论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】This study examined abusive supervision, its likely effects on withdrawal behaviors and organizational commitment and the moderating and mediating effects of respectively, turnover intention and organization commitment. The analysis of several articles and dissertations has provided theoretical support for the hypothesis formulated. Further, an empirical study has been suggested in both western and non-western countries to test the model developed in order to implement strategies based on the findings.
【Key words】Abusive Supervision;Withdrawal Behaviors;Organizational Commitment;Turnover Intention
0.Introduction
Supervisors and managers in any organization share the objective of making certain that the work environment runs efficiently in order to foster the company productivity. However, some supervisors instead of using fairly their power, constantly yell at workers, block someone's promotions, ridiculing and humiliating subordinates in front of their peer, or otherwise belittle subordinates. Such bad behavior identified in the psychology literature as abusive supervision can lead employees to feel that supervisors have not any consideration for them. Abusive supervisory is a series of mistreatments inflicted on a subordinate by his supervisor (Tepper, 2000). Previous studies in western countries have shown that the abusive behavior of the supervisor can affect employees psychologically and lead them to question their self-work, become dissatisfied about their job, less committed and sometimes withdraw from their work (Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007).Several researchers have also identified the factors that can reduce (Tepper, Carr, Breaux, Geider, Hu & Hua, 2009) or explain (Tepper, 2008) its effects in the workplace. Therefore, willing to provide empirical support for previous findings in western context, our research questions are as follow:
1-What are the effects of abusive supervision in the workplace specifically on employees’ withdrawal behavior and their commitment?
2-How and when turnover intention can moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and withdrawal behavior?
3-How organizational commitment can mediate the joint impact of abusive supervision and turnover intention on withdrawal behavior?
The purpose of this review is to examine several studies pertaining to abusive supervision, how they describe and explain abusive supervision, its likely effects on withdrawal behavior and organizational commitment and analyze the moderating and mediating effects of respectively turnover intention and abusive supervision. 1.Theoretical Background
1.1 Social exchange theory
Social exchange theory has appeared as a considerable framework for explaining employee work attitudes and behaviors. Social exchange theory has suggested “that social behavior is the result of an exchange process” (George Homan, 1910-1989). The purpose of this exchange is to maximize rewards and minimize costs (Thibault and Kelley, 1952). According to this theory, people compare the potential rewards and the risks of social relationships. When the risks are more than the benefits, people will think to stop that relationship (George Homan, 1910-1989). In working environment, subordinates will expect some rewards like respect, recognition and promotion for their hard work. Thus, based on social exchange theory, we propose that attitudes employees holds when facing abusive supervision, could be further understood by examining the supervisor abusive behavior.
1.2 Abusive Supervision
Abusive supervision has been defined by Tepper(2000) as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact”. Research has identified that, when investigating the prevalence of abusive supervision, the perception of being mistreated frequently by the supervisor through hostile verbal and non verbal behavior mattered (Harris and al., 2007). While , physical contact refers to punching, beating, threatening with weapon and so on (Tepper, 2000), abusive supervision encompasses breaking promises, withholding important information, rudeness, threats, public criticism, the silent treatment, inconsiderable actions, ridiculing subordinates in front of others, and the use of disparaging language, and intimidation tactics (Aquino K., Tripp T.M., & Bies R.J. 2001; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002).
Ashforth(1997) has found that abusive supervisory triggers employee feelings of frustration, anger, helplessness, and alienation from work. Further, Tepper(2007) revealed that this negative behavior may lead employees to question their self-work and abilities, making them weak and ineffectual. Some studies have investigated the extend in which subordinates facing the abusive supervision can react. Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) have shown that, abused, some subordinates with a strong negative reciprocity belief would retaliate against supervisor and the organization. In China, Wei Feng and Steven Si(2011) have indicated that abusive supervision led to subordinates’ counterproductive work behaviors, consistent with previous finding (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2008). Others researchers for their part, have proposed that abused subordinates feel that they are unfairly treated and often manage to restore justice, by countering abusive supervision through diverse actions such as withholding citizenship behaviors (Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002), increase withdrawal behaviors (Robbins & Judge, 2009),deviant behaviors (Mitchell & Ambrose 2007; Tepper & al. 2009; Thau & Mitchell 2010). Hence, there is no doubt that managers who negatively affect their employees’ morale and commitment also reduce their productivity and increase the levels of withdrawal behaviors, intention to quit and workplace deviance. 1.3 Withdrawal behaviors
“Withdrawal behaviors occurs when an employee disengages from an organization either psychologically or physically” (Redmond, 2010).It includes increased Lateness, social loafing, absenteeism, reduced work effort, leaving early and taking longer breaks than authorized (Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh , & Kessler, 2006). Some forms of withdrawal behaviors such as absence or arriving late have influenced the research agenda on employees’ withdrawal behaviors. Absenteeism can be seen as employees' act to not show up for work when scheduled. Excessive absenteeism involves increased the duration of work time lost, which can create problems for organizations such as loss of productivity. Thus, there is a need to reduce workplace absenteeism. The psychology literature emphasizes excessive lateness, as a manifestation of “neglect and disrespect" (Koslowsky, 2000). Although Absenteeism and lateness have been examined individually, some studies have been conducted combining them. Besides these forms, it is suggested that withdrawal behaviors today needs to include which is called “minor withdrawal behaviors” and identified as a “misuse of times and resources” (Gruys, 1999) such as social loafing, reduced work effort, leaving early and taking longer breaks than authorized (Gruys, 1999).
However, knowledge about the reasons that lead employees over time to withdraw from the organization is crucial to the process of implementing strategies pertaining to the reduction of this deviant behavior. More recent research has suggested that withdrawal behaviors occur as a response of employees’ dissatisfaction at work (Koslowsky, 2000). In fact, People who are unhappy at work can do a number of wrong things. They can neglect their work by focusing attention on things non related to their work or doing nothing. Hence, employees facing abusive supervision may perform withdrawal behaviors to avoid the work situation rather than do direct harm.
1.4 Organizational Commitment
First measured by Mowday Steers and Porter (1979) in a series of studies, the concept of organizational commitment has been further enriched by Meyer and Allen (1990).They developed a model of three different components: affective, continuance and normative commitment. Organization commitment is defined as a combination of employees’ emotional attachment to the organization, “commitment based on the costs that employees associate with leaving the organization” and “employees’ feelings of obligation to remain with the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Among the three components of organizational commitment, previous empirical researches have shown that affective commitment, compared to normative and continuance commitment has the strongest correlations with turnover intention and actual turnover (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).Thus, employees with strongest affective commitment are more emotionally attached to the organization, involve in organizational tasks and will stay because they want to. Previous researches on organizational commitment in western context have found that age, organizational tenure, job satisfactions, organizational effectiveness, gender, educational level, and occupational status will predict levels of commitment among workers (Mowday et al 1979). However, Douglas K. Peterson and Xing Yuanyuan (2007) analyzing commitment in Chinese context have shown that personal characteristics have little to do with commitment as indicated by Mowday and colleagues (1979). Chi-Sum Wong, Yui-tim Wong, Chun Hui and Kenneth S. Law (2001) have found that organizational commitment among Chinese employees has a much stronger effect on job satisfaction and turnover intention, consistent with previous finding. Thus, satisfied employees will be committed to their organization and will not think to leave the organization.
1.5 Turnover Intention
As well as abusive supervision, turnover and turnover intention represent a critical problem to an organization in terms of loss of talent and training cost. As a withdrawal intention, turnover intention has been found as the most predictor of actual turnover (Griffeth & al., 2000). Furthermore, Organizational commitment has been considered as one of the most important predictors of turnover intention. Further, past study has identified the negative relationship between organizational commitment and turnover intention (Wang, 2009). Employees who were more committed to their organization had lower intention to leave than those with lower organizational commitment. In addition, employee may intent to quit in many cases such as, Low wage level (Tu et & Al, 2002),The lack of advancement, poor working conditions, jobs where they view themselves as undervalued, or where management is viewed as arbitrary and overly demanding. Therefore, when employees perceived that the organization has worked to meet their expectations, they are more likely to be committed. Adversely, their commitment dissipates when they feel that their expectations have not been met. That can lead them to think of leaving the organization.
2.Theoretical framework and Hypothesis
Figure 2.1 shows theoretical framework that has been developed from this study.
Figure 2.1 Theoretical Model of the study
2.1 Abusive supervision and Employees’ withdrawal behavior
Abusive supervision has been identified in the literature pertaining the supervisor's bad behavior, as one of the varieties of reasons why employees perform deviant acts in the workplace (Tepper, 2000; Schat, Desmarais, & al., 2006; Feng Wei & Steven Si, 2011). Previous researches have supported that abusive supervision negatively affects employees’ attitudes and employees’ willingness to engage in positive behavior (Zellar & al, 2002; Tepper & al, 2004; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). In past studies, some researchers have argued that facing abusive supervision employees will take revenge on their supervisors by engaging in deviant behaviors (Tepper et al. 2009; Thau and Mitchell 2010). Feng Wei & Steven Si, (2011) for their part, have evidenced in Chinese context that abused employees have performed counterproductive work behaviors (withdrawal behaviors, sabotage, production deviance and theft) to react to the perceived organizational injustice. This is consistent with the western findings and extends those findings in the Chinese organization. In addition, Tepper et al. (2001) revealed that abused employees feel unfairly treated when organizational representatives do not meet acceptable standards of demeanor and politeness. So, according to social exchange theory, such employees will think to withdraw from that relationship. Further, in the study conducted by Hmieleski and Ensley (2010), new top management Employees teams rated themselves as performing higher levels of social loafing and lower levels of team work, when working under an abusive leader. Thus, perceived abusive supervisory can lead subordinate to withdraw from their work. Drawing, from previous researches we hypothesize that: Hypothesis1: Abusive supervision is positively related to subordinates’ withdrawal behavior.
2.2 Abusive supervision and Organizational commitment
Several studies have demonstrated that abusive supervision is negatively related to subordinates’ commitment to their organization (Aryee & al. 2007; Tepper & al. 2008). Moreover, Tepper and colleagues (2008) revealed that abused employees may display low affective commitment because they lost trust in their employer and are “unlikely to identify with or develop a sense of attachment to their organization”. Thus, subordinates committed, identify with their company, support and involve in the organization activities by showing a willingness to invest effort, participate in decision-making, while expecting that the organization will meet the acceptable standard of demeanor and politeness (Tepper & al., 2001; Aryee & al. 2007; Tepper et al. 2008), consistent with social exchange theory. In a study of two Korean organizations, Yoon and Thye (2002) have found evidence of a strong positive relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment consistent with previous findings. Thus, it is reasonable that when employees perceive that the organization cares for their well-being, they reciprocate with higher levels of commitment. We therefore assume that:
Hypothesis2: Abusive Supervision is negatively related to Subordinates’ Organizational Commitment.
2.3 Turnover intention, abusive supervision and withdrawal behavior
Several studies suggested that abusive supervision is positively associated to withdrawal behavior (Tepper, 2000; Schat, Desmarais, & al., 2006). In china, Wei Feng and Steven Si, (2011) for their part, revealed that abusive supervision causes an increased level of withdrawal behaviors, consistent with the western findings. Hence, more abused are the subordinates the more they would withdraw from their work. However, researchers have demonstrated that facing abusive supervision, not all employees will exhibit withdrawal behaviors in the same level (Tepper, Carr, Breaux, Geider, Hu & Hua, 2009). For instance, Tepper, Carr and colleagues (2009) have found that, experiencing abusive supervisory, employees with higher intention to quit are likely to perform deviant behavior against supervisor than the organization but more than employees with lower intention to quit. Thus, we assume that employees with lower intention to quit may feel helpless and scared face to an abusive supervisor as suggested by Tepper, Carr and colleagues (2009). Adversely, employees with higher intention to quit as identified by Tepper, Carr and colleagues (2009), may think that they have less to lose by engaging in deviant behavior. They are therefore more favorable to increase deviant behavior in order to retaliate against the supervisor and the organization. Moreover, abusive supervision would be less distressing when subordinates have more attractive employment alternatives and feel they can separate themselves from the source of their distress. So, the intensity of desire to withdraw from work due to abusive supervision may be influenced by the level of the intention to quit. Based on previous investigation and mostly on the work of Tepper, Carr and colleagues (2009) we therefore predict: Hypothesis3: Turnover Intention moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates withdrawal behaviors.
2.4 Organizational commitment, abusive supervision, turnover intenti
on and withdrawal behavior
Past studies have indicated that facing abusive supervision, employees emotionally exhausted (Asforth, 1997) withdraw from their work through lateness, absenteeism and in the extreme way turnover. Abusive supervision is positively related to turnover intention (Tepper, 2000), which means that an increased of abusive supervision involves an increased of turnover intention in the same proportion. Therefore, we assume that abusive supervision and turnover intention can have a joint impact on other variable.
Organizational commitment has received considerable attention in the literature due to the fact that it has been associated with relevant organization indicators such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), turnover intention (Meyer and Allen, 1996; Moynihan and Landuyt, 2008), and withdrawal behaviors (Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994). For instance, Meyer and Allen (1996) have found that organizational commitment is negatively correlated to turnover intention. In Chinese context, Hao Zhou, Lirong R. Long and Yuqing Q. Wang (2009) have evidenced that organizational commitment and turnover intention are negatively related, consistent with the western findings. Moreover, research has demonstrated that when employees with intention to leave the organization are abused, they perform higher level of deviant behavior (Tepper, Carr and colleagues, 2009) because they are less committed as suggested by Tepper (2000). Such employees thinking of leaving the company when they are abused do not feel care by the organization. Therefore, we predict that abusive supervision and turnover intention jointly will have an impact on employees’ commitment.
In previous studies, Meyer and al. (2002) have confirmed that affective commitment is negatively related to withdrawal behaviors. Hanisch and Hulin (1991) theorized that withdrawal behaviors reflect negative attachment to the organization and the job. In other words, organizational commitment is negatively related to employees’ withdrawal behaviors. Eisenberger and al (1990) reported that employees who perceive that their organization offers them support and cares for their well-being are likely to show less absenteeism and exert greater effort to achieve organizational goals. Organizational commitment has been found in past research, as useful in explaining what may cause an employee to remain committed to an organization and also predicting what will cause an employee to engage in deviant behavior (Tepper, 2008).We therefore assume that: Hypothesis4: Organizational Commitment mediates the joint impact of Abusive Supervision and Turnover Intention on Subordinates’ Withdrawal Behavior.
3.Conclusion and Suggestion
Drawing from the theoretical analysis of this review, we predict that when supervisors increase abusive behaviors, subordinates increase their withdrawal behaviors and are less committed to the organization. In addition, the study has important managerial implications, because, if the moderating effect of turnover intention and the mediating role of organizational commitment as assumed can be found significant, the organization may be able to implement strategies based on them, which would attenuate the negative effects of abusive supervision. We, therefore suggest conducting an empirical study to test this model in both western and non-western context.
【References】
［１］Abraham Carmeli,(2005)."The relationship between organizational culture and withdrawal intentions and behavior", International Journal of Manpower,Vol.26 Iss:2:177-195.
［２］Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P.(1990).The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology,Vol.63:1-18.
［３］Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M., & Bies, R.J.(2001).How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol.86:52-59.
［４］Feng Wei and Steven Si.(2011).Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management.
［５］Hmieleski, M.K, & Ensley, M.D.(2007).The effects of entrepreneur abusive supervision. In G. T. Solomon (Ed.),Academy of Management.
［６］Mitchell, M.S., & Ambrose, M.L.(2007).Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol.92,1159-1168.
［７］Tepper, B.J.(2000).Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,Vol.43,178-190.
［８］Tepper, B.J., Henle, C.A., Lambert, L.S., Giacolone, R.A., & Duffy, M.K.(2008).Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of applied psychology,Vol.93:721-732.
［９］Tepper B., Carr, J.C., Breaux,D.M.,Geider,S., Hu, C., Hua, W.(2009).Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
【Key words】Abusive Supervision;Withdrawal Behaviors;Organizational Commitment;Turnover Intention
0.Introduction
Supervisors and managers in any organization share the objective of making certain that the work environment runs efficiently in order to foster the company productivity. However, some supervisors instead of using fairly their power, constantly yell at workers, block someone's promotions, ridiculing and humiliating subordinates in front of their peer, or otherwise belittle subordinates. Such bad behavior identified in the psychology literature as abusive supervision can lead employees to feel that supervisors have not any consideration for them. Abusive supervisory is a series of mistreatments inflicted on a subordinate by his supervisor (Tepper, 2000). Previous studies in western countries have shown that the abusive behavior of the supervisor can affect employees psychologically and lead them to question their self-work, become dissatisfied about their job, less committed and sometimes withdraw from their work (Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007).Several researchers have also identified the factors that can reduce (Tepper, Carr, Breaux, Geider, Hu & Hua, 2009) or explain (Tepper, 2008) its effects in the workplace. Therefore, willing to provide empirical support for previous findings in western context, our research questions are as follow:
1-What are the effects of abusive supervision in the workplace specifically on employees’ withdrawal behavior and their commitment?
2-How and when turnover intention can moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and withdrawal behavior?
3-How organizational commitment can mediate the joint impact of abusive supervision and turnover intention on withdrawal behavior?
The purpose of this review is to examine several studies pertaining to abusive supervision, how they describe and explain abusive supervision, its likely effects on withdrawal behavior and organizational commitment and analyze the moderating and mediating effects of respectively turnover intention and abusive supervision. 1.Theoretical Background
1.1 Social exchange theory
Social exchange theory has appeared as a considerable framework for explaining employee work attitudes and behaviors. Social exchange theory has suggested “that social behavior is the result of an exchange process” (George Homan, 1910-1989). The purpose of this exchange is to maximize rewards and minimize costs (Thibault and Kelley, 1952). According to this theory, people compare the potential rewards and the risks of social relationships. When the risks are more than the benefits, people will think to stop that relationship (George Homan, 1910-1989). In working environment, subordinates will expect some rewards like respect, recognition and promotion for their hard work. Thus, based on social exchange theory, we propose that attitudes employees holds when facing abusive supervision, could be further understood by examining the supervisor abusive behavior.
1.2 Abusive Supervision
Abusive supervision has been defined by Tepper(2000) as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact”. Research has identified that, when investigating the prevalence of abusive supervision, the perception of being mistreated frequently by the supervisor through hostile verbal and non verbal behavior mattered (Harris and al., 2007). While , physical contact refers to punching, beating, threatening with weapon and so on (Tepper, 2000), abusive supervision encompasses breaking promises, withholding important information, rudeness, threats, public criticism, the silent treatment, inconsiderable actions, ridiculing subordinates in front of others, and the use of disparaging language, and intimidation tactics (Aquino K., Tripp T.M., & Bies R.J. 2001; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002).
Ashforth(1997) has found that abusive supervisory triggers employee feelings of frustration, anger, helplessness, and alienation from work. Further, Tepper(2007) revealed that this negative behavior may lead employees to question their self-work and abilities, making them weak and ineffectual. Some studies have investigated the extend in which subordinates facing the abusive supervision can react. Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) have shown that, abused, some subordinates with a strong negative reciprocity belief would retaliate against supervisor and the organization. In China, Wei Feng and Steven Si(2011) have indicated that abusive supervision led to subordinates’ counterproductive work behaviors, consistent with previous finding (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2008). Others researchers for their part, have proposed that abused subordinates feel that they are unfairly treated and often manage to restore justice, by countering abusive supervision through diverse actions such as withholding citizenship behaviors (Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002), increase withdrawal behaviors (Robbins & Judge, 2009),deviant behaviors (Mitchell & Ambrose 2007; Tepper & al. 2009; Thau & Mitchell 2010). Hence, there is no doubt that managers who negatively affect their employees’ morale and commitment also reduce their productivity and increase the levels of withdrawal behaviors, intention to quit and workplace deviance. 1.3 Withdrawal behaviors
“Withdrawal behaviors occurs when an employee disengages from an organization either psychologically or physically” (Redmond, 2010).It includes increased Lateness, social loafing, absenteeism, reduced work effort, leaving early and taking longer breaks than authorized (Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh , & Kessler, 2006). Some forms of withdrawal behaviors such as absence or arriving late have influenced the research agenda on employees’ withdrawal behaviors. Absenteeism can be seen as employees' act to not show up for work when scheduled. Excessive absenteeism involves increased the duration of work time lost, which can create problems for organizations such as loss of productivity. Thus, there is a need to reduce workplace absenteeism. The psychology literature emphasizes excessive lateness, as a manifestation of “neglect and disrespect" (Koslowsky, 2000). Although Absenteeism and lateness have been examined individually, some studies have been conducted combining them. Besides these forms, it is suggested that withdrawal behaviors today needs to include which is called “minor withdrawal behaviors” and identified as a “misuse of times and resources” (Gruys, 1999) such as social loafing, reduced work effort, leaving early and taking longer breaks than authorized (Gruys, 1999).
However, knowledge about the reasons that lead employees over time to withdraw from the organization is crucial to the process of implementing strategies pertaining to the reduction of this deviant behavior. More recent research has suggested that withdrawal behaviors occur as a response of employees’ dissatisfaction at work (Koslowsky, 2000). In fact, People who are unhappy at work can do a number of wrong things. They can neglect their work by focusing attention on things non related to their work or doing nothing. Hence, employees facing abusive supervision may perform withdrawal behaviors to avoid the work situation rather than do direct harm.
1.4 Organizational Commitment
First measured by Mowday Steers and Porter (1979) in a series of studies, the concept of organizational commitment has been further enriched by Meyer and Allen (1990).They developed a model of three different components: affective, continuance and normative commitment. Organization commitment is defined as a combination of employees’ emotional attachment to the organization, “commitment based on the costs that employees associate with leaving the organization” and “employees’ feelings of obligation to remain with the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Among the three components of organizational commitment, previous empirical researches have shown that affective commitment, compared to normative and continuance commitment has the strongest correlations with turnover intention and actual turnover (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).Thus, employees with strongest affective commitment are more emotionally attached to the organization, involve in organizational tasks and will stay because they want to. Previous researches on organizational commitment in western context have found that age, organizational tenure, job satisfactions, organizational effectiveness, gender, educational level, and occupational status will predict levels of commitment among workers (Mowday et al 1979). However, Douglas K. Peterson and Xing Yuanyuan (2007) analyzing commitment in Chinese context have shown that personal characteristics have little to do with commitment as indicated by Mowday and colleagues (1979). Chi-Sum Wong, Yui-tim Wong, Chun Hui and Kenneth S. Law (2001) have found that organizational commitment among Chinese employees has a much stronger effect on job satisfaction and turnover intention, consistent with previous finding. Thus, satisfied employees will be committed to their organization and will not think to leave the organization.
1.5 Turnover Intention
As well as abusive supervision, turnover and turnover intention represent a critical problem to an organization in terms of loss of talent and training cost. As a withdrawal intention, turnover intention has been found as the most predictor of actual turnover (Griffeth & al., 2000). Furthermore, Organizational commitment has been considered as one of the most important predictors of turnover intention. Further, past study has identified the negative relationship between organizational commitment and turnover intention (Wang, 2009). Employees who were more committed to their organization had lower intention to leave than those with lower organizational commitment. In addition, employee may intent to quit in many cases such as, Low wage level (Tu et & Al, 2002),The lack of advancement, poor working conditions, jobs where they view themselves as undervalued, or where management is viewed as arbitrary and overly demanding. Therefore, when employees perceived that the organization has worked to meet their expectations, they are more likely to be committed. Adversely, their commitment dissipates when they feel that their expectations have not been met. That can lead them to think of leaving the organization.
2.Theoretical framework and Hypothesis
Figure 2.1 shows theoretical framework that has been developed from this study.
Figure 2.1 Theoretical Model of the study
2.1 Abusive supervision and Employees’ withdrawal behavior
Abusive supervision has been identified in the literature pertaining the supervisor's bad behavior, as one of the varieties of reasons why employees perform deviant acts in the workplace (Tepper, 2000; Schat, Desmarais, & al., 2006; Feng Wei & Steven Si, 2011). Previous researches have supported that abusive supervision negatively affects employees’ attitudes and employees’ willingness to engage in positive behavior (Zellar & al, 2002; Tepper & al, 2004; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). In past studies, some researchers have argued that facing abusive supervision employees will take revenge on their supervisors by engaging in deviant behaviors (Tepper et al. 2009; Thau and Mitchell 2010). Feng Wei & Steven Si, (2011) for their part, have evidenced in Chinese context that abused employees have performed counterproductive work behaviors (withdrawal behaviors, sabotage, production deviance and theft) to react to the perceived organizational injustice. This is consistent with the western findings and extends those findings in the Chinese organization. In addition, Tepper et al. (2001) revealed that abused employees feel unfairly treated when organizational representatives do not meet acceptable standards of demeanor and politeness. So, according to social exchange theory, such employees will think to withdraw from that relationship. Further, in the study conducted by Hmieleski and Ensley (2010), new top management Employees teams rated themselves as performing higher levels of social loafing and lower levels of team work, when working under an abusive leader. Thus, perceived abusive supervisory can lead subordinate to withdraw from their work. Drawing, from previous researches we hypothesize that: Hypothesis1: Abusive supervision is positively related to subordinates’ withdrawal behavior.
2.2 Abusive supervision and Organizational commitment
Several studies have demonstrated that abusive supervision is negatively related to subordinates’ commitment to their organization (Aryee & al. 2007; Tepper & al. 2008). Moreover, Tepper and colleagues (2008) revealed that abused employees may display low affective commitment because they lost trust in their employer and are “unlikely to identify with or develop a sense of attachment to their organization”. Thus, subordinates committed, identify with their company, support and involve in the organization activities by showing a willingness to invest effort, participate in decision-making, while expecting that the organization will meet the acceptable standard of demeanor and politeness (Tepper & al., 2001; Aryee & al. 2007; Tepper et al. 2008), consistent with social exchange theory. In a study of two Korean organizations, Yoon and Thye (2002) have found evidence of a strong positive relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational commitment consistent with previous findings. Thus, it is reasonable that when employees perceive that the organization cares for their well-being, they reciprocate with higher levels of commitment. We therefore assume that:
Hypothesis2: Abusive Supervision is negatively related to Subordinates’ Organizational Commitment.
2.3 Turnover intention, abusive supervision and withdrawal behavior
Several studies suggested that abusive supervision is positively associated to withdrawal behavior (Tepper, 2000; Schat, Desmarais, & al., 2006). In china, Wei Feng and Steven Si, (2011) for their part, revealed that abusive supervision causes an increased level of withdrawal behaviors, consistent with the western findings. Hence, more abused are the subordinates the more they would withdraw from their work. However, researchers have demonstrated that facing abusive supervision, not all employees will exhibit withdrawal behaviors in the same level (Tepper, Carr, Breaux, Geider, Hu & Hua, 2009). For instance, Tepper, Carr and colleagues (2009) have found that, experiencing abusive supervisory, employees with higher intention to quit are likely to perform deviant behavior against supervisor than the organization but more than employees with lower intention to quit. Thus, we assume that employees with lower intention to quit may feel helpless and scared face to an abusive supervisor as suggested by Tepper, Carr and colleagues (2009). Adversely, employees with higher intention to quit as identified by Tepper, Carr and colleagues (2009), may think that they have less to lose by engaging in deviant behavior. They are therefore more favorable to increase deviant behavior in order to retaliate against the supervisor and the organization. Moreover, abusive supervision would be less distressing when subordinates have more attractive employment alternatives and feel they can separate themselves from the source of their distress. So, the intensity of desire to withdraw from work due to abusive supervision may be influenced by the level of the intention to quit. Based on previous investigation and mostly on the work of Tepper, Carr and colleagues (2009) we therefore predict: Hypothesis3: Turnover Intention moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates withdrawal behaviors.
2.4 Organizational commitment, abusive supervision, turnover intenti
on and withdrawal behavior
Past studies have indicated that facing abusive supervision, employees emotionally exhausted (Asforth, 1997) withdraw from their work through lateness, absenteeism and in the extreme way turnover. Abusive supervision is positively related to turnover intention (Tepper, 2000), which means that an increased of abusive supervision involves an increased of turnover intention in the same proportion. Therefore, we assume that abusive supervision and turnover intention can have a joint impact on other variable.
Organizational commitment has received considerable attention in the literature due to the fact that it has been associated with relevant organization indicators such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), turnover intention (Meyer and Allen, 1996; Moynihan and Landuyt, 2008), and withdrawal behaviors (Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994). For instance, Meyer and Allen (1996) have found that organizational commitment is negatively correlated to turnover intention. In Chinese context, Hao Zhou, Lirong R. Long and Yuqing Q. Wang (2009) have evidenced that organizational commitment and turnover intention are negatively related, consistent with the western findings. Moreover, research has demonstrated that when employees with intention to leave the organization are abused, they perform higher level of deviant behavior (Tepper, Carr and colleagues, 2009) because they are less committed as suggested by Tepper (2000). Such employees thinking of leaving the company when they are abused do not feel care by the organization. Therefore, we predict that abusive supervision and turnover intention jointly will have an impact on employees’ commitment.
In previous studies, Meyer and al. (2002) have confirmed that affective commitment is negatively related to withdrawal behaviors. Hanisch and Hulin (1991) theorized that withdrawal behaviors reflect negative attachment to the organization and the job. In other words, organizational commitment is negatively related to employees’ withdrawal behaviors. Eisenberger and al (1990) reported that employees who perceive that their organization offers them support and cares for their well-being are likely to show less absenteeism and exert greater effort to achieve organizational goals. Organizational commitment has been found in past research, as useful in explaining what may cause an employee to remain committed to an organization and also predicting what will cause an employee to engage in deviant behavior (Tepper, 2008).We therefore assume that: Hypothesis4: Organizational Commitment mediates the joint impact of Abusive Supervision and Turnover Intention on Subordinates’ Withdrawal Behavior.
3.Conclusion and Suggestion
Drawing from the theoretical analysis of this review, we predict that when supervisors increase abusive behaviors, subordinates increase their withdrawal behaviors and are less committed to the organization. In addition, the study has important managerial implications, because, if the moderating effect of turnover intention and the mediating role of organizational commitment as assumed can be found significant, the organization may be able to implement strategies based on them, which would attenuate the negative effects of abusive supervision. We, therefore suggest conducting an empirical study to test this model in both western and non-western context.
【References】
［１］Abraham Carmeli,(2005)."The relationship between organizational culture and withdrawal intentions and behavior", International Journal of Manpower,Vol.26 Iss:2:177-195.
［２］Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P.(1990).The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology,Vol.63:1-18.
［３］Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M., & Bies, R.J.(2001).How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol.86:52-59.
［４］Feng Wei and Steven Si.(2011).Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management.
［５］Hmieleski, M.K, & Ensley, M.D.(2007).The effects of entrepreneur abusive supervision. In G. T. Solomon (Ed.),Academy of Management.
［６］Mitchell, M.S., & Ambrose, M.L.(2007).Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol.92,1159-1168.
［７］Tepper, B.J.(2000).Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,Vol.43,178-190.
［８］Tepper, B.J., Henle, C.A., Lambert, L.S., Giacolone, R.A., & Duffy, M.K.(2008).Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of applied psychology,Vol.93:721-732.
［９］Tepper B., Carr, J.C., Breaux,D.M.,Geider,S., Hu, C., Hua, W.(2009).Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.