Asia Pac J Manag (2013) 30:281296

DOI 10.1007/s10490-011-9251-y

Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive

work behaviors: The moderating effects of locus
of control and perceived mobility
Feng Wei & Steven Si

Published online: 20 April 2011

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Previous research has identified both individual differences and perceived
situational variables such as self-esteem and organizational justice as the antecedents of
counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). This article focuses on employees
perceived interpersonal interaction. More specifically, the relation between abusive
supervision and subordinates counterproductive work behaviors toward the organization is examined. Using a sample of 198 dyads employees and their immediate
supervisor (N = 396) from a multinational company in China, this research finds that
abusive supervision results in increased levels of sabotage, withdrawal, production
deviance, and theft. This research also examines the moderating effects of locus of
control and perceived mobility on the relationships between abusive supervision and
subordinates CWB toward the organization. The results suggest that locus of control
moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and sabotage, production
deviance and theft, but not abusive supervision and withdrawal; perceived mobility
moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and withdrawal and theft, but
not abusive supervision and sabotage and production deviance. Practical implications
for human resource management are discussed.
Keywords Abusive supervision . Counterproductive work behaviors . Locus of
control . Perceived mobility
This research has been supported jointly by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (70902038)
and Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (09YJC630150). The
authors are alphabetically ordered by their E-mail address.
F. Wei
Shanghai University, 99, Shang Da Road, Shanghai, Peoples Republic of China
e-mail: fwei@shu.edu.cn
S. Si (*)
Tongji University, 1239, Siping Road, Shanghai, Peoples Republic of China
e-mail: sixiaofu@tongji.edu.cn
S. Si
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, PA 17815, USA

282

F. Wei, S. Si

In the past decade, counterproductive work behavior (CWB) has become an

increasingly popular topic of study among organizational researchers (Ahlstrom,
Chen, & Yeh, 2010; Bhagat, McDevitt, & McDevitt, 2010; Dalal, 2005; Fang, 2010;
Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Li, Ahlstrom, & Ashkanasy, 2010; Peng, Bhagat, &
Chang, 2010; Penney & Spector, 2005; Rodell & Judge, 2009), partly because such
behavior seems, in particular, to decrease job performance and increase costs to the
company (Lanyon & Goodstein, 2004; Sackett, 2002; Sackett & DeVore, 2002;
Yang, 2008). However, compared with the significant negative impacts of CWB on
the organization and employees, the effects of antecedents on CWB have been
documented much less extensively. Moreover, past research on the antecedents of
CWB has mainly focused on employees individual differences and attitudes toward
the organization (Jones, 2009; Lau, Au, & Ho, 2003; Rodell & Judge, 2009), the
interpersonal antecedents of CWB have not been extensively examined in the
empirical literature (Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007).
Of the interpersonal relationships people develop at work, none are more
important than those employees have with their immediate supervisor (Tepper, Carr,
Breaux, Geider, Hu, & Hua, 2009). Recent researchers have focused their attention
on abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004;
Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001). Some empirical evidence has suggested that
supervisor abuse is related to employees workplace deviance and have identified
some situational contexts which can help build a better understanding of when and
why employees workplace deviance are less likely (e.g., Mitchell & Ambrose,
2007; Tepper et al., 2009; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008; Thau,
Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009). However, empirical research exploring the
boundary effects are relatively limited.
As such, the purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to investigate the possibility that
abused subordinates may seek to restore the situation to what is expected by exerting
organizationally directed CWB, and (2) to identify the conditions under which a
subordinate might withhold their CWB towards the organization. In particular, we
examine the moderating effects of subordinates locus of control and perceived
mobility on the relationship between abusive supervision and CWB towards the
organization. In doing so, we integrate theory and research from two emerging
topics: abusive supervision and CWB.
In spite of the substantial body of research on the consequences and growing
research on the antecedents of CWB in the literature, there is no research on the
detrimental effects of destructive supervisory behavior (e.g., abusive supervision) on
subordinates CWB towards the organization, especially, few researches have been
conducted on the mitigating factors to reduce the deleterious effects of abusive
supervision on subordinates CWB towards the organization. Overall, this article
makes two contributions. First, we extend the CWB literature (i.e., Bruursema,
Kessler, Fox, & Spector, 2004; Goh, Bruursema, Fox, & Spector, 2003; Neuman &
Baron, 1998; Penney & Spector, 2005; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; etc.) by
investigating its interpersonal antecedents, specifically abusive supervision, and by
providing a new conceptual analysis of the boundary conditions of abusive
supervision effects, specifically of subordinates individual differences neutralizing
the effects of abusive supervision on CWB towards the organization. Second, we
enrich a Western-based view of CWB by providing a more cross-cultural empirical

282

F. Wei, S. Si

In the past decade, counterproductive work behavior (CWB) has become an

increasingly popular topic of study among organizational researchers (Ahlstrom,
Chen, & Yeh, 2010; Bhagat, McDevitt, & McDevitt, 2010; Dalal, 2005; Fang, 2010;
Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Li, Ahlstrom, & Ashkanasy, 2010; Peng, Bhagat, &
Chang, 2010; Penney & Spector, 2005; Rodell & Judge, 2009), partly because such
behavior seems, in particular, to decrease job performance and increase costs to the
company (Lanyon & Goodstein, 2004; Sackett, 2002; Sackett & DeVore, 2002;
Yang, 2008). However, compared with the significant negative impacts of CWB on
the organization and employees, the effects of antecedents on CWB have been
documented much less extensively. Moreover, past research on the antecedents of
CWB has mainly focused on employees individual differences and attitudes toward
the organization (Jones, 2009; Lau, Au, & Ho, 2003; Rodell & Judge, 2009), the
interpersonal antecedents of CWB have not been extensively examined in the
empirical literature (Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007).
Of the interpersonal relationships people develop at work, none are more
important than those employees have with their immediate supervisor (Tepper, Carr,
Breaux, Geider, Hu, & Hua, 2009). Recent researchers have focused their attention
on abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004;
Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001). Some empirical evidence has suggested that
supervisor abuse is related to employees workplace deviance and have identified
some situational contexts which can help build a better understanding of when and
why employees workplace deviance are less likely (e.g., Mitchell & Ambrose,
2007; Tepper et al., 2009; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008; Thau,
Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009). However, empirical research exploring the
boundary effects are relatively limited.
As such, the purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to investigate the possibility that
abused subordinates may seek to restore the situation to what is expected by exerting
organizationally directed CWB, and (2) to identify the conditions under which a
subordinate might withhold their CWB towards the organization. In particular, we
examine the moderating effects of subordinates locus of control and perceived
mobility on the relationship between abusive supervision and CWB towards the
organization. In doing so, we integrate theory and research from two emerging
topics: abusive supervision and CWB.
In spite of the substantial body of research on the consequences and growing
research on the antecedents of CWB in the literature, there is no research on the
detrimental effects of destructive supervisory behavior (e.g., abusive supervision) on
subordinates CWB towards the organization, especially, few researches have been
conducted on the mitigating factors to reduce the deleterious effects of abusive
supervision on subordinates CWB towards the organization. Overall, this article
makes two contributions. First, we extend the CWB literature (i.e., Bruursema,
Kessler, Fox, & Spector, 2004; Goh, Bruursema, Fox, & Spector, 2003; Neuman &
Baron, 1998; Penney & Spector, 2005; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; etc.) by
investigating its interpersonal antecedents, specifically abusive supervision, and by
providing a new conceptual analysis of the boundary conditions of abusive
supervision effects, specifically of subordinates individual differences neutralizing
the effects of abusive supervision on CWB towards the organization. Second, we
enrich a Western-based view of CWB by providing a more cross-cultural empirical

Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors

283

analysis of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates CWB and
examine this relationship in the Chinese context. The differences this study identifies
should be beneficial for both scholars and managers to better understand the CWB
issue between China and the rest of the global economy.

Theoretical background
Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is defined as intentional employee behavior
that is harmful to the legitimate interests of an organization (Gruys & Sackett, 2003;
Spector & Fox, 2002). These behaviors are a set of distinct acts that share the following
characteristics: they are volitional (as opposed to accidental or mandated) and harm or
intend to harm the organization and/or organizations stakeholders, such as clients,
coworkers, customers, and supervisors (Spector & Fox, 2005).
CWB has been classified into subcategories using several different, but not entirely
conflicting schemes (Spector & Fox, 2002). Robinson and Bennett (1995) conducted a
multidimensional scaling study of CWB and derived two dimensions: organizational
from personal targets, and minor versus serious acts. Neuman and Baron (1998) used a
three-category scheme of hostility, obstruction, and overt aggression. Spector, Fox,
Penney, Bruursema, Goh, and Kessler (2006) compiled data from three of their prior
studies (Bruursema et al., 2004; Goh et al., 2003; Penney & Spector, 2005) that used a
45-item CWB checklist as well as measures of stressors, justice, job satisfaction, and
negative emotions at work, and conducted a factor analysis resulting in five dimensions:
abuse against others (harmful behaviors directed toward coworkers and others),
production deviance (purposeful failure to perform job tasks effectively), sabotage
(defacing or destroying physical property belonging to the employer), withdrawal
(behaviors that restrict the amount of time working to less than is required by the
organization), and theft. The first dimension targets people, the next four target the
organization or both, but is more to the organization.
The growing research interest in negative behaviors in organizations has led to a
shift of the focus of leadership literature from mere effective leadership behaviors to
both the positive and negative sides of leadership (Wu, 2008). Researchers have used
several different labels to refer to negative leadership behaviors, such as petty
tyranny (Ashforth, 1997), toxic leaders (Lipman-Blumen, 2005), supervisor
aggression (Schat, Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2006), and supervisor undermining
(Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002), but the most widely used term is abusive
supervision (Tepper, 2000). Tepper (2000: 178) defined abusive supervision as
subordinates perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained
display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact,
which includes the manifestation of dysfunctional leadership behaviors toward
subordinates such as ridiculing subordinates, blaming subordinates for things they
do not do, and expressing anger without reason.
Hypotheses
Abusive supervision and subordinates CWB According to reciprocity theory,
individuals may be guided by negative reciprocity beliefs whereby they believe

284

F. Wei, S. Si

that when someone mistreats them, it is acceptable to retaliate in return (Cropanzano

& Mitchell, 2005). Abused employees may reciprocate their supervisors mistreatment by engaging in aggressive behavior to retaliate directly against their abusive
supervisor. However, the power and position differences between supervisor and
subordinate suggest that an abusive tit for tat spiral may be unlikely as individuals
do not ordinarily reciprocate identical actions of a powerful abuser (Lord, 1998).
Doing so is unlikely to halt the abuse and may even trigger more intense hostility on
the instigators part (Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002; Tepper et al., 2001).
Based on the theory of displaced aggression (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, &
Sears, 1939; Miller, 1941), Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) proposed an explanation
for individuals redirecting their aggressive or displaced behaviors on less powerful
or more available targets, such as their organization or coworkers: abused
subordinates may express their hostility against their organization (rather than their
supervisor) when the harm-doer is not available to retaliate against or when abused
subordinates fear that direct retaliation might evoke further retaliation. Empirical
research on how employees respond to abusive supervision suggests that
subordinates perceiving more rather than less of it engage in more retaliation and
revenge behavior (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2006; Duffy et al., 2002; Inness, Barling,
& Turner, 2005). Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1 Abusive supervision is positively related to subordinates CWB
(sabotage, withdrawal, production deviance, and theft).
The moderation of subordinates locus of control Locus of control is an important
determinant of the way individuals interpret the situations they encounter (Rotter,
1966), which represents the degree to which individuals tend to attribute what
happens to them to internal factors (e.g., skills, efforts, perseverance) or to external
factors (e.g., chance, other people, divine intervention) (Spector, 1982). Research on
locus of control suggests that individuals vary in their expectancies regarding their
ability to control events affecting them and their tendencies to attribute the causes of
their successes or failures to either internal or external sources (Allen, Weeks, &
Moffitt, 2005). It has been noted that internal control beliefs are an important
component of emotional adjustment and ability to handle stress in general life and at
work (Spector, Cooper, Sanchez, ODriscoll, & Sparks, 2002).
We speculate that external employees would attribute their failures more to
external sources, and have more difficulty to handle stress and bad moods at work.
In this case, when encountering abusive supervision, externals will attribute this to
the supervisors provocation directed at the person instead of the thing he/she has
done, hence he/she will respond with withdrawal, production deviance, sabotage,
and theft. However, when internals encounters abusive supervision, he/she will
attribute this to the supervisors criticism directed at the thing he/she has done
instead of the person. So he/she may show no special reactions, except for paying
more attentions to their work. Therefore, we predict a moderated effect, as shown in
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 Locus of control moderates the relationship between abusive
supervision and subordinates CWB towards the organization (sabotage, withdrawal,

Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors

285

production deviance, and theft) such that the relationship is stronger for a
subordinate who is external rather than internal.
The moderation of subordinates perceived mobility As organizational lay-offs and
restructuring are now common (Littler, Wiesner, & Dunford, 2003), it is not
surprising that employees today realize that lifelong job security may not be a
realistic employment goal and many are ready to become more mobile (Ng,
Sorensen, Eby, & Feldman, 2007). Job mobility refers to patterns of intra- and
inter-organizational transitions over the course of a persons work life (Hall,
1996; Sullivan, 1999). Perceived mobility is defined as an individuals perception
of available alternative job opportunities (Wheeler, Buckley, Halbesleben,
Brouer, & Ferris, 2005). Those individuals who can easily find similar
employment elsewhere may be less willing to continue working for an
organization where he/she perceives abusive supervision. In contrast, employees
without attractive job alternatives may feel that they have no option but to
maintain their existing relationships with their employers despite abusive
supervision.
We believe that employees with higher perceived mobility will have little
motivation to perform acts of CWB towards the organization whether or not his/her
supervisor abuses him/her, because he/she is less dependent on their current
organization, and can leave the organization when unable to bear the abuse without
losing benefits. Hence, for those with higher perceived mobility, abusive supervision
has little influence on subordinates CWB towards the organization (i.e., withdrawal,
production deviance, sabotage, and theft). However, compared to their high
perceived mobility counterparts, employees with lower perceived mobility should
be more likely to engage in acts of CWB towards the organization, as these are the
only alternatives they have to get even with their organization with abusive
supervision. Therefore, we predict a moderated effect, as shown in the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 Perceived mobility moderates the relationship between abusive
supervision and subordinates CWB towards the organization (sabotage, withdrawal,
production deviance, and theft) such that the relationship is stronger for a
subordinate who perceives less job mobility than more.

Methods
Sample and procedures
The sample used in this study consists of 198 dyads employees and their
immediate supervisors in a large multinational company with more than 10,000
employees, based in Shanghai, China. Employees and their direct supervisors
provided data on separate questionnaires and on different occasions. Supervisors
assessed their subordinates CWB whereas employees assessed their managers
abusive supervision behaviors as well as their assessments on their own locus of

286

F. Wei, S. Si

control and perceived mobility. Thus, we decrease the potential for common
method variance.
The respondents received a questionnaire, a return envelope, and a cover
letter of introduction to the survey that we prepared. Each questionnaire was
coded with a researcher-assigned identification number to match employees with
their immediate supervisor. To ensure confidentiality, the respondents were
instructed to seal the completed questionnaires in the return envelopes and return
them directly to the on-site researchers. Out of the 600 questionnaires distributed
(300 to supervisors and 300 to subordinates), 198 usable dyads were returned,
giving a response rate of 66%. In the supervisor sample, 68% were men, 97%
had been educated at the undergraduate level or above, and 89% were between
31 and 40 years old. In the subordinate sample, 63% were men, 87% had been
educated at the undergraduate level or above, and 56% were between 31 and
40 years old.
Measures
Abusive supervision The 15-item scale developed by Tepper (2000) was used to
measure subordinates perceptions of abusive supervision. Response options range
from 0 (not at all) to 5 (always). Sample items include My immediate supervisor
gives me the silent treatment and My immediate supervisor lies to me. The
scales alpha reliability is .93.
Counterproductive work behaviors The 15-item measure of CWB developed by
Spector et al. (2006) was used in this study. Three of them represent sabotage
(e.g., Purposely damaged a piece of equipment or property), four of them
represent withdrawal (e.g., Taken a longer break than he/she were allowed to
take), three of them represent production deviance (e.g., Purposely worked
slowly when things needed to get done), and five of them represent theft (e.g.,
Took supplies or tools home without permission). Response options range from
0 (not at all) to 5 (always). The sub-scales alpha reliability are .79, .77, .70, and .96
respectively.
Locus of control Locus of control in work settings was measured with the 8-item
short form measure (Spector, 1988). Half the items are written to indicate an external
locus of control (e.g., On most jobs, people can pretty much accomplish whatever
they set out to accomplish) and half to indicate an internal locus (e.g., Making
money is primarily a matter of good fortune). For all items, the six response choices
range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Low scores on this scale
represent internality, and high scores represent externality. The scales alpha
reliability is .75.
Perceived mobility The 2-item measure of perceived mobility developed by Tepper
(2000) was used in this study. For all items, the six response choices range from 1
(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Items include If I were to quit my job, I
could find another job that is just as good and I would have no problem finding an
acceptable job if I quit. The scales alpha reliability is .88.

Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors

287

Results
Measurement model results
We conducted confirmatory factor analyses with maximum likelihood estimation to
examine the distinctness of the variables. The measurement model for the subordinate
questionnaire consisted of two factors: abusive supervision and locus of control. The
results indicate that the three-factor model with 25 items provided a good fit to the data,
2 (272) = 623.21, p < .001, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) =
.081, comparative fit index (CFI) = .93, normed fit index (NFI) = .93. RMSEA scores
almost equal .08 (Hoyle & Panter, 1995) and CFI and NFI scores are above .90 (Bentler
& Bonnett, 1990; Bollen, 1989), which indicate that the indices fall above the guidelines
for a good fit. We compared the three-factor model to a single-factor model (2 (275) =
1154.25, RMSEA = .127, CFI = .85, NFI = .85). The three-factor model produced a
significant improvement in chi-squares (2 (3) = 531.04, p < .001,), suggesting a better
fit than the single-factor model (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996).
The measurement model for the supervisor questionnaire consisted of four subfactors: sabotage, withdrawal, production deviance, and theft. The results indicate
that the four-factor model with 15 items provided a good fit to the data, 2 (84) =
208.24, p < .001, RMSEA = .089, CFI = .97, NFI = .96. RMSEA scores
approximate .08 (Hoyle & Panter, 1995) and CFI and NFI scores are above .90
(Bentler & Bonnett, 1990; Bollen, 1989),which indicate that the indices fall above
the guidelines for a good fit. We compared the two-factor model to a single-factor
model (2 (90) = 656.65, RMSEA = .18, CFI = .88, NFI = .86). The four-factor
model produced a significant improvement in chi-squares (2 (6) = 448.41, p <
.001,), suggesting a better fit than the single-factor model.
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and reliabilities for the study
variables. Table 1 provides initial support for Hypothesis 1. There were significant
correlations between abusive supervision and CWB.
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables.
Variables

SD

1. Abusive Supervision 0.55 0.71

0.15 0.34

0.17*

3. Withdrawal

0.38 0.58

0.19**

0.26**

4. Production Deviance 0.10 0.27

0.23**

0.47**

0.32**

5. Theft

0.04 0.28

0.28**

0.47**

0.41**

0.63**

6. Locus of Control

3.40 0.56

0.56

0.15*

0.12

7. Perceived Mobility

4.38 1.00 0.14*

N = 198; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

(0.93)

2. Sabotage

Coefficient alphas are in parentheses.

(0.79)

0.03
0.11

(0.77)

0.03

(0.70)

0.17*

(0.96)
0.10

(0.75)

0.23** 0.43

(0.88)

288

F. Wei, S. Si

Hypotheses test results

We used hierarchical regression to assess the hypotheses. Following the recommendation of Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003), we mean-centered the predictor
variables to reduce multicollinearity.
Table 2 provides a summary of the models and results used to test Hypotheses 13.
Hypothesis 1 indicated that Abusive supervision is positively related to subordinates
CWB (sabotage, withdrawal, production deviance, and theft) and our results support
this. Hierarchical regression analysis reveals that abusive supervision is positively
related to subordinates sabotage ( = .166, p < .05), and provides support for
withdrawal ( = .194, p < .01), production deviance ( = .232, p < .01), and theft ( =
.269, p < .01).
Table 2 also provides a summary of the models and results used to test
Hypotheses 2 and 3. Hypothesis 2 indicated that Locus of control moderates the
relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates CWB towards the
organization in such a way that the relationship is stronger for a subordinate who is
external rather than internal and our results support this. As shown in Table 2,
hierarchical regression analysis reveals that locus of control moderates the
relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates sabotage ( = .186,
p < .05), production deviance ( = .272, p < .01), and theft ( = .251, p < .01).
To interpret the demonstrated moderating effects, we solved for regression
equations at low and high locus of control and internality and externality. Following
Cohen and Cohen (1983), high and low levels of the moderator are defined by plus
and minus one standard deviation from the mean. Figure 1a indicates that the pattern
of interactions is as predicted in that the relationship between supervisors abusive
supervision and subordinates sabotage is stronger for subordinates who demonstrated external locus of control orientation than those who demonstrated internal
locus of control orientation.
Figure 1b shows that the relationship between supervisors abusive supervision
and subordinates production deviance is stronger for externality than for internality.
Figure 1c shows that the relationship between supervisors abusive supervision and
subordinates theft is stronger for externality than for internality. Thus, Hypothesis 2
is partially confirmed.
Hypothesis 3 indicated that Perceived mobility moderates the relationship
between abusive supervision and subordinates CWB towards the organization such
that the relationship is stronger for a subordinate who perceives less job mobility
than more and our results support this. As shown in Table 2, hierarchical regression
analysis reveals that perceived mobility moderates the relationship between abusive
supervision and subordinates withdrawal ( = .182, p < .05) and theft ( = .401,
p < .01). To interpret the demonstrated moderating effects, we solved for regression
equations at low and high perceived mobility. Figure 2a indicates that the pattern of
interactions is as predicted in that the relationship between supervisors abusive
supervision and subordinates withdrawal is stronger for subordinates who perceived
less job mobility than those who perceived more job mobility. Figure 2b indicates
the relationship between supervisors abusive supervision and subordinates theft is
stronger for subordinates who perceived less job mobility than those who perceived
more job mobility. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is partially confirmed.

.148*

.026

.027*

.054

.047

.041

.032*

.086

.186*

.136

.044

.016 .035

.166*

.084

.042

.075

.056

.030 .020

.032*

.059

.082

.151*

.037

.066

.022

.131

.032

.080

.098

.090

.008

.044
.007

.008

.078

.125

M3

.044

.078

.123

M2

.010

.053

.090

.097

M4

.026

.033

.102

.059

M5

M2

.112

.035
.092

.031

.058 .065

.015 .006

M1

.016

.009

.068

.103

.054

.136

.059

.035 .072

.072

.060**

.120

.146*

.194**

.059

.021

.000

.120

.013

.145*

.192**

.059

.022

.041*

.101

.010

.204**

.087

.035

.028*

.129

.182*

.039

.178*

.084

.044

.089

.037

.062**

.099

.083

.232**

.124 .125

.075

.069**

.168

.272**

.075

.188**

.138

.102

.098

.122

.022

.057

.054

M3

Production deviance

.015 .226** .245** .247** .221** .209** .056 .064

.122

.021 .045

.073

.077 .092

M5

Standardized beta coefficients are reported * p < .05, ** p < .01.

R2

R2

AS*MB

AS*LOC

3. Moderation

Perceived
Mobility (MB)

Locus of Control
(LOC)

Abusive
Supervision
(AS)

2. Predictor

Nature of firms

Tenure with
supervisor

Level

.127

.038

.023 .032

Marriage

.143

.075

.084 .080

Gender

Education

.122

.093 .089

Age

1. Control

M4

M1

M3

M1

M2

Withdrawal

Sabotage

Table 2 Multiple regressions of hypothesized relationships.

.077**

.113

.147*

.218**

.157*

.089

.044

.096

.021

.051

.006

M4

.014

.127

.126

.114

.200**

.155*

.096

.036

.085

.035

.043

.032

M5

M2

.051

.002

.005

.030

.021

.085**

.090

.104

.269**

.030

.037

.043 .053

.006 .018

.055

.010

.017 .043

M1

Theft

.059**

.150

.251**

.096

.228**

.019

.049

.084

.010

.042

.010

.088

M3

.110**

.115

.190*

.250**

.010

.037

.028

.013

.038

.020

.029

M4

.138**

.253

.401**

.083

.193**

.002

.057

.001

.048

.082

.045

.055

M5

Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors

289

290

F. Wei, S. Si

0.3

Sabotage

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1

low

high

-0.2
-0.3

Abusive Supervision
Internals

Production Deviance

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
low

high

-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

Abusive Supervision
Internals

Externals

Externals

0.8
0.6

Theft

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2

low

high

-0.4
-0.6

Abusive Supervision
Internals

Externals

Figure 1 Interaction of abusive supervision and locus of control on sabotage, production deviance, and theft
Note: Values represent standard deviation from the mean

Discussion
Contributions
Previous studies on the antecedents of CWB have focused generally on two aspects:
one is the situational factors, such as organizational justice (Cohen-Charash &
Mueller, 2007; Jones, 2009; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009), triggers (Marcus & Schuler,
2004), challenge and hindrance stressors (Rodell & Judge, 2009), and frustration
(Marcus & Schuler, 2004); the other is inter-individual differences factors, such as
perceived coworker loafing (Hung, Chi, & Lu, 2009), big five (Rodell & Judge,

Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors

291

0.4
0.3

Withdrawal

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1

low

high

-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5

Abusive Supervision
low mobility

high mobility

0.8
0.6

Theft

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2

low

high

-0.4
-0.6

Abusive Supervision
low mobility

high mobility

Figure 2 Interaction of abusive supervision and perceived mobility on withdrawal and theft
Note: Values represent standard deviation from the mean

2009; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009), self-esteem (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007),
episodic envy (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007), and self-control (Marcus &
Schuler, 2004). However, the impact of interpersonal interaction has not been
extensively examined in the empirical literature (Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007). It is
hardly debatable that interpersonal interactions with the supervisor are a crucial part
of everyday work life. Since interpersonal cues not only provide individuals
information about their social context, but also influence how individuals adapt and
react to their social context, it is important to clarify the impacts of interpersonal
antecedents on CWB (Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006; Hung et al. 2009;
Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007). Some of employees subjective feelings on the
organization, such as perception of justice and psychological contract breach, come
partly from the interpersonal interactions with their supervisor. Given this fact, it is
important that organizations and researchers understand the nature and impact of
such interpersonal relationships on employee CWB. Therefore, we enrich the CWB
literature by providing a negative reciprocity analysis of the relationship between
abusive supervision and subordinates CWB towards the organization.
In addition to the main effect of abusive supervision on employees CWBs
towards the organization, we also expected that locus of control and perceived
mobility would play a role in the relationship. As predicted, the results show that
locus of control strengthened (perceived mobility weakened) the relationship
between abusive supervision and employees CWBs towards the organization.

292

F. Wei, S. Si

When abused, employees who perceive less job mobility engaged in more
organization-directed CWB than individuals who perceive more job mobility,
while externals engaged in more organization-directed CWB than internals. Our
findings indicate that the use of locus of control or perceived mobility of
subordinates can help supervisors cope with CWB from subordinates. Thus, it
appears that the power of abusive supervision theories to predict subordinate
responses can be strengthened by including individual-level subordinate
characteristics.
Based on Gottfredson and Hirschis (1990) theory of crime, Marcus and Schuler
(2004) suggested and confirmed empirically that self-control was not only the
dominant predictor of counterproductive behaviors within a set of 25 independent
variables (i.e., interactional injustice, job autonomy, unemployment risk, frustration,
and cognitive ability, etc.), but also virtually the only one that accounted for
substantial portions of criterion variance above that of other variables. Since selfcontrol develops during socialization in childhood and is hard, though not
impossible, to acquire beyond the age of about 8 years (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1990),
organizations that have hired adult persons low in self-control may have a hard time
changing them to reduce CWB. However, in this study, we draw very different
conclusions: after controlling abusive supervision and some demographic variables,
the effects of locus of control on sabotage, withdrawal, production deviance, and theft
are comparatively trivial. This finding implies that instead of self-control, it is the
interpersonal interaction with the supervisor, in particular abusive supervision, that has
the strongest influence on subordinates CWB towards the organization.
In addition to the above, there are three practical contributions in this study. To
begin with, perceived abusive supervision enhances employees CWB (sabotage,
withdrawal, production deviance, and theft) towards the organization. Thus,
organizations should try to avoid the negative impacts associated with abusive
supervision by reducing the tolerance for destructive behaviors. One way to achieve
this goal is to highlight the significance of discouraging subordinates from
performing tit for tat retaliation when they are abused. There may also be value
in training employees to respond constructively to hierarchical mistreatment rather
than performing CWB. Another way is to stress a zero-tolerance attitude when it
comes to not only abusive supervision but also CWB. For example, Andersson and
Pearson (1999) suggested that setting policies and reinforcing norms to inhibit the
occurrence and escalation of uncivil interactions could reduce the likelihood of
witnessed rudeness and secondary incivility.
In addition, our results suggest that the more organization-dependent employees
(i.e., those who have lower job mobility and demonstrate external locus of control
orientation) are more vulnerable to abusive supervision and correspondingly respond
with more CWB. Maybe it seems unrealistic and perhaps even illegal to screen out
any persons with external locus of control orientation by means of personnel
selection procedures. However, organizations and managers can pay more attention
to or aim interventions at those vulnerable subordinates. Marcus and Schuler (2004)
suggested that given a workforce made up of individuals with presumably varying
levels of self-control, both organizational controls and the avoidance of provocative
acts and policies triggering CWB may still prove to have a profound effect on the
average or total level of CWB within an organization.

Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors

293

Limitations and future research

The first limitation of this study is that it is a cross-sectional study. Thus, the results
cannot be interpreted in terms of causal relationships. The results do not allow us to
maintain with certainty that abusive supervision leads to an increase in sabotage,
withdrawal, production deviance, and theft. In fact, in a work context, subordinates
CWB (sabotage, withdrawal, production deviance, and theft) may lead supervisors to
become more sensitive and angry to the negative factors and, therefore, respond with
abusive supervision to those deviant followers. Thus, future research should employ
longitudinal or experimental research designs.
Moreover, all of the samples in this study were sourced from the same
organization during the global financial crisis. The organizational culture, policy,
and top managers leadership styles would have similar impact on both employees
and their supervisors. And the economic slump would have negative effects on both
the organization and employees. Thus, the sampling in this study could result in an
unfavorable influence on the external validity of our conclusions. Future research
should be based on more extensive sampling from a normal economic period to
improve the external validity of research.
Furthermore, future research on CWB should examine other interpersonal
interaction antecedents in addition to abusive supervision. For example, these
studies could explore the relationships with, on the one hand, coworkers incivility
(Penney & Spector, 2005) and, on the other hand, organizational psychological
contract breach (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007) and destructive leadership
(Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007).

Conclusion
What interpersonal interaction factors determine subordinates CWB towards the
organization? The current study revealed that (1) abusive supervision is positively
associated with subordinates CWB, specifically sabotage, withdrawal, production
deviance, and theft, towards the organization, and (2) the relationship between
abusive supervision and subordinate CWB is contingent on both subordinates locus
of control and perceived mobility. The current study also concluded that the strong
explanatory and predictive power of abusive supervision on subordinates CWB
towards the organization is further enhanced for a subordinate who is external rather
than internal, and who perceives less job mobility than more.

References
Ahlstrom, D., Chen, S.-J., & Yeh, K. S. 2010. Managing in ethnic Chinese communities: Culture,
institutions, and context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3): 341354.
Allen, D. G., Weeks, K. P., & Moffitt, K. R. 2005. Turnover intentions and voluntary turnover: The
moderating roles of self-monitoring, locus of control, proactive personality, and risk aversion. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90: 980990.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. 1999. Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace.
Academy of Management Journal, 24: 452471.

294

F. Wei, S. Si

Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. 2006. Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and
types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 653658.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive
supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 191201.
Ashforth, B. E. 1997. Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary examination of antecedents and
consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14: 126140.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. 1990. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588606.
Bhagat, R. S., McDevitt, A. S., & McDevitt, I. 2010. On improving the robustness of Asian management
theories: Theoretical anchors in the era of globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2):
179192.
Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bruursema, K., Kessler, S., Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. 2004. The connection between counterproductive
work behavior and organizational citizenship performance. Unpublished data set.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences,
2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences, 3rd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. 2007. Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal
counterproductive work behaviors related to envy?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3): 666680.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
Management, 31: 874900.
Dalal, R. S. 2005. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 12411255.
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. 1939. Frustration and aggression.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of
Management Journal, 45: 331351.
Fang, T. 2010. Asian management research needs more self-confidence: Reflection on Hofstede (2007)
and beyond. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(1): 155170.
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. 2006. How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative
group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27: 181230.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. 2001. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job
stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59: 291309.
Goh, A., Bruursema, K., Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. 2003. Comparisons of self and coworker reports of
counterproductive work behavior. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL, April 1113.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. 1990. A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. 2003. Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11: 3042.
Hall, D. T. 1996. Protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10: 816.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. 1990. Substantive positivism and the idea of crime. Rationality and
Society, 2: 412428.
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. 1995. Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.).
Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications: 158176. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hung, T.-K., Chi, N.-W., & Lu, W.-L. 2009. Exploring the relationships between perceived coworker
loafing and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating role of a revenge motive. Journal of
Business Psychology, 24: 257270.
Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. 2005. Understanding supervisor-targeted aggression: A withinperson, between-jobs design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 731739.
Jones, D. A. 2009. Getting even with ones supervisor and ones organization: Relationships among types
of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30: 525542.
Lanyon, R. I., & Goodstein, L. D. 2004. Validity and reliability of a pre-employment screening test: The
counterproductive behavior index (CBI). Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4): 533553.

Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors

295

Lau, C. S., Au, W. T., & Ho, M. C. 2003. A qualitative and quantitative review of antecedents of
counterproductive behavior in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18: 7399.
Li, Y., Ahlstrom, D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2010. A multilevel model of affect and organizational
commitment. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2): 193213.
Lipman-Blumen, J. 2005. The allure of toxic leaders. New York: Oxford University Press.
Littler, C. R., Wiesner, R., & Dunford, R. 2003. The dynamics of delayering: Changing management
structures in three countries. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 225256.
Lord, V. B. 1998. Characteristics of violence in state government. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13:
489504.
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. 2004. Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4): 647660.
Miller, N. E. 1941. The frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychological Review, 48: 337342.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the
moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 11591168.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. 1998. Aggression in the workplace. In R. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.).
Antisocial behavior in organizations: 3767. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., Eby, L. T., & Feldman, D. C. 2007. Determinants of job mobility: A theoretical
integration and extension. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 363386.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. 2007. The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible
followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18: 176194.
Peng, M. W., Bhagat, R. S., & Chang, S. J. 2010. Asia and global business. Journal of International
Business Studies, 41: 373376.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. 2005. Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB):
The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 777796.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional
scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 555572.
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. 2009. Can good stressors spark bad behaviors? The mediating role of
emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive
behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6): 14381451.
Rotter, J. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80: 128 (whole no. 609).
Sackett, P. R. 2002. The structure of counterproductive behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with
facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10: 511.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. 2002. Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones,
H. K. Sinangil & V. Viswesvaran. Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology, 1:
145164. London: Sage.
Schat, A. C. H., Desmarais, S., & Kelloway, E. K. 2006. Exposure to workplace aggression from multiple
sources: Validation of a measure and test of a model. Unpublished manuscript, McMaster University,
Hamilton, Canada.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. 1996. A beginners guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Spector, P. E. 1982. Behavior in organizations as a function of employees locus of control. Psychological
Bulletin, 91: 482497.
Spector, P. E. 1988. Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
61: 335340.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. I., ODriscoll, M., & Sparks, K. 2002. Locus of control and wellbeing at work: How generalizable are Western findings. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2):
453466.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. 2002. An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels
between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource
Management Review, 12: 269292.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. 2005. A stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox &
P. E. Spector (Eds.). Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets: 151174.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. 2006. The dimensionality of
counter productivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68: 446460.
Sullivan, S. E. 1999. The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 25: 457484.

296

F. Wei, S. Si

Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178190.
Tepper, B. J., 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, 109: 156167.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J. M., & Ensley, M. D. 2004. Moderators of the relationship between
coworkers organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89: 455465.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. 2001. Personality moderators of the relationships between
abusive supervision and subordinates resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 974983.
Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. 2008. Abusive supervision
and subordinates organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 721732.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. 2009. How management style moderates the
relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management
theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 7992.
Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. S. 2007. Who helps and harms who? Relational antecedents of
interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 952966.
Wheeler, A. R., Buckley, M. R., Halbesleben, J. R., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. 2005. The elusive
criterion of fit revisited: Toward an integrative theory of multidimensional fit. In J. Martocchio (Ed.).
Research in personnel and human resource management, 24: 265304. Greenwich, CT: Elsevier/JAI
Press.
Wu, T. Y. 2008. Abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion: The mediating effects of subordinate
justice perception. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 50(2): 201221.
Yang, J. 2008. Cant serve customers right? An indirect effect of co-workers counterproductive behavior
in the service environment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81: 2946.
Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. 2009. The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with
emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong.
Personnel Psychology, 62(2): 259295.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. 2002. Abusive supervision and subordinates organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 10681076.
Feng Wei (PhD, Fudan University) is an associate professor of management and director of Center for
Leadership and Human Resource Management at Shanghai University. He received his PhD in
management from Fudan University in 2004. His major research interests include leadership and
innovation, human resource and innovation management in China and Asia. He has published more than
30 research papers in prestigious management/business journals, including the International Journal of
Human Resource Management. Dr. Wei currently works on an abusive supervision research project that is
financially supported by NSFC.
Steven X. Si (PhD, Washington State University) is the Tongji Chair professor at Shanghai Tongji
University and a professor of management at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. He obtained his
PhD in management and international business from Washington State University in 1996. His major
research interests include strategic management, innovation and entrepreneurship, and strategic HRM in
emerging economies. Professor Si has published numerous research papers in the Journal of Applied
Psychology, Academy of Management Executive, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, and a number of
other journals. Professor Si currently serves on the Editorial Board for the Academy of Management
Perspectives, Journal of World Business, and Journal of Business Research.