Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When Leaders Stifle Innovation in Work Teams: The Role of Abusive Supervision

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A growing body of research reveals that abusive supervision may have negative impacts in organizations. The purpose of the present study is to expand the knowledge regarding the impacts of this dysfunctional leadership behavior by examining its relationship with innovation in work teams. Specifically, we investigate the process through which abusive supervision may undermine team innovation by taking into account the mediating role of team proactive behavior. Moreover, we propose a boundary condition of the negative effect of abusive supervision by considering leader–members interdependence as a moderator. Using a multisource approach, data were gathered from 394 members and 82 immediate supervisors (which represent 82 work teams) in a public safety organization. Results of path analyses reveal that the relationship between abusive supervision and team innovation is mediated by team proactive behavior. Furthermore, we found that the relationship between abusive supervision and team proactive behavior is moderated by leader–members interdependence, such that this relationship is stronger when the level of interdependence is high. Taken together, the findings of this study improve the understanding of why and under what circumstances abusive supervision may impair team innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avey, J. B., Wu, K., & Holley, E. (2015). The influence of abusive supervision and job embeddedness on citizenship and deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 721–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, F. E., Rostami, M., & Steel, P. (2010). Timing is everything: A meta-analysis of the relationships between organizational performance and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1179–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership: Exploring new avenues for future research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 583–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 261–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, A., Dionisi, A. M., Barling, J., Akers, A., Robertson, J., Lys, R., et al. (2014). The depleted leader: The influence of leaders’ diminished psychological resources on leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 344–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Campbell-Bush, E. M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X. (2013). Teams as innovative systems: Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1018–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, H., & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality growth, profitability, and market value. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, M. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2015). A process model of self-regulation and leadership: How attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 386–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Haas, M. R. (2012). So many teams, so little time: Time allocation matters in geographically dispersed teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 316–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2001). It’s what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 187–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturn, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 535–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decoster, S., Camps, J., Stouten, J., Vendevyvere, L., & Tripp, T. M. (2013). Standing by your organization: The impact of organizational identification and abusive supervision on followers’ perceived cohesion and tendency to gossip. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 623–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRue, D. S., & Myers, C. G. (2014). Leadership development: A review and agenda for future research. In D. V. Day (Ed.), Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 832–855). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drach-Zahavy, A., & Freund, A. (2007). Team effectiveness under stress: A structural contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 423–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438–1446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farh, C. I. C., & Chen, Z. (2014). Beyond the individual victim: Multilevel consequences of abusive supervision in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1074–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacalone, R. A., & Promislo, M. D. (2010). Unethical and unwell: Decrements in well-being and unethical activity at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 275–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. A. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, T. L., & Sawyer, J. E. (2010). Multilevel knowledge and team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1003–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, G. H., Harms, P. D., & Bai, Y. (2015). Nightmare bosses: The impact of abusive supervision on employees’ sleep, emotions, and creativity. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2859-y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, J. D., & DiLiello, T. C. (2010). Leadership development: The key to unlocking individual creativity in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31, 230–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54, 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). r wg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, W., & Gu, Q. (2016). How abusive supervision and abusive supervisory climate influence salesperson creativity and sales team effectiveness in China. Management Decision, 54, 455–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emerging processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 385–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1187–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S120–S137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., & Resick, C. J. (2014). Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee coping: Does conscientiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 737–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformists and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 740–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J. S. (2012). Why individuals in larger teams perform worse. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Teed, M. (2011). Inconsistent style of leadership as predictor of safety behavior. Work & Stress, 25, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palanski, M., Avey, J. B., & Jiraporn, N. (2014). The effects of ethical leadership and abusive supervision on job search behaviors in the turnover process. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priesemuth, M., Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Folger, R. (2014). Abusive supervision climate: A multiple-mediation model of its impact on group outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1513–1534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rank, J., Pace, V. L., & Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 518–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, W. H., & Schmitt, N. (2004). Parameter recovery and model fit using multidimensional composites: A comparison of four empirical parceling algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 379–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2010). Team self-managing behaviors and team effectiveness: The moderating effect of task routineness. Group and Organization Management, 35, 751–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2014). The reward-performance relationship in work teams: The role of leader behaviors and team commitment. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 645–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., & Tremblay, S. (2013). Team coaching and innovation in work teams: An examination of the motivational and behavioral intervening mechanisms. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 34, 344–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacramento, C. A., Chang, M. W. S., & West, M. A. (2006). Team innovation through collaboration. In M. M. Beyerlein, S. T. Beyerlein, & F. A. Kennedy (Eds.), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams (Vol. 12, pp. 81–112). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 863–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32, 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and organization: The role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self-efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20, 279–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, L. Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62, 44–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. (2000). Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management (Vol. 18, pp. 137–185). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ünal, A. F., Warren, D. E., & Chen, C. C. (2012). The normative foundations of unethical supervision in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vegt, G., & Van de Vliert, E. (2002). Intragroup interdependence and effectiveness: Review and proposed directions for theory and practice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 50–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidyarthi, P. R., Anand, S., & Liden, R. C. (2014). Do emotionally perceptive leaders motivate higher employee performance? The moderating role of task interdependence and power distance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 232–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R., & Fisher, C. M. (2014). Who’s in charge here? The team leadership implications of authority structure. In D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G., Harms, P. D., & Mackey, J. D. (2015). Does it take two to tangle? Subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., & Wallace, M. (1991). Innovation in health care teams. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelan, S. A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group Research, 40, 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yagil, D., Ben-Zur, H., & Tamir, I. (2011). Do employees cope effectively with abusive supervision at work? An exploratory study. International Journal of Stress Management, 18, 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. C. (2015). Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2657-6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, D., & Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: A social network analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 744–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuber, F. (2015). Spread of unethical behavior in organizations: A dynamic social network perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 151–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Industrial Relations, Université de Montréal, Stn Centre-ville, P.O. Box 6128, Montreal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada

    Vincent Rousseau

  2. Department of Management, HEC Montréal, Montreal, Canada

    Caroline Aubé

Authors
  1. Vincent Rousseau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caroline Aubé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Rousseau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rousseau, V., Aubé, C. When Leaders Stifle Innovation in Work Teams: The Role of Abusive Supervision. J Bus Ethics 151, 651–664 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3258-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3258-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation