Yu Lingtao, Duffy Michelle K
Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Division, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia.
Department of Work and Organizations, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
J Appl Psychol. 2021 May;106(5):754-773. doi: 10.1037/apl0000810. Epub 2020 Jul 16.
Although extant research shows a clear link between abusive supervision and detrimental consequences for organizations and their members, the popular press and media are replete with suggestions that abusive supervision can be positive and motivating. Drawing from the social functional view of emotions and emerging research on attributed motives of abusive supervision, we examine this phenomenon, which we refer to as the -the notion that subordinates may display different emotional and behavioral reactions to supervisory abuse depending on their attributions for abuse. We conduct 3 studies to examine this effect at both the between- and within person level. Results from a multisource, time-lagged field study (between-person) and a laboratory-based experiment (between-person) indicate that when subordinates believe that the abusive supervisor is motivated by desires to cause harm (i.e., injury initiation attribution is higher), abusive supervision is more likely to engender anger, which, in turn, elicits more deviant behaviors and fewer organizational citizenship behaviors; however, when subordinates believe the abusive supervisor is motivated by desires to improve performance (i.e., performance promotion attribution is higher), abusive supervision is more likely to evoke guilt, which, in turn, elicits fewer deviant behaviors and more organizational citizenship behaviors. These results were then expanded in an experience sampling study (within-person), which allowed us to further examine how general interpretations of supervisors' motives behind abusive supervision shape employees' momentary emotional and behavioral responses toward daily abusive supervisor behavior. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
尽管现有研究表明，滥用职权的监督与组织及其成员的有害后果之间存在明显联系，但大众媒体却充斥着这样的观点，即滥用职权的监督可能是积极且具有激励作用的。基于情感的社会功能观以及关于滥用职权监督的归因动机的新研究，我们对这一现象进行了考察，我们将其称为——下属可能会根据对滥用职权行为的归因，对监督滥用表现出不同的情绪和行为反应的观念。我们进行了3项研究，以在个体间和个体内层面考察这种效应。一项多源、时间滞后的实地研究（个体间）和一项基于实验室的实验（个体间）的结果表明，当下属认为滥用职权的上司是出于伤害他人的欲望（即伤害发起归因较高）时，滥用职权的监督更有可能引发愤怒，进而引发更多的越轨行为和更少的组织公民行为；然而，当下属认为滥用职权的上司是出于提高绩效的欲望（即绩效提升归因较高）时，滥用职权的监督更有可能引发内疚，进而引发更少的越轨行为和更多的组织公民行为。然后，这些结果在一项经验抽样研究（个体内）中得到了扩展，这使我们能够进一步考察对滥用职权监督背后上司动机的一般解读如何塑造员工对日常滥用职权监督行为的瞬间情绪和行为反应。我们还讨论了理论和实践意义。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2021美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
