RM4 - 2 MGT

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.
(2016)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2123
Research Article
Supervisor role overload and frustration as
antecedents of abusive supervision: The
moderating role of supervisor personality
GABI EISSA* AND SCOTT W. LESTER
Department of Management & Marketing, College of Business, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI,
54702, U.S.A.
Summary The current research explores supervisor-level antecedents of abusive supervision in the workplace. Specifi-
cally, this study introduces affective events theory to the abusive supervision literature to suggest that super-
visor role overload, a work-related event, leads to supervisor frustration. As an intense negative emotional
reaction, frustration, in turn, triggers supervisors to exhibit abusive behaviors in the workplace. Supervisor
personality traits—namely, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness—are also posited to moderate
these hypothesized relationships. Specifically, neuroticism is expected to moderate the relationship between
role overload and frustration while conscientiousness and agreeableness are expected to moderate the rela-
tionship between frustration and abusive supervision. Ultimately, we propose and examine a moderated-
mediation model. Multisource field data demonstrate general support for the hypothesized relationships.
We conclude with theoretical and practical implications as well as future research avenues. Copyright ©
2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: abusive supervision; frustration; role overload; personality; Big Five
A large number of organizational scholars have recently been intrigued by the question of what happens to em-
ployees who work for abusive leaders. Indeed, the vast majority of research on abusive supervision has been devoted
to identifying employees’ reactions to such abuse (Tepper, 2007). Abusive supervision is defined as “subordinates’
perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behav-
iors, excluding physical content” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178). Such abusive behaviors may include, but are not limited to,
ridiculing employees, lying to them, making negative comments about them to others, and expressing anger at them
(Tepper, 2000, 2007). Overall, research shows that abusive supervision is associated with numerous unfavorable
work outcomes such as workplace deviance (Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009), employee psychological
withdrawal (Mawritz, Dust, & Resick, 2014), reduced job satisfaction (Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, & Ensley, 2004),
and reduced job performance (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007).
At this point, however, research has largely ignored what makes organizational leaders exhibit abusive behaviors in
the first place. That is, only a limited number of studies have examined antecedents of abusive supervision (Martinko,
Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013; Mawritz, Folger, & Latham, 2014; Tepper, 2007). This limited research has gener-
ally focused on contextual factors such as supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals (Mawritz, Folger and Latham,
2014), organizational aggressive norms (Restubog, Scott, & Zagenczyk, 2011), organizational injustice (Aryee,
Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007), and psychological contract violation (Hoobler & Brass, 2006) as well as subordinate
characteristics and behaviors (e.g., core self-evaluations, hostile attribution style, and performance) (Martinko,
Harvey, Sikora, & Douglas, 2011; Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011; Walter, Lam, van der Vegt, Huang, & Miao,
2015; Wu & Hu, 2009). Despite some progress, research examining supervisor-level antecedents is vital to a thorough
understanding of what initially provokes organizational leaders to become abusive. Specifically, while employees
*Correspondence to: Gabi Eissa, Department of Management & Marketing, College of Business, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, Schneider
Building 400D, Eau Claire, WI 54702, U.S.A. E-mail: eissagm@uwec.edu
Received 19 February 2015

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 07 June 2016, Accepted 20 June 2016
G. EISSA AND S. W. LESTER
frequently recognize their supervisors as the main source of abusive behaviors (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2012), research
remains unclear as to the process by which supervisors’ abusive behaviors are initially triggered (Martinko et al.,
2013). Furthermore, a theoretical framework that explains how and under what conditions supervisors may be per-
ceived as abusive by their employees is missing (Mackey, Frieder, Brees, & Martinko, 2015 ; Martinko et al.,
2013; Tepper, 2007). Relatedly, Tepper (2007) asserts that abusive supervision costs US corporations billions of dol-
lars annually in lost productivity and healthcare costs. Thus, understanding what predicts abusive supervision in the
workplace may help organizations minimize the costs associated with such destructive behaviors.
This study’s purpose is to develop and test a model of antecedents of abusive supervision in the workplace.1 Spe-
cifically, this study extends the emerging research on the antecedents of abusive supervision by arguing that certain
work events (viz., supervisor role overload) and emotions (viz., supervisor frustration) can be crucial determinants of
supervisor abusive behaviors. By focusing on supervisor work events and emotions, the current study draws upon
affective events theory (AET; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) as its theoretical basis to argue that certain work events
and emotions are likely to lead to supervisor behaviors that are perceived as abusive. AET is particularly insightful
in explaining the process by which this occurs. AET posits that certain work events elicit certain emotions and that
these emotions subsequently provoke certain behaviors. Hence, this study argues that supervisor role overload elicits
feelings of frustration, which in turn provokes abusive behaviors. This assertion is supported by prior theory
explaining similar patterns including the frustration–aggression model (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears,
1939), the transactional stress model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), and the stressor–emotion model of counterproduc-
tive work behavior (Spector & Fox, 2002, 2005). While some existing research links frustration to aggression, this
study is the first to explicitly test the direct link between frustration and abusive supervision and suggests that frus-
tration is the mechanism by which supervisor role overload impacts perceptions of abusive supervision.
One should not assume, however, that all supervisors will respond to similar affective events in the same way.
AET research suggests that personality characteristics help explain why individuals’ reactions could vary as they ex-
perience these events and emotions at work. Indeed, research has suggested that supervisor personality traits can im-
pact employees’ perceptions of supervisors’ abusive behaviors (Martinko et al., 2013). That is, certain aspects of the
supervisor’s personality (e.g., hostility and cooperativeness) may increase or decrease the probability that a subor-
dinate will perceive him or her as abusive. Therefore, a thorough investigation should also explore moderators of
these relationships (Martinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007). As the next section explains, this study explores three spe-
cific personality traits as supervisor-level moderators of antecedents of abusive supervision.
In sum, the current study strives to advance the organizational behavior literature in three important ways. First,
given that most research on abusive supervision has examined outcomes of such abuse, this study contributes to the
field by expanding our understanding of the small but growing stream of research investigating antecedents of abu-
sive supervision by examining supervisor-level factors including supervisor role overload and frustration. Our exam-
ination is essential given that research still lacks a theoretical framework that explains the process of how the
supervisor’s work environment triggers perceptions of abusive supervision. Second, our study is the first to intro-
duce AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) across the field of research on abusive supervision in an effort to examine
such antecedents. Hence, our examination is theoretically driven by AET, which allows us to also extend the re-
search on this emotion-focused framework by explicating how distinct events and emotions may predict distinct be-
havioral reactions, namely abusive supervision in the workplace.
Third, we recognize the need to examine supervisor-level moderators of antecedents of abusive supervision by ex-
ploring the role of supervisor personality, which has received little research attention to date (Martinko et al., 2013;
Tepper, 2007). In recent years, Weiss and his colleagues have reflected on the process proposed by the AET framework
and recognized that a better understanding of the role of personality can only be found by taking a “thorough look at the
complex chain of processes that link events to emotional reactions and emotional reactions to behavioral, cognitive and
attitudinal outcomes. This examination will find that personality constructs of many different types have various roles to
1
In this paper, we measure abusive supervision based on subordinates’ perceptions of supervisor abuse. Therefore, we use the term “abusive su-
pervision” to refer to subordinate ratings of these perceptions.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/job
ANTECEDENTS OF ABUSIVE SUPERVISION
play all along the mediational path” (Weiss & Kurek, 2003, p. 142). The current study provides this more detailed look
by exploring how neuroticism influences the relationship between supervisor role overload and frustration and how
conscientiousness and agreeableness influence the relationship between frustration and perceptions of abusive super-
vision (Figure 1). In this way, on the basis of AET, our model explains not only how but also when the proposed model
holds by testing moderated-mediation relationships. In the following sections, we discuss these contributions and de-
velop hypotheses for the relationships as shown in our model. We then test our model using multisource field data.
Theoretical Rationale and Hypotheses
Affective events theory
According to AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), emotions are central to predicting employee workplace behaviors.
Specifically, AET suggests that employee behaviors depend on employee exposure to certain work events or expe-
riences as well as the emotional reactions that these events or experiences create. In this way, AET attempts to ex-
plain employees’ behaviors as a process that happens through emotions, starting with exposure to work events and
ending with behavioral outcomes. Therefore, compared with other approaches in the literature that predict and ex-
plain workplace behaviors, AET emphasizes the specific role of work events (hassles, uplifts, or both) and affect
(positive or negative emotions) in predicting the behavioral reactions to both events and emotions at work (Judge,
Hulin, & Dalal, 2011; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
Since the development of AET, research has empirically supported its basic tenets. For example, numerous re-
search studies have shown how positive or negative emotional experiences explain the work environment’s impact
on employee behaviors including withdrawal behaviors (Kiefer, 2005), organizational citizenship behaviors (Rodell
& Judge, 2009), counterproductive workplace behaviors (Rodell & Judge, 2009; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009), and
job performance (Carlson, Kacmar, Zivnuska, Ferguson, & Whitten, 2011). Similar to these findings, the current
study extends AET to the abusive supervision literature to suggest that abusive behavior on the part of the supervisor
is one link in the events–emotions–behaviors process. Specifically, we argue that supervisor role overload (event) is
likely to induce supervisor frustration (emotional reaction), which subsequently provokes supervisor abusive behav-
iors (behavioral reaction), with the strength of these relationships depending on aspects of a supervisor’s personality.
Supervisor role overload and frustration

Meta-analytic evidence demonstrates that aggressive behaviors are strongly linked to frustrating events (Hershcovis
et al., 2007). Numerous studies also demonstrate a strong association between frustration and aggression, especially
Figure 1. Hypothesized model
DOI: 10.1002/job
if such frustration results from work-related situational constraints (e.g., Fox & Spector, 1999). However, despite
such evidence, limited empirical research has clearly examined the role of frustration in triggering abusive supervi-
sion. This is particularly surprising given the rise of frustration in the workplace. Indeed, more than 20% of em-
ployees in organizations today experience frustration at work (Royal & Agnew, 2011).
Additionally, employees are frequently being asked to take on additional workload and responsibilities in order to
secure the company’s bottom-line and remain competitive (Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Brown, Jones, & Leigh, 2005;
Fisher, 2014). Because of this, employees are sometimes left to feel overwhelmed and overloaded with work (Gryna,
2004). In fact, the American Psychological Association (2015) has named role overload as one of the top stressors in
the workplace. Building on this, both role overload and work frustration appear to embody meaningful experiences
for most supervisors in today’s organizations, yet an examination of the specific impact of these variables on super-
visors has been largely ignored. This study argues that work frustration may arise through supervisor role overload,
resulting in workplace behaviors that employees perceive as abusive.
Frustration is an emotional response to negative work events. Generally, individuals tend to experience frustration
once certain conditions interfere with or block individual goal attainment (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Spector,
1997) or once they sense they do not possess the necessary resources to achieve their goals (Fox & Spector,
1999; Reio, 2011). That is, frustration arises as soon as one’s goal attainment is threatened to be blocked because
of insufficient resources. For example, early research has revealed many factors associated with frustration at work
including “the frustrating nature of the job itself, a lack of promotion opportunity, role ambiguity, organizational
change, physical isolation from the community, and job security” (Eaton, 1952; Spector, 1978).
In line with AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), role overload may be a source of frustration. Role overload can be
described as a condition that is characterized by a large volume of work demands, which employees are expected to
fulfill (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Those who experience role overload feel they have too many duties and
responsibilities to handle, believe the amount of work they have is excessive, and feel as though they do not have
enough time to get things done (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Research often regards role overload as an affective event
(Basch & Fisher, 2000; Fisher, 2014; Ilies et al., 2007; Ohly & Schmitt, 2015) and typically views it as a job stressor.
Hence, role overload has been linked to several undesirable workplace outcomes including emotional exhaustion,
tension, and anxiety (Baer et al., 2015; Beehr, Walsh, & Taber, 1976; Glazer & Beehr, 2005) as well as frustration
at work (Spector & Jex, 1998; Spector & O’Connell, 1994; Whinghter, Cunningham, Wang, & Burnfield, 2008).
Within the AET framework (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), role overload is viewed as a demanding event that con-
sumes resources, which are typically fixed (Hobfoll, 1989), leading the supervisor to experience negative emotions,
including frustration with being unable to keep up with work demands. In this vein, role overload becomes liable for
creating the discernment that supervisors lack essential resources to get things done at work and that their job per-
formance may suffer. Consequently, it is expected that supervisor role overload serves as an affective event that
highlights burdens of the job that supervisors are obligated to undertake but may be unable to fulfill, resulting in high
levels of frustration. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1: Supervisor role overload is positively associated with supervisor frustration in the workplace.
Supervisor frustration and abusive supervision
At the heart of AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) is the idea that certain emotions are likely to elicit certain behav-
ioral reactions in response to these emotions. As a result, it would be reasonable to assume that, as a negative emo-
tional response, frustration is likely to contribute to an increase in abusive behaviors in the workplace. Previous
research supports this assertion (i.e., frustration–aggression association) (e.g., Chen & Spector, 1992; Dollard
et al., 1939; Fox & Spector, 1999; Storms & Spector, 1987). Thus, based on prior aggression research, we predict
a similar pattern between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Given that frustration involves feelings of anger and resentment, it is likely to create the discernment that
the situation is difficult to handle and may be detrimental for goal attainment. Thus, when individuals are
frustrated, they are often motivated to dispose of these unpleasant emotions by perhaps engaging in aggres-
sion or counterproductive workplace behaviors (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Harvey & Harris, 2010; Yang
& Diefendorff, 2009). Indeed, research shows that frustration can be related to a number of such behaviors
including increased antisocial workplace behavior and coworker abuse (Harvey & Harris, 2010; Spector,
1997). Research also demonstrates that negative emotions are positively related to workplace aggression.
For example, Mawritz, Folger, and Latham (2014) have demonstrated that both anger and anxiety may be
related to abusive supervision. Along these lines, we expect that supervisor frustration will be associated
with perceptions of abusive supervision.
Notably, the direct association between frustration and aggression can be traced back to the original work of
Dollard et al. (1939). Specifically, Dollard and colleagues note that “the occurrence of aggressive behavior al-
ways presupposes the existence of frustration” and that “the existence of frustration always leads to some form
of aggression” (p. 1) (see also Berkowitz, 1989). Therefore, consistent with the frustration–aggression model
(Dollard et al., 1939) and similar research on emotion–aggression (Spector & Fox, 2005), and in line with
AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), frustration (as an emotional reaction to role overload) can be expected to
be a driving factor of abusive behaviors in the workplace. That is, once frustrated, supervisors are more suscep-
tible to engaging in abusive behaviors as a way of dealing with such negative emotion and, hence, are more
prone to behave in a way that their employees perceive and report as abusive. Thus, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 2: Supervisor frustration is positively associated with subordinate ratings of abusive supervision.
To complete our hypothesized model, we further predict that the association between supervisor role overload and
abusive supervision is mediated by supervisor frustration. Consistent with AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), we
propose that the indirect effect of supervisor role overload on abusive supervision occurs through the emotional re-
sponse of supervisor frustration that provokes perception of abusive behaviors. Indeed, AET emphasizes the premise
that one’s emotions will mediate the effect of work events onto workplace behaviors. Hence, the application of AET
starts with the effect of supervisor role overload (event) on accrued supervisor frustration (emotion). Subsequently,
frustration triggers abusive supervision (behavior). Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3: Supervisor frustration mediates the relationship between supervisor role overload and subordinate
ratings of abusive supervision.
Supervisor Personality Traits as Moderators
An important aspect of AET illustrates that personality characteristics may potentially influence the effect that
work events have on a person’s emotional and behavioral reactions. Specifically, in their development of
AET, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) argued that individual predispositions (personality) may allow people to
be more or less reactive to certain situations than others. This notion also aligns with the idea of differential re-
activity described by Bolger and Zuckerman (1995), which suggests that personality greatly influences individ-
uals’ outcomes by moderating the impact of certain experiences on outcomes. Accordingly, a person is more (or
less) likely to intensely display emotional or behavioral reactions to situations than others based on certain per-
sonality traits. Applied to the current study, one could assume that supervisors’ emotional and behavioral reac-
tions may vary depending on whether they are high or low on certain personality traits. Therefore, consistent
DOI: 10.1002/job
with AET, this study focuses on the reactivity effect of supervisor personality traits as moderators of the previ-
ously hypothesized relationships.
Specifically, the current study focuses on three of the Big Five personality traits (viz., neuroticism, conscientious-
ness, and agreeableness) for the following reasons. First, limited research has examined these three personality traits
as supervisor-level factors of antecedents of abusive supervision. Second, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) have spe-
cifically used Big Five personality traits as an illustration of moderators in their development of AET. Third, prior
research demonstrates that neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness may be significantly related to aggres-
sive behaviors (e.g., Barlett & Anderson, 2012; Brees, Mackey, Martinko, & Harvey, 2014); yet, limited research
has examined the interaction effect of these three traits on abusive supervision in the workplace.
Given that neuroticism is largely focused on emotional reactivity (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Spector, Fox, &
Domagalski, 2006) and conscientiousness and agreeableness are more focused on behavioral reactivity (Yang &
Diefendorff, 2009), we expect neuroticism to moderate the relationship between role overload and frustration while
conscientiousness and agreeableness will moderate the relationship between frustration and abusive supervision as
depicted in Figure 1. Our hypothesized model is in line with recent research examining similar moderating patterns
related to both affective and behavioral reactions to the work environment (e.g., Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006; Rodell
& Judge, 2009; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009) and also consistent with AET research questioning how personality in-
fluences the full process of emotion generation as well as behavioral reactions to certain work events (e.g., Weiss &
Beal, 2005; Weiss & Kurek, 2003).
Role overload and frustration: the role of neuroticism

Neuroticism, also known as negative affectivity (Brief & Weiss, 2002), is closely related to experiencing a variety of
negative emotions (Watson, 2000). In fact, research suggests that, in comparison with the other two Big Five per-
sonality traits, neuroticism is the only trait with affective orientation (Spector et al., 2006). Specifically, highly neu-
rotic individuals tend to be anxious, worried, depressed, and emotionally unstable (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa &
McCrae, 1992). In addition, they are inclined to have higher levels of emotional responsivity to negative environ-
mental stimuli (Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991) and lower levels of tolerance for negative events (Eysenck, 1967). Re-
search also suggests that highly neurotic individuals tend to continually feel self-conscious, vulnerable, and
hostile (Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1985). Given they are negative by nature, they are more likely
to be upset, stressed out, and irritated. Consequently, we expect that highly neurotic supervisors will be more sen-
sitive to role overload, resulting in increased levels of frustration. Indeed, research has revealed that individuals high
in neuroticism experienced more negative emotions when dealing with negative affective events (e.g., Yang &
Diefendorff, 2009). Therefore, high neuroticism may allow supervisors to respond with more frustration as they ex-
perience role overload. In contrast, less neurotic supervisors are more collected, calm, and emotionally stable and,
thus, are less likely to be frustrated as they experience role overload. In sum, we predict that neuroticism will inten-
sify the positive influence of supervisor role overload on frustration.
Hypothesis 4: Supervisor neuroticism will moderate the relationship between supervisor role overload and frustra-
tion, such that the relationship will be stronger when neuroticism levels are higher.
Frustration and abusive supervision: the role of conscientiousness and agreeableness

Although we expect supervisor frustration to be a driving factor of abusive supervision, the strength of this relation-
ship may depend on supervisor conscientiousness and agreeableness. Specifically, we expect these traits to deter-
mine whether supervisors decide to act upon their frustration and, thus, be perceived as abusive. This notion is
consistent with research suggesting that personality traits interact with various work experiences to predict
DOI: 10.1002/job
behavioral reactions to these situations. For example, both conscientiousness and agreeableness have been shown to
interact with negative emotions to predict counterproductive workplace behaviors (Yang & Diefendorff, 2009).
Consistent with this stream of research, we explore these two traits as supervisor-level moderators between frustra-
tion and abusive supervision.
Conscientious individuals tend to be careful, responsible, hardworking, preserving, self-disciplined, obedient,
and ethical (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Moon,
2001). Research shows that highly conscientious individuals are able to control their behaviors when they expe-
rience negative events (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004; Salgado, 2002). They also tend to act
wisely and strategically when confronted with negative emotions and, thus, are less likely to engage in aggres-
sion (Yang & Diefendorff, 2009). In other words, highly conscientious individuals are less likely to be influ-
enced by negative emotions that could provoke them to express those emotions abusively. Prior research has
also found that highly conscientious individuals are less likely to be provoked by transitory emotions and are
more likely to constructively deal with negative emotions compared with their counterparts (Cullen & Sackett,
2003; Ilies et al., 2006; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009). Accordingly, highly conscientious supervisors may be less
likely to be provoked by frustration and, thus, less likely to exhibit abusive behaviors. In contrast, less consci-
entious supervisors tend to be more impulsive, tend to be unethical, and may react negatively to negative emo-
tions. Thus, they are more likely to handle frustration by exhibiting abusive behaviors. In sum, as they encounter
frustration, highly conscientious supervisors are less likely to behave in a fashion that their employees perceive
and report as abusive.
Agreeable individuals tend to be sympathetic, compassionate, cooperative, trusting, forgiving, and soft-hearted
(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Because of their kind nature, highly agreeable individuals
pay particular attention to their behaviors not being viewed as hostile or conflictive (Costa, McCrae, &
Dembroski, 1989; Tepper, 2007). Likewise, highly agreeable individuals tend to be very concerned about how
their actions may impact others and, thus, strive to maintain high-quality relationships with others (Tepper,
2007). Research also demonstrates that agreeable individuals tend to put much effort into controlling their reac-
tions to negative emotions, especially when they may negatively impact their relationships with others (Jensen-
Campbell & Graziano, 2001; Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, & Tassinary, 2000). Accordingly, highly agreeable su-
pervisors may be less likely to be provoked by frustration in a manner that is interpreted to be abusive. In con-
trast, less agreeable supervisors are more likely to be unkind, belligerent, and unthoughtful and pay little
attention to what people think of them and, thus, are more likely to allow frustration to prompt them to engage
in behaviors that are perceived as abusive. As such, akin to supervisors high in conscientiousness, highly agree-
able supervisors are less likely to behave in a way that leads their employees to perceive and report them as
being abusive, even under high levels of frustration.
Hypothesis 5: Supervisor conscientiousness and agreeableness will moderate the relationship between supervisor
frustration and subordinate ratings of abusive supervision, such that the relationship will be weaker when (a) con-
scientiousness and (b) agreeableness levels are higher.
Lastly, because we predict that the aforementioned personality traits will moderate the previously hypothesized
relationships, we also expect that these personality traits together will conditionally influence the strength of the in-
direct effect between supervisor role overload and abusive supervision. Consistent with our hypothesized model
(Figure 1), we predict a moderated-mediation pattern whereby the indirect effect of supervisor role overload on abu-
sive supervision that occurs through supervisor frustration will depend on the various levels of the personality
moderators.
Hypothesis 6: Supervisor neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness will moderate the indirect effect of
supervisor role overload on subordinate ratings of abusive supervision (via supervisor frustration); the mediated
relationship will be stronger when (a) neuroticism is high as opposed to low and will be weaker when (b) consci-
entiousness and (c) agreeableness are high as opposed to low.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Method
Sample and procedure

Data were collected from a number of organizations located in the Midwestern United States from focal employees
and their immediate supervisors in various industries including human services, education, health care, finance, pub-
lic safety, and information technology. Specifically, in exchange for extra credit, business students were asked to
serve as organizational contacts to recruit a working adult who was willing to serve as the focal employee participant
in the study. All of the respondents worked for at least 20 hours a week, and all of the surveys were conducted via the
Internet. After the focal employees completed their survey, they were asked to invite their immediate supervisor to
complete the supervisory survey. The supervisor survey included measures of role overload, frustration, conscien-
tiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and demographic information, while the focal employee survey included a
measure of abusive supervision and demographic information. Lastly, several steps were followed in order to ensure
the accuracy and anonymity of responses (e.g., Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Eissa, 2012; Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006).
For example, the importance of integrity in the scientific process was clearly emphasized in the introduction to
the study. Because the surveys were accessed online, participants (i.e., focal employee and supervisor respondents)
were reminded to be careful to complete the correct corresponding survey (employee versus supervisor). Next, once
the online surveys were submitted, the IP addresses and time stamps were recorded. Both the IP addresses and time
stamps were clearly examined to confirm that the online surveys were accurately submitted by each of the matching
participant pairs separately (by using different IP addresses and submitted at different times).
Four hundred and nineteen business students were invited to participate in the current study. Nearly 230 responses
were received from the employee participants and 223 responses from supervisors. After merging the data, the final
sample contained 190 usable responses (i.e., employee–supervisor dyads), resulting in a total response rate of
45.3%. The supervisor participants were 40.9% women and were 79.6% Caucasian, 3.6% Hispanic, 5.8%
African-American, 3.6% Native American, 3.6% Asian American, 1.3% biracial, and 2.7% specified as “other.” Su-
pervisor participants were 95.5% employed full time (working 40 hours per week or more), had an average age of
42.87 years (SD = 12.20) ranging from 20 to 73 years, and an average of 11.94 years of tenure within their organiza-
tion (SD = 9.57) ranging from 1 to 43 years. The focal employee participants were 48.2% women and were 75.8%
Caucasian, 3.5% Hispanic, 4.0% African-American, 5.7% Native American, 3.5% Asian American, 2.2% biracial,
and 5.3% specified as “other.” Focal employee participants were 78.1% employed full time (working 40 hours per
week or more), had an average age of 33.9 years (SD = 11.60) ranging from 19 to 68 years, and had an average of
6.71 years of tenure within their organization (SD = 7.90) ranging from 1 to 37 years.
Measures
Supervisor role overload
Role overload was measured by the supervisor participants using the three items from Bolino and Turnley’s (2005)
role overload scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Items include the following: “The amount of work
I am expected to do is too great,” “I never seem to have enough time to get everything done at work,” and “It often
seems like I have too much work for one person to do” (α = .83). Prior studies have shown adequate internal consis-
tency for using this scale, with the coefficient alpha being above .80 (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Hamann ; Foster,
2014).
Supervisor frustration
Frustration was measured by the supervisor participants using the three items from Peters, O’Connor, and Rudolf
(1980) work frustration scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Items include the following: “Trying
DOI: 10.1002/job
to get this job done was a very frustrating experience,” “Being frustrated comes with this job,” and “Overall, I ex-
perience very little frustration on this job (reversed item)” (α = .75). Prior studies have shown adequate internal con-
sistency for using this scale, with the coefficient alpha being above .70 (e.g., Fortunato, Jex, & Heinish, 1999; Jex &
Elacqua, 1999).
Neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness

Personality traits were measured by the supervisor respondents with the eight items (for each trait) (Saucier, 1994)
from Goldberg’s (1992) original measure of the Big Five personality traits. Respondents indicated how accurately a
number of characteristics described them (1 = extremely inaccurate to 7 = extremely accurate). Sample items for neu-
roticism include “temperamental,” “touchy,” and “moody” (α = .83). Sample items for conscientiousness include
“organized,” “efficient,” and “systematic” (α = .82). Sample items for agreeableness include “cooperative,” “kind,”
and “sympathetic” (α = .82). Prior studies have shown adequate internal consistency for using this scale, with the co-
efficient alpha being above .75 (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 2012; Oreg, 2003; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009).
Abusive supervision
The focal employee participants measured the behaviors of their supervisors using the shortened five items from
Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) based on Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision scale (1 = never and 7 = always). Sam-
ple items include the following: “My supervisor ridicules me,” “My supervisor tells me my thoughts or feelings are
stupid,” and “My supervisor puts me down in front of others” (α = .96). Prior studies have shown adequate internal
consistency for using this scale, with the coefficient alpha being above .85 (e.g., Garcia, Wang, Lu, Kiazad, &
Restubog, 2015; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2012).
Control variables
Given that recent meta-analyses (Mackey et al., 2015) suggest that supervisor demographic variables may be asso-
ciated with abusive supervision, the supervisor participants’ age, gender, and organizational tenure were used as
control variables in order to reduce any biases related to demographic discrepancies.
Results
Descriptive statistics
The means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and estimated reliabilities among the key variables of the study are
shown in Table 1.
Analytical approach
The full hypothesized model was tested using a method described by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007). Specif-
ically, the hypotheses were tested using the PROCESS macro for SPSS developed by Hayes (2013), which is an ex-
tension of the SPSS macro developed by Preacher et al. (2007). Because we formally hypothesize a mediation
relationship, and in accordance with existing research testing similar patterns of hypotheses (e.g., Cole, Walter, &
Bruch, 2008), we ran two sets of analyses. We first tested a simple mediation model (Hypotheses 1–3) by utilizing
Model 4 of the PROCESS macro. We then combined the three moderators into our model (Hypotheses 4 and 5) and
tested an overall moderated-mediation model (Hypothesis 6) by utilizing Model 35 of the PROCESS macro. As sug-
gested by Aiken and West (1991), the continuous measures were mean centered prior to testing the hypotheses.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and study variable intercorrelations.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age 42.87 12.20 —

2. Sex 1.59 0.49 .04 —
3. Organizational 11.94 9.57 .69** .05 —
tenure
4. Role overload 4.07 1.54 .07 .00 .04 (.83)
5. Frustration 3.78 1.47 .01 .03 .10 .52** (.75)
6. Conscientiousness 5.71 0.85 .09 .12 .04 .21** .18** (.82)
7. Agreeableness 5.67 0.85 .15* .19** .08 .24** .24** .58** (.82)
8. Neuroticism 2.99 1.07 .10 .06 .10 .40** .41** .48** .65** (.83)
9. Abusive 1.53 1.17 .02 .18* .05 .44** .45** .27** .35** .51** (.96)
supervision
Note: N = 190. Coefficient (α) reliabilities are shown in the diagonal.
*p < .05 level (two-tailed); **p < .01 level (two-tailed).
Tests of mediation
The findings for Hypotheses 1 through 3 are presented in Table 2. In line with Hypotheses 1 and 2, supervisor role
overload was positively associated with supervisor frustration (B = 0.52, t = 8.68, p < .01), and supervisor frustration
was positively associated with abusive supervision (B = 0.27, t = 4.44, p < .01). In line with Hypothesis 3, supervisor
role overload was found to have an indirect effect on abusive supervision via supervisor frustration (0.14). Also,
using a Sobel test with a bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI), the indirect effect of supervisor role overload
on abusive supervision was revealed to be significant (Sobel z = 3.93, p < .01) and demonstrated that the
bootstrapped CI did not contain zero (0.07, 0.23). These results provide support for Hypotheses 1–3.
Table 2. Regression results for simple mediation.

Outcome variable: Supervisor frustration B SE t R2
.30
Constant 1.78 0.52 3.44**
Supervisor role overload 0.52 0.06 8.68**
Age 0.01 0.01 0.72
Sex 0.06 0.19 0.30
Organizational tenure 0.03 0.01 1.94
Outcome variable: Abusive supervision
.32
Constant 1.26 .44 2.85**
Supervisor frustration 0.27 0.06 4.44**
Age 0.01 0.01 0.78
Sex 0.43 0.15 2.77**
Effect SE LL 95% CI UL 95% CI
Indirect effect of supervisor role overload on abusive supervision 0.14 0.04 0.07 0.23
Effect SE z
Normal theory tests for indirect effect 0.14 0.03 3.93**
Note: N = 190. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5000.LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval;
UL = upper limit.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 3. Neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness: regression results for overall model.
Outcome: supervisor frustration B SE t R2
.38
Constant 0.05 0.45 0.11
Supervisor neuroticism 0.31 0.10 3.23**
Supervisor Role Overload × Neuroticism 0.12 0.05 2.42*
Age 0.01 0.01 0.69
Sex 0.13 0.18 0.71
Outcome: abusive supervision
.47
Constant 0.81 0.35 2.28*
Supervisor frustration 0.24 0.06 4.42**
Supervisor conscientiousness .10 0.10 0.94
Supervisor agreeableness 0.30 0.10 2.98**
Supervisor Frustration × Conscientiousness 0.01 0.07 0.10
Supervisor Frustration × Agreeableness 0.33 0.07 4.82**
Age 0.01 0.01 1.10
Sex 0.23 0.14 1.62
Note: N = 190. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5000.
*p < .05 level (two-tailed); **p < .01 level (two-tailed).
Tests of moderated mediation
As discussed earlier, the entire hypothesized model was tested using the SPSS macro created by Hayes (2013) by inte-
grating all of the study variables concurrently into the model. The findings for Hypotheses 4–6 are presented in Tables 3
and 4. Consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 2, supervisor role overload was positively associated with supervisor frustra-
tion (B = 0.40, t = 6.37, p < .01), and supervisor frustration was positively associated with abusive supervision
(B = 0.24, t = 4.42, p < .01). The results from Table 3 also indicate that neuroticism (B = 0.12, t = 2.42, p < .05) moder-
ated the association between supervisor role overload and supervisor frustration. As expected, the association was
stronger for supervisors who were higher in neuroticism. Hence, Hypothesis 4 was supported. However, results show
that conscientiousness (t = 0.10, ns) did not moderate the association between supervisor frustration and abusive su-
pervision, and thus, Hypothesis 5a was not supported. Conversely, results show that agreeableness (B = 0.33,
t = 4.82, p < .01) did moderate the association between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision. As expected,
the association was weaker for supervisors who were higher in agreeableness. Hence, Hypothesis 5b was supported.2
To provide further evidence for the moderating effects of both neuroticism and agreeableness, the simple slopes for
these moderators were plotted (Figures 2 and 3) at 1 SD below the mean, at the mean, and at 1 SD above the mean.
As indicated in Figures 2 and 3, the slope of the association between supervisor role overload and supervisor frustration
was stronger for supervisors higher in neuroticism (t = 6.23, p < .01) but weaker for those lower in neuroticism (t = 3.30,
p < .01). Furthermore, the slope of the association between supervisor frustration and abusive supervision was stronger
for supervisors lower in agreeableness (t = 6.47, p < .01) but weaker for those higher in agreeableness (t = 0.50, ns).
Finally, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness were examined across three levels (at 1 SD above
the mean, at the mean, and at 1 SD below the mean) to investigate the conditional indirect effects of supervisor
role overload on abusive supervision via supervisor frustration. The sample results from the conditional indirect
2
When conscientiousness and agreeableness were tested separately along the same path, each of them emerged as a significant moderator, (B = -
.19, t = -2.40, p < .05) and (B = -.34, t = -5.04, p < .01) respectively.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 4. Moderated-mediation results across levels of supervisor neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness.
Boot indirect Boot Boot LL Boot UL
Mediator Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeableness effect SE CI CI
Conditional indirect effects at M ± 1 SD

Frustration 1 SD +1 SD +1 SD 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
Frustration M M M 0.10 0.03 0.05 0.16
Frustration +1 SD 1 SD 1 SD 0.29 0.07 0.16 0.44
Note: N = 190. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. Range of values represents an abbreviated ver-
sion of the output produced by the SPSS macro.LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit.
Figure 2. Interaction of supervisor role overload and neuroticism on supervisor frustration
effects are presented in Table 4. As indicated, the conditional indirect effect at the mean level of the moderators
is significantly different from zero (B = 0.10, 95% CI [0.05, 0.16]). As predicted, the conditional indirect effect
of supervisor role overload on abusive supervision via supervisor frustration becomes stronger at higher levels
(+1 SD) of neuroticism and at lower levels ( 1 SD) of both conscientiousness and agreeableness (B = 0.40,
95% CI [0.66, 0.44]). Furthermore, the conditional indirect effect of supervisor role overload on abusive super-
vision via supervisor frustration becomes weaker and nonsignificant at lower levels of neuroticism ( 1 SD) and
at higher levels (+1 SD) of both conscientiousness and agreeableness (B = 0.01, 95% CI [ 0.03, 0.02]). As
such, Hypothesis 6 was fully supported.
Discussion
Drawing upon AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), the purpose of the current study was to develop and test a model
of supervisor-level antecedents of abusive supervision in the workplace. As predicted, our findings were consistent
with the hypothesized model. Specifically, the findings revealed that supervisor role overload provoked supervisor
frustration, which in turn triggered supervisor behaviors that were perceived as abusive. In this vein, the impact of
supervisor role overload on abusive supervision was instigated through supervisor frustration. On the basis of AET,
the current study also examined supervisor personality traits as supervisor-level moderators at multiple points along
DOI: 10.1002/job
7.0
6.0
Abusive Supervision
5.0 Agreeableness
-1 SD
4.0
Mean
3.0 +1 SD
2.0
1.0
0.0
Low High
Supervisor Frustration
Figure 3. Interaction of supervisor frustration and agreeableness on abusive supervision
the mediational path between role overload and abusive supervision. The findings demonstrated that neuroticism
strengthened the relationship between role overload and frustration, while agreeableness weakened the relationship
between frustration and abusive supervision. The findings also revealed that supervisor personality traits together
conditionally moderated the indirect effect of supervisor role overload on abusive supervision (via supervisor
frustration). As predicted, the mediated relationship was stronger when neuroticism was high and when conscien-
tiousness and agreeableness were low. Hence, the current study confirms that various levels of supervisor personal-
ity traits may capture differences in supervisors’ emotional and behavioral reactions to certain work events and
emotions.
The findings of the current study advance the organizational behavior literature in several ways. First, as previ-
ously discussed, research on abusive supervision has largely focused on examining the consequences of these abu-
sive behaviors. Only recently has research on abusive supervision begun to examine the “left side of the equation”
and explore sources of such abuse. Despite some progress, the literature on antecedents of abusive supervision still
lacks a strong theoretical framework that addresses and answers the question of what initially activates employees’
perceptions of abusive supervision. Accordingly, we sought to advance the emerging research on abusive supervi-
sion by exploring proximal (frustration) and distal (role overload) antecedents and, consequently, outline how cer-
tain affective events and emotions may lead to perceptions of abusive supervision.
A second related contribution is the examination of antecedents of abusive supervision through the theoretical
lens of AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). By applying AET to the abusive supervision research, our model explic-
itly explains the process by which certain work events are likely to induce abusive supervision by highlighting the
role that emotions play in this process. Our findings were consistent with the hypothesized model in that supervisors
who endured role overload were inclined to experience increased frustration, which, subsequently, elicited behaviors
directed toward employees who perceived them to be abusive. As such, in addition to being one of the first studies to
introduce AET to the research on abusive supervision, we sought to extend AET by (a) more specifically measuring
negative emotions, in our case examining supervisor frustration; (b) examining a distinctive behavioral outcome that
is concerning current scholars and practitioners (i.e., abusive supervision); and (c) including a distinct situational an-
tecedent, namely, supervisor role overload.
The current study also contributes to the literature by examining supervisor-level moderators as antecedents of
abusive supervision. Specifically, we argued and found support for the notion that supervisor personality traits influ-
enced the process at multiple points along the mediational path from role overload to abusive supervision. The in-
clusion of personality traits as moderators in examining antecedents was crucial given that the literature on abusive
supervision has generally overlooked the role that personality may play in exploring antecedents (Tepper, 2007). As
DOI: 10.1002/job
noted by Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, and Tang (2010), “models predicting the antecedents of abusive
supervision may be underspecified to the extent that they fail to account for perpetrator dispositions” (p. 517). Ac-
cordingly, and in line with recent reflections regarding the AET framework process (e.g., Weiss & Beal, 2005; Weiss
& Kurek, 2003), the findings of the study demonstrated that the intensity of frustration that resulted from role over-
load was influenced by supervisor levels of neuroticism and that the likelihood of supervisor frustration triggering
abusive behaviors was influenced by supervisor levels of agreeableness. Also, the indirect effect of supervisor role
overload on abusive supervision via frustration was stronger at higher levels of neuroticism and lower levels of con-
scientiousness and agreeableness. Notably, this theoretical contribution is also distinct to AET and extends this
framework by examining whether personality influences the strength of the full process among events, emotions,
and behaviors.
Beyond the theoretical advancements to the abusive supervision research, the current study also extends the liter-
ature on emotions by affirming that certain work situations may act as negative affective events (e.g., role overload)
and that these events are likely to induce negative emotional reactions (e.g., frustration). Subsequently, this is likely
to provoke negative behavioral reactions (e.g., abuse). Although prior research has found evidence that negative af-
fective events are likely to contribute to aggression or counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., Rodell & Judge,
2009; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009), the direct link that connects these events and emotions to abusive supervision
in the workplace is still limited (cf. Mawritz, Folger and Latham, 2014). Hence, the findings of the current study
represent a theoretical contribution to the research on emotions by demonstrating support for the hypothesized
relationships.
Practical implications
It is now generally accepted that abusive supervision is destructive to the organization and its members given the
abundance of evidence of the costly consequences of abusive supervision in the workplace (Mackey et al., 2015;
Martinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007). Therefore, it is essential for organizations and their decision makers to under-
stand what triggers supervisors to behave in a way that leads subordinates to perceive such abuse. While abusive
supervision may be triggered by many factors such as psychological contract violation or perceptions of injustice
(Aryee et al., 2007; Hoobler & Brass, 2006), the findings of the current study provide additional insight by identi-
fying supervisor role overload and work frustration as possible sources for provoking abusive supervision. In this
vein, organizations and their decision makers must carefully observe the allotted workload given to supervisors as
well as cautiously monitor the negative emotional reactions that may subsequently arise.
To reduce the likelihood that employees perceive that they are receiving excessive burdens beyond a general in-
crease in workload that the whole organization is experiencing, it is important that top management is transparent
and clearly communicates how the allocation of assignments is being made and how that process includes inten-
tional efforts to ensure that everyone is being treated fairly. If supervisors understand that they are not alone in their
experience of role overload, they should be less likely to interact with colleagues and/or direct reports in ways that
are perceived as abusive. While certain negative work events or emotions may be inevitable, organizations and their
decision makers could also benefit from implementing employee assistance programs that could offer support to em-
ployees in their efforts to effectively handle challenging workplace situations. Furthermore, organizations may want
to consider proactively offering supervisory training programs that provide direction on successfully managing ad-
verse work experiences in order to avoid the potential consequences (such as abusive behaviors) that may ultimately
result in response to such work situations as indicated by the findings of this study.
Additionally, while there is some research evidence suggesting that neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agree-
ableness may be directly associated with aggression and aggressive behaviors (e.g., Barlett & Anderson, 2012; Brees
et al., 2014), the current findings suggest that organizations may gain added benefits from recruiting and selecting
individuals who are low in neuroticism and high in conscientiousness and agreeableness. For example, as revealed
by the results, individuals with these personality traits handled negative work events and emotions more
DOI: 10.1002/job
productively. In other words, they were better able to regulate their emotional reactions to negative affective events
and avoided behaving in ways that could be perceived as abusive by their employees.
Limitations and future research directions
As with every study, the current one has a number of limitations. First, the data collected in this study is cross-
sectional. This limitation does now allow for making inferences about the causality among the study variables as
presented in our hypothesized model. To fully address this limitation, future research should consider utilizing var-
ious research designs (e.g., temporal or longitudinal designs), which could provide further support for the predictive
validity of the current study (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).
Second, the study’s theoretical foundation was based on the AET, which provided support for the sequence of
the relationships presented in the study (viz., supervisor role overload to frustration to abusive supervision).
However, this does not eliminate the fact that there may be other alternative explanations for the hypothesized
relationships in our model. Indeed, other theories may provide alternative explanations to the relationships the-
orized. Two examples would include the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and the transactional
stress model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The conservation of resources theory suggests that demanding situa-
tions are likely to consume personal resources, resulting in stress as well as negative behavioral or attitudinal
reactions to stress. Likewise, the transactional stress model posits that workplace demands that surpass personal
resources are likely to contribute to stress and to subsequent negative behavioral outcomes. As such, while the
hypothesized model in the current study was examined by applying the AET, future research would also benefit
from drawing upon other plausible and well-documented theories in an effort to provide further support for our
model or discover alternative explanations (or mechanisms) for understanding the relationships among the vari-
ables presented in this study.
Third, as noted by Mawritz, Folger, and Latham (2014), given that some leadership studies explore leadership at
the group level as opposed to the individual level, the subordinate–supervisor dyads used in this study may serve as a
limitation. Indeed, these authors have noted that recent research suggests that leaders’ behaviors may not be typically
directed toward one specific subordinate but rather toward an entire work group. In particular, Mawritz and her col-
leagues stated that “employees working in the same work group are likely to be influenced by similar leadership be-
haviors, suggesting that leadership behaviors operate at the group level” (p. 368). Thus, leadership research,
including research on abusive supervision, should examine these relationships at the group level to see if they would
be generalizable across various levels.
Future research efforts could also benefit from investigating additional supervisor-level antecedents of abusive su-
pervision (e.g., Martinko et al., 2013). This study demonstrates support for the notion that supervisor role overload
and supervisor frustration serve as possible antecedents of abusive supervision. Future research, however, could ben-
efit from investigating other affective work events such as role conflict, role ambiguity, or autonomy and other neg-
ative emotions such as fear, shame, or guilt, all of which could possibly trigger and contribute to abusive supervision
in the workplace.
One of the most fruitful areas for future research may be expanding the realm of moderators that impact the hy-
pothesized process model of abusive supervision in this study. Specifically, there are three major categories of sit-
uational variables that could impact the hypothesized relationships: (1) aspects of the supervisor’s personality, (2)
aspects of the subordinate’s personality, and (3) aspects of the organizational context such as the pervading culture
in the organization. The current study provides an initial examination of the role of supervisor personality. A previ-
ous study by Henle and Gross (2014) explored the role of subordinate personality. For example, the authors have
found that subordinates’ personality traits influenced whether they perceived their supervisors as abusive. To our
knowledge, no study has investigated organizational context variables as moderators. We expect that contextual var-
iables that relate to resources may be particularly promising in terms of advancing this field. For example, variables
such as current equipment or technology, support from top management, company-sponsored training, and flexible
DOI: 10.1002/job
work schedules may potentially influence the likelihood that role overload would lead to supervisor frustration and
ultimately behavioral reactions that are detrimental to subordinates as well as the organization as a whole.
Conclusion
Given the costly effects that abusive supervision has on the organization and its members (Tepper, 2007), it is vital
for organizational behavior research to begin to fully understand and investigate what makes leaders exhibit such
behaviors and under what conditions they are likely to do so. The current study contributes to the emerging body
of research examining antecedents of abusive supervision by proposing and testing a moderated-mediation process
model that was based on AET. We hope that the current investigation of the processes underlying abusive supervi-
sion will spark further theorizing and empirical testing in this field. It is easy to lead when one is content; it is much
harder to lead when one is frustrated or overwhelmed. The more understanding we can gain regarding what leads
supervisors down the path to abusive behaviors and what can be done to help them avoid this path, the more effec-
tive organizations will become.
Author biographies
Gabi Eissa is an Assistant Professor of Management in the College of Business at the University of Wisconsin–Eau
Claire. His primary research interests include behavioral ethics, leadership, and counterproductive workplace behav-
iors. Dr. Eissa has published articles that appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology and Journal of
Management.
Scott W. Lester is a Professor of Management at the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire. His research interests in-
clude understanding generational differences and similarities, dyadic trust, and service learning. Dr. Lester’s re-
search has appeared in Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Journal of
Management.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage
Publications, Inc.
American Psychological Association. (2015). Coping with stress at work. Retrieved August 10, 2015 from American Psycholog-
ical Association: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/work-stress.aspx
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L.-Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-
down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201.
Baer, M. D., Dhensa-Kahlon, R. K., Colquitt, J. A., Rodell, J. B., Outlaw, R., & Long, D. M. (2015). Uneasy lies the head that
bears the trust: The effects of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1637–1657.
Barlett, C. P., & Anderson, C. A. (2012). Direct and indirect relations between the Big 5 personality traits and aggressive and
violent behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 870–875.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (2000). Affective events–emotions matrix: A classification of work events and associated emotions. In
N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory and practice (pp. 33–48).
Westport: Quorum Books, Greenwood Publishing Group.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. (1976). Relationships of stress to individually and organizationally valued states:
Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 41–47.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration–aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59–73.
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 69, 890–902.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initia-
tive and role overload, job stress, and work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740–748.
Brees, J., Mackey, J., Martinko, M., & Harvey, P. (2014). The mediating role of perceptions of abusive supervision in the rela-
tionship between personality and aggression. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21, 403–413.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. In S. T. Fiske (Ed.), Annual review of
psychology (Vol. 53, pp. 279–307). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Brown, S. P., Jones, E., & Leigh, T. W. (2005). The attenuating effect of role overload on relationships linking self-efficacy and
goal level to work performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 972–979.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Carlson, D., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., Ferguson, M., & Whitten, D. (2011). Work–family enrichment and job performance: A
constructive replication of affective events theory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 297–312.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An
exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177–184.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions
of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599–609.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams:
A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 945–958.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive mod-
erators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 110–127.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 55, 258–265.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor (NEO-FFI) Inven-
tory Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dembroski, T. M. (1989). Agreeableness versus antagonism: Explication of a potential risk factor
for CHD. In A. W. Siegman, & T. M. Dembroski (Eds.), In search of coronary-prone behavior: Beyond type A. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cullen, M., & Sackett, P. (2003). Personality and counterproductive workplace behavior. In M. Barrick, & A. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations. New York: Jossey-Bass-Pfeiffer.
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. Oxford, England: Yale University.
Eaton, W. H. (1952). Hypotheses related to worker frustration. The Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 59–68.
Eysenck, H. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Fisher, D. M. (2014). A multilevel cross-cultural examination of role overload and organizational commitment: Investigating the
interactive effects of context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 723–736.
Fortunato, V. J., Jex, S. M., & Heinish, D. A. (1999). An examination of the discriminant validity of the Strain-Free Negative
Affectivity scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 503–522.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration–aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and orga-
nizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59,
291–309.
Garcia, P. R. J. M., Wang, L., Lu, V., Kiazad, K., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2015). When victims become culprits: The role of sub-
ordinates’ neuroticism in the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Personality and Individual
Differences, 72, 225–229.
Glazer, S., & Beehr, T. A. (2005). Consistency of implications of three role stressors across four countries. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 26, 467–487.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the
moderating roles of core self-evaluations and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 343–359.
Gryna, F. M. (2004). Work overload: Redesigning jobs to minimize stress and burnout. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Hamann, D. J., & Foster, N. T. (2014). An exploration of job demands, job control, stress, and attitudes in public, nonprofit, and
for-profit employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34, 332–355.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and
the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 252–263.
Harvey, P., & Harris, K. J. (2010). Frustration-based outcomes of entitlement and the influence of supervisor communication.
Human Relations, 63, 1639–1660.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.
New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Henle, C., & Gross, M. (2014). What have I done to deserve this? Effects of employee personality and emotion on abusive su-
pervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 461–474.
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., Arnold, K. A., … Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting work-
place aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 1125–1133.
Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M. D., DeRue, D. S., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). When can employees have a
family life? The effects of daily workload and affect on work–family conflict and social behaviors at home. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 5, 1368–1379.
Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual
patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 561–575.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Person-
ality, 69, 323–362.
Jex, S. M., & Elacqua, T. C. (1999). Self-esteem as a moderator: A comparison of global and organization-based measures. Jour-
nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 71–81.
Judge, T., Hulin, C., & Dalal, R. (2011). Job satisfaction and job affect. In S. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138.
Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian
leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory be-
havior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 512–519.
Kiefer, T. (2005). Feeling bad: Antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing change. Journal of Organiza-
Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2015). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review.
Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206315573997.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organiza-
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011). Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’
attribution styles. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 751–764.
Mawritz, M. B., Dust, S. B., & Resick, C. J. (2014). Hostile climate, abusive supervision, and employee coping: Does conscien-
tiousness matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 737–747.
Mawritz, M. B., Folger, R., & Latham, G. P. (2014). Supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals and abusive supervision: The me-
diating effects of hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 358–372.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of per-
sonality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587–597.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative
reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2012). Employees’ behavioral reactions to supervisor aggression: An examination of indi-
vidual and situational factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1148–1170.
Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 533–540.
Ohly, S., & Schmitt, A. (2015). What makes us enthusiastic, angry, feeling at rest or worried? Development and validation of an
affective work events taxonomy using concept mapping methodology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 15–35.
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 680–693.
Peters, L. H., O’Connor, E. J., & Rudolf, C. J. (1980). The behavioral and affective consequences of performance-relevant situ-
ational variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 79–96.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and pre-
scriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.
Reio, T. G. Jr. (2011). Supervisor and coworker incivility: Testing the work frustration–aggression model. Advances in Develop-
ing Human Resources, 13, 54–68.
Restubog, S. L. D., Scott, K. L., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2011). When distress hits home: The role of contextual factors and psycho-
logical distress in predicting employees’ responses to abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 713–729.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 15, 150–163.
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of chal-
lenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1438–1451.
Royal, M., & Agnew, T. (2011). The enemy of engagement: Put an end to workplace frustration and get the most from your em-
ployees. New York: AMACOM.
Salgado, J. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 10, 117–125.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal
inference. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 31, 815–829.
Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial
behavior in organizations (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterpro-
ductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 269–292.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor–emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector
(Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., & Domagalski, T. (2006). Emotions, violence and counterproductive work behavior. In E. K. Kelloway, J.
Barling & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 29–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at
work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.
Spector, P. E., & O’Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of personality traits, negative affectivity, locus of control and type A
to the subsequent reports of job stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 1–12.
Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioural reactions: The mod-
erating effect of locus of control. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 227–234.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management,
33, 261–289.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationships between coworkers’ organiza-
tional citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455–465.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dis-
similarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 279–294.
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abu-
sive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 108, 79–92.
Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G. (2000). Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to con-
trol emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 656–669.
Walter, F., Lam, C. K., van der Vegt, G. S., Huang, X., & Miao, Q. (2015). Abusive supervision and subordinate performance:
Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology,
100, 1056–1072.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical
leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286.
Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford.
Weiss, H. M., & Beal, D. J. (2005). Reflections on affective events theory. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe & C. E. J. Härtel
(Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 1–22). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and conse-
quences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior:
An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Weiss, H. M., & Kurek, K. E. (2003). Dispositional influences on affective experiences at work. In M. R. Barrick, & A. M. Ryan
(Eds.), Personality and work (pp. 121–149). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Whinghter, L. J., Cunningham, C. J. L., Wang, M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2008). The moderating role of goal orientation in the
workload–frustration relationship. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 283–291.
Wu, T. Y., & Hu, C. (2009). Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents and boundaries.
Group & Organization Management, 34, 143–169.
Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational
antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62, 259–295.
DOI: 10.1002/job

RM4 - 2 MGT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

RM4 - 2 MGT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RM4 - 2 MGT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.

Received 19 February 2015

Theoretical Rationale and Hypotheses

Affective events theory

Supervisor role overload and frustration

Figure 1. Hypothesized model

Supervisor frustration and abusive supervision

Supervisor Personality Traits as Moderators

Role overload and frustration: the role of neuroticism

Frustration and abusive supervision: the role of conscientiousness and agreeableness

Sample and procedure

Neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and study variable intercorrelations.

1. Age 42.87 12.20 —

Table 2. Regression results for simple mediation.

Tests of moderated mediation

Conditional indirect effects at M ± 1 SD

Figure 2. Interaction of supervisor role overload and neuroticism on supervisor frustration

Figure 3. Interaction of supervisor frustration and agreeableness on abusive supervision

Limitations and future research directions

You might also like