Abstract
Across three studies, we examined whether and to what extent experiencing abusive supervision leads employees to feel dehumanized by their organization and explored the consequences of this relationship. First, an experimental study manipulating abusive supervision shows that abusive supervision leads to organizational dehumanization perceptions, which in turn have negative consequences (i.e., decreased employees’ job satisfaction, affective commitment, and increased turnover intentions). Based on a cross-lagged panel design, Study 2 confirmed the directionality of the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational dehumanization, by showing the antecedence of abusive supervision on organizational dehumanization. Finally, the results of Study 3 indicated that the indirect effects of organizational dehumanization in the relationships between abusive supervision on the one hand and job satisfaction, affective commitment, and turnover intentions on the other hand are moderated by perceived coworker support.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
16 October 2018
The original version of the article inadvertently included a table titled "Data transparency table (Study 2)" at the end of the manuscript. This table should not have been published. The authors regret this error.
Notes
In response to the comment of an anonymous reviewer, we included job autonomy (three items; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006), professional isolation (six items, Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008), and meaning of work (four items; Kristensen & Borg, 2003) as additional variables explaining organizational dehumanization in the final model. This additional analysis aimed to test whether the effect of abusive supervision remains significant over and beyond other variables that may have an impact on dehumanization. This model showed a good fit to the data (χ2 (664) = 1433.90; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .06; CFI = .91; TLI = .90). Importantly, the results were essentially identical and did not change the interpretation of the findings as both abusive supervision and the interaction term remained positively related to organizational dehumanization. The only difference found is that the direct remaining relationships of abusive supervision and perceived coworker support on affective commitment and job satisfaction were not significant when autonomy, professional isolation, and meaning of work were controlled for.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., & Volpato, C. (2017). (Still) modern times: Evidence of objectification within working domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 25–35.
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010.
Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1023–1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1023.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700701.
Ashforth, B. A., Schinoff, B. S., & Brickson, S. L. (2018). “My company is friendly,” “Mine’s a rebel”: Anthropomorphism and shifting organizational identity from “what” to “who”. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0496.
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484.
Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2011). Experiencing dehumanization: Cognitive and emotional effects of everyday dehumanization. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2011.614132.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021.
Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2053.
Bell, C. M., & Khoury, C. (2011). Organizational de/humanization, deindividuation, anomie, and in/justice. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on organizational justice and ethics (pp. 167–197). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Bell, C. M., & Khoury, C. (2016). Organizational powerlessness, dehumanization, and gendered effects of procedural justice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-09-2014-0267.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26, 1113–1132. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600603.
Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive supervision: The role of interactional justice and narcissism. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00886.x.
Caesens, G., Stinglhamber, F., Demoulin, S., & De Wilde, M. (2017). Perceived organizational support and employees’ well-being: The mediating role of organizational dehumanization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1319817.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296–325.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2017). Accuracy of parameter estimates and confidence intervals in moderated mediation models: A comparison of regression and latent moderated structural equations. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 746–769.
Christoff, K. (2014). Dehumanization in organizational settings: Some scientific and ethical considerations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00748.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069350.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037//00219010.71.3.500.
Eisenberger, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productive employees. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/12318-000.
Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. (1991). Coping and emotion. In A. Monat & R. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (3rd ed., pp. 207–227). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2006). Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior: Exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1089–1120.
Gibney, R., Zagenczyk, T. J., & Masters, M. F. (2009). The negative aspects of social exchange: An introduction to perceived organizational obstruction. Group & Organization Management, 34, 665–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601109350987.
Glaser, D. N., Tatum, B. C., Nebeker, D. M., Sorenson, R. C., & Aiello, J. R. (1999). Workload and social support: Effects on performance and stress. Human Performance, 12, 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959289909539865.
Gleibs, I. H. (2016). Are all “research fields” equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowdsourcing market places. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0789-y.
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1412–1421.
Hackney, K. J., & Perrewé, P. L. (2018). A review of abusive behaviors at work: The development of a process model for studying abuse. Organizational Psychology Review, 8, 70–92.
Hadikin, R., & O'Driscoll, M. (2000). The bullying culture: Cause, effect, harm reduction. Oxford: Books for Midwives Press.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.007.
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4.
Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpsych-010213-115045.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513.
Huang, X., Wright, R., Chiu, W., & Wang, C. (2008). Relational schemas as sources of evaluation and misevaluation of leader-member exchanges: Some initial evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 266–282.
Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1995.1553.
Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Kristensen, T. S., & Borg, V. (2003). The Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ): A questionnaire on psychosocial working conditions, health and well-being in three versions [internet]. Denmark: The National Institute of Occupational Health.
Ladd, D., & Henry, R. A. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping the organization: The role of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2028–2049. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02422.x.
Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 142–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.13.
Lang, J., Bliese, P. D., Lang, J. W., & Adler, A. B. (2011). Work gets unfair for the depressed: Cross-lagged relations between organizational justice perceptions and depressive symptoms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 602–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022463.
Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33, 841–866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307307635.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370–390. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391032.
Leyens, J. P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Perez, A., & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06.
Leyens, J. P., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M. P., Vaes, J., & Demoulin, S. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.50.
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024610.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why followers rarely escape their clutches. Ivey Business Journal, 69, 1–8.
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.
Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., Selig, J. P., & Card, N. A. (2007). New developments in latent variable panel analysis of longitudinal data. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 357–365.
Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43, 1940–1965.
Markel, K. S., & Frone, M. R. (1998). Job characteristics, work-school conflict, and school outcomes among adolescents: Testing a structural model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.277.
Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.3.275.
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159.
Morgan-Lopez, A. A., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2006). Demonstration and evaluation of a method for assessing mediated moderation. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192752.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide (Eighth ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Ng, T. W., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group & Organization Management, 33, 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601107313307.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.
Schat, A. C. H., Desmarais, S., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Exposure to workplace aggression from multiple sources: Validation of a measure and test of a model. Unpublished manuscript. In McMaster University. Canada: Hamilton.
Shore, L. M., & Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M. (2012). Perceived organizational cruelty: An expansion of the negative employee-organization relationship domain. In L. M. Shore, J. A. Coyle-Shapiro, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employee organization relationship: Applications for the 21 st century (pp. 139–157). New York, NY: Routledge.
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030687.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241.
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257–273.
Stahl, G. K., & Caligiuri, P. (2005). The effectiveness of expatriate coping strategies: The moderating role of cultural distance, position level, and time on the international assignment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.603.
Stinglhamber, F., Marique, G., Caesens, G., Hanin, D., & De Zanet, F. (2015). The influence of transformational leadership on followers’ affective commitment: The role of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Career Development International, 20, 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0158.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375.
Tepper, B. J. (2006). Abusive supervision. In S. Rogelberg & C. Reeve (Eds.), Encyclopedia of industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 1–4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812.
Tepper, B. J. (2016). Preface to N. Ashkanasy, R. Bennett, & M. Martinko (Eds.), Understanding the high performance workplace: The line between motivation and abuse. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationships between coworkers' organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees' attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.455.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates' resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974–983. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.974.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279–294. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263085.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1169–1180 https://doi.org/10.2307/20159918.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.06.003.
Väyrynen, T., & Laari-Salmela, S. (2018). Men, mammals, or machines? Dehumanization embedded in organizational practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 147, 95–113.
Walter, F., Lam, C. K., Van Der Vegt, G. S., Huang, X., & Miao, Q. (2015). Abusive supervision and subordinate performance: Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1056–1072. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038513.
Wang, M., Liao, H., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. (2011). Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage against customers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 312–334. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263093.
Wang, R., & Jiang, J. (2015). How abusive supervisors influence employees’ voice and silence: The effects of interactional justice and organizational attribution. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.990410.
Wu, T. Y., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and boundaries. Group & Organization Management, 34, 143–169.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.6.1068.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by ARC under grant n°16/20-071 of the French Community of Belgium and by the “Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique—FNRS” under grant n°T.0177.16 awarded to the last author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The original version of this article was revised: The original version of this article inadvertently included a table titled “Data transparency table (Study 2)” at the end of the manucript. This table should not have been published. The authors regret this error.
Appendix
Appendix
Please read the following story carefully and try to imagine that you are the subordinate in this story. Then, please answer the following questions from the perspective of this subordinate.
High abusive supervision condition
As a human resource assistant, you have worked in a software technology company for 1 year, and your main job responsibilities are related to staff recruitment, such as screening applicants’ resumes, arranging job interviews, helping new staff handle entry formalities, and so on. Your direct supervisor is a human resource director (HRD) whose gender is the same as yours. The supervisor and you work in the same department and interact frequently at the workplace, but your supervisor always acts as an authoritative leader in front of you. For example, after making some mistakes in work, this supervisor tends to blame you for them, even if you are innocent. Once, before the start of an important job interview, there was something wrong with your supervisor’s computer and it did not work. All of the applicants’ resumes were saved in that computer. Seeing that the interview was about to begin, the whole department was in a state of chaos. Your supervisor stood there and looked extremely angry, then shouted at you in front of other colleagues, “Why not copy these things in your computer!!! If you make the same mistake in the future, I will never forgive you!!”
Low abusive supervision condition
As a human resource assistant, you have worked in a software technology company for one year, and your main job responsibilities are related to staff recruitment, such as screening applicants’ resumes, arranging job interviews, helping new staff handle entry formalities, and so on. Your direct supervisor is a human resource director (HRD) whose gender is the same as yours. The supervisor and you work in the same department and interact frequently at the workplace. Although holding a higher position, your supervisor seldom acts as an authoritative leader in front of you. For example, after making some mistakes in work, this supervisor tends to take responsibility and find solutions for them. Once, before the start of an important job interview, there was something wrong with your supervisor’s computer and it did not work. All of the applicants’ resumes were saved in that computer. Seeing that the interview was about to begin, the whole department was in a state of chaos. The supervisor came out of the office and apologized to the members of the HR department. Then, the supervisor suggested you providing incoming applicants with the blank form to fill out, or asking them whether they take an extra resume with them. These tasks might increase your workload, thus, your supervisor walked in front of you and said thank you.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Caesens, G., Nguyen, N. & Stinglhamber, F. Abusive Supervision and Organizational Dehumanization. J Bus Psychol 34, 709–728 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9592-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9592-3