THE ANTECEDENTS OF ABUSIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS:
WHY LEADERS INTENTIONALLY ENGAGE IN ABUSIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS
By
Szu-Han Lin

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Business Administration – Organizational Behavior – Human Resource Management
– Doctor of Philosophy
2017

ABSTRACT
THE ANTECEDENTS OF ABUSIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS:
WHY LEADERS INTENTIONALLY ENGAGE IN ABUSIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS
By
Szu-Han Lin
Abusive leadership has predominantly focused on the detrimental outcomes of abusive leader
behaviors for recipients. However, we know little about why leaders intentionally engage in
abusive leader behaviors and why such behaviors are reinforcing for leaders. Drawing from
theories of self-regulation, I propose that follower behaviors can disrupt leaders’ goal directed
behaviors and activate motives to engage in abusive leader behaviors. Specifically, I hypothesize
that follower poor in-role performance, disrespectful behaviors, and violation of social and legal
norms may trigger abusive leader behaviors motivated by compliance, social identity and
retributive justice reasons. In addition, theories of self-regulation also indicate that conquering
the impediments and obstacles satisfy their psychological needs, improving their subjective wellbeing. Thus, I propose that when leaders engage in abusive leader behaviors for compliance,
social identity and retributive reasons, they fulfill their needs for accomplishment, identity and
order. Such need satisfactions foster higher subjective well-being, leading to work engagement,
positive emotions and organization-based self-esteem. An experience sampling methodology is
utilized to examine the proposed hypotheses.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would especially like to express my appreciation to my advisor, Russell Johnson, for his
insight and guidance. I am really thankful for his instrumental and emotional support over the
past five years. Without his input, support and mentorship, it is impossible for me to complete
this degree. I also thank my committee members, Brent Scott, John Hollenbeck and John
Schaubroeck for their directions and guidance. Finally, I thank my family who encourage and
support me during my doctoral studies, especially Cony Ho who encourages me to pursue my
dream in the first place.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW: ABUSIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS ................................................... 8
Outcomes of Abusive Leader Behaviors ................................................................................ 10
Antecedents of Abusive Leader Behavior .............................................................................. 12
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: SOCIAL INTERACTIONIST THEORY OF
AGGRESSION ............................................................................................................................. 15
Compliance ............................................................................................................................. 15
Social Identity ......................................................................................................................... 16
Retributive Justice................................................................................................................... 17
Applications in Organizational Behavior Domain .................................................................. 18
NEEDS THEORY ........................................................................................................................ 20
Achievement Need .................................................................................................................. 20
Identity Need ........................................................................................................................... 21
Order Need .............................................................................................................................. 22
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 23
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT: PREDICTING INTENTIONAL MOTIVES OF ABUSIVE
LEADER BEHAVIORS ............................................................................................................... 25
Antecedents of Compliance Motive of Abusive Leader Behaviors........................................ 25
Antecedents of Social Identity Motives of Abusive Leader Behaviors .................................. 26
Antecedents of Retributive Justice Motives of Abusive Leader Behavior ............................. 27
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 28
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT: INTENTIONAL ABUSIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS AND
OUTCOMES................................................................................................................................. 31
Consequences of Compliance-driven Abusive Leader Behavior ........................................... 31
Consequences of Social Identity-driven Abusive Leader Behavior ....................................... 32
Consequences of Retributive Justice-driven Abusive Leader Behavior ................................. 33
Consequences of Need Satisfactions ...................................................................................... 33
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 36
METHOD ..................................................................................................................................... 40
Sample and Procedure............................................................................................................. 40
Measures ................................................................................................................................. 41
Abusive leader behaviors. ................................................................................................. 41
Intentional motives for abusive leader behaviors. ............................................................ 41
Follower-based antecedents for abusive leader behaviors. ............................................... 43

iv

Need satisfaction. .............................................................................................................. 44
Well-being......................................................................................................................... 44
Analyses .................................................................................................................................. 45
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 47
Tests of Hypotheses ................................................................................................................ 54
Supplementary Analyses ......................................................................................................... 59
Abusive leader behaviors. ................................................................................................. 59
Positive follower behaviors............................................................................................... 64
Different types of disrespectful behaviors. ....................................................................... 65
Personality......................................................................................................................... 66
Moderators. ....................................................................................................................... 68
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 70
Implications of Results ........................................................................................................... 71
Follower behaviors............................................................................................................ 71
Intentional motives of abusive behaviors. ........................................................................ 73
Outcomes of abusive behaviors. ....................................................................................... 74
Results of supplementary analyses. .................................................................................. 75
Strengths, Limitations and Future Directions ......................................................................... 79
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 84
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 86
APPENDIX A: Between-person Measures ............................................................................ 87
APPENDIX B: Within-person Measures................................................................................ 90
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 98

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables .................................. 48
Table 2 – Proportion of Within-person Variance among Study Variables ................................... 53
Table 3 – Proportion of Within-person Variance among Study Variables ................................... 62

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Proposed Theoretical Model .......................................................................................... 7
Figure 2 – Results of Proposed Model .......................................................................................... 58
Figure 3 – Results of an Alternative Model .................................................................................. 63

vii

INTRODUCTION
Abusive leadership, defined as leaders engaging in hostile verbal and nonverbal
behaviors, has received increasing attention over the past 20 years (Tepper, 2007). Previous
research has shown that abusive leader behaviors lead to detrimental outcomes for organizations
(Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013; Tepper, 2000). For example, abusive leader
behaviors are positively associated with follower counterproductive workplace behavior (Ferris,
Yan, Lim, Chen, & Fatimah, in press), turnover intentions, and job dissatisfaction, and
negatively associated with follower commitment (Tepper, 2000), and citizenship behaviors
(Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007).
Given the detrimental effects caused by abusive leader behaviors, it raises the question of
why leaders intentionally engage in such behaviors in the first place. The majority of research on
antecedents of abusive leader behaviors has focused on the unintentional and/or automatic
factors that elicit abusive leader behaviors. For example, previous research has shown that
leaders’ experience of depletion or mental fatigue and strong negative emotions contribute to
abusive leader behaviors (Barnes, Lucianetti, Bhave, & Christian, 2015; Mawritz, Folger, &
Latham, 2014). However, leaders may also intentionally engage in abusive leader behaviors. For
example, when leaders perceive poor performance performed by followers, leaders may tell their
followers that they are incompetent or to make negative comments about their followers to others
(Liang et al., 2015; Walter, Lam, van der Vegt, Huang, & Miao, 2015). From the perspective of
leaders, doing this may be a way to justify their abusive behaviors, and it is also a way to
communicate high performance standards and improve team performance, which is beneficial for
leaders’ own perceived competence. Therefore, it seems important to understand why leaders

1

intentionally engage in abusive leader behaviors and how such behaviors influence leaders
themselves.
In order to understand why leaders may exhibit abusive behaviors toward their
subordinates and the personal consequences of doing so, it is necessary to adopt an actor-focused
perspective. To date, research has mostly applied a recipient-focused lens to abusive leader
behavior, showing that it has detrimental effects on employees and workteams (Tepper, 2000).
However, less is known about how abusive leader behaviors might influence actors (i.e.,
leaders). If leaders engage in abusive leader behaviors for intentional reasons, it is possible that
such behaviors may be reinforcing in some manners for leaders. For example, through abusive
leader behaviors, leaders may show competence, demonstrate or bolster their power and restore
equity or balance in their workgroup. Thus, overlooking the possible reinforcing consequences of
abusive behavior for leaders is unfortunate because it may be possible to prevent abusive leader
behaviors by understanding what it contributes to actors (i.e., the leaders).
Therefore, the aim of this dissertation is to understand why leaders intentionally engage
in abusive leader behaviors, what follower behaviors leaders perceive may trigger such
behaviors, and how engaging in such behaviors influences leaders themselves. Theories of selfregulation (Bandura, 1986; Carver & Scheier, 1982; Gollwitzer, 1990) may shed light on this
process as they suggest that environmental events and stimuli can impede and disrupt people’s
goal directed behaviors. When such disruptions occur, it activates particular motives aimed at
overcoming the impediments and obstacles. Overcoming these impediments and obstacles help
people resume functioning at optimal levels and satisfy important psychological needs, which
leads to improved subjective well-being. Specific to this dissertation, I position follower
behaviors as external stimuli that can thwart leaders’ goal strivings (e.g., rude behavior from

2

followers threatens leaders’ identity of authority), which triggers a behavioral response in leaders
(e.g., aggressive behavior) in order to overcome the obstacle and restore well-being.
In order to understand the intentional motives for leaders to engage in abusive leader
behaviors, I draw on social interactionist theory of aggression (Felson, 1993), which posits that
there are three intentional motives that account for why people engage in abusive leader
behaviors: compliance, social identity, and retributive justice. I then identify three follower
behaviors that may frustrate leaders and trigger each of the leader intentional motives in the
perspective of leaders. I then integrate theories of needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000; McClelland, 1967;
Murray, 1938) with this work to suggest that engaging in abusive leader behaviors for intentional
reasons may satisfy certain fundamental needs, which in turn contribute to leader well-being. For
example, if followers perform poorly, leaders may have the motivation to engage in abusive
leader behaviors to achieve compliance. When employees comply and complete their work tasks,
it may provide leaders with a sense of accomplishment and competence, leading to more positive
emotional experiences and higher organization-based self-esteem in leaders.
In this dissertation, I examine some follower behaviors that may trigger leader intentional
motives to engage in abusive leader behaviors and why engaging in abusive leader behaviors for
intentional motives may be reinforcing for leaders. To focus on leader intentional motives, I also
control for two established unintentional or uncontrolled triggers of aggression: negative
emotions, depletion, and reciprocity (Barnes et al., 2015; Collins & Jackson, 2015). My proposed
model is illustrated in Figure 1. This dissertation offers three contributions to the existing
literature. First, I examine the intentional motives for abusive leader behaviors. Previous research
has primarily focused on the unintentional motives of abusive leader behaviors. It has been
assumed that abusive leader behaviors are automatic and uncontrollable responses. For example,

3

Barnes et al. (2015) found that when leaders are depleted, they are more likely to engage in
impulsive behaviors, such as abusive leader behaviors. Mawritz et al. (2014) showed that when
leaders are angry and anxious, they are more likely to engage in abusive leader behaviors.
Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) suggested that people may endorse reciprocity belief when
someone mistreats them. Thus, leaders are more likely to retaliate back to the unfavorable
treatment received from followers as a second nature by engaging in abusive behaviors.
However, leaders may sometimes engage in abusive leader behaviors intentionally. They may
decide to engage in abusive leader behaviors for a specific reason rather than a failure of selfcontrol or due to the experience of negative emotions. For example, when followers violate
social norms, leaders may feel obligated to correct follower behaviors by yelling at their
followers. Thus, this dissertation takes a needed first step to examine intentional motives of
abusive leader behaviors.
Second, I identify three follower behaviors which leaders perceive as potential
antecedents of abusive leader behaviors. Previous research has focused primarily on (poor)
follower performance as a trigger of abusive leader behaviors (Liang et al., 2015; Walter et al.,
2015). However, leaders may perceive that other follower behaviors may also trigger abusive
leader behaviors. For example, if leaders perceive that their followers purposely ignore leaders’
orders and requests or make inappropriate or rude remarks about their leaders, leaders may put
their followers down in front of others in order to re-establish their own power and authority in
the group. Also, if leaders perceive that followers violate group norms pertaining to fair
interpersonal interactions, leaders may aggress against their followers in order to ‘right a wrong’
and restore a sense of balance or fairness in the workteam. Identifying follower behaviors that
may trigger abusive leader behaviors is especially important because it shows abusive leader

4

behaviors are not always unavoidable. If followers know their behaviors could trigger abusive
leader behaviors, then they could prevent themselves from being abused by performing well,
respecting and verifying the identities of leaders, and obeying social and legal norms. Thus, this
research has both theoretical contributions for abusive supervision literature and practical
contributions for followers and organizations interested in curbing abusive leader behaviors.
Third, this dissertation contributes to the literature by shifting from the prevalent focus on
the recipients (i.e., followers) to the focus on the actors (i.e., leaders). Using an actor centric
perspective is especially important because it provides insight into leader subjective experience
of work (Weiss & Rupp, 2011), it explains why leaders engage in abusive leader behaviors and it
illustrates how engaging in such behaviors is reinforcing for leaders themselves. Without such a
perspective, it is hard to fully avoid abusive leader behaviors in the workplace. Given that
leaders may feel their fundamental needs are satisfied by engaging in abusive leader behaviors,
organizations could provide other ways for leaders to fulfill their needs. For example,
organizations could provide weekly recognitions or awards for leaders who perform
exceptionally well. By doing so, leaders may feel their needs for accomplishment and
competence are satisfied. If their needs are satisfied through these other means, then leaders may
be less likely to engage in intentional abusive behaviors. Thus, abusive leader behaviors could be
reduced through other need satisfying channels provided by organizations.
The remainder of this dissertation proceeds as follows. First, I review the abusive leader
behavior literature. This section includes an overview of the abusive supervision domain,
describes how abusive leader behaviors are different from abusive supervision, illustrates
previous findings on abusive leader behaviors, and focuses heavily on the antecedents of abusive
leader behaviors. Next, I introduce aggression literature as the overarching theoretical

5

perspective that ties my model together. This section includes an overview of the social
interactionist view of aggression, describes the three intentional motives of aggression, and
reviews how it has been applied in the domain of organizational behavior thus far. Then, I
introduce three fundamental needs for leaders at work. The fourth section of the manuscript
includes formal hypotheses derived from the social interactionist theory of aggression for
predicting antecedents of intentional motives and outcomes of intentional motives for abusive
leader behaviors. I then discuss the proposed method for testing the proposed relationships.

6

Figure 1 - Proposed Theoretical Model

7

LITERATURE REVIEW: ABUSIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS
The literature on abusive leader behaviors has grown exponentially over the past two
decades (Martinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007). Abusive supervision is defined as follower
perceptions of leader sustained displays of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Tepper,
2007). This traditional definition involves two characteristics. First, abusive supervision relies on
follower observation of leader behaviors. It is the subjective appraisal of leader behavior by
followers rather than the behavior itself. However, one problem with this conceptualization is
that a behavior (e.g., swearing at a follower) may be viewed as abusive by some followers but
not others. Perceptions of behavior can vary across followers and may also be biased by follower
values and attitudes. A second assumption of the traditional definition of abusive supervision is
that it is a static leadership style. According to Tepper (2007), one is characterized as an abusive
leader if he/she engages in “sustained” hostile behaviors. Thus, if the leader only yelled at their
subordinates on one occasion, then it would not necessary be labeled abusive supervision.
Focusing on leadership styles, however, may be limited because there is high within-person
variability in abusive leader behaviors (Johnson, Venus, Lanaj, Mao, & Chang, 2012). Given
these issues, the definition of abusive supervision has evolved from its initial conceptualization.
More recent research defines abusive leadership as leader displays of hostile verbal and
nonverbal behaviors, thus removing the stipulation that it must be perceived as abusive by
followers (Tepper et al., 2009; Tepper, Lambert, Henle, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008; Tepper,
Moss, & Duffy, 2011). For example, Tepper et al. (2008) defined abusive leader behaviors as
“sustained forms of nonphysical hostility perpetrated by managers against their subordinates”
(p.721). In this dissertation, I adopt this more recent view and focus on specific abusive leader
behaviors that have been categorized as abusive rather than follower perceptions of abuse. The

8

types of leader behaviors that are considered to be abusive include ridiculing followers, telling
followers that they are incompetent, and putting followers down in front of others (Tepper,
2000). I focus on leader actual abusive behaviors because the purpose of this dissertation is to
understand why leaders intentionally engage in abusive leader behaviors and why engaging in
such behaviors is replenishing for leaders themselves. Using follower perception of abusive
leader behaviors rather than leader actual behaviors may be biased because follower perception
of abusive behaviors may be influenced by follower personality or leadership prototypes. For
example, Wu and Hu (2009) found that follower core self-evaluation is negatively related to
follower perception of abusive supervision. Epitropaki and Martin (2005) also found that
leadership prototypes influence follower perception of leader behaviors. If followers perceive
their leader as a negative prototype, they may view negatively towards their leader behaviors
regardless of their leader actual behaviors. Thus, using follower perception of abusive leader
behaviors may not be appropriate to understand the intentional motives and the potential benefits
of abusive leader behaviors.
In addition, leaders may perceive abusive leader behaviors as legitimate rather than being
abusive / or transgressions. According to Tepper (2007), leaders are more likely to engage in
abusive leader behaviors when they perceive such behaviors as legitimate. For example, if
organizations have a norm of displaying aggressive behavior, then leaders may perceive
engaging in abusive leader behavior as legitimate (Tepper, 2007). As another example, leaders
may think that telling followers that they are incompetent is a way to inspire followers, which
may be deemed legitimate rather than abusive. Thus, I focus on specific behaviors that are
labelled abusive rather than followers’ or leaders’ perceptions of abuse.

9

I also focus on abusive leader behaviors rather than abusive leadership styles. The
majority of research on abusive leader behaviors has taken a static view (Barnes et al., 2015),
meaning that it focuses on the average number or the pattern of leader behaviors that leaders
engage in over time. This view assumes that leaders have a specific leadership “style” by
averaging leader behaviors over time and across subordinates. However, it has been shown that
leader behaviors fluctuate from day to day, including abusive leader behaviors (Barnes et al.,
2015; Johnson et al., 2012). Thus, leaders could exhibit different leader behaviors in a day. This
notion is consistent with previous research on employee behaviors that organizational citizenship
behavior and counterproductive work behavior are exhibited by the same employee (Dalal, 2005;
Dalal, Lam, Weiss, Welch, & Hulin, 2009). In fact, Johnson et al. (2012) found that there was
more within-person variance in abusive leader behaviors than between-person variance. Thus,
using a static view may be limited for our understanding of abusive leader behaviors. Therefore,
in this dissertation, I adopt an event-based view, which focuses on leader behaviors on withinleader differences in abusive behaviors across days rather than static between-person differences.
Outcomes of Abusive Leader Behaviors
One reason abusive supervisor receives attention is because of the detrimental impact it
has on followers, teams, and organizations. Abusive leader behaviors influence follower attitudes
and well-being. When leaders are abusive, followers may experience lack of support from the
leaders and organizations. Such perceived lack of support leads them to experience low job
satisfaction and low organization commitment (Bowling & Michel, 2011; Tepper, 2000). Being
told that one is incompetent, being excluded from the group, and being yelled at threaten
follower psychological need satisfaction (Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012) and also undermine their
self-esteem (Hobman, Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2009). With abusive leaders, followers need to

10

exert additional psychological resources to handle their interpersonal stressors, leaving them
emotional exhausted (Wu & Hu, 2009). Research has also shown that abusive leader behaviors
bring follower psychological distress and health problems, including depression (Tepper, Moss,
Lockhart, & Carr, 2007), anxiety (Hobman et al., 2009) and insomnia (Rafferty, Restubog, &
Jimmieson, 2010).
Abusive leader behavior also influences work teams, including coworkers and leaders
themselves. Followers tend to respond aggressively to abusive leader behaviors. For example,
they may engage in interpersonal deviant behaviors towards their coworkers (e.g., cursing at
coworkers or making fun of coworkers at work; Thau & Mitchell, 2010). They may even
retaliate against the wrongdoer (Skarlicki, Folger, & Gee, 2004), especially those who harm
them. Thus, it has been shown that abusive leader behaviors are positively related to follower
aggression towards their leaders (Inness, Barling, & Turner, 2005; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007;
Tepper et al., 2009). In addition, abusive leader behaviors also foster poor relationships between
leaders and followers, leading to low follower citizenship behaviors in the workplace (Aryee et
al., 2007; Xu, Huang, Lam, & Miao, 2012; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). With abusive leader
behaviors, employees are less likely to respond favorably to coworker’s prosocial behaviors
because they may perceive such behaviors as ingratiating behaviors towards their leaders
(Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004). Also, with the poor relationships with followers,
followers are less likely to reciprocate with high performance. They may instead repay leaders
with poor performance (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007).
Finally, abusive leader behaviors also bring detrimental effects to organization. Previous
research has shown that abusive leader behaviors may prompt followers to engage in
organizational deviance behavior (e.g., putting little effort into work or taking property from

11

work without permission; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009;
Wang, Mao, Wu, & Liu, 2012). This trickle-down effect of abusive supervision occurs because
followers may choose not to aggress against their leaders directly because they are afraid that
leaders may further retaliate (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007).
Based on my review of outcomes above, it is apparent that abusive leader behaviors have
negative effects on followers, teams, and organizations. Thus, there is value in curbing such
behaviors. Preventing or reducing abusive leader behaviors requires an understanding of its
antecedents. As will be reviewed below, the list of antecedents that have been studied to date
appears incomplete, focusing primarily on automatic and uncontrollable factors, such as
emotions and self-regulation failures. It is possible, however, that some instances of abusive
leader behaviors are instrumental, from the perspective of leaders. For example, leaders may
engage in abusive leader behaviors in order to improve follower performance. Understanding
these instrumental or intentional motives is more practical and useful than automatic or
uncontrollable antecedents like depletion and negative emotions because such intentional
motives are more easily to curb than those uncontrollable motives. Thus, in the next section, I
review the antecedents of abusive leader behaviors and indicate the limitation of this literature
and address the antecedents that are missing from this literature.
Antecedents of Abusive Leader Behavior
Previous research on antecedents of abusive leader behaviors has mainly focused on
automatic and uncontrollable factors, such as leader emotions and leader depletion, and
personality (Barnes et al., 2015; Collins & Jackson, 2015; Tepper, 2007). For example, abusive
behavior can be an automatic response when leaders experience strong negative emotions.
According to Krasikova and LeBreton (2012, p. 1326), “Abusive behaviors are often associated

12

with heightened emotions and thus tend to be more spontaneous, harder for the leader to
control.” Previous research has suggested that people tend to act aggressively when they
experience negative emotions (Neuman & Baron, 1998). For example, expression of anger,
outrage and frustration can take the form of behaviors that resemble abusive leader behaviors
(e.g., yelling, swearing, and name calling; Neuman & Baron, 1998). To extend this idea in the
organizational setting, leaders are more likely to engage in abusive leader behaviors towards
their followers when they experience anger and anxiety (Collins & Jackson, 2015; Mawritz et al.,
2014). One reason is because leaders have higher status and power than followers do and thus
followers with lower status are more likely to be the target of abuse (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies,
2001).
Leader depletion may also trigger abusive leader behaviors. According to Baumeister,
Bratslavsky, Muraven, and Tice (1998), when people are depleted, they are less likely to
concentrate, exert effort, and sustain task performance. For example, when people are depleted,
they are less likely to engage in effortful productive behaviors like helping (Johnson, Lanaj, &
Barnes, 2014) and voice (Lin & Johnson, 2015). Instead, they are more likely to succumb to
selfish, impulsive, and deviant behaviors. For example, previous research has shown that
depletion reduces people’s ability to suppress deviant behavior (Christian & Ellis, 2011) and
unethical behavior (Gino, Schweitzer, Mead, & Ariely, 2011). Thus, when leaders are depleted,
they are more likely to display hostile and impulsive behaviors, like abusive leader behaviors
(Barnes et al., 2015; Yam, Fehr, Keng-Highberger, Klotz, & Reynolds, In press).
Leader personality may also influence their tendency to engage in abusive leader
behaviors. Leader negative affectivity (i.e., their tendency to experience negative emotions) is
positively related to abusive leader behaviors (Tepper et al., 2009; Zellars et al., 2002). Research

13

has also shown that narcissistic leaders are more likely to engage in abusive leader behaviors
because their mental model or prototype of leaders may include attributes like tyranny
(Hansbrough & Jones, 2014). Such trait includes dominating, manipulative, selfish (Foti, Bray,
Thompson, & Allgood, 2012). With such prototype in mind, leaders may perceive abusive leader
behaviors as legitimate. Thus, narcissistic leaders are more likely to engage in abusive leader
behaviors (Hansbrough & Jones, 2014).
The review above demonstrates that the majority of research on antecedents of abusive
leader behaviors has focused on relatively automatic and uncontrollable factors, such as negative
emotions and depletion. However, it is possible that leaders engage in abusive leader behaviors
for intentional reasons. For example, recent research has indicated that follower poor
performance may trigger leaders to engage in abusive leader behaviors (Liang et al., 2015;
Walter et al., 2015). Thus, it seems fruitful to extend this line of research and further understand
leader intentional motives of abusive leader behaviors. Using social interactionist theory of
aggression as an overarching framework, this dissertation identifies leader intentional motives of
abusive leader behaviors along with the antecedents of such intentional motives.

14

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: SOCIAL INTERACTIONIST THEORY OF
AGGRESSION
According to social interactionist theory of aggression, aggression involves two tenets
(Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). First, aggression is a form of social influence. People can influence
other people by engaging in aggressive behaviors. Although there are several ways to influence
others, Tedeschi and Felson (1994) suggest that people choose to engage in aggression rather
than other more benign forms of social influence when they perceive aggression is a more
effective and less expensive way to influence others. For example, if one has higher status and
power than the target, then engaging in aggressive behaviors may be more successful and less
costly. Second, aggression is instrumental. People engage in aggression to obtain their ultimate
ends. For example, aggression could be used to change the target’s actions, to compel and deter
their behaviors, and to lower their status. Thus, under these assumptions, people engage in
aggression with intentional motives. Tedeschi and Felson (1994) suggest that there are three
intentional motives of aggression: compliance, social identity, and retributive justice. Below I
review each of these motives.
Compliance
People engage in aggressive behaviors for compliance reasons. According to Felson
(1993), compliance is to force others’ behaviors to be consistent with one’s expectations or one’s
desires for their behaviors. For example, parents may spank a child so that he/she obeys in the
future. In the workplace, leaders are motivated to control and influence their work group,
especially their followers (Mechanic, 1962), because doing so is their duty and responsibility.
Thus, they have the motivation to influence their followers’ behaviors to meet their expectations.

15

Abusive leader behaviors could be triggered by compliance reasons. This is because they
are motivated to influence their followers. In addition, with their high status and power in the
workgroup, leaders may perceive engaging in abusive behaviors for compliance as a low-cost
and successful strategy for leaders. As Tepper (2007, p. 273) noted, “some supervisors abuse
their subordinates because they find them difficult to deal with.” Thus, leaders tend to engage in
abusive behaviors to control their follower behaviors. They may use abusive leader behaviors to
tell their followers that they are doing something wrong or they do not meet their expectations.
For example, leaders may yell at their followers because of their poor performance (e.g.,
neglecting to follower proper procedure). By doing so, leaders could also direct their followers’
attention to improve their in-role performance.
Social Identity
People also engage in aggressive behaviors for social identity reasons. According to
Felson (1993), social identity refers to one’s concerns about how one is perceived by others.
Identity-driven aggression is intended to influence others’ perceptions of the perpetrator. For
example, leaders may yell at their followers in order to establish their identity as a leader in the
group or to show that they have higher power and status in the group. Thus, identity-driven
aggression focuses on changing others’ perceptions, while compliance-driven aggression focuses
on changing others’ behaviors.
In the workplace, leaders are motivated to establish and maintain their social identity in
the group (Scott, Colquitt, & Paddock, 2009). This is because people have the tendency to
control how others perceive them (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). With their motivations, leaders
may engage in abusive behaviors for social identity reasons. Previous research has suggested that
people strive for status and a positive social identity (Anderson, Hildreth, & Howland, 2015;

16

Tajfel & Turner, 1979). If such status or identity is threatened, then leaders may react
aggressively to preserve and restore their status in the work group (Aquino et al., 2001) or to
defend and protect their identity (Aquino & Douglas, 2003). For example, if followers criticize
leaders’ suggestions and opinion in public, leaders may perceive their status/identity in the group
is threated. Leaders may try to put their followers down in front of others to reclaim or restore
their status/identity in the group. Therefore, one intended reason for leaders to engage in abusive
behavior is social identity.
Retributive Justice
People also engage in aggressive behaviors for retributive justice reasons. According to
Felson (1993), retributive justice is to restore the balance of justice by paying back the
perpetrators. People have a general tendency to believe a just world (Scott et al., 2009), and
expect everyone to obey justice rules (Lerner, 1980). Cropanzano, Goldman, and Folger (2003)
suggest that people retaliate against the target for deontic reasons. It has been shown that if
someone violates justice rules, people may engage in aggressive behaviors towards the actor
even if they are not the victims (Skarlicki & Rupp, 2010). For example, when people perceive
that their coworker receive disrespectful treatment from another coworker, they may write a
letter to complain about their coworker in order to maintain a just world (Skarlicki & Rupp,
2010). Thus, justice-driven aggression may be driven by the third party, who is not the
beneficiary of such aggression. Such assumption is different from compliance-driven aggression
and identity-driven aggression because the perpetrators of those two aggressions are the
beneficiary.
According to Scott et al. (2009), leaders are motivated to maintain a just world because
they believe doing so is the right thing. Such motivation may prompt leaders to engage in

17

abusive behaviors to “pay back” the perpetrator and restore equity when s/he violates justice
rules. Leaders are more likely to engage in abusive leader behaviors when their followers engage
in some questionable behaviors because leaders have higher power and status than followers. For
example, if a follower steals company property, the leader may ridicule him/her in order to
restore a just world. Therefore, retributive justice is another reason why leaders intend to engage
in abusive leader behaviors.
Applications in Organizational Behavior Domain
Previous research has examined these three motives (i.e., compliance, social identity, and
retributive justice; Scott, Garza, Conlon, & Kim, 2014). Interestingly and counter to social
interactionist theory of aggression, researchers have considered decidedly non-aggressive
behaviors as means to satisfy these motives (i.e., adhering to fairness; Scott et al., 2009; Scott et
al., 2014). According to the social interactionist theory of aggression though, aggressive
behaviors, paradoxically, may also achieve the same ends. This is possible because adhering to
fairness behaviors are different from (not the opposite of) abusive leader behaviors. Adhering to
justice rules, such as treating followers in a polite manners, is different from being rude to
followers (the absence of politeness is not abusive). According to Colquitt, Long, Rodell, and
Halvorsen-Ganepola (2015), purely measuring adherence justice rules is limited because not
adhering justice rules is not the same as violating justice rules. For example, leaders who do not
explain the procedures thoroughly are different from the leaders who actively withhold
information about decision-making procedures (Colquitt et al., 2015). Thus, if violating justice
rules is different from adhering to them, then abusive leader behaviors, by extension, are also
different from adhering to justice rules. In fact, leaders could adhere to justice rules and engage
in abusive leader behaviors at the same time. For example, leaders may treat their followers

18

politely, but leaders may also invade follower privacy. Therefore, given that adhering to justice
rules is fundamentally different from engaging in abusive leader behaviors, it is difficult to infer
such motives from justice adherence, and identifying intentional motives for abusive leader
behavior is fruitful.
Given that social interactionist theory of aggression suggests leaders engage in abusive
leader behaviors for a reason. They may do so to justify their needs or concerns. Understanding
what needs leaders have and how such needs may be satisfied by engaging in abusive leader
behaviors are especially important because it is possible for organizations to provide other
channels to satisfy leaders’ needs, reducing abusive leader behaviors. Therefore, in the next
section, I identify the most relevant needs for leaders in the workplace.

19

NEEDS THEORY
In the previous section, I discussed three intentional motives for abusive leader behaviors.
When leaders engage in abusive leader behaviors for these intentional motives, one reason is for
need satisfaction. That is, from a self-regulation perspective, motives are activated when
environmental events and stimuli threaten one’s goal strivings. Needs can be conceptualized as
higher-order, abstract goals that exist at the top of people’s goal hierarchies (Austin &
Vancouver, 1996; Carver & Scheier, 1998). Needs cannot directly influence people’s goaloriented behavior; instead, needs operate via motives, which are thoughts that direct one’s
behaviors to satisfy one’s needs (Carver & Scheier, 2008; Larsen & Buss, 2005). Thus, motives
prompt a behavioral response in order to effectively deal with the environmental impediment,
and thus satisfy the need that was threatened. As I argue below, each motive is aligned with a
particular work-relevant need. People have a variety of concerns and needs that are either
facilitated or thwarted in the workplace. Drawing on social interactionist theory of aggression
(Tedeschi & Felson, 1994), I identity the most relevant needs for leaders at work. In particular,
experiences at work are critical for satisfying employees’ achievement needs (i.e., a need to feel
competent and successful), identity needs (i.e., a need to be understood by others), and order
needs (i.e., a need to create social order and boundaries of appropriate behaviors). In the section
below, I will introduce these three needs and then discuss how each of these needs is particularly
important for leaders.
Achievement Need
An achievement need is defined as people’s desire for effectiveness and achievement,
and their hopes to be rewarded and acknowledged for such effectiveness and achievement. With
such need, people strive for being useful and worthwhile at work. They tend to maximize their

20

outcomes and performance in the workplace. For example, Deci and Ryan (2000) suggest that
people have the need for showing their competence and usefulness at work. McClelland (1961)
propose that people tend to strive for achievement and being effective. With achievement needs,
people also strive for rewards and acknowledgement. They are sensitive to rewards, bonuses, and
promotions. For example, Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, and Rupp (2001) indicate that people
concern with fairness because their efforts will be reciprocated with favorable outcomes. Allen
and Meyer (1990) suggest that people tend to weigh their costs and benefits for leaving/staying
the organizations.
An achievement need is especially important for leaders in the workplace because this is
one of the reasons why leaders go to work (i.e., to provide service, be useful at work, and gain
rewards). Leaders tend to have a strong desire for acknowledgement in the workplace, and hope
their efforts may be rewarded. In addition, they tend to show their competence and usefulness at
work, and they are motivated to strive for achievement. This is because doing so allows leaders
to show that they are effective leaders (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991). In fact, Lanaj,
Johnson, and Lee (2016) found that when leaders feel they are competent and effective, they are
more likely to experience positive emotions. Therefore, an achievement need is particularly
relevant for leaders in the workplace.
Identity Need
An identity need is defined as people’s need to be understood by others based on their
understanding of themselves and for others to recognize their position within the organizational
hierarchy. People tend to seek feedback from others to understand if they perceive the same way
others understand themselves (Grant & Parker, 2009). With this need, people tend to identify
themselves with one of the roles or groups in the organizations. Sluss and Ashforth (2007)

21

suggest that one of the determinants of people’s self-definitions at work is their interdependent
roles in the workplace. For example, people may define who they are based on their relationship
with others (Brewer & Gardner, 1996), such as their roles as leaders in leader-follower
relationship. Cropanzano et al. (2001) also demonstrate that people prefer to be included in the
group because doing so serves as a feedback showing that they establish some relationships with
group members and provide them a sense of identity and self-worth. In fact, Swann, Rentfrow,
and Guinn (2003) suggest that people have the need to establish their identity in the workgroup,
and hope others would perceive them as the same way. For example, people who identify
themselves as leaders in the group would hope others grant them as leaders in the group. They
may do so by seeking feedback from their followers to see if their followers perceive them as
leaders in the group.
Identity need is especially important for leaders because of leaders’ desires to be
recognized in their positions and roles. This is because their positions/roles as leaders foster them
higher power than others, enabling them to control and influence others (House et al., 1991). In
addition, such need is especially important in the workplace because it provides existence
security and fosters smooth interactions with others by stabilizing how people respond to the
actor (Swann et al., 2003). Leaders have more desires than others to seek smooth interactions
with others, especially with their followers, because leaders and followers have strong bonds to
work together. Smooth interactions enable them to work more efficiently. Therefore, an identity
need is particularly important for leaders at work.
Order Need
An order need refers to people’s desire to maintain social order and create certainty and
boundary of appropriate behaviors for social interactions. People prefer to work in a certain

22

environment (Van den Bos & Lind, 2002). This is because such environment provides clear rules
and social norms so that when someone breaks the social boundary, they will be punished for
their behaviors. For example, if followers understand that if they badmouth their coworkers, their
leaders may ridicule them, then followers may be less likely to criticize their coworkers. Thus,
by establishing boundaries of appropriate behaviors, leaders may create a sense of security and
certainty within the workplace. Establishing a sense of security and certainty also entails
ensuring that people get what they deserve, which parallels the notion of belief in a just world
(Lerner, 1980). This idea of balance and fairness in economic and social exchanges is a prevalent
one at work. For example, equity theory posits that people compare their input and output ratios
with others’ ratio, and they strive for equity between the two ratios (Adams, 1963). Thus, people
are motivated to maintain justice a balance at work. For example, employees may voluntarily
avoid getting more pay than they deserve because of their belief in a just world (Lerner, 2003).
An order need is especially important for leaders because they are positioned at a higher
hierarchical level and have more power than followers. They may therefore feel that maintaining
a just world and creating social order are their responsibilities. In addition, an order need creates
social order and certainty for followers. It demonstrates what the appropriate behaviors are in the
organization. With an order need, leaders may react to followers’ socially inappropriate
behaviors (e.g., theft and badmouthing) via verbally aggressive reprimands. Doing so not only
prevents a poor work environment but also enables leaders to create a better workplace for
employees. Thus, an order need is particularly important for leaders.
Summary
Leaders may engage in abusive leader behaviors to satisfy different needs (i.e.,
achievement, identity, and order needs). Such needs are distinct and different from each other.

23

An achievement need is satisfied when leaders could influence their followers’ task-related
behaviors effectively and affect their followers’ task performance. An identity need is satisfied
when leaders could control how followers perceive leaders themselves (i.e., whether leaders’
identity, power and authority are recognized by followers). An order need is satisfied when
leaders maintain social order and create boundary of appropriate social behaviors. Although
these needs are different, it is possible that leaders engage in abusive leader behaviors to satisfy
multiple different needs at the same time. For example, in a team setting, tasks are
interdependent and team members interact closely with each other (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).
When followers violate social norms and rules, leaders may engage in abusive leader behaviors
to correct followers’ behaviors. Doing so maintain social order and create boundaries of
appropriate social behaviors at work, fulfilling leaders’ meet their order needs. It also meets their
achievement needs by influencing followers’ performance because team members’ social
interactions closely influence followers’ performance (Mathieu & Schulze, 2006). Therefore,
although these needs are distinct from each other, it is possible that in some circumstances these
needs could be met via an abusive leader behavior.

24

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT: PREDICTING INTENTIONAL MOTIVES OF
ABUSIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS
Leaders have social interactions with their followers. During the course of their
interactions, there will be times when followers act in ways that thwart or challenge leaders’
needs. According to theories of self-regulations, environmental events and stimuli can threaten
one’s goal strivings (Bandura, 1986; Carver & Scheier, 1982; Gollwitzer, 1990). Thus, when
follower behaviors thwart or challenge leaders’ needs, such behaviors may be perceived as
stimuli that threaten leaders’ goal striving. Such disruptions will activate corresponding motives
aimed at overcoming the impediments and obstacles. Thus, leaders’ intentional motives will
trigger behaviors to change followers’ actions, and shape the interactions to reestablish need
satisfaction. For example, Aquino and Douglas (2003) showed that when people perceived
identity threat, they are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviors, implying that some
behaviors, such as treating other coworkers poorly, could trigger people’s social identity motives
for aggression. Therefore, in the following section, I discuss what followers’ behaviors could
trigger the three intentional motives of abusive leader behaviors.
Antecedents of Compliance Motive of Abusive Leader Behaviors
According to social interactionist theory of aggression, one reason for leaders to engage
in abusive leader behaviors is to enhance compliance by others (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994).
Leaders are motivated to control and influence their follower behaviors because doing so enables
their followers’ behaviors to be consistent with leader’s expectations or leader’s desires of their
followers’ behaviors (Felson, 1993). In the workplace, one of the most salient goals and
expectations of leaders is their follower in-role performance. They focus on motivating their
employees in order to achieve better in-role performance (House & Mitchell, 1974). Thus, they

25

expect their followers to perform well.
When leaders perceive followers do not perform well, they are motived to control their
followers behaviors by engaging in abusive behaviors (Liang et al., 2015; Walter et al., 2015).
Leaders may do so for several reasons. First, followers’ poor in-role performance is an unwanted
outcome that leaders do not expect their followers to have. Thus, leaders are motivated to push
their followers away from such an outcome. One way to do so is to engage in abusive leader
behaviors in order to control and influence follower behaviors (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994).
Second, followers’ poor in-role performance is a signal that followers did not meet leaders’
expectations and desires. In order to push their followers to meet their expectations, leaders are
motivated to control their followers behaviors by directing their followers towards putting more
efforts on the task and improving their followers’ performance. Therefore, I suggest that follower
poor in-role performance may trigger compliance motives of abusive leader behaviors.
Hypothesis 1: Follower poor in-role performance is positively related to compliance
motives of abusive leader behaviors.
Antecedents of Social Identity Motives of Abusive Leader Behaviors
Leaders engage in abusive leader behaviors not only because they want to control their
follower behaviors but also because they want to control their follower perceptions (Tedeschi &
Felson, 1994). According to Leary and Kowalski (1990), leaders are motivated to control how
others perceive them. They tend to create a desired image or identity, and hope others to see
them similarly. In the work group, one salient identity for leader is their higher power and
authority role as leaders. Thus, leaders tend to claim and protect such an identity (DeRue &
Ashford, 2010).
Swann et al. (2003) suggest that people tend to seek feedback from the one who they

26

have many interactions with to understand how others perceive them. In the workgroup, leaders
interact with their followers mostly; thus, they tend to seek feedback from their followers to see
how their followers perceive leaders themselves. They may use follower behaviors towards them
as a proxy of such feedback. It has been shown that identity threat is perceived when the other
party challenges and calls in to question people’s self-worth and identity (Aquino & Douglas,
2003; Steele, 1988). One way that followers may threaten the identity of their leaders is by
displaying disrespectful behaviors, which are the behaviors that indicate followers do not respect
leaders’ identity, including counterproductive behaviors towards supervisors and challenging
voice behaviors that challenge the status quo. This is because such disrespectful behavior
indicates that followers do not recognize their leaders’ power, authority, and identity in the group
or followers, depriving leaders’ power and authority. For example, when followers badmouth
their leaders, leaders may feel they lack power and authority in the group. Thus, they are
motivated to reclaim their identity by responding with socially dominant and aggressive
behaviors. Therefore, I suggest that follower disrespectful behavior triggers social identity
motives of abusive leader behaviors.
Hypothesis 2: Follower disrespectful behavior is positively related to social identity
motives of abusive leader behaviors.
Antecedents of Retributive Justice Motives of Abusive Leader Behavior
Leaders may engage in abusive leader behaviors to control followers in order to obtain
better in-role performance or better self-images (i.e., compliance and social identity), but they
may also do so for other reasons. That is, they may engage in abusive leader behaviors because
they feel doing so is the legitimate thing to do (i.e., retributive justice). According to Lerner
(1980), most people believe in a just world, and expect people get what they deserve. Given that

27

leaders have higher power and authority in the group, they may feel obligated to maintain justice
balance. Thus, when leaders’ perceive justice balance is broken, they are motivated to restore
such balance.
With stronger responsibilities and obligations, leaders are motivated to correct the
perceived offensive and norm-violating behaviors when the justice balance is broken (Lerner,
1980). They may do so by engaging in abusive leader behaviors because such behaviors are the
response to follower social and legal norm violation; thus, abusive leader behaviors may be
perceived as legitimate. For example, leaders may yell at their follower because their follower
uses company property for personal use. In fact, Scott et al. (2009) suggest that follower normviolating actions may prompt leaders to restore justice. Such norm-violating actions include
spreading gossip in the workplace, being rude to coworkers, and stealing things from the
workplace (Messick, Bloom, Boldizar, & Samuelson, 1985). If such actions are perceived as
unjustifiable, intentional and attributed to followers, then leaders are motivated to restore justice
by engaging in abusive leader behaviors.
Hypothesis 3: Follower violation of social and legal norms is positively related to
retributive justice motives of abusive leader behaviors.
Summary
So far, I have argued that follower behaviors may trigger three different motives of
abusive leader behaviors. Specifically, I propose that follower poor in-role performance, follower
disrespectful behaviors and follower violation of social and legal norms may trigger compliance,
social identity, and retributive justice reasons of abusive leader behaviors, respectively. It is
possible that these follower behaviors are correlated with one another. For example, one of the
follower disrespectful behaviors is follower counterproductive work behaviors towards

28

supervisors, while one of the follower violations of social and legal norms is follower
counterproductive behaviors towards organizations. Although both of these constructs represent
counterproductive work behaviors, such behaviors are different and distinct. In fact, Dalal et al.
(2009) found that at the within-person level, counterproductive work behaviors towards
supervisors are only slightly related to counterproductive work behavior towards organizations
and towards coworkers (the standardized regression coefficient regressing from
counterproductive work behavior towards organizations and towards coworkers to
counterproductive work behavior towards supervisors are .11 and .18, respectively). Given that
these behaviors are not highly correlated, it may indicate that these behaviors are distinct from
each other. There are also some other reasons why these behaviors are distinguishable. First,
follower poor in-role performance is specific to compulsory task related behaviors. It refers to
whether or not followers fulfill or satisfy production and task-related expectations or norms. It
does not pertain to extra-role behaviors, such as organizational citizenship behaviors, nor does it
relate to social or legal norms in the workplace. Second, follower disrespectful behaviors involve
behaviors that challenge the status quo, including challenging voice behaviors and
counterproductive work behaviors towards supervisors. Challenging voice behaviors involve
criticizing leaders, or leaders’ work processes; thus, leaders are likely to perceive such behaviors
as personal (Burris, 2012). According to Burris (2012), leaders are likely to perceive their status
as threatened when followers engage in challenging voice behaviors. Thus, challenging voice
behaviors may challenge the status quo and threaten leaders’ identity. Likewise,
counterproductive work behavior towards supervisors is perceived as challenging and
threatening behaviors because such behaviors intend to harm people with more power and higher
hierarchical level (Bruk-Lee & Spector, 2006). Given that disrespectful behaviors involves non-

29

task related behaviors, including extra-role behaviors (e.g., challenging voice behaviors) and
behaviors violating social norms specifically related to supervisors, such behaviors are different
from follower poor in-role performance. Finally, follower violation of social and legal norms
involves counterproductive work behaviors towards coworkers and organizations. It is different
from poor in-role behaviors because it is related to social and legal norms rather than production
norms. It is different from follower disrespectful behaviors because such behavior does not
challenge or undermine the authority of leaders. Therefore, I expect that these three follower
behaviors are distinct and different.

30

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT: INTENTIONAL ABUSIVE LEADER BEHAVIORS
AND OUTCOMES
Going beyond the above predictions of what behaviors may trigger three different
intentional motives of abusive leader behaviors, I next consider the implications of these
intentional motives of abusive leader behaviors. Theories of self-regulation suggest that when
people are motivated to overcome impediments and obstacles, they may turn this motivation into
actions to overcome disruptions. Doing so, they satisfy their psychological needs and resume
functioning at optimal levels (Bandura, 1986; Carver & Scheier, 1982; Gollwitzer, 1990). Thus,
when leaders overcome followers’ disruptions by engaging in abusive leader behaviors
motivated by different reasons, their needs may be satisfied, bringing leaders’ higher well-being.
I next discuss how intentional abusive leader behaviors meet leaders’ different fundamental
needs in the workplace.
Consequences of Compliance-driven Abusive Leader Behavior
When leaders perceive poor follower performance, they are motivated to control follower
behaviors. Given that leaders have more power and status than followers, one of the most
accessible (but not necessarily desirable) ways for them to influence followers is via abusive
leader behavior. Compliance-driven abusive leader behaviors include directing followers’
behaviors towards the desired outcomes, and deviating their behaviors from the undesired
outcomes. For example, leaders may yell at their followers to tell their followers that they have
poor task performance and that they should improve their performance. Doing so may show
leaders are able to control their followers and the environment around them; thus, they may
perceive such actions as effective in the workplace.
When leaders engage in abusive leader behaviors to remind their followers that they have

31

poor in-role performance, leaders may also perceive doing so as feedback giving to followers. By
giving feedback to followers, leaders could facilitate progress towards the desired goal (i.e., high
in-role performance). Thus, leaders may feel they get credits for follower better in-role
performance or effective outcomes, leading to a sense of competence and accomplishment.
Therefore, given that compliance-driven abusive leader behaviors make leaders to feel effective,
competent and accomplishment, I believe that doing so satisfies their achievement needs.
Hypothesis 4: Compliance motives have a positive indirect effect on satisfaction of
achievement need via abusive leader behaviors.
Consequences of Social Identity-driven Abusive Leader Behavior
When leaders perceive followers do not recognize their power and authority, they are
motivated to control how followers perceive them. Previous research has shown that when
people’s identity is threatened, they tend to engage in aggressive behaviors as a way to protect
and defend the desired identity (Aquino & Douglas, 2003; Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996).
In a similar vein, when leaders feel their identity in the group is threatened, they may engage in
abusive leader behaviors to protect their identity. For example, leaders may put their followers
down or ridicule their followers in front of others in order to show that they have higher power
and authority. By engaging in abusive leader behaviors motivated by social identity reasons,
leaders will reconfirm their identity in the group and be recognized by their power and authority.
Thus, leaders are more likely to feel identity need satisfaction after engaging in abusive leader
behavior for social identity reasons.
Hypothesis 5: Social identity motives have a positive indirect effect on satisfaction of
identity need via abusive leader behaviors.

32

Consequences of Retributive Justice-driven Abusive Leader Behavior
People tend to believe people get what they deserve (Lerner, 1980). Thus, leaders are
motivated to maintain a just world and sustain a justice balance. When such balance is violated,
leaders may engage in abusive leader behaviors to restore such balance. This is because leaders
may perceive their abusive leader behaviors as legitimate and as ways to punish followers’
inappropriate behaviors. Doing so enables leaders to maintain a social order at work and create
boundary of appropriate behaviors. For example, if followers spread gossip about their
coworkers, leaders may openly ridicule them in response. Doing so would lessen the likelihood
that followers engaged in future gossip by establishing the boundary of appropriate behaviors.
Leaders could further establish a safe and secure environment by creating social order and
boundary of appropriate behaviors at work. Thus, leaders may feel their order needs are satisfied
by engaging in abusive leader behaviors for retributive justice reasons.
Hypothesis 6: Retributive justice motives have a positive indirect effect on
satisfaction of order need via abusive leader behaviors.
Consequences of Need Satisfactions
To review, abusive leader behaviors is reinforcing because such behaviors could
influence leaders’ achievement, identity, and order need satisfactions. Such need satisfactions
may further influence leaders’ well-being. Thus, leaders are motivated to engage in abusive
leader behaviors. In fact, previous research showed that need satisfaction influences more
general well-being (Deci et al., 2001; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Need satisfaction may influence
leaders’ well-being in multiple ways. It may influence leader behavioral, affective and cognitive
outcomes. In this dissertation, I specifically focus on work engagement (a behavioral marker of
well-being), positive emotions (an affective marker), and organization-based self-esteem (a

33

cognitive marker) as leaders’ well-being. This is because whether leaders are fully involved with
their work (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011), whether leaders experience positive emotions
(Bono & Ilies, 2006), and whether leaders have high self-esteem (Hill & Ritchie, 1977) are
especially important for leaders at work. For example, leaders’ positive emotions and self-esteem
are perceived as one of the indicators of leader effectiveness (Bono & Ilies, 2006; Hill & Ritchie,
1977). In addition, work engagement, positive emotions and self-esteem are the three facets of
well-being that are most studied so far (Deci et al., 2001; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Thus, I focus
on examining how need satisfactions are related to these three facets of well-being.
Behavioral aspect of well-being refers to the extent that people feel motivated and
devoted towards their work. People invest their full resources to be involved with their work
tasks. Interestingly, work engagement is defined as people’s employment of their physical,
cognitive, and emotional resources to express their “preferred self” and to devote themselves to
work (Kahn, 1990). Salanova, Agut, and Peiro (2005) suggest that engagement is a state where
people are vigorous, dedicated, and absorbed at work. Engaged employees put their full energy
to dedicate themselves to complete their work tasks (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010). They are
not only physically involved with their work tasks, but also cognitive focused and emotionally
connected to their work (Kahn, 1990). Previous research has shown that work engagement brings
higher task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (Rich et al., 2010). Thus, work
engagement is a marker of behavioral aspect of well-being.
When people’s fundamental needs are satisfied, they are more likely to feel energetic and
vigorous (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). They have the vitality available to be involved at work, and
to fully concentrate on their task. Thus, it has been shown that need satisfaction is positively
related to vigor and dedication (Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). In addition, previous research has

34

found that when people’s needs are satisfied, they tend to work voluntarily and achieve better
performance (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Gagne, 2003; Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992). Given
that need satisfaction energizes people to work on their task, I hypothesize that need satisfaction
is positively related to work engagement.
Hypothesis 7a: Need satisfactions (i.e., achievement need, identity need and order
need satisfactions) are positively related to work engagement.
Affective aspect of well-being means that people experience positive feelings and
emotions. Positive emotions is defined as people’s experience of feelings such as excitement and
enthusiasm (Barsky & Kaplan, 2007). People experience positive emotions when they
experience positive events (David, Green, Martin, & Suls, 1997). Previous research has shown
that when peoples’ needs are satisfied, they are more likely to experience positive feelings and
emotions (Lanaj et al., 2016; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon, Ryan, &
Reis, 1996). For example, Sheldon et al. (1996) found that need satisfaction for competence and
autonomy fosters people to experience positive emotions. Similarly, I hypothesize that leaders’
need satisfaction is positively related to positive emotions.
Hypothesis 7b: Need satisfactions (i.e., achievement need, identity need and order
need satisfaction) are positively related to positive emotions.
Finally, cognitive aspect of well-being means that a person cognitively perceives him or
herself as someone who is meaningful and worthwhile at work. Such people are satisfied with
their roles in organizations. According to Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham (1989),
organizational-based self-esteem is defined as the degree to which people believe themselves as
capable and worthy as organizational members. Previous research has suggested that feeling
capable and worthy could be influenced by people’s experience of positive and negative events,

35

including how they are evaluated by others, whether they receive approval by others, and most
importantly, whether their needs are satisfied (Greenier et al., 1999). It has been shown that
people perceive need satisfaction as a positive event, fostering in them a higher sense of selfesteem (Deci et al., 2001; Gagne, Ryan, & Bargmann, 2003; Heppner et al., 2008). For example,
when people feel they are competent, they are more likely to feel a sense of self-worth (Johnson
& Forsman, 1995). In fact, Pierce and Gardner (2004) demonstrate that employee need
satisfaction fosters higher levels of organization-based self-esteem. Therefore, I hypothesize that
need satisfaction enhances people’s organization-based self-esteem.
Hypothesis 7c: Need satisfactions (i.e., achievement need, identity need and order
need satisfaction) are positively related to organizational-based self-esteem.
Summary
Abusive leader behaviors are detrimental to the target of abuse (Martinko et al., 2013;
Tepper, 2000). Paradoxically, such behaviors may not necessarily be as detrimental to actors
(i.e., the leaders who engage in abuse). This dissertation aims to understand why leaders
intentionally engage in abusive leader behaviors and what they may potentially gain from doing
so. Specifically, I hypothesize that follower poor in-role performance, disrespectful behaviors,
and violation of social and legal norms may trigger abusive leader behaviors motivated by
compliance, social identity, and retributive justice reasons. In addition, engaging in these abusive
leader behaviors could satisfy leaders’ needs (accomplishment, identity and order needs) and
further enhance leaders’ subjective well-being.
To examine the proposed model, I use an experience sampling method. This is because I
focus on leader specific behaviors rather than leadership styles, which are patterns of leader
behaviors that emerge over time. In fact, Barnes et al. (2015) showed that there is 57% of within-

36

person variance in abusive leader behaviors, indicating that abusive leader behaviors vary from
one day to the next. Thus, examining abusive leader behaviors in a within-person study reflects
the dynamic of such behaviors. In addition, examining the proposed model in a within-person
study also allows me capture the short-term consequences of abuse leader behaviors (i.e., need
satisfactions and subjective well-being). Lanaj et al. (2016) suggest that need satisfactions are
also dynamic phenomena that fluctuate over time. Thus, the adoption of an experience sampling
method also captures the dynamic of the outcomes variables.
The proposed model was assessed via two daily surveys for fifteen workdays. All the
variables were reported from one source (i.e., leaders themselves). In the first daily survey,
leaders’ baseline need satisfactions and well-being were assessed. In the second daily survey, I
assessed follower behaviors, abusive leader behaviors for three different motives, leaders’ need
satisfactions and well-being. I assessed follower behaviors and abusive leader behaviors at the
same time because doing so allows leaders to indicate what follower behaviors trigger them to
engage in abusive behaviors and what the motives are behind such abusive leader behaviors. In
addition, I assessed leaders’ need satisfactions and well-being at both times 1 and 2. Doing so
allows me to capture the changes in leaders’ need satisfactions and well-being, alleviating the
concerns about the direction of causality of the hypotheses (e.g., Johnson et al., 2014; Lin, Ma, &
Johnson, 2016).
In addition, although the majority of research to date has used follower report to assess
abusive leader behaviors, using self-report in this dissertation has several advantages. First, this
dissertation focuses on understanding why leaders intentionally engage in abusive leader
behaviors. Having follower report of abusive leader behaviors and their perceptions of why
leaders engage in such behaviors are fundamentally different from leader report of the same

37

variables. For example, leaders may engage in abusive leader behaviors in order to correct
follower task-related behaviors (i.e., for compliance reasons); however, followers may perceive
that leaders do so in order to show that leaders have more power and authority than followers
(i.e., for social identity reasons). Thus, it may be more appropriate (and accurate) to use selfreport of abusive leader behaviors and the motives of such behaviors because doing so answers
the research questions of this dissertation. Second, follower report of abusive leader behaviors
may not purely reflect leader behaviors. Followers’ perception of abusive leader behaviors could
be influenced by their personality or leadership prototypes (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Wu &
Hu, 2009). For example, followers with low core self-evaluation are more susceptible to negative
information, and more likely to perceive negative behaviors from their leaders, reporting more
abusive leader behaviors (Wu & Hu, 2009). Thus, using follower report of abusive leader
behaviors may not be adequate. Finally, leaders may engage in abusive leader behaviors towards
different employees. The report of one subordinate may not adequately capture all instances of
abusive leader behaviors. In fact, Berry, Carpenter, and Barratt’s meta-analytic findings (2012)
showed that self- and other-report of deviant behaviors are moderately related to each other, that
other-report of deviant behaviors account for little incremental variance above and beyond selfreport, and that self- and other-report of deviant behaviors exhibit similar patterns of
relationships. In a similar vein, Lin et al. (2016) found that using self- and other-report of
abusive leader behaviors yielded similar patterns of relationships. Thus, using self-report of
abusive leader behaviors was deemed appropriate in this dissertation.
Finally, I examined the proposed model via daily rather than weekly or monthly surveys.
Doing so is necessary because leaders are more likely to accurately recall their behaviors and the
reasons why they engaged in such behaviors within days rather than over longer periods of time,

38

such as weeks or months. In addition, given that abusive leader behaviors are not as frequent as
other leader behaviors, such as initiating structure or consideration (Lin et al., 2016), assessing
leader behaviors for a period of fifteen workdays will enable me to obtain sufficient
observations.

39

METHOD
Sample and Procedure
Data were collected from 375 full-time employees who formally manage at least one
direct report. These leaders were employed in a variety of industries, including manufacturing
(17%), health care (12%), education (9%), banking (9%) and retail (8%). Their demographics
were as follows: about half (54%) of participants were male; their age ranged from 50-60 (46%),
20-30 (27%) and 40-50 (16%); they worked in their companies for 11.58 years (SD = 10.77). On
average, they have about 11.05 direct subordinates (SD = 78.39) and 41.55 indirect subordinates
(SD = 224.63). They interacted with their subordinates about 21.24 hours (SD = 12.94) out of
their average 45.78 work hours (SD = 8.32) per week.
Students in a large Midwest university were asked to recruit leaders (i.e., full-time
employees who has at least one subordinate) to participate in the research study. This sample,
which focuses on leaders, is appropriate because this dissertation aims to understand why leaders
intentionally engage in abusive behaviors. One week before the start of the daily surveys, 529
leaders first completed a one-time survey, which assesses their demographics. Leaders then
completed two daily surveys for 15 workdays. Doing so enables me to assess within-person
variance of abusive leader behaviors for different motives, leaders’ need satisfactions and wellbeing. This is especially important because this design allows me to assess specific leader
behaviors rather than leadership styles, which is an average of leader behaviors over time.
The first daily survey was sent in the beginning of leaders’ workday (i.e., in the
morning). In the first daily survey, I assessed leaders’ need satisfaction and well-being at that
time. The second daily survey was sent at the end of leaders’ workday (i.e., in the evening). In
the second daily survey, leaders were first asked to think about their hostile verbal and nonverbal

40

behaviors towards their followers during the day and reported the frequency of engaging in such
leader behaviors during the day. Then, they were asked to report the motive(s) for performing
such behavior, and the follower actions that triggered such behavior. Finally, leaders reported
their need satisfactions at work and their own well-being (i.e., work engagement, positive
emotions and organization-based self-esteem) for that particular day.
Out of 529 leaders, 448 leaders (85%) completed at least one full day of surveys. On
average, leaders completed 9.39 full days of surveys out of their 15 workdays. To ensure the data
quality, I employed two criteria for inclusion of the sample. First, we only remained the days
where both leaders and followers were at work. If they were not at work, then abusive behaviors
would not be able to take place. Second, leaders had to complete at least three full days of
surveys. This has been a general rule of thumb to be considered the minimum number of withinperson cases for analysis (da Motta Veiga & Gabriel, 2016; Trougakos et al., 2016). The final
sample includes 375 leaders (71%) completing an average of 9.44 day of surveys.
Measures
Abusive leader behaviors. Each day, leaders were instructed to think about their hostile
verbal and nonverbal behaviors towards their followers, and then indicated the frequency of
engaging in such behaviors during the day (1 = “Never” to 6 = “Five or more times”). The
hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors included 24 abusive supervision items adapted from Dalal
et al. (2009), Ferris, Brown, Berry, and Lian (2008), and Tepper (2000). Example items are “I
told a subordinate that he/she was incompetent,” and “I told a subordinate that his/her thoughts
or feelings were stupid.” Coefficient alphas, averaged across days, was .83.
Intentional motives for abusive leader behaviors. Leaders were asked to consider the
hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors that they engaged in, and then indicate the intentional

41

reasons for doing such behaviors. Intentional motives will be assessed via the scales developed
by Scott et al. (2014). An example item for compliance motive is “behave in the ways that I want
him/her to at work.” An example item for social identity motive is “think of me as a leader.” An
example item for retributive justice motive is “see the world as a just place.” Leaders reported
the extent to which each item described the reason they engaged in abusive behavior (1 =
“Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”). Coefficient alphas, averaged across days, were .90
for compliance, .99 for social identity, and .98 for retributive justice.
In order to capture abusive leader behaviors done purely for intentional motives, I
controlled for automatic and spontaneous factors that may similarly prompt leaders to engage in
abusive leader behaviors. Previous research has suggested that leaders are more likely to engage
in abusive leader behaviors when they experience negative emotions, when they lack selfcontrol, and when they received unfavorable treatment from followers (Barnes et al., 2015;
Collins & Jackson, 2015; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Negative emotions, depletion, and
reciprocity were measured in daily surveys along with the intentional motives. Leaders were
asked to consider the hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors that they engaged in, and then
indicated whether they engaged in such behaviors because of negative emotions, depletion, and
reciprocity. Negative emotions were measured with 3 items from PANAS-X developed by
Watson and Clark (1994), including “angry,” “hostile,” and “irritable.” Depletion was be
measured with 3 items using the scales adapted from Twenge, Muraven, and Tice (2004). An
example item is “I feel drained.” Reciprocity was measured with 2 items using scales adapted
from Eisenberger, Cotterell, and Marvel (1987). Coefficient alphas, averaged across days, were
.91 for negative emotions, .94 for depletion, and .98 for reciprocity. Leaders reported the extent

42

to which each item described the reason they engaged in the abusive behavior (1 = “Strongly
disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”).
Follower-based antecedents for abusive leader behaviors. Leaders were asked to think
about the hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors that they engaged in, the reasons they engaged
in such behaviors, and then considered the actions of their followers prior to their abusive
behaviors. Based on my theoretical framework, three types of follower actions were assessed:
followers’ poor in-role performance, disrespectful behavior and violation of social and legal
norms. Leaders reported the frequency that their followers engaged in such behaviors during the
day using a 6-point scale (from 1 = “Never” to 6 = “Five or more times”).
Follower poor in-role performance during the day was measured by 6 items adapted
from Williams and Anderson (1991). Example items are “My subordinate did not meet formal
performance requirement of the job,” and “My subordinate did not fulfill a specific
responsibility.” Coefficient alpha, averaged across days, was .91.
Follower disrespectful behavior was measured with 8 items adapted from Maynes and
Podsakoff (2014), Liang, Farh, and Farh (2012), and Dalal et al. (2009). The items are all
reworded towards leaders. Example items are “My subordinates made insulting comments about
me,” and “My subordinates made critical comments when I asked them to do something.”
Coefficient alpha, averaged across days, was .82.
Follower violations of social and legal norms were measured with 11 items adapted from
counterproductive work behavior towards organizations and coworkers (Dalal et al., 2009;
Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). Example items are “My subordinate damaged property
belonging to the company,” and “My subordinate criticized a coworker.” Coefficient alpha,
averaged across days, was .79.

43

Need satisfaction. I measured the satisfaction of three types of basic needs: achievement,
identity and order. Leaders reported the extent to which they agreed with all items using a fivepoint Likert scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”).
Achievement need satisfaction was measured using items from competence need
satisfaction and accomplishment need satisfaction scales. Three achievement need satisfaction
items will be adapted from scales by La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, and Deci (2000) and by
Steers and Braunstein (1976). Items are “I feel like a competent person,” “I feel capable and
effective,” and “I feel I am improved on my past performance at work.” Coefficient alphas,
averaged across days, were .87 for the focal outcome measure, and .83 for the baseline measure.
Identity need satisfaction was measured using 3 items adapted from self-verification need
satisfaction scale (Wiesenfeld, Swann, Brockner, & Bartel, 2007) and power need satisfaction
scale (Steers & Braunstein, 1976). Items are “I feel others recognize me as a leader,” “I feel in
control over the events around me at work” and “I feel ‘in command.’ ” Coefficient alphas,
averaged across days, were .86 for the focal outcome measure, and .84 for the baseline measure.
Order need satisfaction was measured with 4 items adapted from cognitive closure need
satisfaction scale (Neuberg, Judice, & West, 1997). Example Items are “I feel there is social
order at work,” and “There is little uncertainty at work.” Coefficient alphas, averaged across
days, were .84 for the focal outcome measure, and .81 for the baseline measure.
Well-being. Three different markers of well-being – which reflect behavioral, affective,
and cognitive well-being – will be measured. Leaders reported the extent to which they agreed
with all items using a 5-point scale (from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”).
Work engagement, a behavioral marker of well-being, was measured with 4 items
developed by Rich et al. (2010). Example items are “I exert a lot of energy on the job,” and “I

44

am absorbed by my job.” Coefficient alphas, averaged across days, were .80 for the focal
outcome measure, and .78 for the baseline measure.
Positive emotions, an affective marker of well-being, were measured with 4 items
developed by Mackinnon et al. (1999), including “inspired,” “excited,” “enthusiastic,” and
“determined.” Coefficient alphas, averaged across days, were .88 for the focal outcome measure,
and .91 for the baseline measure.
Organization-based self-esteem, a cognitive marker of well-being, was be measured with
4 items using Pierce et al.’s (1989) scale. Example items are “I am valuable in my workplace,”
and “I am an important part of my workplace.” Coefficient alphas, averaged across days, were
.95 for the focal outcome measure, and .96 for the baseline measure.
Analyses
Given that the data were nested within person, I tested the hypotheses using multilevel
path analyses in Mplus 7.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). Doing so is appropriate because it takes
into account the non-dependence of the data and it allows me to test all the hypotheses
simultaneously. The within-person variables – follower behaviors, intentional motives of abusive
behaviors, abusive leader behaviors, need satisfactions, and well-being – were modeled as level 1
variables using random slopes. Following the suggestions by Hofmann, Griffin, and Gavin
(2000) and Enders and Tofighi (2007), I group mean centered the exogenous variables (i.e.,
centering around the person). This allows me to show the pure within-person fluctuations by
controlling for between-level confounds.
Given that the model is a multi-level model, I followed the recommendations by
Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (2010) to test mediation and to estimate the significance of the
indirect effect. This method allows me to test the indirect effect using simultaneous estimation

45

method (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Doing so is more beneficial than using piecemeal estimation
approaches (e.g., hierarchical linear modeling) because the piecemeal approach may have
potential bias from not estimating all parameters simultaneously. Then, I used Monte Carlo
simulation with 20,000 replications to estimate confidence intervals (CI) around the indirect
effect.

46

RESULTS
Tables 1 present the means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables.
Before testing hypotheses, I first examined the proportion of within-person variance in my focal
variables to ensure that using multilevel analyses is appropriate. Table 2 presents the proportion
of within-person variance in each variable. The focal variables showed considerable amount of
proportion of within-person variances, ranging from 27% to 60%, suggesting that using a withinperson study is adequate. This result also confirmed that these variables vary from one day to
another, and justified the use of multilevel analyses.

47

Table 1 – Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables
Variable

Mean

SD

1

1 Follower poor performance

1.27

0.40

(.91)

2 Follower disrespectful behavior

1.06

0.17

.34*

(.82)

3 Follower violation of norms

1.07

0.17

.29*

.51*

(.79)

4 Compliance motives

2.53

0.69

.09*

.04*

.02

(.90)

5 Social identity motives

2.70

0.66

.03

.03+

.02

.57*

(.99)

6 Retributive justice motives

2.42

0.60

.02

‒.01

.01

.44*

.52*

(.98)

7 Abusive leader behaviors

1.06

0.14

.35*

.55*

.42*

.09*

.03+

.03

(.83)

8 Achievement need satisfaction

3.90

0.44

‒.05*

‒.11*

‒.05+

.09*

.05*

.04+

‒.10*

(.88)

9 Identity need satisfaction

3.81

0.44

‒.04+

‒.08+

‒.00

.05*

.08*

.03

‒.02

.54*

10 Order need satisfaction

3.64

0.46

‒.10*

‒.08*

‒.07*

.01

.03

.06*

‒.06+

.39*

11 Work engagement

3.68

0.53

.07*

.04

.04

.05*

.04+

.07*

.08*

.20*

12 Positive emotions

3.49

0.50

‒.02

‒.06+

‒.01

.01

.03

.04+

‒.03

.33*

13 Organization based self-esteem

4.02

0.40

.03

‒.02

.02

.07*

.08*

.05*

‒.00

.39*

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Focal Variables

Note. Level 1 N = 3541, Level 2 N = 375. * p < .05, + p < .10

48

Table 1 (cont’d)
Variable

Mean

SD

9

9 Identity need satisfaction

3.81

0.44

(.86)

10 Order need satisfaction

3.64

0.46

.45*

(.84)

11 Work engagement

3.68

0.53

.17*

.11*

(.80)

12 Positive emotions

3.49

0.50

.28*

.25*

.23*

(.88)

13 Organization based self-esteem

4.02

0.40

.39*

.29*

.42*

.33*

10

11

12

13

Focal Variables

Note. Level 1 N = 3541, Level 2 N = 375; * p < .05, + p < .10

49

(.95)

Table 1 (cont’d)
Variable

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

14 Negative emotions

1.64

0.52

.17*

.17*

.11*

.19*

.19*

.23*

.25*

‒.09*

15 Depletion

1.84

0.61

.12*

.14*

.10*

.17*

.16*

.19*

.17*

‒.14*

16 Reciprocity

1.99

0.66

.05+

.10*

.07*

.26*

.23*

.27*

.13*

.00

17 Achievement need sat. (baseline)

4.01

0.39

‒.01

‒.00

‒.03

.04*

.04*

.04*

.01

.14*

18 Identity need sat. (baseline)

3.89

0.37

‒.01

‒.03

‒.02

.01

.05*

.01

‒.02

.13*

19 Order need sat. (baseline)

3.65

0.41

‒.00

‒.06*

‒.07+

‒.01

.02

‒.00

‒.02

.10*

20 Work engagement (baseline)

3.60

0.50

.03

.01

‒.00

‒.00

.03

.02

.01

.09*

21 Positive emotions (baseline)

3.51

0.51

‒.01

‒.00

‒.03

.00

.01

.02

.01

.12*

22 OBSE (baseline)

4.08

0.33

.04+

.01

.03

.05*

.06*

.00

‒.01

.14*

Control Variables

Note. Level 1 N = 3541, Level 2 N = 375. OBSE = Organization-based self-esteem. * p < .05, + p < .10

50

Table 1 (cont’d)
Variable

Mean

SD

9

10

11

12

13

14

14 Negative emotions

1.64

0.52

‒.06*

‒.08*

.01

‒.10*

‒.06*

(.91)

15 Depletion

1.84

0.61

‒.12*

‒.12*

.04+

‒.19*

‒.06*

.57*

(.94)

16 Reciprocity

1.99

0.66

‒.01

.01

.00

‒.00

.37*

.39*

(.98)

17 Achievement need sat. (baseline)

4.01

0.39

.13*

.05*

.06*

.15*

.08*

‒.03

‒.05*

.05*

18 Identity need sat. (baseline)

3.89

0.37

.19*

.09*

.05*

.11*

.12*

‒.07*

‒.08*

‒.01

19 Order need sat. (baseline)

3.65

0.41

.12*

.19*

.02

.12*

.08*

‒.04+

‒.07*

‒.00

20 Work engagement (baseline)

3.60

0.50

.07*

.01

.22*

.11*

.13*

‒.00

‒.01

‒.02

21 Positive emotions (baseline)

3.51

0.51

.09*

.07*

.09*

.26*

.08*

‒.04+

‒.07*

.01

22 OBSE (baseline)

4.08

0.33

.12*

.07*

.08*

.11*

.18*

‒.05*

‒.06*

‒.01

15

16

Control Variables

‒.01

Note. Level 1 N = 3541, Level 2 N = 375. OBSE = Organization-based self-esteem. * p < .05, + p < .10

51

Table 1 (cont’d)
Variable

Mean

SD

17

17 Achievement need sat. (baseline)

4.01

0.39

(.83)

18 Identity need sat. (baseline)

3.89

0.37

.49*

(.84)

19 Order need sat. (baseline)

3.65

0.41

.28*

.35*

(.81)

20 Work engagement (baseline)

3.60

0.50

.18*

.13*

.06*

(.78)

21 Positive emotions (baseline)

3.51

0.51

.32*

.26*

.24*

.23*

(.91)

22 OBSE (baseline)

4.08

0.33

.34*

.34*

.21*

.28*

.28*

18

19

20

21

22

Control Variables

Note. Level 1 N = 3541, Level 2 N = 375. OBSE = Organization-based self-esteem. * p < .05, + p < .10

52

(.96)

Table 2 – Proportion of Within-person Variance among Study Variables

Focal variables
Follower poor performance
Follower disrespectful behaviors
Follower violation of norms
Compliance motives
Social identity motives
Retributive justice motives
Abusive leader behaviors
Achievement need satisfaction
Identity need satisfaction
Order need satisfaction
Work engagement
Positive emotions
Organization-based self-esteem
Control variables
Negative emotions
Depletion
Reciprocity
Achievement need sat. (baseline)
Identity need sat. (baseline)
Order need sat. (baseline)
Work engagement (baseline)
Positive emotions (baseline)
OBSE (baseline)

Within-person
Variance (e2)

Between-person
Variance (r2)

% of Withinperson Variance

0.16
0.03
0.03
0.47
0.44
0.36
0.02
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.29
0.25
0.16

0.15
0.02
0.02
0.92
1.06
0.96
0.02
0.14
0.21
0.27
0.22
0.32
0.18

0.52
0.60
0.60
0.34
0.29
0.27
0.50
0.58
0.48
0.44
0.57
0.44
0.47

0.27
0.38
0.44
0.15
0.14
0.17
0.25
0.26
0.11

0.34
0.44
0.64
0.13
0.20
0.26
0.31
0.31
0.19

0.44
0.46
0.41
0.54
0.41
0.40
0.45
0.46
0.37

Note. Level 1 N = 3541, Level 2 N = 375. OBSE = Organization-based self-esteem.

53

I then ran multilevel confirmatory factor analyses for my focal variables. I included all of
the focal variables. The model has acceptable fit to the data: χ2(2598) = 7368.62; CFI = 0.92;
RMSEA = .02; and SRMR (between) = .06, and all loadings were significant (p < .05). I
compared this model with another model, where follower behaviors were combined, intentional
motives were combined, need satisfaction were combined, and well-being were combined. The
alternative model has a bad fit: χ2(2734) = 24847.32; CFI = 0.62; RMSEA = .05; and SRMR
(between) = .09, and it is significantly worse than the proposed model (Δ χ2s (Δdf = 136) ≥
17478.7). This finding further established the discriminant validity of my focal variables.
Tests of Hypotheses
Figure 2 shows the results of my analysis. Hypothesis 1 predicted that follower poor inrole performance is positively related to compliance motives of abusive leader behaviors. The
results showed that follower poor in-role performance was positively related to compliance
motives of abusive leader behaviors (γ = .15, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2
proposed that follower disrespectful behavior is positively related to social identity motives of
abusive leader behaviors. The results showed that follower disrespectful behavior was not related
to social identity motives of abusive leader behaviors (γ = .10, p = .11). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was
not supported. Hypothesis 3 predicted that follower violation of social and legal norms is
positively related to retributive justice motives of abusive leader behaviors. The results showed
that follower violation of social and legal norms was not related to retributive justice motives of
abusive leader behaviors (γ = .08, p = .40). Hypothesis 3, thus, was not supported.
Hypotheses 4-6 were to understand how each intentional motive is related to abusive
behaviors and how such abusive behaviors fulfill leaders’ need satisfactions. In order to ensure
that leaders engage in abusive behaviors intentionally, I controlled for previous established

54

automatic and spontaneous motives (i.e., negative emotions, depletion and reciprocity). In
addition, I also controlled for morning baseline need satisfactions in order to assess change,
showing that engaging in abusive leader behaviors may fulfill leaders’ need satisfactions, and
increase their well-being that day. Previous scholars have employed similar methods to study
daily effects of activities (e.g., Koopman, Lanaj, & Scott, 2016; Lanaj et al., 2016).
Hypothesis 4 predicted that compliance motives of abusive behaviors have a positive
indirect effect on satisfaction of achievement need via abusive leader behaviors. The results
showed that compliance motives of abusive behaviors were positively related to abusive leader
behaviors (γ = .02, p < .01), but unexpectedly, the results also showed that abusive leader
behaviors were negatively related to achievement need satisfaction (γ = -.38, p < .01). The
indirect effect of compliance motives on satisfaction of achievement need via abusive leader
behavior was negative and significant (indirect effect = .01, 95 % CI = [-.016, -.002]). Thus,
Hypothesis 4 was not supported.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that social identity motives of abusive behaviors have a positive
indirect effect on satisfaction of identity need via abusive leader behaviors. The results, however,
showed that social identity motives of abusive behaviors was not related to abusive leader
behaviors (γ = -.00, p = .77), and that abusive leader behaviors were not related to satisfaction of
identity need (γ = -.20, p = .13). The indirect effect of compliance motives on satisfaction of
achievement need via abusive leader behavior was not significant (indirect effect = .00, 95 % CI
= [.000, .006]). Thus, Hypothesis 5 was not supported.
Hypothesis 6 predicted that retributive justice motives of abusive behaviors have a
positive indirect effect on satisfaction of order need via abusive leader behaviors. Unfortunately,
the results showed that retributive justice motives were not related to abusive leader behaviors (γ

55

= -.00, p = .62), and that abusive leader behaviors were negatively related to order need
satisfaction (γ = -.34, p < .01). The indirect effect of compliance motives on satisfaction of
achievement need via abusive leader behavior was not significant (indirect effect = -.01, 95 % CI
= [-.004, .004]). Thus, Hypothesis 6 was not supported.
Though I did not hypothesize the relationship between automatic and spontaneous
motives (i.e., negative emotions, depletion, and reciprocity) and abusive leader behaviors, I
controlled for those motives in order to further understand intentional motives of abusive
behaviors. Consistent with previous research (Mawritz et al., 2014), negative emotions were
positively related to abusive leader behaviors (γ = .05, p < .01). However, depletion and
reciprocity were not related to abusive leader behaviors (γ = .01, p = .20; γ = .00, p = .64,
respectively). This result suggests that negative emotions are the primary automatic and
spontaneous motives of abusive leader behaviors.
Hypotheses 7a, 7b, 7c proposed that need satisfactions (i.e., achievement need, identity
need and order need satisfactions) were positively related to well-being (i.e., work engagement,
positive emotions and organizational based self-esteem). I controlled for baseline need
satisfaction and well-being to assess change when testing these hypotheses. Doing so allows me
to understand how need satisfactions could increase leaders’ well-being. The results showed that
achievement, and identity need satisfactions were positively related to work engagement (γ = .20,
p < .01; γ = .12, p < .01 respectively,), but not order need satisfaction (γ = .02, p = .54). Thus,
Hypothesis 7a was partially supported. The results showed that achievement, identity and order
need satisfactions were positively related to positive emotions (γ = .26, p < .01; γ = .14, p < .01;
γ = .12, p < .01, respectively), supporting Hypothesis 7b. Finally, consistent with Hypothesis 7c,

56

achievement, identity and order need satisfactions were positively related to organizational based
self-esteem (γ = .22, p < .01; γ = .22, p < .01; γ = .09, p < .01, respectively).

57

Figure 2 – Results of Proposed Model

Note. Level 1 N = 3541, Level 2 N = 375; * p < .05

58

Supplementary Analyses
I conducted several supplementary analyses to further probe the relationships in my
model and examine several constructs that could potentially confound the proposed hypotheses.
Abusive leader behaviors. Though the hypotheses were aimed at understanding the
potential intentional motives as to why leaders engage in abusive behaviors, I failed to support
some of the theory that I developed in the dissertation. I proposed that leaders may engage in
abusive behaviors for intentional motives. However, the results showed that some intentional
motives were not related to abusive leader behaviors. It may be due to little variance of abusive
behaviors or the way I assessed my focal variables. First, as Table 2 shows, the within person
and between person variances of abusive behaviors are extremely low (.02). Such little variance
prevents me from identifying meaningful relationships. Second, when I was assessing the
motives, I first asked the participants to rate the frequency with which they engaged in abusive
leader behaviors and then asked them to rate their motives for engaging in such behaviors. This
method assumes that leaders must have engaged in abusive leader behaviors on that particular
day. However, I conducted the focal analyses on all observations, regardless of whether or not
supervisors reported having engaged in abusive behavior on a particular day. It is possible that
leaders have the motives to engage in abusive behaviors without exhibiting it. Thus, I reran
analyses, this time retaining observations only on days when leaders engaged in abusive leader
behaviors. I conducted supplementary analyses in order to address two research questions: (a)
What follower behaviors precede abusive behaviors for intentional reasons? (b) How do leaders
feel after engaging in abusive leader behaviors for intentional reasons? Similar to what I propose
in my dissertation, I proposed that follower poor in-role performance, disrespectful behavior, and
violation of social and legal norms are positively related to abusive behaviors for compliance,

59

social identity, and retributive justice motives, respectively. When leaders engage in compliance,
social identity, and retributive justice driven abusive behaviors, their achievement, identity, and
order need satisfactions would be fulfilled, respectively. Need satisfactions, in turn, are
positively to leaders’ well-being (i.e., work engagement, positive emotions, and organizational
based self-esteem).
Selecting the observations to days when leaders engage in abusive behaviors results in a
sample of 101 leaders who exhibited abusive behaviors on an average of 5.48 days. Table 3
presents the proportion of within-person variance in each variable. Consistent with Table 2, my
focal variables showed large amount of proportion of within-person variances, so using a withinperson study is adequate. In addition, I have larger within person variance in abusive behaviors
for social identity and retributive justice motives. Shown in Figure 3 are the results of the
supplementary analysis. These results showed that follower in-role poor performance was
positively related to compliance driven abusive leader behaviors (γ = .17, p < .05), and that
follower disrespectful behaviors were positively related to social identity driven abusive leader
behaviors (γ = .14, p < .01). However, follower violation of norms was not related to retributive
justice driven abusive leader behaviors (γ = .00, p = .98).
The results further showed that compliance, social identity, and retributive justice driven
abusive behaviors were positively related to achievement, identity, and order need satisfactions,
respectively (γ = .14, p < .01; γ = .09, p < .05; γ = .12, p < .01, respectively). Achievement and
identity need satisfactions were marginally related to work engagement (γ = .12, p < .10; γ = .14,
p < .10, respectively). However, order need satisfaction was not related work engagement (γ =
.07, p = .23). Achievement and order need satisfaction were positively related to positive
emotions (γ = .20, p < .05; γ = .17, p < .01, respectively), but not identity need satisfaction (γ =

60

.07, p = .32). Achievement, identity, and order need satisfactions were positively related to
organizational based self-esteem (γ = .20, p < .01; γ = .21, p < .01; γ = .12, p < .01).
Though the theory suggests that follower poor in-role performance are positively related
to abusive behaviors for compliance reasons, follower disrespectful behaviors are positively
related to abusive behaviors for social identity reasons, and follower violations of norms are
positively related to abusive behaviors for retributive justice reasons, it is possible for cross ties
to occur. For example, follower poor in-role performance may signal leaders do not lead the
group effectively. If leaders have an identity as effective leaders at work, then such identity may
be threatened, so they may have social identity motives of abusive behaviors. Similarly, though
the theory suggests that abusive behaviors for compliance reasons are positively related to
competence need satisfaction, abusive behaviors for social identity motives are positively related
to identity need satisfaction, and abusive behaviors for retributive justice motives are positively
related to order need satisfaction, the cross ties may occur as well. For example, leaders may feel
they are judges or peacemakers at work after engaging in abusive behaviors to maintain a just
world, increasing their order need satisfactions. Thus, because of these reasons, I tested all the
cross ties. The results showed that none of the cross ties were significant, implying that the ties I
proposed are the primary links.

61

Table 3 – Proportion of Within-person Variance among Study Variables

Focal variables
Follower poor performance
Follower disrespectful behaviors
Follower violation of norms
AS for compliance motives
AS for social identity motives
AS for retributive justice motives
Achievement need satisfaction
Identity need satisfaction
Order need satisfaction
Work engagement
Positive emotions
Organization-based self-esteem
Control variables
Negative emotions
Depletion
Reciprocity
Achievement need sat. (baseline)
Identity need sat. (baseline)
Order need sat. (baseline)
Work engagement (baseline)
Positive emotions (baseline)
OBSE (baseline)

Within-person
Variance (e2)

Between-person
Variance (r2)

% of Withinperson Variance

0.31
0.12
0.11
0.53
0.40
0.39
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.32
0.35
0.21

0.39
0.10
0.08
0.42
0.68
0.73
0.14
0.17
0.26
0.12
0.36
0.23

0.44
0.55
0.58
0.56
0.37
0.35
0.71
0.67
0.57
0.73
0.49
0.48

0.44
0.53
0.48
0.19
0.19
0.26
0.3
0.33
0.16

0.3
0.44
0.55
0.12
0.19
0.22
0.37
0.33
0.19

0.59
0.55
0.47
0.61
0.50
0.54
0.45
0.50
0.46

Note. Level 1 N = 553, Level 2 N = 101; AS = Abusive behaviors; OBSE = Organization-based
self-esteem

62

Figure 3 – Results of an Alternative Model

Note. Level 1 N = 553, Level 2 N = 101; * p < .05, + p < .10

63

Positive follower behaviors. I proposed that follower disrespectful behaviors are
positively related to social identity motives of abusive behaviors. However, such effect was not
supported. It may be due to the fact that I mainly focus on follower negative behaviors, so social
identity motives and reciprocity motives may overlap to some extent (the correlation between the
two is r = .23). Reciprocity motives of abusive leader behaviors are defined as leaders paying
back follower mistreatment by engaging in abusive behaviors (Eisenberger et al., 1987).
Follower disrespectful behaviors are one of the follower mistreatments towards leaders as they
indicate that followers do not respect leaders’ identity, including engaging in counterproductive
behaviors towards supervisors and disruptive voice behaviors that challenge the status quo. Thus,
when followers disrespect them, leaders may also engage in abusive behaviors for reciprocity
reasons, which are paying back negative behaviors without further thoughts. At the same time,
leaders may also feel their identity was threatened, so they engage in abusive behaviors
intentionally. Thus, leaders were likely to engage in abusive behaviors for reciprocity motives
and social identity motives. Therefore, it is possible that the effects of follower disrespectful
behaviors on social identity motives were weakened.
Alternatively, it may be possible that follower positive behaviors may trigger leaders’
intentional motives. For example, it is possible that constructive voice behaviors may threaten
leaders’ identity in the group. Constructive voice behaviors are defined as employees express
ideas, information and recommendation to change the work context (Maynes & Podsakoff,
2014). Such behaviors include giving suggestions to fix the problems and offering
recommendations to improve work practices. However, those behaviors aim to change the work
group. According to Burris (2012), speaking up to alter and change generally accepted practices
may challenge the status quo, especially to the ones who are in charge. Given that leaders are

64

someone with high power and status, they are more likely to feel their status or identity in the
workgroup is threatened when their followers engage in constructive voice behavior. Therefore, I
ran post hoc analyses to examine if follower constructive voice behaviors are positively related
to social identity motives of abusive behaviors.
Follower constructive voice behaviors were measured with three items adapted from
Maynes and Podsakoff (2014). An example item is “Today, my subordinates made suggestions
about how to improve work methods or practice.” I measured such behaviors with other
proposed follower behaviors in the evening survey. Instead of testing the effect of follower
disrespectful behaviors on social identity motives of abusive behaviors, I examined the effect of
follower constructive voice behaviors on social identity motives of abusive behaviors. Consistent
with my prediction, the results showed that follower constructive behaviors were positively
related to social identity motives of abusive behaviors (γ = .07, p < .01). Thus, such proposition
is supported.
Different types of disrespectful behaviors. Besides positive follower behaviors, it is
also possible that certain types of disrespectful behaviors are more likely to prompt leaders to
have social identity motives of abusive behaviors. For example, Spector and Fox (2002) suggest
that active deviant behaviors are more likely to be punished than the passive ones because it is
directed to the target immediately and is perceived as threatening. Thus, it is possible that active
disrespectful behaviors, such as challenging leaders’ authority, are more likely to be perceived as
threatening, compared to passive disrespectful behaviors, such as ignoring leaders’ request. To
test this idea, first I ran multilevel confirmatory factor analyses to if disrespectful behaviors scale
items loaded on a single factor. The fit statistics showed an acceptable fit: χ2(10) = 120.92; CFI
= 0.89; RMSEA = .06; and SRMR (between) = .05, and all loadings were significant (p < .05).

65

This results suggest that only one factor lies in disrespectful behaviors. Though the results
suggest it does not worth splitting the scale into two factors, I still ran supplementary analyses to
see if leaders are more likely to respond to active disrespectful behaviors than the passive ones.
In fact, paying a closer look at the items I have, four out of five items were active disrespectful
behaviors, and only one item was passive disrespectful behaviors. The results showed that both
active disrespectful behaviors (γ = .07, p = .11) and passive disrespectful behaviors (γ = .07, p =
.14) were not related to social identity motives of abusive behaviors. Thus, unfortunately, the
results of active and passive disrespectful behaviors did not differ.
It is still possible that other types of disrespectful behaviors are more likely to prompt
leaders to feel threatening and trigger them to have social identity motives of abusive behaviors.
In particular, person-related disrespectful behaviors, such as made critical comments about
leaders, may be more threatening than task-related disrespectful behaviors, such as made critical
comments about the work leaders assigned to them. In fact, the supplementary results showed
that person-related disrespectful behaviors were marginally positively related to social identity
motives of abusive behaviors (γ = .12, p < .10), but task-related disrespectful behaviors were not
related to social identity motives of abusive behaviors (γ = .05, p = .57). Thus, the results showed
that person-related disrespectful behaviors are more likely to prompt leaders to have social
identity motives of abusive behaviors.
Personality. Though it is interesting to understand intentional motives for leaders to
engage in abusive behaviors, it is also intriguing for me to understand what personality or
individual differences may prompt people to engage in abusive behaviors. That is, instead of
looking at what drives leaders to engage in abusive leader behaviors within a day, I also explore
what kind of leaders are more likely to engage in abusive behaviors at the between-person level.

66

Tedeschi and Felson (1994) suggested that people with more power are more likely to engage in
aggression because they expect power to help them achieve what they want with low costs. Such
belief in power may prompt people to engage in aggression. Thus, it is possible that people with
power distance belief are more likely to engage in abusive leader behaviors.
To test this idea, I aggregated daily abusive leader behaviors to level 2 to represent leader
tendency of engaging in abusive behaviors. Power distance belief was measured with 8 items
developed by Earley and Erez (1997). An example item is “In work-related matters, managers
have a right to expect obedience from their subordinates.” In order to understand the relationship
between power distance belief and abusive leader behaviors, I regressed abusive leader behaviors
on power distance belief. The results showed that power distance belief was positively related to
leader tendency of engaging in abusive leader behaviors (β = .24, p < .01). Such results support
my proposition that endorsing power distance beliefs may prompt leaders to engage in abusive
behaviors.
Another individual difference that may be related to abusive leader behaviors is trait selfcontrol. Trait self-control is defined as people’s “capacity to inhibit its antisocial impulses and
conform to the demands of group life” (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004, p. 272). When
people lose self-control, they are more likely to engage in counterproductive behavior because
they cannot control their impulses (Marcus & Schuler, 2004). Extending this idea to work,
leaders with low trait self-control are less likely to suppress their impulses and more likely to
express their hostility to followers (Liang et al., 2015). Thus, if leaders are inclined to have low
self-control (i.e., have less capacity to control their impulses), they are more likely to engage in
abusive leader behaviors.

67

To test this idea, I measured trait self-control with 10-item self-control scale developed
by Tangney et al. (2004) in the one-time survey. An example item is “I am good at resisting
temptation.” Similarly, I aggregated daily abusive leader behaviors to level 2 to represent
leaders’ tendency to engage in abusive behaviors. I ran a regression analysis to test this
relationship. Supporting the proposition, the results showed that trait self-control is negatively
related to abusive leader behaviors (β = -.18, p < .01).
Moderators. I proposed to understand intentional motives of abusive behaviors.
Unfortunately, I found that some intentional motives were not positively related to abusive leader
behaviors. It is possible that leaders have those motives, but they suppress them so as not to act
counter to effective leadership prototypes (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). Previous research has
suggested that people are more likely to lash out and express their hostility to others when they
lose self-control (Liang et al., 2015; Tangney et al., 2004). According to Baumeister et al.
(1998), people have a limited pool of resource for them to enact self-control. When they run out
of their resources, they may experience depletion or mental fatigue. Such depletion may prompt
them to engage in deviant behaviors or abusive behaviors (Lin & Johnson, 2015). Thus, it is
possible that the positive relationship between intentional motives of abusive behaviors and
abusive leader behaviors will be more positive for leaders with high depletion (vs. low).
Instead of treating depletion as a control variable, I treated depletion as a level 1
moderator of the relationships between intentional motives and abusive leader behaviors. I first
group mean centered the variables and then created the interaction terms. Unfortunately, the
moderating effect of depletion on the relationship between compliance motives of abusive
behaviors and abusive leader behaviors was not significant (γ = .01, p = .58). The moderating
effect of depletion on the relationship between social identity motives of abusive behaviors and

68

abusive leader behaviors was not significant (γ = .00, p = .79), and the moderating effect of
depletion on the relationship between retributive justice motives of abusive behaviors and
abusive leader behaviors was not significant (γ = -.02, p = .15). Thus, unfortunately, the idea that
the moderation effects of depletion were not supported. This result may suggest that intentional
motives of abusive behaviors were independent from depletion motives of abusive behaviors.
Though I did not find the interaction effect of intentional motives and depletion motives
on abusive behaviors, it is possible that trait self-control could serve as a level 2 moderator that
moderates the relationship between intentional motives and abusive leader behaviors. According
to Tangney et al. (2004), trait self-control is one’s capacity to suppress their impulses.
Suppressing one’s impulses or hostility to others allows people with high self-control form better
relationship with others and perform better on tasks (Baumeister et al., 1998; Tangney et al.,
2004). Thus, it is possible that leaders with high self-control are more likely to control their
intentional motives to engage in abusive behaviors. Unfortunately, the supplementary analyses
showed that trait self-control did not moderate the relationship of compliance motives, social
identity motives, or retributive justice motives with abusive behavior (γ = -.00, p = .81; γ = -.01,
p = .42; γ = .01, p = .24, respectively). Thus, these propositions were not supported.

69

DISCUSSION
Abusive leader behaviors have long been shown to have detrimental outcomes for
followers, work teams, and organizations (Martinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2000). Given these
detrimental outcomes, it is important to understand why leaders engage in such behaviors. The
majority of research to date has indicated that abusive leader behaviors are due to negative
emotions and depletion (Barnes et al., 2015; Collins & Jackson, 2015; Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005; Lin et al., 2016). This dissertation takes a needed first step to understand possible
intentional motives for leaders to engage in abusive behaviors and why engaging in such
behaviors might be reinforcing for leaders. Drawing from theories of self-regulation, I propose
that leaders may engage in abusive behaviors for intentional motives, triggered by follower
behaviors and that engaging in abusive behaviors for intentional motives may increase leaders’
need satisfaction and well-being. To empirically test these propositions, I collected experiencing
sampling data from 375 leaders.
The results of this dissertation showed that leaders may engage in abusive behaviors for
compliance reasons, and that abusive behaviors are negatively related to need satisfaction.
However, the results of the supplementary analysis showed that when leaders engage in abusive
behaviors, they may perceive they engage in abusive behaviors for compliance, social identity,
and retributive justice reasons, and that intentional reasons of abusive behaviors are positively
related to need satisfaction. Such results may suggest that leaders may engage in abusive
behaviors for compliance reasons, but when they engage in abusive behaviors, they may give
compliance, social identity, and retributive justice reasons. In addition, engaging in abusive
behaviors are negatively related to need satisfaction. Only when leaders give intentional reasons,

70

they will feel good about themselves. In this discussion, I discuss the implications of the results,
limitations and future research, and conclusions.
Implications of Results
As I previously reviewed in my results section, some of the hypotheses in this
dissertation were supported, while others were not. Several theoretical and empirical reasons
may be responsible for the mixed findings, which I discuss below.
Follower behaviors. I extended social interactionist theory of aggression by showing the
possible antecedent of compliance motives. Specifically, the results showed that follower poor
in-role performance was positively related to compliance motives of abusive behaviors.
According to Tedeschi and Felson (1994), people may engage in abusive behaviors for
intentional motives. However, we know little about what behaviors may trigger people to have
those motives. Integrating social interactionist theory of aggression and theory of self-regulation
suggests that follower poor in-role performance could trigger compliance motives of abusive
behaviors because leaders may perceive such poor performance as a disruption. Understanding
the possible antecedent is important because organizations could provide training sections and
inform leaders that they might engage in abusive behaviors when followers do not perform well.
However, given that previous research has shown that engaging in abusive behaviors is not an
effective way to influence the followers (Tepper, 2000, 2007), organizations could encourage
leaders to adhere to justice rules to influence followers rather than to engage in abusive
behaviors (Scott et al., 2014). Adhering to justice rules could not only achieve leaders’ goal (i.e.,
get their compliance) but also increase follower job satisfactions (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,
Porter, & Ng, 2001; Scott et al., 2014).

71

Though this dissertation attempts to explore other follower behaviors that could
potentially trigger intentional motives of abusive behavior, none of the predictions were
supported. That is, the results showed that follower disrespectful behaviors were not related to
social identity motives of abusive behaviors and that follower violation of legal and social norms
were not related to retributive justice motives of abusive behaviors. These unsupported
hypotheses may be due to how I operationalized the follower behaviors. First, I define follower
disrespectful behaviors as any follower behaviors that indicate not respecting leaders’ identity.
Thus, when I operationalized it, I included a broad range of follower disrespectful behaviors,
including person-related disrespectful behaviors (i.e., followers disrespect their leaders) and taskrelated disrespectful behaviors (i.e., followers disrespect the tasks leaders assigned to followers).
However, the behaviors that are directed to the target are more likely to be perceived as
threatening (Spector & Fox, 2002). Thus, as supplementary analyses showed, leaders’ are more
likely to feel their identity is threatened when followers engage in person-related disrespectful
behaviors rather than task-related ones. For example, leaders may not feel their identity is
threatened when followers made critical comments about the work they assigned to them
because leaders may perceive such comments are about the work rather than leaders themselves.
Given that follower disrespectful behaviors are a composite of a wide range of destructive
behaviors, the link from follower disrespectful behaviors to social identity motives of abusive
behaviors may be weakened. Future research could define disrespectful behaviors more precisely
and measure those as person-related disrespectful behaviors.
Second, I define violation of norms as violation of social and legal norms, and
operationalize such violation of norms as counterproductive work behaviors towards coworkers
and organizations, including criticizing coworkers and saying rude things about the company.

72

However, it is possible that ethical norms are more relevant. In fact, Christian, Christian, Garza,
and Ellis (2012) have suggested that people may feel justified to engage in aggression when
someone breaks ethical/moral norms to restore moral order. Therefore, it is possible that leaders
may engage in abusive behaviors for retributive justice reasons when their followers engage in
unethical behaviors, such as cheating and lying. Future research could assess a broader range of
norm violation behaviors, including violation of ethical norms, to see if they are related to
abusive behaviors for retributive justice reasons.
Intentional motives of abusive behaviors. This dissertation contributes to abusive
supervision literature by proposing and testing possible intentional motives of abusive behaviors.
Specifically, I found that follower poor performance is positively related to compliance motives
of abusive behaviors and compliance motives are positively related to abusive behaviors. Such
results are consistent with previous findings suggesting that follower poor performance may
prompt leaders to engage in abusive behaviors (Liang et al., 2015; Walter et al., 2015). However,
the majority of research to date has focused on emotion as the mechanism for why leaders
engage in abusive behaviors. For example, Liang et al. (2015) suggested that hostility mediates
the negative relationship between follower poor in-role performance and abusive leader
behaviors. Thus, this dissertation shifts the predominant focus from ‘hot’ motives like emotions
to more deliberative and ‘cold’ motives of abusive leader behaviors and showed that affecting
compliance may be another reason why leaders engage in abusive behaviors.
Unfortunately, I did not find that social identity and retributive justice motives of abusive
behaviors were related to abusive leader behaviors. Such results may be due to the fact that those
two motives are less relevant for leaders’ in-role responsibilities compared to compliance
motives. If the motives are relevant for leaders’ in-role responsibilities, leaders may feel the urge

73

the engage in abusive behaviors and respond to such motives quickly. One of the responsibilities
that leaders have is to get followers comply and get followers do what leaders ask them to do.
Thus, compliance motives of abusive behaviors are more likely to prompt leaders to engage in
abusive behaviors because leaders feel they have the urge and need to change their followers
quickly. Social identity and retributive justice motives, however, are less likely to be related to
leaders’ in-role responsibilities. For example, it is not leaders’ in-role responsibility to maintain a
just world. Thus, it is possible that leaders are less likely to engage in abusive behaviors for
identity and retributive justice reasons than compliance reasons. However, leaders would still
sometimes engage in abusive behaviors for social identity and retributive justice reasons. To
further understand the potential antecedents for leaders to engage in abusive behaviors for social
identity and retributive justice reasons and the consequences of them, as part of supplementary
analyses in the results section, I only consider days where leaders engage in abusive behaviors.
Briefly, when I did this, I found follower disrespectful behaviors were positively related to
abusive behaviors for social identity reasons and follower violation of social and legal norms
were positively related to retributive justice reasons. I summarize these results in greater detail
below in the ‘Results of supplementary analyses’ subsection.
Outcomes of abusive behaviors. This dissertation extends abusive supervision literature
by understanding how abusive leader behaviors could influence leaders themselves. The majority
of research to date has focused on the consequences of abusive behaviors towards the recipients,
including followers, work teams, and organizations (Martinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2000). This
dissertation, however, takes an actor-centric perspective by focusing on the consequences of
abusive behaviors for leaders. Unexpectedly, the results showed that abusive behaviors were
negatively related to achievement and order need satisfaction and unrelated to identity need

74

satisfaction. Such results run counter to my predictions. These unsupported hypotheses may be
due to the fact that leaders engage in abusive behaviors for depletion and negative emotions, or
that leaders may engage in abusive behaviors for several different reasons other than the ones I
examined, such as weather, perceived luck that day, and commute stressors. When leaders
engage in abusive behaviors for these incidental reasons, leaders are less likely to feel their
competence, identity and order needs are satisfied at work. Given that I cannot preclude all the
possible factors driving the relationships, such results could not accurately test my hypotheses,
which aims to understand the potential consequences of leaders after leaders engage in abusive
behaviors for intentional motives. In the next section, I will discuss the results of supplementary
analyses to further understand these hypotheses.
Results of supplementary analyses. In the supplementary analyses, I focused only on
days where leaders engage in abusive behaviors because of three reasons. First and foremost, if
leaders do not engage in abusive behaviors on a certain day, then asking them why they engage
in abusive behaviors that day would not be relevant. Thus, focusing on the days where leaders
engage in abusive behaviors is a more adequate approach to understand intentional motives.
Second, if leaders do not engage in abusive behaviors on a certain day and they still completed
the reasons of engaging in abusive behaviors that day, this may suggest that those participants
did not pay attention to complete the surveys. That is, to some extent, these participants failed
the attention check. Third, the hypotheses aim to understand the consequences of abusive
behaviors for intentional motives. This implies that leaders have to engage in abusive behaviors
for such motives. Thus, it is important for me to use abusive behaviors as a check to assume that
leaders engage in abusive behaviors and further focus on abusive behaviors for intentional
reasons. Thus, in supplementary analyses, I examined when abusive supervisor behavior

75

occurred, what follower behaviors (if any) were related to abusive behaviors for the three
intentional motives (i.e., affecting compliance, social identity, and retributive justice), and
whether engaging in such behaviors are reinforcing for leaders. Interestingly, the results showed
that follower poor in-role performance is positively related to compliance driven abusive
behaviors, and follower disrespectful behaviors are positively related to identity driven abusive
behaviors. Such results contribute to social interactionist theory of aggression by suggesting
possible antecedent of intentional motives of aggression. Previous research has only focused on
follower poor performance as an antecedent of abusive behaviors (Liang et al., 2015; Walter et
al., 2015). This dissertation, however, expands the literature by suggesting that disrespectful
behaviors may also trigger leaders to engage in abusive behaviors for social identity reasons.
Understanding such results is important because it suggests that leaders may attribute their
abusive behaviors to follower poor performance and disrespectful behaviors.
In addition, the results also contribute to abusive supervision literature by suggesting that
follower behaviors may trigger leaders to engage in abusive behaviors towards them
intentionally. The majority of research to date has focused on depletion and negative emotions
(Barnes et al., 2015; Collins & Jackson, 2015), which are less controllable and predictable by
followers. For example, if leaders engage in abusive behaviors because of their lack of sleep, it is
hard for followers to prevent themselves from abused. However, my results suggest that leaders
may engage in abusive behaviors for intentional reasons as well. They may perceive they engage
in abusive behaviors because of compliance, social identity and retributive justice reasons. Such
intentional reasons are more malleable. Organizations could guide and train leaders to engage in
other behaviors when they have such intentional motives.

76

The supplementary results also suggested that compliance driven abusive behaviors are
positively related to achievement need satisfaction, identity driven abusive behaviors are
positively related to identity need satisfaction, and retributive justice driven abusive behaviors
are positively related to order need satisfaction. Such results contribute to abusive supervision
literature by exploring one of the potential consequences for leaders who engage in abusive
behaviors. The majority of research to date has focused on how abusive leader behaviors
influence followers, work teams and organizations (Martinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2000).
Numerous research has indicated that abusive behaviors are detrimental for recipients (Aryee et
al., 2007; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2007). Given that abusive behaviors are so
detrimental for recipients, it is intriguing to understand why leaders still engage in abusive
behaviors. This dissertation answers this questions by suggesting that engaging in abusive
behaviors for intentional reasons is beneficial to leaders. Specifically, engaging in abusive
behavior for intentional reasons may satisfy leaders’ need satisfaction and increase their wellbeing. This results show that leaders engage in abusive behaviors for intentional reasons may
benefit them momentarily.
All the focal variables in supplementary analyses were examined at the same time, raising
causal order problems. Although my theory suggests that follower behaviors activate abusive
behaviors for intentional motives, and doing so may increase need satisfaction and well-being,
there are plausible alternative explanations as well. For example, it is possible that when leaders
engage in abusive behaviors for intentional motives, such as compliance motives, followers
responded with poor performance. Or when leaders engage in abusive behaviors for social
identity reasons, followers responded with disrespectful behaviors. To alleviate the concern of
alternative explanation, I compared the fit of my proposed model in the supplementary analysis

77

with the model where follower behaviors and abusive behaviors for intentional motives were
reversed. The results showed that my proposed model has lower AIC and BIC (AIC = 9902.39,
BIC = 10290.07) than the reverse order model (AIC = 11095.06, BIC = 11509.34). According to
Kline (2005), lower AIC and BIC are preferred because they are more likely to replicate. It
suggests that my proposed model has a better fit than the reverse causal order model. In addition,
to further alleviate the concern of alternative explanation, I controlled for morning baseline need
satisfaction and well-being in the analyses, so I could assess change in need satisfaction and
well-being.
This dissertation also offers practical implications. This dissertation has suggested that
leaders may engage in abusive behaviors for intentional motives ‒ compliance, social identity
and retributive justice, not just automatic and spontaneous motives. Understanding this is
important because organizations could actually curb abusive leader behaviors. For example,
organizations could provide training sessions to inform leaders the detrimental outcomes of
abusive behaviors and let them know other ways to get their followers comply, to protect their
identity, and to maintain a just world. One way to do so is to adhere to justice rules (Scott et al.,
2014). Adhering to justice rules could not only fulfill leaders’ motives but also create a positive
work environment. Thus, organizations could encourage leaders to adhere to justice rules when
they have intentional motives and further curb abusive leader behaviors.
In addition, this dissertation also showed that engaging in abusive behaviors are
negatively related to need satisfactions, which in turn are detrimental to leaders’ well-being.
Thus, organizations could provide training sessions to inform leaders that abusive behaviors are
not only detrimental to recipients but also detrimental to the actors themselves. Thus, it is unwise
for leaders to engage in abusive behaviors. In addition, though the supplementary analyses

78

showed that engaging in abusive behaviors for instrumental motives are beneficial to leaders in
the short run, the positive indirect effect on well-being is quite small (the indirect effects of
abusive behaviors for instrumental motives on work engagement, positive emotions and
organizational based self-esteem are around .01 to .02), suggesting that engaging in abusive
behaviors for instrumental reasons would not be very beneficial. With the detrimental outcomes
for followers, work teams and organizations, engaging in abusive behaviors would not be
beneficial at all. Thus, organizations could further inform leaders with the consequences of
abusive behaviors for instrumental reasons and prevent leaders from engaging in abusive
behaviors.
Strengths, Limitations and Future Directions
I discuss several strengths with this dissertation. First, this dissertation’s focus on
intentional motives of abusive behaviors addresses a limitation in existing research. Most
research to date has primarily focused on uncontrollable motives of abusive behaviors, such as
negative emotions and depletion (Barnes et al., 2015; Collins & Jackson, 2015; Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005; Lin et al., 2016). This dissertation takes a needed first step to understand
intentional motives of abusive behaviors. In order to further understand the intentional motives
of abusive behaviors, this dissertation controls for previous established motives, including
negative emotions, depletion and reciprocity.
Second, this dissertation takes an actor centric perspective to understand consequences of
abusive behaviors for leaders. It shifts the predominant focus from followers to leaders.
Specifically, I focus on the short-term outcomes of abusive behaviors for leaders themselves.
Thus, I collected leaders’ daily well-being so that I could further understand the outcomes of
abusive leader behaviors for leaders themselves.

79

Third, I utilized experiencing sampling method in this dissertation. Most research to date
has taken a static approach to understand abusive behaviors (Tepper, 2007). However, recent
research has suggested that leaders vary their abusive behaviors from one day to another (Barnes
et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2012). Thus, in line with recent research, I took a dynamic approach
and utilized experiencing sampling methods. That is, leaders completed two daily surveys for
fifteen workdays in this dissertation. Doing so allows me to understand dynamic of abusive
behaviors. Using experiencing sampling methods also helps me to control for individual
differences, such as social desirability, and ensures leaders have more accurate recalls of the
motives for their abusive behaviors.
However, these strengths are still accompanied by some limitations. First, this
dissertation has common method bias (CMV) problem as I largely rely on self-report data. I
chose leader reports for all of the focal constructs because leaders have the best insight about
their motives for abusive behaviors and their feeling and experiences after engaging in abusive
behaviors. These motives and feelings are not readily visible to others. To alleviate common
method bias, I controlled for some potential within-person confounds, such as transient states,
like negative emotions and depletion that may affect the analyses when understanding the
intentional motives of abusive behaviors. I also group mean centered daily variables at person
level so that potential between-person confounds, such as social desirability and response
tendencies, will be controlled for.
Second, I exclusively focus on follower negative behaviors as antecedents of abusive
leader behaviors because negative behaviors are more likely to be perceived as disruptions or
threats to leaders (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). However, some positive behaviors may
also be perceived as threatening to leaders as well. For example, though constructive voice

80

behaviors are perceived as employee extra role behaviors (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), such
behaviors may alter and challenge the status quo (Burris, 2012). Thus, leaders may feel their
identity or status quo in the group is threatened when followers engage in constructive voice
behaviors. In fact, in my supplementary analyses, I showed that constructive voice behaviors are
positively related to leaders’ identity motives for abusive behaviors. Thus, it is possible that
follower positive behaviors, such as constructive voice behaviors, may trigger leaders to engage
in abusive behaviors. Future research could explore a broader range of follower behaviors (e.g.,
proactive behaviors) to see whether they trigger abusive supervisor behavior for intentional
motives.
Third, this dissertation mainly focuses on intentional motives of abusive behaviors.
However, it is possible that some incidental factors could trigger abusive behaviors as well. For
example, previous research has shown that weather could influence a variety of employee work
behaviors, including punctuality, productivity, and helping (Cunningham, 1979; Lee, Gino, &
Staats, 2014; Mueser, 1953). It is possible that weather could also influence abusive leader
behaviors. In fact, Larrick, Timmerman, Carton, and Abrevaya (2011) found that high
temperature triggers people to experience anger, prompting them to retaliate. Thus, it is possible
that leaders are more likely to engage in abusive behaviors on days where temperature is high
versus low. Besides weather, another incidental factor that might influence abusive leader
behaviors is leaders’ commute stressors. If leaders experience stress when commuting to work
(e.g., getting in a traffic jams or being pulled over by the police), such stress is likely to carry
over to work. In fact, previous research has suggested that stress may prompt people to engage in
counterproductive behaviors (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). Similarly, when leaders experience
stress, they are more likely to engage in abusive behaviors. Thus, future research could explore

81

how incidental factors, such as weather and commute stressors, could influence abusive
behaviors.
Fourth, this dissertation aims to understand why engaging in abusive behaviors is
reinforcing for leaders, so I mainly focus on short-term consequence of abusive behaviors. In the
short run, leaders may provide a quick way to get their followers compliance, restore a
threatened identity, or create a just world. Doing so may increase their well-being. However, it is
possible that abusive behaviors may bring different outcomes to leaders in the long run. For
example, after leaders engage in abusive behaviors, they may ruminate about their behaviors at
night and feel guilty about such behaviors. Such sense of guilty may prompt them to engage in
prosocial behaviors (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994), such as helping behaviors or
even transformational leader behaviors on the next day.
It is also possible that in the long run, followers imitate and learn from their leader
behaviors, engaging in counterproductive behaviors at work (Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne,
& Marinova, 2012). With the increase of follower counterproductive behaviors, leaders may feel
they fail to lead the group effectively. Thus, their competence need may not be satisfied in the
long run, decreasing leaders’ well-being. In addition, in the long run, followers may also try to
retaliate back to leaders by engaging in counterproductive behaviors (Mitchell & Ambrose,
2007). Leaders may experience negative affect and burnout because leaders need to handle such
counterproductive behaviors (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2007) that followers
acted towards them and the organizations. In addition, followers are more likely to turnover and
leave the organizations when leaders engage in abusive behaviors (Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter,
& Kacmar, 2007; Tepper, 2000). In the long run, leaders need to spend additional time and costs
in recruiting and hiring new employees. Therefore, engaging in abusive behaviors may not be

82

beneficial for leaders in the long run. Thus, future research could further explore other leader
outcomes of abusive behaviors.
Fifth, this dissertation only focuses on leaders. Specifically, it focuses on leaders’
attribution of why they engage in abusive behaviors. However, leadership is a social process with
reciprocal interactions involving a leader and one or more followers. It would also be interesting
to understand such motives from followers as well. Previous research has focused on two
attributions that followers give for abusive supervision ‒ performance promotion and injury
initiation (Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012). However, it is possible that followers may perceive leaders
engage in abusive behaviors for other intentional reasons as well. For example, followers may
perceive leaders engage in abusive behaviors because leaders feel their identity is threatened or
because leaders need to create a just world at work. It is also possible that followers perceive
leaders engage in abusive behaviors for unintentional reasons. For example, followers may
perceive leaders engage in abusive behaviors because leaders are depleted and exhausted. Thus,
future research could explore both intentional and unintentional attribution of abusive behaviors
and see if followers would respond differently based on different attributions. For example, if
followers perceive leaders engage in abusive behaviors for performance promotion reasons, they
may be more likely to focus on their task, increasing their performance. On the other hand, if
followers perceive leaders engage in abusive behaviors because they experience negative
emotions, followers may retaliate leaders by engaging in counterproductive behaviors.
Another avenue for research is to explore the situations where leaders are sensitive to
each intentional motive. It is possible that when leaders are more sensitive to certain motives,
they are more likely to respond to the corresponding disruptive event. For example, if leaders are
more sensitive to their power or identity in the work group, then they are more likely to respond

83

to follower disrespectful behaviors. Power distance belief is defined as the degree to which
people accept that power is distributed unevenly (Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009).
When leaders have high power distance belief, they are more likely to believe that they are
inherent with higher power in the group. If followers do not respect them, such high power is
threatened; thus, leaders with high power distance belief are more likely to have the motivation
to engage in abusive behaviors for social identity reasons. Therefore, it is possible that leader
power distance belief may moderate the relationship between follower disrespectful behaviors
and social identity motive of abusive behavior.
As another example, if leaders are sensitive to follower poor performance, leaders are
more likely to have the motivation to engage in abusive behaviors for compliance motive.
Specifically, when leaders’ performance evaluation is tied with followers’ performance
evaluation, leaders are more likely to respond to follower poor performance. In fact, Walter et al.
(2015) found that the negative relationship of follower performance with abusive behaviors is
stronger when leaders’ outcome depends on follower. Thus, it is possible that when followers
have poor performance, leaders are more likely to have compliance motives of abusive behaviors
for leaders whose performance evaluation is tied with their followers’ performance (versus those
whose performance evaluation is less dependent on that of their followers).
Conclusions
This dissertation aims to understand the intentional motives of abusive leader behaviors.
Understanding intentional motives is critical because most research to date has focused on
uncontrollable motives. The findings showed that follower poor performance may trigger leaders
to have compliance motives of abusive behaviors, leading to abusive leader behaviors. In
addition, this dissertation also takes a needed first step to understand the proximal consequences

84

of abusive leader behaviors for leaders themselves. Though the results were opposite of my
prediction, it may suggest that on days when leaders did not engage in abusive behaviors, they
have higher well-being compared to days when they engaged in abusive behaviors.

85

APPENDICES

86

APPENDIX A: Between-person Measures
Power:
INSTRUCTIONS: Below are a number of statements with which you
may agree or disagree. Using the response scale provided, please indicate
your agreement or disagreement with each statement.

Hinkin &
Schriesheim
(1989)

1 = strongly
disagree

Reward Power:
In general, I can …

2 = disagree
1.
2.
3.
4.

… increase my subordinate’s pay level
… influence my subordinate getting a pay raise
… provide my subordinate with special benefits
… influence my subordinate getting a promotion

3 = neither
agree nor
disagree
4 = agree

Coercive Power:
In general, I can …

1.
2.
3.
4.

5 = strongly
agree

… give my subordinate undesirable job assignments
… make my subordinate work different for my subordinate
… make things unpleasant here for my subordinate
… make being at work distasteful for my subordinate

Legitimate Power:
In general, I can …
1. … make my subordinate feel that he or she has commitments to
meet
2. … make my subordinate feel like he or she should satisfy his/her
job requirements
3. … give my subordinate the feeling he or she has responsibilities
to fulfill
4. … make my subordinate recognize that he or she has tasks to
accomplish

87

Expert Power:
In general, I can …
1. … give my subordinate good technical suggestions
2. … share with my subordinate my considerable experience and/or
training
3. … provide my subordinate with sound job-related advice
4. … provide my subordinate with needed technical knowledge
Referent Power:
In general, I can …
1.
2.
3.
4.

… make my subordinate feel valued
… make my subordinate feel like I approve of him/her
… make my subordinate feel personally accepted
… make my subordinate feel important

Power
In my relationships with others at work, …
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Anderson et
al. (2012)

… I can get them to listen to what I say
… my wishes do not carry much weight (R)
… I can get them to do what I want
… even if I voice them, my views have little sway (R)
… I think I have a great deal of power
… my ideas and opinions are often ignored (R)
… even when I try, I am not able to get my way (R)
… If I want to, I get to make the decisions

Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

My peers respect me and hold me in high esteem
I am not concerned with my status among my peers (R)
I am a highly valued member of my work group
I am admired by my peers
I have influence over other people’s decisions
I have a position of prestige and social standing
Others do not view me with respect and hold me in esteem (R)
Others view positively about me

88

Adapted
from Need
for social
status
measure
Flynn et al.
(2006, JPSP)

Power
1.
I supervise a large number of subordinates.
2.
I formally manage many other people.
3.
I can provide rewards to others at my own discretion.
4.
I have a great deal of power at work.
5.
I have authority to discipline others when needed.
6.
My designated role (official title) allows me to control a lot of
resources (e.g., budget, personnel).
Status
7.
Others often seek my opinion because they respect me.
8.
I have a good reputation among those I work with.
9.
I am highly respected by others at work.
10. People look up to me because I am good at my job.
11. I am admired by others at work because I am seen as competent in
my work.
12. Coworkers come to me because they trust my judgment.
Demographics:
Tenure
Number of subordinates they have
Hours/Week
Hours interact with subordinate in general
Gender
Age
Race
Industry
Positions in the organization

89

APPENDIX B: Within-person Measures
Are you at work today?
Are your subordinates at work today?
Are your subordinates around today?
Abusive Leader Behaviors:

Tepper
(2000)

INSTRUCTIONS: Leaders may exhibit different behaviors towards their
subordinates daily. In the survey below, we will be asking you questions
about the episodes that may have occurred at work with your
subordinate.
Please take a moment to consider episodes that involved with your
subordinate, and then indicate the behaviors that you have engaged in
below:
<AS>

Dalal et al.
(2009)
Ferris et al.
(2008)

1 = never
2 = once

1. Ridiculed my subordinate
2. Told my subordinate their thoughts or feelings are stupid
3. Gave my subordinate the silent treatment
4. Put my subordinate down in front of others
6. Reminded my subordinate of his/her past mistakes and failures
7. Didn’t give my subordinate credit for jobs requiring a lot of
effort
10. Expressed anger at my subordinate
11. Made negative comments about my subordinate to others
12. Was rude to my subordinate
14. Told my subordinate he/she was incompetent
<CWBI>
16. Criticized my subordinate’s opinions or suggestions
17. Excluded my subordinate from a conversion
<Ostracism>
19. Ignored or avoided a subordinate
24. Treated a subordinate as if s/he was not there

90

3 = twice
4 = three times
5 = four times
6 = five or
more times

Intentional Motives:
INSTRUCTIONS: Please continue to think about the episodes that you
involved with your subordinates today. The questions below ask you to
consider these potential reasons for your actions.
Please consider each reason, and then indicate the extent to which it
provides an explanation for your actions.

Scott, Graza,
Conlon, &
Kim (2014)

1 = strongly
disagree
2 = disagree

Compliance:
Today, I engaged in these behaviors to ensure that my subordinate would
…
5. … obey my orders
6. … behave in the ways that I want him/her to at work
7. … carry out his/her job as I would want him/her to

3 = neither
agree nor
disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly
agree

Social Identity:
Today, I engaged in these behaviors to ensure that my subordinate would
…
5. … think of me as a leader
6. … know that I am a leader
7. … have an impression of me as a leader
Retributive Justice:
Today, I engaged in these behaviors because I …
9. … was concerned that people get what they deserve
10. … saw the world as a just place
11. … ensured that people get what they deserve
Automatic and/or uncontrollable Motives:
INSTRUCTIONS: Please continue to think about the episodes that you
involved with your subordinates today. The questions below ask you to
consider these potential reasons for your actions.
Please consider each reason, and then indicate the extent to which it
provides an explanation for your actions.

91

Watson &
Clark (1994)

Twenge,
Muraven, &
Tice (2004)

Negative Emotions:
Today, I engaged in these behaviors because I felt…

1= strongly
disagree
2= disagree

1. … angry
2. … hostile
3. … irritable
Depletion:

3 = neither
agree nor
disagree

Today, I engaged in these behaviors because …
1. … I felt drained
2. … my mental energy was running low
3. … I felt like my willpower was gone

4 = agree
5 = strongly
agree

Other Motives:
Are there other reasons for you to engage in these behaviors? Yes/No
If so, please specify:
___________________________________________________________
Follower Poor Performance:
INSTRUCTIONS: Please continue to think about the episodes that you
involved with your subordinates today, and indicate the extent to which
your subordinate acted in the following manner.

Williams &
Anderson
(1991)

1= strongly
disagree

Today, my subordinate …
1. … failed to complete assigned duties
2. … did not fulfill a specific job responsibility
3. … failed to perform tasks that are expected of him/her

2= disagree
3 = neither
agree nor
disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly
agree

92

Follower Disrespectful Behavior:
INSTRUCTIONS: Please continue to think about the episodes that you
involved with your subordinates today, and indicate the extent to which
your subordinate acted in the following manner.
Today, my subordinate …
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

… made insulting comments about me
… made critical comments when I asked them to do something
… made critical comments about the work I assigned to them
… challenged my authority in the work unit
… ignored what I said to him/her

Maynes &
Podsakoff
(2014)
Liang et al.
(2012)
Dalal et al.
(2009)

1= strongly
disagree
2= disagree
3 = neither
agree nor
disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly
agree

Follower Violations of Norms:

Dalal et al.
(2009)

INSTRUCTIONS: Please continue to think about the episodes that you
involved with your subordinates today, and indicate the extent to which
your subordinate acted in the following manner.
Today, my subordinate …
1.
2.
3.
4.

… behaved in an unpleasant manner toward a coworker
… avoided interacting with a coworker
… damaged property belonging to the company
… said rude things about the company

93

Robinson &
O'LearyKelly (1998)
1= strongly
disagree
2= disagree

5. … criticized a coworker
6. … acted counter to company norms

3 = neither
agree nor
disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly
agree

Achievement Need Satisfaction:

La Guardia
et al. (2000)

INSTRUCTIONS: Below are a number of statements with which you
may agree or disagree. Using the response scale provided, please indicate
your agreement or disagreement with each statement.
<Morning survey>
Right now, …

Steers &
Braunstein
(1976)
1 = strongly
disagree

1. … I feel like a competent person
2. … I feel capable and effective
3. … I feel I improved on my past performance at work

<Afternoon survey>
At the end of the work day, …

2 = disagree
3 = neither
agree nor
disagree
4 = agree

4. … I felt like a competent person
5. … I felt capable and effective
6. … I felt I improved on my past performance at work

Identity Need Satisfaction:

5 = strongly
agree

Wiesenfeld et
al. (2007)

INSTRUCTIONS: Below are a number of statements with which you
may agree or disagree. Using the response scale provided, please indicate
your agreement or disagreement with each statement.
<Morning survey>
Right now, …

Steers and
Braunstein
(1976)
1 = strongly
disagree

94

1. … I feel others recognize me as a leader
2. … I feel in control over the events around me at work
3. … I feel “in command”
<Afternoon survey>
At the end of the work day, …

2 = disagree
3 = neither
agree nor
disagree
4 = agree

4. … I felt others recognize me as a leader
5. … I felt in control over the events around me at work
6. … I felt “in command”
Order Need Satisfaction:

5 = strongly
agree
Neuberg et al.
(1997)

INSTRUCTIONS: Below are a number of statements with which you
may agree or disagree. Using the response scale provided, please indicate
your agreement or disagreement with each statement.

1 = strongly
disagree
2 = disagree

<Morning survey>
Right now, …
1. … I feel there is social balance at work
2. … there is little uncertainty at work
3. … work tasks and interactions are orderly

3 = neither
agree nor
disagree
4 = agree
5 = strongly
agree

<Afternoon survey>
At the end of the work day, …
1. … I felt there is social balance at work
2. … there was little uncertainty at work
3. … work tasks and interactions were orderly
Work engagement:

Rich et al.
(2010)

INSTRUCTIONS: Below are a number of statements with which you
may agree or disagree. Using the response scale provided, please indicate
your agreement or disagreement with each statement.
<Morning survey>
Right now, …

1 = strongly
disagree
2 = disagree

1. … I exert a lot of energy on the job
2. … I am striving hard to complete my job
3. … I am absorbed by my job

95

3 = neither
agree nor
disagree

<Afternoon survey>
At the end of the work day, …

4 = agree

4. … I exerted a lot of energy on the job
5. … I strove hard to complete my job
6. … I was absorbed by my job
Positive emotions:

5 = strongly
agree

MacKinnon
et al. (1999)

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate your agreement or disagreement to
how well this list of emotions describes your feeling.
<Morning survey>
Right now, I feel …

1 = strongly
disagree
2 = disagree

1. … inspired
2. … excited
3. … enthusiastic

3 = neither
agree nor
disagree
4 = agree

<Afternoon survey>
At the end of the work day, I felt …

5 = strongly
agree

4. … inspired
5. … excited
6. … enthusiastic

Organization-based self-esteem:

Pierce et al.
(1989)

INSTRUCTIONS: Below are a number of statements with which you
may agree or disagree. Using the response scale provided, please indicate
your agreement or disagreement with each statement.
<Morning survey>
Right now, …

1 = strongly
disagree
2 = disagree

1. … I count in my workplace
2. … I am an important part of my workplace
3. … I am valuable in my workplace

3 = neither
agree nor
disagree
4 = agree

<Afternoon survey>

96

At the end of the work day, …

5 = strongly
agree

4. … I counted in my workplace
5. … I was an important part of my workplace
6. … I was valuable in my workplace

97

REFERENCES

98

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 422-436.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
1-18.
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental
human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 574601.
Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations: The
moderating effects of individual differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 195-208.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The
effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and
reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 52-59.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of
abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
191-201.
Austin, J.T., & Vancouver, J.B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and
content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338-375.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis
of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34, 2045-2068.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A cognitive social theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barnes, C. M., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D. P., & Christian, M. S. (2015). You wouldn't like me
when i'm sleepy: Leader sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement.
Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1419-1437.
Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it's unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect
and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 286-295.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the
active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 12521265.

99

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence
and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt - an interpersonal
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243-267.
Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive
work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic
comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 613-636.
Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 317-334.
Bowling, N. A., & Michel, J. S. (2011). Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions
regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates' responses to abusive supervision. Work and
Stress, 25, 309-320.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ''we''? Levels of collective identity and self
representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.
Bruk-Lee, V., & Spector, P. E. (2006). The social stressors-counterproductive work behaviors
link: Are conflicts with supervisors and coworkers the same? Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 11, 145-156.
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee
voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 851-875.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control-theory - a useful conceptual-framework for
personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111-135.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2008). Perspectives on personality (6 ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Christian, J. S., Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2012). Examining retaliatory
responses to justice violations and recovery attempts in teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 1218-1232.
Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Examining the effects of sleep deprivation on
workplace deviance: A self-regulatory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 54,
913-934.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel
Psychology, 64, 89-136.

100

Collins, M. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2015). A process model of self-regulation and leadership: How
attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and
destructive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 386-401.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, Colh, & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A., Long, D. M., Rodell, J. B., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2015). Adding the
"in" to justice: A qualitative and quantitative investigation of the differential effects of
justice rule adherence and violation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 278-297.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness
heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209.
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). The deontic justice: The role of moral
incubator principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,
1019-1024.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.
Cunningham, M. R. (1979). Weather, mood, and helping-behavior - quasi experiments with the
sunshine samaritan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1947-1956.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship
behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 12411255.
Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A within-person
approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenshipcounterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1051-1066.
David, J. P., Green, P. J., Martin, R., & Suls, J. (1997). Differential roles of neuroticism,
extraversion, and event desirability for mood in daily life: An integrative model of topdown and bottom-up, influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 149159.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001).
Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former
eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942.

101

DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of
leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35,
627-647.
Earley, P. C., & Erez, M. (1997). The transplanted executive: Why you need to understand how
workers in other countries see the world differently. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Reciprocation ideology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 743-750.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel
models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor
structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
293-310.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of
implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659-676.
Felson, R. B. (1993). Predatory and dispute-related violence: A social interactionist approach. In
C. R. V. & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice" advances in
criminological theory (Vol. 5, pp. 103-125): New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. W. (2008). The development and validation
of the workplace ostracism scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1348-1366.
Ferris, D. L., Yan, M., Lim, V., Chen, Y., & Fatimah, S. (in press). An approach/avoidance
framework of workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, amj. 2014.0221.
Foti, R. J., Bray, B. C., Thompson, N. J., & Allgood, S. F. (2012). Know thy self, know thy
leader: Contributions of a pattern-oriented approach to examining leader perceptions.
Leadership Quarterly, 23, 702-717.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (cwb) in response
to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for
autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309.
Gagne, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior
engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199-223.
Gagne, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the
motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 372390.

102

Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How
self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 115, 191-203.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino
(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2,
pp. 53-92). New York: Guilford Press.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational
and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317-375.
Greenier, K. D., Kernis, M. H., McNamara, C. W., Waschull, S. B., Berry, A. J., Herlocker, C.
E., & Abend, T. A. (1999). Individual differences in reactivity to daily events: Examining
the roles of stability and level of self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 67, 185-208.
Hansbrough, T. K., & Jones, G. E. (2014). Inside the minds of narcissists how narcissistic
leaders' cognitive processes contribute to abusive supervision. Zeitschrift Fur
Psychologie-Journal of Psychology, 222, 214-220.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as
a predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship.
Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252-263.
Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision:
The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee
outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 264-280.
Heppner, Whitney L., Kernis, Michael H., Nezlek, John B., Foster, Joshua, Lakey, Chad E., &
Goldman, Brian M. (2008). Within-person relationships among daily self-esteem, need
satisfaction, and authenticity. Psychological Science, 19, 1140-1145.
Hill, N. C., & Ritchie, J. B. (1977). The effect of self-esteem on leadership and achievement: A
paradigm and a review. Group & Organization Management, 2, 491-503.
Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2009). Abusive supervision in
advising relationships: Investigating the role of social support. Applied Psychology-an
International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, 58, 233-256.
Hofmann, S. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear
modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel
theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new
directions (pp. 75-170). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary
Business, 3, 81-97.

103

House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the us
presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative science
quarterly, 364-396.
Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding supervisor-targeted aggression: A
within-person, between-jobs design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 731-739.
Johnson, M., & Forsman, L. (1995). Competence strivings and self-esteem: An experimental
study. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 417-430.
Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair: Effects of
procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99, 635-650.
Johnson, R. E., Venus, M., Lanaj, K., Mao, C. G., & Chang, C. H. (2012). Leader identity as an
antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and
abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1262-1272.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation and employee-supervisor discrepancies
in a psychiatric vocational rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 175-188.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G. L., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power
distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level,
cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744-764.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of ocb: A
daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management
Journal, 59, 414-435.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. , & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C.
Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333-375): London: Wiley.
Krasikova, D. V., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). Just the two of us: Misalignment of theory and
methods in examining dyadic phenomena. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 739-757.
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation
in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need
fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367-384.

104

Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Lee, S. M. (2016). Benefits of transformational behaviors for
leaders: A daily investigation of leader behaviors and need fulfillment. Journal of
Applied Psychology.
Larrick, R. P., Timmerman, T. A., Carton, A. M., & Abrevaya, J. (2011). Temper, temperature,
and temptation: Heat-related retaliation in baseball. Psychological Science, 22, 423-428.
Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about
human nature. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and twocomponent model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.
Lee, Jooa Julia, Gino, Francesca, & Staats, Bradley R. (2014). Rainmakers: Why bad weather
means good productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 504-513.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum
Press.
Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it,
and why they may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 388399.
Lian, H. W., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does taking the good with the bad make
things worse? How abusive supervision and leader-member exchange interact to impact
need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 117, 41-52.
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and
prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 7192.
Liang, L. H., Lian, H., Brown, D., Ferris, D. L., Hanig, S., & Keeping, L. (2015). Why are
abusive supervisors abusive? A dual-system self-control model. Academy of Management
Journal, amj. 2014.0651.
Lin, S. -H., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away:
Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego
depletion framework. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Lin, S. -H., Ma, J., & Johnson, R. E. (2016). When ethical leader behavior breaks bad: How
ethical leader behavior can turn abusive via ego depletion and moral licensing. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101, 815-830.
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of
the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 1187-1212.

105

Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B.
(1999). A short form of the positive and negative affect schedule: Evaluation of factorial
validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. Personality
and Individual Differences, 27, 405-416.
Marcus, B., & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work: A general
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 647-660.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S120-S137.
Mathieu, J. E., & Schulze, W. (2006). The influence of team knowledge and formal plans on
episodic team process-performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 49,
605-619.
Mawritz, M. B., Folger, R., & Latham, G. P. (2014). Supervisors' exceedingly difficult goals and
abusive supervision: The mediating effects of hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 358-372.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A
trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325-357.
Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more broadly: An examination of the
nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 87-112.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). Achieving society: New York: Free Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1967). Achieving society. New York: Free Press.
Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power of lower participants in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 349-364.
Messick, D. M., Bloom, S., Boldizar, J. P., & Samuelson, C. D. (1985). Why we are fairer than
others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 480-500.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the
moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1159-1168.
Mueser, R. E. (1953). The weather and other factors influencing employee punctuality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 37, 329-337.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: New York: Oxford.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user's guide. 7th. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Muthén.

106

Neuberg, S. L., Judice, T. N., & West, S. G. (1997). What the need for closure scale measures
and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1396-1412.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence
concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of
Management, 24, 391-419.
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context:
A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30,
591-622.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based
self-esteem - construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 622-648.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). Spss and sas procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36,
717-731.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel sem framework for
assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233.
Rafferty, A. E., Restubog, S. L. D., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Losing sleep: Examining the
cascading effects of supervisors' experience of injustice on subordinates' psychological
health. Work and Stress, 24, 36-55.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being:
The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 419-435.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects
on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617-635.
Robinson, S. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of
work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal,
41, 658-672.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a
dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529-565.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service
climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217-1227.
Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule
adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 756-769.

107

Scott, B. A., Garza, A. S., Conlon, D. E., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Why do managers act fairly in the
first place? A daily investigation of "hot" and "cold" motives and discretion. Academy of
Management Journal, 57, 1571-1591.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal wellbeing: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
482-497.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and
autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
1270-1279.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Gee, J. (2004). When social accounts backfire: The exacerbating
effects of a polite message or an apology on reactions to an unfair outcome. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 34, 322-341.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Rupp, D. E. (2010). Dual processing and organizational justice: The role of
rational versus experiential processing in third-party reactions to workplace mistreatment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 944-952.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves
through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9-32.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some
parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship
behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 269-292.
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizationalbehavior - a multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-524.
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In
B. L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261-302). New York:
Academic Press.
Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in
work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 251-266.
Swann, W. B., Rentfrow, P. J., & Guinn, J. S. (2003). Self-verification: The search for
coherence. In L. M. & T. J. (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 367-383). New
York: Guilford Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47).
Monterey, CA: Brroks/ Vole.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72, 271-324.

108

Tedeschi, James T, & Felson, Richard B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 178-190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research
agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289.
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C. Y., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive
supervision, intentions to quit, and employees' workplace deviance: A power/dependence
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 156-167.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationships
between coworkers' organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees' attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455-465.
Tepper, B. J., Lambert, L. S., Henle, C. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive
supervision and subordinates' organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
721-732.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor
perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279-294.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward
maintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 1169-1180.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style
moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An
uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 108, 79-92.
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing
explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through
perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1009-1031.
Twenge, J. M., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2004). Measuring state self-control: Reliability,
validity, and correlations with physical and psychological stress. San Diego State
University. Unpublished manuscript.
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness
judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34,
pp. 1-60). San Diego. CA: Academic Press.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.

109

Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C., Soenens, B., De Witte, H. , & Van den Broeck, A.
(2007). Examining the relations among extrinsic versus intrinsic work value orientations,
basic need satisfaction, and job experience: A self-determination theory approach.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251-277.
Walter, F., Lam, C. K., van der Vegt, G. S., Huang, X., & Miao, Q. (2015). Abusive supervision
and subordinate performance: Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and
consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1056-1072.
Wang, W., Mao, J. Y., Wu, W. K., & Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision and workplace
deviance: The mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power
distance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50, 43-60.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The panas-x: Manual for the positive and negative affect
schedule-expanded form. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.
Weiss, H. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2011). Experiencing work: An essay on a person-centric work
psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and
Practice, 4, 83-97.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Swann, W. B., Brockner, J., & Bartel, C. A. (2007). Is more fairness always
preferred? Self-esteem moderates reactions to procedural justice. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 1235-1253.
Williams, Larry J., & Anderson, Stella E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17, 601-617.
Wu, Tsung-Yu, & Hu, Changya. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional
exhaustion dispositional antecedents and boundaries. Group & Organization
Management, 34, 143-169.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work behaviors:
The mediating role of lmx. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 531-543.
Yam, K. C., Fehr, R., Keng-Highberger, F. T., Klotz, A. C., & Reynolds, S. J. (In press). Out of
control: A self-control perspective on the link between surface acting and abusive
supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates'
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068-1076.

110