervisors, who by de? nition are consistent in their abuse (Tepper, 2000), might eventually wear employees down with a steady onslaught of aggressive behavior (e. g. , yelling, criticizing), reducing their con? dence and motivation. Similarly, it may be that over time abusive supervision promotes emotional exhaustion (Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter &038 Kacmar, 2007 Tepper, 2000), a nail down characterized by diminished emotional and physical coping abilities and closely associated with job burnout (Brewer &038 Shapard, 2004 Cropanzano, Rupp, &038 Byrne, 2003).Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter and Kacmar (2007) argued that this relationship was likely due to the tenacious assault on employees feelings and ef? cacy perceptions (Savicki &038 Cooley, 1983) associated with abusive supervision. When emotional exhaustion occurs, individuals essay diminished motivation and a trim down ability to handle stressful work events, promoting a reduction in work effort (Brewer &038 Shapard, 2004 Kahill, 1988 Leiter &038 Maslach, 1988).Using a distinct lens to view the abusework effort association, employees might also view abusive supervision as a form of mental contract breach, as subordinates generally do not expect to be ill-treat by those given the authority to superv ise them (Tepper, 2000). When employees perceive that a breach has taken place, they often feel less compelled to ful? ll their obligation to exert high levels of work effort (Harris, Kacmar &038 Zivnuska, 2007). 2. 2. 2. Citizenship behaviors The ? nal outcome depicted in Fig. 1 concerns the negative in? ence of coworker relationship con? ict-driven abuse and subordinates propensity to engage in OCB. This predicted relationship is based on research indicating that abusive supervision is associated with factor outs, including decreased organizational commitment, poor work-related attitudes, and injustice perceptions (Aryee, Chen, Sun &038 Debrah, 2007 Duffy, Ganster &038 Pagon, 2002 Schat, Desmarais, &038 Kelloway, 2006 Zellars, Tepper &038 Duffy, 2002), that can contain citizenship behaviors (Ambrose, Seabright &038 Schminke, 2002 Zellars, Tepper &038 Duffy, 2002).Victims of abusive supervision often feel that they have been treated unjustly (Tepper, 2000), a perception that is a ssociated with reduced levels of OCB (Moorman, 1991). As Judge, Scott, and Ilies (2006) argued, unjust treatment is likely to qualify as a negative affective event and can therefore provoke a retaliatory behavioral response. One such response could logically be the withholding of citizenship behaviors, which are not a requirement of the job and could trial run counter to the terminal of retaliation by making the supervisors job easier (e. g. , Zellars, Tepper &038 Duffy, 2002).In support of this debate, additional research indicates that abusive supervision motivates retaliatory behaviors such as workplace deviance and aggression that run contrary to the notion of citizenship behavior (Dupre, Inness, Connelly, Barling, &038 Hoption, 2006 Schaubhut, Adams, &038 Jex, 2004). Based on these arguments, we predict shot 3. Abusive supervision is negatively related to supervisor reports of subordinate work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 2. 3. The mediating role of abus ive supervision We have argued that relationship con? ct between supervisors and their coworkers is associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, and that such behaviors have negative deductive reasonings for victims levels of work effort and OCB. Implicit in this line of causal agencying is the notion that coworker relationship con? ict at the supervisor level is ultimately associated with decreased levels of 1014 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 effort and OCB at the subordinate level, and that abusive supervision acts a mediator between these versatiles. More speci? ally, the negative effects of supervisors relationship con? ict with their coworkers are predicted to manifest themselves in the form of abusive behaviors that negatively affect employees attitudes and behaviors, promoting negative subordinate outcomes. Thus, maculation a relationship between a supervisors level of coworker relationship con? ict and subordinates levels of effort a nd OCB may seem somewhat abstract, we suggest that coworker relationship con? ict-driven abusive supervision leaves an intermediary link between these shiftings.Based on these arguments, we predict Hypothesis 4. Abusive supervision mediates the negative relationships between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 3. Method 3. 1. savors and procedures The samples utilized in this study were from two different divisions of a state government. The division in ensample 1 was responsible for handling disease related issues (e. g. , STDs, immunizations, tuberculosis), whereas the division in audition 2 handled environmental health related issues (e. g. , radiation, clean water).To begin the entropy collection efforts, the director of each division sent an email to all employees in their branch. The email informed the potential respondents of the studys purpose, that participation was voluntary, and that the results would be con? dential. aft(prenominal) this email, the researchers sent a personalized message again explaining the purpose of the assess, the con? dentiality of responses, and a web link to the survey. Respondents were asked to complete the survey during the close month. Respondents were required to provide their supervisors name to match supervisorsubordinate responses.At the alike(p) time, supervisors were asked to provide ratings on each of their direct reports. In model 1, eliminating responses with wanting(p) data or those that were unable to be matched (i. e. , we received a subordinate response, but not a matching supervisor response) resulted in a sample size of 121 (58% response rate). Subordinates were 68% female, the fair age was 41. 68 years, the bonny job advance was 3. 38 years, and their average organizational term of office was 5. 22 years. In total, 28 supervisors provided ratings, resulting in an average of 4. 32 ratings per supervisor.For the supervisor s, the demographic breakdown was 57% female, the average age was 47. 91 years, the average job advance was 4. 79 years, and their average organizational tenure was 7. 73 years. After the elimination of unusable responses in adjudicate 2, our usable sample size was 134 (64% response rate). Participants in Sample 2 were 60% male, had an average age of 46. 04 years, average job tenure of 7. 04 years, and average organizational tenure of 11. 51 years. Forty- iv supervisors provided ratings, which resulted in an average of 3. 05 ratings per supervisor.The demographic breakdown for the supervisors was 75% male, an average age of 49. 29 years, average job tenure of 9. 64 years, and average organizational tenure of 16. 26 years. 3. 2. Measures Unless otherwise noted, a 5-point Likert surmount leaf (anchors strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)) was used for all survey items. Scales were coded with high values representing high levels of the constructs. 3. 3. Subordinate measures 3 . 3. 1. Abusive supervision In some(prenominal)(prenominal) samples abusive supervision was measured with six items from Teppers (2000) measure.We were unable to use the amply 15-item measure due to management concerns about the surveys overall length. Thus, we had experts in the field look at the content of each of the items, and we chose 6 items that best captured the well(p) range of abusive supervisory behaviors. The items we chose were My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others, My supervisor gives me the silent treatment, My supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for some other reason, My supervisor is rude to me, My supervisor breaks promises he/she makes, and My supervisor puts me down in front of others. In an effort to establish the validity of our shortened home, we compared our reduced scale to the full moon measure using the data from the Tepper (2000) article. 1 We appoint that the full 15-item scale was correlated with our 6-item sc ale at . 96. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 90 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 3. 3. 2. Leadermember exchange We used Liden and Maslyns (1998) 12-item leadermember exchange multidimensional scale to measure exchange quality in both samples. A sample item include My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 94 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 1 We thank Ben Tepper for allowing us to use his pilot program data for this correlation. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 1015 3. 4. Supervisor measures 3. 4. 1. Coworker relationship con? ict In both samples supervisors rated their relationship con? icts with their coworkers using the 4-item Jehn (1995) scale. A sample item included Is there tension among your coworkers? These questions were included in a section of the survey here the supervisors were answering questions about their attitudes, behaviors, and rel ationships with their coworkers. This section was separate from the section where supervisors commented on their subordinates, thus making it clear that these relationship con? ict questions were focused on coworkers at their level in the organization (e. g. , managers relationship con? icts with other managers). The response scale for this construct was Not at all (1) to To a very great extent (5). The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 95 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 2.Work effort In both samples supervisors rated subordinates work effort using Brown and Leighs (1996) 5-item scale. A sample item was When theres a job to be done, this subordinate devotes all his/her button to getting it done. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 93 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 3. organizational citizenship behaviors Supervisors responded to Settoon and Mossholders (2002) 6-item scale to measure subordinate task-focused OCB in both samples. A sample item was This subor dinate assists coworkers with heavy work hemorrhoid even though it is not part of the job. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 84 for Sample 1 and . 81 for Sample 2. 3. 5. Control variables We controlled for four variables, all measured from the subordinate, in an effort to minimize potentially spurious relationships. The variables we controlled for were age (measured in years), job tenure (measured in months), organizational tenure (measured in months), and supervisorsubordinate relationship tenure (measured in months). 3. 6. Analytical draw near In both samples in this study, supervisors coworker relationship con? ict responses were used as prognosticators of subordinate outcomes (i. . , cross-level main effect). Thus, a single supervisor coworker relationship con? ict rating was used as the predictor variable for multiple subordinates. As a result, for these variables there was no within-supervisor difference and all of the variance was between supervisors (i. e. , ICCs wer e 1. 00). Additionally, supervisors provided ratings on certain scales (e. g. , work effort and OCB) for multiple subordinates, thus resulting in a supervisor effect (e. g. , ICC1s for OCB of . 11 in sample 1 and . 13 and sample 2, and ICC2s of . 48 in sample 1 and . 51 in sample 2).To account for the supervisor-level effect in our data, hierarchical analogue modeling (HLM Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, &038 Congdon, 2004) with grand-mean centering was used to carry out our analyses. In the HLM analyses involving supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, this variable was included as a aim 2 variable (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong &038 Congdon, 2004). To test Hypotheses 12, there were four steps. In the ? rst step, we entered the four control variables. In the second step we entered the Level 2 variable of supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, and it was here that we tested Hypothesis 1.In the third step, we entered the Level 1 moderator variable, LMX. In the fourth step, w e entered the cross-level interaction term formed between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and LMX. It was in this step that we tested Hypothesis 2. To test the abusive supervision-outcome and mediation hypotheses (3 and 4), we conducted world-beater and Kennys (1986) threestep procedure. The HLM equations are available from the ? rst author request. 4. Results The means, amount deviations, and correlation matrix for the variables in this study are provided in skirt 1 for Sample 1 and remit 2 for Sample 2.In both samples abusive supervision was signi? cantly correlated with supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, as well as our dependent variables. Given that a few of the correlations between our focal variables were high, we elected to run a series of con? rmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the scales used in our study to ensure that they were independent and that the items produced the anticipate factor structures. These analyses were run on both sa mples separately. To conduct our CFAs, we used LISREL 8. 80, a covariance matrix as input, and a maximum-likelihood estimation.We elected to conduct our CFA analyses using involved indicators rather than items due to the large number of items and our moderate sample sizes. To bring on our composite indicators, we assigned items based on factor loadings from an exploratory factor analysis (Bagozzi &038 Heatherton, 1994 Eddleston, Viega, &038 Powell, 2006). Speci? cally, for our four-item scales we combined the two items with the highest and utmost factor loadings to the ? rst indicator and the rest two items to the second indicator. For the ? ve-item scales we created the ? st indicator as described above and included the remaining three items on the second indicator. For our six-item scale we paired the highest and lowest loading item to create the ? rst indicator and then repeated this process for the remaining two indicators. Finally, for the LMX scale we used the four subscal es (loyalty, contribution, professional valuate, and affect) as composite indicators. Our approach resulted in 15 indicators for our 6 scales. 1016 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 display board 1 means, beat deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 1.Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. Leadermember exchange (LMX) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9. LMX professional respect 10. epoch 11. mull over tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 31 3. 03 3. 92 4. 03 3. 87 3. 86 4. 10 3. 69 4. 03 41. 68 3. 38 5. 22 1. 99 SD . 57 1. 02 . 77 . 79 . 72 . 97 . 68 . 84 1. 09 11. 1 3. 88 5. 23 2. 02 1 . 77 . 21? ? . 67?? ? . 27?? ? . 29?? .60?? .36?? .69?? .62?? .10 . 10 . 05 . 25?? 2 . 95 ? .11 ? .20? ? . 18? ? . 05 . 04 . 19? ? . 14 . 01 . 23? .01 . 17 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .76 . 3?? .35?? .91?? .77?? .83?? .90?? ? . 00 . 05 . 08 ? .00 .86 . 40?? .28?? .22? .35?? .28?? .03 ? .00 . 10 . 00 .65 . 27?? .22? .33?? .35?? .01 ? .03 . 05 . 12 .92 . 62?? .68?? .79?? ? . 02 . 11 . 11 . 04 .75 . 56?? .58?? .11 . 05 . 11 . 04 .74 . 64?? ? . 04 ? .01 . 05 ? .11 .94 ? .03 . 02 . 01 . 02 . 35?? .39?? .26?? . 69?? .48?? . 49?? Note Values in italics on the diagonal are the unbent root of the average variance explained which essential be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell &038 Larcker, 1981).N = 121. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. We began by estimating a six-factor solution, with each factor representing a scale in our study. Fit indices, shown in card 3, indicate that the six-factor model ? t the data. To curse that the six-factor structure was the best representation of our data, we estimated three secondary models and compared them to our baseline model via chi-square difference tests. The alternating(a) models estimated included two ? ve-f actor models and a unidimensional model. The receipts(a) models were created by cartel scales that had strong correlations to form a larger factor.The ? rst alternative model combined abusive supervision and LMX into one factor while the second combined OCB and work effort. A description of each alternative model and the CFA results are offered in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the chi-square difference test results support the six-factor structure as originally designed. To further explore the discriminant validity of our scales we followed the procedure outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and calculated the square root of the average variance explained for each of the scales in our study.This value, which we present on the diagonal in Tables 1 and 2, represents the variance accounted for by the items that compose the scale. To demonstrate discriminant validity, this value moldiness exceed the corresponding latent variable correlations in the same row and column. If this condi tion is met, then we have evidence that the variance shared between any two constructs is less than the average variance explained by the items that compose the scale (i. e. , discriminant validity). As shown in Tables 1 and 2, this condition is met for all of the scales used in our study.The HLM results predicting abusive supervision are shown in Tables 4 (for Sample 1) and 5 (for Sample 2) and the HLM results investigating abusive supervision as a mediator and/or predictor are provided in Tables 6 and 7. First describing our interaction results in Table 4, step 1 reveals that relationship tenure (? = . 08, p b . 05) was the only control variable signi? cantly associated with abusive supervision. blackguard 2 shows that supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05).This result provides support for Hypothesis 1 in Sample 1. pace 3 in this analysis shows that LMX was negatively associated wi th abusive supervision (? = ?. 48, p b . 01). Finally, step 4 shows that the interaction term between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and LMX was negatively and signi? cantly related to abusive Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 2. Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. LMX12 (overall) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9.LMX professional respect 10. get along 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 32 2. 42 4. 04 4. 31 4. 31 4. 04 4. 15 3. 78 4. 19 45. 86 6. 55 11. 16 6. 08 SD . 58 . 76 . 60 . 73 . 67 . 78 . 56 . 78 . 95 6. 89 2. 66 4. 37 2. 12 1 . 92 . 15? ? . 55?? ? . 26?? ? . 21? ? . 53?? .05 ? .52?? ? . 57?? .04 . 02 . 01 ? .01 2 . 94 ? .04 ? .03 ? .19? ? . 03 ? .06 ? .02 ? .02 ? .15 ? .09 ? .07 . 00 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .92 . 09 . 05 . 84?? .53?? .83?? .86?? ? . 07 . 08 . 05 . 07 .87 . 72?? ? . 01 ? .03 . 18? .11 ? .03 ? .00 . 03 ? .02 .85 . 01 ? .13 . 09 . 13 ? .13 . 1 ? .05 . 07 .88 . 28?? .56?? .69?? ? . 10 . 05 ? .03 . 00 .71 . 38?? .22? .08 . 16* . 18? .15 .84 . 59?? ? . 08 . 03 . 03 . 01 .95 ? .06 . 04 . 01 . 08 . 14 . 23?? .18? . 61?? .27?? . 26?? Note Values in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which moldiness be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell &038 Larcker, 1981). N = 134. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Table 3 preference model test results.Model Sample 1 (N = 121) baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor Sample 2 (N = 134) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor X2 102 196 127 706 df 75 80 80 90 X2diff dfdiff CFI . 98 . 95 . 97 . 59 NFI . 95 . 91 . 94 . 57 1017 RMSEA . 048 . 093 . 059 . 200 94??? 25??? 604??? 5 5 15 112 276 224 1177 75 80 80 90 164??? 112??? 1065??? 5 5 15 .98 . 93 . 93 . 47 .94 . 89 . 89 . 46 .056 . 125 . 107 . 280 Note Abuse = abusive supervision, LMX = leadermember exchange, OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. ?? p b . 001. supervision (? = ?. 12, p b . 01). Overall, the results in Table 5 (Sample 2) are similar. In step 1 none of the control variables were signi? cantly associated with the outcome, but in step 2, supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict were positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 11, p b . 05), again supporting Hypothesis 1. bar 3 in Table 5 shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 54, p b . 01). In the ? nal step, the supervisor reported coworker relationship con? ict ? LMX interaction term was negatively and signi? antly related to abusive supervision (? = ? .29, p b . 05). To determine support for our inte raction dead reckoning, we graphed the two signi? cant moderating effects. We did so by plotting two faces, one at one standard deviation below and one at one standard deviation above the mean (Stone &038 Hollenbeck, 1989). Figs. 2 (for Sample 1) and 3 (for Sample 2) illustrate the signi? cant interactions and show that the positive relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision were stronger when LMX relationship quality was lower.Additionally, we calculated simple slopes for each of our interactions. In sample 1, we imbed that the slope of the low LMX line was signi? cant (t = 2. 00, p b . 05), whereas the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. Similar to sample 1, in sample 2 the slope of the low LMX was signi? cant (t = 2. 11, p b . 05), but the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. In total, these results provide support for Hypothesis 2 in both samples. Tables 6 and 7 provide the results of our mediation analyses. First discussing the results from Sample 1 shown in Table 6, supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ct was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05) (which ful? lls one of Baron and Kennys (1986) mediation requirements) and to OCB (? = ? .08, p b . 10) and work effort (? = ?. 14, p b . 05) (ful? lling another mediation requirement). Steps 2c and 3c show that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer signi? cant. In particular, the gammas for supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict predicting OCB dropped from ?. 08 to ?. 6 and for predicting work effort dropped from ?. 14 to ? .11. However, abusive supervision is signi? cantly and positively related to OCB (? = ?. 37, p b . 01) and signi? cantly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 27, p b . 05). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is back up in Sample 1. I n terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kennys (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and OCB and partially mediated the relationship with work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported in Sample 1.Table 4 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 1. Step 1 Control variables Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure nonparasitic variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator LMX (B) Interaction term A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 2 . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 3 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 07? .05? ? . 48?? Step 4 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 06? .05 ? .46?? ? . 12?? .02 .02 .02 .45 Note Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, LMX = leadermember exchange. N = 121. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. 018 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Table 5 Hierarchi cal linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 2. Step 1 Control variables Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator LMX (B) Interaction term A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 2 . 01 .00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 3 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 09? ? . 54?? Step 4 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 13? ? . 55?? ? . 29?? .05 .01 .01 .35 Note Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct, LMX = leadermember exchange. N = 134. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. close we turn to the HLM results presented for Sample 2 in Table 7. This table shows that supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision in step 1b (which passes Baron and Kennys (1986) ? rst step) and OCB (in step 2b), but not work effort (in step 3b). These results pass the ? rst two steps for mediation for OCB, but not work effort. Table 7 also reveals that abusive superv ision is negatively and signi? cantly related to OCB (? = ?. 26, p b . 05) in step 2c, and signi? antly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 39, p b . 01) in step 3c. Thus, Hypothesis 3, which was supported in Sample 1, is also supported in Sample 2. Step 2c shows that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer a signi? cant predictor of OCB. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kennys (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct and OCB, but not work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4, which was supported for both dependent variables in Sample 1, was only supported for OCB in Sample 2. 5. word of honor The purpose of this study was to further our knowledge of the predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. We pursued this goal by examining supervisor reports of relationship con? ict with their coworkers as a predictor of subordinate-rated abusive supervision, and LMX quality as a situational variable in? uencing this relationship. Additionally, we examined the outcomes of supervisor-rated OCB nd work effort and found that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and OCB in both samples and the outcomes of work effort in one sample. Returning to our theoretical arguments, we found that displaced aggression and LMX theories provide useful lenses for discussing predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. Coworker relationship con? ict at any level is a potent source of stress and frustration as it impedes the achievement of goals and the attainment of desired outcomes (e. g. , Thomas, 1976).Like past abusive supervision research (Tepper, Duffy, Henle &038 Lambert, 2006), our results suggest that some supervisors will resort to abusive behaviors against their employees as a means of coping with these consequences. This study advances real research by explicitly examining situations where subordinates are not the logical target of retaliation (i. e. , they are not the source of the con? ict). Because subordinates are an easy and accessible target, however, having less power and less of an ability to retaliate, they make relatively safe candidates for abuse from frustrated supervisors.Table 6 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 1. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 121. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 1b . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 2a . 00 ? .02 . 00 . 05 DV = OCB DV = work effort Step 2b . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 05 ? .08+ Step 2c . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 07 ? .06 ? .27? Step 3a ? .00 ? .02 . 02 . 00 Step 2b ? .00 ? .01 . 02 . 01 ? .14? Step 3c . 0 ? .01 . 01 . 04 . 11 ? .37?? K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 Table 7 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 2. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 134. ? p b . 05. ?? p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 1b . 01 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 2a ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 DV = OCB DV = work effort 1019 Step 2b ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 ? .13? Step 2c ? .01 . 0 ? .00 . 00 ? .09 ? .26? Step 3a ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 Step 3b ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .03 Step 3c . 00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 02 ? .39?? Additionally, when supervisors experience coworker relationship con? ict, our results indicate that they are most likely to abuse subordinates with whom they have low quality LMX relationships. This ? nding appears to support our argument that supervisors will focus their abusive behaviors on those employees in low quality exchanges in order to screen their high quality relationships from the detrimental effects of abusive supervision.In this way, supervisors may reason that abusive behaviors allow them to vent frustration while minimizing the negative in? uence of this coping behavior on their most valued employees. Naturally, there are ? aws in this method of coping, most notably that the performance levels of abused employees will likely suffer, causing added strain and frustration for other employees and the supervisors themselves. Among supervisors who make the subtle choice to cope through abuse, however, it appears that employees in low-quality relationships are the most likely targets.We also extended abusive supervision research with our ? ndings indicating that this variable is related to the outcomes of OCB and work effort. These ? ndings are noteworthy as they extend the nomological network of outcomes relat ed to abusive supervision, and because both outcomes were supervisor-rated, which helps to minimize common source bias concerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &038 Podsakoff, 2003). Additionally, in sample 1 we found that abusive supervision served as an intermediary mechanism explaining the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and both consequences examined, and that there was also mediation on the outcome of OCB in sample 2. These results are important as they begin to answer the questions related to how situational supervisor variables, such as coworker relationship con? ict, ultimately are showd into subordinate outcomes. Surprisingly, we did not ? nd support for the work effort mediation hypothesis in Sample 2. A post hoc explanation for these insigni? cant ? ndings may relate to the demographic composition of the samples. Sample 2 was different from Sample 1 for both subordinates and supervisors.It was primarily male, the average age was hig h, and average job and organizational tenure were both more than double (except for supervisor job tenure) those in the ? rst sample. Although it is possible to deduce explanations as to how these differences might have in? uenced our results, such atheoretical logic would be to a fault speculative. Thus, as we suggest below, we advance replicative research in additional samples that would allow for a more taxonomic assessment of these, or other, sample-speci? c characteristics. 5. 1. Contributions These ? dings make several contributions to the extant research on abusive supervision and LMX relationships. First, they build support for the notion of displaced abusive supervision and undermine a potential alternative explanation. In Teppers (2007) reappraisal of abusive supervision literature, he concluded that supervisors perceptions of organization-level factors, such as Fig. 2. hash out effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 1. 1020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023Fig. 3. moderate effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 2. injustice and contract violation, can trigger abuse toward individual targets (i. e. , subordinates). He argued that this phenomenon might be explained by displaced aggression logic, in that subordinates serve as safe abuse targets even if the abuse is unlikely to resolve the perceptions triggering the desire to be abusive. An alternative, although somewhat tenuous, explanation is that these negative perceptions in? ence animosity toward the overall organization and that supervisors justify the abuse of subordinates who are seen as complicit in the perceived negative aspects of the organization. Our ? ndings suggest that this alternative primer of justi? cation would not adequately explain displaced abusive supervision. Looking beyond infer organizational perceptions, we found that even frustration stemming from speci? c, identi? able non-subordinate sources (i. e. , supervisors coworkers) might translate into abuse toward subordinates.This suggests that abusive supervision may serve as a self-defeating coping mechanism (e. g. , Baumeister &038 Scher, 1988), akin to mechanisms such as problem drinking and procrastination, in that it seeks short-term stress-reduction (e. g. , through emotional venting) in a harmful way that does not address the true source of the inherent problem (e. g. , con? ict with peers). We also expand on Teppers conclusion, again stemming from his 2007 come off of abusive supervision research, that subordinate characteristics in? uence the likelihood that they will experience abuse.As in the present study, Tepper (2007) cited victimization research to argue that subordinates who appear overly provocative or passive put themselves at a heightened risk for abuse. Expanding on the latter id ea, we argued and spyd that employees in low quality LMX relationships, who we expect demonstrate relatively high levels of passivity and vulnerability, report higher levels of abuse. This suggests that kind of of identifying each of the potential subordinate characteristics that can incite abuse, a more parsimonious approach might be to look at immense relationship variables such as LMX that can be viewed as re? cting the aggregate impact of these individual characteristics. This conclusion also adds to LMX research by revealing an additional consequence of low-quality LMX relationships. In addition to the wide corpse of research showing that low-quality LMX subordinates experience outcomes such as fewer rewards, lower resource levels, and reduced job satisfaction (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe &038 Wayne, 1997), this study suggests a more serious potential consequence in the form of victimization by abusive supervisors.Additionally, our results, and the fact that most were replicat ed across the two samples, demonstrate the utility of multi-level models for predicting employee consequences of abusive supervision. Abusive supervision is an inherently multi-level phenomenon and this study shows that insights into some causes of abuse, such as con? ict levels between supervisors, exist that cannot be assessed from subordinate self-reports. Similarly, it identi? es supervisor-rated subordinate outcomes of abusive supervision (effort levels and OCB) that are dif? cult to assess with self-reports due to social desirability and common source bias concerns.Further, these supervisor-rated effects provide some indication that abusive supervisors are at least indirectly aware of the selfdefeating consequences of abuse. Our data do not tell us whether supervisors consciously related their abuse to lower levels of employee effort and citizenship behavior. Their awareness of lower levels among the abused subordinates, however, suggests that a degree of denial would be neces sary for the supervisors to overlook these causeeffect relationships. Although existing research has not, to our knowledge, explicitly stated that supervisors are asleep of the consequences of abusive behavior, this ? ding suggests that prox research on preventing abuse might bene? t from focusing not on why supervisors view the behavior as acceptable, but why they engage in it despite an unembellished awareness of these consequences. 5. 2. Limitations In addition to the aforementioned strengths and contributions, there are terminal points that we must acknowledge to properly interpret the studys results. First we acknowledge that the theoretical manakin we have developed is not the only logical explanation for the hypothesized and observed relationships.For example, it is plausible that the link between supervisors coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision is less cognitive than we have argued. Instead of selectively choosing subordinates as a low-risk target for v enting frustration, it might be that some supervisors simply give traits that predispose K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 1021 them toward con? ict and abusive behaviors (with higher levels of abuse directed at low quality members). Examples of such traits might include negative affectivity or hostile attribution styles (Douglas &038 Martinko, 2001).An investigation of these possibilities would be useful in forming a more comprehensive understanding of the trial-and-error relationships observed in the present study. In terms of methodological limitations, survey length constraints required us to use a reduced reading material of the abusive supervision scale. Even though we chose items that tapped into the full set of behaviors and found an extremely high correlation between our shortened measure and the full scale, this may still be viewed as a limitation. other limitation is that we were unable to measure causality.Thus, there is the potential that our relationships actually have stamp out causality or that variables predict each other in a recursive manner. This is particularly true regarding the association between LMX perceptions and abusive supervision. Our results suggest that supervisors are more abusive toward some employees than others and that this difference is associated with variations in subordinates LMX advance. It can be argued, and is indeed very likely, that an abused employee would report lower LMX scores because of the abuse.The ? nding that supervisors are selective in their abuse targets suggests that some criterion is evaluated ahead targets are chosen and we have argued that preexisting LMX relationship qualities could serve as this criterion. Our design does not allow us to make this claim de? nitively, however. Similarly, it may be that abusive supervision is not the predictor of work effort, but that insuf? cient effort by subordinates promotes higher levels of abusive supervision or that both variables in? uence each other in a cyclical manner.We are particularly sensitive to the argument that there may be a feedback loop between abusive supervision and the outcome variables, such that abuse reduces subordinates effort and citizenship levels, and this reduction provokes further abuse, although the design of the study did not allow us to test this possibility. Along a similar line, it could be that abusive supervision toward subordinates is actually the cause of the supervisors con? ict among peers. We hope that future studies will be designed to better answer these causality questions.There are also limitations associated with the sampling of public, white-collar organizations. Different organizations (e. g. , private, military, blue-collar) have different rules and norms governing behavior and it is likely that the abusive supervisory behaviors studied would be more or less permissible, and therefore more or less common, in different organizational settings. 5. 3. Dire ctions for future research This studys ? ndings suggest a number of directions for future research. First, we hope future researchers will examine our hypotheses in other, more divers(a) samples.Although we examined two separate organizations, it is necessary to examine additional samples to better establish the generalizability or boundary conditions of our relationships. A second suggestion is to examine the relationships in this study with a longitudinal research design. The extant research on abusive supervision, including this study, has primarily relied on cross-sectional designs. Although telling, these studies leave out situations and behaviors that impact subordinates over time. In the case of both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and abusive supervision, it may be that supervisors and subordinates learn to cope with these situations, and become accustomed to them. Conversely, it could be that these situations and behaviors become worse as they accumulat e over time (Harris, Kacmar, &038 Witt, 2005) as argued by Tepper (2000) and as noted in our discussion of cyclical relationships between abuse and behavioral outcomes in the previous section. Another avenue for future research is to conduct additional multi-level investigations to determine how supervisor experiences and situations impact their subordinates.In this study we examined supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, but it also would be interesting to investigate the effect of supervisors supervisor relationship con? ict, abusive supervision, LMX, team member exchange, and perceived organizational support (Erdogan &038 Enders, 2007 Tangirala, Green, &038 Ramanujam, 2007) as these variables are likely to have trickle-down effects on employee outcomes. Additionally, the aforementioned implication that supervisors might be aware of the consequences of abusive supervision suggests that a multilevel, or at least supervisor-level, focus on understanding the justi? ati on process might provide insight into interventions for preventing such behavior. It would also be interesting to investigate personality characteristics, such as Machiavellianism, entitlement, and narcissism, of supervisors and subordinates and how these variables are related to abuse (Harvey &038 Harris, 2010 Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, &038 Tang, 2010). Finally, we examined LMX from the perspective of the member, but it would be insightful to investigate leader reports of the LMX quality with their subordinates and how this rating interacts with supervisor coworker con? ict. 5. 4. Practical implications Before discussing speci? practical implications from this study, it should be noted that the overarching implication from this and most of the existing body of research on abusive supervision is that abusive supervision is detrimental to all parties. It is stressful for victims and hurts organizational performance and a supervisors effectiveness by negatively affecting d esirable outcomes (see Tepper, 2007) such as increased levels of effort and OCB. Employees may feel fright and afraid to report the behavior of abusive supervisors, however, making it dif? cult for organizational leaders to identify and eliminate these abusive managers.Because of the dif? culty in reducing existing levels of abuse, preventative techniques for reducing the likelihood of abusive supervision are advisable. The results of this study suggest that one such technique is for organizational leaders to observe and mediate con? icts between supervisory employees, thereby removing an antecedent of abusive behaviors. Additionally, because the supervisors in our study were more likely to abuse employees with whom they shared low-quality relationships, an organization-wide focus on the development of strong leadermember relationships might foster a climate where there are few 022 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 10101023 desirable targets for abuse. We ack nowledge that neither of these suggestions (i. e. , mediating supervisor con? icts and promoting strong leadermember relationships) are simple tasks. We suggest, however, that a continuous focus on these goals would consume far less time and energy than traffic with the consequences of abusive supervision. 6