Rethinking abusive supervision: antecedents and reparative mechanisms of abusive supervision, including supervisor frustration, coworker support, guilt, and supervisor OCB in a mediated-moderation model

Abstract Purpose Drawing on affective events theory, this study positions role overload and supervisor frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision, leading to supervisor-led organizational citizenship behavior. In a mediated-moderation-sed analysis, we question whether coworker support moderates the relationship between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision and whether guilt mediates between abusive supervision and supervisor-led OCB. Theoretical framework This research study is inspired by the assumptions of affective events theory. Design/methodology/approach In a time-lagged survey, we collected data from 351 medical supervisors employed in private hospitals in Pakistan. The PROCESS macro is used to perform a mediated-moderation analysis. Furthermore, the research is analyzed based on structural equation modeling (SEM) procedures using the AMOS software, version 26.0. Findings The results demonstrate that role overload predicts supervisor frustration, leading to abusive supervision. Moreover, when coworker support is high, the relationship between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision is weaker. Supervisor frustration and guilt mediate the path from role overload to supervisor frustration, abusive supervision, and supervisor OCB, respectively. Practical & social implications of research Organizational policymakers should consider role overload as an element that causes stress and frustration among medical supervisors, resulting in abusive behavior towards their subordinates. Thus, some normative measures might be appropriate to reduce abusive supervision in the healthcare sector. Socially, this study can help in combating frustration and aggression among working people, representing a significant proportion of Pakistani society. Originality/value The mediators, such as supervisor frustration and guilt, advance our understanding of abusive supervision research.


Introduction
Frustrating experiences at work trigger negative work outcomes (Bernd & Beuren, 2021;Fischer et al., 2021).One of the negative work outcomes is abusive supervision, which has been extensively studied by organizational behavior researchers (Afshan et al., 2022;Kashif et al., 2020;Mannan & Kashif, 2019).Abusive supervision involves continuous and aggressive supervisory behaviors that might or might not be non-physical (Tepper, 2000).It is a holistic concept that includes actions such as scorning subordinates, displaying aggression, and much more.Abusive supervision can result from triggers beyond the control of an abusive supervisor, neglected by organizational behavior researchers (Afshan et al., 2022).Considering the increased frequency of aggressive behaviors at work, scholars and practitioners are interested in abusive supervision (Kashif et al., 2022).However, the dominant research revolves around investigating the destructive impact of abusive supervision, highlighting abusive supervisors as the culprits in an organizational system (Kashif et al., 2020;Mannan & Kashif, 2019;Moin et al., 2021).It is not always the fault of abusive supervisors.Researchers have recommended exploring some of the factors (beyond the control of abusive supervisors) that push supervisors to abuse subordinates (Fischer et al., 2021).Some recent studies have even explored the positive outcomes of abusive supervision (Arain et al., 2020).
One explanation for supervisory abuse could be the amount of work supervisors have to perform (i.e., role overload) (Eissa & Lester, 2017), which might cause frustration.Role overload is when employees are expected to fulfill duties beyond their normal work routine (Rizzo et al., 1970).Employees experiencing role overload feel they do not have enough time to perform other duties because they are assigned additional tasks that go well beyond their job descriptions (Shultz et al., 2010).Role overload frustrates employees.It might result in negative work outcomes, i.e., prohibiting employees from engaging in extra-role behaviors (Montani & Dagenais-Desmarais, 2018), causing stress among family members (Halinski & Duxbury, 2022), and causing frustration among individuals at work (Rafique, 2022).When employees are frustrated, it can lead to supervisor incivility and abuse (Eissa & Lester, 2017;Rafique, 2022), thus threatening positivity at work.Some workplace events can minimize the impact of workplace frustration, i.e., coworker support that minimizes the negative impact of destructive workplace behaviors (De Clercq et al., 2020;Kashif et al., 2021).A balanced yet positive relationship among peers strengthens trust and increases task performance (Rodrigues & Rebelo, 2021).There is evidence that coworker support can strengthen interpersonal relationships at work, thus increasing retention rates (De Clercq et al., 2020).This way, coworker support has the potential to minimize the supervisory frustration arising from role overload perceptions.
Abusive supervision leads to negative work outcomes, and ample research supports this notion (Eissa & Lester, 2017;Fischer et al., 2021;Mannan & Kashif, 2019).However, sometimes abusive supervisors try to recover from a negative perception of abuse and perform some positive actions, i.e., organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Ballalis, 2018;Carpenter et al., 2014;McClean et al., 2021).OCB is a voluntary action performed by members of an organization that goes beyond traditional job duties (Ocampo et al., 2018).Supervisors perform OCB to support their subordinates, i.e., to support their families (Yin et al., 2021), thus increasing employees' perceptions of job satisfaction (Ballalis, 2018).The dominant stream of recent research presents perceptions about OCB (Tripathi et al., 2023), which can potentially repair damaged relationships at work (Arshad et al., 2021;Rave et al., 2022).Thus, OCB can be positioned as a reparative mechanism, but research in this direction is scarce (Wuttaphan, 2022).
Abusive supervisory behaviors adversely affect employees' tendency to engage in OCB (Zhang et al., 2019).However, can supervisors who abuse engage in OCB to repair perceptions of abuse?There is some evidence that abusive supervisors try to repair an abusive image by demonstrating a positive attitude towards others (Ilies et al., 2013).This is when supervisors are conscious of their past behaviors and engage in OCB (Lin et al., 2016).One of the explanations for this action could be moral cleansing.The arousal of negative emotional experiences and perceptions might encourage supervisors to perform reparative actions to compensate for their past mistakes (McClean et al., 2021).In this regard, guilt is positioned as a negative emotion.We propose that supervisors might feel guilty after an episode of abuse with their subordinates as it violates the ethics and threatens the moral character of the individuals as supervisors (Liao et al., 2018).When they feel guilt, supervisors are often reported to feel ashamed, thus the desire to repair the negative perceptions in the mind of their subordinates (Ilies et al., 2013).Supervisory guilt is perceived as a justification for abusive behavior (Shen et al., 2022) as well as an enacted cost, thus it has the potential to trigger positive actions as a reparative mechanism (Shum et al., 2020).
Against this background, some important research gaps require our academic attention and set the stage to determine the theoretical contribution of this study.First, there is limited research that investigates role overload and supervisor frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision (Eissa & Lester, 2017;Fischer et al., 2021;Zhang & Bednall, 2016).Much of the research has focused on portraying the ill effects of abusive supervision (Afshan et al., 2022;Fischer et al., 2021;Moin et al., 2021;Zhang & Bednall, 2016).Also, there is extensive research that investigates employee-led abuse, but the process by which individuals become abusive supervisors is unclear (Eissa & Lester, 2017;Zhang & Bednall, 2016).Some researchers have positioned the arousal of negative emotional responses as a consequence of abusive supervision (Afshan et al., 2022;Kashif et al., 2022;Shen et al., 2022).However, what triggers abuse is a question that remains unanswered (Fischer et al., 2021).This is where we position supervisor frustration and role overload as antecedents of abusive supervision.Supervisor frustration as a consequence of role overload, resulting in abusive behaviors by supervisors, is an interesting topic to advance our understanding in this field (Rafique, 2022).
Second, we question if coworker support rendered by peers of a supervisor reduces supervisor frustration, ultimately preventing abusive behaviors.The answer to this question could be another important theoretical contribution to the growing body of knowledge on abusive supervision.There is notable research where coworker support is positioned as resulting in a significant reduction in individual stress (De Clercq et al., 2020;Kashif et al., 2021).However, coworker support might minimize the impact of supervisor frustration resulting from role overload.Thus, minimizing the probability of abusive behavior among supervisors is an important intervention.Recent studies on coworker support have shown promise in minimizing the stress caused by negative work events (De Clercq et al., 2020).More recently, coworker support has been studied from employees' perspectives to mitigate the effects of abusive supervision (Abi Aad et al., 2021;Hao et al., 2022).However, supervisors also need support from their peers.This might intervene between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision.In this study, we reposition coworker support from the perspective of supervisors, which is missed by contemporary researchers (Zhang et al., 2022).
Third, there is limited research to explain how supervisors make some reparative arrangements to minimize the destructive effects of their abusive behaviors (Liao et al., 2018;Shum et al., 2020).Why do supervisors engage in OCB after an abusive episode?What triggers abusive supervisors to engage in OCB?Researchers have tried to address this question and have highlighted that abusive supervisors tend to repair their damaged reputation by performing positive actions (McClean et al., 2021).However, why supervisors perform positive actions is unexplored and is a notable contribution of this study.We contribute to this gap by positioning guilt as a mediating emotion that links abusive supervision with supervisor-led OCB targeted towards employees.The study of guilt as an emotion is important but is restricted to an emotion resulting from ethical judgments and roles (Becker, 2021).In a service context, helping each other is common and efficient for strengthening relationships at work (Kashif et al., 2020).Also, all supervisors are not evil.They are conscious of their actions and tend to recover from a perception of abuse (Ilies et al., 2013;Liao et al., 2018).Abusive supervision can negatively affect OCB among employees (Zhang et al., 2019).However, there is also increasing contradictory evidence that abusive supervision can lead to positive outcomes (Shum et al., 2020).We elaborate on the idea that abusive supervision can lead to positive work outcomes and position guilt as an emotion that links abusive supervision and supervisor-led OCB.This way, we contribute to the limited yet growing body of knowledge in the study of negative emotions and their positive role in improving performance at work (Afshan et al., 2022;Hao et al., 2022;Ilies et al., 2013;Shum et al., 2020;Zhang et al., 2022).Based on these gaps, we aim to contribute to knowledge by studying the reparatory mechanism of abusive supervision.
In summary, this study makes three significant contributions.First, it presents role overload and supervisor frustration as key contributors to predicting abusive supervision.Second, why abusive supervisors engage in citizenship behaviors when they feel guilt as an emotion is another important question addressed by this study.Third, how coworker support can help even frustrated supervisors not to abuse is an important question to advance organizational behavior research.The remainder of this paper includes a critical appraisal of affective events theory (AET), the hypotheses development, the Rethinking Abusive Supervision: Antecedents and Reparative Mechanisms of Abusive Supervision, Including Supervisor Frustration, Coworker Support, Guilt, and Supervisor OCB in a Mediated-Moderation Model methods of investigation and analysis, the results of this study, a discussion of the results with theoretical and contextual justifications, the limitations, and future research suggestions, as well as the conclusion section.

Affective events theory
This study aims to explore role overload and supervisor frustration as antecedents and supervisor-led OCB via an emotion of guilt as an outcome of abusive supervision.The framework is based on the affective events theory (AET).Various occasions, situations, and events are categorized as affective events (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).These affective events arouse certain emotions among individuals.These events happen to people, and they emotionally react accordingly.Something that happens at a certain place during a specific period and remains memorable is defined as an event (Nguyen et al., 2019).These events trigger emotions and subsequent behaviors among individuals (Reynolds Kueny et al., 2020).Some events frequently happen (i.e., abusive behaviors) and can arouse specific emotions, while others are temporal (i.e., occasional celebrations).We propose that work events such as role overload and resulting supervisor frustration can be critical determinants of abusive supervision, considering supervisory abuse as a consequence of these events (Nguyen et al., 2019).This aligns with one of the assumptions of AET that work events shape individual behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).Various models have already been developed based on the assumption that events arouse particular types of feelings, resulting in certain behaviors, i.e., the frustration-aggression model (Berkowitz, 1989) and the stressor-emotion model (Spector & Fox, 2002).Moving forward, we posit that supervisors try to compensate for their negative behaviors in the form of OCB via an emotion of guilt.In this line of research, abusive supervision is also an event that arouses an emotion of guilt, leading to engagement in OCB.Since one of the assumptions of AET is that events happen frequently, we posit a path, i.e., going from abusive supervision to engagement in supervisor-led OCB via guilt.Given the frequency of events, guilt can result from an affective event (i.e., abusive supervision) to repair the relationships at work (Shum et al., 2020).This is in line with another AET assumption that events occur frequently and with a certain level of intensity (Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000).Considering this assumption, we integrate guilt as an emotion in the study of AET, which is missed by contemporary researchers (Nguyen et al., 2019;Reynolds Kueny et al., 2020).
It is also notable that not all supervisors react to events at work in a similar fashion.This is because supervisor personality (Eissa & Lester, 2017), their capacity to absorb pressure (Rave et al., 2022), and their relationships with subordinates and peers might dictate their actions (Yin et al., 2021).In this regard, positive peer support can minimize the dark effects of frustration at work, thus preventing supervisors from abusing their followers (De Clercq et al., 2020;Kashif et al., 2021).Perceptions of emotionally supportive coworkers can moderate the relationship between stress, depression, and frustration caused by abusive supervision (Yin et al., 2021).Even though people may observe undesirable conduct from their abusive supervisors, they may feel a sense of compulsion towards their coworkers (De Clercq et al., 2020;Hao et al., 2022;Kashif et al., 2021).Colleagues know their friends' pain at work and can provide excellent psychological support (Ali & Kashif, 2020).
Some other competing theoretical assumptions could have been followed in this investigation, i.e., conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989).According to the assumptions of COR theory, employee knowledge, attitudes, and emotions are resources (Ampofo & Karatepe, 2022).To protect these resources, employees make several efforts to avoid resource depletion.The resource-based framework is suitable in situations where a supervisor's abusive behavior triggers negative work outcomes (Bormann & Gellatly, 2021;Feng & Wang, 2019).On the contrarily, we position abusive supervision as triggering positive work behaviors, i.e., supervisor-led OCB driven by an emotion of guilt.Thus, the employment of AET is a better choice than COR theory.

Role overload and super visor frustration
Role overload is a serious problem in the workplace, resulting in negative consequences (Creary & Gordon, 2016;Halinski & Duxbury, 2022;Montani & Dagenais-Desmarais, 2018).Role overload may be defined as a condition resulting from many tasks at work (Rizzo et al., 1970).When people feel over-occupied, they believe there is too much work, given the time to complete these tasks (Shultz et al., 2010).This affects their work temperament and their ability to attain goals (Chen et al., 2021).Different studies have acknowledged role overload as an antecedent of stress and work frustration (Eissa & Lester, 2017;Montani & Dagenais-Desmarais, 2018) and have indicated it as causing permanent depression (Creary & Gordon, 2016).This qualifies perceptions of role overload as a constant event.Role overload affects performance and damages human relations (Rafique, 2022).Despite the extensive research, the adverse effects of role overload concerning abusive supervision have been scarcely examined (Kashif et al., 2020;Shum et al., 2020).When supervisors are overloaded with work, they feel emotionally exhausted, resulting in poor work performance and relationships (She et al., 2019).Considering the assumptions of AET, most people can be frustrated due to overload, with role overload perceptions being considered as a permanent and destructive event (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).Recent evidence suggests that a negative event can result in supervisory abuse (Khan, 2021).Based on this evidence and inspired by the assumptions of AET, we propose the following:

H1:
Supervisor role overload perceptions trigger supervisor frustration in the workplace.

Role overload and abusive supervision: mediation of supervisor frustration
Abusive supervision is a threat to the survival of an organizational system, especially when subordinates perceive it as a threat to their self-respect and identity, leading to a weaker relationship between leaders and their followers (Afshan et al., 2022).In line with the assumptions of AET, depression can increase frustration at work (Berkowitz, 1989;Eissa & Lester, 2017).This ultimately contributes to abusive events, i.e., abusive supervision (Eissa & Lester, 2017).Based on the preliminary findings on workplace violence, a perception of role overload might trigger abusive supervision (Khan, 2021).However, there could be some interventions.For instance, role overload alone might not lead to abusive supervision.Recent studies investigating abusive supervision have indicated this gap (Berkowitz, 1989;Eissa & Lester, 2017).There could be a possible intervention of supervisor frustration resulting in abusive supervision.Scholars have indicated supervisor frustration as an affective event (Naeem et al., 2019), but its inclusion as a mediator between role overload and abusive supervision is missed.Based on these observations, we posit that supervisor frustration caused by role overload perceptions might trigger an abusive event.Such a relationship is suggested as extensive research has highlighted negative outcomes of role overload perceptions (Chen et al., 2021;Rafique, 2022).Logically, frustrated managers may be more vicious as a way of overcoming bad feelings (i.e., resulting from role overload perceptions), so they behave in a way their employees perceive as abusive.Thus, we propose that:

H2:
The relationship between role overload and abusive supervision is mediated by the supervisor's frustration.

Abusive supervision and OCB
Organizational citizenship behavior is a voluntary action that goes beyond traditional job descriptions.Employees engaging in OCB can collectively establish a culture of respect and cooperation (Wuttaphan, 2022), thus resulting in positive organizational outcomes.OCB is divided into two categories of actions, i.e., OCB at the individual level and OCB at the organizational level (Ocampo et al., 2018).OCB at the individual level refers to positive behaviors directed at people who do not benefit the organization directly, such as assisting partners with work-related problems and related behaviors.In contrast, OCB at the organizational level refers to activities demonstrating honesty, integrity, and commitment to work to benefit the organization directly.Common examples of OCB are: taking into account customer needs and concerns, helping peers and colleagues, enabling service changes, and helping potential customers to feel satisfied (MacKenzie et al., 2018).
The results of numerous studies demonstrate that negative attitudes and behaviors affect the mental health of individuals, thus resulting in negative consequences, i.e., job dissatisfaction (Tepper, 2000), workplace frustration (Mawritz et al., 2014), communicative deviance (Kashif et al., 2020), and turnover intentions (Zhang et al., 2022).Abusive behaviors damage employee motivation to engage in citizenship behaviors (Ocampo et al., 2018) and damage a positive organizational spirit.Subordinates perform voluntary actions when leaders exhibit positive attitudes and support them (Yin et al., 2021), while they stop engaging in OCB when the opposite is the case (Zhang et al., 2019).According to a study conducted by Tepper (2000), victims of abusive supervision felt their organization was responsible for the abusive behavior of their leaders.Therefore, employees may stop engaging Rethinking Abusive Supervision: Antecedents and Reparative Mechanisms of Abusive Supervision, Including Supervisor Frustration, Coworker Support, Guilt, and Supervisor OCB in a Mediated-Moderation Model in OCB (Zhang et al., 2019).Extant research supports the notion that employees might opt to engage in some negative actions when constantly criticized and ridiculed to cope with unfavorable events, i.e., abusive supervision (Afshan et al., 2022;Mawritz et al., 2014).Thus, we hypothesize the following:

H3:
Abusive supervision is negatively related to OCB.

Abusive supervision and supervisor OCB: mediation of guilt
People set their own personal standards.A discrepancy in meeting those standards results in a feeling of guilt (Tangney, 1990).Guilt triggers individuals to repair a relationship.Individuals who feel guilty tend to apologize and perform positive actions to support a cause (Tangney et al., 2007).Guilt is aroused when supervisors feel they have violated a behavior (i.e., via abuse) (Shum et al., 2020).
However, supervisors try to overcome this guilt through positive actions (McClean et al., 2021).Similarly, we believe abusive supervisors would like to repair the harmful effects of abusive supervision by engaging in OCB when a feeling of guilt is aroused.There is some evidence to support this notion.Evidence from recent research indicates that supervisors employ reparative actions to overcome this feeling of guilt (Arshad et al., 2021;Ilies et al., 2013).The reparatory mechanism can include a number of actions, i.e., supporting employees, working overtime, and managing their work-life balance (Shum et al., 2020;Yin et al., 2021).However, two conditions need to exist for guilt to result in the performance of a reparatory action.First, there is the existence of an interpersonal transgression-some aggression is exchanged.Second, the actor feels they are responsible for it.These two conditions are met in the case of abusive supervision.First, abusing others violates social norms, and the supervisors might feel responsible for such destructive action at work (Fischer et al., 2021).Evidence suggests that abusive supervision has negative consequences (Afshan et al., 2022;Ampofo & Karatepe, 2022;Arain et al., 2020;Fischer et al., 2021).However, we respectfully challenge this assumption and try to outline a deeper and neglected element-why an abusive supervisor will engage in OCB.There is some work in this direction where researchers have indicated supervisors trying to repair their negative actions and perceptions (Abi Aad et al., 2021;Liao et al., 2018).Thus, we propose that once guilt is aroused, the abusive supervisor would like to repair the damaged relationship and perceptions via engagement in OCB directed towards subordinates.Hence, we hypothesize the following:

H4:
Supervisor feelings of guilt mediate between abusive supervision and supervisor OCB.

Mediated moderation
Peer support refers to a perception of support offered by other colleagues at work (Ng & Sorensen, 2008).Organizational support is general, and coworker support is regarded as a specific type of support, which may include both instrumental and emotional support (Kashif et al., 2021;Kim & Yun, 2015).Recent studies indicate that emotional support is effective in preventing the adverse effects of stress due to abuse from supervisors (De Clercq et al., 2020).Generally, the damaging impact of abusive supervision by a supervisor because of frustration can be minimized with coworker support (De Clercq et al., 2020).Coworker support is extensively studied, but its impact on minimizing supervisor frustration and preventing abuse is never investigated (De Clercq et al., 2020;Hao et al., 2022;Kim & Yun, 2015).As per the assumptions of AET, coworker support is a constant event and can significantly impact human relations at work (Shi et al., 2022).Coworker support can play a significant role in weakening the relationship between supervisor frustration and resulting abusive supervision.This suggests that supervisors who receive coworker support are less likely to engage in abusive behaviors (Eissa & Lester, 2017).Thus, we propose the following:

H5:
Perceived coworker support will moderate the strength of the mediated relationship between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision, such that the mediated relationship will be weaker when perceived coworker support is high.

Sample and procedures
This study follows the design of a quantitative inquiry.The core objective is to test the proposed hypotheses.Thus, a quantitative research approach is deemed suitable (Arshad et al., 2021).Moreover, a survey-based approach to data collection was chosen to conduct this investigation.The research team collected Muhammad Kashif / Rehana Naheed / Shanika Wijenayake data from 351 medical supervisors currently employed in private hospitals in Rawalpindi and Islamabad.These medical supervisors were doctors and the administrators of different wards.These people had a supervisory role, managing a team of doctors and nurses.Considering the objectives of this research, supervisors are an appropriate audience.These supervisors work in shifts, i.e., morning and night, almost 40 hours a week.For this study, the private healthcare sector was selected for several reasons.First, there is fierce competition among private hospitals in Pakistan.Thus, such organizations remain sensitive to issues related to supervisory abuse and the resulting consequences.The results of this study therefore have some managerial value.Second, data collection from public sector hospitals is a challenging task.It involves several approvals and takes time due to the high power distance prevailing in Pakistan (Islam et al., 2022).Thus, to ensure some pragmatic value of this study and to save time and preserve motivation to move forward with the study, the selection of private sector hospitals was justified.
Before executing the survey, the research team sought formal approvals from the hospital administration as well as explaining the investigation's aims and ethics protocols.They were assured that the collected data would be kept confidential and used for academic purposes.The respondents were told their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any stage of the investigation without penalty.Finally, they were assured that the names of persons, organizations, and other observations made during this study would not be disclosed.Once formal approvals were obtained, the research team personally visited the private hospitals.At this stage, a number of techniques and approach measures to collect data were adopted.First, considering the challenges associated with data collection, the research team identified one source currently working in a hospital setting.Using a snowball sampling technique, the source was asked to nominate and share the contacts of other personnel working in a similar setting.As the contacts multiplied, the research team continued the data collection.The team approached the potential respondents to hand over the questionnaire for the study.There is ample evidence of a snowball sampling technique being employed by researchers investigating and advancing abusive supervision research (Zhang & Liu, 2018), particularly in a hospital setting (Özkan, 2022).A logical explanation for employing this technique is the challenge of the time consumed to collect data and the scarcity of relationships, without which data collection is not possible.
The survey was conducted in two waves.During wave 1, the questionnaire comprising role overload, supervisor frustration, and abusive supervision as well as coworker support was shared.The collected forms were coded properly so that the same respondent was approached the next time.After three weeks, the same candidates were approached to complete the second survey wave, which comprised guilt and supervisor OCB questions.
To ensure the simplicity and accuracy of the time-lagged investigation, we developed an identification code for every employee.Considering the sample size recommendation of at least 200 participants to apply a partial least squares structural equation modeling technique (Hair et al., 2012), we approached 400 people.In response, 351 returned the completed forms, representing a response rate of about 87%, which is remarkable for a time-lagged study on organizational behavior (Afshan et al., 2022).People value human relations in a relationship-based society such as Pakistan (Ali & Kashif, 2020;Kashif et al., 2020;Mannan & Kashif, 2019).Thus, approaching the respondents with a reference resulted in a high response rate.The research team waited for the respondents to complete their work-related tasks, and then the questionnaires were handed over.The research method followed during the data collection stage helped achieve a high response rate.The time-lagged design is highly recommended to strengthen the survey methodology and is a common practice among organizational behavior researchers investigating abusive supervision (Moin et al., 2021).

Measurements
Role overload: We measured role overload with four items (Bolino & Turnley, 2005).Collectively, these items are consistent with the conceptual definition of role overload (RO).The coefficient alpha for this measure was 0.85.It was measured on a seven-point Likert scale with anchors ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
Supervisor frustration: The supervisor's frustration is measured by a three-item (Peters & O'Connor, 1980), seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).Previous studies have shown adequate internal consistency of this scale, with alpha scores of 0.70 or above (Avey et al., 2015).
Rethinking Abusive Supervision: Antecedents and Reparative Mechanisms of Abusive Supervision, Including Supervisor Frustration, Coworker Support, Guilt, and Supervisor OCB in a Mediated-Moderation Model Abusive supervision: We measured abusive supervision using a 15-item seven-point Likert scale (Tepper, 2000).Results from previous studies demonstrate this scale has excellent internal consistency, with values of 0.80 or above (Moin et al., 2021).
Coworker support: We measured coworker support using a well-established measure (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002) on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).The measure has a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.80 or above, as noticed in recently conducted studies (Kashif et al., 2021).
Guilt: A 17-item scale was used to measure guilt (Cohen et al., 2011) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely).Prior research has identified that the internal consistency of this scale is 0.70 or above.
Supervisor OCB: Supervisor OCB was measured via an eight-item seven-point Likert scale (1 = never to 7 = always) (Deckop et al., 2003).The scale has high internal consistency, with a value of 0.83 or above.
All these measures with their scales are shown in Appendix C.

Results
The data analysis for this study was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 20.0) and AMOS (version 26.0) following the procedures proposed by other researchers (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).The measurement model was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis, and a path analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses.The sample size of this study is 351, which is an acceptable sample to perform structural equation modeling (SEM) in AMOS, as per the guidelines provided by experts in this field (Hair et al., 2012(Hair et al., , 2014)).The structural equation modeling technique is preferred when a quantitative inquiry is being performed.This technique has been used by other researchers investigating issues concerning abusive supervision (Afshan et al., 2022).
Table 1 shows the demographic profiling of the sample.Among the respondents, 58% were graduates, 27% had a postgraduate qualification, and 15% had other qualifications.Close to 48% of the sample had more than ten years of experience, which is in line with the objectives of this study.The sample largely comprises individuals who are graduates and have a significant amount of years of work experience.Thus, the sample of this study represents the perceptions of an experienced and educated working class of Pakistan employed in private hospitals.

Common method bias
The data for this study are single-sourced and collected via self-report measures.Thus, there could be a possibility of common method bias.The common method bias of the study was explored using Harman's single-factor test.In SPSS, an exploratory factor analysis was performed for this purpose, and it was noticed that the 1 st -factor loading was 18.23%, which is less than 50%.For the un-rotated principal component factor analysis, eight factors were extracted with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, accounting for 67% of the total variance (Bro & Smilde, 2014).Further, it was observed that the highest inter-construct correlation was only 0.769 (see Table 2), which is lower than the recommended 0.90 (Bagozzi et al., 1991).Therefore, common method bias is not a problem in this study.
Next, the outliers, normality, and multicollinearity data were examined.To identify the outliers, the Mahalanobis distance was examined, and it was noticed that the Mahalanobis distance for all the items was similar to the majority.Skewness and kurtosis were used to test the univariate normality.Table 3 shows that the skewness for all the items ranging between -1.00 and +1.00.The univariate kurtosis is less than 2 for all the variables.Therefore, univariate normality is assured for all the variables (Kline, 2005).A collinearity diagnosis was used to assess multicollinearity.A linear regression was run for all the independent variables by making each independent variable a dependent variable.The variance   Rethinking Abusive Supervision: Antecedents and Reparative Mechanisms of Abusive Supervision, Including Supervisor Frustration, Coworker Support, Guilt, and Supervisor OCB in a Mediated-Moderation Model inflation factor (VIF) for all the variables was less than 3 (O 'Brien, 2007).Therefore, no multicollinearity was diagnosed for the variables.

Measurement model analysis
To assess the measurement model, AMOS version 26.0 was employed.The maximum likelihood estimation method was used to test the measurement model of the study.Individual measurement models for each construct were evaluated, and nine items loading less than 0.5 were dropped from the analysis.The convergent and discriminant validity of the model was ensured by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR).AVE and CR were calculated by running the Validity and Reliability Test plugin in AMOS.
The AVE for all the study constructs is greater than 0.5, and the CR is greater than 0.6.Therefore, convergent validity is confirmed (Hair et al., 2014).Table 3 illustrates all the constructs' AVE and CR values with the factor loadings.The discriminant validity of the model can be verified by comparing the square root of the AVE with the correlations between the six constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).It is observed that the difference between the loadings and the cross-loadings shown in Table 2 are all higher than 0.1 (Hair et al., 2014), confirming the discriminant validity of the model.
A confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the overall measurement model, and the model fit results were evaluated based on the cut-off values proposed by other researchers (Hu & Bentler, 1999).These cut-off values are: the CMIN/DF has to be between 1 and 3, the comparative fit index (CFI) has to be greater than 0.9, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) should be between 0.05 and 0.1, and the standardized root mean square residual should be less than 0.08, while the p of the close fit [PClose] should be greater than 0.05 to accept the model.The model fit results obtained through the CFA are: (χ2= 1650.637,df.= 1059, p < .01,χ2 /df =1.559, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.950, SRMR = 0.049, and PClose = 1.000.This shows a good fit.

Structural model analysis
After validating the measurement model, the main constructs of the study were calculated in SPSS version 20.0.To test the hypotheses, a path analysis was used in AMOS.Bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000 bootstrap samples at a 95% confidence level was run in AMOS to evaluate the structural model and test the five hypotheses.Bias-corrected bootstrapping is one of the best methods to test mediation in structural equation modeling (Cheung & Lau, 2008).Hence, bias-corrected bootstrapping was used in this study too.The interaction term was calculated with the mean-centered variables using SPSS.To model the mediated moderation in the path diagram and to calculate the mediated moderation index, a statistical model of model 14 has been proposed by other researchers (Hayes, 2017).The main constructs of the study are placed in rectangles (ROV-Role Overload, SF-Supervisor Frustration, AB-Abusive Supervision, GU-Guilt, OCB-Organizational Citizenship Behavior, CSW-Coworker Support, CSF x CCF-Interaction term).Arrows between the main constructs of the study show the five hypotheses tested.The results of the test are presented in Table 4.
The relationship between role overload and supervisor frustration had a value of 0.303 (p < 0.05), indicating that role overload significantly influences supervisor frustration.Thus, H1 was supported.Muhammad Kashif / Rehana Naheed / Shanika Wijenayake The hypothesized relationship between role overload and abusive supervision was mediated by supervisor frustration, with a corresponding estimate of 0.06 (p < 0.05).Therefore, H2 was supported.The relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behavior had a value of 0.014 (p > 0.05), indicating an insignificant relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behavior.Thus, H3 was not supported.Guilt mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behavior, with an estimate of 0.221 (p < 0.05).Therefore, H4 was supported.Even though the mediated moderation index shows an insignificant relationship, it is significant when coworker support is high.Further, it was observed that the direct moderation between SF and AB by CSW was also not supported by the findings (0.001, p > 0.05), and this is depicted in Figure A2 (See Appendix B).Table 4 shows all the hypothesis testing results.According to those results, it is observed that out of the five hypotheses, three are supported by the data.The structural model of the study with the loadings is presented in Appendix A (Figure A1).

Discussion
The results of this study can be understood via the context of the service sector and from an affective events theory perspective.The findings of the study suggest that role overload significantly contributes to supervisor frustration.Considering role overload as an affective event, previous researchers have outlined its negative outcomes, i.e., emotional exhaustion and resulting supervisor incivility (Rafique, 2022).Our results contradict the findings of previous studies where role overload is negatively correlated with engagement in OCB at work (Montani & Dagenais-Desmarais, 2018).We outline conditions such as coworker support and the arousal of guilt as an emotion that can lead abusive supervisors to engage in OCB towards their subordinates, which is a unique development in abusive supervision research.Contextually, in a people-intensive service context (i.e., healthcare), when supervisors are assigned additional tasks to meet customer service standards, it adds to their stress (i.e., causing frustration).From a family-oriented cultural perspective, supervisors must devote time to the family.Role overload can thus result in their frustrations.Considering these findings, it is notable that supervisors support their subordinates in managing their work-life balance (Yin et al., 2021).The results are understandable based on these theoretical, contextual, and cultural perspectives.
Uniquely, it was found that role overload causes supervisors to abuse their subordinates via supervisor frustration, which is understandable from an affective events theory perspective.For instance, considering role overload as an affective event, some stress can be caused (i.e., frustration among supervisors), thus resulting in destructive behaviors at work, i.e., abusive supervision.Previous research has presented a different perspective that role overload leads to negative work outcomes (Eissa & Lester, 2017), where abusive supervision is no exception.However, why does role overload cause abusive supervision?Our research answers this important question by explaining one condition, i.e., supervisor frustration.Similarly, the relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor OCB mediated by a feeling of guilt is understandable.Considering abusive supervision as an affective event, it might arouse an emotion of guilt among supervisors, resulting in engagement in OCB.Since we collected data from a service context where supervisors and their subordinates work in close collaboration and have stronger ties (Kashif et al., 2020), the supervisors, when frustrated, sometimes lose control.This might result in some abusive behaviors that do not indicate that a supervisor is destructive (Afshan et al., 2022;Kashif et al., 2020).Moreover, supervisors and subordinates need support from each other to meet customer service expectations (Afshan et al., 2022;Ali & Kashif, 2020).Thus, to repair the potentially negative consequences of abusive supervision, supervisors might perform voluntary work for their subordinates when they recognize that abusive behavior is unfair.This is where we uniquely position guilt as an emotion, which is a unique finding of this study and provides a different explanation that supercharges the relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor OCB.These results are understandable in a cultural context where human relations are important (Ali & Kashif, 2020;Kashif et al., 2020).From a more theoretical perspective, our research strengthens the assumption of AET that continuity of events at work arouses unique emotions (i.e., guilt) and triggers a particular type of behavior (i.e., supervisor OCB) (Reynolds Kueny et al., 2020;Shum et al., 2020).
Finally, the results confirmed that a high level of coworker support moderates the negative effects of supervisor frustration, thus preventing a frustrated supervisor from abusing his/her subordinates.Stronger evidence shows that coworker support produces positive work outcomes (Kashif et al., 2021).This is also understandable in a service context where role overload might disturb supervisors' health and relationships (Bolino & Turnley, 2005;Creary & Gordon, 2016;Eissa & Lester, 2017;Shultz et al., 2010).Contextually, a service workplace is a combination of various affective events.On one side, where role overload causes frustration, coworkers' support can reduce supervisor frustration.When modeling the mediated moderation, it was found that coworker support alone is not sufficient to explain the relationship between role overload perceptions and engagement in OCB.This unique finding challenges existing assumptions about coworker support (Hao et al., 2022).One explanation could be some organizational and socio-cultural factors that could further explain this relationship.

Theoretical implications
The core aim of this study was to present conditions that result in abusive supervision.Moreover, it aimed to show how abusive behavior results in engagement in OCB via the arousal of guilt among supervisors.The study addresses the important question of whether abusive supervision leads to positive work outcomes.We answer this question by proposing a mediating effect of guilt as an emotion that motivates supervisors to repair poor treatment given to subordinates.There is ample research on the dark effects of abusive supervision (Afshan et al., 2022;Mannan & Kashif, 2019;Moin et al., 2021;Zhang et al., 2019).However, what causes abusive supervision, especially its relationship with role overload perceptions among supervisors, is scarcely examined (Eissa & Lester, 2017).In addition, ample research has presented negative outcomes of abusive supervision, but the idea that it can lead to some positive work outcomes is yet another unique contribution of this study.Finally, the organizational behavior literature does not thoroughly examine what can prevent frustrated supervisors from abusing their subordinates.We contribute by positioning coworker support as a moderating variable.We contribute to the extant research on abusive supervision and its positive outcomes based on testing these relationships.First, role overload and supervisor frustration are affective events.Second, in a workplace where role overload and supervisor frustration are affective, coworker support is also an affective event (based on the principle of continuity of events in affective events theory).Third, all these affective events arouse a feeling of guilt.Fourth, guilt, as a consequence of these affective yet continuous events, can trigger supervisor OCB as a reparatory mechanism.This study enriches our understanding of affective events and outlines some positive outcomes of abusive supervision as a critical affective event.

Managerial implications
Organizations must understand the negative consequences of role overload perceptions, especially in family-oriented societies such as Pakistan.It is also an important element for the family and thus cannot be ignored.Empirical evidence suggests that role overload causes frustration among supervisors, thus resulting in abusive behaviors.Instead of tagging supervisors as abusive and penalizing them, the organization's policymakers should understand service work as a combination of challenging tasks.Policymakers should be mindful when assigning roles to supervisors.This is an important implication based on the findings of this study.Above all, it might not only be the tasks that result in a perception of role overload.Instead, it could be the multiple roles of family management and working together.This is very common in countries such as Pakistan.Even in other countries, organizations should offer familial support to manage family life in a better manner (Yin et al., 2021).
The supervisor's frustration can be reduced by channeling social events at work, which might bring harmony and a feeling of togetherness.This is very important in a service context where people work close to each other, particularly because they feel they are and work as a combined unit (Kashif et al., 2020).Organizational policymakers can even launch on-the-job employee assistance schemes, which might decrease supervisor frustration, thus preventing abuse.In addition, developing a friendly, open, and transparent workplace culture might reduce the probability that a supervisor will be abusive.For instance, when the workload is shared transparently, it might help supervisors to understand that others are also assigned similar types of tasks.This might create a positive impact while minimizing supervisor frustration.
Some coaching programs can be designed for supervisor training, motivating them to repair negative perceptions by performing positive actions, i.e., OCB.Some case studies of successful supervisors may be shared with them to arouse a feeling that abusive manners are indecent and might hurt others and damage the individual's reputation.

Limitations and future research directions
This research has some limitations which offer exciting opportunities for future research.Methodologically, the data were collected by following a self-report, cross-sectional research design.Although it served the purpose of this study, the method used to collect the data is not free from common method biases.Generally, supervisors like to attribute their abusive behaviors to organizational factors such as role overload.Thus, we suggest future researchers collect data via longitudinal studies, especially when the aim is to investigate supervisor frustration over time, identifying a few elements which can reshape frustration levels.From a methodological standpoint, another limitation is the use of single-source data.Since we collected data during Covid-19 restrictions, data collection from supervisor-subordinate dyads and multiple levels in a hierarchy was difficult.Thus, future researchers could collect dyadic data, which can be helpful in a more comprehensive examination of abusive supervision, its antecedents, and the consequences.Another limitation was the employment of a quantitative deduction approach to outline and test the hypotheses.We must discover why role overload causes frustrations among supervisors.In this regard, generalization of the findings of this study is limited.The results might need to be more specific.
Moreover, the context-based antecedents of abusive supervision are not explored.Thus, future researchers could conduct a qualitative inquiry to examine these relationships contextually.Furthermore, data could be collected from other sectors, such as the banking, telecoms, and food sectors, to further extend and generalize the findings of this study.Finally, an important intervention could be an in-depth study of these supervisors, and who they are, based on age, gender, rank, and personality.
Theoretically, we positioned role overload as the only affective event which results in supervisor frustration and abuse.However, it might not be the only role-centric reason causing such negative consequences.Thus, future researchers should highlight other role-centric issues, i.e., role ambiguity and conflict.From another theoretical perspective, we conceptualized guilt as an emotion that triggers OCB among supervisors.However, similar emotions, when aroused, can lead to some other interesting outcomes.For instance, it would be interesting to study the consequences of regret or even the arousal of embarrassment as an emotion after episodes of abusive supervision.Theoretically, we positioned supervisor OCB as an outcome of abusive supervision in an interplay with guilt.Future researchers are encouraged to assume an interpretive perspective to explore how supervisors try to repair their relationships with their subordinates after an abusive episode.An interpretive exploration of this reparation could bring unique insights to the study of abusive supervision.A few more interesting research questions warrant our attention.For instance, could specific Rethinking Abusive Supervision: Antecedents and Reparative Mechanisms of Abusive Supervision, Including Supervisor Frustration, Coworker Support, Guilt, and Supervisor OCB in a Mediated-Moderation Model contextual, religious, cultural, or personality variables incline some supervisors to repair their reputations?Are all supervisors prone to moral cleansing or guilt?Does OCB, as a product of guilt from perpetrating supervisory abuse, erase or reduce the effects of the initial abuse on subordinates/victims? Does this prevent repeat supervisory abuse behavior?The answers to these questions can advance the theory in the field of abusive supervision.Contextually, we collected data from private-sector hospitals.The hospital setting is a people-intensive work setting, similar to banking, telecoms, food, and fashion retail.Yet, the results cannot be generalized to other sectors.The context might be the same, but the realities of every sector differ.Thus, future researchers should collect data from supervisors working in other sectors to generalize the findings.Furthermore, we recommend future researchers collect data from organizations operating in the manufacturing sector.It would be interesting to compare and contrast the findings by collecting data from two sectors, i.e., services and manufacturing.

Conclusion
A significant number of research studies report the negative consequences of abusive supervision.However, there are limited studies where some of the positive consequences of abusive supervision are reported.Furthermore, few studies examine how coworker support buffers the relationship between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision and guilt to mediate between abusive supervision and supervisor OCB.Our research addresses these concerns and presents a unique framework to advance our understanding, considering abusive supervision as an affective event.Taken together, our mediated-moderation model presents a unique role of coworker support in explaining the process going from role overload to supervisor OCB.Our work presents a unique viewpoint, highlighting the reparatory mechanism to explain why an abusive supervisor engages in organizational citizenship behavior towards employees via the mediation of guilt.This way, our study extends the findings of recent studies on moral cleansing related to abusive behaviors at work (McClean et al., 2021;Shum et al., 2020).Organizations can use the results of our study to manage role overload issues associated with supervisory work.

Guilt
After realizing you have received too much change at a store, you decide to keep it because the salesclerk does not notice.What is the likelihood that you would feel uncomfortable about keeping the money

G1
You secretly commit a felony.What is the likelihood that you would feel remorse about breaking the law G2 At a coworker's housewarming party, you spill red wine on their new cream-colored carpet.You cover the stain with a chair so that nobody notices your mess.What is the likelihood that you would feel that the way you acted was pathetic

G3
You lie to people but they never find out about it.What is the likelihood that you would feel terrible about the lies you told G4 You are privately informed that you are the only one in your group that did not make the honor society because you skipped too many days of school.What is the likelihood that this would lead you to become more responsible about attending school

G5
You reveal a friends' secret, though your friend never finds out.What is the likelihood that your failure to keep the secret would lead you to exert extra effort to keep secrets in the future G6 You strongly defend a point of view in a discussion, and though nobody was aware of it, you realize that you were wrong.What is the likelihood that this would make you think more carefully before you speak

G7
While discussing a heated subject with friends, you suddenly realize you are shouting though nobody seems to notice.What is the likelihood that you would try to act more considerately toward your friends

Organizational Citizenship Behavior
You have adjusted your work schedule to accommodate other employees' requests for time off OCB1 You have helped others who have been absent OCB2 You have showed genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most trying business or personal situations OCB3 You have offered ideas to improve the functioning of the organization OCB4 You have expressed loyalty toward the organization OCB5 You have taken action to protect the organization from potential problems OCB6 You have demonstrated concern about the image of the organization OCB7 You have taken the initiative to troubleshoot and solve technical problems before requesting help from a supervisor OCB8

Table 1
Sample demographics

Table 4
Hypothesis testing