Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Abusive supervision

Abusive supervision:
What motivates it and how does it affect workplace motivation?

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Overview

Figure 1. A worker showing signs of exhaustion and stress. Scenario A small game company called Maple consists of around 100 workers, despite their size, they are seen as the epitome of innovation and collaboration within the industry. However, reports came out that the supervisor is "overbearing, a micromanager and verbally abusive". Due to this, the workers have reportedly been unsatisfied and unwilling to work, and some of them have shown signs of severe stress. The supervisor has been rude and abusive to one of his coworkers in particular, reportedly being a constant harasser of the worker, and even blaming any mistakes in the entire division on him. Due to the constant abuse, he has been unable to return to work, and even had a severe illness and was admitted to the Hospital. Is this a case of abusive supervision?

This is what is known as abusive supervision. Defined as a form of workplace mistreatment, it involves a sustained pattern of hostile behaviour that can range from verbal to emotional abuse. Unlike an isolated incident coming from a disagreement, abusive supervision is constant and consists of repeated negative actions, often coming from or creating, a negative work environment (Tepper et al., 2000). Abusive supervision is reportedly perpetrated by superiors around 75% of the time (Tepper et al., 2006). What can cause this type of behaviour to appear so frequently in a workplace though, and to the point where it makes a workplace toxic for those involved?

While workers who commit the behaviour are often those in power, there are multiple reasons that the behaviours may occur in the workplace. One theory behind it is that the behaviours occur due to the models that appear in the workplace (Social Learning Theory) can make a workplace unmanageable, and make a culture that may accept abusive behaviour, as a normal part of the position, both as a victim, and abuser. In this Chapter, weTemplate:Use 3rd person perspective aim to see if behaviourism is the major Psychological theory to explain this behaviour, or if another theory could. For workers, an environment of consistent abuse would demolish motivation, and research on the behaviour and its effects show that being a consistent victim can lead to both Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation being greatly affected. That is what this chapter hopes to outline, in an attempt to define Abusive Supervision, we also attempt to define what can cause the behaviour, but also how workers can suffer due to it, and why it is something that needs to be managed and extinguished.

Focus questions: Can Psychological theories explain abusive supervision? What are the characteristics and behaviours that define abusive supervision? Can multiple theories explain abusive supervision? How does abusive supervision affect employee motivation?

What is Abusive Supervision?

Abusive supervision is a form of abuse that often occurs within a workplace environment and is largely verbal or emotional hostility (Tepper et al., 2000) but the act being committed by a supervisor is what makes it an outlier. This hostility is often caused by a Supervisor, or higher-up within the workplace, focusing and sustaining this hostility towards their subordinates. The abuse can still occur within the classroom or at home, but the ability to inhabit any workplace without leaving any traces, is why it is so dangerous for both workers, and the environment they will inhabit.

Tepper, Moss and Duffy (2011) outlined that stress plays a significant role in abusive supervision. Supervisors under high stress, due to workloads, organisational pressure or personal issues will be more likely to have outbursts and lashing out at their subordinates. This stress can be in the form of verbal abuse, micromanagement and even threats, all behaviours that are considered abusive supervision. Stress can cloud decision-making and reduce empathy, leading to these behaviours being committed in an environment that may not be stressful, but cause them to create the stressful environment for the workers. The increased stress may continue on the employee and lead to increased turnover within the workplace, and eventually spread out through an organisation and ruin effectiveness and motivation within the business (Martinko, Harvey and Mackey et al., 2013). As stated earlier, the behaviour often occurs within a workplace, but no workplace is without the possibility of the behaviour, with Tepper (2007) outlining that the behaviour is seen in a large amount of corporate environments, and this is more prevalent due to the power dynamics, and the high pressure. Healthcare settings for example (Laschinger and Nosko et al., 2015) have shown to be common areas for occurrence of the behaviour, with the hierarchical structure of nurses and doctors and the high-stress leading to it. The environment can create a culture where supervisors resort to the abusive supervision as a way of managing stress or asserting authority over their subordinates, and their environment. After the COVID-19 lockdown, abusive supervision was even present in remote settings. Highlighted by O'Reilly and Bosco (2022), it was found that even in virtual workplaces the abuse could occur, with the lack of physical presence leading to a difficulty in accountability the remote nature creates a sense of impunity for supervisors who become abusive. With the difficulty in seeking support and reduced empathy as a result of distance, supervisors can be abusive, without the stressful environment, outlining that the behaviour can appear regardless of the situation and environment.

Abusive supervision is a major issue, as the effects it can have in the workplace can range from factors like increased job stress, lower satisfaction and lower commitment occurring as a result (Tepper et al., 2000). A way to understand this is through social exchange theory (Blau et al., 1964), which posits that social interactions are based on reciprocation, namely where positive exchanges foster greater investment and effort, and negative exchanges will cause withdrawal and detachment from the work. In the context of abusive supervision, the subordinates who receive the abuse will not get positive reciprocation, leading to a quick decline in their motivation and performance. This toxic dynamic leads to an environment that breeds negativity, only damaging the individuals and organisation as a whole.

Quiz 1 What makes abusive supervision different from other forms of abuse? : Being a verbal and non-verbal form of abuse Being committed in the workplace Being committed by a superior 2 Abusive supervision can happen in any workplace: True False

Psychological Theories that may explain or address Abusive Supervision

Social learning theory

Social learning theory, proposed by Albert Bandura and colleagues in 1977, suggests that people learn behaviours, values, and attitudes through observation, imitation and modelling. According to SLT, the learning occurs in a social context, where individuals observe others, namely role models and people in power, and replicate their actions based on the perceived outcomes. The key mechanisms involved are observation, imitation and reinforcement, which outlines that individuals will model their behaviour based on others, and the consequences of said behaviours, they may imitate if the model is someone of power or admiration, and then if the behaviour is rewarded in any "positive" way, they are likely to repeat it.

The Bobo Doll experiment Figure 2. Photos taken from the experiment, conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961 The Bobo Doll experiment is a classic study based around the mechanisms of social learning theory, namely whether children could learn aggressive behaviours through observation. Group one involved children observing an adult behaving aggressively towards a Bobo doll, verbally and physical treating it. Group two was shown an adult being calm and non-aggressive, while also ignoring the doll. After this the children were placed in a room with the bobo doll, and researchers observed whether the children would imitate the behaviour they had seen, (see Figure 2. Photos taken from the experiment) The children who observed the aggressive behaviour were significantly more likely to imitate the aggression, both verbally and physically, than those who observed the non-aggressive group. The boys were also more likely to imitate the aggression behaviour, and those who indulged in the behaviour were more likely to imitate the behaviours that were rewarded, or at least not punished.

From this experiment, we can understand that through modelling, namely modelling of those in positions of power or authority, negative behaviours committed by supervisors can inadvertently serve as models for their employees. With learning through experiences in the workplace, namely experiencing abuse by a supervisor or observing it without any negative repercussions, they may internalise the behaviour as a norm (Bandura et al.,1977). Mawritz et al., (2012) outlined that a Trickle-Down effect can occur, namely that the abusive behaviours can trickle down an organisation, starting with higher-level supervisors engaging in abusive supervision, moving to mid-level managers and other subordinates who observe this behaviour may begin to replicate the interactions with their own subordinates. When the workplace then exists without punishment for negative and abusive behaviours, the reoccurrence is set to be consistent (Bandura et al., 1986). The likely absence of consequences within the workplace makes social learning theory a strong explanation for the occurrence of abusive supervision, however this only explains how it continues, rather than how it starts.

Dark triad theory

The dark triad refers to a trio of personality traits, namely psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism. These traits, while distinct share common characteristics, namely a lack of empathy, manipulativeness, and an exploitative attitude towards others. Paulhus and Williams (2002) outlined this concept to describe personalities that display high levels of malevolent traits.

The traits of the triad Psychopathy, is characterised by impuslivity, a lack of empathy, shallowness with emotions, and a disregard for the feelings or rights of others. Individuals high in psychopathy can have a tendency for antisocial behaviour, such as aggression and can act without regards for consequences (Hare et al., 1999). The lack of empathy and emotional depth, may mean those high in psychopathy are more likely to engage in abusive behaviours, such as emotional or physical abuse (Furnham, Richards and Paulhus et al., 2013). Figure 3. The Dark Triad, proposed by Paulhus & Willems, in 2002 Machiavellianism is characterised by cynicism and manipulative approaches to interpersonal relationships. People high in this trait are more likely to use these approaches to achieve their goals, and as Jones and Paulhus (2011) stated, are more likely to use people as tools, rather than see them as individuals. This manipulative and explotative nature, may coincide with them being more likely to engage in emotional abuse (Rauthmann and Kolar et al., 2012). Narcissism involves a greater sense of self-importance, a need for excessive admiration and again, a lack of empathy, and when their superiority is challenged, they can become hostile or abusive (Paulhus and Williams et al., 2002). Individuals with high levels of narcissim are prone to abusive behaviours, namely emotional abuse, attempting to assert their superiority (Furnham, Richards and Paulhus et al., 2013). These traits are all easy to associate with a behaviour such as abusive supervision, as they share factors like a lack of empathy, and often point out a lack of emotions for people outside of themself. (See Figure 3. for a brief explanation of the three traits)

Martinko, Brees and Mackey (2013) attempted to understand factors that could explain abusive supervision, and re-propose a model that explains it all. What they pushed was a model that had more recognition of subordinates' individual differences, such as attribution style and negative affectivity. It also worked to further understand the possible relationship between the dark triad and abusive supervision. The study was able to find that leaders with higher levels of these traits, could be more likely to engage in abusive supervisory behaviours. Liu, Liao and Loi (2012) was another study looking at abusive supervision, and namely outlined behaviours like aggression, irritability and a tendency to react negatively to stress or opposition are relevant behaviours with regards to psychopathy. Psychopathy is linked with lack of empathy and antisocial behaviour, which psychopathic leaders may use to push personal power and control over their subordinates, again a case of abusive supervision beginning to be employed in the workplace. Harris and Harvey (2007) found that supervisors who scored higher on the dark triad traits, were more likely to engage in abusive supervisory behaviours, and were correlated with behaviours in the office that had them mistreating employees. Moshagen and Hilbig (2017) furthered this study's findings, by finding not only did the dark triad scores correlate with the behaviours, but could be used to predict the behaviours, with psychopathy being the main trait to predict whether or not it may occur.

Which is a more likely explanation?

Both theories provide substantial insights into the phenomenon of abusive supervision. However, Social Learning Theory offers a stronger explanation for the continuation of such behaviour, as it elucidates how individuals absorb abusive practices from their superiors and how these behaviours play out within the workplace.

On the other hand, the Dark Triad theory focuses on traits that may be inherently present in individuals before they engage in workplace abuse. This raises an important question: if these abusive traits exist within a person, how do they come to view such behaviour as justifiable, especially if they had not previously exhibited it?

The Dark Triad theory is an explanation for the behaviours present within a person before entering the workplace, making them more likely to engage in the behaviours, social learning then takes place, and the person viewing the behaviour occurring within the workplace, can deem it as acceptable, and a viable use of their traits without overstepping their position. This is a view that takes into concept how natural and unnoticeable it may be to pick up in a workplace.

What do you think? 1 Does social learning theory stand as a better explanation? : Yes No 2 Does the dark triad theory stand as a better explanation? : Yes No 3 Does seeing both as working in tandem, provide a more natural explanation? : Yes No

Impacts on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation within the Workplace

Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation refers to the inherent desire to engage in activities and tasks that are inherently interesting, enjoyable or satisfying to us. Deci and Ryan (1985) states that individuals are intrinsically motivated, when they participate in a task, for its own sake, rather than for external rewards, or pressure. With regards to pressure, abusive supervision negatively impacts the intrinsic motivation that workers will have towards their work, or workplace.

Figure 4. A Self-determination theory diagram, by Deci and Ryan (1985).

Intrinsic motivation is based around three psychological needs, that all work for self-determination theory. Self-determination theory promotes environments that allows psychological needs to be met however, if the environments work against the worker, and do not allow these needs to be met, they can suffer and focus more on extrinsic rewards, out of fear. The psychological needs, as seen in Figure 4, are autonomy, competence and relatedness. Autonomy is the need to feel in control and a freedom to make their own choices, competence is based on the desire to feel effective and capable in one's activities, and relatedness is the need to connect and belong.

According to Deci, Connell and Ryan (1989), abusive supervision will undermine employees' psychological needs, namely in autonomy. When employees experience a loss of autonomy, via the possible controlling behaviour and demeaning behaviour causing the employees to focus less on working out of their own habit and choice, and instead as a way to prevent further abuse. When removing the choice and control they have of their own actions, and instead forcing a control over them, via the prevention of abuse, employees' intrinsic motivation is diminished, and is replaced by extrinsic motivation. Abusive supervision will also have an effect on relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000) as when supervisors engage in abusive behaviour, it will cause the victims to become isolated, and feel alienated. Alongside this, their need to feel connected is less important, as the focus on preventing abuse, and extrinsic factors becomes the forefront (Tepper, 2007). Finally, the hostility and abuse from the supervisor, leads to the entire workplace becoming one of fear. Hostility from supervisors make employees less likely to take on new challenges out of fear of criticism and punishment (Tepper, 2007).

Abusive supervision within the workplace deprives workers of their intrinsic psychological needs. Their focus and attention, goes less to their needs, and instead focus on extrincic motivators, in this case, avoiding abuse from their supervisor rather than engaging in goal identified work (Tepper, 2007). When this occurs, worker motivation becomes focused on avoiding abuse (Deci et al., 1985).

Extrinsic motivation

Extrinsic motivation, refers to engaging in a behaviour or activity, as a means to an end, rather than out of interest and enjoyment (Deci et al., 1985). It is driven solely by external factors, such as rewards praise, rather than internal needs and satisfaction. This is what the theory Incentive Theory of Motivation (Skinner et al., 1953) looks at, as people are driven more to act in ways that fit their expectation, regardless of positive or negative outcome. In cases of abusive supervision, employees may begin to act less for traditional rewards and more to avoid punishment, as described by Tepper (2000). This dynamic shifts the perception of rewards, where a lack of abuse is seen as a form of positive reinforcement. As a result employees' motivation transforms into fear-driven compliance, a negative form of extrinsic motivation. This shifts focus to avoiding negative outcomes, rather than seeking any positive recognition or growth, or even financial and personal gain. This can lead to disengagement and burnout over time for those who suffer from it.

Abusive supervision creates an environment of fear which undermines trust in genuine rewards. Highlighted by Liu, Liao and Loi (2012), employees will become accustomed to associating extrinsic motivation with the avoidance of punishment, and this will lead to their desire to pursue traditional rewards will decline. The effectiveness of these rewards weakens, leading the employees to feel indifferent and disengaged from traditional extrinsic motivators, which in this case would be payments, bonuses, and any material type of gain that may come from their work. Overall, the workplace will suffer.

How do these affect a workplace?

Abusive supervision significantly undermines both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among workplace employees. By creating an environment of fear and distrust, abusive behaviour diminishes psychological needs such as autonomy, competence and relatedness, leading employees to focus on avoiding negative outcomes rather than their own personal and professional growth. This manipulation of motivation not only erodes trust in the workplace and rewards, but also fosters disengagement and burnout, ultimately harming the overall workplace atmosphere and effectiveness.

Conclusion

Abusive supervision poses a significant threat to workplace environments, undermining both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among employees. Characterised by a pattern of hostile behaviours, it stems from psychological theories, namely social learning theory, and the dark triad. The negative impacts it has on the workplace are mainly based around decreased satisfation, increased turnover, and diminished employee engagement, as individuals begin to focus more on avoiding abuse than pursuing personal and meaningful work.

Recognising and addressing these behaviours is essential for cultivating positive workplace culture and implementing anti-abusive strategies to combat it will protect workers and also enhance overall workplace effectiveness. Recognising and addressing the root cause and how it is motivated to occur within a workplace can allow the motivation within the workplace to prosper, and allow workers to be healthy mentally and with regards to their work.

See also

• Abusive supervision (Book chapter, 2023)
• Collaborative authoring using wiki (Wikiversity)
• Abusive Supervision (Wikipedia)
• Dark Triad Theory (Wikipedia)
• Social Learning Theory (WIkipedia)

References

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045925

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200317

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman and Company. This book discusses the concept of self-efficacy and its importance for motivation and performance. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/self-efficacy-exercise-control/docview/218661518/se-2

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792643

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer Science & Business Media. This book provides foundational insights into how external pressures and controls impact intrinsic motivation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M.(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. This article discusses how external controls and pressures impact intrinsic motivation and focus. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580-590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580

Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10-year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216.

Hare, R. D. (1999). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us. Guilford Press.

Harris, K. J., & Harvey, P. (2007). Abusive supervision and the Dark Triad of personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4), 759-772. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i25075523

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). Differentiating the Dark Triad within the interpersonal circumplex. Handbook of Interpersonal Psychology, 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118001868.ch15

Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1187-1212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0400

Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 325-357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01246.x

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S120-S137. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1888

Morris, L. S., Grehl, M. M., Rutter, S. B., Mehta, M., & Westwater, M. L. (2022). On what motivates us: A detailed review of intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation. Psychological Medicine, 52(10), 1801–1816. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291722001611

Moshagen, M., & Hilbig, B. E. (2017). The Dark Triad and abusive supervision: Dark personalities in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 663-676. https://doi.org/10.26501/jibm/2020.1002-007

Paulhus, D. L., Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Jones, D. N. (2021). Screening for dark personalities: The Short Dark Tetrad (SD4). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 37(3), 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000602

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2012). How "dark" are the Dark Triad traits? Personality and Individual Differences, 53(7), 884-889. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.020

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.37303805120

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812

Zhang, Y., & Liao, Z. (2015). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: The mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1), 205-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2011.00004.x

External links

Abusive Supervision(Quality improvement center for workforce development)

Extrinsic Motivation (Science direct)

Incentive Theory of Motivation: Definition and Examples(Indeed)