The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

Systematic
A systematic review of research review of
on abusive supervision in research

hospitality and tourism

Yitong Yu, Shi Xu and Gang Li 2473
School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey,
Guildford, UK, and Received 17 December 2019
Revised 7 March 2020
15 May 2020
Haiyan Kong Accepted 15 May 2020
Business School, SDU-ANU Joint Science College, Shandong University,
Weihai, China

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to provide researchers and practitioners with an understanding of abusive
supervision in the context of hospitality. It seeks to conduct a comprehensive review of the area and offer
recommendations for future research by exploring the antecedents, consequences, mechanisms and designs of
research on abusive supervision.
Design/methodology/approach – Content analysis was conducted to review and analyze studies on
abusive supervision in the context of hospitality. Previous studies were searched in the EBSCO, Scopus, Web
of Science and Google Scholar electronic databases.
Findings – In total, 36 referred articles related to abusive supervision in hospitality were reviewed across
four key areas, namely, antecedents, consequences, mechanisms and research design. After reviewing the
research on abusive supervision in the context of hospitality, this paper offers future research directions with
respect to research focus and research design.
Research limitations/implications – This paper only included English articles from peer-reviewed
journals on abusive supervision. The number of reviewed articles was relatively small. This limitation may
have arisen because abusive supervision is a new research field and is still a sensitive topic.
Practical implications – The results of this study may encourage managers to minimize or even halt
abusive supervision. From an organizational perspective, formal policies may be developed to regularize
supervisors’ behavior. In turn, employees could use this paper to learn further about abusive behavior and
how to handle it effectively.
Social implications – The review highlighted the negative consequences of abusive supervision.
Managers should urgently realize the seriousness of abusive supervision and develop effective policies to
minimize its negative effect.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to the emerging literature on abusive supervision in the
context of hospitality by identifying key research trends and framing the outlines of empirical studies. It
identifies research gaps, and as the first review of abusive supervision in hospitality, it may encourage
researchers to explore the topic on the basis of the characteristics of the sector and offer suggestions for future
research.
Keywords Abusive supervision, Systematic review, Antecedent, Consequence, Mechanism,
Research design, Hospitality industry
Paper type Research paper
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 32 No. 7, 2020
pp. 2473-2496
The author would like to thank the support of Shandong Social Science Grant (20CGLJ31), The Youth © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
Team Grant Fund of Shandong University, Weihai, and Business School. DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-12-2019-1004
IJCHM 1. Introduction
32,7 A good relationship between employees and their supervisors is crucial for employees and
organizations (Tsai et al., 2010). The work performance of employees (even that of
temporary workers), their salaries, and their career paths are all significantly correlated with
their relationships with their supervisors (Kong et al., 2015; Kong et al., 2016). Accordingly,
employees’ perceptions of abusive supervision, characterized by supervisors engaging in
2474 sustained displays of hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior, are salient for employees and
have long-term negative outcomes (Tepper, 2000). Zhang and Bednall (2016) stated that the
increasing interest in unethical leadership in the organizational behavior context has led to
many studies focusing on investigating abusive supervision.
Abusive supervision, defined as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which
supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors”
(Tepper, 2000, p.178), has been shown to have various negative consequences (e.g.
workplace deviance, low service performance and high turnover rate), and the
relationship is influenced by different factors (e.g. power distance and organizational and
coworker support). However, whether abusive supervision differs in hospitality
compared with that in other sectors is unclear. As an important service sector, we review
several unique aspects hospitality and tourism industry that can influence abusive
supervision. Hence, a detailed review was conducted on the research on abusive
supervision in the context of hospitality, focusing on four key areas, namely, antecedents,
consequences, mechanisms and research designs. Suggestions for future research
directions are offered based on the results.

2. Literature review
This section discusses five unique aspects in the hospitality industry that make abusive
supervision complex, important and likely to manifest under those circumstances. These
aspects are the hierarchical organizational structure, the large number of temporary
workers, complex culture diversity, the importance of emotional well-being and customer
interaction.

2.1 Organizational structure and abusive supervision

Due to the type of organizational structure or the way labor is divided into different tasks
leading to coordination (Mintzberg, 1979), abusive supervision is highly likely to occur in the
hospitality industry. A flat structure is prevalent in knowledge-intensive industries such as
internet-based and high-tech companies. This flat organizational structure provides staff
with a flexible work environment, encourages creativity and innovation (Hershatter and
Epstein, 2010), and is characterized by decentralization (Slevin and Covin, 1997). In
comparison, the hospitality industry is more labor intensive (Riley, 2014). Thus, staff must
be well organized and have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, which leads to a
hierarchical human resource structure that helps hospitality organizations, particularly, to
efficiently supervise staff (Riley, 2014). Authority is necessarily centralized within this
structure, which enables more frequent abusive supervision than in a flat structure. This
structure emphasizes the imbalance of power between supervisors and subordinates. Salin
(2003) argued that institutionalized bullying is more likely to occur when a significant power
imbalance exists. Aryee et al. (2008) also showed that the work unit structure moderates the
relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion. They stated that from
the perspective of conservation of resources (COR) theory, human resource structure can be
viewed as influencing the pressure caused by abusive supervision. In other words,
centralized and hierarchical organizational structures of the hospitality industry tend to Systematic
involve more abusive supervision. review of
research
2.2 Temporary workers and abusive supervision
The large number of temporary workers makes abusive supervision highly likely in the
hospitality industry. Seasonality is an important characteristic of the industry, forcing it to
hire a high proportion of temporary workers to solve the problem of labor shortages during
peak seasons (Koenig-Lewis and Bischoff, 2005). Temporary workers are less willing to
2475
change and adapt to the leadership style of their supervisors than permanent workers do
(Von Hippel et al., 1997). At the same time, supervisors are more likely to be abusive because
they know that temporary workers are vulnerable in terms of seeking help. In addition,
whether an employee has a temporary or permanent position can influence responses to
abusive supervision. Generally, organizational support (Lopes et al., 2018), mindfulness
(Burton and Barber, 2019) and a high level of agreeableness among subordinates (Srikanth,
2019) have been found to mitigate abusive supervision. However, temporary workers have
been shown to react differently to such supervision. Given their lack of financial and
personal fulfillment, young temporary employees hide their emotions toward abusive
supervision (Dupré et al., 2006). Zhang and Frenkel (2018) showed that temporary workers
usually have neutral identification (weak or no emotional connection to the organization),
which helps them cope with abusive supervision due to their temporary positions.
In sum, abusive supervision is highly likely to occur in the hospitality industry due to its
large number of temporary workers and the victims will react differently due to their
temporary/permanent positions.

2.3 Cultural diversity and abusive supervision

Culture diversity makes abusive supervision complex in the hospitality industry. Many
studies have shown that cultural differences, which are common in the hospitality industry,
are closely related to abusive supervision (Hon and Lu, 2016; Xu et al., 2018). For example,
power distance has been found to moderate the relationship between abusive supervision
and job satisfaction (Peltokorpi and Ramaswami, 2019); among abusive supervision,
supervisor-directed deviance and emotional exhaustion (Iqbal and Rasheed, 2019); and
between abusive supervision and turnover intention (Richard et al., 2018). Other unique
cultural variables have also drawn attention. For example, the Chinese cultural variable
“guanxi” was found to be negatively related to abusive supervision (Liu and Wang, 2013). In
addition, as abusive supervision is defined by subordinates, employees may have different
attitudes toward the same behavior due to different backgrounds. For example,
subordinates in a low power distance culture are more likely to consider the loud and angry
reactions of their supervisors as abusive supervision than subordinates in a high power
distance culture (Valle and Levy, 2011). Moreover, international hotels tend to hire
employees with different culture background because they have to deal with customers from
different cultures, which makes research on abusive supervision more complex in
hospitality than in many other sectors.

2.4 Emotional well-being and abusive supervision

The close relationship between abusive supervision and employees’ well-being makes it
important and urgent to explore abusive supervision in the hospitality industry. Wright
et al. (2013) emphasized the role of emotional well-being management as a strategic tool in
human resource management. Emotional well-being is essential because emotional issues
among staff can influence their job performance and affect the efficiency and performance of
IJCHM the entire organization (Alfes et al., 2012; Kong et al., 2018). Many studies have indicated that
32,7 abusive supervision is negatively related to emotional well-being (Lin et al., 2013). For
example, abusive supervision was found to be related to emotional exhaustion (Harvey et al.,
2007). In addition, in view of abusive supervision as an interpersonal stressor, Lin et al.
(2013) identified a negative relationship between abusive supervision and employees’
psychological health and job satisfaction. Given the close correlation between abusive
2476 supervision and service performance, addressing abusive supervision is important in
hospitality contexts (Lee et al., 2016).

2.5 Customer interaction and abusive supervision

The interaction between service staff and customers makes abusive supervision more likely
to manifest in the hospitality industry. As a typical service sector, most employees in the
hospitality industry have to interact with customers and need to manage their emotions
while serving customers. Studies have verified that negative supervisor – customer
interactions can influence the tendency of the supervisor to abuse their subordinates (Yam
et al., 2016). Duffy et al. (2010) stated that behaviors requiring emotional labor can cause
subsequent antisocial behaviors in the workplace. Supervisors may transform their
frustration toward their subordinate because they cannot express their negative feelings
toward customers (Bushman and Baumeister, 1998), including abusive supervision. For
example, supervisors’ surface acting has been demonstrated to be positively related to
abusive supervision (Yam et al., 2016). In addition, when subordinates face mistreatment
from customers, subordinates also need to control their emotions. This emotional labor can
increase the stress level (Wang, 2019). The pressure of managing emotions and the potential
of receiving abuse from customers likely make employees sensitive about their supervisors’
behavior (Skarlicki et al., 2016). In conclusion, the interaction with customers is likely related
to abusive supervision from the perspectives of the supervisor and subordinates.
The aforementioned issues make abusive supervision in the hospitality industry to be
highly likely to occur, complex and important. This paper, thus, systematically reviewed
research on abusive supervision in the industry to explore whether such supervision differs
from that in other sectors and provide important new directions for future research.

3. Research methods
A systematic review can identify research gaps by critically exploring, evaluating and
synthesizing articles related to a research question (Suri and Clarke, 2009). A specific search
criterion was, thus, used in this paper to identify related articles and content analysis was
used to review and analyze them.
Although research on abusive supervision emerged two decades ago (Tepper, 2000),
research on the topic started considerably earlier under the guise of different terms,
including “bullying,” “undermining” and “aggression.” “Bullying” is the most commonly
used term in Australia and the UK, whereas “mobbing” is preferred in Northern Europe. By
contrast, “moral harassment” is more popular in Belgium and France (Einarsen et al., 2003).
In the USA, “petty tyranny” (Ashforth, 1997), “abusive supervision” (Tepper, 2000),
“emotional abuse” (Keashly, 1997) and “workplace trauma” (Tehrani, 2004) are used with a
different focus on employee interrelationship. “Supervisor undermining” involves behaviors
that directly influence and reduce self-worth (Mathe and Slevitch, 2013). “Aggression” refers
to overt, usually harmful social interaction that causes damage to other individuals (De
Almeida et al., 2015). The difference between abusive supervision and these terms is that the
former narrows the scope to the relationship between supervisors and subordinates.
 A search for studies was conducted in the EBSCO, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Systematic
Scholar electronic databases, using keywords including various combinations of “abusive review of
supervision,” “supervision,” “bullying,” “undermining,” “aggression,” “hospitality,” “hotel”
and “restaurant.” The articles retrieved from this search were published in hospitality and
research
general business journals.
The articles were filtered based on five conditions:
(1) Studies published after 2000, when the official definition of abusive supervision 2477
was introduced by Tepper (2000).
(2) Works with at least one study that collected data from the hospitality industry
alone.
(3) Studies that measured abusive behavior by supervisors as one of their variables.
(4) Peer-reviewed studies conducted in English.
(5) Full text availability.

The results of studies investigating similar terms (but not abusive supervision) were
checked to determine whether they focused on the relationship between supervisors and
subordinates, with only studies mentioning that relationship included. In total, 149 (46 in
EBSCO, 67 in Web of Science and 36 in Scopus) studies were related to “abusive
supervision” and other hospitality keywords (e.g. “hospitality,” “hotel” and “restaurant”).
Another round of research in Google Scholar returned two other related articles. After the
removal of all duplicates, the number of studies was 44. After being filtered based on
Conditions 2 and 3, 29 articles remained. Other similar terms (e.g. bullying and aggression)
were then searched and filtered in the same way, leading to nine additional studies. After
filtering based on the supervisor – subordinate relationship, seven out of the nine studies
were included in the final result of 36 articles. Among them 14 studies were published in
general business journals and 22 in hospitality journals. Figure 1 provides an overview of
the literature search procedure.
By using content analysis (Myers, 2013), all 36 studies were analyzed to identify research
content and research design. In total, three sub-themes were identified under research
content, namely, antecedents, consequences and psychological mechanisms. All studies that

151 relevant papers were

searched

44 remained after duplicates were

removed
9 papers were searched with other similar
terms

Filtered by Conditions 2 and 3, 29 papers

remained

7 paper remained after excluding the paper not specifying the

supervisor-subordinate relationship
Figure 1.
36 full articles were included in Scientific literature
review search procedure
IJCHM could not be categorized by sub-theme were summarized in a short abstract containing their
32,7 main research design and results.

4. Findings
The relevant studies were reviewed from two aspects, namely, research contents and
research designs. Research contents are further reviewed from the perspectives of
2478 antecedents, consequences and mechanisms.

4.1 Content – antecedents of abusive supervision

In recent years, scholars have frequently investigated the constructs and processes of
abusive supervision to explain what can lead to abusive supervision in the general business
field. However, in the hospitality industry, only three articles investigated the antecedents of
abusive supervision. Xu et al. (2017) indicated that employees’ moral efficacy can predict
their voice behavior about abusive supervision and that this relationship is strengthened by
coworker support. By contrast, Restubog et al. (2011) focused directly on the antecedents of
abusive supervision and found that abusive supervision mediates the relationship between
aggressive norms (i.e. hostile attitudes and behaviors toward other employees in the
organization) and psychological distress using restaurant employee data based on social
learning theory. They also showed that aggressive norms are an organizational contextual
factor that can predict abusive supervision. Meloury and Signal (2014) identified workplace
stress as an antecedent of workplace aggression among chefs who tend to be more
aggressive than other types of employee. Notably, head chefs tend to be aggressive due to
frustration with the kitchen and their staff. Table 1 summarizes all of the identified studies
on the antecedents of abusive supervision in the hospitality industry.

4.2 Content – consequences of abusive supervision

This subsection divides the consequences of abusive supervision into behavioral and
psychological consequences.

Antecedents Consequences Mediator Moderator Research design Author

Aggressive Spouse Psychological

norms undermining; distress
Supervisor-
directed
deviance
188 restaurant Restubog et al.
workers (Study (2011)
2), two-wave,
Philippines
Workplace stress 91 chefs, cross- Meloury and
sectional, Australia Signal (2014)
Moral efficacy Coworker 306 hospitality Xu et al.
support undergraduate (2017)
students, cross-
Table 1. sectional, Ecuador
Antecedents of
abusive supervision Note: Articles are listed chronologically from Tables 1 to 6
4.2.1 Abusive supervision and behavioral consequences. A number of behavioral outcomes Systematic
of abusive supervision have been investigated in the context of hospitality. review of
4.2.1.1 Abusive supervision and service performance. As an important concept in
service industries, service performance has been investigated as one of the outcomes of
research
abusive supervision in hospitality research. Service performance is key to success in the
hospitality industry (Phillips and Louvieris, 2005). Jian et al. (2012) analyzed supervisor –
subordinate dyads in five large Chinese hotels and found a negative relationship between
2479
abusive supervision and service performance. Mathe and Slevitch (2013) examined the
relationship between supervisor undermining and employee involvement climate on service
quality. Their results showed that the two constructs are key predictors in customers’
perceptions of service quality and that a significant relationship exists between the two
constructs. Hence, in a climate of high employee involvement, service quality is higher when
supervisor undermining is low. Hon and Lu (2016) claimed that abusive supervision can be
imitated by subordinates and transmitted along the organizational hierarchy. They further
argued that abusive supervision is positively associated with abusive behavior by
subordinates, which, in turn, negatively affects service performance. Cho et al. (2016) found
that supervisor incivility is positively related to emotional exhaustion, leading to negative
service performance.
Table 2 summarizes the consequences of abusive supervision related to service
performance.
4.2.1.2 Abusive supervision and organization citizenship behavior. Abusive supervision
has been shown to be negatively related to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and
voice behavior. Lyu et al. (2016a, 2016b) proposed that abused subordinates tend to hide
their OCB. They also found that abusive supervision influences proactive customer service
performance negatively among service employees via organizational identification. In
addition, the collectivist value orientations of subordinates reinforce the negative
relationship between abusive supervision and organizational identification. Moreover, Lyu
et al. (2016b) showed that abusive supervision negatively affects employees’ customer-
oriented OCB by reducing their work engagement. On the basis of COR, Zhao and Guo
(2019) focused on abusive supervision and employees’ helping behavior. Their results
revealed the negative relationship between abusive supervision and employees’ helping

Consequence Mediator Moderator Research design Author

Service Organization-based Relational- 560 frontline Jian et al.

performance self-esteem interdependent self- employees, two-wave, (2012)
construal China
Customer Employee 430 store managers, Mathe and
perceptions of involvement climate two-wave, US Slevitch
service quality (2013)
Service Employees’ emotional Perceived 239 restaurant Cho et al.
performance exhaustion organizational managers, cross- (2016)
support; sectional, US
Emotion regulation
ability
Service Subordinates’ abusive Power distance; 266 employees Hon and Lu
performance behavior Traditionality supervised by 36 team (2016) Table 2.
managers, cross- Consequences:
sectional, China Service performance
IJCHM behavior, which is negatively moderated by a proactive personality and the ability to
32,7 manage resources.
Similar to OCB, voice behavior, a type of upward communication intended to improve the
organization rather than criticize it, is also negatively affected by abusive supervision (Van
Dyne and LePine, 1998). Burris et al. (2008) investigated the relationship between abusive
supervision and voice behavior, mediated by turnover intention. On the basis of an empirical
2480 study in the restaurant industry, the study showed that turnover intention is negatively
related to voice behavior toward supervisors and mediates the relationship between
perceptions of leadership (including abusive supervision and leader – member exchange)
and voice behavior. In addition to OCB, work engagement has also been investigated. Wang
et al. (2020) examined the relationship between abusive supervision and work engagement.
They found that abusive supervision negatively affects employees’ work engagement
through employee silence.
Some unique features can be found in the aforementioned studies. For example, research
on the relationship between abusive supervision and OCB has been conducted in the general
business field (Zellars et al., 2002). However, the studies mentioned above collected data
from two sources (e.g. OCB was collected from coworkers), which reduced the probability of
common method variance. Furthermore, abusive supervision has been found to be a good
predictor of OCB in the general business field (Liu and Wang, 2013). OCB can be further
explored beyond coworkers in the hospitality industry by focusing on employees who
interact with customers. Table 3 summarizes the consequences of abusive supervision in
relation to OCB.
4.2.1.3 Abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Abusive supervision is positively
correlated with different types of workplace deviance, including counter productivity,
knowledge hiding behavior and service sabotage (Mackey et al., 2015; Robbins and Galperin,
2010). Among these consequences, workplace deviance is the most popular. Mackey et al.
(2015) revealed that abusive supervision leads to more coworker/supervisor-directed
deviance and that highly empowered employees are more likely to engage in coworker-
directed deviance when faced with abusive supervision than less empowered employees.
Similarly, Restubog et al. (2011) showed a positive relationship between abusive supervision
and deviance toward supervisors, suggesting that abusive supervision is associated with

Consequence Mediator Moderator Research design Author

Subordinates’ Turnover 499 managers and 234 Burris et al.

voice to intentions GMs from 269 (2008)
supervisors restaurants, two-wave, US
Proactive customer Organizational Collectivism 303 frontline employees, Lyu et al.
service identification two-wave, China (2016a)
performance
Customer-oriented Work engagement Hostile attribution 303 frontline employees, Lyu et al.
OCB bias two-wave, China (2016b)
Helping behavior Proactive 353 hotel employees from Zhao and Guo
personality 10 hotels, two-wave, (2019)
Ability to manage Shanghai
resources
Work engagement Employee silence 233 employees from a Wang et al.
large hotel service (2020)
Table 3. company, cross-sectional,
Consequences: OCB Taiwan
spousal undermining and mediated by psychological distress. Moreover, Tepper et al. (2009) Systematic
concluded that abusive supervision results in a high level of deviance toward supervisors review of
when employees’ intention to quit is high. Jung and Yoon (2019) investigated the
relationship between social undermining and employee silence as a form of deviant
research
behavior. They found a negative relationship between supervisor undermining and
employees’ voice and a positive relationship between supervisor undermining and employee
silence.
As an example of a detailed form of deviant behavior, Pan et al. (2018) investigated the 2481
positive relationship between abusive supervision and job-oriented constructive deviance
via job dissatisfaction using a sample of hotel employees in Macao. Constructive deviance
refers to behaviors aimed at helping the organization but actually violating organizational
norms (Robbins and Galperin, 2010). The results suggested that abusive supervision is
correlated with subordinates’ job dissatisfaction positively and that job dissatisfaction has
an inverted curvilinear effect on job-oriented constructive deviance. Particularly, low to
moderate job dissatisfaction is positively associated with constructive deviance, whereas
moderate to high job dissatisfaction is negatively associated with constructive deviance.
Detert et al. (2007) examined the impact of abusive supervision on counter productivity
using a longitudinal study of 265 restaurants in the USA Counter productivity is a tangible
outcome of undesirable employee behavior. The authors found that abusive supervision
increases counter productivity in the form of food loss through waste or theft. Thus, abusive
supervision can reduce the gross profit or financial performance of restaurants in the long
term. Khalid et al. (2018) conducted a three-wave study in Pakistan and found a positive
relationship between abusive supervision and knowledge hiding behavior, mediated by
perceptions of interpersonal justice and weakened by Islamic work ethics (IWE). IWE is
rooted in the words of the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Yousef, 2000),
which discourages knowledge hiding and promotes knowledge sharing. Studies have found
that employees’ psychological contract breach (Park and Kim, 2018) and organizational
identification (Ma et al., 2020) mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and
service sabotage. In addition, as moderators, supervisors’ organizational embodiment
strengthens the relationship between abusive supervision and psychological contract
breach and sensitivity to interpersonal mistreatment strengthens the effect of abusive
supervision on service sabotage. Deeply rooted in the context of hospitality, service
sabotage was investigated for the first time in connection with abusive supervision in this
study.
Abubakar et al. (2017) examined the relationship between supervisor incivility and
employee withdrawal behavior using cynicism as a mediator in a hotel context. However,
their proposed hypotheses were rejected. Nevertheless, existing research has confirmed the
relationship between abusive supervision and withdrawal behavior in the general business
field (Chi and Liang, 2013). Future research should investigate employee work withdrawal
behavior as a consequence of abusive supervision in the context of hospitality and to
examine why work withdrawal behavior may not be significantly associated with abusive
supervision in this field and whether this relationship may become significant once
additional moderating effects are considered.
The consequences of abusive supervision related to workplace deviance are summarized
in Table 4.
4.2.2 Abusive supervision and psychological consequences. Abusive supervision directly
affects employees’ psychological well-being, including employee burnout. Nyberg et al.
(2011) showed that autocratic leadership (e.g. bossy) and malevolent leadership (e.g. hostile)
are significantly related to poor psychological well-being such as low vitality and high
 32,7

2482
IJCHM

Table 4.
Consequences:
workplace deviance
Antecedents Consequences Mediator Moderator Research design Author

Counter productivity Crew members from 265 restaurants, two-wave, US Detert et al.
(2007)
Employees’ Employees’ intention to 491 fast-food restaurant managers, cross-sectional, US Tepper et al.
organization deviance; quit (2009)
Supervisor-directed
deviance
Aggressive Spouse undermining; Psychological 188 restaurant workers (Study 2), two-wave, Restubog
norms Supervisor-directed distress Philippines et al.(2011)
deviance
Supervisor-directed Psychological 101 members of a hotel management association Mackey et al.
deviance; empowerment (Sample 1), cross-sectional, Australia (2015)
Coworker-directed
deviance
Work withdrawal Employee cynicism 291 frontline hotel employees, cross-sectional, Cyprus Abubakar
behavior (rejected) et al. (2017)
Knowledge hiding Interpersonal justice Islamic work ethics 244 hospitality employees from nine hotels, three- Khalid et al.
behaviors wave, Pakistan (2018)
Job-oriented Job dissatisfaction Problem-focused coping 198 employees working with 34 supervisors in four Pan et al.
constructive deviance hotel groups, three-wave, Macau (2018)
Service sabotage Psychological Supervisor’s 183 hospitality employees, two-wave, US Park and Kim
contract breach organizational (2018)
embodiment
Organizational deviant Employee voice; 344 five-star hotel employees, cross-sectional, South Jung and
behavior employee silence Korean Yoon (2019)
Service sabotage Organizational Sensitivity to 251 employees from 13 hotels, three-wave, China Ma et al.
identification interpersonal (2020)
mistreatment
strain. On the basis of a sample of supervisor – subordinate dyads from a hotel group in Systematic
China, Li et al. (2016) concluded that abusive supervision leads to a high level of employee review of
burnout, whereas that the relationship is weakened by higher perceived organizational
support and employees’ political skills. This relationship can be explained by COR (Hobfoll,
research
1989), which suggests that experiencing abusive supervision will result in resource loss and
eventually burnout for hospitality employees.
Moreover, abusive supervision has been shown to be correlated with employees’
turnover intention, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and capacity to satisfy 2483
customers. Xu et al. (2018) examined the impact of abusive supervision on turnover intention
in a high power distance culture in Ecuador. They found a positive correlation between
abusive supervision and turnover intention and showed that perceived organizational
support mediates this relationship. They also found that coworker support reduces the
negative impact of abusive supervision on perceived organizational support. Alexander
et al. (2012) explored bullying behavior in professional kitchens and found that it occurs
primarily among younger and junior chefs, suggesting that they are abused by their
superiors. In addition, they found that satisfaction with the supervisor and rewards mediate
the relationship between bullying and organizational commitment. Wang et al. (2020) also
found that job satisfaction is negatively related to abusive supervision, which is mediated
by employee silence. Recently, Al-Hawari et al. (2020) showed a negative relationship
between employees’ capacity to satisfy customers and abusive supervision, which is
mediated by employee silence. In addition, customer orientation has been found to weaken
the relationship between abusive supervision and the employee silence behavior.
In addition to investigating subordinate-level psychological outcomes, a recent
hospitality-related article explored supervisor-level outcomes. On the basis of appraisal
theory, Shum et al. (2020) showed that the enactment of abusive supervision is positively
associated with guilt, which is mitigated by perceived managerial abuse when managers’
agreeableness is high. Furthermore, guilt positively influences managers’ intentions to help
their followers. This study involved three employee levels, namely, abusive supervisors,
higher level supervisors and subordinates; however, the data were only collected from mid-
level supervisors. Future research should continue to explore supervisor-level outcomes and
broaden the research scope for higher impact.
Bullying by supervisors in professional kitchens is a common problem related to staff
retention. However, future research on abusive supervision and organizational commitment
should broaden the context beyond kitchens and examine the prevalence of this problem in
the overall hospitality industry. In addition, as psychological well-being is important and
closely relevant to employee performance (Alfes et al., 2012), future research should further
examine the relationship between abusive supervision and psychological well-being in the
hospitality industry and explore other potential consequences related to well-being.
Table 5 summarizes the consequences of abusive supervision related to psychological
outcomes.

4.3 Moderators and mediators of abusive supervision in the hospitality industry

The moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and its consequences can
be divided into employee-related variables (e.g. employee involvement climate, self-
perception of psychological empowerment, perceived organizational/coworker support,
managerial abuse and agreeableness), culture-related variables (e.g. collectivism, power
distance and traditional cultural value) and organization-related variables. For example, for
employee-related moderators, relational-interdependent self-construal, which is the tendency
to think of oneself in terms of close relationships and evaluate oneself based on these close
 32,7

2484
IJCHM

Table 5.
Psychological
consequences of
abusive supervision
Antecedents Consequences Mediator Moderator Research design Author

Psychological well- 554 employees in all occupational groups within hotels, Nyberg et al.
being cross-sectional, Sweden, Poland and Italy (2011)
Organizational Job satisfaction 164 chefs, cross-sectional, Scotland Alexander
commitment et al. (2012)
Employees’ burnout Perceived 248 supervisor–subordinate dyads, cross-sectional, China Li et al. (2016)
organizational
support;
Political skill
Moral Coworker support 306 hospitality undergraduate students, cross-sectional, Xu et al.
efficacy Ecuador (2017)
Capacity to satisfy Employee silence Customer orientation 335 employees from 57 different hospitality organizations, Al-Hawari
customers two-waves, United Arab Emirates et al. (2020)
Supervisor’s intention to Experienced guilt Managerial abuse 285 hospitality supervisors, cross-sectional, US Shum et al.
help followers (supervisor) (2020)
Job satisfaction Employee silence 233 employees from a large hotel service company, cross- Wang et al.
sectional, Taiwan (2020)
relationships, has been shown to strengthen the relationship between abusive supervision Systematic
and service performance (Jian et al., 2012). In addition, coworker support weakens the review of
negative effect of abusive supervision on perceived organizational support (Xu et al., 2018).
Similarly, managerial abuse weakens the positive relationship between the enactment of
research
abusive supervision and guilt when managers’ agreeableness is high (Shum et al., 2020). For
cultural moderators, power distance and traditional cultural value have been found to
mitigate the negative effect of abusive supervision in the supervisor – subordinate
relationship (Hon and Lu, 2016). For organization-related moderators, only customer 2485
orientation (i.e. organizational concern for customer needs) has been examined, which
weakens the negative relationship between abusive supervision and employee silence (Al-
Hawari et al., 2020).
In addition to identifying the moderators of abusive supervision, three studies used
abusive supervision as a moderator. Dai et al. (2019) used abusive supervision as a
moderator to explore the relationship between resilience and turnover intention and between
resilience and work engagement in travel agencies. They found that resilience is positively
associated with work engagement and reduces turnover intention. As a moderator, abusive
supervision negatively affects the relationship between resilience and turnover intention. On
the basis of a dyadic data set of 1,082 service employees and customers in international
hotels, Wang (2019) confirmed that abusive supervision negatively moderates the
relationship between emotional labor and service quality. Tao et al. (2017) found that
abusive supervision strengthens the negative relationship between new employee intention
to leave and the consequent work performance.
The mediators of abusive supervision can be divided into psychological and behavioral
mediators. Psychological mediators include turnover intention (Burris et al., 2008), job
satisfaction (Alexander et al., 2012), organization-based self-esteem (Jian et al., 2012),
organizational identification (Lyu et al., 2016a), emotional exhaustion (Cho et al., 2016),
perceived organizational support (Xu et al., 2018), guilt (Shum et al., 2020) and employee
silence (Al-Hawari et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). Behavioral mediators include work
engagement (Lyu et al., 2016b) and subordinates’ abusive behavior (Hon and Lu, 2016).
Figure 2 presents a summary of all studies on abusive supervision in the hospitality
industry discussed in this paper. Notably, certain consequences of abusive supervision (e.g.
turnover intension, job satisfaction) and certain moderators of abusive supervision (e.g.
perceived organizational support) have been considered as mediators in some studies.
In addition, five studies could not be classified in terms of antecedents, consequences or
mechanisms of abusive supervision; nevertheless, they were important for abusive
supervision research in the hospitality industry. In their descriptive research on abusive
work practices among chefs, Bloisi and Hoel (2008) argued that leadership behaviors are
related to staff motivation and turnover intention. Without examining the antecedents or
consequences of abusive supervision, Vu
cetic (2018) explored employees’ perceptions of
abuse in various types of hotel from selective tourism destinations and found that abusive
supervision is particularly prevalent in the transitional hotel sector. In addition, verbal
threat has been shown to be one of the most common types of abusive supervision in the
hotel industry. Hight et al. (2019) interviewed hospitality employees about the attributes and
behaviors of their “bad” managers. Different from previous studies, the authors identified
the characteristics of bad managers and explained why and how managers become
bad managers, emphasizing abusive supervision as one of the common behaviors of bad
managers. Zhang and Frenkel (2018) used an ethnographic approach to collect data. On the
basis of 13 interviews, 3 focus groups and 3-month field observations in a Chinese
restaurant, they studied how employees’ neutral identification based on their primary
IJCHM Moderators
32,7 Employee-related variables: Relational-interdependent self-construal; Employee involvement climate; Employee
self-perceptions of psychological empowerment; Perceived organizational support; Coworker support; Political skill;
Coping strategy; Emotion regulation; Supervisor’s organizational embodiment; Proactive personality; Work Ethics;
Organizational identification

Culture-related variables: Collectivism; Power distance value; Traditional cultural values

2486 Organization-related variables: Customer orientation

Antecedents
Aggressive norms Abusive supervision Consequences
Moral efficacy
Workplace stress Psychological Outcomes:
Job satisfaction; Organizational
commitment; Psychological well-being;
Employee turnover intentions; Employee’s
Mediators burnout; Supervisor’s intention to help
Psychological mediators: Turnover intentions; Job satisfaction; followers; Capacity to satisfy customers
Organization-based self-esteem; Organizational identification;
Employees’ emotional exhaustion; Perceived organizational support; Behavioral Outcomes:
Figure 2. Psychological contract breach; Interpersonal justice; Supervisor’s Service performance; OCBs; Voice behavior;
guilt; Employee silence Workplace deviance; Counterproductivity;
A model of abusive Knowledge hiding behavior; Service
supervision in Behavioral mediators: Work engagement; Subordinates’ abusive sabotage; Work engagement
hospitality behavior; Employee silence

identity overshadows their secondary identity, which helps them cope with abusive
supervision. These other studies are summarized in Table 6.
In summary, research on abusive supervision in hospitality has been consistent with the
general business field. In addition, as a service sector, service performance has earned more
attention than other variables. Future research can focus on the relationship between
organizational structure and abusive supervision with specific participants (e.g. temporary
workers and chefs).

Author Research design Antecedents Consequences Mediators Moderators

Bloisi and A descriptive article of abusive work practices and bullying among chefs. The leadership style
Hoel was related to staff motivation and turnover intentions
(2008)
Gonzalez- Supervisors (n = 23) in four restaurants Subordinates in the supervisor support training
Morales were trained in four supportive condition, in comparison to the control condition,
et al. supervision strategies, longitudinal, US would report higher perceived supervisor support,
(2018) based on an experimental design
Vu
cetic 1,796 employees in the hotel sector, Abusive supervision was found to be common in
(2018) cross-sectional, Montenegro transitional hotel sectors and verbal threat was one of
the most used methods of abusive supervision in the
hotel industry
Zhang and Ethnography approach, 13 interviews Explored how neutral identification based on
Frenkel (Chinese student), and 3 focus groups, primary identity overshadows secondary identity,
(2018) China which helps cope with abusive supervision
Hight et al. 72 hospitality employees, US 72 hospitality employees were interviewed and asked
(2019) to describe the characteristics and behaviors of a
Table 6. current or past bad manager. It was found that those
Other studies abusive supervisors were unaware they were abusive
4.4 Research design for investigating abusive supervision in the hospitality industry Systematic
In the general business field, Tepper’s (2007) review of abusive supervision research noted review of
that few studies have been conducted outside of the USA. However, in the hospitality field,
26 of the 36 articles discussed here used non-US samples such as China, the Philippines,
research
Australia, Ecuador, United Arab Emirates and Montenegro. Among the studies that
examined the effect of cultural influences, the most frequently studied cultural dimension
was power distance (Hon and Lu, 2016). In addition to power distance, a specific culture
related variable, IWE, has been discussed (Khalid et al., 2018). However, none of these 2487
studies has mentioned the multicultural nature of the industry, and no research has focused
on abusive supervision issues in multicultural environment.
Among the 36 studies reviewed in this paper, 21 used a cross-sectional design and 15
used a multi-wave design to collect data. Notably, Gonzalez-Morales et al. (2018) used a
longitudinal quasi-experiment design. They argued that although the negative outcomes of
abusive supervision have been well studied, little attention has been paid to procedures
aimed at reducing its frequency. In comparison with their control group, the trained
supervisors engaged in a higher level of supervisor support and a lower level of abusive
supervision. This result suggests that a training program can indeed help reduce the level of
abusive supervision.

5. Directions for future hospitality research

After reviewing the empirical studies on abusive supervision and the unique characteristics
in hospitality, we found that organizational structure has not been mentioned in the existing
empirical studies. However, some organization-related factors have been involved. For
example, abusive supervision can happen more frequently in the kitchen. In addition,
temporary workers are mentioned in the existing research (Zhang and Frenkel, 2018).
However, the uniqueness of temporary workers deserves increased attention in the future.
For cultural diversity, although the percentage of samples outside of US is considerably
higher than in the general business field, no study has focused on cultural diversity within
the context of supervisor – subordinate relationship. Burnout has been investigated as an
important well-being outcome among the existing hospitality research. Other aspects of
well-being (e.g. physical well-being) deserve further attention. Moreover, interaction with
customers has only been investigated from the aspect of service performance. Increased
attention should be paid to the interactions with customers as an antecedent of abusive
supervision. The proposed future research directions are based on two perspectives, namely,
research content and research design.

5.1 Suggestions for research content

First, this work suggests researchers to further investigate the uniqueness of the hospitality
industry because it can influence abusive supervision. Future research on abusive
supervision in the hospitality industry can, thus, explore service performance further (e.g.
choosing unique service performance that exists in the hospitality industry). In addition, all
of these studies confirmed the negative relationship between abusive supervision and
service performance. However, abusive supervision can also lead to improved performance
if subordinates desire to prove that their supervisor is wrong (Tepper, 2007). Future research
can investigate different moderators and mediators and explore different pathways of the
relationship between abusive supervision and service performance in hospitality. In terms of
antecedents, scholars (Zhang and Bednall, 2016) in the general business field have
recommended considering more organization-related antecedents (e.g. organizational
sanctions and aggressive norms). In the hospitality industry, specific factors should be
IJCHM explored in addition to general organization-related antecedents. For example, the
32,7 hierarchical structure, the phenomenon of high turnover, demographic information (e.g. the
difference in the education level of subordinates and supervisors in the hospitality industry),
and the interaction with customers should be further investigated (Bu et al., 2020). All these
factors may have a significant effect in the context of hospitality.
Moreover, the characteristics of research participants in the hospitality industry should
2488 be highlighted. For example, the large number of temporary workers and interns in the
industry should be further explored (e.g. Do temporary workers/interns have different
attitudes toward abusive supervision? Do supervisors act differently toward temporary
workers/interns? Do temporary work standards affect abusive supervision?). Furthermore,
certain positions in the hospitality industry are likely to lead to abusive supervision (e.g.
chefs; Meloury and Signal, 2014). These positions are worth exploring, especially when
research needs strong abusive supervision to test relationships that are difficult to observe.
Cross-cultural comparisons should also be conducted to explore the differences in abusive
supervision in the hospitality industry of different countries. Cross-cultural issues should
be explored in hospitality organizations, given the multicultural nature of employment in
the industry. In addition, specific culture background (e.g. the family planning policy in
China) can be explored (Kong et al., 2019).
In addition, future research on abusive supervision in the hospitality industry should be
consistent with that in the general business field. For example, although most of the
consequences investigated by researchers are on the negative side of abusive supervision,
some short-term positive effects have been shown in the general business field. Qin et al.
(2018) found that abusive supervision improves supervisors’ recovery levels, which, in turn,
positively affect work engagement in the short term. However, in the long term, abusive
supervision is detrimental to supervisors’ recovery and work engagement. Nevertheless,
knowing the short-term positive effects of abusive supervision can broaden our
understanding of the concept, which leads them to be considered potential antecedents of
abusive supervision. Thus far, no hospitality studies have paid attention to the positive
outcomes of abusive supervision. Therefore, future research on abusive supervision in the
hospitality industry should be consistent with the research trends in the general business
field and consider the uniqueness and differences of the industry.

5.2 Suggestions for research design

Several suggestions for research design are suggested to investigate abusive supervision.
An important direction for future research is to apply a longitudinal design. Cross-sectional
data are easy to obtain; however, causal effects often take time to develop, and constructs
measured simultaneously do not allow causal inferences to be made with confidence.
Therefore, cross-sectional designs often lead to biased estimates of the true causal effects
(Maxwell and Cole, 2007), whereas longitudinal studies help observe a complete
development process and its main turning points. Experienced sampling method (ESM) is
an applicable option in a longitudinal design. ESM repeatedly takes measures throughout
the daily lives of the same participants, focusing on assessing variables that fluctuate in the
short term (Uy et al., 2010). Participants are typically required to report their current
emotions, attitudes, ideas and/or events on a daily basis. ESM has been used in research on
abusive supervision in the general business field (Courtright et al., 2016). It reduces the
memory bias of supervisors and subordinates, which makes the understanding of abusive
supervision accurate.
Future research should also consider using multisource data. In comparison with single-
source data, multisource data are particularly important when conducting correlational or
regression-based research because they allow researchers to examine the relationship Systematic
between predictors and outcomes without common method or source variance (Holmbeck review of
et al., 2002). In abusive supervision research, collecting data from supervisors and
subordinates/coworkers can reduce self-reported bias. For example, data reported by
research
coworkers [e.g. proactive customer service performance; Lyu et al. (2016a); customer-
oriented OCB; Lyu et al. (2016b)] can improve objectivity in research.
In addition, multilevel models can be applied to investigate abusive supervision in the
hospitality industry. In social science research, data tend to be characterized by a nested 2489
structure. Multilevel modeling allows the analysis of nested data (e.g. employees nested in a
work group and work groups nested in a company). Burris et al. (2008) used such modeling
to show that turnover intention is significantly related to voice behavior and mediates the
relationship between abusive supervision and voice behavior. Multilevel modeling allows
researchers to estimate coefficients at the individual level and consider the nested structure
of employees in organizations (Krull and MacKinnon, 2001).
Furthermore, experimental designs to investigate abusive supervision should be
considered. An experimental design involves assigning participants to different conditions
in an experiment (De Vaus, 2001). Walter et al. (2015) showed the participants in their study
a full scenario to help them imagine that they were the leader of a market research group
and evaluated their likelihood of engaging in various abusive behaviors toward the
subordinate described. The manipulations used were high vs low perceived subordinate
performance and high vs low outcome dependence. Their experimental study showed that
perceived subordinate performance is negatively related to abusive supervision under
conditions of high outcome dependence. An experimental design minimizes the effects of
extraneous variables, which makes research convincing (De Vaus, 2001).

6. Implications and limitations

On the basis of empirical evidence from 36 studies on abusive supervision, the results of this
work provide theoretical and practical implications and suggest limitations.

6.1 Theoretical implications

As the first systematic review of research on abusive supervision in the hospitality industry,
this paper contributes to the research on abusive supervision in general by identifying key
research trends and framing the outlines of empirical studies. This paper identified research
gaps in abusive supervision research in the context of hospitality. For example, the
antecedents of abusive supervision have been rarely examined. Much remains to be
conducted to examine the causes of abusive supervision to eliminate its negative effect. In
terms of consequences and mechanisms, the framework presented in Figure 1 suggests that
abusive supervision affects employees psychologically such as a higher level of burnout and
a lower level of psychological well-being. The framework also affects employee behaviors,
including lower OCB and higher counterproductive workplace behaviors, and is linked with
multiple mechanisms leading to unfavorable outcomes. In addition, the model summarized
in this review shows a broad picture of abusive supervision research in hospitality, where
the variables are mostly examined in isolation. Furthermore, multiple theories can be used to
explain the framework. For example, COR theory explains why abusive supervision results
in decreased well-being and social learning theory explains why abusive supervision leads
to followers’ aggressive behaviors. The combinations of variables indicate the necessity of
multi-theoretical approach to explaining different parts of the research model.
Moreover, the results of this research may motivate future research to broaden the
research scope. This work explores the psychological consequences of abusive supervision.
IJCHM It indicates that abusive supervision not only leads to negative OCB but also psychological
32,7 and social problems such as turnover intention, job burnout, spousal undermining and
social discrimination. Internal marketing, branding and corporate social responsibility are
important predictors of hospitality management; thus, future studies should extend research
to new fields (Baum et al., 2016; Sun and Kong, 2016). Researchers should go beyond the
scope of human resource management to investigate the effect of abusive supervision such
2490 as brand image, customer satisfaction and corporate social responsibility.

6.2 Practical implications

This work also has practical implications. From the managerial perspective, the results
of this paper may encourage managers to minimize or even stop the occurrence of
abusive supervision. The research highlights the negative effect of abusive supervision
from behavioral and psychological perspectives and indicates that abusive supervision
is a negative predictor of employees’ work engagement, organizational commitment,
and customer service performance. Thus, managers should urgently realize the
seriousness of abusive supervision and develop effective policies to minimize its
negative effect.
From the organizational perspective, it is necessary to develop formal policies to
regularize the behavior of supervisors (Zhang and Liao, 2015). A “zero-tolerance” policy on
abusive supervision should be adopted (Martin, 2008; Zhang and Bednall, 2016). The results
of this paper can also help organizations develop training programs (Gonzalez-Morales et al.,
2018) to reduce abusive supervision and foster a supportive environment, thereby
improving subordinates’ psychological well-being and performance. In the hospitality
industry, certain specific factors should be further explored. For example, the hierarchical
structure, the phenomenon of high turnover, and demographic information (e.g. the
difference in the education level of subordinates and supervisors in the hospitality industry)
should be further investigated. These factors may have a significant effect on abusive
supervision in the context of hospitality.
From the employees’ perspective, an improved understanding can be gained through this
study of abusive management and how to handle it effectively. For example, this work
identifies that increasing coworker and organizational support can help mitigate the
negative influence of abusive behavior (Li et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2018). In addition, developing
a training program (Gonzalez-Morales et al., 2018) and employees’ neutral identification
(Zhang and Frenkel, 2018) can help employees cope with abusive supervision. Employees
should also think about the positive side of abusive supervision. For example, although
most of the consequences investigated by researchers are on the negative side of abusive
supervision, some short-term positive effects have been shown in the general business field.
Qin et al. (2018) found that abusive supervision improves the level of recovery of
supervisors, which, in turn, positively affects work engagement in a short term.

6.3 Limitations
Despite the significance of its findings, limitations must be recognized in this study. It only
included research published in peer-reviewed journals in English. There may be non-peer
reviewed articles or articles in other languages focusing on abusive supervision in the
hospitality industry. Thus, it is possible that some relevant articles were not taken into
account. In addition, the number of reviewed studies was relatively small. This may be due
to the fact that abusive supervision is a field of new research and a sensitive topic.
Researchers should explain the importance of this topic and its value to organizations and
employees, and encourage organizations to ensure that participation in this type of research
is voluntary and that there are no adverse consequences for employees who refuse to Systematic
participate. Although research on abusive supervision is complex and sensitive, this topic is review of
related to staff well-being and is worth investigating in detail at the individual and
organizational levels. Besides, this review mentioned five special characteristics of the
research
hospitality industry that make abusive supervision complex, important and likely to
manifest. In the future research, more characteristics should be explored and summarized to
offer new research directions of abusive supervision in hospitality management.
2491
References
References marked with asterisks (*) indicate research on abusive supervision in hospitality field.
*Abubakar, A.M., Namin, B.H., Harazneh, I., Arasli, H. and Tunç, T. (2017), “Does gender moderates the
relationship between favoritism/nepotism, supervisor incivility, cynicism and workplace
withdrawal: a neural network and SEM approach”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 23,
pp. 129-139.
*Alexander, M., MacLaren, A., O’Gorman, K. and Taheri, B. (2012), “He just didn’t seem to understand
the banter: bullying or simply establishing social cohesion?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33
No. 5, pp. 1245-1255.
Alfes, K., Shantz, A. and Truss, C. (2012), “The link between perceived HRM practices, performance and
well-being: the moderating effect of trust in the employer”, Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 409-427.
*Al-Hawari, M.A., Bani-Melhem, S. and Quratulain, S. (2020), “Abusive supervision and frontline
employees’ attitudinal outcomes: the multilevel effects of customer orientation”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 1109-1129.
Aryee, S., Sun, L.Y., Chen, Z.X.G. and Debrah, Y.A. (2008), “Abusive supervision and contextual
performance: the mediating role of emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit
structure”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 393-411.
Ashforth, B.E. (1997), “Petty tyranny in organisations: a preliminary examination of antecedents and
consequences”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de
L’administration, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 126-140.
Baum, T., Cheung, C. and Kong, H. (2016), “Sustainability and the tourism and hospitality workforce: a
thematic analysis”, Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 809-830.
*Bloisi, W. and Hoel, H. (2008), “Abusive work practices and bullying among chefs: a review of
the literature”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 649-656.
Bu, N. Kong, H. and Yi, S. (2020), “Analysis of the feminization of informal employment in China”,
Labor Economy Review, online first publication.
*Burris, E.R., Detert, J.R. and Chiaburu, D.S. (2008), “Quitting before leaving: the mediating effects of
psychological attachment and detachment on voice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4,
pp. 912-922.
Burton, J.P. and Barber, L.K. (2019), “The role of mindfulness in response to abusive supervision”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 339-352.
Bushman, B.J. and Baumeister, R.F. (1998), “Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct
and displaced aggression: does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 219-229.
Chi, S.S. and Liang, S. (2013), “When do subordinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive
supervision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 125-137.
IJCHM *Cho, M., Bonn, M., Han, S. and Lee, K. (2016), “Workplace incivility and its effect upon restaurant
frontline service employee emotions and service performance”, International Journal of
32,7 Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 2888-2912.
Courtright, S.H., Gardner, R.G., Smith, T.A., McCormick, B.W. and Colbert, A.E. (2016), “My family
made me do it: a cross-domain, self-regulatory perspective on antecedents to abusive
supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 1630-1652.
2492 *Dai, Y., Zhuang, W. and Huan, T. (2019), “Engage or quit? The moderating role of abusive supervision
between resilience, intention to leave and work engagement”, Tourism Management, Vol. 70,
pp. 69-77.
De Almeida, R.M.M., Cabral, J.C.C. and Narvaes, R. (2015), “Behavioural, hormonal and neurobiological
mechanisms of aggressive behaviour in human and nonhuman primates”, Physiology and
Behavior, Vol. 143, pp. 121-135.
De Vaus, D. (2001), Research Design in Social Research, Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA.
*Detert, J.R., Treviño, L.K., Burris, E.R. and Andiappan, M. (2007), “Managerial modes of influence and
counterproductivity in organizations: a longitudinal business-unit-level investigation”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 993-1005.
Duffy, M.K., Shaw, J.D., Hoobler, J.M. and Tepper, B.J. (2010), “A time-based perspective on emotion
regulation in emotional-labor performance”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, Vol. 29, pp. 87-113.
Dupré, K.E., Inness, M., Connelly, C.E., Barling, J. and Hoption, C. (2006), “Workplace aggression in
teenage part-time employees”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 987-997.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (2003), “The concept of bullying at work: the european
tradition”, in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse
in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, Taylor and Francis,
London, pp. 3-30.
*Gonzalez-Morales, M.G., Kernan, M.C., Becker, T.E. and Eisenberger, R. (2018), “Defeating abusive
supervision: training supervisors to support subordinates”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 151-162.
Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W. and Kacmar, C. (2007), “Coping with abusive supervision: the
neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 264-280.
Hershatter, A. and Epstein, M. (2010), “Millennials and the world of work: an organization and
management perspective”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 211-223.
*Hight, S.K., Gajjar, T. and Okumus, F. (2019), “Managers from hell in the hospitality industry: how do
hospitality employees profile bad managers?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 77, pp. 97-107.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Holmbeck, G.N., Li, S.T., Schurman, J.V., Friedman, D. and Coakley, R.M. (2002), “Collecting and
managing multisource and multimethod data in studies of pediatric populations”, Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
*Hon, A.H.Y. and Lu, L. (2016), “When will the trickle-down effect of abusive supervision be alleviated?
The moderating roles of power distance and traditional cultures”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 421-433.
Iqbal, S. and Rasheed, M. (2019), “Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: the moderating role of
power distance”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 13, pp. 334-357.
*Jian, Z., Kwan, H.K., Qiu, Q., Liu, Z.Q. and Yim, F.H. (2012), “Abusive supervision and frontline
employees’ service performance”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 683-698.
*Jung, H.S. and Yoon, H.H. (2019), “The effects of social undermining on employee voice and silence and Systematic
on organizational deviant behaviors in the hotel industry”, Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 213-231.
review of
Keashly, L. (1997), “Emotional abuse in the workplace: conceptual and empirical issues”, Journal of
research
Emotional Abuse, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 85-117.
*Khalid, M., Bashir, S., Khan, A.K. and Abbas, N. (2018), “When and how abusive supervision leads to
knowledge hiding behaviors: an islamic work ethics perspective”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 794-806. 2493
Koenig-Lewis, N. and Bischoff, E.E. (2005), “Seasonality research: the state of the art”, International
Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 7 Nos 4/5, pp. 201-219.
Kong, H., Okumus, F. and Bu, N. (2019), “Linking organizational career management with generation Y
employees’ organizational identity: the mediating effect of meeting career expectations”, Journal
of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 164-181.
Kong, H., Sun, N. and Yan, Q. (2016), “New generation, psychological empowerment: can empowerment
lead to high career competencies and career satisfaction?”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 2553-2569.
Kong, H., Wang, S. and Fu, X. (2015), “Meeting career expectation: can it enhance job satisfaction of
generation Y?”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 147-168.
Kong, H., Jiang, X., Chan, W. and Zhou, X. (2018), “Job satisfaction research in the field of hospitality
and tourism”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 2178-2194.
Krull, J.L. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2001), “Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated
effects”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 249-277.
Lee, K., Choo, S. and Hyun, S.S. (2016), “Effects of recovery experiences on hotel employees’ subjective
well-being”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 52, pp. 1-12.
*Li, X., Qian, J., Han, Z.R. and Jin, Z. (2016), “Coping with abusive supervision: the neutralizing effects of
perceived organizational support and political skill on employees’ burnout”, Current Psychology,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 77-82.
Lin, W., Wang, L. and Chen, S. (2013), “Abusive supervision and employee well-being: the moderating
effect of power distance orientation”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 308-329.
Liu, X.Y. and Wang, J. (2013), “Abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour: is
supervisor–subordinate guanxi a mediator?”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 1471-1489.
Lopes, B., Kamau, C. and Jaspal, R.U.S.I. (2018), “Coping with perceived abusive supervision in the
workplace: the role of paranoia”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 1.
*Lyu, Y., Zhu, H., Zhong, H.J. and Hu, L. (2016b), “Abusive supervision and customer-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior: the roles of hostile attribution bias and work engagement”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 53, pp. 69-80.
*Lyu, Y., Zhou, X., Li, W., Wan, J., Zhang, J. and Qiu, C. (2016a), “The impact of abusive supervision on
service employees’ proactive customer service performance in the hotel industry”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 1992-2012.
*Ma, J., Zhou, X. and Mu, Z. (2020), “Can abusive supervision motivate customer-oriented service
sabotage? A multilevel research”, The Service Industries Journal, Advanced online
publication.
*Mackey, J.D., Frieder, R.E., Perrewé, P.L., Gallagher, V.C. and Brymer, R.A. (2015), “Empowered
employees as social deviants: the role of abusive supervision”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 149-162.
IJCHM Martin, W.F. (2008), “Is your hospital safe? Disruptive behavior and workplace bullying”, Hospital
Topics, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 21-28.
32,7
*Mathe, K. and Slevitch, L. (2013), “An exploratory examination of supervisor undermining, employee
involvement climate, and the effects on customer perceptions of service quality in quick-service
restaurants”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 29-50.
Maxwell, S.E. and Cole, D.A. (2007), “Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation”,
2494 Psychological Methods, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 23-44.
*Meloury, J. and Signal, T. (2014), “When the plate is full: aggression among chefs”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 41, pp. 97-103.
Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Myers, M.D. (2013), Qualitative Research in Business and Management, Sage, London.
*Nyberg, A., Holmberg, I., Bernin, P., Alderling, M., Åkerblomc, S., Widerszal-Bazyld, M., . . . Theorell,
T. (2011), “Destructive managerial leadership and psychological well-being among employees in
swedish, polish, and italian hotels”, Work, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 267-281.
*Pan, W., Sun, L., Sun, L., Li, C. and Leung, A.S.M. (2018), “Abusive supervision and job-oriented
constructive deviance in the hotel industry: test of a nonlinear mediation and moderated
curvilinear model”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30
No. 5, pp. 2249-2267.
*Park, J. and Kim, H.J. (2018), “How and when does abusive supervision affect hospitality employees’
service sabotage?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 83, pp. 190-197.
Peltokorpi, V. and Ramaswami, A. (2019), “Abusive supervision and subordinates’ physical and mental
health: the effects of job satisfaction and power distance orientation”, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol. 1.
Phillips, P. and Louvieris, P. (2005), “Performance measurement systems in tourism, hospitality, and
leisure small medium-sized enterprises: a balanced scorecard perspective”, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 201-211.
Qin, X., Huang, M., Johnson, R.E., Hu, Q. and Ju, D. (2018), “The short-lived benefits of abusive
supervisory behavior for actors: an investigation of recovery and work engagement”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 1951-1975.
*Restubog, S.L.D., Scott, K.L. and Zagenczyk, T.J. (2011), “When distress hits home: the role of
contextual factors and psychological distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive
supervision”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 713-729.
Richard, O.C., Boncoeur, O.D., Chen, H. and Ford, D.L. (2018), “Supervisor abuse effects on subordinate
turnover intentions and subsequent interpersonal aggression: the role of power-distance
orientation and perceived human resource support climate”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 1,
pp. 1-15.
Riley, M. (2014), Human Resource Management in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry, Routledge.
New York, NY.
Robbins, D.L. and Galperin, B.L. (2010), “Constructive deviance: striving toward organizational change
in healthcare”, Journal of Management and Marketing Research, Vol. 5, pp. 1-11.
Salin, D. (2003), “Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and
precipitating structures and processes in the work environment”, Human Relations, Vol. 56
No. 10, pp. 1213-1232.
*Shum, C., Gatling, A. and Tu, M. (2020), “When do abusive leaders experience guilt?”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 1, Advance online publication.
Skarlicki, D.P., van Jaarsveld, D.D., Shao, R., Song, Y.H. and Wang, M. (2016), “Extending the multifoci
perspective: the role of supervisor justice and moral identity in the relationship between
 customer justice and customer-directed sabotage”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 1, Systematic
pp. 108-121.
review of
Slevin, D.P. and Covin, J.G. (1997), “Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of
context”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 189-209.
research
Srikanth, P.B. (2019), “Coping with abusive leaders, personnel review”, Personnel Review, Vol. 1t.
Sun, N. and Kong, H. (2016), “Research on the impact of idiosyncratic deals on chinese employee’s job
satisfaction and effective commitment”, Soft Science, Vol. 30, pp. 95-99. 2495
Suri, H. and Clarke, D. (2009), “Advancements in research synthesis methods: from a methodologically
inclusive perspective”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 395-430.
*Tao, J., Jiang, W., Liu, C., Yang, X., Zhang, W. and Zhang, H. (2017), “New employee intention to leave
and consequent work performance: Does leadership style matter? Social behavior and
personality”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 45 No. 10,
pp. 1707-1721.
Tehrani, N. (2004), Workplace Trauma: Concepts, Assessment and Interventions, Routledge. New York,
NY.
Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43
No. 2, pp. 178-190.
Tepper, B.J. (2007), “Abusive supervision in work organizations: review, synthesis, and research
agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 261-289.
*Tepper, B.J., Carr, J.C., Breaux, D.M., Geider, S., Hu, C. and Hua, W. (2009), “Abusive supervision,
intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: a power/dependence analysis”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 156-167.
Tsai, M.-T., Chen, C.-C. and Chin, C.-W. (2010), “Knowledge workers’ interpersonal skills and
innovation performance: an empirical study of Taiwanese High-Tech industrial workers”, Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 115-126.
Uy, M.A., Foo, M.D. and Aguinis, H. (2010), “Using experience sampling methodology to advance
entrepreneurship theory and research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 31-54.
Valle, M. and Levy, D.A. (2011), “Abusive supervision in the armed forces”, Journal of Character and
Leadership Integration, Vol. 2, pp. 7-15.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and
predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 108-119.
Von Hippel, C., Mangum, S.L., Greenberger, D.B., Heneman, R.L. and Skoglind, J.D. (1997), “Temporary
employment: Can organizations and employees both win?”, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 93-104.
*Vu
cetic, A.Š. (2018), “Influence of specialized hotels on employees’ perception of abuse in the selective
tourism destination”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 740-756.
Walter, F., Lam, C.K., van der Vegt, G.S., Huang, X. and Miao, Q. (2015), “Abusive supervision and
subordinate performance: instrumentality considerations in the emergence and consequences of
abusive supervision”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 1056-1072.
*Wang, C.J. (2019), “From emotional labor to customer loyalty in hospitality”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 3742-3760.
*Wang, C.C., Hsieh, H.H. and Wang, Y.D. (2020), “Abusive supervision and employee engagement and
satisfaction: the mediating role of employee silence”, Personnel Review, Vol. 1, Advanced online
publication.
Wright, F., Boyle, S., Baxter, K., Gilchrist, L., Nellaney, J., Greenlaw, N. and Forde, L. (2013),
“Understanding the relationship between weight loss, emotional well-being and health-related
IJCHM quality of life in patients attending a specialist obesity weight management service”, Journal of
Health Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 574-586.
32,7
*Xu, S., Van Hoof, H., Serrano, A.L., Fernandez, L. and Ullauri, N. (2017), “The role of coworker
support in the relationship between moral efficacy and voice behavior: the case of
hospitality students in Ecuador”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 252-269.
*Xu, S., Martinez, L.R., Van Hoof, H., Tews, M., Torres, L. and Farfan, K. (2018), “The impact of abusive
2496 supervision and co-worker support on hospitality and tourism student employees’ turnover
intentions in Ecuador”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 775-790.
Yam, K.C., Fehr, R., Keng-Highberger, F.T., Klotz, A.C. and Reynolds, S.J. (2016), “Out of control: a self-
control perspective on the link between surface acting and abusive supervision”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 292-301.
Yousef, D.A. (2000), “Organizational commitment as a mediator of the relationship between islamic
work ethic and attitudes toward organizational change”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 4,
pp. 513-537.
Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. and Duffy, M.K. (2002), “Abusive supervision and subordinates’
organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 1068-1076.
Zhang, Y. and Bednall, T.C. (2016), “Antecedents of abusive supervision: a meta-analytic review”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 139 No. 3, pp. 455-471.
*Zhang, Y. and Frenkel, S.J. (2018), “Employee indifference and inaction against abusive supervision:
an explanation based on organizational identification theory”, Employee Relations, Vol. 40 No. 6,
pp. 981-998.
Zhang, Y. and Liao, Z. (2015), “Consequences of abusive supervision: a meta-analytic review”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 959-987.
*Zhao, H. and Guo, L. (2019), “Abusive supervision and hospitality employees’ helping behaviors: the
joint moderating effects of proactive personality and ability to manage resources”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1977-1994.

Further reading
Tepper, B.J., Moss, S.E. and Duffy, M.K. (2011), “Predictors of abusive supervision: supervisor
perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 279-294.
Tepper, B.J., Simon, L. and Park, H.M. (2017), “Abusive supervision”, Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 123-152.
*Van Hoof, H., Xu, S., Serrano, A.L. and Torres, L. (2015), “Abusive supervision – a form of workplace
harassment: an exploratory study in the ecuadorian hospitality industry”, European Journal of
Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, Vol. 6, pp. 103-121.

Corresponding author
Haiyan Kong can be contacted at: konghaiyan@sdu.edu.cn

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com