Elsevier

The Leadership Quarterly

Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2012, Pages 869-882
The Leadership Quarterly

Sins of the parents: Self-control as a buffer between supervisors' previous experience of family undermining and subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervision

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Drawing upon social learning theory, the intergenerational transmission of violence hypothesis, and research on self-control, we develop a model of the relationships among previous experiences of family undermining, self-control, and abusive supervision. We tested the model with data obtained from supervisor–employee matched pairs in Study 1 and matched triads in Study 2. Results revealed that: 1) supervisors who experienced higher levels of family undermining (whether reported by the immediate supervisor or a sibling) during childhood are more likely to engage in abusive supervisory behaviors as adults; and 2) this relationship is moderated such that it is stronger for supervisors with low self-control. Overall, our results highlight the role of self-control in mitigating the impact of supervisors' previous experiences of family undermining on subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision, even after controlling for previously established antecedents.

Introduction

The study of abusive supervision, defined as “subordinates' perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000; emphasis in original, p. 178), has increasingly captured the attention of scholars interested in understanding the ‘dark side’ of leadership (e.g., Einarsen et al., 2007, Neider and Schriesheim, 2010). Among others, this interest stems from the fact that non-physical aggression has been found to be more prevalent than the physical forms (i.e., violence) typically reported in the media. For example, a survey of the United States workforce showed that 41.4% (ca. 47 million) of U.S. wage and salary workers reported having experienced verbal and nonverbal aggression at work during the past 12 months, while only 6% (ca. 7 million) reported having experienced physical aggression (Schat, Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2006). These numbers are particularly significant when the negative outcomes of abusive supervision – diminished job satisfaction, lower productivity and health problems (e.g., Harris et al., 2007, Tepper, 2000, Tepper, 2007) – are considered. Given the current stage of this body of literature (review in Tepper, 2007), it is not surprising that research efforts so far have predominantly focused on the work-related consequences of abusive supervision perceptions and how employees can best cope with the experience of abusive supervision (e.g., Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007). In contrast, only few studies to date have explored its antecedents (e.g., Aryee et al., 2007, Hoobler and Brass, 2006, Tepper et al., 2006). We believe this is a critical oversight because without knowledge of the causes of abusive supervision, finding solutions to minimize its frequency or prevent its occurrence remains elusive.

Our sentiments thus echo those of Tepper (2007), who urges researchers to advance the abusive supervision literature by taking steps to explore potential antecedents. We answer this call by examining the role of a supervisor's previous experience of family undermining (e.g., insults, silent treatment) as a key antecedent to abusive supervision (as perceived by her or his subordinates). To this effect, the main contribution of our work lies with offering a novel theoretical perspective on the etiology of abusive supervision. In the handful of studies that have investigated the antecedents of abusive supervision, researchers have principally adopted a displaced-aggression perspective (Hoobler and Brass, 2006, Tepper, 2007). Accordingly, abusive supervision occurs when it is not feasible to retaliate against the original source of frustration (i.e., the organization), thereby leading supervisors to direct hostility toward more convenient, albeit innocent targets (i.e., their subordinates) instead. In this vein, studies show that abusive supervisory behavior often occurs when supervisors believe that they have been victims of psychological contract violations (Hoobler & Brass, 2006) or interpersonal/organizational injustices (Aryee et al., 2007, Tepper et al., 2006). While we have gained valuable insights into the important role that organizational agents play in contributing to abusive supervision (e.g., through interactional injustice), we wish to extend the literature by turning our attention to supervisor-specific variables that may explain deeper-level causes of abusive supervision.

Our rationale for focusing on supervisor-specific variables draws from research findings showing that the effects of abusive supervision can carry over into an employee's home life (e.g., Hoobler and Brass, 2006, Restubog et al., 2011). We similarly argue that abuse experienced in the home can affect an employee's work life (e.g., Duffy, Scott, & O'Leary-Kelly, 2005). Our perspective is grounded in theory and empirical research which has convincingly demonstrated that children who grow up in emotionally or physically abusive households are more likely to behave in an aggressive or abusive manner as adults. For instance, a plethora of studies shows that abused children exhibit antisocial behavior frequently not only in educational institutions, but also in almost all other contexts relevant to adolescent and adult life (e.g., dating, social relationships, parenting; Hoglund and Nicholas, 1995, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2005, Vissing et al., 1991). Despite such evidence, there is still a dearth of studies exploring the effects of abusive family relationships experienced during childhood on adult behavior in the workplace. In fact, we are only aware of one study that has assessed the influence of aggressive home and neighborhood environments on workplace aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001). However, to our knowledge, no extant study has examined whether the previous experience of specific abusive behaviors in the family results in subordinate abuse in the future. Given that adult children of abusive parents often display abusive patterns of behavior toward their own children and toward other members of society (e.g., Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002), it seems plausible that such behavior patterns would be observed in the workplace as well. To support our case, we present a theoretical discussion in which we integrate the literatures on abusive supervision and family violence using social learning theory (Bandura, 1973). Our objective is to elucidate the impact of early life experiences involving parental aggression on employee adulthood behaviors, especially with regard to forming and maintaining (work) relationships.

In addition, we consider dispositional factors that may further exacerbate or mitigate the strength of this relationship. We do so, in part, to address a question that has long vexed family violence research: that is, why do not all individuals who experience abuse as a child become abusive as adults? Based on related research in criminology and management (e.g., Douglas and Martinko, 2001, Marcus and Schuler, 2004), we argue that a particular individual difference variable – self-control – offers a potential answer. Defined as “freedom from impulsivity” (Sarchione, Cuttler, Muchinsky, & Nelson-Gray, 1998, p. 905), self-control refers to exerting control over the self by the self, with the goal of regulating how one thinks, feels, or behaves (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Research has found that low levels of self-control in individuals are strongly associated with counterproductive behaviors in and outside of workplaces (e.g., Marcus & Schuler, 2004), as persons with such tendencies tend to be insensitive to the pain and suffering of others (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). We incorporate this notion into our theoretical model and hence argue that supervisors with higher levels of self-control will be less likely to psychologically abuse their subordinates as a result of their past, while supervisors with low levels of self-control will be more likely to engage in abusive supervisory behavior. As such, our research could help efforts directed at identifying leaders who will more or less likely engage in abusive supervision despite previous experiences of family undermining. In the next section, we delineate the constructs in our model and discuss the expected relationships among them. We then test our predictions in a series of two independent, multi-source studies of working adults.

Section snippets

Previous experience of family undermining and abusive supervision

Our first research question examines the relationship between the level of family undermining experienced by supervisors while growing up and how abusive those supervisors behave later in life toward (and according to) their subordinates. We postulate a positive relationship between the two phenomena based on research pertaining to the social-learning approach to aggression (Bandura, 1973, Bandura, 1983) in general and the intergenerational transmission of violence (e.g., Egeland, 1993) in

Participants and procedure

Data were collected in a large retail organization in the Philippines as part of a consulting project examining effective leadership in the workplace. A total of 273 supervisors and their corresponding subordinates were sent surveys kits through the organization's internal mailing system. The survey kit provided the relevant questionnaires, a brief explanation of the study's purpose and an assurance of confidentiality. Supervisors and subordinates completed the surveys during work time and

Results

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for Study 1 variables are reported in Table 1. We employed moderated multiple regression (MMR) analysis (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) to examine the impact of supervisors' prior experience of family undermining on subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervision (H1) and the moderating role of supervisors' self-control (H2). In Step 1, we entered the control variables (e.g., supervisor gender, duration of working relationship with

Study 2

Although Study 1 results supported our hypotheses, the study has a potential limitation in that the solicited retrospective accounts could be inaccurate due to faulty memories or erroneous reconstructed experiences that might occur over time (Henry, Moffitt, Caspi, Langley, & Silva, 1994). Further, it is conceivable that supervisors who experienced serious family undermining as children may have repressed some of their painful memories (Loftus, 1993). Therefore, we elected to conduct a

Results

Data were analyzed using the same methods described in Study 1. Descriptive statistics for Study 2 variables are presented in Table 3. Once again, we found support for Hypothesis 1, which predicted that supervisors' previous experience of family undermining was positively related to subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervision in Step 2 over and above the effects of the controls, R2Δ = .09, F(2, 85) = 3.19, β = .24, p < .05 (see Table 4). In support of H2, the interaction term explained additional

Discussion

In two studies, results supported our hypotheses that 1) supervisors who experienced higher levels of family undermining during childhood are more likely to engage in abusive supervisory behaviors as adults (H1); and 2) this relationship is moderated such that it is stronger for supervisors reporting low levels of self-control (H2). We found that these effects emerged: a) even after controlling for subordinates' levels of neuroticism, power distance beliefs, and tenure with the supervisor, plus

Conclusion

From a theoretical standpoint, our work speaks to the potential of employees' past experiences to significantly influence the occurrence of abusive supervision in the present, and to this effect, points to some interesting venues for future research, such as exploring the role of previous socialization experiences (e.g., professional) and examining the impact of facilitating and/or impeding dispositional variables in the ensuing abuse dynamics. As such, we hope that our findings highlight the

References (89)

  • C.B. Wortman et al.

    Response to uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model

  • L.M. Andersson et al.

    Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace

    Academy of Management Review

    (1999)
  • K. Aquino et al.

    Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role of situational factors and victim characteristics

    Organization Science

    (2000)
  • S. Aryee et al.

    Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2007)
  • A. Bandura

    Aggression: A social learning analysis

    (1973)
  • A. Bandura

    Psychological mechanisms of aggression

  • A. Bandura

    Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory

    (1986)
  • R.F. Baumeister et al.

    Self-esteem, narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or from threatened egotism?

    Current Directions in Psychological Science

    (2000)
  • R.F. Baumeister et al.

    Self-regulation failure: An overview

    Psychological Inquiry

    (1996)
  • W.G. Bennis et al.

    Geeks & geezers: How era, values, and defining moments shape leaders

    (2002)
  • L. Berkowitz

    Aggression. Its causes, consequences, and control

    (1993)
  • A.B.I. Bernardo

    McKinley's questionable bequest: Over 100 years of English in Philippine education

    World Englishes

    (2004)
  • P. Bordia et al.

    When employees strike back: Investigating mediating mechanisms between psychological contract breach and workplace deviance

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2008)
  • S. Brown et al.

    Good cope, bad cope: Adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies following a critical negative work event

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2005)
  • B.J. Bushman et al.

    Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1998)
  • C. Cappell et al.

    The intergenerational transmission of family aggression

    Journal of Family Violence

    (1990)
  • J. Cohen et al.

    Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (2003)
  • T.F. Denson

    Displaced aggression in children and adolescents

  • J. Dietz et al.

    The impact of community violence and an organization's procedural justice climate on workplace aggression

    Academy of Management Journal

    (2003)
  • S.C. Douglas et al.

    Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2001)
  • E.F. Dubow et al.

    Theoretical and methodological considerations in cross-generational research on parenting and child aggressive behavior

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

    (2003)
  • M.K. Duffy et al.

    The radiating effects of intimate partner violence on occupational stress and well being

  • P.D. Dunlop et al.

    Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (2004)
  • A.H. Eagly et al.

    Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1986)
  • B. Egeland

    A history of abuse is a major risk factor for abusing the next generation

  • J.J. Gabarro

    The development of working relationships

  • M.-H. Gagné et al.

    Family dynamics associated with the use of psychologically violent parental practices

    Journal of Family Violence

    (2004)
  • M.-H. Gagné et al.

    Links between parental psychological violence, other family disturbances, and children's adjustment

    Family Process

    (2007)
  • A.M. Game

    Negative emotions in supervisory relationships: The role of relational models

    Human Relations

    (2008)
  • R.G. Geen

    Human aggression

    (2001)
  • L.R. Goldberg

    The development of markers for the big-five factor structure

    Psychological Assessment

    (1992)
  • M.R. Gottfredson et al.

    A general theory of crime

    (1990)
  • D.A. Harrison et al.

    Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion

    Academy of Management Journal

    (1998)
  • Cited by (76)

    • A trickle-out model of organizational dehumanization and displaced aggression

      2023, Journal of Vocational Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      Spouses indicated their responses on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (I cannot remember her/him using this behavior with me) to 7 (S/he always uses this behavior toward me). Previous research suggests reliability coefficients ranging from 0.82 to 0.90 (Kiewitz et al., 2012; Restubog et al., 2011). Construct validity evidence also suggests that spouse undermining is positively related to abusive supervision and psychological distress (Kiewitz et al., 2012; Restubog et al., 2011).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The first and second authors contributed equally in writing this manuscript. We appreciate the helpful suggestions from Gary Johns, Micki Kacmar, Marie Mitchell and Ben Tepper. We also thank Lemuel Toledano and Jennifer Lajom for their research assistance. This research was supported by the Australian Research Council grant (DP1094023) awarded to the second author. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2009 Academy of Management conference.

    View full text