Professional Documents
Culture Documents
15 - Talat Islam - Saima Ahmad - Ahmad Kaleem - Khalid Mahmood - 2021
15 - Talat Islam - Saima Ahmad - Ahmad Kaleem - Khalid Mahmood - 2021
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0025-1747.htm
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to extend the scant literature on the effect of abusive supervision on
knowledge sharing by examining the roles of Islamic work ethic and learning goal orientation in moderating
the effect.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper utilizes a cross-lagged survey research design to collect data
from 735 employees working in the services and manufacturing sectors of Pakistan.
Findings – The data analysis revealed that abusive supervision has a damaging effect on knowledge sharing
in the workplace. However, employee learning goal orientation and the Islamic work ethic help in mitigating
this detrimental effect.
Research limitations/implications – The main theoretical implication is to advance knowledge on the
boundary conditions that help in mitigating the undesirable effect of abusive supervision on sharing of
knowledge in organizational settings.
Practical implications – This paper provides practical insights into mitigating the damaging effects of
abusive supervision, a prevalent issue in Asian societies, through the lenses of Islamic business ethics and
learning goal orientation.
Originality/value – This is the first study that examines the boundary conditions placed by the Islamic work
ethic and learning goal orientation around the relationship between abusive supervision and knowledge
sharing in the context of Pakistan.
Keywords Learning goal orientation, Islamic work ethic, Abusive leadership, Knowledge sharing
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Knowledge sharing (KS) in organizations is recognized as a crucial success factor for
improving business performance and sustainability (Kremer et al., 2019). KS is a two-way
process that involves individual behaviors related to sharing and learning of task-related
information and ideas with colleagues and supervisors to effectively accomplish the
organizational objectives (Kim et al., 2015). A growing body of research supports the
significance of KS, because such behaviors have been linked to an organization’s ability to
successfully obtain a competitive edge (Kim et al., 2015). Likewise, positive effects of KS on Management Decision
team creativity and business innovation have been reported (Jahanzeb et al., 2019). Vol. 59 No. 2, 2021
pp. 205-222
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
We are thankful to the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. DOI 10.1108/MD-08-2019-1069
MD This highlights the significance of a focused examination of the factors impacting KS
59,2 behavior amongst employees.
While much of the extant literature has examined individual and organizational factors
that promote KS (Jiang and Gu, 2016), research into the barriers of KS remains limited
(Wu and Lee, 2016; Javed et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2015). For example, many studies support the
influence of positive leadership styles in improving KS (Han et al., 2016; Le and Lei, 2018;
Yadav et al., 2019), whereas only a few studies explore the influence of destructive leadership
206 on KS (see, e.g. Feng and Wang, 2019; Khalid et al., 2018, for exceptions). Progress in the
theory requires an in-depth understanding not only of the factors that boost KS but also those
that impede it, so that efforts can be made to offset them. In regard to impeding factors, recent
studies have shown that abusive supervision, a form of destructive leadership, seriously
impedes KS (Feng and Wang, 2019). Abusive supervision is conceptualized as a destructive
leadership behavior that represents the extent to which employees perceive their supervisors
have engaged in a sustained display of insolent and hostile nonphysical behaviors at work
(Tepper, 2000). It is a prevalent problem in contemporary organizations that is positively
associated with knowledge hiding in the workplace (Feng and Wang, 2019; Khalid et al., 2018;
Zweig and Scott, 2018). The present study offers an in-depth understanding of the influence of
abusive supervision on KS through a focus on identifying boundary conditions in their
relationship. We focus on abusive supervision because supervisors are often the
organizational decision-makers; hence it is important to examine how their actions
influence positive and discretionary behaviors in the workplace (such as KS).
Specifically, this paper examines the roles of the Islamic work ethic (IWE, which
represents individuals’ dedication to work as a virtue) and learning goal orientation (LGO,
which refers to individuals’ orientation toward acquiring knowledge, competencies and new
skills) in moderating the effect of abusive supervision on KS. We focus on these two factors
because research shows that specific individual orientations moderate the influence of
organizational factors on work behavior (Jahanzeb et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2016). For example,
the theoretical underpinnings of the IWE explain that individuals are generally motivated to
acquire knowledge and cooperate with coworkers (Javed et al., 2019; Khalid et al., 2018;
Murtaza et al., 2016). Similarly, LGO explains an individual’s general tendency to learn new
ideas and acquire new skills in a social setting (Bandura, 1977). In such circumstances, it is
argued, the effect of abusive supervision on KS will differ.
More specifically still, this paper presents the results of an empirical study that was
undertaken to test this perspective by obtaining data from real-work settings in the context of
Pakistan. This specific context provides an appropriate setting to conduct the current study,
because the country’s high power distance culture makes abusive supervision more likely
(Vogel et al., 2015). In doing so, this paper contributes to knowledge on mitigating the adverse
effects of abusive supervision through a deeper understanding of individuals’ orientations
toward ethics and learning.
This paper is structured as follows. First, a review of the key concepts and theories for this
research is provided before presenting development of research hypotheses. Second, the
research data and methods are described. Third, analysis and interpretation of the study’s
results are presented. Finally, the implications of this study’s results are discussed.
Methods
Participants and procedure
This study examines the moderating roles of IWE and LGO in the relationship between
abusive supervision and KS in the real-work settings of Pakistan. Our study is contextualized
in Pakistani work settings because over 95% of the country’s population are followers of
Islam, and accordingly the IWE is more likely to be reflected in their day-to-day work
Islamic work
ethic
Abusive Knowledge
supervision sharing
Measures
This study’s constructs were measured on a 5-point Likert scale with response options
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
KS: Van den Hooff and De Ridder’s (2004) 10-item scale was used to measure KS. This
scale has been previously validated in the context of Pakistan by Islam et al. (2019c). The
scale’s reliability was acceptable with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84. An example item is: “I share
my skills with colleagues within my organization”.
Abusive supervision: Tepper’s (2000) widely applied abusive supervision scale was used to
measure the construct with the help of 15 items (e.g. Wang et al., 2012; Javed et al., 2019). An
example item is: “My boss puts me down in front of others”. The reliability value for this scale
was 0.78.
LGO: This study utilized Brett and VandeWalle’s (1999) 5-item scale to measure LGO and
noted a value of 0.88 in terms of the scale’s reliability in our study’s context. An example item
is: “I often look for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge”.
IWE: This was measured with the help of Ali’s (1992) 17-item scale, which has been Islamic work
previously validated by Murtaza et al. (2016) in the Pakistani context. This scale was found ethic and
reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.81. An example item is: “Good work benefits both
one’s self and others”.
knowledge
Control variables: Previous research has suggested that gender (Restubog et al., 2011), age sharing
(Farh et al., 1997) and qualification-levels (Tepper et al., 2000) significantly impact employees’
reaction to negative leadership styles. Hence the present study controlled for these three
variables in the analysis. 211
Variables 1 2 3 4 Mean SD α
1. Abusive leadership 1 3.89 0.57 0.78 Table 2.
2. Islamic work ethics (IWEs) 0.14* 1 4.01 0.64 0.81 Correlation, mean,
3. Learning goal orientation (LGO) –0.28** 0.34** 1 3.78 0.66 0.89 standard deviation and
4. Knowledge sharing (KS) –0.22** 0.42** 0.11* 1 3.28 0.74 0.84 Cronbach’s alpha
Note(s): *p < 0.05, **p 0.01 values
MD high, and hence covaried to further improve the model fit indices (x2/df 5 2.47, CFI 5 0.92,
59,2 GFI 5 0.91, SRMR 5 0.056 and RMSEA 5 0.048).
The data were examined for discriminant and convergent forms of validity in the light of
composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) values. In accordance with
Byrne (2010), the values of CR and AVE were well above their cut-off values of 0.60 and 0.50,
respectively (see Table A1). Moreover, the values of Cronbach’s alpha were also above
0.70 (Hair et al., 2010; Islam et al., 2019d).
212 The results of descriptive analysis are presented in Table 2. The mean values of abusive
supervision, IWE, LGO and KS were 3.89, 4.01, 3.78 and 3.28, respectively. Abusive
supervision was positively correlated with IWE (r 5 0.14, p < 0.05) and negatively correlated
with both KS (r 5 0.22, p < 0.01) and LGO (r 5 0.28, p < 0.01).
Hypotheses testing
The study used hierarchical regression to test the research hypotheses. The results showed
that abusive supervision was negatively associated with KS (β 5 0.34, p < 0.01), hence
supporting H1. The moderating roles of IWE and LGO in the relationship between abusive
supervision and KS (H2 and H3, respectively) were examined on the basis of standardized
values of the three-step hierarchical regression analysis (Judd et al., 2001). In the first step,
age, gender and qualification-level were entered as control variables. In the second step,
independent (i.e. abusive supervision) and moderating (i.e. LGO and IWE) variables were
entered. In the final step, two interaction terms (i.e. abusive supervision 3 IWE and abusive
supervision 3 LGO) were entered in the analysis to determine their significance. Table 3
presents the results.
Table 3 shows a significant negative impact of abusive supervision on KS (β 5 0.34,
SE 5 0.052, p < 0.01) and a significant positive impact of abusive supervision on LGO
(β 5 0.11, SE 5 0.068, p < 0.05). The impact of abusive supervision on IWE (β 5 0.07,
SE 5 0.124, p > 0.05) was nonsignificant (with 12% of variation in R2 in the second step). The
interaction between abusive supervision and IWE (β 5 0.21, SE 5 0.038, p < 0.01), as well as
the interaction between abusive supervision and LGO (β 5 0.19, SE 5 0.052, p < 0.01), were
Variable B SE t
Discussion 213
The emergence of knowledge economies in the global arena has placed KS at the forefront of
the contemporary business and management agenda. This study supports abusive
supervision as a hindrance factor in achieving this agenda by investigating its direct and
interactive effects on KS. While information and knowledge are critical enabling factors for
organizational success and sustainability (Kim et al., 2016), this research showed that KS is
severely disrupted when supervisors, perceived as decision-makers (Jiang and Gu, 2016),
4.5
4
Knowledge Sharing
3.5
2.5
2 Figure 2.
Low IWE The moderation of
1.5 IWE in the relationship
High IWE
between abusive
1 supervision and KS
Low Abusive Supervision High Abusive Supervision
4.5
4
Knowledge Sharing
3.5
2.5
2
Low LGO Figure 3.
1.5 High LGO The moderation of
LGO in the relationship
between abusive
1 supervision and KS
Low Abusive Supervision High Abusive Supervision
MD engage in abusive conduct. Given the prevalence of abusive supervision in contemporary
59,2 workplaces, with a growing body of evidence on its harmful impact on employees and
organizations alike (Mackey et al., 2013; Tepper, 2000; Wang et al., 2012), scholars have
stressed the need to examine factors that moderate that impact (see, e.g. Jiang and Gu, 2016;
Yang et al., 2019). Building on the research that linked abusive supervision with a range of
counterproductive and deviant behaviors in organizations (Wang et al., 2012; Yang et al.,
2019), the present study examined its association with a positive work behavior (i.e. KS).
214 Specifically, considering the norm of reciprocity (see also Gouldner, 1960) as a theoretical lens,
we explained the role of abusive supervision in disrupting sharing of knowledge in the
workplace. Although employees retaliate against the hostile actions of their supervisors
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960), given the authority and control of
supervisors over job advancement and rewards any direct confrontation could be
problematic. Since employees are generally autonomous in terms of making decisions
related to their knowledge (Srivastava et al., 2006), the findings of the present study show that
those working under abusive supervision withhold KS in the workplace. This finding is in
line with other studies suggesting that abusive supervision is requited through knowledge
hiding behavior in the workplace (Choi et al., 2019; Feng and Wang, 2019; Jahanzeb et al.,
2019). The “displaced aggression theory” (see also Dollard et al., 1939) offers an alternative
explanation of this study’s finding of the negative relationship between abusive supervision
and KS. According to this theory, the targets of aggression do not retaliate against the
perpetrator overtly; rather they react covertly by withholding knowledge from coworkers
(Khalid et al., 2018; Mitchell and Ambrose, 2012).
Nonetheless, we further investigated why some employees would still engage in KS
despite abusive supervision. In fact, a valuable finding of the present study is that employees’
IWE and LGO moderate this process, because the influence of abusive supervision on KS was
found weaker among employees with a high IWE and a high LGO. Through this finding, this
paper not only contributes to the growing literature on the harm associated with abusive
supervision, but also extends the scant literature on moderating that harm.
References
Agarwal, U.A. (2019), “Examining links between abusive supervision, PsyCap, LMX and outcomes”,
Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 1304-1334.
Ahmad, S. (2018), “Can ethical leadership inhibit workplace bullying across East and West: exploring
cross-cultural interactional justice as a mediating mechanism”, European Management Journal,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 223-234.
Ahmad, R. and Islam, T. (2019), “Does work and family imbalance impact the satisfaction of police
force employees? A ‘net or a web’ model”, Policing: International Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 585-597.
Alam, M.A. and Talib, N. (2016), “Islamic work ethics and individualism in managing a globalized
workplace: does religiosity and nationality matter?”, Journal of Management and Organization,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 566-582.
Ali, A.J. (1992), “The islamic work ethic in arabia”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 126 No. 5, pp. 507-519.
MD Ali, A.J. and Al-Owaihan, A. (2008), “Islamic work ethic: a critical review”, Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 5-19.
59,2
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
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.
216
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffos, New Jersey.
Bavik, Y.L., Tang, P.M., Shao, R. and Lam, L.W. (2018), “Ethical leadership and employee
knowledge sharing: exploring dual-mediation paths”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 322-332.
bin Salahudin, S.N., binti Baharuddin, S.S., Abdullah, M.S. and Osman, A. (2016), “The effect of Islamic
work ethics on organizational commitment”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 35,
pp. 582-590.
Brett, J.F. and VandeWalle, D. (1999), “Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of performance
in a training program”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 6, pp. 863-873.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Choi, W., Kim, S.L. and Yun, S. (2019), “A social exchange perspective of abusive supervision
and knowledge sharing: investigating the moderating effect of psychological contract
fulfillment and self-enhancement motive”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 305-319.
Conway, J.M. and Lance, C.E. (2010), “What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common
method bias in organizational research”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 325-334.
Cooksey, R.W. (2007), Illustrating Statistical Procedures: For Business, Behavioural and Social Science
research, Tilde University Press, Prahran (Vic.).
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N.E., Mowrer, O.H. and Sears, R.R. (1939), Frustration and Aggression, Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT.
Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L. (1988), “A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 256-273.
Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C. and Lin, S.C. (1997), “Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 421-444.
Feng, J. and Wang, C. (2019), “Does abusive supervision always promote employees to hide
knowledge? From both reactance and COR perspectives”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 1455- 1474.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gong, Y., Huang, J. and Farh, J. (2009), “Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership,
and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 765-778.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson, Boston, MA.
Han, S.H., Seo, G., Yoon, S.W. and Yoon, D.Y. (2016), “Transformational leadership and knowledge Islamic work
sharing: mediating roles of employee’s empowerment, commitment, and citizenship behaviors”,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 130-149. ethic and
Hassan, M.K., Miglietta, F., Paltrinieri, A. and Floreani, J. (2018), “The effects of Shariah board
knowledge
composition on Islamic equity indices’ performance”, Business Ethics: A European Review, sharing
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 248-259.
Helmy, S., Labib, A. and Kahf, A. (2014), “The impact of Islamic values on interpersonal relationship
conflict management in Egyptian business organizations ‘an applied study’”, Procedia-Social 217
and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 143, pp. 1090-1110.
Islam, T. and Tariq, J. (2018), “Learning organizational environment and extra-role behaviors: the
mediating role of employee engagement”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 258-270.
Islam, T., Ahmad, R., Ahmed, I. and Ahmer, Z. (2019a), “Police work-family nexus, work engagement
and turnover intention: moderating role of person-job-fit”, Policing: International Journal, Vol. 42
No. 5, pp. 739-750.
Islam, T., Ahmed, I. and Ali, G. (2019b), “Effects of ethical leadership on bullying and voice behavior
among nurses: mediating role of organizational identification, poor working condition and
workload”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 2-17.
Islam, T., Khan, M.K. and Asad, M. (2019c), “Workplace spirituality in South Asian context: the role of
learning culture, organizational support and knowledge sharing”, South Asian Studies, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 195-212.
Islam, T., Ali, G. and Asad, H. (2019d), “Environmental CSR and pro-environmental behaviors to
reduce environmental dilapidation”, Management Research Review, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 332-351.
Jahanzeb, S., Fatima, T., Bouckenooghe, D. and Bashir, F. (2019), “The knowledge hiding link: a
moderated mediation model of how abusive supervision affects employee creativity”, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 810-819.
Javed, B., Fatima, T., Yasin, R.M., Jahanzeb, S. and Rawwas, M.Y.A. (2019), “Impact of abusive
supervision on deviant work behavior: the role of Islamic work ethics”, Business Ethics, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 221-233.
Jiang, W. and Gu, Q. (2016), “How abusive supervision and abusive supervisory climate influence
salesperson creativity and sales team effectiveness in China”, Management Decision, Vol. 54
No. 2, pp. 455-475.
Judd, C.M., Kenny, D.A. and McClelland, G.H. (2001), “Estimating and testing mediation and
moderation in within-participant designs”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 115-134.
Kalemci, R.A. and Tuzun, I.K. (2019), “Understanding protestant and islamic work ethic studies: a
content analysis of articles”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 158 No. 4, pp. 999-1008.
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.
Kim, S.L., Kim, M. and Yun, S. (2015), “Knowledge sharing, abusive supervision and support: a social
exchange perspective”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 599-624.
Kim, S.L., Lee, S. and Yun, S. (2016), “Abusive supervision, knowledge sharing, and individual factors:
a conservation-of-resources perspective”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 6,
pp. 1106-1120.
Kirrane, M., Kilroy, S. and O’Connor, C. (2019), “The moderating effect of team psychological
empowerment on the relationship between abusive supervision and engagement”, Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 40 No.1, pp. 31-44.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
MD Kremer, H., Villamor, I. and Aguinis, H. (2019), “Innovation leadership: best-practice recommendations
for promoting employee creativity, voice, and knowledge sharing”, Business Horizons, Vol. 62
59,2 No. 1, pp. 65-74.
Le, P.B. and Lei, H. (2018), “The mediating role of trust in stimulating the relationship between
transformational leadership and knowledge sharing processes”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 521-537.
Liu, N.C. and Liu, M.S. (2011), “Human resource practices and individual knowledge-sharing behavior
218 – an empirical study for taiwanese R&D professionals”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 981-997.
Lyu, Y., Zhu, H., Zhong, H.J. and Hu, L. (2016), “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.
Mackey, J.D., Ellen, B.P., Hochwarter, W.A. and Ferris, G.R. (2013), “Subordinate social adaptability
and the consequences of abusive supervision perceptions in two samples”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 732-746.
Martinko, M.J., Harvey, P., Brees, J.R. and Mackey, J. (2013), “A review of abusive supervision
research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 120-137.
Mitchell, M. and Ambrose, M. (2012), “Employees’ behavioral reactions to supervisor aggression: an
examination of individual and situational factors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 6,
pp. 1148-1170.
Murtaza, G., Abbas, M., Raja, U., Roques, O., Khalid, A. and Mushtaq, R. (2016), “Impact of Islamic
work ethics on organizational citizenship behaviors and knowledge-sharing behaviors”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 133 No. 2, pp. 325-333.
Pakistan Demographics Profile (2019), available at: https://www.indexmundi.com/pakistan/demographics
_profile.html (accessed 15 December 2019).
Peltokorpi, V. (2019), “Abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion: the moderating role of power
distance orientation and the mediating role of interaction avoidance”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 251-275.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Pradhan, S. and Jena, L.K. (2017), “Effect of abusive supervision on employee’s intention to quit and
the neutralizing role of meaningful work in Indian IT organizations”, International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 825-838.
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.
Sekaran, U. (2003), Research Methods for Business, 4th ed., John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Sosik, J.J., Godshalk, V.M. and Yammarino, F.J. (2004), “Transformational leadership, learning goal
orientation, and expectations for career success in mentor–protege relationships: a multiple
levels of analysis perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 241-261.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management teams:
effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.
Swift, M., Balkin, D.B. and Matusik, S.F. (2010), “Goal orientations and the motivation to share
knowledge”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 378-393.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Pearson, Boston, MA. Islamic work
Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 ethic and
No. 2, pp. 178-190.
knowledge
Van den Hooff, B. and De Ridder, J.A. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of sharing
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 117-130.
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S.P., Cron, W.L. and Slocum, J.W. Jr (1999), “The influence of goal orientation 219
and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: a longitudinal field test”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 249-259.
Vogel, R.M., Mitchell, M.S., Tepper, B.J., Restubog, S.L.D., Hu, C., Hua, W. and Huang, J.C. (2015),
“A cross-cultural examination of subordinates’ perceptions of and reactions to abusive
supervision”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 720-745.
Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W. and Liu, J. (2012), “Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: the
mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 43-60.
Williams, L.J., Vandenberg, R.J. and Edwards, J.R. (2009), “Structural equation modeling in
management research: a guide for improved analysis”, The Academy of Management
Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 543-604.
Yadav, M., Choudhary, S. and Jain, S. (2019), “Transformational leadership and knowledge
sharing behavior in freelancers: a moderated mediation model with employee engagement
and social support”, Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 202-224.
Yang, J., Lin, C., Fang, S. and Huang, C. (2019), “An uncertainty management theory on the effects of
abusive supervision”, Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 11, pp. 3079-3095.
Yousef, D.A. (2001), “Islamic work ethic–A moderator between organizational commitment and job
satisfaction in a cross-cultural context”, Personnel Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 152-169.
Zacher, H. and Jimmieson, N.L. (2013), “Leader-follower interactions: relations with OCB and sales
productivity”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 92-106.
Further reading
Ashforth, B.E. (1997), “Petty tyranny in organizations: 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.
Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), “Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational
rewards systems”, Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-76.
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. and Pagon, M. (2002), “Social undermining in the workplace”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 331-351.
Harris, K.J., Kacmar, K.M. and Zivnuska, S. (2007), “An investigation of abusive supervision as a
predictor of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 252-263.
Hobfoll, S. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Hobfoll, S. (2011), “Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 116-122.
Hobfoll, S.E. and Lilly, R.S. (1993), “Resource conservation as a strategy for community psychology”,
Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 128-148.
Hu, H.H. (2012), “The influence of employee emotional intelligence on coping with supervisor abuse in
a banking context”, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 863-874.
MD Islam, T. and Ahmed, I. (2018), “Mechanism between perceived organizational support and transfer of
training: explanatory role of self-efficacy and job satisfaction”, Management Research Review,
59,2 Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 296-313.
Khan, K., Abbas, M., Gul, A. and Raja, U. (2015), “Organizational justice and job outcomes: moderating
role of islamic work ethic”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 126 No. 2, pp. 235-246.
Matzler, K. and Mueller, J. (2011), “Antecedents of knowledge sharing – examining the influence of
learning and performance orientation”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 3,
220 pp. 317-329.
Ozer, E.J., Best, S.R., Lipsey, T.L. and Weiss, D.S. (2003), “Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder
and symptoms in adults: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 1, pp. 52-73.
Pradhan, S. and Jena, L.K. (2018), “Abusive supervision and job outcomes: a moderated mediation
study”, Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Emerald Publishing
Limited, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 137-152.
Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010), “Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Wu, W.-L. and Lee, Y.-C. (2016), “Do employees share knowledge when encountering abusive
supervision?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 154-168.
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.
Zweig, D. and Scott, K.A. (2018), “Exploring distrust, paranoia, knowledge hiding and abusive
supervision over time”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Academy of Management,
Briarcliff Manor, NY, Vol. 2018 No. 1, pp. 10312.
Appendix Islamic work
ethic and
knowledge
Questions Loading α AVE CR
sharing
Abusive supervisor 0.78 0.60 0.84
My supervisor . . . 221
Ridicules me 0.78
Tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid 0.81
Gives me the silent treatment 0.73
Puts me down in front of others 0.74
Invades my privacy 0.69
Reminds me of my past mistakes and failures 0.85
Does not give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort 0.82
Blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment 0.75
Breaks promises he/she makes 0.79
Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason 0.83
Makes negative comments about me to others 0.68
Is rude to me 0.88
Does not allow me to interact with my coworkers 0.68
Tells me I am incompetent 0.76
Lies to me 0.80
Corresponding author
Talat Islam can be contacted at: talatislam@yahoo.com
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