Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Conceptual Framework
Transformational Leadership
It has been acknowledged that the leadership style has considerable effects on employees performance and work environment, and transformational leadership is regarded as one of the most effective models. Transformational leadership can be defined as an approach by which leaders motivate followers to identify with organizational goals and interests and to perform beyond expectations (Buil et al., 2019, p. 65). Some of the most common features of this type of leadership include charisma or individualized impact, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration (Buil et al., 2019). These aspects may be manifested differently in a leader, which may affect the strategy the leader will utilize in different situations.
Intellectual stimulation encompasses leaders ability to encourage employees to explore their creativity, innovate, as well as the capacity to challenge personnel and facilitate the development of new ideas. Recent research shows that transformational leadership is instrumental in enhancing employees innovative effort and creativity (Ng, 2017). As far as inspirational motivation is concerned, transformational leaders articulate their vision and inspire followers to share it and achieve this vision (Buil et al., 2019). Such leaders facilitate the enhancement of employees proactivity and adaptability, which has a positive influence on their performance (Wang et al., 2017). Transformational leadership also contributes to the development of a learning organization culture where employees share knowledge and innovate, which enhances their and organizational performance (Para-González et al., 2018). Companies also need to provide ongoing training to the staff to maintain the established culture.
Individualized consideration is critical for the effective use of transformational leadership. Employees performance improves when their needs are met, including the needs in a specific amount of support from a transformational leader (Tepper et al., 2018). Sufficient or excessive amount of received transformational leadership has a positive impact on organizational citizenship and work attitudes. The increase in employees engagement and organizational citizenship is associated with the development of a psychological attachment to a transformational leader (Sahu et al., 2018). These attachment types play a mediating role in employees engagement with different levels of exhaustion. At that, personnel engagement is lower when transformational leadership is low on days with high job demands (Breevaart & Bakker, 2018). A high level of transformational leadership on such days is a mediator of employees engagement.
At the same time, transformational leadership has a darker side as well because it can have negative outcomes on certain aspects related to performance, motivation, and working environment. For instance, this leadership paradigm can hinder employees thriving if associated with a moderate or high level of employees exhaustion (Niessen et al., 2017). Inconsistent transformational leadership can also have mixed effects. For instance, transformational leadership does not correlate with the creativity of employees with a low level of perceived organizational support (Suifan et al., 2018). Therefore, it is critical to consider the diverse aspects and influences of transformational leadership.
Transformational Leadership and Abusive Supervision
Although the impact inconsistent transformational leadership has on performance at organizational and individual levels has received certain attention in academia, the relationship between transformational leadership and destructive forms of leadership is still under-researched. It has been found that leaders tend to alternate leadership styles, which has diverse effects on employees job performance, satisfaction, psychological wellbeing, creativity, and commitment (Mullen et al., 2018). For instance, although transformational leadership contributes to the enhancement of safety participation, the positive influence of this working environment can be hindered when abusive supervision occurs. When leaders alternate transformational leadership and abusive supervision, employees feel higher levels of stress and are less productive. Due to the damage to employees psychological wellbeing, their behavior can change to counterproductive, which will lead to negative effects for the workplace atmosphere. According to Mullen et al. (2018), in order to minimize the occurrence of abusive supervision, it can be effective to encourage leaders to develop successful leader-member relationships. Enhanced leader-member exchange mitigates the adverse consequences of abusive behaviors and makes leaders more empathetic and improves their emotional intelligence as well as the corresponding competencies.
Inconsistent transformational leadership can also lead to a change in employees engagement and performance on a daily basis (Huang et al., 2019). For instance, the personnels performance can be high on one day while employees may be disengaged on another day depending on the leadership the supervisor uses. Sustained abusive leadership results in low morale, disengagement from current tasks, and low performance. Huang et al. (2019) emphasize that researchers may need to explore the relationship between abusive supervision and employee performance in day-to-day contexts in order to identify the exact mechanisms involved in the process.
Transformational leadership can have no mediating effect on employees performance if abusive supervision prevails and the former leadership style is utilized occasionally (Barling et al., 2018). Leaders often switch to different forms of leadership due to the availability of resources, and it has been found that autocratic leadership was effective in the presence of scarce resources while abusive supervision had milder negative consequences compared to similar circumstances and the use of transformational leadership (Barling et al., 2018). It is noteworthy that Barling et al. (2018) conducted their research in the healthcare setting, which displays certain limitations and the need to address the topic in a larger context.
The abusive behavior of ethical leaders can have rather negative effects making subordinates more receptive to abusive supervision in the future. Prior use of ethical leadership posed the focus on interactional justice that had a moderating impact on the relationship between abusive supervision and work outcomes (Wang & Chan, 2020). Interactional justice is associated with peoples perceptions of the degree to which they are treated with respect and dignity in different contexts (Wang & Chan, 2020). On the one hand, when employees feel they are treated unfairly, their psychological wellbeing is negatively affected, which may result in vulnerability to abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Such people may become victims of abusive leaders or react in an increasingly intense manner. On the other hand, inconsistent leadership tends to increase peoples need for interactional justice, and if abusive supervision frequency or magnitude grows, negative workplace outcomes intensify.
Individual characteristics and skills of the staff also play a significant role in their performance under such conditions. For example, employees with high levels of mindfulness perform better when transformational leadership is utilized, but they are also increasingly affected by abusive supervision, which has detrimental effects on their psychological well-being and performance (Walsh & Arnold, 2020). Therefore, employees mindfulness can result in their poor performance and job dissatisfaction, or full work engagement, if inconsistent leadership is utilized, depending on the used leadership style on a daily basis. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies, which makes researchers more attentive to inconsistent leadership and its outcomes. Walsh and Arnold (2020) also suggest that employees may need extensive training regarding effective coping strategies to ensure their mindfulness will not enhance negative responses to abusive leadership and will facilitate the development of a favorable working environment.
At the same time, Lange et al. (2018) found a positive relationship between leaders mindfulness and transformational leadership, while the leaders mindfulness and abusive supervision were characterized by a negative relationship. An important observation has been made as mindful leaders tended to exert transformational leadership when addressing innovation-related incentives and individuals ideas or performance rather than team-based aspects (Lange et al., 2018). This trend is explained by the resource-based approach as mindfulness is mainly related to personal links and interpersonal relationships. Although some aspects of inconsistent leadership use have been explored, the link between transformational leadership and abusive behavior requires further investigation, as well as the impact these leadership styles have on employees performance.
Workplace Abuse
In order to explore the effects of workplace abuse on employee performance, it is critical to define the term. The accepted terminology has been introduced by the U. S. government to address the associated issues and ensure employees safety. According to the United States Department of Labor (2020), workplace violence is any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site (para. 2). It has been estimated that workplace violence is quite widespread, although it is underreported and can often be difficult to address.
For instance, it has been found that out of 5,147 cases of fatal injuries at the working place, 458 cases were caused by another person intentionally (U. S. Department of Labor, 2020). It is also known that workplace violence is the third cause of fatal occupational injuries in the country. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2020) report that fatal injury caused by occupational violence is especially common among employees engaged in such areas as transportation, sales, and protective services. Workplace violence is closely linked to increased absenteeism among healthcare employees. A wide range of preventive measures and legislation addressing such cases have been introduced and enacted (United States government, 2021). These regulations are largely related to harassment and severe forms of workplace abuse.
Abusive supervision can be seen as a type of occupational violence that is mainly manifested in less severe forms but still has apparent adverse effects on employees performance and wellbeing. It is noteworthy that the phenomenon is associated with a strong subjective component. For instance, abusive supervision has been defined as subordinates perception of the degree to which its superiors engage in the continuous delivery of threatening verbal sentences and nonverbal actions, without physical touch (Hussain et al., 2020, p. 4). This type of relationship can be based on personal and organizational aspects (Ronen & Donia, 2020). A significant bulk of research is devoted to the examination of the way managers see abusive supervision and the effects of these behavioral patterns on their conduct and performance (Ambrose & Ganegoda, 2020). The overall impact of these attitudes on organizational outcomes and employees conduct and wellbeing.
Although quite particular definitions exist, researchers pay specific attention to the ways the problem is perceived by people in particular settings. Perceived abusive supervision is a matter of scholars exploration in terms of its effects on employees performance and workplace environment (Park et al., 2020). Another domain explored by researchers is linked to mitigating factors helping people address the negative outcomes of abusive supervision. For instance, Tariq and Ding (2018) claim that family is an important aspect that has a significant influence on peoples decision to continue working in abusive environments. Family motivation can also contribute to the development of resilience that is beneficial for employees performance in such a strained atmosphere. Another mitigating factor is mindfulness that is associated with resilience development and creativity enhancement (Shen et al., 2020b). Other areas such as the reasons for occupational abuse and ways to address its outcomes have also been investigated in academia.
Causes of Workplace Abuse
Interpersonal Aspects
Numerous causes of occupational abuse have been identified and examined in detail. Personal traits of the supervisor and subordinates that shape the way their interpersonal relationships develop are seen as influential factors (Qin et al., 2019). Tariq et al. (2019) also found that supervisors may abuse high-performers due to their jealousy. In simple terms, managers may be envious of their subordinates achievements or particular skills and characteristics, which may cause their abusive conduct. Khan et al. (2018) also found that abusive supervision occurs when the social dominance of a supervisor is high. If the supervisor feels their dominance is threatened, they can utilize abusive supervision methods. Abusive supervision also leads to abusive behaviors in the working place, so supervisors abuse makes subordinates display similar behavioral patterns in the relationships with their peers (Ramdeo & Singh, 2019). Various conflicts that may arise in the working environment may later result in abusive supervision as well.
Leaders Traits
Leaders personal traits also pave the way to abusive supervision in organizations. Leaders creative mindset is linked to abusive supervision through moral disengagement (Qin et al., 2019). Leaders negative creativity is closely related to abusive leadership as supervisors use all possible means to achieve their vision irrespective of their followers needs, features, and performance. Leaders high in moral disengagement tend to have low capacity to self-regulate, which results in their abusive behavior. Qin et al. (2019) paid specific attention to day-to-day fluctuations in leaders supervision and employees performance and found a direct link between the mentioned variables and within-person factors rather than interpersonal aspects. For instance, the quality of sleep and the perception of work-family balance plays a more significant role in choosing a behavioral pattern than specific workplace processes or relationships.
Such personal characteristics as extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and neuroticism are associated with abusive supervision (Tahira et al., 2019). Such features as conscientiousness and neuroticism have been long associated with abusive behaviors as such people are often inflexible and prone to negative emotions. However, extraversion is not commonly linked to abusive behavior, which creates a considerable gap in the knowledge on the matter. Tahira et al. (2019) address this gap identifying the relationship between leaders extraversion and abusive supervision. It is stated that extraverted people feel freer when articulating their ideas and expressing their emotions, and this confidence tends to lead to abusive leadership. At that, diverse factors, such as organizational culture, cultural peculiarities, as well as employees perceptions and individual traits, can have a moderating impact on leaders abusive behaviors.
Leaders attachment orientation is an influential factor affecting their leadership style as well. Attachment theory has been widely used in studies examining leadership and peoples occupational behavior (Robertson et al., 2018). This theoretical framework is based on the exploration of the relationships between infants and their caregivers, as well as the influence of these patterns on cognitive and social models the former develop and employ during their adulthood. Diverse patterns and modes of adult behavior exist. When applied to occupational behavior, it is stated that people with anxious attachment orientation are more likely to display abusive supervision while close/dependent attachment orientation had a negative relationship with abusive leadership (Robertson et al., 2018). In contrast, supervisors high on close/depend attachment domains tend to think they are capable of cultivating effective relationships, so they do not engage in abusive behaviors. Social self-efficacy is a strong mediator affecting the use of leadership styles in both cases. The training aimed at the development of social skills and increasing leaders confidence in their ability to build successful relationships is regarded as a successful strategy to minimize abusive leadership.
In addition to personal characteristics, leaders beliefs regarding abusive supervision outcomes are also instrumental in their use of this type of leadership. It has been found that leaders who believe that abusive leadership is appropriate and results in better performance tend to display abusive behaviors (Watkins et al., 2017). Supervisors empathic concern plays a moderating role in the relationship between abusive behavior and adverse workplace outcomes. Such leaders may use abusive supervision irrespective of employees previous performance. High-achievers can also become victims of negative leadership due to their leaders beliefs regarding the effectiveness of abusive supervision and its favorable effects on performance (Watkins et al., 2017). Depending on the degree to which the leader exhibits empathic concerns, the leader uses abusive supervision to achieve organizational goals.
Employees Traits
Employees personal features are linked to workplace abuse in various domains. Worldviews and the attitude to authority, as well as the level of performance of individuals, can predict their victimization by abusive leaders (Khan et al., 2017). Khan et al. (2017) utilized the dual-process model to investigate the role personnels perspectives play in the relationship between abusive supervision and performance. The model implies the focus on the competitive and dangerous worldviews. In the former case, people attempt to achieve dominance in a group due to their assumptions regarding the competitiveness and the importance of dominance. In the latter case, people see the world as a dangerous environment and seek enhanced social cohesion, as well as collective security. These perspectives affect the staffs attitudes and responses to abusive supervision (Khan et al., 2017). People who have the dangerous worldview are more likely to be submissive and display obedience with autocratic and abusive leadership. Higher submission to authority is associated with poor performers and employees deviant behaviors in the presence of abusive leadership. Such employees tend to be victimized due to their poor performance and behavior (passivity and submissiveness).
Employees neuroticism and introversion were strong predictors of exposure to abusive supervision (Nielsen et al., 2017). Employees with such personal features were more likely to engage in workplace deviation and low performance. Extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to new experiences had a negative relationship with abusive leadership although openness had a less significant influence on peoples response to abusive supervision. It is also evident that people with such traits are vulnerable to victimization, so the vicious circle emerges as they are prone to enhanced reactions that lead to their further abuse. Nielsen et al. (2017) also add that the meta-analysis they implemented showed that methodology had an effect on the results as the variables (openness, extraversion, and the rest) were conceptualized and measured differently. Hence, further research on the relationship between individuals personal traits and abusive supervision is needed.
Machiavellianism is another characteristic feature of employees that is associated with the use of abusive leadership. Under abusive supervision employees Machiavellianism is activated and people engage in unethical behavior as a response to leaders abusive conduct (Greenbaum et al., 2017). Such Machiavellianism dimensions as a desire for control, distrust in others, amoral manipulation, and a desire for status have been in researchers lenses. The primary predictors of the counterproductive workplace and unethical behavior are the desire for control and amoral manipulation (Greenbaum et al., 2017). Hence, abusive leadership activates some negative traits in employees and deteriorates their commitment and performance, which leads to diverse negative effects, including but not confined to an inappropriate workplace environment.
Subordinates attentional bias and trait self-control is influenced by abusive supervision and can play a mediating role in employees safety behaviors (Yuan et al., 2018). Emotional exhaustion also moderates the link between abusive leadership and safety behaviors. Trait self-control had the strongest mediating effect on the relationship between emotional exhaustion and abusive supervision (Yuan et al., 2018). Employees psychological capital is another feature that can enhance the negative relationship between abusive supervision and employee productivity (Raza et al., 2019). Psychological capital is the complex notion consisting of such aspects and traits as self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, and hope. Employees with a strong psychological capital are less affected by leaders abusive behaviors and remain high performers. Psychological capital can be accumulated through the development of the corresponding culture and the enhancement of proactive relationships between the leader and followers, as well as a social exchange among employees.
Organizational culture also has a direct and indirect impact on the occurrence of abusive supervision. Companies with weak organizational cultures are often characterized by the existence of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) norms, which is one of the factors contributing to the use of abusive leadership (Ju et al., 2019). Employees personal control plays a considerable role in the process as the presence of CWB norms alone does not always result in CWB. Leaders personal traits, as well as workload, work-related stress, and personal control, intertwine with CWB norms, which results in abusive supervision. Companies with autocratic leadership tend to be an illustration of this phenomenon as they are associated with rather strong CWB norms. An effective way to diminish the adverse outcomes of abusive leadership and minimize its occurrence is training provided to managers who need to understand the detrimental effects of abusive supervision and ways to avoid undesirable behaviors (Ju et al., 2019). The establishment of proper organizational culture with no CWB norms is another goal to attain to make abusive supervision in the working place impossible.
Leadership and Abuse
Researchers have also shown interest in the relationship between the leadership style used by the supervisor and abusive supervision strategies, as well as employees responses to such supervision. It has been reported that some leadership styles are more associated with occupational abuse than others. For example, transactional leaders are often characterized by the utilization of abusive supervision methods, which leads to employees disengagement and deviant behaviors (Peltokorpi, 2018). Autocratic leadership styles are associated with the prevalence of abusive supervision that is often apparent in masculine cultures (Zhang et al., 2019). Al-Hawari et al. (2019) note that supportive behaviors and the display of transformational leadership styles are, on the contrary, mitigating factors helping employees cope with experienced workplace abuse, as well as customers incivility. Therefore, supervisors are encouraged to employ transformational leadership techniques in various settings.
Horizontal and Vertical Abuse
As mentioned above, occupational abuse can be manifested on different levels, including personal and organizational. Abuse can also be vertical and horizontal, depending on the roles performed by the victim and the abuser within the organization. Vertical abuse is seen as the most common as people in a dominant position tend to exercise their dominance by abusing their subordinates (Tariq et al., 2019). Supervisors have a certain power over their subordinates, which may vary across organizations depending on the level of their hierarchy. Vertical occupational abuse is quite common in highly hierarchical companies. Horizontal abuse also takes place, which is often related to subordinates responses to supervisors abusive behaviors. Employees may become disengaged or even rather abusive towards their peers (Ramdeo & Singh, 2019). This kind of horizontal abuse is characterized by more serious negative issues as it can lead to misconduct, absenteeism, and other kinds of inappropriate behavior.
Consequences of Abuse
Abusive supervision tends to have multiple effects on employees, working climate, and the overall performance of the department or entire company. The primary focus of scholars has been on employees performance, but other domains are also explored. Physical and mental health issues have been examined in detail, as employees health is one of the most influential factors affecting their productivity (Akram et al., 2019). Employees motivation and job satisfaction are common topics of exploration as well (Tian et al., 2020; Sannes et al., 2021). Abusive leadership is strongly associated with employees political behavior in organizations.
In the presence of abusive supervision, employees are more likely to engage in diverse political processes within organizations. It has been reported that employees high in Machiavellianism having strong ties with the leader display the highest political involvement (Liu & Liu, 2018). Those characterized by a lower level of Machiavellianism had higher perceptions of organizational politics compared to individuals with low Machiavellianism. Hence, abusive leadership has a substantial impact on political dynamics in organizations, which needs to be considered in order to develop or maintain a strong organizational culture. In addition, economic and legal outcomes are associated with abusive supervision, which has diverse effects on the development of the organization. It is necessary to consider the areas mentioned above in more detail as each type of consequence can lead to quite particular effects.
Health outcomes
According to CDC (2020), occupational violence leads to diverse psychological issues, physical injury, and even death. It is noteworthy that abusive supervision is only one of the manifestations of workplace violence, but it contributes considerably to the development of situations leading to trauma or even death. Fischer et al. (2021) note that there is a lack of statistical data on the exact link between injury and abusive supervision. However, the relationship between mental health and abusive supervision exposure has been analyzed in detail.
Employees experiencing abusive supervision tend to display paranoia making them vulnerable to the development of sinister attribution error that is a cognitive error that implies erroneous perceptions of workplace events (Lopes et al., 2018). An illustration of this psychological state is when an employee misattributes an ordinary workplace situation (peers laughing or discussing something) to negative motives (an attempt to mock or harm them in any way). Employees affected by the sinister attribution error are more likely to engage in deviant behaviors. In some cases, abusive supervision can lead to suicidal ideation in employees (Liu et al., 2020). Liu et al. (2020) also found that meaning in life mitigated the adverse effects of abusive leadership. The satisfaction of peoples psychological needs is linked to the degree of suicidal ideation in employees. For example, employees sense of relatedness and needs for competence played a moderating role.
Such mental health conditions as depression and anxiety are common for people experiencing abusive supervision. It has been acknowledged that females are more vulnerable to develop these mental health illnesses compared to men (Sannes et al., 2021). Sannes et al. (2021) also found that womens genotypes are an influential factor affecting their response to occupational abuse. The researchers state that GRHR1 TAT/TAT genotype in females enhances the risk of developing anxiety caused by supervision abuse (Sannes et al., 2021). Zhou et al. (2020) also found that women are at a higher risk of abusing alcohol when experiencing abusive supervision for a long period of time. Alcohol abuse is associated with serious mental and physical health outcomes, including but not confined to the development of addiction, depression, and cardiovascular issues, among others.
Emotional exhaustion is one of the health outcomes of abusive supervision. Subordinates facing workplace abuse feel depleted of their resources that can affect their physical health as well (Akram et al., 2019). Psychological distress is also a common issue for employees exposed to abusive supervision. Saleem et al. (2018) explored the consequences of workplace abuse among law enforcement professionals and found a direct link between abusive supervision and employees psychological distress. This psychological problem is associated with other issues, including but not confined to depression, anxiety, or even more severe issues.
Another effect related to the emotional state of employees caused by abusive supervision is workplace ostracism. This phenomenon implies that individuals develop defense mechanisms making them less emotionally receptive (He et al., 2021). Although such methods are instrumental in addressing abusive behaviors and pressure, this emotional state prevents employees from being fully engaged, committed, and creative. It also has detrimental effects on mental health as ostracism can lead to peoples job dissatisfaction and, as a result, depression.
Although the majority of studies provide insights into the psychological state of employees and supervisors, physical conditions have also been explored. Although researches aimed at examining the link between peoples physical state and abusive supervision are quite scarce, certain valuable findings have been discussed in the academia. Liang et al. (2018) implemented a longitudinal study concentrating on the perceived physical outcomes of exposure to perceived abusive supervision. The researchers stress that such physical conditions as headaches, stomach pain, and sleep disturbances are directly linked to workplace abuse, which often leads to losses for the employer as people need to receive health care (Liang et al., 2018). Mullen et al. (2018) claim that physical health can be threatened as employees exposed to supervisor incivility tend to pay less attention to workplace safety, which results in injury. Peltokorpi and Ramaswami (2019) also found a direct positive relationship between abusive supervision and physical health concerns. For instance, people facing supervisors abuse reported increased levels of fatigue, digestive system issues, sleep disturbances, enhanced headaches, and other issues.
Economic outcomes
It has been estimated that abusive supervision costs may reach up to $24 billion annually due to productivity losses, healthcare costs, and absenteeism (Blum, 2017). An indirect negative economic effect of abusive supervision is also a possible lack of funding. Independent venture capitalists now pay considerable attention to the presence and magnitude of abusive leadership in companies during the due-diligence process (Blum, 2017). Therefore, companies with a high degree of abusive supervision risk losing potentially profitable contracts and additional investment. Employees who have faced abusive supervision and other types of occupational violence often needed u
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.