How to Deal with Abusive Supervisors - Research Paper Example

Abusive Supervisors INTRODUCTION Many organizations recently have been involved in researching about the negative behaviour of the supervisors and managers at the workplace. The extent to which the supervisors engage into abusive language and hostile nonverbal behaviour has been focused. Some examples which fall in the category of abusive supervision are taking undue credit, public disgrace, privacy invasion and assigning blame inappropriately. This assignment will discuss the effects on the work environment of abusive supervision and the links to the productivity of workplace and company performance. ABUSIVE SUPERVISION An image of tyrannical boss is evoked whenever the notion of abusive supervisors is discussed. This boss usually undermines those working under him or reporting to him and publicly ridicules his workers. In most of the studies, abusive supervision means the perception of workers about their supervisor of the extent to which they engage in nonverbal behaviours, verbal abuse and sustained display of hostile actions excluding any physical contact. The extent of abusive supervision is mostly dependent upon the perception of the subordinates. Different subordinates working under the same boss might feel differently about his behaviour, some might perceive it as abusive and some might not. The behaviour might also be labelled as abusive in different contexts by different workers (Tepper, Consequences of abusive supervision 2000). This behaviour can result in the employee enduring the abuse or terminating the relationship or try to modify his supervisor’s behaviour. The person being abused may remain in the relationship because he might feel powerless to take any corrective action, or he is dependent financially on the abuser, or fears the results of terminating the relationship than the results of abuse. The abusive behaviour may also be endured because the supervisor interchanges abusive behaviour with normal behaviour. Bies have identified manifestations of abusive supervision as loud and angry shouting, public criticism, rudeness and inconsiderate actions. CONSEQUENCES OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION Not many studies have investigated the effects of abusive supervision on the behaviour of employees and the performance of the company. Ashforth found out that abusive supervision resulted in helplessness, frustration and alienation from work. It was also found by Keashly and his fellows that physical violence like punching, throwing things and threatening with a weapon occurred very rarely in comparison to nonphysical abuse. It was also specified that those who were abused were less satisfied with their jobs. Studies conducted by residents and medical students have shown that dissatisfaction and higher levels of psychological distress is caused by abusive supervision. Altogether these studies reveal that nonphysical and verbal abuse by the supervisor influences the work related attitude of employees negatively and cause disturbances in psychological health (Tepper, Consequences of abusive supervision 2000). Pretty Tyranny Pretty Tyranny has been referred to as by Blake Ashforth as the use of power by a superior vindictively, oppressively and capriciously. Six sub-dimensions of Pretty Tyranny have been mentioned by Ashforth which are belittling worker, lack of considerations, discouraging initiatives, unacceptable punishments, forcing style of conflict resolution and arbitrariness. Although a manager might not be considered as hostile because he is not friendly or he does not do little things to make the environment pleasant, but pretty tyranny includes this behaviour as unacceptable and defines it under the domain of abuse (B. J. Tepper, 2007). Managers have the right to reject any initiative that they see as inappropriate but there is a certain way of rejecting it so that the employee does not feel disheartened and grieved. Engaging in the behaviour of pretty tyranny causes the employees to get demotivated and perform their assigned tasks. This results in decreased performances from the employees and reduced morale of other workers in the workplace. When the morale of one of the team members is down, the other members also feel demotivated. Although pretty tyranny does not illustrate a downward hostility, but it is another type of abusive supervision and its consequences are more than the consequences of abusive managers (B. J. Tepper, 2007). Workplace Victimization The concept of victimization takes into study those people who think they have been a victim of abusive supervision either repeatedly or momentarily at their workplaces. It is found in research studies that downwards victimization takes place more often than upwards victimization. Aquino et al found in 1999 that negative self-determination and affectivity were both related to both direct and indirect workplace victimization. Indirect victimization includes acts such as talking about a subordinate behind his back and direct victimization includes using abusive language. Those people who are highly negative in self-determination report greater levels of victimization because they are weak and easy targets in comparison to the people who have higher self-determination and better job controlling and are socially strong (B. J. Tepper, 2007). Aquino and Bommer found in 2003 that organizational behaviour, those actions that benefit the organization were negatively related to perceived victimization. This means that higher a subordinate feels victimized by his boss, he will engage in fewer actions that benefit the organization. This relationship was discovered for those employees who were situated in the lower region of hierarchy versus those higher in the organizational hierarchy. In 2002, Aquino and Byron studied the relationship between victimization and dominating behaviour. Dominating behaviour here takes the definition of the extent to which people express their opinions, make forceful efforts to influence others and to control the environment (B. J. Tepper, 2007). The researches created the hypothesis which said that dominating behaviour is related in a curvilinear manner to victimization. They presented the reason that people with low dominance would present themselves as exploitable and weak and those with higher dominance are more likely to violate social manners. This means that when dominance will be high, victimization will be low and vice versa. The research results provided support for the hypothesis for the male participants. For women, the domination was not related to victimization (B. J. Tepper, 2007). Work-Related Attitudes of the Subordinates Many researchers suggest that abusive supervision is related negatively to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Abusive supervision is also positively related to employee’s intentions to quit the job. The works of these researchers also address the events under which unfavourable attitudes are related to abusive supervision. Tepper in 2000 found out that for those people who had less job mobility, work related attitudes had a stronger effect of abusive supervision. Those who had fewer job openings and alternatives will feel more trapped and unable to escape from the abuse of the supervisor, therefore this will have a greater effect on their attitudes relating to work. These supervisors will also be a greater source of stress for these types of subordinates (B. J. Tepper, 2007). It was reported by Duffy et al in 2002 that those supervisors who combined hostile behaviour with supportive behaviour were more likely to cause insecurity, low trust, diminished control and reduces the subordinate’s coping ability with the social norms in the workplace. This produced less favourable outcomes when compared to the consequences of supervisor abuse alone. Tepper in 2004 found that the relationship between fellow employees’ job satisfaction and co-workers’ organizational citizenship behaviour was positive under lower abusive supervision. The relationship was negative when abusive supervision was higher. The workers respond about their peers’ performance favourably only when the group’s supervisor is not abusive. Employees perceive the citizenship of their peers as insincere so as to gain favours of the abuser, when the supervisor is abusive. Hence less favourable attitudes are lead by greater citizenship (B. J. Tepper, 2007). Subordinate’s Resistance Behaviour The results of some studies have shown that resistance behaviour on the part of subordinates’ personality may be evoked when exposed to abusive supervision. Abusive supervision was found to be positively related to subordinate’s resistance to perform supervisor’s requests by Tepper, Shaw and Duffy in 2001. This effect was augmented when subordinates were highly responsible, dependable, had self-discipline and had a trait towards trust and cooperation (B. J. Tepper, 2007). Supervision was found to be positively related to the problem drinking of workers by Banberger and Bacharach in 2006. This effect was found to be augmented again when the subordinates were highly responsible, dependable, had self-discipline and had a trait towards trust and cooperation. Substance abuse such as problem drinking, according to the authors can be interpreted as resistance from workers. This is symbolically a revolt against their employer. These frustrated employees might problem drink to voice anger and frustration after abuse experiences. The two studies show that not all the employees engage in resistive behaviour. Resistance behaviour is translated from abusive supervision when workers are impulsive, undisciplined, hostile, unconcerned about evoking arguments, argumentative and aggressive. Deviant and Aggressive Behaviour of Employees Relationship between aggressive behaviour of subordinates and abusive supervision has been studied in three studies. Abusive supervision was found to be positively related to the irritation level of a worker by Schat and Desmarais in 2006. This was in turn related to the level of aggression of these workers against their peers. In 2005, Inness, Turner and Barling found the relationship of subordinate’s aggression and abusive supervision to be positively related. Supervisor directed aggression was strongly associated to abusive supervision when the subordinate had a history of being more aggressive. Another research found the relationship between a worker’s supervisor-directed aggression and abusive supervision to be positive also. This research also found that the supervisor directed aggression and abusive supervision had a stronger relationship when employees reported lower personal fulfilment reasons for working and higher financial reasons (B. J. Tepper, 2007). A research also found out that the relationship between performance of the worker’s interpersonal and organizational deviance and abusive supervision was positive and this relationship was also dependent upon the self esteem of the worker and the extent to which they have a positive view about themselves. Abusive supervision also forces a person to indulge in deviant behaviour as the person’s self-esteem is threatened by hostile reactions. Another research shows that workers who are exposed to abusive supervision respond by performing behaviour that they design to fulfil their sense of self. Some people who are validation seekers might react to these encounters with destructive acts and deviant behaviour which other people may find to be odd with their values and needs (B. J. Tepper, 2007). The Performance Contribution of Workers being abused In a small amount of research studies, the researchers have focused on the relationship between the performance contributions of workers and abusive supervision. Zellars et al found in 2002 that if justice is done in the organization, their performance is mediated even after abusive supervision. Performance contributions are benefits to the organization that are done by the actions of an employee but that actions fall outside the job description from the employer and is not formally rewarded. Some examples are behaving courteously in the workplace, helping out the peers and not complaining about the trivial problems (B. J. Tepper, 2007). Another research in 1997 suggested that abusive supervision might have indirect influences on employee’s performance through deviant citizenship behaviour at the work, though neither study has investigated links between the abusive supervision and the bottom line profits of a company. The only study that has ever investigated a link between job performance and abusive supervision was performed by Harris et al. They found out that self-rated and leader-rated job performance was negatively related with abusive supervision. This was further related to the value that a worker gave to his tasks and work. For the workers who held more meaning to their work, abusive supervision predicted the performance more effectively. Those workers who have more meaning for their work, they are more concerned about the standing in the company. Hence, they spend more effort and energy when dealing with abusive supervision (B. J. Tepper, 2007). Psychological Distress of the Subordinates Several varieties of psychological problems have been attributed to abusive supervision such as depression, burnout, diminished self-efficacy, job strain and higher health complaints to the management (B. J. Tepper, 2007). Once engaged in some form of abusive supervision, these employees do not feel safe working in that working environment. Some even might think of quitting the job. The motivation of the workers drops down when abusive language or nonverbal abuse has been used by the supervisor. In the short-term the workers might give an acceptable performance, but their self confidence and self-esteem goes down. Confidence to take any initiatives or to present an innovative idea goes very down as these employees go through post-abusive trauma. PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONNEL Researchers have explored the results of abusive supervision in recent studies. These studies have revealed that those workers who think that their bosses are abusive are less committed, more psychologically disturbed, less motivated, less satisfied with their job and less willing to engage in social behaviour in their organizations compared to the workers who think their managers are non-abusive. These counterparts who think their supervisors are abusive feel more distressed and more resistant to the ideas of their supervisors (Tepper, et al. 2006) NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE BOTTOM LINE Those supervisors who engage in verbal and nonverbal abuse with their employees for meeting deadlines and production goals may be harming their organizations in and unimaginable way. This is because the employees who have been abused may seek revenge by speaking poorly about the company and by refusing help to others (EHS News, 2003). May be it helps the managers to get their work done by the employees in the short-term through yelling and physical intimidation, but in the long-term, financial problems may struck the company. This was revealed in the Journal of Applied Psychology December issue, published by the American Psychological Association. It was found in the study that sustained display of hostile non-verbal and verbal abuse to the workers caused the employees to engage in practices that did not promoted organizational effectiveness. Actions by the employees such as helping the coworkers, speaking about the company positively to the outsiders and not complaining about the trivial problems present in the company, were all absent from these employees who were abused by their supervisors (EHS News, 2003). Some of the employees believe that refusing to show a positive attitude at work, denying help to a team player or causing problems to a team reflects on their abilities on job an in turn reduces their chances os recieving rewards from the employer. However, the authors of this study ahve also stated that a number of studies have shown that the behavioral change of the employees because of abusive supervision have also benefited the organizations in terms of enhanced performnace, increased sales and operating efficiency (EHS News, 2003). VERBAL ABUSE OF SUPRVISORS NOT PROTECTED The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer did not engage in unfair labour practice by terminating a union officer because he used verbal abuse against the supervisor. John Mankins was the vice president and assistant chairman of Graphic Communications International Union which was the union of company’s workforce. For 16 years, he worked in this company, Media General Operations based in North Carolina (SHAY, 2005). The Background Danny Leonard, who was the supervisor of Mankins, had a friendly relation with one of Mankin’s peers, Ricky Smith. The employees and Mankins did not like this because Leonard and Smith socialized in the working hours of the company and smith neglected his responsibilities and tasks. On an occasion, Mankin expressed this to Leonard. Then almost five months later, Mankins loudly interrupted Leonard in an employee meeting, saying that everyone was not treated equally by him, referring to Smith and also called him the company racist. Shortly afterwards, Mankins met Leonard privately and Leonard warned him about his unacceptable behaviour and that he would be sent home in the future for such behaviour. This did not stop Mankins and he again called Leonard the company racist, which prompted Leonard to suspend him and send him home. Mankins called him a bastard and a redneck son-of-a-bitch as Leonard walked him out (SHAY, 2005). The Decision Mankins was then terminated against the charges of misconduct and because he did not respect the authority and position of Leonard. This also represented serious insubordination and this could not be tolerated in the organization. In revenge, Mankins filed a case of unfair labour practices against the company with the National Labour Relations Board protesting his termination. An administrative judge gave the decision that the company did not act foolishly or illegally because Mankins during his outbursts had not been engaged in protected union activity. Therefore the decision of the company to terminate him under National Labour Relations Act was no retaliatory (SHAY, 2005). After some time, National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) reversed the holdings that Mankins was engaged in protected activity, as a union officer, during his interactions with Leonard. It was also ordered by the NLRB to the company that Mankins should be reinstated with full salary and to refrain from engaging in any further labour practices. The decision of NLRB was overturned by the 4th Circuit review as consistent and rational with the National Labour Relations Act. Mankin’s behaviour was characterized as offensive and outrageous. The court stated that Mankins did not use the abusive terms such as racist and bastard to further a union position but to show his personal feelings. Therefore Mankins workers were not protected as he did not engage in concerted activity (SHAY, 2005). The Conclusion of Mankin The court concluded that even if Mankin’s conduct was connected to union activity, the social behaviour that he engaged in was unacceptable in nature of working environment. His activities placed him outside the boundaries of the act of board (SHAY, 2005). CONSEQUENCES OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION In his article, Tepper draws upon justice theory and examined the consequences of abusive behaviour. The workers who thought their manager or supervisor was more abusive were more likely to leave their jobs, as expected. Abusive supervision resulted in lower life and job satisfaction for the subordinates who stayed at the jobs and did not quit. It also caused psychological distress, lower affective and normative commitment and conflict between family and work to the workers who perceived their bosses to be abusive. It was also found out the job mobility and organizational justice moderated some of these deleterious effects caused by abusive supervisors. Ashforth’s Thoery According to Ashforth’s theory, there is no consistent effect of abusive supervision on the situational factors such as organizational norms, stressors and power, and the dispositional factors such as self-esteem and tolerance for ambiguity or their interactions. A reason for this is that his model and research does not take into account the role that victim characteristics performs in expressing hostility at work. This implies that when a vulnerable target is available, the situational and dispositional factors contribute more strongly to an abusive behaviour (Tepper, et al. 2006). Tepper’s Model This model was developed to find out the whether some of the employees find themselves at risk of victimization of a potential hostile perpetrators (Tepper, et al. 2006). Procedural injustice and depression are the factors that make supervisors more probable of engaging in abusive behaviour. Especially it is argued in the paper by Tepper that procedural injustice translates into depression which results in greater abuse of workers, as it was reported by the workers. Supervisor’s Conduct The importance of professional conduct in the workplace should be taught to all the managers and supervisors. They should also be taught that an acceptable behaviour is necessary in the working environment regardless of the settings. Even the employers, who have workforce that is unionized, can maintain reasonable standards and laws for acceptable workplace behaviours. Focusing on disciplinary decisions on the employee’s conduct is the key to employer’s success and not on the union membership of the employees. HOW TO DEAL WITH ABUSIVE SUPERVISION In several studies, researchers have tried to find out that how the effects of abusive supervision can be moderated. The moderation includes better supervisor behaviour, more upwards communication from the workers’ side and replenishment of subordinate power. In 2005, Tepper and Lockhart found that the use of regulative communication strategies by a worker, which means avoiding contact with the supervisor strategically, worsened the relationship between the psychological distress of a worker and abusive supervision. However, the use of direct tactics such as pointing out the injustices in public neutralized the relationship. Therefore it can be concluded that deliberately avoiding contact with the abusive supervisor can worsen the conditions whereas directly pointing out the mistakes of the supervisor could make things better (B. J. Tepper, 2007). It was also found in the same research that abusive supervision was related positively to the use of regulative tactics by the workers and negatively related to the use of direct tactics by the worker. Hence the abused workers might prefer to use the indirect method avoiding contact as compared to direct method for neutralizing the effect. Harvey found a positive relationship between job strain and abusive supervision which could be neutralized when the workers used flattery and other related tactics to influence the behaviour of the others. Another way of dealing with abusive supervision is to demonstrate power over them. When the employees are employed in high power jobs, like physician and professor, society generally holds these people in high esteem. Depression of Supervisor Leading to Abusive Supervision The hostile behaviour of the supervisors has found to be related to supervisor’s depression and his perception of procedural justice. Procedural justice means the extent of fairness to which the organizational leaders make allocation decisions in favour of the abusive supervisor. These decisions are perceived to be just when those being influenced get a change to influence it and when they are treated with equality, justice, biasness and fairness. In turn, procedural injustice produce a revengeful supervisor who retaliates against the people found related to that allocation process. These injustices can produce feelings of being downgrades and low esteem in the organization. Moreover, it also has been linked to depression and diminished self-efficacy. There are also evidences that the relationship between procedural injustice and depression is stronger among those who are higher in authority and have higher responsibility. Therefore those managers who suffer from procedural injustice are more likely to get involved in abusive supervision (Tepper, Duffy, et al. 2006). The depression is a feeling used to describe mild sadness, demotivation, worthlessness and low self-esteem. The person also suffers depression as a result of loss of interest and his daily life activities. It is estimated that almost 30 to 40 percent people who are clinically depressed suffer from attacks of anger attacks and unacceptable behaviour. Depressive symptoms that are evoked by procedural injustice will later transform into abusive supervision when a target is found by these managers. The research conducted by Tepper in 2006 revealed that the workers with high negative affectivity perceive abusive supervision when procedural justice was reported to be low by the manager. For lower negative affectivity workers, abusive supervision was directly related to procedural injustice experienced by the manager in the organization. The organizations continue to ignore important health issues such as human sufferings and distress in the workplace. These organizations find themselves involved in legal issues because of abusive supervision and abuse of peers. This costs them additional expenditure to deal with the court and make payments for the settlements. This can be reduced if the organizations give proper attention towards this issue and find retention methods. A doctor should be called in every 6 months to check depression levels and other health related issues that the organizational members are going through. The organization should have proper procedural justice system in which the managers and supervisors are asked about their suggestions when taking important decisions. The managers should be reminded about their responsibilities and their decision making authority so that these managers do not start thinking much of them. Training to the managers is another great alternative which can be considered to mediate the problems caused by abusive supervision. These training sessions will make sure that managers and supervisors learn about their mistakes and the proper way of handling the employees. CONCLUSION The companies can make millions if the managers are responsible are polite to the workers and lose the same amount if they are not good with their subordinates. The managers should know how to handle the workers and how much the company can gain and loss because of their mistakes or efforts. Abusing is not only unethical but also illegal in most countries. The managers should know that their words can make or hurt their subordinates. Works Cited EHS News. "Abusive supervisors can have negative impact on bottom line." Occupational Hazards. EHS News, January 2003. SHAY, CAROL DOMINGUEZ. "Verbal Abuse of Supervisor Not Protected." HRMagazine, April 2005: 117. Tepper, Bennett J. "Consequences of abusive supervision." Academy of Management Journa 43, no. 2 (April 2000): 178-190. Tepper, Bennett J, Michelle K Duffy, Christine A Henle, and Lisa Schurer Lambert. "PROCEDURAL INJUSTICE, VICTIM PRECIPITATION, AND ABUSIVE SUPERVISION." Personnel Psychology. Blackwell Publishing Inc., Spring 2006. Tepper, Bennett J. "Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations:Review, Synthesis, and Research Agendat." Journal of Management (Southern Management Association) 33, no. 3 (June 2007): 261-289. Read More