Abusive Supervision as a Social Phenomenon: Causes and Coping Strategies

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The paper analyzes the phenomenon of abusive supervision (AS) in Russian organizations. The study is based on semi-structured in-depth interviews and a standardized survey of employees. The analysis demonstrates that half of the respondents had encountered various manifestations of AS at their current or previous jobs. The imbalance of power relations at workplace, employee’s socio-economic dependence on a supervisor are the core conditions of AS. Factor analysis results reveal 4 behavioral strategies of employees faced with AS – “neglect”, “exit”, “balance of power” and “loyalty”. A most effective strategy to reduce the manifestations of AS, according to respondents, was the “balance of power” strategy involving employees’ individual value enhancement and coalition formation.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Evgeniya S. Balabanova

HSE University

Author for correspondence.
Email: balabanova@hse.ru

Dr. Sci. (Sociol.), Prof.

Russian Federation, Moscow

Ksenia I. Danilova

HSE University

Email: xenia.danmsc@yandex.ru

Mast. (Sociol.)

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Балабанова Е. С., Боровик М. Э., Деминская В. Э. «Враждебное» поведение руководителя: проявления, предпосылки и последствия // Российский журнал менеджмента. 2018. Т. 16. № 3. С. 309– 336. [Balabanova E. S., Borovik M. E., Deminskaya V. E. (2018) Abusive Supervision: Manifestations, Antecedents, and Consequences. Rossijskij zhurnal menedzhmenta [Russian Management Journal]. Vol. 16. No. 3: 309–336. (In Russ.)]
  2. Балабанова Е. С., Портнягина А. А. Феномен фаворитизма в российских организациях: предпосылки формирования и результаты // Социологические исследования. 2023. № 2. С. 16–27. [Balabanova E. S., Portnyagina A. A. (2023) Favoritism in Russian organizations: antecedents and consequences. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. No. 2: 16–27. (In Russ.)]
  3. Гофман И. Представление себя другим в повседневной жизни / Пер. с англ. и вступ. статья А. Д. Ковалева. М.: КАНОН-пресс-Ц, Кучково поле, 2000. [Goffman E. (2000) The presentation of self in everyday life. Transl. from Eng. and introd. art. by A. D. Kovalev. Moscow: KANON-press-Ts, Kuchkovo Pole. (In Russ.)]
  4. Лобова С. В. Прекаризация занятости научно-педагогических работников вузов: содержание и последствия // Экономическое развитие региона: управление, инновации, подготовка кадров. 2019. № 6. С. 243–259. [Lobova S. V. (2019) Precarious Work of Scientific and Pedagogical Workers: Contents and Consequences. Jekonomicheskoe razvitie regiona: upravlenie, innovacii, podgotovka kadrov [Economic Development of the Region: Management, Innovations, personnel Training]. No. 6: 243–259. (In Russ.)]
  5. Хиршман А. О. Выход, голос и верность: реакция на упадок фирм, организаций и государств / Пер. с англ. Б. Пинскера. М.: Ф-д «Либеральная миссия», 2009. [Hirschman A. O. (2009) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Transl. from Eng. by B. Pinsker. Moscow: F-d “Liberalnaya Missiya”. (In Russ.)]
  6. Эфендиев А. Г., Балабанова Е. С. Социальная организация российского бизнеса: теоретико-методологические подходы и их реализация в эмпирическом исследовании // Социологические исследования. 2012. № 5. С. 58–69. [Efendiev A. G., Balabanova E. S. (2012) Social organization of Russian business: Theoretical and methodological approaches and their realization in the empirical study. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. No. 5: 58–68. (In Russ.)]
  7. Chen C., Qin X. et al. (2021) Entering an upward spiral: Investigating how and when supervisors’ talking about abuse leads to subsequent abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 42. No. 3: 407–428.
  8. Emerson R. M. (1962) Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review. Vol. 27. No. 1: 31–41.
  9. Farrell D. (1983) Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 26. No. 4: 596–607.
  10. Homans G. C. (1958) Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 63. No. 6: 597–606.
  11. Lian H., Ferris D. L. et al. (2014) Blame it on the supervisor or the subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational deviance. Journal of applied psychology. Vol. 99. No. 4: 651–664.
  12. Liang L., Coulombe C. et al. (2022) License to retaliate: Good deeds as a moral license for misdeeds in reaction to abusive supervision. Human Performance. Vol. 35. No. 2: 94–112.
  13. Mawritz M. B., Mayer D. M. et al. (2012) A trickle‐down model of abusive supervision. Personnel psychology. Vol. 65. No. 2: 325–357.
  14. Starratt A., Grandy G. (2010) Young workers’ experiences of abusive leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Vol. 31. No. 2: 136–158.
  15. Sturm R., Antonakis J. (2015) Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management. Vol. 41. No. 1: 136–163.
  16. Tepper B. J. (2000) Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 43. No. 2: 178–190.
  17. Tepper B. J., Simon L., Park H. M. (2017) Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. Vol. 4: 123–152.
  18. Wee E. X., Liao H. et al. (2017) Moving from abuse to reconciliation: A power-dependence perspective on when and how a follower can break the spiral of abuse. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 60. No. 6: 2352–2380.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences