The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Moving beyond the employee: The role of the organizational context in

leader workplace aggression
Payal Nangia Sharma
Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall 3014, Management Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Management and psychology scholars are increasingly seeking to examine how organizational characteristics
Workplace aggression that contextualize leadership shape the occurrence, impact, and prevention of leader workplace aggression.
Mistreatment However, a comprehensive review of this literature has not yet been conducted, so a systematic understanding is
Leadership lacking regarding questions including: (1) when, why and how is such aggression more likely to occur; (2) how
Organizational context
do contextual factors enable or constrain effects of these leader behaviors on employees; and (3) how can
organizations proactively manage their internal dynamics to prevent or reduce such incidences? Drawing on
Porter and McLaughlin's (2006) components of organizational context, I review existing leader aggression re-
search that intersects with seven categories: (1) culture/climate; (2) goals/purposes; (3) people/composition; (4)
processes; (5) state/condition; (6) structure; and (7) time. I then offer theoretical propositions for future work,
which are grounded in the roles and responsibilities inherent to the nature of leadership and coupled with the
changing nature of organizational life. As a result, I set the research agenda for the next decade of organizational
context × leader workplace aggression studies.

Research on leadership continues to develop exponentially, and one intersection of leader workplace aggression and organizational char-
area that has received increasing attention is aggressive behaviors by acteristics that contextualize leadership. Context is defined as “situa-
leaders in work settings. Surveys estimate that almost half of all U.S. tional opportunities and constraints that affect the occurrence and
workers regularly experience behaviors including verbal abuse, delib- meaning of organizational behavior as well as functional relationships
erate destruction of relationships with others, and bad-mouthing of between variables” (Johns, 2006: 386; Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 2002).
their professional standing; and more than half have at least heard According to Rousseau and Fried (2001), the term context “comes from
about these behaviors occurring in their organizations (Employment a Latin root meaning to ‘knit together’ or ‘to make a connection’” (2001:
Law Alliance, 2007; Workplace Bullying Institute, 2014). Further, de- 1). Workplace aggression scholars have called for more research that
spite inconsistency in measurement and variability between nations integrates organizational characteristics, and a growing number of
(see Nielsen et al., 2009; Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010), “the studies have emerged in recent years (cf. Tepper, 2007). However, a
prevalence of employees being exposed to workplace aggression has comprehensive review of this literature has not yet been conducted, so
been estimated in Austria (8% to 26%), Belgium (3% to 20%), Denmark a systematic understanding is lacking regarding questions including: (1)
(2% to 27%), Finland (5% to 24%), France (8% to 10%), Ireland (23%), due to what contextual factors is leader aggression more or less likely to
Norway (5% to 9%), Lithuania (23%), South Africa (20%), Sweden occur in the workplace; (2) how does the organizational context enable
(4%), Turkey (55%), UK (11%) and US (10% to 41%)” (Eschleman, or constrain effects of these leader behaviors on employees; and (3)
Bowling, Michel, & Burns, 2014: 362). In a meta-analytic review how can organizations proactively manage their internal dynamics to
comparing the magnitude of effects of employee mistreatment by su- prevent or reduce incidences? Accordingly, I synthesize the leader ag-
pervisors, co-workers, and outsiders in 66 samples, supervisor beha- gression × organizational characteristics literature, uncover several
viors had the strongest impact on adverse attitudinal and behavioral key issues pertaining to the above questions, and offer theoretically
outcomes for targeted employees1 (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010). grounded propositions that set the agenda for the next decade of re-
A less well-understood, but critical, perspective regards the search (see Fig. 1).

E-mail address: payals@wharton.upenn.edu.

1
As examples, targeted employees have lowered self-efficacy, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction; and increased somatic complaints, counterproductive work behaviors,
withdrawal behaviors, and turnover intentions (Duffy et al., 2002; Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon, 2006; Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Rubenstein, & Song, 2013; Lim, Cortina,
& Magley, 2008; Mackey, Frieder, Brees, & Martinko, 2017; Penney & Spector, 2005; Sakurai, Jex, & Gillespie, 2011; Tepper, 2007).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.002
Received 3 February 2017; Received in revised form 8 December 2017; Accepted 9 December 2017
1048-9843/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Sharma, P.N., The Leadership Quarterly (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.002
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

PROPOSED THEORETICAL MODEL within an organization's control (including its culture, structure, human
resource practices, and rewards systems).
Cultures of
stress, anxiety Literature review and organizational context typology
and outcomes at
any cost P1a-b To conduct a systematic literature review, I identified relevant
studies in three ways: a manual scan of leading management and psy-
Cooperative
P2a-b chology journals, as well as journals in related fields2; a comprehensive
goals and power Leader web-based search of relevant terms (e.g., abusive supervision, social
asymmetries workplace undermining, incivility, bullying, and destructive leadership, see
aggression Hershcovis, 2011) using several electronic databases (e.g., Business
P3
Complementary Source Premier, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar); and, a
pairing of leaders scan of reference lists from the articles identified through these first two
and employees methods. While the phrase “abusive supervision” explicitly references
P4 the leader, I used the terms “leader,” “manager,” and/or “supervisor” in
conjunction with other more generalized workplace aggression con-
Team-building, cross- structs (e.g., social undermining) to identify only those studies that
cutting assignments and P5a-b P7 focus on leader actions.
P6
rewarding competition I then manually examined each article identified to determine if its
with a common enemy
content coincided with seven organizational context components used
by Porter and McLaughlin (2006) in their review of the leadership lit-
Interventions by
erature from 1990 to 2005. Specifically, the authors examined the
Resource Reciprocal, observers
scarcity and sequential and
nature and extent of attention paid by scholars to the organizational
crises pooled task context as a factor affecting leader behaviors and effectiveness. Their
interdependence categories include: (1) culture/climate; (2) goals/purposes; (3) people/
composition; (4) processes; (5) state/condition; (6) structure; and (7)
Fig. 1. Proposed theoretical model.
time. When describing their selection process and inclusion criteria for
research, importantly, Porter and McLaughlin explained: “organiza-
tional context variables do NOT include elements pertaining strictly to
In doing so, my review offers two contributions. First, I shift focus the individual such as personality traits, gender, intentions and atti-
from understanding relational (e.g., relationship quality) or social (e.g., tudes” (2006: 561). Following this, and as illustrated by Table 1, my
power dynamics) contexts of employee-directed leader aggression (cf. review focuses on approximately 35 conceptual papers and/or em-
Hershcovis & Reich, 2013) to the role of the organizational context. pirical studies.
Extant theorizing and empirical evidence reflect how leadership is The authors further noted that there is lack of consensus regarding
embedded in, and socially constructed from, context, and that context what components or characteristics constitute organizational context. I
can both facilitate and impede individual behaviors (Cappelli & Sherer, draw upon their typology, however, and situate my agenda for future
1991; Mowday & Sutton, 1993). The well-known formula that behavior research in its categories, for several reasons. First, their work provides
is a function of both person and environment (Lewin, 1936) ad- the most recent summary and synthesis of leadership × context studies.
ditionally highlights the importance of understanding situational fac- Other taxonomies of situations exist but are less focused on leadership
tors in management phenomena. Yet the organizational context con- dynamics (for example—the Situational-Eight DIAMONDS, which as-
stitutes a lesser understood domain within leader workplace aggression sesses psychologically important and meaningful characteristics of si-
dynamics, especially from an antecedent-based perspective, as con- tuations: Duty, Intellect, Adversity, Mating, pOsitivity, Negativity,
sequences for individuals, dyads and groups are more often examined in Deception and Sociality, see Rauthmann et al., 2014). Second, although
studies (for reviews, see Schilpzand, De Pater, & Erez, 2014; Tepper, Porter and McLaughlin (2006) incorporated findings regarding positive
Simon, & Park, 2017). As a result, this review expands our under- leader behaviors such as charismatic and transformational leadership,
standing of the nomological network of leader workplace aggression by the leader workplace aggression literature has flourished in the last
highlighting how organizational characteristics can shape the occur- decade (cf. Tepper et al., 2017). Thus there is a conceptual imperative
rence, impact, and prevention of such behaviors. to now use their typology to summarize studies published since 2006.
Second, and relatedly, I turn the spotlight on accountability at the Third, they offer both breadth and depth of topics in their discussion,
organizational level of analysis for the quality of the work environment including by subsuming topics referred to in other organizational con-
in which leaders and employees are situated (Crawford, 2001). The text frameworks (e.g., Osborn et al., 2002; Tosi, 1991). For example,
onus of responsibility for behaving in positive ways ultimately lies with scholars have previously identified the importance of situational
leaders themselves, yet individual differences can exist that lower the strength, or “implicit or explicit cues provided by external entities
likelihood that leaders will not mistreat their employees (cf. Krasikova,
Green, & LeBreton, 2013; Tepper et al., 2017). Employees who are
2
mistreated by their leaders are often powerless, for reasons such as Consistent with Porter and McLaughlin (2006), I conducted my literature search as
follows. First, I searched for articles in domestic outlets of: Academy of Management
resource dependency on their aggressors, so may struggle to manage
Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Ap-
situations on their own (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Tepper, Moss, plied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, The Leadership
Lockhart, & Carr, 2007). Some mistreated employees will hold their Quarterly, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Organization Science, and
organizations partly responsible for their leaders' aggressive behaviors, Personnel Psychology. I then reviewed articles from international and sociological outlets
and engage in organizational-directed deviance as a result (see Bowling of: Journal of Management Studies, British Journal of Management, Work and Organizational
Psychology, Organization Studies, Journal of International Business, Management International
& Michel, 2011; Shoss, Eisenberger, Restubog, & Zagenczyk, 2013;
Review, Human Relations, American Sociological Review, American Journal of Sociology,
Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008). This review Social Science Quarterly, and Journal of Social Issues. Finally, to be as expansive as possible,
therefore helps inform scholarly and practical understanding of those I also added outlets of: Human Resource Management Review, Journal of Business Ethics,
precipitating factors of leader workplace aggression which may lie Journal of Business Psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, and
Work and Stress. Altogether, my review spans 26 journals.

2
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Summary of literature search.

Category Articles

1. Culture/climate (4) • Kiewitz, Restubog, Shoss, Garica & Tang (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2016)
• Mawritz, Dust & Resick (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2014)
• Mumford, Gessner, Connelly, Connor & Clifton (Leadership Quarterly, 1993)
• Restubog, Scott & Zagenczyk (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011)
2. Goals/purpose (4) • Lian, Brown, Ferris, Liang, Keeping, & Morrison (Academy of Management Journal, 2014)
• Mawritz, Folger & Latham (Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2014)
• Walter, Lam, van der Vegt, Huang & Miao (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2015)
• Wee, Liao, Liu & Liu (Academy of Management Journal, 2017)
3. People/composition (9) • Henle & Gross (Journal of Business Ethics, 2014)
• Keeves, Westphal, & McDonald (Administrative Science Quarterly, 2017)
• Lian, Ferris & Brown (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2012)
• Liang, Lian, Brown, Ferris, Hanig, & Keeping (Academy of Management Journal, 2016)
• Liu, Kwa, Wu & Wu (Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2010)
• Mawritz, Greenbaum, Butts & Graham (Academy of Management Journal, 2017)
• Tepper, Moss & Duffy (Academy of Management Journal, 2011)
• Thoroughgood, Hunter & Sawyer (Journal of Business Ethics, 2011)
• Wang, Harms & Mackey (Journal of Business Ethics, 2015)
4. Processes (10) • Aryee, Chen, Sun & Debrah (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007)
• Butts, Becker & Boswell (Academy of Management Journal, 2015)
• Collins & Jackson (Leadership Quarterly, 2015)
• Hoobler & Brass (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006)
• Hoobler & Hu (Leadership Quarterly, 2013)
• Rafferty, Restubog & Jimmieson (Work and Stress, 2010)
• Salin (Human Relations, 2003)
• Samnani & Singh (Human Relations, 2014)
• Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert (Personnel Psychology, 2006)
• Thirlwall (Journal of Management and Organization, 2015)
5. State/condition (2) • Neves (Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2014)
• Thau, Bennett, Mitchell & Marrs (Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2009)
6. Structure (4) • Harvey, Treadway, Heames & Duke (Journal of Business Ethics, 2009)
• Liu, Liao & Loi (Academy of Management Journal, 2012)
• Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne & Marinova (Personnel Psychology, 2012)
• Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser (Leadership Quarterly, 2007)
7. Time (2) • Leiter, Laschinger, Day & Oore (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011)
• Lian, Ferris, Morrison, & Brown (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2014)
regarding the desirability of potential behaviors” through which orga- Supervisor social undermining
nizations can communicative relevant behavior and put pressure on
individuals (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010: 122). Porter and Social undermining refers to “behaviors intended to hinder, over
McLaughlin (2006) included several types of stimuli that are relevant to time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal re-
this influence process, such as hierarchical structure and goals in the lationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation” (Duffy,
organization. Ganster, & Pagon, 2002: 332). Unlike other workplace aggression
constructs, social undermining explicitly reflects deliberate, harmful
intent by offenders to negatively impact the outcomes listed for the
Conceptualizing leader workplace aggression targeted individual (cf. Hershcovis, 2011).

Over 150 empirical studies in the leadership and workplace ag-

gression domains have been published to date in leading management Incivility
and psychology journals. Drawing from this body of work, I next discuss
prior conceptualizations of leader workplace aggression. Importantly, Incivility is defined as low intensity deviant acts, such as rude and
although I do not intend to be exhaustive with these descriptions, I refer discourteous verbal and non-verbal behaviors enacted towards another
to the constructs listed below to illustrate a range of ways that leaders organizational member (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). This low level
can aggress against their employees. As part of my discussion, I also distinguishes incivility from other behaviors, as does its ambiguous
highlight how the constructs are similar or different from one another. intent to harm on the part of offenders (cf. Hershcovis, 2011).

Abusive supervision Bullying

Abusive supervision is defined as the “sustained display of hostile Bullying occurs when a person is repeatedly exposed to negative
verbal and non-verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, acts (e.g., constant abuse, offensive remarks or teasing, ridicule or so-
2007: 178). Typically, it has been conceptualized as continuous, rather cial exclusion) by leaders, subordinates, or coworkers (Einarsen, 2000).
than episodic, in nature (Ferris, Yan, Lim, Chen, & Fatimah, 2016; Scholars have also advanced a definition of leader bullying as “strate-
Hershcovis, 2011). However, other research has emerged suggesting gically selected tactics of influence by leaders designed to convey a
that abusive supervision varies on a daily basis (Barnes, Lucianetti, particular image and place targets in a submissive, powerless position
Bhave, & Christian, 2015) and more so within, rather than between, whereby they are more easily influenced and controlled, in order to
supervisors (see Johnson, Venus, Lanaj, Mao, & Chang, 2012). achieve personal and/or organizational objectives” (Ferris, Zinko,
Brouer, Buckley, & Harvey, 2007: 197).

3
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Destructive leadership may potentially intervene in instances of leader aggression (Category

#7, Time). Within each category, I offer a two-fold explanation that (1)
Destructive leadership has been conceptualized as systematic, voli- highlights the relevance of the chosen topic for leaders' work experi-
tional, and repeated hostile leader behaviors that violate organizational ences and aggression dynamics; and (2) draws on prior theoretical and
interests and/or sabotage employee outcomes such as motivation, well- empirical evidence in support of the proposition offered.
being, or job satisfaction (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007;
Krasikova et al., 2013). It has also been assessed using seven clusters of Category #1: culture/climate
behaviors ranging from micro-managing and over-controlling to
creating situations of misery and despair for employees (Shaw, Typology
Erickson, & Harvey, 2011). As these descriptions illustrate, destructive Culture refers to shared attitudes and perceptions in an organization
leadership is both similar to, and distinct from, other constructs via the that are based on a set of basic assumptions, fundamental norms and
influence process involved, duration, range, and hostile and hindering values; while climate “involves employees' perceptions of what the or-
nature of the leader's actions (cf. Schyns & Schilling, 2013; ganization is like in terms of practices, and procedures that are re-
Thoroughgood, Padilla, Hunter, & Tate, 2012). warded, supported and expected in an organization (Ostroff, Kinicki, &
Tamkins, 2003; Schneider, 1975). In their review, Porter and
Prior reviews McLaughlin (2006) included those articles that investigated types of
cultures, behavioral norms, and prevailing organizational values. I si-
A number of conceptual and meta-analytic reviews of leader milarly review studies from these areas.
workplace aggression studies have been conducted in the last decade,
typically focusing on behavior types in isolation of one another (such as Existing studies
bullying and abusive supervisor, cf. Bartlett II & Bartlett, 2011; Climate has been examined both as a predictor and as a moderator
Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013; Schyns & Schilling, 2013; in abusive supervision processes. For example, consistent with a tenant
Tepper, 2007). These reviews highlight how leader aggression can vary of social information processing theory that leaders enact behaviors
according to intent, frequency of occurrence, power or position of of- reflecting expectations from their environments (Lord & Smith, 1983;
fender, intensity, and/or impact on outcomes (e.g., Tepper & Henle, Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), a hostile organizational climate – or a type of
2011). However, the different behaviors discussed here also reflect affective climate that emerges when employees feel envious, untrusting,
some similarity by involving “employees' perceptions that some of their and aggressive towards others in an organization – predicted abusive
fundamental psychological needs are impeded by an authority figure” supervision (Mawritz, Dust, & Resick, 2014). Notably, this relationship
such as feeling competent, worthy, valued and having status in orga- was weaker when leader conscientiousness was high – indicative of
nizations (Mayer, Thau, Workman, Van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2012: 24). hardworking and self-disciplined tendencies (see Costa & McCrae,
Because there has been caution regarding construct proliferation as 1992). Second, a climate of fear as reported by employees – which in-
well (cf. Hershcovis, 2011), I use the phrase “leader workplace ag- volves a generalized feeling of apprehension in the workplace, re-
gression” in my review. In doing so, I follow the lead of prior con- flecting negative emotions in organizational members such as anxiety
ceptualizations of workplace aggression as a psychological form of (Ashkanasy & Nicholson, 2003) – strengthened an indirect relationship
mistreatment that involves negative acts perpetrated against organiza- between abusive supervision and employee defensive silence via em-
tional members, with the intent to harm and which targeted parties are ployee fear, attributed to approach or avoidance tendencies in em-
motivated to avoid (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Neuman & Baron, 2005). As ployees (Carver, 2001; Gray, 1981; Kiewitz, Restubog, Shoss, Garcia, &
I will later acknowledge in the discussion, however, there are oppor- Tang, 2016).
tunities for forthcoming research to consider the juncture of the dif- Drawing on the person-situation interactional model, and using a
ferent forms of leader workplace aggression with organizational char- simulation exercise where student participants assumed the role of re-
acteristics. gional sales manager completing various “in-basket” tasks, Mumford,
Gessner, Connelly, O'Connor, and Clifton (1993) demonstrated that
Contextualizing leader workplace aggression participants were less likely to make decisions that harmed others un-
less an external authority figure indicated that doing so could be jus-
In the sections that follow, I review and synthesize prior leader tified in an organization. Using theories of reasoned action and planned
workplace aggression × organizational context findings, identify un- behavior (suggesting that perceived norms directly influence intentions
resolved research questions, and offer theoretically grounded proposi- to engage in a behavior (see Azjen, 1991; Fishbein & Azjen, 1975),
tions for future work. Although some of the research I review may Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, 2011 showed that abusive supervision
overlap across categories from the Porter and McLaughlin (2006) ty- was predicted by leader-reported aggressive norms (Douglas &
pology (given multiple perspectives may be subsumed within particular Martinko, 2001), referring to the extent to which organizations reward
work), I place extant studies within one category – as guided by con- employees for being aggressive, confrontational and negative (and
ceptual fit and for theoretical parsimony. In addition, where noted, I abusive supervision mediated a relationship between the norms and
advance and extend the categories by incorporating studies that are employee psychological distress).
conceptually compelling, or practically relevant, to understanding Taken together, extant research suggests that organizational cli-
workplace aggression and leader-follower dynamics. mate, signals from senior-level leaders, and norms promote leader
Notably, the theoretical propositions I offer for guiding future work workplace aggression directed towards employees. In addition, climate
are thematically consistent with salient roles and responsibilities that can exacerbate the harmful effects of leaders mistreating their em-
characterize leadership (e.g., Yukl, 1989, 2001) and with the practical ployees.
realities of contemporary organizational life. Specifically, I highlight:
cultures of stress, anxiety and a focus on outcome-at-any-cost (Category Future directions
#1, Culture/climate); goals, power dynamics and employee expertise To complement, and extend, the above pattern of findings, a critical,
(Category #2, Goals/purpose); resolving an apparent paradox regarding and timely, area of inquiry regards understanding how the impact of
employee proactivity (Category #3, People/composition); faultlines adverse cultures or climates on leaders can be alleviated. Although a
which can emerge in work groups (Category #4, Processes); resource range of cultures can exist in contemporary settings, leaders face unique
scarcity and crises (Category #5, State/condition); different types of task pressures as part of their role responsibilities including managing lay-
interdependence (Category #6, Structure); and the role of observers who offs, downsizing, and work schedule and technology changes. As a

4
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

result, leaders are likely to experience cultures involving stress or an- dynamics.
xiety norms, as well as a focus on achieving outcomes at any cost
(Hambrick, Finkelstein, & Mooney, 2005; Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, Existing studies
2007; Lovelace, Manz, & Alves, 2007; Salin, 2003). Goals are indicative of states an individual seeks to either attain or
First, the phrase stress is generally used by scholars to refer to avoid (Levin & Edelstein, 2009). Goal accomplishment in particular is a
“conditions or events in the situation; the person's reaction to the si- key component of a leader's job role (Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Rauch &
tuation; or the relationship between the person and situation” (Bliese, Behling, 1984). Consistent with this perspective, Mawritz, Folger, and
Edwards, & Sonnentag, 2017: 2). Prior empirical evidence at the group Latham (2014) drew on the cognitive theory of stress and found that
and individual levels indicates that leaders who experience workplace exceedingly difficult job goals assigned to supervisors predicted their
stressors, such as interpersonal conflict or resource constraints, are abusive behavior, as mediated by supervisor hindrance stress, anger
more likely to engage in aggressive behaviors (Burton, Hoobler, & and anxiety. According to Lian, Brown, Ferris, Liang, Keeping, and
Scheuer, 2012; Harms, Credé, Tynan, Leon, & Jeung, 2016; Hershcovis Morrison (2014), and drawing on a self-control framework, abusive
et al., 2007; Jenkins, Zapf, Winefield, & Sarris, 2012). Second, research supervision and aggression by employees against leaders were more
suggests that norms can exist in organizations which dictate leaders strongly associated when employees (1) were low in self-control capa-
working productively at all costs (Ferris et al., 2007), and even valuing city – referring to individual differences in the ability to restrain re-
toughness in organizational members to achieve desirable ends for the sponses not aligned with one's best interests – and (2) perceived their
organization (termed bottom line mentality, see Greenbaum, Mawritz, leaders to be low in coercive power – reflecting the leader's power to
& Eissa, 2012). Such norms likely would run likely counter to leaders punish aggressing employees.
functioning within reasonable work-life boundaries, engaging in tactics Also, Walter, Lam, van der Vegt, Huang, and Miao (2015) drew on
which reduce their burnout, and building positive relationships with moral exclusion theory and found that employee performance (as per-
subordinates. ceived by the leader) was negatively linked with abusive supervision
While stress or anxiety and outcome-at-any cost cultures are a likely when there was a high level of outcome dependency for the leader. This
deterrent to fewer incidents of leader workplace aggression, the con- dependency occurs when a leader perceives an employee's contribu-
comitant practical reality is that organizations cannot necessarily re- tions influence his/her outcomes – for example, achieving work goals
duce stressful stimuli for leaders, or easily change the pressures em- and receiving rewards, and recognition. Perceived employee perfor-
bedded in their work settings (Hannah, Uhl-Bien, Avolio, & Cavarretta, mance positively and indirectly was related to subsequent objective
2009; Sharma & Pearsall, 2016; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001). However, employee performance through abusive supervision under conditions of
therein lies an imperative for organizations to invest in resources that higher outcome dependency for the leader as well. In other, related
can help cultivate and sustain their leaders' health and well-being in the research, Wee, Liao, Liu, and Liu (2017) referred to power dependency
face of pressures, and gradually introduce improvements to unhealthy theory and showed that when a targeted employee engaged in tactics to
work norms. Empirically, support at the organizational level (i.e., from increase an abusive leader's dependence on him/her (termed approach
senior-level leaders) and engaging in exercise have been shown to al- balancing operations), this resulted in reduced future abuse and an
leviate the negative effects of stress for leaders, again both individually increase in the leader's attempts to reconcile the relationship.
and in groups (Burton et al., 2012; Sharma & Pearsall, 2016). Building The prior work discussed highlights the important roles that goal,
on such findings, and how senior-level leaders are known to set the tone power-based, and outcome-related factors can play in determining the
in their organizations (Bandura, 1977), future research should consider occurrence and impact of leader workplace aggression.
how values regarding leader mental well-being and physical health can
be cultivated. As examples, this could take the form of senior-level Future directions
leaders modeling practices and use of organizational resources to em- Building on this body of research, I propose that the theory of goal
phasize leader self-care, self-compassion, mindfulness training, and interdependence (Deutsch, 1949) and related empirical findings can
goal-setting programs (Brendel, Hankerson, Byun, & Cunningham, help predict leaders aggressing against employees. When cooperative
2016; Good et al., 2016; Greenfield, 2017; Levinson, 1996; Liang et al., goals exist, individuals are likely to help one another due to the belief
2016; Neff, 2016; Parzefall & Salin, 2010; Quick, 1979; Weller, 2017). that their goals are positively related; while in competitive goal set-
Accordingly, I propose: tings, individuals believe their goals are negatively related, which
weakens relationships (Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983). Such
Proposition 1a. A positive relationship between cultures of stress,
patterns suggest the importance of organizations ensuring that leader-
anxiety or achieving outcomes-at-any-cost and leader workplace
employee goals are appropriately intertwined in order to promote
aggression may be alleviated through senior-level leaders' engaging in
supportive interactions, and reduce leader aggression. Indeed, as noted
practices focused on mind-body health, thus setting a tone focused on
by Hershcovis and colleagues, “when one is dependent on another to
wellness for other leaders.
complete work tasks, it is important to maintain a positive relationship
Proposition 1b. Organizational use of resources devoted to cultivating so that performance is not adversely affected” (2012: 5).
preventative measures regarding leader burnout may reduce the By contrast, those in power are more likely to engage in behaviors in
likelihood that stress, anxiety, or outcome-at-any-cost cultures will line with their own goals and to mistreat others (Fast, Halevy, &
promote leader workplace aggression. Galinsky, 2011; Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist,
2008; Vredenburgh & Brender, 1998). Organizations are thus well-
served to structure leader goals in ways that promote power asym-
Category #2: goals/purpose metry, where the leader is more dependent on his/her employees for
goal achievement – rather than the typical characterization of leader-
Typology follower relationships as an employee being more dependent on his/her
The second category includes goals, strategies, and missions of in- leader (see Hollander & Offermann, 1990). More broadly, according to
dividuals, groups, and organizational units. Porter and McLaughlin a “power of the weak” idea (Mechanic, 1962), increasing a stronger
(2006) reviewed articles that investigated group goals, leader power party's dependence on a less powerful individual can render a power
motivation, and the role of goals in contributing to leader emergence imbalance less salient. Empirical evidence suggests that employees can
and effectiveness. I similarly include articles on topics of leader goals form coalitions with others in the organization (Casciaro & Piskorski,
and power, and also incorporate outcome dependency – given its re- 2005) and having unique expertise – as was the case when French to-
levance for power-based dynamics inherent to leader-follower bacco workers improved their power in a factory setting by not

5
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

allowing managers to have access to their machinery knowledge personality. According to this theory, certain individual characteristics
(Crozier, 1964). can elicit hostile and aggressive responses from potential offenders
Modern organizations can simultaneously encourage cooperative (Curtis, 1974) – including due to “personality driven attitudes, emo-
goals and increase leader dependency on employees by recognizing and tions or behaviors that induce tension and conflict” (Henle & Gross,
utilizing employee expertise (Mechanic, 1962; Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2014: 463). Empirically, Wang and colleagues (2015) demonstrated
2010). Specifically, goals can be set that are consistent with those of a that employees high in neuroticism or low in conscientiousness re-
learning organization – where information exchange, knowledge ported higher levels of abusive supervision partially through their self-
sharing and communication are valued in top down, bottom up and reported deleterious job performance. The authors explained that lea-
lateral ways (Senge, 1990). Ideally, accountability for such behaviors ders may perceive employees who are neurotic as demanding, threa-
can be embedded in leader job descriptions and written into an orga- tening, and having an adverse effect on the group's processes; thus, may
nization's goals, mission or strategy. Integrating these ideas together, I become frustrated or annoyed by employees who are low in con-
thus propose: scientiousness. Similarly, Henle and Gross (2014) found that emotional
stability (reflecting aspects such as an individual's ability to withstand
Proposition 2a. To reduce leader workplace aggression, organizations
stress, have a positive outlook on life, and being calm, secure and re-
should (a) structure cooperative goals for leaders and their employees;
laxed, see Costa & McCrae, 1985) and conscientiousness negatively
(b) create power asymmetries between these parties; and (c) align
predicted abusive supervision, as mediated by negative emotions.
leader goals – such as task accomplishment and performance – with
In the performance domain, Liang et al. (2016) referred to a self-
valuing employee behaviors of information exchange and knowledge
control framework and demonstrated a negative relationship between
sharing across hierarchical levels.
employee performance and leader hostility towards the employee was
Proposition 2b. In addition, to lower likelihood that leaders will stronger when leaders had high hostile attribution bias (or a tendency
aggress, organizations can promote leader accountability for goal to attribute hostile intent to others' actions, even when the intent is not
accomplishment through promotion and career advancement readily apparent, Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Relatedly, Tepper, Moss,
decisions which support and reflect valuing employee expertise. and Duffy (2011) found that leader perceptions of relationship conflict
and employee performance mediated the relationship between per-
ceived deep-level dissimilarity and abusive supervision. The authors
Category #3: people/composition surmised that low-performing employees could be perceived as threa-
tening to leaders' own reputation and ability to accomplish work –
Typology hence such employees would become targets of leaders' hostility. In
The third category refers to demographic characteristics or varying addition, the indirect effect of perceived deep-level dissimilarity on
capabilities of people or groups in organizations. Porter and abusive supervision through relationship conflict was stronger when
McLaughlin (2006) discussed articles on gender issues and hetero- employee performance was low because some employee “adversaries
geneity at different levels of analyses. I similarly review gender-focused are perceived to deserve fair treatment when they are good (‘higher’)
research; and also extrapolate to include findings from three sub-cate- performers” (Tepper et al., 2011: 284). As another example, Mawritz,
gories of employee individual differences, which are important for Greenbaum, Butts, and Graham (2017) drew on self-regulatory theory
leaders managing today's workforce: (1) personality (demographic and found that when employee performance was high, an indirect effect
characteristics); (2) performance (employee capabilities); and (3) cul- of employee deviance on abusive supervision through leader self-reg-
tural values (per the changing composition of workers – as well as in ulation impairment was stronger. This finding was likely due to how the
response to a recent call to incorporate diversity and leadership per- employee deviance × high performance intersection provided leaders
spectives and theories together, cf. Chin, 2010). with inconsistent behavioral information regarding the employee's
utility to the leader and organization, hence inducing difficulty for the
Existing studies leader to self-regulate and constrain his/her abusive tendencies.
First, Keeves, Westphal, and McDonald (2017) found that in- Fourth, due to the ongoing globalization of the workforce, there is
gratiating managers (or the deliberate use of flattery or ‘other en- increasing variance in employee cultural values that managers may
hancement,’ as well as opinion conformity to strengthen the relation- encounter as part their organization's context in which they are si-
ship with a target individual) were likely to develop feelings of tuated; and which may determine how employees are affected by leader
resentment towards the company CEO especially when s/he was a ra- workplace aggression (Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, & House,
cial minority or a woman – due to managers perceiving the CEO as a 2006). As one example, Lian, Ferris, and Brown (2012) found that
higher-status out-group member. In turn, feelings of resentment trig- employee power distance – or how individuals perceive and react to
gered social undermining by top managers of the CEO. The authors authority – such that high power distance individuals are more likely to
explained how (1) ingratiation can violate managers' prevailing ideals respect, defer to, and trust their leaders – (see Kirkman, Chen, Farh,
of authenticity, autonomy, and meritocracy and pose a threat to their Chen, & Lowe, 2009; Sully de Luque & Sommer, 2000) (1) strengthened
positive self-regard; and (2) “attribution biases can cause the ingratiator the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinate inter-
to externalize blame for the esteem-threatening behaviors” to the CEO personal deviance, drawing on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977);
(Keeves et al., 2017: 3). Also, Thoroughgood and colleagues demon- and (2) weakened the relationship between abusive supervision and
strated that in climates intolerant of aversive leadership – referring to employee ratings of leader interpersonal justice. Additionally, Liu,
leaders relying on coercive power through use of intimidation tactics Kwong Kwan, Wu, and Wu (2010) demonstrated that low employee
and reprimand (Pearce & Sims, 2002) – “female leaders who break the traditionality (i.e., the degree to which individuals uphold traditional
rules are perceived more aversively than their male counterparts when values, Schwartz, 1992 – for example, traditional Chinese values of
their rule-breaking is linked to negative organizational performance” male domination and a general sense of powerlessness) strengthened
(2011: 662) – due to employees' likely attributing the financial per- relationships between (1) abusive supervision and employee revenge
formance to female leaders' incompetence, consistent with societal cognitions; and (2) abusive supervision and leader-directed deviance.
stereotypes regarding gender and leadership. Further, when financial Revenge cognitions mediated the abusive supervision × employee
performance was negative, employees reported higher whistle-blowing traditionality interaction on deviance towards the leader as well, re-
intentions towards female, rather than male, aversive leaders. ferring to “thoughts of a victim about inflicting damage or injury on the
Second, workplace aggression scholars have drawn on victim pre- supervisor judged to be responsible for producing the harm” (Bradfield
cipitation theory and examined the predictor role of employee & Aquino, 1999; Liu et al., 2010: 836).

6
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Collectively, prior people/composition research suggests that em- of standardization or perceived fairness of policies. In their review,
ployee personality and performance can predict leader workplace ag- Porter and McLaughlin (2006) discussed articles pertaining to trans-
gression; and along with diversity and cultural values, can exacerbate formational leadership, governance, and total quality management
the effects of leaders' behaviors on employee outcomes or the effects of (TQM); formal communication processes; and procedural fairness of
different relational factors on leader behaviors. company policies as related to leadership dynamics. I similarly discuss
the role of task difficulty, communication processes, and human re-
Future directions source management policies including perceptions of fairness and
To supplement the above work, an important area of future inquiry compensation practices.
regards how organizations carry a responsibility to consider ‘fit’ be-
tween leader-employee demographics or capabilities when pairing their Existing studies
leaders and employees to work together (Krasikova et al., 2013; Tepper, First, Collins and Jackson (2015) demonstrated that during difficult
2007). performance tasks, lower levels of attentional resource capacity for
For example, due to increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity, leaders increased the adverse impact of leaders' pre-task negative
and ambiguity in today's business environment, it is difficult for orga- emotions on their ineffective self-regulation, leading to their higher
nizations and leaders to predict in advance what needs to be done post-task negative emotions and engaging in abusive supervision. The
(Bateman & Crant, 1993; Stewart, Courtright, & Manz, 2011). As such, authors referenced the neuro-cognitive model of self-regulation
there is a practical imperative for employees to engage in proactive (MacCoon, Wallace, & Newman, 2004) and suggested that some leaders
behaviors, or “anticipatory action that employees take to impact may be vulnerable to cognitive overload and stress in dynamic and
themselves and/or their environments” (Grant & Ashford, 2008: 8). demanding situations in which psychological resources are limited, and
Paradoxically, however, there is growing empirical evidence that some in turn, will respond by abusing their employees.
leaders will actually respond less positively – such as skeptically or with Second, Hoobler and Brass (2006) referred to displaced aggression
lower performance evaluations – due to negative attributions of these theory (Tedeschi & Norman, 1985) and demonstrated that (1) a positive
behaviors, or not sharing their employees' perspectives (Frese & Fay, relationship between leader reports of psychological contract violations
2001; Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009). Further, proactive behaviors can (such as feeling betrayed by one's organization, which can generate a
signal that a leader's influence is less needed (Manz & Sims Jr., 1980), sense of loss and injury for individuals, Rousseau, 1995) and abusive
and potentially induce a sense of threat to a leader's identity (Burris, supervision was more pronounced when leaders held high attribution
2012; Williams, 2014). Individuals are known to derogate sources of bias (as earlier mentioned, refers to an extrapunitive mentality where
threat by discrediting their validity (Branscombe & Wann, 1994; individuals tend to project blame onto others, Tedeschi & Felson, 1994);
Petriglieri, 2011; Sykes & Matza, 1957); so some leaders might in- and (2) in turn, family members of abused employees experienced so-
tentionally disparage proactive employees' reputations, work products, cial undermining in the form of negative affect and evaluations directed
and relationships with others in organizations (Duffy et al., 2002). towards them.
Theoretically, these possibilities can be situated in identity, follower- In another study, Hoobler and Hu (2013) drew on organizational
ship, or social interactionist perspectives (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; justice theory and demonstrated that leader perceptions of interactional
Stryker, 1987; Stryker & Burke, 2000; Sy, 2010; Tedeschi & Felson, injustice (or the interpersonal dimension of organizational fairness, see
1994); while empirically, there is evidence that high-performing em- Moorman, 1991; Tyler & Bies, 1989) were associated with abusive su-
ployees are likely to be targets of victimization or interpersonal pervision via leader state negative affect as the mediating mechanism in
harming in groups due to mechanisms including envy and social com- this process. Similarly, Rafferty, Restubog, and Jimmieson (2010) found
parison (Kim & Glomb, 2010; Lam, Van der Vegt, Walter, & Huang, that leaders' experienced interpersonal injustice (such as not being
2011). treated with kindness and consideration when decisions were made
Taken together, prior research suggests that organizations should about their jobs, see Colquitt, 2001) predicted abusive supervision (and
find ways to help resolve a potential discrepancy between their need for in turn, employees experienced psychological distress and insomnia).
employee proactivity and leader negative responses including aggres- The positive interactional injustice-abusive supervision relationship
sion. One approach can involve organizations mindfully pairing leaders was also stronger for leaders experiencing high levels of psychological
and employees together whose demographic backgrounds or pre- distress (including feeling fearful, see Derogatis, 1993). Tepper, Duffy,
ferences for varying capabilities are complementary (Grant, Gino, & Henle, and Lambert (2006) further demonstrated that leaders' percep-
Hofmann, 2011). In addition, organizations can host or encourage tions of procedural injustice predicted their abusive practices towards
leader training and development opportunities on topics such as emo- employees, as mediated by leaders' depression, which can be associated
tional intelligence to help leaders understand their own capabilities, with individuals' feeling powerless and engaging in deviant or ag-
perhaps driven by individual differences, as well as to help leaders feel gressive behavior to regain control, a sense of self-worth, and/or power
more valued and less threatened when their employees demonstrate (and this mediated relationship was stronger when employees were
personal initiative. I therefore propose: higher in negative affect).
In related research, Aryee, Chen, Sun, and Debrah (2007) demon-
Proposition 3. Organizations should seek to resolve the proactivity
strated that supervisors' perceptions of interactional justice and abusive
paradox by (a) understanding what level of employee proactivity is
supervision were more strongly associated for supervisors high (rather
desired in the work settings; (b) pairing employees and leaders together
than low) in authoritarian leadership style. The authors attributed their
in ways that are complementary with regard to demographics or
findings to displaced aggression and interactionist perspectives
varying capabilities; and (c) supporting training initiatives for leaders
(Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Tedeschi & Norman, 1985), given that for
to develop skills, such as becoming more self-aware, regarding their
leaders who desire asserting absolute authority and demanding un-
preferences and responses towards employee proactivity.
questionable compliance from subordinates, “the aversive experience of
interactional injustice creates a favorable situation for such individuals
Category #4: processes to satisfy their underlying need for control by engaging in abusive su-
pervision” (Aryee et al., 2007: 193).
Typology Also, Butts, Becker, and Boswell (2015) demonstrated that anger by
Processes in organizations include mode of governance; type(s) of employees was more likely to occur in response to electronic commu-
technology; task factors such as differentiation, complexity and ambi- nications that were negative in affective tone, when abusive supervision
guity; human resource management (HRM) policies; as well as degree was high and the communication originated from supervisors. The

7
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

authors explained their findings by referring to social cognitive theory, such intra-organizational competition, however, could be that leaders
which suggests that individuals develop relational schemas for knowing would be more likely to aggress towards others in the organization with
what to expect when interacting with others and that these schemas whom their groups are competing. I propose:
help with interpreting incoming information (see Andersen & Chen,
Proposition 4. The use of human resource management policies and
2002; Baldwin, 1992; Horowitz, 1991). Employee experiences with
practices such as (1) team-building or team development training; (2)
leader workplace aggression can further be impacted by communica-
crosscutting task role assignments; and (3) rewarding competition
tion with their organizations via human resource professionals, as was
between a leader, his/her employees and a ‘common enemy’ will be
evidenced in research by Thirlwall (2015) which showed that organi-
negatively associated with leader workplace aggression towards the
zations can demonstrate inaction when employees report bullying.
leader's own employees, but may be positively associated with
Specifically, the findings suggest “sequestering” can occur with orga-
aggression towards those with whom the leader's group is competing.
nizations (1) reframing employee responses to help, such as by making
the problem seem trivial; (2) rejigging requests, such as by offering
temporary solutions; and (3) rebuffing the requests from employees, Category #5: state/condition
such as by ignoring concerns.
Finally, there is growing conceptual interest in compensation and Typology
reward systems, as important determinants of leader workplace ag- According to Porter and McLaughlin (2006), state/condition refers
gression. As examples, scholars have suggested that reward systems in to elements including availability of resources, an organization's fi-
organizations can incentivize behaviors including bullying if re- nancial and reputational health, and whether it is in a state of stability
muneration is provided to organizational members based on (1) relative or crisis. The authors reviewed articles on topics including resource
rankings comparing and contrasting performance differentials (that is, issues, organizational change, and crises, and I follow their lead.
bullying others and sabotaging their success can help improve one's
own ranking); or (2) team performance, such that an offender might Existing studies
aggress against weaker or lower performing members (Salin, 2003). First, Neves (2014) referred to the theory of displaced aggression
Weakened targets are also less likely to openly compete with offenders (Tedeschi & Norman, 1985) and found that as employee core self-eva-
who can gain rewards of higher levels of productivity and pay for luations (which subsume one's self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,
outperforming others (Samnani & Singh, 2014). neuroticism, and locus of control, see Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen,
Collectively, prior empirical evidence and conceptual thinking in- 2003) and coworker support (reflected through decreased care and
dicates that leader perceptions of task difficulty, fairness in the orga- concern from colleagues about one's well-being, and valuing a person's
nization, reward systems, and employee perceptions of communication contributions, see Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001) decreased,
can play important determinant and/or exacerbating roles in workplace abusive supervision increased, and this was especially pronounced in
aggression by leaders. downsized organizations. The authors suggested that organizational
downsizing is a particularly powerful trigger for leaders to abuse given
Future directions such circumstances enhance employee vulnerability and expose leaders
Leaders are often in charge of, or themselves interact in, groups to submissive employees who are even less likely to react due to un-
where differences can be pervasive and divide leaders and members certainty and potential threats as survivors. Other scholars have also
into subgroups or faultlines (Carton & Cummings, 2012; Lau & previously noted that restructuring and downsizing promote increased
Murnighan, 1998; Wageman, Gardner, & Mortensen, 2012). This pos- pressures and stress and lower thresholds for aggression for organiza-
sibility carries important implications for predicting leader aggression tional members (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Hoel & Cooper, 2001;
with regards to organizational processes, in at least three ways. McCarthy, 1996), “due to the elimination of layers and positions,
First, team-building in an organization can provide an important thereby compressing promotion opportunities, increasing workloads
antecedent to reducing leader workplace aggression. Such training can and internal competition, and lowering job security” (Salin, 2003: 19).
promote team identification or a superordinate identity, referring to Second, Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, and Marrs (2009) found that positive
perceptions by leaders and group members of one-ness with the team, relationships between abusive supervision and deviance towards the
“thereby obscuring differences and lowering comparative fit” which leader and organization were stronger when authoritarian management
“should thus decrease the likelihood that negative effects of diversity style was low, which was referred to as high situational uncertainty. To
occur” (Homan, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Van Knippenberg, Ilgen, & Van explain their findings, the authors drew on uncertainty management
Kleef, 2008: 1208). Indeed, the strength of members' attachment to the theory (UMT) – which suggests that uncertainty perceptions make the
group (i.e., team identification) may bind members together into a treatment that employees receive from their leaders more salient (Lind
powerful psychological entity that makes it less likely that leaders will & Van den Bos, 2002; Van den Bos & Lind, 2002). Together, these
abuse their own team members, either their employees or other leaders studies' findings highlight how downsizing as well as situational un-
(Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). certainty can increase the likelihood that leaders will mistreat em-
Second, forthcoming studies can explore organizational use of ployees.
crosscutting task role assignments, as a decategorization strategy, in
groups where faultlines exist. This approach has been shown to pro- Future directions
mote a productive inter-subgroup in which the leader is unified with An important avenue for future research regards resource con-
his/her employees and psychological distance and biases between straints, which are increasingly characteristic in contemporary organi-
members are reduced (Bezrukova, 2013; Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & zations (Jick & Murray, 1982; Lovelace et al., 2007). While resource
Dovidio, 1989; Rico, Sanchez-Manzanares, Antino, & Lau, 2012). Third, constraints are a previously identified antecedent of leader workplace
organizations can consider building in appropriate levels of competition aggression towards employees (due to frustration-aggression theore-
into pay-for-performance and reward structures for their leaders. Such tical explanations, see Fox & Spector, 1999), I advance, and extend, this
an approach can help create the perception that the leader and his/her prior work – and the focus thus far in my review on leader-directed
employees are fighting a ‘common enemy’ – such as other groups of aggression towards employees – by suggesting that leaders may aggress
leaders and employees – which acts like a regulatory strategy (Sagar, against one another as a means of protecting their own department and/
Lavallee, & Spray, 2007), promotes group solidarity (Collins, 2011), or employees when resources are scarce (versus when a munificence
and redirects focus towards a universal (as opposed to intra-group) exists). It is even possible that employees of the aggressing leaders
threat (Brewer, 1999; Tajfel, 1982). The potential downside or cost of would report having a high quality exchange with him/her and

8
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

positively evaluate his/her effectiveness (Bauer & Green, 1996; processes spanning different hierarchical levels. Cascading leadership
Scandura & Graen, 1984). research reflects understanding relationships between leaders at dif-
Conceptually, this possibility extends follower implicit leadership ferent hierarchical levels given the premise that lower-level leaders are
theories by furthering knowledge about employee perceptions of those linking pins – or individuals who have membership in multiple orga-
behaviors that characterize effective leadership (Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, nizational groups at different hierarchical levels, thereby positioning
Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, them to serve as concomitant recipients of influence (i.e., as followers)
2014). Prior scholars have theorized and empirically demonstrated a from senior leaders and as sources of influence (i.e., as leaders them-
positive relationship between resource provision to leaders facilitated selves) for their direct reports (Likert, 1961). Through this dual mem-
by their organizational contexts and employee perceptions of higher bership, leaders determine organizational effectiveness and the quality
quality LMX (along with leaders being able to lead more effectively due of employee work experience by facilitating information flow and re-
to higher levels of discretion and latitude, see Gibbons, 1992). Further, source provision and enhancing cooperation among personnel (Graen,
my theorizing can help (1) respond to recent calls for a more balanced Cashman, Ginsburg, & Schiemann, 1977).
perspective regarding benefits and costs of negative workplace inter- In work by Liu, Liao, and Loi (2012), the authors empirically as-
actions (Labianca & Brass, 2006; Lebel, 2016; Pierce & Aguinis, 2013); sessed cascading abusive supervision and showed that the positive re-
and (2) add to the burgeoning stream of empirical research focusing on lationship between senior-level (managers) and lower-level (super-
exploring positive outcomes in the wake of negative on-the-job events visors) abusive supervision was stronger when supervisors attributed
or exposure to adverse workplace stimuli (Harris & Kacmar, 2006; the abuse due to their managers having performance-promotion mo-
Knight & Eisenkraft, 2015). Importantly, while leaders should not de- tives (or mistreating subordinates to enhance their performance as the
liberately aggress in their work settings so as to be viewed more ef- intended objective), and was weaker when the attribution was due to
fectively by their employees, our conceptual understanding of em- injury-initiation motives (or purposely mistreating subordinates). Fur-
ployee mental models for leadership effectiveness can nevertheless be ther, a negative relationship between supervisor abusive supervision and
advanced by future research exploring these avenues. employee creativity was stronger when employees perceived their
Another possibility within this category regards how when an or- leader's motives as injury initiation and weaker when perceived as
ganization is in crisis, leaders may be more likely to mistreat their performance promotion. Second, Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, and
employees (Hannah et al., 2009). A crisis is defined as a situation that Marinova (2012) found that abusive manager behavior was positively
threatens high priority goals (severity) and which occurs suddenly with related to abusive supervisor behavior, which in turn was positively
little or no response time available (pressure, see Hermann, 1969). Such related to work group interpersonal deviance (and the supervisor
intensified time pressure can increase the risk of leader workplace ag- abuse—work group interpersonal deviance positive relationship was
gression due to “little time for the ‘niceties’ of business life” (Pearson, stronger when hostile climate was high).
Andersson, & Porath, 2000; Pearson & Porath, 2005; Salin, 2003: 1222). In addition to cascading approaches, in a conceptual paper ex-
Empirically, crises have been shown to turn leader attention inward, ploring antecedents to destructive leadership, Padilla, Hogan, and
making them less available and aware of their subordinates' needs. For Kaiser (2007) suggested that organizations missing a system of checks
example, when two planes collided and 583 lives were lost in the Te- and balances may inadvertently facilitate abuses of power by leaders.
nerife air disaster in the Canary Islands off the western coast of Africa, That is, while leadership requires autonomy, such as in decision-
scholars attributed this in part to a cognitive narrowing of attention by making, leader discretion can facilitate destructive behaviors especially
the airplane pilots and their individualistic behaviors in the cockpit in (1) senior-level positions where supervision is less; (2) younger and
(Weick, 1990). Although this research did not explicitly incorporate smaller organizations with limited governance mechanisms; and (3)
aggression by the leaders as an outcome, the findings are suggestive high growth or rapidly transforming industries (Hambrick &
that leaders in crises are less likely to behave in ways that are positively Abrahamson, 1995).
directed towards, and support, their employees. Extrapolating from As this theorizing and the findings of prior empirical studies suggest,
prior work, I propose: the occurrence of leader workplace aggression can be a function of
cascading processes, governance, growth and spatial factors in parti-
Proposition 5a. Resource scarcity will be positively associated with
cular organizations and industries.
between‑leader workplace aggression, and employees of the offending
leader may be more likely to (a) report higher quality exchange
Future directions
relationships with him/her, and (b) evaluate his/her effectiveness
Extending extant findings, researchers can further consider how
more positively.
factors of task interdependence and potentially relatedly, space or
Proposition 5b. In addition, and conversely, crises in organizations distance, can enhance or reduce the occurrence of aggressive leader
will be positively associated with leader workplace aggression towards behaviors in workplaces towards employees or other leaders. Task in-
employees. terdependence generally is known to foster positive relationships be-
tween organizational members, including helping behaviors (Allen,
Sargent, & Bradley, 2003) so by extension, could limit the likelihood of
Category #6: structure aggressive behaviors by leaders. Empirically, there is evidence that
when an offending individual has high formal or referent power and low
Typology task interdependence with a targeted individual, the targeted party is
The structure in an organization can refer to aspects including size, more likely to engage in deviance against the offender (Hershcovis,
shape, type, formalization or centralization, hierarchical levels, span of Reich, Parker, & Bozeman, 2012).
control, and spatial distance between leaders and employees. Porter Building on this, it is possible that different forms of task inter-
and McLaughlin (2006) reviewed articles pertaining to type of organi- dependence will precipitate leader aggression and even could be likely
zation, hierarchical level, spatial distance, task, and organizational to occur in opposing ways. According to Thompson (1967), (1) pooled
structures, which I likewise seek to explore here. interdependence refers to when individuals work independently, then
combine their work such that the end product reflects the sum of each
Existing studies person's contributions; (2) sequential interdependence is a classic as-
A few studies have drawn on theories of social learning, social in- sembly line division of labor in that each person has a particular skill to
formation processing and attribution (Bandura, 1977; Heider, 1958; use or task to perform which produces the output necessary for the
Mikula, 2003; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) to explore abusive supervision performance by the next unit – hence there is a level of one-way

9
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

dependency on others for inputs; and (3) reciprocal interdependence For example, Lian, Ferris, Morrison and Brown (2014) used a cross-
reflects a bi-directional relationship between parties such that the lagged panel and found support for a reciprocal relationship between
output of one person becomes the input of another in addition to an abusive supervision and organizational deviance when there was a 6-
exchange of inputs and outputs. The minimal level of interaction be- month lag between measurement occasions, but not when there was a
tween individuals in pooled and sequential task interdependence set- 20-month lag in a separate study (also, the effects of abusive super-
tings could dually suggest that leaders will be less likely to aggress vision on organizational deviance were moderated by subordinate self-
against employees, or more likely to do so due to lower investment in control capacity and intention to quit, such that the effects were only
the relationship, hence more willingness or ability, to attack. In re- significant when subordinates had low self-control capacity and turn-
ciprocal task interdependence situations, a higher level of aggression over intention). The authors referred to social interaction theories of
may emerge due to leaders simultaneously feeling pressure to perform aggression (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994) and victimization perspectives
at high levels and tethered to their employees, or leaders will not ag- (Aquino & Bradfield, 2000; Milam, Spitzmueller, & Penney, 2009) to
gress due to having to work with the employees in order to be successful explore how “subordinates may actually be the deviant causal actors,
at task accomplishment. whereas supervisors play the role of effected audiences, abusing the
Such ideas broadly reflect how since the early 1970s, management subordinates whose behaviors deviate from organizational norms”
scholars have explored contingency variables in leadership processes (Lian et al., 2014: 651).
and developed an ongoing body of theories and paradigms which to this There are also intervention studies that have examined leader
day, offer explanations for the moderating effects of these variables workplace aggression. Specifically, Leiter, Laschinger, Day, and Oore
(Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986). The contingency perspective explores (2011) used a CREW (i.e., Civility, Respect, and Engagement at Work)
situational influences to the relationship between an individual's lea- intervention at a 6-month time point and found greater improvements
dership style and effectiveness: under condition A, a particular lea- in the intervention groups than in the contrast groups for coworker
dership style is appropriate; while under condition B, a different style is civility, supervisor incivility, respect, cynicism, job satisfaction, man-
the better choice. Indeed, Fiedler (1967, 1978) proposed that effective agement trust, and absences. The intervention was at the organizational
group performance for employees depends on the proper match be- level and was operationalized through employees meeting with cow-
tween leadership style of the group leader and moderator factors in- orkers on a bi-weekly basis to work on interpersonal interactions with
cluding task structure. guidance from trained facilitators and use of structured exercises such
Conceptually, Harvey, Treadway, Heames, and Duke (2009) have as active listening, using metaphors in conflict resolution, and brain-
proposed that contextual antecedents to bullying can include when storming. This body of prior work highlights how time-based processes
employees are physically isolated from one another. Empirically, there can offer more theoretically nuanced explanations for how leader
is support for the roles of (1) physical distance in reducing the potential workplace aggression unfolds and impacts employees.
for leaders to directly influence their employees (e.g., Bass, 1985;
Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984), and (2) close situations Future directions
enhancing effects of transformational leadership on follower perfor- Future research can focus on incorporating other temporal pro-
mance (Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). While this work's focus was on cesses, to supplement existing work. For example, the very act of leader
more positive leader behaviors, and task interdependence and physical workplace aggression is an interactive event that involves multiple
distance are not identical features of organizational structures, I infer parties such as senior leaders, who may be in a unique position to fa-
from these findings to suggest the importance of exploring whether, and cilitate positive effects. Typically the observer literature has focused on
how, the different types of task interdependence can provoke leader negative responses, such as retaliation and anger against an aggressing
workplace aggression. Drawing together prior perspectives, I therefore leader (Reich & Hershcovis, 2015; Umphress, Simmons, Folger, Ren, &
propose competing propositions as follows: Bobocel, 2013). However, by drawing from a temporal lens and affec-
tive events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), I posit that there is the
Proposition 6. Situations involving reciprocal task interdependence
possibility that feedback loops can exist to reduce leader aggressive
between leaders and employees will be more positively or negatively
behaviors. For example, other employees or enior leaders who observe
associated with leader workplace aggression, as compared to situations
aggression might feel compassion as an appraisal response for targeted
involving sequential or pooled task interdependence.
parties, and offer support or speak up, thus potentially changing the
offending's leader trajectory and interrupting a spiral of aggression in
Category #7: time an organization. Indeed, an unanswered question remains as to whether
offenders may recognize the detrimental impact of their behaviors as a
Typology result of others' feedback, and will reduce their subsequent tendencies
Finally, Porter and McLaughlin (2006) discussed articles on time- to undermine (i.e., allowing for feedback loops; Edwards, 1992). Thus, I
dependent issues such as lasting effects of transformational leadership, propose:
and life cycle effects. I likewise include studies that reflect durational
Proposition 7. Interventions by observers, such as employees or senior-
effects of leadership, as well as cycles to organizational life that are
level leaders, will be negatively associated with leader workplace
important to be accounted for when seeking to understand leader
aggression, due to leaders experiencing compassion for targeted
workplace aggression (Porter & McLaughlin, 2006). This research re-
parties and engaging in behavioral outcomes, including offering
flects scholarly calls for work that considers the extent to which tem-
support and speaking up.
poral dynamics (Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001), such
as feedback loops (Edwards, 1992), operate in leadership processes.
Discussion
Existing studies
Notably, upon my initial search, there were well over two dozen I sought to summarize existing studies at the intersection of orga-
published leader workplace aggression articles that have used time- nizational context and leader workplace aggression within seven com-
lagged designs for their data collections. Of these, I include work here ponents of: (1) culture/climate; (2) goals/purposes; (3) people/com-
that (a) used time and related factors in theoretically grounded ways – position; (4) processes; (5) state/condition; (6) structure; and (7) time
such as via terms including “cycle,” “reciprocal,” “newcomer sociali- (Porter & McLaughlin, 2006). Through my systematic review, I identi-
zation,” and “intervention”; and (b) specifically referred to the orga- fied contextual factors that can help explain: (1) when, why and how is
nization and/or its context in some way. leader workplace aggression more likely to occur; (2) how the adverse

10
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

effects on employees may be amplified or reduced; and (3) how orga- 2007; Wageman & Hackman, 2010). My review offers some initial ideas
nizations can proactively manage their internal dynamics to prevent or to explain leader-to‑leader aggression, e.g., due to resource guarding
reduce incidences. and protection by leaders (Category #5, State/condition). Reflecting re-
ward and compensation practices, aggression between leaders could be
Theoretical implications for future research also more salient in settings that use ranking systems to compare and
contrast leaders at similar hierarchical levels, or who are doing related
My review provides several theoretical implications for future work, for promotion and/or advancement decisions. Importantly, un-
leader workplace aggression research. First, my use of a contextual lens like employee-directed aggression by leaders, which typically involves
starts to recognize organizations as influential actors themselves in status and power differences, between‑leader aggression requires a
leader workplace aggression phenomena. The role of the organizational different theoretical perspective that can be informed through an or-
context has been largely absent in both leadership and workplace ag- ganizational level of analysis perspective.
gression research with regard to theoretical explanations as well as Third, although I reviewed studies in separate categories and
research designs (Antonakis et al., 2004; Porter & McLaughlin, 2006). treated these as orthogonal dimensions of organizational context, the
More is also generally known about consequences, rather than ante- categories can work in conjunction with (1) one another; and (2) leader
cedents, of leader workplace aggression (cf. Hershcovis & Reich, 2013; and/or employee individual differences. As Porter and McLaughlin
Schilpzand et al., 2014; Tepper et al., 2017). noted in their original review, and referencing other work by Johns
Second and relatedly, my review highlights accountability by or- (2006) and Rousseau and Fried (2001), there is a “need to study the
ganizations for the quality of the work environments in which their effects of interactions among two or more components of that context”
employees are embedded. While leaders are ultimately responsible for and “the effect of organizational context will be more evident if we look
their actions, personality and other individual differences can reduce at bundles of contextual elements” (2006: 573). As an illustrative ex-
the likelihood of their engaging in behavioral changes (Krasikova et al., ample, goals (Category #2) and structure (Category #6) may intersect
2013). Employees themselves are often powerless to change situations with one another to determine leader behaviors. Further, following
involving leader aggression – hence look to their organizations for person-situation interaction theory, the categories are likely to interact
guidance and involvement (cf. Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Tepper, with individual leader differences (Mischel, 1977). In line with work by
2007; Tepper et al., 2017). Accordingly, my review helps inform those Dalal et al. (2015), personality strength can reduce or enhance varia-
precipitating factors to leader workplace aggression which are within an bility in behavior across situations within persons.
organization's control, such as its culture, structure, human resource
practices, and rewards systems. Senior-level leaders specifically, in- Conclusion
cluding the CEO and top management team members in an organiza-
tion, can manage these factors to translate to setting the tone in their The field is wide open in terms of moving towards a better under-
work settings. New leaders are even socialized in their organizations by standing of the organizational context × leader workplace aggression
observing how upper management behaves (including how they re- intersection. I hope that my review has provided a helpful roadmap for
spond to or justify others' aggressive actions, see Anand, Ashforth, & future researchers to follow (and build upon) in better theoretically and
Joshi, 2004; Bandura, 1977), highlighting the importance even further empirically understanding these important leader behaviors over the
of senior leadership roles and responsibilities. next decade. I eagerly anticipate future research that organizational
scholars will produce in this impactful arena.
State of the literature
Acknowledgement
There are several overarching conclusions about the current state of
the leader workplace aggression research that can be drawn, which Thank you to David Day and the two anonymous reviewers for their
inform ways of meaningfully moving the theoretical needle in future helpful feedback. I also thank Mary Mawritz, Lisa Marchiondo, Danielle
work. Three themes characterizing existing studies include: (1) the Tussing, and Bradley Kirkman for their review of earlier drafts of this
frequent examination of abusive supervision and its nomological net- maunscript.
work; (2) use of attribution, stress, and displaced aggression theories to
explain aggressive leader behaviors towards employees (e.g., Bowling & References
Michel, 2011; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Tedeschi & Norman, 1985);
and (3) exploration of “processes” (Category #4). Allen, B. C., Sargent, L. D., & Bradley, L. M. (2003). Differential effects of task and reward
To extend, and advance, extant research, other theoretical per- interdependence on perceived helping behavior, effort, and group performance. Small
Group Research, 34, 716–740.
spectives can be drawn on regarding when, why and how other forms of Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as usual: The acceptance and
leader workplace aggression besides abusive supervision might be perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 18,
likely to occur as a function of organizational context factors. As one 39–53.
Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A new
example, as discussed by DeRue and Ashford (2010), leadership iden- research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26, 645–663.
tity is co-constructed when individuals claim (i.e., assert one's own Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive
identity) and grant (i.e., actions to bestow identity on another party) theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in
identities as leaders or followers. If an employee therefore seeks to
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.
overtake the leadership role as a function of his/her own capabilities Antonakis, J., Schriesheim, C. A., Donovan, J. A., Gopalakrishna-Pillai, K., Pellegrini, E.
(Category #3, People/composition), some leaders could refuse to re- K., & Rossomme, J. L. (2004). Methods for studying leadership. In J. Antonakis, A. R.
Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). The nature of leadership (pp. 48–70). Thousand
ciprocate such “claiming” of the leadership identity with “granting,”
Oaks: Sage.
and instead try to deliberately sabotage the employee's work relation- Aquino, K., & Bradfield, M. (2000). Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role of
ships or successes through engaging in social undermining. situational factors and victim characteristics. Organization Science, 11, 525–537.
Further, while the majority of leader workplace aggression studies Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target's
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741.
have focused on dynamics involving the leader-employee dyad (like Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of
abusive supervision), between‑leader aggression remains an under- abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
explored area of management research. This is important to consider 191–201.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Nicholson, G. J. (2003). Climate of fear in organisational settings:
given organizations are increasingly relying on teams of leaders to ac- Construct definition, measurement and a test of theory. Australian Journal of
complish work goals and engage in decision-making (Day & Harrison,

11
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Psychology, 55(1), 24–29. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2,
Azjen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human 129–152.
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 547–559.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351.
International, Inc. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The social
Barnes, C. M., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D. P., & Christian, M. S. (2015). “You wouldn't like context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
me when I'm sleepy”: Leaders' sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit en- Processes, 101, 105–121.
gagement. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1419–1437. Edwards, J. R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organi-
Baron, R., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: zations. Academy of Management Review, 17, 238–274.
Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying in the workplace: A review of the
161–173. Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 379–401.
Bartlett, J. E., II, & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviors: A
review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 69–84. definition and conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207–216.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational be- and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5,
havior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118. 185–201.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of a leader-member exchange: A Employment Law Alliance (2007). America at work poll. Retrieved from http://www.
longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567. employmentlawalliance.com/.
Bezrukova, K. (2013). Understanding and addressing faultlines. Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leader-
Bliese, P. D., Edwards, J. R., & Sonnentag, S. (2017). Stress and well-being at work: A ship and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing
century of empirical trends reflecting theoretical and societal influences. Journal of approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership
Applied Psychology, 102, 389–402. Quarterly, 24, 858–881.
Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Why do you treat me badly? The role of attribu- Eschleman, K. J., Bowling, N. A., Michel, J. S., & Burns, G. N. (2014). Perceived intent of
tions regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates' responses to abusive supervision. supervisor as a moderator of the relationships between abusive supervision and
Work & Stress, 25, 309–320. counterproductive work behaviours. Work & Stress, 28, 362–375.
Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender like- Fast, N. J., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). The destructive nature of power without
ableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 391–394.
607–631. Ferris, D. L., Yan, M., Lim, V. K. G., Chen, Y., & Fatimah, S. (2016). An approach-
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of out- avoidance framework of workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 59,
group derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social 1777–1800.
Psychology, 24, 641–657. Ferris, G. R., Zinko, R., Brouer, R. L., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. G. (2007). Strategic
Brendel, W., Hankerson, S., Byun, S., & Cunningham, B. (2016). Cultivating leadership bullying as a supplementary, balanced perspective on destructive leadership. The
dharma: Measuring the impact of regular mindfulness practice on creativity, resi- Leadership Quarterly, 18, 195–206.
lience, tolerance for ambiguity, anxiety and stress. Journal of Management Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Development, 35, 1056–1078. Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: ingroup love or outgroup hate? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 59–112). New
Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. York: Academic Press.
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 851–875. theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Scheuer, M. L. (2012). Supervisor workplace stress and Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of
abusive supervision: The buffering effect of exercise. Journal of Business Psychology, Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931.
27, 271–279. Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work
Butts, M. M., Becker, W. J., & Boswell, W. R. (2015). Hot buttons and time sinks: The in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw, & R. I. Sutton (Eds.). Research in organizational
effects of electronic communication during nonwork time on emotions and work–- behavior (pp. 133–187). .
nonwork conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1–26. Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias:
Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: The need for a The benefits of re-categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
meso-level approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 55–110. 239–242.
Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2012). A theory of subgroups in work teams. Academy Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008).
of Management Review, 37, 441–470. Social power reduces the strength of the situation: Implications for creativity, con-
Carver, C. S. (2001). Affect and the functional bases of behavior: On the dimensional formity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450–1466.
structure of affective experience. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, Gibbons, P. T. (1992). Impacts of organizational evolution on leadership roles and be-
345–356. haviors. Human Relations, 45, 1–18.
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and con- Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy, M. K., ... Lazar, S.
straint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science W. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work: An integrative review. Journal of
Quarterly, 50, 167–199. Management, 42, 114–142.
Chin, J. L. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on diversity and leadership. American Graen, G., Cashman, J. F., Ginsburg, S., & Schiemann, W. (1977). Effects of linking-pin
Psychologist, 65, 150–156. quality on the quality of working life of lower participants. Administrative Science
Collins, M. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2015). A process model of self-regulation and leadership: Quarterly, 22, 491–504.
How attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 386–401. Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.
Collins, R. (2011). C-escalation and D-escalation: A theory of the time-dynamics of con- Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership
flict. American Sociological Review, 77, 1–20. advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54,
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct vali- 528–550.
dation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400. Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior:
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel
Psychological Assessment Resources. Psychology, 62, 31–55.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and Gray, J. A. (1981). A model for personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.). A model for personality
NEO five-factor (NEO-FFI) inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological (pp. 246–276). New York, NY: Springer.
Assessment Resources. Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an
Crawford, N. (2001). Organizational responses to bullying. In N. Tehrani (Ed.). Building a antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self-evaluations
culture of respect: Managing bullying at work (pp. 21–31). London: Taylor & Francis. and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 343–359.
Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Greenfield, R. (2017). The $100,000 anti-burnout program for CEOs. Retrieved from
Press. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-27/the-100-000-anti-burnout-
Curtis, L. A. (1974). Victim precipitation and violent crime. Social Problems, 21, 594–605. program-for-ceos.
Dalal, R. S., Meyer, R. D., Bradshaw, R. P., Green, J. P., Kelly, E. D., & Zhu, M. (2015). Hambrick, D. C., & Abrahamson, C. (1995). Assessing the amount of managerial discre-
Personality strength and situational influences on behavior: A conceptual review and tion in different industries: A multi-method approach. Academy of Management
research agenda. Journal of Management, 41, 261–287. Journal, 38, 1427–1441.
Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2005). Executive job demands: New
development. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 360–373. insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of
Derogatis, L. R. (1993). Brief symptom inventory: Administration scoring and procedures Management Review, 30, 472–491.
manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Hannah, S. T., Uhl-Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 897–919.
of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, Harms, P. D., Credé, M., Tynan, M., Leon, M., & Jeung, W. (2016). The Leadership
35, 627–647. Quarterly, 28, 178–194.

12
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a good thing: The curvilinear effect of cross-cultural, examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744–764.
leader-member exchange on stress. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 65–84. Knight, A. P., & Eisenkraft, N. (2015). Positive is usually good, negative is not always bad:
Harvey, M., Treadway, D., Heames, J. T., & Duke, A. (2009). Bullying in the 21st century The effects of group affect on social integration and task performance. Journal of
global organization: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 27–40. Applied Psychology, 100, 1214–1227.
Hattrup, K., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Learning about individual differences by taking Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A the-
situations seriously. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.). Individual differences and behavior in or- oretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39,
ganizations (pp. 507–547). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 1308–1338.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and
environments and bullying: Results of a large representative. Work & Stress, 21, negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management
220–242. Review, 31, 596–614.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley. Lam, C. K., Van der Vegt, G. S., Walter, F., & Huang, X. (2011). Harming high performers:
Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description A social comparison perspective on interpersonal harming in work teams. Journal of
questionnaire. In R. M. Stodgill, & A. E. Coons (Eds.). Leader behavior: Its description Applied Psychology, 96, 558–601.
and measurement (pp. 6–38). Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research Ohio State Lau, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compo-
University. sitional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23,
Henle, C. A., & Gross, M. A. (2014). What have I done to deserve this? Effects of employee 325–340.
personality and emotion on abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer
461–474. Publishing Company.
Hermann, C. F. (1969). Crisis in foreign policy: A simulation analysis. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Lebel, R. D. (2016). Moving beyond fight or flight: A contingent model of how anger and
Merrill. fear spark proactivity. Academy of Management Review, 42, 190–206.
Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying… oh my!”: A call to Leiter, M. P., Laschinger, H. K. S., Day, A., & Oore, D. G. (2011). The impact of civility
reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational interventions on employee social behavior, distress, and attitudes. Journal of Applied
Behavior, 32, 499–519. Psychology, 96, 1258–1274.
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace Levin, L. J., & Edelstein, R. S. (2009). Emotion and memory narrowing: A review and
aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perspectives. Journal goal-relevance approach. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 833–875.
of Organizational Behavior, 31, 24–44. Levinson, H. (1996). When executives burn out. (Harvard Business Review).
Hershcovis, M. S., & Reich, T. C. (2013). Integrating workplace aggression research: Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Relational, contextual, and method considerations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H., Keeping, L. M., & Morrison, R. (2014).
34, S26–S42. Abusive supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of
Hershcovis, M. S., Reich, T. C., Parker, S. K., & Bozeman, J. (2012). The relationship Management Journal, 57, 116–139.
between workplace aggression and target deviant behaviour: The moderating roles of Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate
power and task interdependence. Work & Stress, 26, 1–20. the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., ... Psychology, 97, 107–123.
Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., Morrison, R., & Brown, D. J. (2014). Blame it on the supervisor or
Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238. the subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organiza-
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Origins of bullying: Theoretical frameworks for ex- tional deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 651–664.
plaining workplace bullying. In N. Tehrani (Ed.). Building a culture of respect: Liang, L. H., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Hanig, S., & Keeping, L. M. (2016). Why
Managing bullying at work (pp. 3–19). London: Taylor & Francis. are abusive supervisors abusive? A dual-system self-control model. Academy of
Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations. Management Journal, 59, 1385–1406.
American Psychologist, 45, 179–189. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & Lim, S., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Personal and workgroup incivility: Impact
Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experi- on work and health outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 95–107.
ence, salience of intra-group differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of
Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1204–1222. uncertainty management. In B. M. Staw, & R. M. Kramer (Vol. Eds.), Research in
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as organizational behavior. Vol. 24. Research in organizational behavior (pp. 181–223).
displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hoobler, J. M., & Hu, J. (2013). A model of injustice, abusive supervision, and negative Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation
affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 256–269. of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of
Horowitz, M. J. (1991). Person schemas and maladaptive interpersonal patterns. Chicago: Management Journal, 55, 1187–1212.
University of Chicago Press. Liu, J., Kwong Kwan, H., Wu, L., & Wu, W. (2010). Abusive supervision and subordinate
Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader- supervisor-directed deviance: The moderating role of traditional values and the
member exchange, transformation and transactional leadership, and distance on mediating role of revenge cognitions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680–694. Psychology, 83, 835–856.
Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership re- Lord, R. G., & Smith, J. E. (1983). Theoretical, information processing, and situational
search. Academy of Management Review, 11, 88–102. factors affecting attribution theory models of organizational behavior. Academy of
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. J. (2006). In the eye of the Management Review, 8, 50–60.
beholder: Cross-cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of Lovelace, K. J., Manz, C. C., & Alves, J. C. (2007). Work stress and leadership develop-
Management Perspectives, 20, 67–90. ment: The role of self-leadership, shared leadership, physical fitness and flow in
Jenkins, M. F., Zapf, D., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2012). Bullying allegations from the managing demands and increasing job control. Human Resource Management Review,
accused bully's perspective. British Journal of Management, 23, 489–501. 17, 374–387.
Jick, T. D., & Murray, V. V. (1982). The management of hard times: Budget cutbacks in MacCoon, D. G., Wallace, J. F., & Newman, J. P. (2004). Self-regulation: The context-
public sector organizations. Organization Studies, 3, 141–169. appropriate allocation of attentional capacity to dominant and non-dominant cues. In
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of R. F. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation research (pp. 422–
Management Review, 31, 386–408. 444). New York: Guildford Press.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interdependence and inter- Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A
personal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theore- meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43, 1940–1965.
tical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A
53, 5–54. social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5, 361–367.
Johnson, R. E., Venus, M., Lanaj, K., Mao, C., & Chang, C. H. (2012). Leader identity as an Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive su-
antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and pervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S120–S137.
abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1262–1272. Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., & Resick, C. J. (2014). Hostile climate, abusive supervision,
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations and employee coping: Does conscientiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology,
scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331. 99, 737–747.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Wanberg, C., Rubenstein, A., & Song, Z. (2013). Support, under- Mawritz, M. B., Folger, R., & Latham, G. P. (2014). Supervisors' exceedingly difficult goals
mining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of and abusive supervision: The mediating effects of hindrance stress, anger and anxiety.
Management Journal, 56, 1104–1124. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 358–372.
Keeves, G. D., Westphal, J. D., & McDonald, M. L. (2017). Those closest wield the sharpest Mawritz, M. B., Greenbaum, R. L., Butts, M. B., & Graham, K. A. (2017). I just can't control
knife: How ingratiation leads to resentment and social undermining of the CEO. myself: A self-regulation perspective on the abuse of deviant employees. Academy of
Administrative Science Quarterly, 62, 484–523. Management Journal, 60, 1482–1503.
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Shoss, M. K., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Tang, R. L. (2016). Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A
Suffering in silence: Investigating the role of fear in the relationship between abusive trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325–357.
supervision and defensive silence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 731–742. Mayer, D. M., Thau, S., Workman, K. M., Van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2012). Leader
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Get smarty pants: Cognitive ability, personality and mistreatment, employee hostility, and deviant behaviors: Integrating self-uncertainty
victimization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 889–901. and thwarted needs perspectives on deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power Decision Processes, 117, 24–40.
distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, McCarthy, P. (1996). When the mask slips: Inappropriate coercion in organisations

13
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

undergoing restructuring. In P. McCarthy, M. Sheehan, & W. Wilkie (Eds.). Bullying: Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The
From backyard to boardroom (pp. 47–66). Alexandria: Millennium Books. role of contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees' re-
Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations. sponses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 349–364. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organi-
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational zation: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied
strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36, 121–140. Psychology, 86, 825–836.
Mikula, G. (2003). Testing an attribution-of-blame model of judgments of injustice. Rico, R., Sanchez-Manzanares, M., Antino, M., & Lau, D. (2012). Bridging team faultlines
European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 793–811. by combining task role assignment and goal structure strategies. Journal of Applied
Milam, A. C., Spitzmueller, C., & Penney, L. (2009). Investigating individual differences Psychology, 97, 407–420.
among targets of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contract in organizations: Understanding written and
58–69. unwritten agreements. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson, & N. S. Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing orga-
Endler (Eds.). Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology nizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 22, 1–13.
(pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sagar, S., Lavallee, D., & Spray, C. M. (2007). Why young elite athletes fear failure:
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational Consequences of failure. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 1171–1184.
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Sakurai, K., Jex, S. M., & Gillespie, M. (2011). Negative work-family spillover of affect
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855. due to workplace incivility. Japanese Association of Industrial/Organizational
Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and Psychology Journal, 25, 13–23.
groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195–229. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
Mumford, M. D., Gessner, T. L., Connelly, M. S., O'Connor, J. A., & Clifton, T. C. (1993). attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Leadership and destructive acts: Individual and situational influences. The Leadership Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining bullying: A review of enabling, motivating, and
Quarterly, 4, 115–147. participating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56,
Neff, K. D. (2016). Does self-compassion entail reduced self-judgment, isolation, and over- 1213–1232.
identification? A response to Muris, Otgaar, and Petrocchi (2016). Mindfulness, 7, Samnani, A.-K., & Singh, P. (2014). Performance-enhancing compensation practices and
791–797. employee productivity: The role of workplace bullying. Human Resource Management
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2005). Aggression in the workplace: A social-psychological Review, 24, 5–16.
perspective. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.). Counterproductive work behavior: Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member ex-
Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 13–40). Washington, DC: American change status on the effects of leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Psychological Association. 69, 428–436.
Neves, P. (2014). Taking it out on survivors: Submissive employees, downsizing, and Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2014). Workplace incivility: A review of the
abusive supervision. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37,
507–534. S57–S88.
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28,
moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of 447–479.
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 955–979. Schwartz, S. J. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and
Nielsen, M. B., Skogstad, A., Matthiesen, S. B., Glasø, L., Aasland, M. S., Notelaers, G., & empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Vol. Ed.), Advances in experimental social
Einarsen, S. (2009). Prevalence of workplace bullying in Norway: Comparisons across psychology. Vol. 25. Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). Orlando, FL:
time and estimation methods. European Journal of Work and Organizational Academic Press.
Psychology, 18, 81–101. Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis
Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of lea- of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 138–158.
dership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797–837. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A., & Tamkins, M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In W. York: Currency Doubleday.
C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Vol. Eds.), Industrial and organizational Sharma, P. N., & Pearsall, M. (2016). Leading under adversity: Interactive effects of acute
psychology: . Vol. 12. Handbook of psychology (pp. 565–593). New York: John Wiley & stressors and upper-level supportive leadership climate on lower-level supportive
Sons. leadership climate. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 856–868.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, Shaw, J. B., Erickson, A., & Harvey, M. (2011). A method for measuring destructive
susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, leadership and identifying types of destructive leaders in organizations. The
176–194. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 575–590.
Parzefall, M.-R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bul- Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming the
lying: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63, 761–780. organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,
effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, 158–168.
transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. (2011). Self-leadership: A multi-level
Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172–197. review. Journal of Management, 37, 185–222.
Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Porath, C. (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace in- Stryker, S. (1987). Identity theory: Developments and extensions. In K. Yardley, & T.
civility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 123–137. Honess (Eds.). Self and identity: Psychological perspectives (pp. 89–103). Chichester,
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of UK: Wiley.
incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academy of Management Executive, 19, Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory.
7–18. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284–297.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work Sully de Luque, M. F., & Sommer, S. M. (2000). The impact of culture on feedback-seeking
behavior: The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational behavior: An integrated model and propositions. Academy of Management Review, 25,
Behavior, 26, 777–796. 829–849.
Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure and
individual identities. Academy of Management Review, 36, 641–662. consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Decision Processes, 113, 73–84.
Journal of Management, 39, 313–338. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency.
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational mod- American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670.
erators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology,
Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 1–63. 33, 1–39.
Porter, L. W., & McLaughlin, G. B. (2006). Leadership and the organizational context. Like Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression and coercive actions.
the weather? The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 559–576. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.
Quick, J. C. (1979). Dyadic goal setting and role stress: A field study. Academy of Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B. R.
Management Journal, 22, 241–252. Schlenker (Ed.). The self and social life (pp. 293–322). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rafferty, A. E., Restubog, S. L. D., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Losing sleep: Examining the Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and
cascading effects of supervisors' experience of injustice on subordinates' psycholo- research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.
gical health. Work & Stress, 24, 36–55. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice,
Rauch, C. F., & Behling, O. (1984). Functionalism: Basis for an alternate approach to the victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123.
study of leadership. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart Tepper, B. J., & Henle, C. A. (2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs
(Eds.). Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of
leadership (pp. 45–62). New York: Pergamon Press. Organizational Behavior, 32, 487–498.
Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive
A., ... Funder, D. C. (2014). The situational eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major supervision and subordinates' organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 721–732.
107, 677–718. Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision:
Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2015). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and sub-
Psychology, 100, 203–215. ordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279–294.

14
P.N. Sharma The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision, Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. (2012). The changing ecology of teams: New
upward maintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 301–315.
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1169–1180. Wageman, R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). What makes teams of leaders leadable? In N.
Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Nohria, & R. Khurana (Eds.). Advancing leadership (pp. 475–506). Boston, MA:
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 123–152. Harvard Business School Press.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style Walter, F., Lam, C. K., van der Vegt, G., Huang, X., & Miao, Q. (2015). Abusive super-
moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An vision and subordinate performance: Instrumentality considerations in the emergence
uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human and consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100,
Decision Processes, 108, 79–92. 1056–1072.
Thirlwall, A. (2015). Organisational sequestering of workplace bullying: Adding insult to Wang, G., Harms, P. D., & Mackey, J. D. (2015). Does it take two to tangle? Subordinates'
injury. Journal of Management and Organization, 21, 145–158. perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 131,
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative 487–503.
theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Wee, E. X. M., Liao, H., Liu, D., & Liu, J. (2017). Moving from abuse to reconciliation: A
Thoroughgood, C. N., Hunter, S. T., & Sawyer, K. B. (2011). Bad apples, bad barrels, and power-dependency perspective on how and when a follower may triumph over
broken followers? An empirical examination of contextual influences on follower abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal (In press) http://amj.aom.org/
perceptions and reactions to aversive leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, content/early/2017/03/24/amj.2015.0866.abstract.
647–672. Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster.
Thoroughgood, C. N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W. (2012). The susceptible Journal of Management, 16, 571–593.
circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. The Leadership Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance
Quarterly, 23, 897–917. in an age of complexity. University of Michigan pressing problem seriesSan Francisco:
Tosi, H. L. (1991). The organization as a context for leadership theory: A multi-level Jossey-Bass.
approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 2, 205–228. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1989). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research
procedural justice. In J. Carroll (Ed.). Advances in applied social psychology: Business in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Weller, C. (2017). Johnson & Johnson just launched a $100,000 burnout prevention
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A bootcamp for CEOs. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/johnson-
review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83–104. johnson-ceos-burnt-out-2017-3.
Umphress, E. E., Simmons, A. L., Folger, R., Ren, R., & Bobocel, R. (2013). Observer Williams, M. J. (2014). Serving the self from the seat of power: Goals and threats predict
reactions to interpersonal injustice: The roles of perpetrator intent and victim per- leaders' self-interested behavior. Journal of Management, 40, 1365–1395.
ception. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 327–349. Wilson, K. S., Sin, H.-P., & Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader-member
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader.
judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Vol. Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. Academy of Management Review, 35, 358–372.
34. Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Workplace Bullying Institute (2014). U.S. workplace bullying survey. Retrieved from
Press. http://workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/WBI-2014-US-Survey.pdf.
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multi- Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of
disciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management, 15, 251–289.
Management Journal, 48, 532–547. Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Vredenburgh, D., & Brender, Y. (1998). The hierarchical abuse of power in work orga- Hall.
nizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 1337–1347.

15