92624748

Standing by Your Organization: The Impact of OrganizationalIdentification and Abusive Supervision on Followers’ PerceivedCohesion and Tendency to Gossip

Stijn Decoster • Jeroen Camps • Jeroen Stouten •

Lore Vandevyvere • Thomas M. Tripp

Received: 16 January 2012 / Accepted: 28 December 2012 / Published online: 8 January 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Abusive supervision has been shown to have

significant negative consequences for employees’ well-

being, attitudes, and behavior. However, despite the dev-

astating impact, it might well be that employees do not

always react negatively toward a leader’s abusive behavior.

In the present study, we show that employees’ organiza-

tional identification and abusive supervision interact for

employees’ perceived cohesion with their work group and

their tendency to gossip about their leader. Employees

confronted with a highly abusive supervisor had a stronger

perceived cohesion and engaged in less gossiping behavior

when they identified more strongly with their organization.

Our findings illustrate that organizational identification

functions as a buffer for those confronted with an abusive

supervisor.

Keywords Abusive supervision � Organizational

identification � Cohesion � Gossip � Rumor

A fact of organizational life is that leaders do not always

act in a responsible and ethical manner (e.g., De Cremer

2003; Samuelson and Messick 1995). That is, supervisors

have shown to use abusive language toward their subor-

dinates, humiliate them in front of others, intimidate or

threaten them, withhold information from them, or behave

aggressively (Bies and Tripp 1998; Zellars et al. 2002).

Researchers revealed that abusive supervision has a nega-

tive impact on employees’ well-being, satisfaction, com-

mitment, and performance (Bamberger and Bacharach

2006; Hornstein 1996; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007; Tepper

2000, 2007; Tepper et al. 2004, 2001; Zellars et al. 2002).

However, it may well be that employees not always react

negatively to their abusive supervisor. That is, despite the

severity of leaders’ abusive behavior, followers do not always

turn to disapproval or counteractions (Stouten and Tripp

2009). Here, we will explore the buffering role of organiza-

tional identification (i.e., the psychologic attachment that

emerges when members adopt the critical characteristics of

the organization as defining characteristics of themselves; see

Dutton et al. 1994) for employees who are confronted with an

abusive supervisor. More specifically, since abusive supervi-

sion has been found to have a negative impact on employees’

loyalty to their work group (Mitchell and Ambrose 2007), we

focus on employees’ perceived cohesion with their work

group. Further, as a result of an abusive supervisor, we also

examine followers’ retaliatory reactions (i.e., reactions in

order to get even with their supervisor), more specifically

employees’ tendency to gossip about their leader.

In sum, we propose that when confronted with an abu-

sive supervisor, employees who identify with their orga-

nization are more likely to feel part of their work group and

will be less likely to gossip about their supervisor. Below,

we will discuss this rationale in greater detail.

Abusive Supervision

Tepper (2000, p. 178) defines abusive supervision as

‘‘subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which super-

visors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and

S. Decoster (&) � J. Camps � J. Stouten � L. Vandevyvere

Department of Psychology, University of Leuven, Tiensestraat

102, Box 3725, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

e-mail: [email protected];

[email protected]

T. M. Tripp

Washington State University, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue,

Vancouver, WA, USA

123

J Bus Ethics (2013) 118:623–634

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1612-z

nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact.’’ Abusive

supervisors are known to intimidate and humiliate, use

derogatory names, shout, and ridicule their employees.

Estimates suggest that more than 13 % of working people

in the United States become targets of abusive supervision

or non-physical hostility perpetrated by employees’

immediate superiors (Schat et al. 2006). These conse-

quences translate into annual losses of an estimated $23.8

billion in increased health care costs, workplace with-

drawal, and lost productivity (Tepper et al. 2009).

During the past decade, a growing body of literature has

focused on the negative consequences of abusive supervi-

sion. For example, abusive supervision has been found to

be negatively related to organizational outcomes such as

affective commitment, organizational citizenship behav-

iors, job and life satisfaction, and self-efficacy (Tepper

2000, 2007; Zellars et al. 2002). Further, abusive supervi-

sion has been found to be positively related to negative

outcomes, for example, counterproductive behaviors,

turnover intentions, work-family conflict, psychologic

distress, as well as somatic health complaints (Duffy et al.

2002; Tepper 2000; Zellars et al. 2002). Moreover, abusive

supervision is positively related to supervisor-directed

deviance (e.g., gossiping about or acting impolite toward

one’s supervisor) as well as organizational and interper-

sonal deviance (Mayer et al. 2012; Mitchell and Ambrose

2007). In sum, in the event of an abusive supervisor,

employees not only feel less connected to their leader but

also feel less connected to their organization, their col-

leagues, and their job (cf. perceived cohesion).

Abusive Supervision and Employees’ Perceived

Cohesion

Perceived cohesion describes the individual’s perception of

one’s relationship with and the resulting force to remain in

his or her group (Bollen and Hoyle 1990). Bollen and

Hoyle (1990, p. 482) propose that perceived cohesion can

be defined as ‘‘the extent to which individual group

members feel ‘stuck to’, or a part of, particular social

groups.’’ Hence, their formal definition states that ‘‘per-

ceived cohesion encompasses an individual’s sense of

belonging to a particular group and his or her feelings of

morale associated with membership in the group.’’ Per-

ceived cohesion is a valuable good for organizations since

it has a beneficial impact on a wide range of group-related

and organizational outcomes. For example, it has been

associated with lower turnover and absenteeism (Price and

Mueller 1981; Shader et al. 2001), enhanced levels of

organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Wech

et al. 1998), and increased performance (Mullen and

Copper 1994). In sum, perceived cohesion is an important

organizational variable since high levels of perceived

cohesion have a positive effect on organizational outcomes,

whereas low levels of cohesion can hurt organizations.

Essential for group cohesion to exist, members of the

group have to work together and thus maintain some form

of interpersonal relationship (Bass 1960; Stogdill 1972). As

one such important interpersonal relationship concerns the

relationship between employees and their leader, the way a

leader treats his or her employees will affect employees’

perceived cohesion (Wu et al. 2007).

As abusive supervision can be regarded as an extreme

example of negative interpersonal behavior, employees

will suffer from their leaders’ mistreatment, resulting in

decreased perceived cohesion. In order to explain the

relationship between abusive supervision and perceived

cohesion, we draw on social exchange theory (Blau 1964;

Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005), which states that indi-

viduals are sensitive to valued outcomes they receive and

that they are motivated to reciprocate these outcomes. If

followers perceive to receive valued outcomes, they may

reciprocate these outcomes by feeling more cohesive with

their team. In contrast, when followers’ outcomes are

negative, they are expected to reciprocate in a negative way

in order to restore the balance. Indeed, previous research

pointed out that abusive supervision has a negative impact

on the relationships coworkers have with each other. For

example, employees who are confronted with an abusive

supervisor engage in less organizational citizenship

behaviors toward their coworkers (Aryee et al. 2007; Xu

et al. 2012) and display more negative behavior toward

coworkers of their work group (Mitchell and Ambrose

2007).

Abusive Supervision and Employees’ Tendency

to Gossip

When confronted with an abusive supervisor, drawing on

social exchange theory, followers reciprocate in a negative

way, such as engaging in gossiping behavior. This is in line

with previous research that pointed out that when

employees feel they are treated in a negative way (e.g.,

being intimidated, humiliated, ridiculed, or being yelled

at), they react with deviant behaviors to get back at the one

who mistreated them (Bennett and Robinson 2003; Rob-

inson and Greenberg 1998). Indeed, employees tend to

react to their leader’s abusive behavior by engaging in

supervisor-directed deviance in order to harm their super-

visor or to ‘‘get even’’ (Dupre et al. 2006; Inness et al.

2005; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007; Tepper et al. 2009;

Thau and Mitchell 2010). Although several studies have

provided evidence for this line of reasoning, reacting to the

offender is often not without danger for oneself as this

624 S. Decoster et al.

123

might result in renewed interpersonal mistreatment by the

other party, especially when the other party has an elevated

level of power (Aquino et al. 2001; Bies and Tripp 1996).

For example, research indicates that employees are less

likely to react when there exists a high power distance

between themselves and the person who engages in abusive

supervisory behavior (Wang et al. 2012). Given the hier-

archical nature of the relationship between an employee

and his/her direct supervisor, turning to overt reactions is

likely to be a costly action for oneself. As a result,

employees will opt for behavior that involves smaller

potential costs, but still provides them with an opportunity

to ‘‘get even,’’ such as gossip (Archer and Coyne 2005).

Gossip can be described as ‘‘verbal or written commu-

nication that regards personal matters of a third party’’

(Nevo et al. 1993, p. 975) that people use to gain infor-

mation about one’s social environment and to manipulate

others with the goal to raise one’s own status (Rosnow

1977). Traditionally, gossip is seen as a socially undesir-

able activity with negative effects for both the person that

is the target of gossip (Noon and Delbridge 1993) and

one’s organization as it can lower morale and productivity

(Baker and Jones 1996; DiFonzo and Bordia 2000; Di-

Fonzo et al. 1994). However, more recent studies pointed

out that gossip can promote the existence of groups

because it often is a response to the observation of anti-

social behavior (Feinberg et al. 2012). That is, when pos-

sible transgressors who behave in a self-interested way are

observed, the gossiper can warn the other group members

about this behavior by sharing information about these

transgressors. In this way, gossip can be viewed as an

efficient tool of punishment in order to constrain future

self-serving behavior (Beersma and Van Kleef 2011).

The Buffering Role of Organizational Identification

for Employees who are Confronted with an Abusive

Supervisor

As discussed above, when confronted with an abusive

supervisor, followers tend to react in a negative way (Tepper

2000; Zellars et al. 2002), for example by showing deviant

behavior toward the leader and the organization (Duffy et al.

2002; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007). Recently, however, it

has been argued that, depending on the situation, followers’

reactions may not always be negative (Stouten et al. 2005;

Stouten and Tripp 2009). For example, leaders’ behavior is

often tolerated because leaders have an important influence

in promotion procedures, evaluations, and how employees

are allowed to carry out their work (Camps et al. 2012; Hogan

et al. 1994; Yukl 1998). Stouten and Tripp (2009) argued that

leaders and followers are held against different rules. Con-

sequently, leaders’ abusive behavior may not always result in

disapproval or counteractions. Often, employees consider

that they are not in a position to help others or themselves by

responding with overt behavior toward the leader (Frost

2004; Lord 1998). These findings are consistent with the

argument that employees generally feel that they cannot raise

an issue of concern to their bosses (Uhl-Bien and Carsten

2007). We build upon this line of research and argue that

there are boundary conditions on the negative effects of

abusive supervision on employee outcomes. Exploring such

boundary conditions will allow for understanding when and

thus why employees may react toward an abusive supervisor.

In this study, we argue that the extent to which employees

identify with their organization plays an integral role in how

employees will react to an abusive supervisor. More spe-

cifically, in situations where followers are confronted with an

abusive supervisor, we expect that employees who identify

with their organization are more likely to feel part of their

work group (i.e., perceived cohesion) and will be less likely

to gossip about their supervisor.

Organizational Identification and Social Identity

Theory

Mael and Ashforth (1992, p. 109) defined organizational

identification as ‘‘a perceived oneness with an organization

and the experience of the organization’s successes and

failures as one’s own.’’ The conceptualization of organi-

zational identification is rooted in social identity theory

(Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner 1982). Tajfel

(1978, p. 67) defined social identity as ‘‘that part of an

individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowl-

edge of his or her membership of a social group [or groups]

together with the value and emotional significance attached

to that membership.’’

According to social identity theory (Tajfel 1978; Tajfel

and Turner 1979), individuals are striving toward a positive

self-image, which is partly based not only on their personal

identity (e.g., I am reliable, I am creative) but also on their

social identity (e.g., I am a member of the athletics team X, I

am an employee of organization Y), which they derive from

social groups they are a member of. Because being part of a

group has an impact on one’s self-image, group members

usually evaluate their groups positively and especially more

positive than other groups (Tajfel 1978). As a result, their

group and their evaluation of it become more important for

their self-image. The more positive an employee assesses

one’s organization, the more important one’s organization

becomes for his or her self-image. Thus, according to Dutton

et al. (1994, p. 242), ‘‘the strength of a member’s organiza-

tional identification reflects the degree to which the content

of the member’s self-concept is tied to his or her organiza-

tional membership.’’

Standing by Your Organization 625

123

The Buffering Role of Organizational Identification

According to Ashforth and Mael (1989), organizational

identification has a supportive and positive influence on

employees’ satisfaction and the effectiveness of the orga-

nization. For example, it increases long-term commitment

and support, physical well-being, job satisfaction, and

motivation (Mael and Ashforth 1992; Van Dick and

Wagner 2002). Organizational identification also has a

positive effect on cooperative and organizational citizen-

ship behaviors and on actual performance (Dukerich et al.

2002; Stellmachter et al. 2002, 2003). Moreover, organi-

zational identification is negatively related to turnover

intentions (Van Knippenberg and Van Schie 2000).

Hence, organizational identification has a positive influ-

ence in such a way that employees who identify with their

organization are likely to support their organization both in

good and in bad times (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Dukerich

et al. 2002; Mael and Ashforth 1992; Stellmachter et al.

2002, 2003; Van Dick et al. 2006; Van Dick and Wagner

2002; Van Knippenberg et al. 2007; Van Knippenberg and

Van Schie 2000). For example, Ashforth and Mael (1989,

p. 28) stated that ‘‘identification provides a mechanism

whereby an individual can continue to believe in the integrity

of his or her organization despite wrongdoing by senior

management.’’ In fact, research supports this assumption that

organizational identification goes a long way in employees’

reliance in difficult situations. For example, in organizations

in transition, employees with a high (pre-merger) organiza-

tional identification have less turnover intentions and nega-

tive feelings as well as higher satisfaction and more

citizenship behaviors (Van Dick et al. 2006). Moreover,

organizational identification buffers the negative impact of

low organizational support on deviant behavior, such as

employees’ absenteeism and turnover intentions (Van

Knippenberg et al. 2007).

Given that employees who identify with the organization

are likely to support their company in good and bad times, we

build on this research by arguing that organizational identi-

fication also will protect employees against the highly neg-

ative effects of abusive supervision. More specifically, when

confronted with an abusive supervisor, employees who

identify with their organization are more likely to feel con-

nected (i.e., perceived cohesion) with their colleagues and

will be less likely to gossip about their supervisor.

Perceived Cohesion and Organizational Identification

Drawing on social identity theory, the more important one’s

organization becomes for one’s self-image, the stronger

one’s cohesion with the organizational members will be

(Ashforth and Mael 1989; Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner

1979; Turner 1982, 1984). Moreover, social-categorization

theory (Turner 1985; Turner et al. 1987) states that when

group members perceive themselves as part of a particular

social category (e.g., their organization), they minimize the

differences within that social category. Given the buffering

role of organizational identification (Lipponen et al. 2011)

and the negative impact abusive supervision will have on

perceived cohesion (Wu et al. 2007), we expect that

Hypothesis 1 Organizational identification and abusive

supervision interact with regard to perceived cohesion. More

specifically, we expect that in the presence of an abusive

supervisor, employees’ perceived cohesion will be stronger

if their organizational identification is high rather than low.

Tendency to Gossip and Organizational Identification

Gossiping behavior has been shown to result in detrimental

consequences not only for the target but also for the

organization as a whole (Baker and Jones 1996; DiFonzo

et al. 1994; DiFonzo and Bordia 2000). As discussed

above, even though employees will be inclined to engage

in (covert) reactions (such as gossiping) in the situation of

an abusive supervisor, employees who value their organi-

zation (i.e., identify with their organization) will be less

inclined to engage in gossip as they try to protect the

organization’s image from potential harmful consequences.

Taken together, we expect that

Hypothesis 2 Organizational identification and abusive

supervision interact with regard to employees’ tendency to

gossip. More specifically, we expect that employees facing

an abusive supervisor will gossip less if their organiza-

tional identification is high rather than low.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We recruited participants using a snowball sampling pro-

cedure (e.g., Mayer et al. 2009; Morgeson and Humphrey

2006). Undergraduate students were contacted by the

researchers and were asked to invite participants to com-

plete the study (as partial fulfillment of an undergraduate

course). Two hundred twenty-four employees were invited

to voluntarily take part in a study concerning the well-

being of people in organizations. Paper versions were

handed out to employees from organizations in Flanders,

Belgium. Employees were asked to hand deliver the

supervisor’s survey and all surveys were returned in sealed

envelopes to the university in order to assure anonymity.

Employees were matched with their supervisor using a


123

specific code allowing for anonymous participation. Par-

ticipants were from a variety of different organizations,

including telecommunication, health care, manufacturing,

government, technology, and financial organizations. The

surveys that were returned resulted in hundred thirty-four

dyads of employees and their matched direct supervisors,

yielding an overall response rate of 59.8 %. Of the

employees’ sample, 40.3 % were male. The mean age was

38.89 years (range 20–58 years; SD = 10.86). Seventy-

two percent of the employees worked fulltime, 47 % of

employees only completed high school, and 52.2 %

obtained a college degree. Employees had an average

organizational tenure of 13.15 years (SD = 11.52) and had

an average team size of 12 workers (SD = 14.03).

Of the supervisors’ sample, 43.1 % were male and the

mean age was 47 years (range 26–58 years; SD = 7.57).

Ninety percent of the supervisors worked fulltime, 31.4 %

of supervisors only completed high school, and 68.6 %

obtained a college degree. On average supervisors’ job

tenure amounted to 9 years (SD = 5.85) and they super-

vised a team of on average 15 employees (SD = 17.31).

Measures

Employees completed measures of abusive supervision,

perceived cohesion, and organizational identification.

Supervisors reported subordinates’ tendency to gossip. All

items were completed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from

1 (never/strongly disagree) to 5 (very often/strongly agree).

Abusive Supervision

Abusive supervision was assessed with Tepper’s (2000)

15-item abusive supervision scale. Example items are ‘‘my

supervisor ridicules me’’ and ‘‘my supervisor blames me to

save himself/herself embarrassment’’ (Cronbach’s a = .94).

Organizational Identification

Employees’ organizational identification was assessed with

Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) six-item organizational iden-

tification scale. Example items are ‘‘when someone criti-

cizes my organization, it feels like a personal insult’’ and

‘‘the organization’s successes are my successes’’ (Cron-

bach’s a = .81).

Perceived Cohesion

Perceived cohesion was measured with Bollen and Hoyle’s

(1990) six-item perceived cohesion scale. As the original

scale refers to school groups, we adapted the scale to the

purpose of this study by altering the reference point (Chin

et al. 1999). That is, employees read that these six items

referred to their work group (i.e., employees working for the

same supervisor) and were asked to respond to the questions

with this in mind. Example items are ‘‘I feel that I belong to

this group,’’ ‘‘I am happy to be part of this group,’’ and ‘‘this

group is one of the best’’ (Cronbach’s a = .96).

Tendency to Gossip

Employees’ tendency to gossip was measured with eight

items of the 20-item Tendency to Gossip Scale (Nevo et al.

1993). We opted to collect this data from the supervisors

rather than from their employees. As discussed earlier,

gossip might result in harmful consequences for the target

of the gossiping behavior such as feelings of social isola-

tion (see Elias 1994; Soeters and van Iterson 2002).

Although it can be argued that a leader is not always aware

of the extent to which his/her employees gossip about him

or her, we believe that leaders do have such information at

hand (see Grosser et al. 2010). That is, gossip is widely

used: It is expected to constitute 65 % of all spoken

communication (Dunbar 2004). Indeed, Grosser et al.

(2010) showed that supervisors are aware of follower

gossiping as they punish gossipers with low-performance

ratings. Moreover, because people are more sensitive to

perceptions of the environment rather than the actual

environment itself (Lewin 1951), we focus on supervisor

perceptions of gossip rather than actual gossip. Indeed,

gossip is more likely to have a negative influence and

impact on supervisors if they perceive gossip to exist. For

this measure, only items that were relevant for the work

situation were chosen. Sample items are ‘‘my subordinates

like to talk about my clothes and appearance with their co-

workers,’’ ‘‘my subordinates like to talk about the problems

I encounter at work,’’ and ‘‘my subordinates have the

tendency to gossip about me’’ (Cronbach’s a = .79).

Control Variables

Based on previous research, we controlled for several factors

that have been shown to be related to one (or more) of the

variables incorporated in our hypotheses. More specifically,

we controlled for employees’ age as it has been shown to be

related to both organizational identification (Riketta 2005)

and deviant behavior (Aquino and Douglas 2003). We also

controlled for employees’ gender as gender is related to both

organizational identification (Riketta 2005) and interper-

sonal deviance (Henle et al. 2005). Finally, we controlled for

employees’ organizational tenure as previous research


123

revealed it to be related to employees’ organizational iden-

tification (Hall et al. 1970; Riketta 2005) and perceived

cohesion (Gilbert and Tang 1998).

Results

All data were analyzed by conducting stepwise, hierarchical

regression analyses. In step 1 of the regression analyses, we

entered the demographic variables age, gender (0 = female,

1 = male), and organizational tenure. In step 2, we entered

abusive supervision and organizational identification. In step

3, we predicted the interactive relationship between abusive

supervision and organizational identification for the depen-

dent variables of interest, perceived cohesion, and tendency

to gossip. The independent variables abusive supervision and

organizational identification were centered to avoid multi-

collinearity (Aiken and West 1991). Table 1 presents the

descriptive statistics and intercorrelations.

Perceived Cohesion

First of all, regression analysis revealed a significant nega-

tive relationship between abusive supervision and perceived

cohesion (Table 2). More important, the interaction between

abusive supervision and organizational identification was

significant (Fig. 1). Simple slopes analyses (Aiken and West

1991) showed that for employees who were confronted with

an abusive supervisor, organizational identification was

positively related to employees’ perceived cohesion (b =

.34, pone-tailed \ .01). However, the relationship between

organizational identification and perceived cohesion was not

significant when employees perceived their supervisor as

being low on abusive supervision (b = .01, pone-

tailed = .49). This provides support for Hypothesis 1.

Tendency to Gossip

Regression analysis revealed no significant negative rela-

tionship between abusive supervision and tendency to

gossip (Table 2). More important, the interaction between

abusive supervision and organizational identification was

significant (Fig. 2). Table 2 presents the results of the

regression analyses. Simple slopes analyses showed that in

the presence of an abusive supervisor, organizational

identification was negatively related to employees’ ten-

dency to gossip (b = -.14, pone-tailed \ .05). However, this

relationship was not significant when employees perceived

their supervisor as being low on abusive supervision

(b = .14, pone-tailed = .07). These findings provide support

for Hypothesis 2.

Discussion

Research recently revealed that abusive supervision has a

significant negative impact on the attitudes, well-being, and

behavior of employees (e.g., Duffy et al. 2002; Mitchell and

Ambrose 2007; Zellars et al. 2002). Here, we argued that

employees will not necessarily react negatively toward an

abusive supervisor. That is, we reasoned that there are

boundary conditions to the reactions of employees toward an

abusive supervisor. More specifically, it was put forward that

as employees identify with their organization, they are

expected to show weaker negative reactions to an abusive

supervisor in terms of perceptions of cohesion and gossiping

since organizational identification has a buffering effect on

followers’ negative reactions to abusive supervision.

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, employees’ organizational

identification is particularly important for how employees

react to an abusive supervisor with regard to perceived

cohesion. Employees confronted with an abusive supervisor

had a stronger perceived cohesion to their work group when

their organizational identification was high rather than low.

Similarly, when confronted with an abusive supervisor,

employees’ organizational identification could be shown to

buffer employees’ tendency to gossip about their leader. That

is, when a leader was considered as abusive by his/her

employees, (s)he perceived employees to gossip less when

organizational identification was high versus low. Conse-

quently, results also confirmed Hypothesis 2. Therefore, we

argue that organizational identification functions as a

Table 1 Means, standard

deviations, and intercorrelations

between variables

N = 134

* p \ .05.; ** p \ .001

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. Gender – –

2. Age 38.89 10.86 -.08

3. Organizational tenure 13.15 11.52 .03 .79**

4. Abusive supervision 1.38 0.55 -.07 .06 .08

5. Organizational identification 3.52 0.61 .10 .07 .05 -.12

6. Perceived cohesion 4.21 0.77 .08 -.07 -.03 -.39** .20*

7. Tendency to gossip 2.46 0.46 .00 .06 -.05 -.05 -.02 .05


123

protecting mechanism for the negative consequences of

abusive supervision. Below, we will discuss these findings in

greater detail.

Theoretic Implications

We added to the growing body of research on abusive

supervision that showed the negative consequences of

abusive supervision on attitudes, well-being, and behavior

of employees (Duffy et al. 2002; Mitchell and Ambrose

2007; Tepper 2000, 2007; Zellars et al. 2002). Previous

research showed that employees who identify with their

organization experience more positive outcomes concern-

ing attitudes, well-being, and behaviors, even in difficult

and personal enduring contexts (Ashforth and Mael 1989;

Dukerich et al. 2002; Mael and Ashforth 1992; Stellmacher

et al. 2003; Van Dick et al. 2006; Van Dick and Wagner

2002; Van Knippenberg et al. 2007; Van Knippenberg and

Van Schie 2000). Here, we showed that employees who

identify with their organization showed weaker negative

reactions when they were confronted with an abusive

supervisor.

Social identity research argues that group members

strive toward a positive self-image which is partly derived

from one’s social groups (Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner

1979; Turner 1982). In this study, we examined this by

means of employees who consider themselves part of their

organization—organizational identification. Because of the

link between employees’ self-image and their organiza-

tional membership, employees evaluate their organization

positively, even more so than they perceive other organi-

zations (Tajfel 1978). As a result, employees with strong

organizational identification support their organization in

many ways. Hence, organizational identification positively

influences employees’ perceptions and outcomes with

regard to their organization (Ashforth and Mael 1989;

Dukerich et al. 2002; Mael and Ashforth 1992; Stellmacher

et al. 2003; Van Dick and Wagner 2002; Van Knippenberg

Table 2 Results of the hierarchical regression analyses for the

moderating effect of organizational identity (N = 134)

Perceived cohesion Tendency to

gossip

Step 2 Step 3 Step

2

Step 3

Gender .03 .03 .00 .00

Age .14 .-14 .14 .14

Organizational tenure .11 .10 -.10 -.10

Abusive supervision -.37*** -.35*** -.05 -.08

Organizational identity .15 .14 -.03 -.00

Abusive supervision 9

Organizational identity

.16* -.22*

DR2 .17*** .03* .00 .05*

R2 .19 .21 .01 .06

Values are standardized regression weights

* p \ .05.; ** p \ .01.; *** p \ .001

Fig. 1 Interaction between abusive supervision and organizational

identification on perceived cohesion

Fig. 2 Interaction between abusive supervision and organizational

identification on tendency to gossip


123

and Van Schie 2000). It seems that this process functions as

a buffer for employees’ negative reactions to the abusive

behavior of their supervisor since employees with high

organizational identification showed weaker negative

reactions than when organizational identification was low.

This study contributed to research on organizational

identification by confirming that organizational identifica-

tion has an impact on employees not only in good times but

also in bad times (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Van Dick et al.

2006; Van Knippenberg et al. 2007). We showed that

subordinates’ high organizational identification protects

them for specific negative consequences (i.e., lower per-

ceived cohesion and higher gossip perceptions) of abusive

supervision. Hence, in the most enduring circumstances

(such as verbal abuse or intimidation), employees who

identified with a larger goal of the organization reacted in a

more positive way, i.e., they had a higher perceived

cohesion and they had a lower tendency gossip.

Future research on organizational identification and

abusive supervision could look into the impact of work group

or departmental identification on the negative effects of

abusive supervision. According to Van Knippenberg and

Van Schie (2000), departmental or work group identification

is often stronger than organizational identification. More-

over, work group or departmental identification has a

stronger positive influence on attitudes and behaviors (e.g.,

job satisfaction, turnover intentions, job involvement, and

job motivation) than organizational identification (Van

Knippenberg and Van Schie 2000). These authors draw their

statements from social identity theory and self-categoriza-

tion theory (Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner 1982; Turner

1985; Turner et al. 1987), which argues that a particular

social categorization (e.g., work group or department)

becomes more salient than other categorizations (e.g., the

larger organization) if that particular social categorization is

relatively accessible, shows a comparative fit with oneself,

and positively distinguishes oneself from other categoriza-

tions. First of all, people interact on a daily basis with their

work groups and their department, which makes these sub-

groups highly accessible. Secondly, work groups and

departments generally consist of more similar people than

the larger organization (e.g., work group or department

members generally have the same educational background).

Finally, identifying with a smaller group (e.g., work group or

department) renders people more distinctiveness than iden-

tifying with larger groups (e.g., the organization as a whole).

Hence, it might well be that departmental identification can

be an even stronger buffer for employees’ negative conse-

quences of abusive supervision.

These findings also contributed to the present theoretic

research on abusive supervision. Existing research on abusive

supervision focused primarily on the negative consequences

these leaders induce for their employees. Our study

contributed to those few studies that investigated the boundary

conditions of employees’ reactions to abusive supervision

(Bamberger and Bacharach 2006; Harvey et al. 2007; Stouten

et al. 2005; Stouten and Tripp 2009; Tepper 2007). For

example, Tepper (2000) revealed that the impact of abusive

supervision on job satisfaction and depression was less pro-

found when employees’ perceived job mobility was high.

Also, Harvey et al. (2007) showed that if employees report

high levels of ingratiation behavior and positive affect, abu-

sive supervision is less strongly related to job tension, emo-

tional exhaustion, and turnover intention. Similarly, the

relationship between abusive supervision and alcohol abuse

was less strong for employees who were high in conscien-

tiousness and agreeableness (Bamberger and Bacharach

2006). Our study expands this line of work by focusing on an

institutional component, which is organizational identifica-

tion. This study showed that organizational identification has

an influence on employees’ reactions to abusive supervisory

behavior. More specifically, we provided evidence that

employees who identify with their organization showed

weaker negative reactions to the abusive behavior of their

supervisors. Future leadership research could focus more on

disclosing different boundary conditions that determine

employees’ reactions to an abusive supervisor. Future

research should focus not only on the short-term but also on

the long-term effects of these boundary conditions. For

example, it might well be that employees with strong orga-

nizational identification (or employees who are high in con-

scientiousness and agreeableness) respond more negatively

over time when the abusive behavior of the leaders remains.1

That is, followers with strong organizational identification

might be more sensitive to the fact that no steps have been

taken to address the leader’s abuse.

Practical Implications

Generally, employees consider supervisors who behave

disrespectful and abusive as a burden. However, employees

do not always react or speak up to their supervisor, even if

(s)he behaves abusively (Tepper 2007). Employees who

identify themselves with their organization, identify them-

selves with the organization’s goals, as being part of their

own self-image and therefore tend to show less negative

consequences when confronted with an abusive supervisor.

Indeed, organizational identification seems to work as a

buffer on followers’ negative reactions to abusive supervi-

sion. However, newcomers in the organization might be

deterred by the presence of abusive supervisors because they

do not yet identify with the organization or their organiza-

tional identification is just not strong enough to endure an

1 We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.


123

abusive supervisor. In the course of time, this could result in

significant costs for the employees and the organization,

given the significance of abusive supervision on employees’

work experience. Therefore, organizations should try to

insure a sense of belongingness and provide a solid basis for

increasing employees’ organizational identity. Employees’

organizational identification can be improved by, for

example, employing clear communication about the deci-

sions and the procedures in the organization (Van Dick et al.

2006) or by applying identification-enhancing interventions

(Van Knippenberg and Van Schie 2000).

On the other hand, this buffering effect of organizational

identification may give abusive supervisors a free pass to

act in ways that are inappropriate since such leaders might

argue that followers’ reactions will be less severe. In such a

scenario, no efforts are being made toward the creation of a

non-abusive environment. Moreover, it might well be that,

despite employees’ strong organizational identification,

abusive supervision still leads to negative consequences

(e.g., somatic health complaints, absenteeism, and turnover

intentions) for employees in the long run. Therefore,

organizations should try to prevent the emergence or the

existence of abusive supervision, for example, by fostering

a culture that is incompatible with abusive supervision, by

implementing 360-degree feedback programs, by imple-

menting zero-tolerance policies, or by training employees

to respond in an appropriate way to abusive supervision

(Tepper 2007; Tepper et al. 2009).

Strengths and Limitations

This study was conducted by using a multi-source survey

where both employees’ responses and those of their super-

visors were assessed. Such a multi-source design has been

argued to be able to reduce common-method bias (Podsakoff

et al. 2003). This signifies that employees and supervisors are

less likely to bias the relationship between variables of

interest due to social desirability tendencies. However, this

research only partially assessed ratings from multiple sour-

ces. That is, supervisors rated employees’ tendency to gos-

sip, but employees rated perceived cohesion. Hence, the

findings with regard to perceived cohesion may still have

been subject to common-method bias. Nevertheless, given

the consistency in results and as common-method bias has

been shown to decrease the sensitivity of tests of moderation

(Evans 1985), we are confident that common-method bias

might be of lesser concern.

A second limitation of our study concerns the low levels

of abusive supervision reported in our sample

(mean = 1.38). However, as stated by Harris et al. (2007),

this finding is in line with previous research revealing

levels of abusive supervision ranging from low, such as

1.26 (Tepper et al. 2004) and 1.38 (Tepper 2000), to high,

such as 2.06 (Tepper et al. 2006) and 2.70 (Biron 2010).

Moreover, as we were able to reveal a significant interac-

tion effect between abusive supervision and organizational

identification for both perceived cohesion and tendency to

gossip, we feel confident that these low levels of abusive

supervision are of little concern for data analysis.

Finally, our design did not allow us to make causal

inferences because of the cross-sectional nature of the data.

It may well be that employees’ perceived cohesion and

tendencies to gossip set the stage for abusive supervision to

arise. However, prior longitudinal research showed that

abusive supervision is the antecedent of many negative

employee outcomes (Bamberger and Bacharach 2006;

Tepper 2000; Tepper et al. 2001). Hence, previous theo-

rizing does support our findings which provide some con-

fidence in the hypothesized direction.

Conclusion

Recent leadership research focused on abusive supervision

and the negative consequences it has on employees’ attitudes

and behavior (Duffy et al. 2002; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007;

Tepper 2000, 2007; Zellars et al. 2002). This study adds to

this line of research by showing that employees do not nec-

essarily react negatively toward an abusive leader. In fact,

our findings showed that organizational identification func-

tions as a protecting mechanism for the negative influence of

abusive supervision on employees’ perceived cohesion and

their tendency to gossip. In sum, this study illustrated that, in

the presence of an abusive supervisor, employees with high

organizational identification showed weaker negative reac-

tions than when organizational identification was low.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. New York, NY: Sage Publications.

Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial

behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual

differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Orga-

nizational 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.

Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect,

relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Review, 9, 212–230.

Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents

and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down

model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201.


123

Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the

organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.

Baker, J. S., & Jones, M. A. (1996). The poison grapevine: How

destructive are gossip and rumor in the workplace? Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 75–86.

Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. (2006) Abusive supervision

and subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress and

subordinate personality into account. Human Relations, 59,

723–752.

Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational

behavior. New York: Harper.

Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps

you in line: Gossip increases contributions to the group. Social

Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 642–649.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present, and future

of workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organi-

zational behavior: The state of science (2nd ed., pp. 247–281).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: Getting even and

the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.),

Trust in organizations (pp. 246–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Two faces of the powerless:

Coping with tyranny in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & M.

A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp.

203–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Biron, M. (2010). Negative reciprocity and the association between

perceived organizational ethical values and organizational devi-

ance. Human Relations, 63, 875–897.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual

and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69, 479–504.

Camps, J., Decoster, S., & Stouten, J. (2012). My share is fair, so I

don’t care the moderating role of distributive justice in the

perception of leaders’ self-serving behavior. Journal of Person-

nel Psychology, 11, 49–59.

Chin, W. W., Salisbury, W. M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Stollak, M. J.

(1999). Perceived cohesion in small groups: Adapting and

testing the perceived cohesion scale in a small-group setting.

Small Group Research, 30, 751–766.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory:

An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31,

874–900.

De Cremer, D. (2003). How self-conception may lead to inequality:

Effect of hierarchical roles on the equality rule in organizational

resource-sharing tasks. Group and Organization Management,

28, 282–302.

DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2000). How top PR professionals handle

hearsay: Corporate rumors, their effects, and strategies to

manage them. Public Relations Review, 26, 173–190.

DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P., & Rosnow, R. L. (1994). Reining in rumors.

Organizational Dynamics, 23, 47–62.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social

undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour-

nal, 45, 331–351.

Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in

the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identifi-

cation, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of

physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507–533.

Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review

of General Psychology, 8,100–110.

Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., Connelly, C. E., Barling, J., & Hoption, C.

(2006). Workplace aggression in teenage parttime employees.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 987–997.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organiza-

tional images and member identification. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 39, 239–263.

Elias, N., & Scotson, J. (1994). The established and the outsiders: A

sociological inquiry into community problems (Rev. ed.). London:

Sage.

Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of

correlated method variance in moderated regression analysis.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36,

305–323.

Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Stellar, J., & Keltner, D. (2012). The Virtues

of Gossip: Reputational information sharing as prosocial behav-

ior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102,

1015–1030.

Frost, P. J. (2004). Handling toxic emotions: New challenges for

leaders and their organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 33,

111–127.

Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. (1998). An examination of organizational

trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27, 321–338.

Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010). A social

network analysis of gossip in organizational life. Group and

Organization Management, 35, 177–212.

Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in

organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly,

15, 176–190.

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. The

Leadership Quarterly, 18, 264–280.

Henle, C. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2005). The role

of ethical ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business

Ethics, 56, 219–230.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about

leadership—Effectiveness and personality. American Psycholo-

gist, 49, 493–504.

Hornstein, H. A. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey. New York,

NY: Riverhead Books.

Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding super-

visor-targeted aggression: A within-person, between-jobs design.


Lewin, K. (1951). In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social

science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.

Lipponen, J., Wisse, B., & Perala, J. (2011). Perceived justice and

group identification: The moderating role of previous identifica-

tion. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10, 13–23.

Lord, V. B. (1998). Characteristics of violence in state government.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 489–504.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A

partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identi-

fication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador,

R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a

trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 108, 1–13.

Mayer, D. M., Thau, S., Workman, K. M., Van Dijke, M., & De

Cremer, D. (2012). Leader mistreatment, employee hostility, and

deviant behaviors: Integrating self-uncertainty and thwarted

needs perspectives on deviance. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 117, 24–40.

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.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design

questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a


123

comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature

of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339.

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group

cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological

Bulletin, 115, 210–227.

Nevo, O., Nevo, B., & Derech-Zehavi, A. (1993). The development of

the tendency to gossip questionnaire: Construct and concurrent

validation for a sample of Israeli college students. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 53, 973–981.

Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand:

Gossip in organizations. Organization Studies, 14, 23–36.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.

(2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A

critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.


Price, S. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). Handbook of organizational

measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384.

Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly:

Dimensions, determinants, and dilemmas in the study of

workplace deviance. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau

(Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–30).

New York: Wiley.

Rosnow, R. L. (1977). Gossip and marketplace psychology. Journal

of Communication, 27, 158–163.

Samuelson, C. D., & Messick, D. M. (1995). When do people want to

change the rules for allocating shared resources? In D. A. Sch-

roeder (Ed.), Social dilemmas: Perspectives on individuals and

groups (pp. 143–162). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Schat, A., Frone, M., & Kelloway, E. (2006). Prevalence of

workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce: Findings from a

national research. In E. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. Hurrell (Eds.),

Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47–89). Thousand Oaks:

Sage Publications.

Shader K., Broome, M. E., West, M. E., & Nash, M. (2001). Factors

influencing satisfaction and anticipated turnover for nurses in an

academic medical center. Journal of Nursing Administration, 31,

210–216.

Soeters, J., & Van Iterson, A. (2002). Blame and praise gossip in

organizations: Established, outsiders, and the civilizing process.

In A. van Iterson, W. Mastenbroek, T. Newton & D. Smith

(Eds.), The civilized organization: Norbert Elias and the future

of organization studies (pp. 25–40). Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Stellmacher, J., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Lemmer, G. (2003).

Gruppenidentifikation und gruppenleistung [Group identification

and group performance]. Paper presented at Tagung experi-

mentell arbeitender Psychologen, TeaP, Kiel, Germany.

Stellmachter, J., Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). The importance

of group identification in task performances in a real-world

context. Poster session presented at the 13th General Meeting of

the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology,

San Sebastian, Spain.

Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 26–43.

Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). I’m doing the best

I can (for myself): Leadership and variance of harvesting in

resource dilemmas. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and

Practice, 9, 205–211.

Stouten, J., & Tripp, T. M. (2009). Claiming more than equality:

Should leaders ask for forgiveness? The Leadership Quarterly,

20, 287–298.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in

the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Aca-

demic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup

conflict. In M. J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds.), Organizational

identity: A reader (pp. 56–65). New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. The

Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations:

Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Manage-

ment, 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 employ-

ees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Orga-

nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109,

156–167.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006).

Procedural justice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision.

Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123.

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004).

Moderators of the relationships between coworkers’ organiza-

tional citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes.


Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators

of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates

resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974–983.

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.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social

group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations

(pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group

formation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European

developments in social psychology (pp. 518–538). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A

social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.),

Advances in group processes: Theory and research (pp. 77–122).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell,

M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categori-

zation theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Carsten, M. K. (2007) Being ethical when the boss is

not. Organizational Dynamics, 36, 187–201.

Van Dick, R., Ullrich, J. & Tissington, P. A. (2006). Working under a

black cloud: How to sustain organizational identification after a

merger. British Journal of Management, 17, 69–79.

Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). Social identification among

school teachers: Dimensions, foci, and correlates. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 129–149.

Van Knippenberg, D., Van Dick, R. & Tavares, S. (2007). Social

identity and social exchange: Identification, support and with-

drawal from the job. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37,

457–477.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and

correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupa-

tional and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.

Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W. & 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.

Wech, B. A., Mossholder, K. W.,Steel, R. P., & Bennett, N. (1998).

Does work group cohesiveness affect individuals’ performance

and organizational commitment? A cross-level examination.

Small Group Research, 29, 472–494.


123

Wu, C., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2007). Transformational leadership,

cohesion perceptions, and employee cynicism about organiza-

tional change: The mediating role of justice perceptions. Journal

of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 327–351.

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.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive

supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behav-

ior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.


123

Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email

articles for individual use.

92624748

Education

somatic health complaints

human decision processes

administrative science quarterly

regression analysis revealed

social exchange theory

completed high school

social identity theory

cambridge university press