Multilevel Consequences

Journal of Applied Psychology
2014, Vol. 99, No. 6, 1074 1095
2014 American Psychological Association

0021-9010/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037636
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Beyond the Individual Victim: Multilevel Consequences of Abusive

Supervision in Teams
Crystal I. C. Farh
Zhijun Chen
Michigan State University
University of Western Australia
We conceptualize a multilevel framework that examines the manifestation of abusive supervision in team
settings and its implications for the team and individual members. Drawing on Hackmans (1992)
typology of ambient and discretionary team stimuli, our model features team-level abusive supervision
(the average level of abuse reported by team members) and individual-level abusive supervision as
simultaneous and interacting forces. We further draw on team-relevant theories of social influence to
delineate two proximal outcomes of abusemembers organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) at the
individual level and relationship conflict at the team levelthat channel the independent and interactive
effects of individual- and team-level abuse onto team members voice, team-role performance, and
turnover intentions. Results from a field study and a scenario study provided support for these multilevel
pathways. We conclude that abusive supervision in team settings holds toxic consequences for the team
and individual, and offer practical implications as well as suggestions for future research on abusive
supervision as a multilevel phenomenon.
Keywords: abusive supervision, teamwork behavior, multilevel, teams
first examines group-level abusive supervision as aggregated perceptions of abuse attributed to a common leader by members of the
same group. Research has linked this aggregate construct to collective problem drinking, counterproductive behaviors, and deviance (Bamberger & Bacharach, 2006; Detert, Trevio, Burris, &
Andiappan, 2007; Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova,
2012; Ogunfowora, 2013). A second approach examines the experience of individual victims of abuse in the presence of grouplevel abuse. This research has shown that higher or lower levels of
aggregated abuse in the group modify the way individuals interpret
and respond to their own individualized experiences of abuse (e.g.,
Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon, 2006a; Duffy, Shaw,
Scott, & Tepper, 2006; Hannah et al., 2013; Peng, Schaubroeck, &
Li, 2013). Together, existing frameworks imply that abuse resides
and exerts consequences at the individual and group levels of
analysis simultaneously.
To inform understanding of abusive supervision in team settings, however, existing approaches remain limited in three aspects. First, much of prior research has relied on individual-level
theories such as justice (Bies & Moag, 1986), social exchange
(Blau, 1964), and stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) to explain
group-level consequences of abuse (e.g., Detert et al., 2007).
While these theories may appropriately generalize to a group of
independent members, they do not account for the heightened
interdependence inherent to teams (Guzzo & Shea, 1992) or how
abusive supervision occurring in team settings can produce shared
ways of thinking and acting among its members (Hackman, 1992).
There is thus a need to employ team-relevant theories and processes to adequately assess team-relevant consequences of abuse.
Supporting this idea, a recent study (Priesemuth, Schminke, Ambrose, & Folger, 2013) showed preliminary evidence that shared
perceptions of abuse can shape shared team cognitions like team
efficacy and identification; however, research is needed to under-
Defined as the extent to which supervisors engage in the

sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact (Tepper, 2000, p. 178), abusive supervision has received increasing attention from scholars and practitioners due to its prevalence and detrimental impact in the
workplace. To date, research has linked abusive supervision to
victims decreased organizational commitment, job performance,
and citizenship behavior, as well as increased psychological distress, counterproductive behaviors, deviance, and turnover (e.g.,
reviewed in Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013; Tepper,
2007). Although the majority of this work has focused on the
consequences of abuse for targeted victims, more recent research
has begun to examine the effects of abuse on individuals residing
in interdependent team contexts. Particularly as modern organizations are increasingly team based, there is a need to understand
how abuse is manifested in team settings, its implications for the
team, and its impact on members cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors toward the team.
Relevant to this question, two streams of research have investigated the effects of abusive supervision in group settings. The
This article was published Online First August 11, 2014.

Crystal I. C. Farh, College of Business, Michigan State University;
Zhijun Chen, Business School, University of Western Australia.
We thank Mo Wang for his valuable and constructive guidance in the
review process. We also owe gratitude to Larry Farh, Russ Johnson, John
Schaubroeck, Huiwen Lian, and Jian Liang for their developmental comments on earlier versions of this article. Finally, we thank Michael Howe
for his assistance with data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Crystal
I. C. Farh, College of Business, Michigan State University, 632 Bogue
Street, N475, East Lansing, MI 48824. E-mail: farh@broad.msu.edu
1074
ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS
stand how abusive supervision in team settings fundamentally

alters the social and behavioral fabric of the team.
Team-relevant theories are also needed to explain the effects of
abuse on individual team members responses toward the team.
Ironically, although much research has examined individualized
experiences of abuse in group settings (e.g., Duffy, Ganster, et al.,
2006; Hannah et al., 2013; Peng et al., 2013), this work has
focused primarily on individuals responses toward the abusive
leader or organization (e.g., deviance, counterproductive behaviors, retaliation; reviewed in Martinko et al., 2013), none of which
capture responses relating to the team itself. There is thus a need
to clarify the individualteam interface and specify how individualized experiences of abuse in team settings shape members
team-relevant cognitions (e.g., perceptions of self-concept in the
team), attitudes (e.g., willingness to stay in the team), and behaviors (e.g., proactive and teamwork actions). Because these teamrelevant responses constitute important ways that members contribute to overall team functioning (G. Chen, Sharma, Edinger,
Shapiro, & Farh, 2011; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008),
examining them as consequences enables us to understand the
microprocesses of how abuse in team settings potentially harms
team effectiveness. Relatedly, as prior research has focused primarily on the experiences of targeted victims in group settings,
new theory is needed to assess ways that nontargeted members
may be affected, simply by being a part of an abusive team
environment.
Finally, much of prior research has taken a piecemeal approach
to examining the effects of abuse in team settings, focusing on
individual consequences while ignoring the impact of aggregated
abuse on the team (e.g., Peng et al., 2013), or focusing on grouplevel consequences while ignoring individual differences in experience among its members (e.g., Priesemuth et al., 2013). This
approach is unfortunate because it precludes us from knowing how
individual- versus team-level consequences of abuse differ from
each other, or how their respective pathways interact to simultaneously impact the team as well as the individuals that compose it.
There is thus a need for a new framework that better reflects the
multilevel reality of leadership influences on team systems (G.
Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Hackman, 1992), and draws on teamrelevant theories to specify the unique pathways and dual-level
mechanisms linking individual- and team-level abuse to members
responses to the team. Absent such a framework, scholars and
practitioners may grossly underestimate the broader costs of abuse
for the collective and the individuals residing in it.
In view of these needs, our objective is to delineate and test a
multilevel model of abusive supervision in teams. Drawing on
Hackmans (1992) typology of ambient and discretionary team
stimuli, we feature team-level abusive supervision (the average
level of abuse reported by team members) and individual-level
abusive supervision and as dual-level inputs to the teams social
system, and further draw on multilevel theories of leadership (G.
Chen & Kanfer, 2006) to delineate individual-, cross-, and teamlevel pathways by which individual- and team-level abuse affects
members team-relevant cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. We
then integrate across theories of social influence in teamsthe
group-value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), social learning theory
(Bandura, 1971), and social comparison theory (Festinger,
1954)to specify members organization-based self-esteem
1075
(OBSE) and team relationship conflict as dual-level mediators

linking individual- and team-level abuse to members outcomes.
Our model contributes to the abusive supervision literature in
three ways. First, we shed light on the multilevel nature of abuse
in teams by demonstrating it to be an individual- and team-level
input into the teams social system. Second, we identify unique
individual-, team-, and cross-level pathways by which abusive
supervision affects teams, and introduce member OBSE and team
relationship conflict as new proximal outcomes in team settings.
Finally, we link abusive supervision to members team-relevant
cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors, thereby illuminating a tripartite of microprocesses through which abuse potentially harms team
effectiveness. Together, our framework addresses calls to better
understand abusive supervision as a multilevel phenomenon (Tepper, 2007), expand the realm of theories delineating consequences
of abuse (Martinko et al., 2013), and uncover new mechanisms and
consequences of abuse at both the team and individual levels of
analysis (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007).
Theory and Hypotheses

Overall Framework
In accordance with multilevel leadership theories in teams (G.
Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Hackman, 1992), we conceptualize abusive
supervision in team settings as both discretionary and ambient in
nature. As a discretionary input, individual-level abuse reflects
the degree of targeted abuse perceived by an individual member,
whereas team-level abuse (an ambient input) reflects the overall,
aggregated levels of abuse perceived by members of the team.
Discretionary inputs are thought to create individualized experiences and explain why members of the same team may exhibit
differential cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. In contrast, ambient inputs shape elements of the teams social universe, affecting
all members belonging to that system, regardless of discretionary
treatment. Multilevel leadership theories model discretionary and
ambient inputs as parallel forces affecting proximal outcomes at
the individual and team levels of analysis (e.g., G. Chen, Kirkman,
Kanfer, & Allen, 2007), and as forces that intersect, such that
ambient inputs (and their proximal outcomes) exert top-down,
cross-level influences on how individual members experience and
respond to discretionary treatment (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Prior research also indicates that individual- and team-level leader
influences on the team are distinct (Liao & Chuang, 2007)for
instance, discretionary treatment by the leader is thought to influence members attitudes and behaviors by altering their selfconcept (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), whereas ambient treatment is thought to transform the teams shared ways of thinking
and interacting (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001).
Together, multilevel leadership theories indicate that a multilevel framework for abusive supervision should consist of
individual-, cross-, and team-level pathways, each explained by
differential theoretical mechanisms. Within this multilevel infrastructure, we turn to three social influence theories of teams each
of which is well positioned to inform the pathways in our framework. Consistent with the self-concept model of discretionary
leader treatment, we first draw on the group-value model (Lind &
Tyler, 1988) to delineate the individual-level pathway. The groupvalue model explains how individualized leader treatment signals
FARH AND CHEN
1076
a given members self-concept in relation to the team. In particular, we propose that individualized abuse negatively affects members perceptions of their self-worth and standing in the teamthat
is, their OBSE (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989).
To supplement the group-value model and delineate cross-level
effects, we draw on social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) to
assess how team-level abusive supervisionan indicator of how
comparable others are treated exerts top-down moderating influences on these self-concept processes. Finally, we rely on social
learning theory (Bandura, 1971) to delineate the team-level pathway because it explains why exposure to ambient abuse infects the
social system of the team. In particular, we propose that social
learning mechanisms facilitate the translation of ambient abuse
into laterally dysfunctional interpersonal interactionsthat is,
team relationship conflict (Jehn, 1995). Integration of the groupvalue, social comparison, and social learning theories within a
multilevel leadership infrastructure informs the unique mechanisms along each pathway and enables a more complete understanding of the effects of abuse in teams beyond any one theory
alone (K. J. Mayer & Sparrowe, 2013).
Beyond specifying member OBSE and team relationship conflict as proximal outcomes, we further assess the distal effects of
individual- and team-level abuse on members voice (i.e., behaviors aimed at improving team processes; LePine & Van Dyne,
1998), team-role performance (i.e., behaviors aimed at promoting
cooperation and coordination in the team; Welbourne, Johnson, &
Erez, 1998), and low turnover intentions (i.e., a willingness to
remain in the team and maintain its viability over time; Hackman,
1987). These responses to the team represent meaningful ways that
individuals contribute to team effectiveness (G. Chen et al., 2011)
and correspond well with our stated objective to examine a broader
set of team-relevant outcomes associated with abuse in teams. Our
overarching model appears in Figure 1.
Individual-Level Consequences of
Abusive Supervision
Individual-level abusive supervision refers to the leaders sustained display of hostile verbal or nonverbal behaviors toward a
particular team member. The impact of individualized abuse on
targeted members can be assessed with the group-value model
(Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989). In contrast to traditional socialexchange models of justice and instrumental desires for favorable
Figure 1.
outcomes (Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998), the groupvalue model is grounded in social identification theory (Hogg &
Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), which suggests that members primary concerns about self-concept in relation to the team
lends intrinsic value to the meaning of leader individualized treatment. The group-value model posits that members use individualized treatment from authority figures of teams (e.g., the team
leader) as relational information about their position within a team,
which in turn shapes their self-concept and perceptions of selfworth (Smith et al., 1998; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996). Because
leader treatment symbolizes how other members of the team value
an individual, members who are treated with respect, politeness,
and dignity are signaled to have higher status and value to the team
(Tyler, 1989), whereas negative treatment signals ones low position in the team. In turn, members treated favorably develop
positive evaluations of their self-worth, while members treated
unfavorably develop self-concepts associated with inferiority, exclusion, and feelings of worthlessness (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, &
Downs, 1995; Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Applied to abusive supervision in teams, the group-value model
suggests that individualized abuse should decrease a members
perceived self-worth or standing in the team. Capturing this notion
is OBSE (Gardner & Pierce, 1998), defined as an individuals
evaluation of his or her personal adequacy and worthiness as an
organizational member (Gardner & Pierce, 1998, p. 50). Substantial empirical evidence suggests that favorable leader treatment
for example, managerial respect (Pierce et al., 1989), charismatic
leadership (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003), and leadermember
exchange (Heck, Bedeian, & Day, 2005)relates positively to
member OBSE. On the flipside, indicators of unfavorable leader
treatment reflected in abusive supervisionthat is, targeted public
ridicule, rudeness, coercion, and tantrums (Tepper, 2000)likely
reduces member OBSE. Supporting these arguments, preliminary
evidence has shown abusive supervision and poor interpersonal
treatment to lower context-specific self-esteem (Burton &
Hoobler, 2006; Ferris, Spence, Brown, & Heller, 2012; Rafferty &
Restubog, 2011). Although these studies were conducted among
individuals outside team settings, we expect the effects of individualized abuse on member OBSE to be strengthened in team contexts, where social identity processes are heightened. Thus, as
representing a form of targeted devaluation of individual members,
we propose that
Theoretical model. H hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: Individual-level abusive supervision is negatively related to member OBSE.
Moderating Effect of Team-Level

Abusive Supervision
An underlying assumption of the group-value model is that
leader treatment is differentiated across members, which in turn
contributes variance in perceived self-worth within groups (Tyler,
1989). Differential treatment, however, creates the opportunity for
members to engage in social comparisons, which can strengthen or
weaken members self-concept evaluations following individualized treatment (Thau, Trster, Aquino, Pillutla, & De Cremer,
2013). The relationship between individual-level abuse and member OBSE thus depends in part on how the leader is perceived to
behave toward comparable others in the team. Capturing this
notion, Festingers (1954) social comparison theory is grounded in
two assumptions: (a) people are motivated to make assessments of
their own capabilities, attitudes, and self-worth, and (b) these
self-assessments are driven by comparisons with similar others
(e.g., fellow team members). In line with these assumptions, we
expect social comparisons to occur in team settings affected by
abusive supervision due to the availability of comparable others
and the uncertainty and need for sense making associated with
abuse (Priesemuth et al., 2013).
Accordingly, we propose that member OBSE is shaped not
merely by experiences of individualized abuse, but also by the
abusive experiences of members of the team in general. In team
settings, high team-level abusive supervision describes a situation
where, on average, team members feel that they have been personally victimized by the team leader. A recent article on college
football coaches made note of how teams can differ in regard to the
average team-level abuse they experience, where some coaches
hurl abusive comments at all members of the team (with some
members receiving more abuse than others) and other coaches use
few abusive comments at all (Adelson, 2012). Importantly, abusive
supervision is not a private affair in team settings. In fact, several
behavioral items composing abusefor example, my supervisor
puts me down in front of others, makes negative comments
about me to others, and does not allow me to interact with my
coworkers (Tepper, 2000) explicitly invoke a larger audience.
Further, because of the enhanced transparency afforded by interdependent work settings, even abusive behaviors enacted in private
are likely to become known to other members (Priesemuth et al.,
2013). Team-level abusive supervision can thus be thought of as a
property of the team that factors into the social comparison process
of individual team members.
According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), ones
self-evaluations are lowered or enhanced depending on how favorably or unfavorably his or her experiences compare with the
relevant experiences of referent others. In the case of abusive
supervision, the average level of abuse in the team constitutes an
appropriate comparison point for any given member of the team.
If, on average, others experiences of abuse are low, the focal
member perceiving high individualized abuse will feel singled
out, and the negative effects of individual-level abuse on OBSE
will be exacerbated. Because social comparison processes cause
the focal member to realize that there is an alternative reality in
which the leader is less abusive toward members and that less
1077
abusive reality is not extended to the self (Duffy, Ganster, et al.,

2006), the focal member makes increasingly negative attributions
from the leaders treatment about his or her self-concept and status
in the team (Bowling & Beehr, 2006). Thus, above and beyond the
absolute effects of individual-level abuse, when ones individualized abuse is high and team-level abuse is low, the negative impact
of individual-level abusive supervision on OBSE is strengthened.
In contrast, if the average experience of abuse among members
is high, individual-level abuse will hurt the focal members OBSE
to a lesser extent. Perceiving that one is treated similarly poorly to
others in the team leads to neither favorable nor unfavorable social
comparisons, because the focal member sees no alternative reality
in which the leader treats members less abusively (Duffy, Ganster,
et al., 2006). Being included in the abuse even when individuallevel abusive supervision is high can cause the focal member to
realize that he or she is not worse off than others, counteract the
focal members inferred low standing relative to others in the team,
and effectively mitigate the negative linkage between individuallevel abuse and member OBSE. These arguments are consistent
with research showing that negative attitudinal and behavioral
reactions to supervisor abusive treatment were weaker when aggregate levels of abuse were high in the social context, and
stronger when a correspondingly low level of abuse was found in
the social context (reflecting the singled-out-for-abuse effect;
Duffy, Ganster, et al., 2006; Duffy, Shaw, et al., 2006; Peng et al.,
2013). Thus, we expect the impact of individual-level abuse on
OBSE to be moderated by how much abuse is experienced by the
team as whole.
Hypothesis 2: The negative relationship between individuallevel abusive supervision and member OBSE is more negative
when team-level abusive supervision is low and less negative
when team-level abusive supervision is high.
Team Consequences of Abusive Supervision

Beyond serving as a shared reference point affecting the social
comparison processes of individual members, team-level abuse
also constitutes an ambient, team stimulus (Chan, 1998) that
influences how both abused and nonabused members of the team
should interact to achieve collective goals (Ilgen, Hollenbeck,
Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Zaccaro et al., 2001). The impact of
team-level abuse on team processes can be assessed using social
learning theory. Although social learning theory (Bandura, 1971)
has been utilized to explain the modeling of abusive supervision
between higher and lower level managers (Lian, Ferris, & Brown,
2012; Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012; Mawritz et al., 2012), here we argue
that team-level abuse produces interpersonal difficulties that impair the social functioning of the team.
According to social learning theory, individuals intentionally or
unintentionally acquire social behavior either through direct experience or by observing behavioral models (Bandura, 1971). In
particular, emulation of behavior is more likely to occur when
attention (i.e., the observer attends to the model of the behavior)
and retention is high (i.e., the observer remembers the observed
behavior). Abusive behavior enacted by the team leader serves as
a salient example for how members of the team are and ought to
be treated on an interpersonal level (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).
Being exposed to high team abuse can cause members to learn
1078
FARH AND CHEN
negative, devaluing behaviors from the leader and treat fellow

members with aggression and hostility. Particularly in a context
where multiple members of the team are abused (i.e., team-level
abusive supervision is high), the leaders negative treatment across
members creates a strong interaction norm that is further reinforced as members emulate devaluing behaviors among themselves.
These social learning mechanisms may also be actively perpetuated as more and more members of the team are personally
abused. Victims of abuse experience anger, frustration, and a
desire to retaliate against the abuser (Lian et al., 2012). However,
because of power differentials between leaders and members,
abused victims may choose instead to act out their aggression on
other team members (Marcus-Newhall, Pedersen, Carlson, &
Miller, 2000; M. S. Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Abused members
may in fact direct their hostilities toward less abused members of
the team out of resentment, causing negative interpersonal interactions to spread among both abused and nonabused members of
the team. It is also unlikely that abused members will unite with
fellow victims to break the cycle of abuse (Sherif, Harvey, White,
Hood, & Sherif, 1961) because they feel less able to protect
themselves or help others to resist an abusive leader. Even those
who experience less abuse may find it risky to side with abused
team members, as doing so may invite abuse upon themselves.
This lack of motivation among both more and less abused members to go against the tide increases the likelihood that social
learning mechanisms will prevail (Glomb & Liao, 2003), creating
widespread relationship tension among team members.
When interactions among team members are characterized by
poor treatment, negative emotionality, and interpersonal attacks,
the team experiences high team relationship conflict (Jehn, 1995).
Sometimes referred to as affective or emotional conflict, team
relationship conflict reflects collective interpersonal hostilities
among members that are nonproductive and unrelated to the team
task (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012).
Team relationship conflict is found to emerge from negative team
experiences (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003), such as widespread harassment (Raver & Gelfand, 2006) or the distrust and devaluation
of fellow members (Curseu & Schruijer, 2010; Jehn & Mannix,
2001; Simons & Peterson, 2000). As a negative ambient influence,
we expect team-level abusive supervision will increase team relationship conflict. Indirectly supporting these arguments, some evidence suggests that group-level abuse increases collective interpersonal deviance (Mawritz et al., 2012).
Hypothesis 3: Team-level abusive supervision is positively
related to team relationship conflict.
Consequences for Members Responses

to the Team
Team members contribute to team effectiveness by proactively
expressing constructive changes to status quo (i.e., voice), promoting cooperation within the team (i.e., team-role performance), and
intending to remain in the team and ensure its longevity (i.e., low
turnover intentions; G. Chen et al., 2011). Research has shown that
such team-benefiting behaviors and attitudes are higher when
members feel sufficiently influential in the social context to contribute in these ways (Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012) and are suffi-
ciently motivated to help the team (G. Chen & Gogus, 2008).
When one or more of these conditions are not met, members are
less likely to exhibit these behaviors or attitudes. We argue that
through lowered member OBSE and increased team relationship
conflict, individual- and team-level abuse will uniquely reduce
members voice and team-role performance, while increasing their
turnover intentions.
OBSE plays an important role in driving employee motivation,
working-related attitudes, and behavior (Pierce & Gardner, 2004).
Because individuals act in ways that are consistent with their
self-views (Korman, 1970; Swann, 1997), individuals with higher
OBSE are more likely to engage in behaviors and possess attitudes
toward the team that align with their feelings of competency and
value in the group (Pierce et al., 1989). Members with higher
OBSE will engage in more team-focused contributions and be less
likely to leave the team because they believe they have the capability and influence to impact the team in positive ways. In
contrast, members with lower OBSE will refrain from doing so in
order to align their contributions to the level of their self-views.
Indeed, empirical research has shown positive influences of member OBSE on voice (Liang et al., 2012) and citizenship behaviors
(Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004) and negative influences on member
turnover intentions (Gardner & Pierce, 1998). As such, we also
expect member OBSE to transmit the effects of abusive supervision onto members team-relevant responses. This mediation pathway is consistent with the group-value model, which theorizes a
clear link between the quality of leader treatment, members selfrelevant judgments, and members willingness to exhibit groupbenefiting behaviors and attitudes (Smith & Tyler, 1997). Further,
because member OBSE is hypothesized to be the joint function of
individual- and team-level abusive supervision, we expect OBSE
to transmit these mediated effects more strongly when individual
abuse is high and team abuse is low.
Hypothesis 4: Individual member OBSE is positively related
to member (a) voice and (b) team-role performance and negatively related to member (c) turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 5: The indirect effects of individual-level abusive
supervision on member (a) voice, (b) team-role performance,
and (c) turnover intentions (via OBSE) are moderated by
team-level abusive supervision, such that these mediation
pathways are stronger when team-level abusive supervision is
low and weaker when team-level abusive supervision is high.
Whereas member OBSE promotes team-relevant responses primarily out of self-consistency mechanisms, we argue that team
relationship conflict reduces members contributions as a demotivating social context. Prior research has shown teams with high
relationship conflict to experience negative emotionality (Jehn,
1997), a decreased willingness to work collaboratively for the
good of the team (Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008), and
lowered interpersonal trust among team members (Rispens,
Greer, & Jehn, 2007). The inherently demotivating nature of a
context marked by relationship conflict likely reduces members
liking of other members, desire to behave in ways that benefit the
collective, and their willingness to remain in the team (Jehn, 1995).
Research has also demonstrated a negative relationship between
team relationship conflict and individual helping (De Dreu & Van
Vianen, 2001; Ng & Van Dyne, 2005), a behavior akin to team-
role performance. Likewise, because hostile interactions in the

team make it unlikely that ones ideas will translate into increased
team effectiveness, members may believe it to be futile to bring up
suggestions or concerns (Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008), likely
demotivating voice. Finally, relationship conflict represents a state
of interpersonal disintegration that weakens individual members
social embeddedness in the team, leading to higher turnover intentions (T. R. Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001).
Supporting these arguments, prior research has shown a negative
effect of team relationship conflict on individual team members
innovative and teamwork behaviors and a positive effect on their
turnover intentions (G. Chen et al., 2011). Also indirectly supporting our arguments, research has linked higher relationship conflict
to members withdrawals of effort from the task (Jehn, 1995) and
lowered team creativity (Farh, Lee, & Farh, 2010) and team
functioning (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001; Jehn & Mannix, 2001;
Rau, 2005). Thus, we expect team relationship conflict to exert a
cross-level negative effect on members contributions to the team,
and transmit the negative effects of team abuse onto members
team-relevant behaviors and attitudes.
Hypothesis 6: Team relationship conflict is negatively related
to member (a) voice and (b) team-role performance and positively related to member (c) turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 7: The indirect effects of team-level abusive supervision on member (a) voice, (b) team-role performance,
and (c) turnover intentions are mediated by team relationship
conflict.
Overview of Studies
We conducted two studies: a field study involving intact teams
in actual organizations to establish external validity and a scenario
experiment to provide a constructive replication of our field
studys findings (Lykken, 1968), establish causality of our theory,
and control for other potential mediators. We employed a scenario
experiment because prior research utilizing such a design has
reliably captured the influence of leader treatment on individuals
group-oriented attitudes and behaviors (e.g., De Cremer & van
Knippenberg, 2002), intended deviance (e.g., D. M. Mayer, Thau,
Workman, Van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2012), and self-concept (e.g.,
De Cremer, van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, Mullenders, &
Stinglhamber, 2005). Results of high realism scenario experiments
have also been successfully replicated in field settings, demonstrating high psychological fidelity across cultures and continents
(G. Chen et al., 2011). Finally, because the field study examined
the effects of individual- and team-level abusive supervision on
only one dependent variable (voice), the scenario experiment was
critical for examining our proposed effects on all three dependent
variables (voice, team-role performance, and turnover intentions).
Thus, including both the field and scenario study in our investigation enabled us to test our entire theoretical model and benefit
from the strengths of each methodological approach.
Study 1
Method
Sample, design, and procedures. Study 1 involved 295 employees from 51 teams across 10 firms in China. Organizational
1079
sponsors enabled us to identify true teams (i.e., members reporting

to the same team leader and worked interdependently to achieve
shared goals). Participants were recruited through the human relations office and informed that the purpose of the study was to
examine the leadership styles and group dynamics within each
firm. Participants were also assured of confidentiality through our
data collection procedure (see below). Informed consent was obtained prior to the commencement of the data collection. Excluding cases with missing data, our overall response rate was 95% for
individual participants (N 280) and 98% for teams (N 50).
The high response rate was facilitated by the organizational sponsors enthusiastic support to participate in the study, as well as
their willingness to allow us to administer the survey in person
during one of the teams monthly meetings, a time when nearly all
team members and leaders would be available. The teams in our
sample were diverse, performing functions such as technical support, internal monitoring, research and development, and customer
service. Team size ranged from four to seven members (M
5.60). The average team member was 35.33 years old (SD 5.68)
and had worked in their teams for 39.74 months (SD 40.58).
Fifty-six percent were female, 7% held high school or associated
degrees, 66% held bachelor degrees, and the rest held masters
degrees or higher.
Team leaders distributed surveys to each member of their respective teams, and leaders and members responses were
matched via numerical codes. Given the sensitive nature of the
study and to ensure confidentiality, responses were sealed in
envelopes and returned directly to a member of the research team,
who was on site during the data collection process. Members rated
their personal experiences of abusive supervision, OBSE, and team
relationship conflict. As control variables, members also rated
their leaders empowering leadership, their own power distance
orientation and collectivism, and their teams task conflict. Team
leaders rated each members voice behavior. As another control
variable, external leaders (immediate supervisors of the team
leader) rated each teams task performance.
Measures. All survey instruments were administered in Chinese following the translation and back-translation procedures
outlined in Brislin (1990). Aside from the conflict measures, all
items used 7-point Likert-type response categories anchored at 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Members rated team
relationship and task conflict with anchors ranging from never (1)
to always (7). Where appropriate, we note precedence for the use
of these scales in a Chinese context. Descriptive statistics and
correlations among our studys variables are shown in Table 1.
Individual- and team-level abusive supervision. Abusive supervision was assessed with Aryee et al.s (2007) 10-item version
of Teppers (2000) original scale (e.g., My supervisor blames me
to save himself/herself embarrassment; .91). To capture
individualized experiences of abuse, we group mean centered each
members abusive supervision score. Additionally, members demonstrated sufficient intermember agreement and reliability to justify aggregation to the team level (rwg(j) with a uniform expected
variance distribution .94; ICC(1) .15, F(49, 231) 1.81, p
.01; ICC(2) .45; LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Therefore, teamlevel abusive supervision was operationalized as the mean of
members responses.
Individual team member OBSE. Reflecting ones selfconcept in the team, 10 items were adapted to the team context
SD
Team-level AS
Team relationship conflict
Team-level OBSE
Team task conflict
Team-level EL
Team task performance
Team size
.62
.43
.42
.59
.21
.36
Team member voice

5.05 1.10 (.95)
Individual-level AS
2.14 1.01 .16
Team-level ASa
2.14 0.53 .22
Team member OBSE
5.34 0.95
.21
Team-level OBSEa
5.34 0.46
.19
2.63 0.81 .21
Team relationship conflicta 2.63 0.50 .32
Team member genderb
0.56 0.50
.16
Team member age
35.33 5.68
.05
Team member educationc
2.18 0.55
.04
Power distance orientation
2.71 0.84
.01
Collectivism
5.18 0.90
.03
Team task conflict
3.53 0.74 .05
Team task conflicta
3.53 0.40 .07
Team-level EL
5.44 0.49
.15
Team-level ELa
5.78 0.77
.30
Team task performancea
5.78 0.77
.10
Team size
5.85 0.55 .04
.20
.54
.57
.07
.04
(.91)
.52
.36
.22
.47
.32
.09
.18
.01
.11
.24
.20
.23
.45
.30
.09
.17
(.94)
.49
.18
.10
.13
.16
.07
.03
.24
.06
.06
.46
.26
.12
.04
.11
.53 .17
.22
.02
.08
.16
(.91)
.21
.42
.38
.62
.03
.10
.07
.08
.24
.24
.43
.31
.58
.19
.34
.37
.09
.24
(.86)
.20
.05
.08
.02
.13
.02
.03
.24
.02
.31
.01
.56 .05
.30
.03
.56
.16
.04
.08
.05
.05
Level 2 (N 50)
(.86)
.62
.10
.11
.05
.04
.23
.46
.35
.37
.34
.01
.02
Level 1 (N 280)
(.94)
.13
.20
.11
.15
.04
.06
.22
.07
.12
.28
.53
.23
.07
10
.05
.07
.05
.06
.04
.01
.13
.01
.08
.18
.04
.13
.07
.11
.07
.09
.02
12
13
14
(.71)
.06
(.78)
.12 .10
(.74)
.01 .08
.55 (.74)
.08
.33 .10
.10
.03
.26 .10
.18
.01
.05
.01
.02
.12 .03
.09
.16
11
Note. Reliability estimates (coefficient alpha) are on the diagonal. AS abusive supervision; OBSE organization-based self-esteem; EL empowering leadership.
a
Team scores assigned to each team member. b Gender: 0 female, 1 male. c Education level: 1 associate, 2 bachelor, 3 masters, 4 PhD.
p .05. p .01 (two-tailed).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Variable
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables in Study 1
(.94)
.53
.19
.04
15
17
18
(.94)
.37 (.82)
.10
.20
16
1080
FARH AND CHEN
from the OBSE scale developed by Pierce et al. (1989) ( .94;

In this team, I can make a difference). This scale has also shown
sufficient validity and reliability in the Chinese context (e.g., Z. X.
Chen & Aryee, 2007).
Team relationship conflict. Members rated their teams relationship conflict using a four-item scale (Pelled, Eisenhardt, &
Xin, 1999), shown to be reliable and valid in the Chinese context
(Farh et al., 2010; e.g., Excluding your team leader, how much
tension is there among the members of your team?). Supporting
the aggregation of members ratings, median intermember agreement (rwg(j)) across teams was .95; ICC(1) was .26, F(49, 231)
3.01, p .01; and ICC(2) was .67. Additionally, because these
coefficients were comparable to measures of relationship conflict
in prior research (cf. G. Chen et al., 2011), we averaged members
responses.
Individual team member voice. The team leader rated each
members voice behavior using the 10-item scale constructed by
Liang et al. (2012) in the Chinese context, which assessed both
prohibitive voice ( .93; e.g., Calling management attention to
dysfunctional activities) and promotive voice ( .95; e.g.,
Speaking up with ideas for new projects that might benefit the
team). The intercorrelation between the two dimensions was high
(r .75, p .01; .95). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
2
supported a two-factor model with a second-order factor ((33)
131.94, root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] .10,

comparative fit index [CFI] .99, TuckerLewis index [TLI]
.98, root-mean-square residual [SRMR] .03),1 which fit the data
better than an alternative model with the two types of voice as
2
separate indicators ((2)
144.46, p .01, RMSEA .15,
CFI .95). Because our interest was on overall constructive voice
rather than its subdimensions (Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014), we
averaged them into a single score.
Control variables. To provide a rigorous test of our model, we
controlled for several individual and team factors known to
influence member voice.2 Following prior voice research (e.g.,
LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Liang et al., 2012), we controlled for
team member age (in years), gender (1 male, 2 female), and
educational level (1 associate, 2 bachelor, 3 master, and
4 PhD). Additionally, given the potential influence of cultural
values on voice and team behavior (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009;
Liang, Huang, & Chen, 2013), we controlled for members power
distance orientation (Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Managers should
seldom ask for the opinions of employees; .71) and collectivism (Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Group welfare is more important than individual needs; .78).
At the team level, we controlled for team size, as larger teams
tend to experience more conflict than smaller teams (Farh et al.,
2010). We also controlled for task conflict (Pelled et al., 1999) due
to the high correlation between task and relationship conflict (De
Dreu & Weingart, 2003) and the potential conceptual overlap
between task conflict and voice behavior. Task conflict was assessed with the four-item scale by Pelled et al. (1999) ( .74)
and was aggregated to the team level (median rwg(j) across teams
.94; ICC(1) .17, F(49, 231) 2.18, p .01; ICC(2) .55).
Further, to demonstrate abusive supervision exerted influence on
our outcomes above and beyond the effects of supportive leadership behaviors (G. Chen et al., 2011), we controlled for the effects
of empowering leadership at both the individual and team levels.
Team members rated their leader on a 14-item empowering lead-
1081
ership scale developed by Kirkman and Rosen (1999) ( .94).

We used group-centered ratings to reflect individual-level empowering leadership and averaged members ratings to capture empowering leadership at the team level (median rwg(j) across
teams .96, ICC(1) .17, F(49, 231) 1.92, p .01; ICC(2)
.53). Additionally, to assess the unique effects of team relationship
conflict on voice above and beyond aggregations of individual
members OBSE, we controlled for team-level OBSE (median
rwg(j) .96, ICC(1) .08, F(49, 231) 1.51, p .05; ICC(2)
.34). Finally, we controlled for team performance because poor
performance is positively associated with abusive supervision
(Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011) and relationship conflict (Jehn &
Mannix, 2001).We relied on external leaders (immediate supervisors of the team leader) to provide third-party ratings of team
performance using the scale constructed by Carson, Tesluk, and
Marrone (2007) ( .82, e.g., This team is effective in meeting
my expectations in terms of the quality of their final output).
Analyses and Results

We conducted a series of CFAs to examine the discriminant
validity of team-member-rated constructs in our model. Although
several constructs were ultimately aggregated and analyzed at the
team level, we examined them at the individual level to establish
their discriminant validity. A four-factor baseline model composed
of abusive supervision, team relationship conflict, task conflict,
2
and OBSE fit the data well ((344)
1425.41, RMSEA .10,
CFI .93; TLI .92, SRMR .06). This baseline model fit the
data better than alternative models in which (a) abusive supervi2
sion and team relationship conflict were set to equal 1 ((1)
477.10, p .01, RMSEA .13, CFI .90) and (b) task and
2
relationship conflict were set to equal 1 ((1)
257.95, p .01,
RMSEA .12, CFI .92). Together, these analyses demonstrated
the discriminant validity of the member-rated variables in our
model. Further, because ratings of members voice were nested
within leaders, we utilized two-level hierarchical linear modeling
(Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to address the violation of nonindependence of observations and to examine cross-level interaction
effects. We also used a sample bootstrapping approach that provided bias-corrected confidence intervals to test the mediating
effects of OBSE and relationship conflict (Hayes, 2013). Our
results are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Hypothesis testing. Hypothesis 1 proposed a negative relationship between individual-level abusive supervision and member
OBSE. As shown in Model 3 of Table 2, individual-level abuse
was negatively related to OBSE ( .20, p .01), supporting
Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 predicted a cross-level interaction
effect between team- and individual-level abuse on members
1
We acknowledge that our RMSEA indices here and elsewhere are
higher than ideal. However, in view of other fit indices, we have some
indication that our theorized models exhibited acceptable fit. In this case,
the second-order factor model fit the data better than an alternative model
with two separate factors for voice. Hence, in addition to our theoretical
reasons for examining overall voice, we had sufficient empirical reason to
collapse the two types of voice into one factor.
2
Our results reached the same levels of significance and were in the
same direction regardless of whether or not we included the control
variables. Results without the control variables are available from the
authors upon request.
FARH AND CHEN
1082
Table 2
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Regression Results of Study 1
Variable
Model 1
Level 1 (N 280)
Team member gendera
Team member age
Team member educationb
Collectivism
Individual-level EL
Individual-level AS
Team member OBSE
Level 2 (N 50)
Team size
Team task performance
Team task conflict
Team-level EL
Team-level AS
Team-level OBSE
Team-Level AS Individual-Level AS
.02 (.09)
.08 (.07)
.56 (.13)
.56 (.11)
Team member OBSE
Model 2
.09 (.09)
.07 (.07)
.46 (.13)
.40 (.13)
.27 (.13)
Team member voice
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
.24 (.11)
.01 (.01)
.03 (.08)
.01 (.06)
.10 (.06)
.37 (.08)
.20 (.05)
.22 (.11)
.01 (.01)
.07 (.08)
.01 (.06)
.10 (.06)
.45 (.08)
.27 (.12)
.02 (.01)
.07 (.08)
.06 (.07)
.13 (.06)
.38 (.06)
.07 (.14)
.01 (.01)
.05 (.10)
.02 (.07)
.09 (.06)
.02 (.07)
.11 (.06)
.01 (.12)
.02 (.01)
.03 (.09)
.00 (.07)
.11 (.05)
.08 (.07)
.07 (.07)
.18 (.06)
.16 (.13)
.01 (.07)
.28 (.14)
.43 (.11)
.08 (.13)
.00 (.07)
.40 (.15)
.25 (.12)
.16 (.06)
.04 (.13)
.04 (.08)
.42 (.16)
.23 (.15)
.14 (.07)
.05 (.23)
.06 (.14)
.11 (.27)
.55 (.27)
.16 (.14)
.01 (.15)
.03 (.09)
.32 (.26)
.31 (.20)
.02 (.11)
.19 (.25)
.29 (.13)
.11 (.04)
Note. Standard errors are in parentheses. OBSE organization-based self-esteem; EL empowering leadership; AS abusive supervision.
Gender: 0 female, 1 male. b Education level: 1 associate, 2 bachelor, 3 masters, 4 PhD.
p .05. p .01 (two-tailed).

a
OBSE. As shown in Model 5 and Figure 2, this interaction effect

was significant ( .11, p .05). The negative relationship
between individual abuse and OBSE was stronger when team level
abuse was low (simple slope .32, p .05, supporting the
singled-out effect) but was weaker when team level abuse was
high (simple slope .08, ns), demonstrating support for
Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between team-level abuse and team relationship conflict. As shown
in Model 2 of Table 2, even after controlling for team performance
and empowering leadership, team-level abuse related positively to
team relationship conflict ( .27, p .01), supporting Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 4a stated that individual members OBSE
Table 3
Bootstrapping Results: Indirect Effects of Team-Level Abusive Supervision (AS) and Individual-Level AS on Outcome Variables
Team member voice
Indirect effect
95% CI
Team member team-role

performance
Team member
turnover intentions
95% CI
95% CI
Study 1
Individual-level AS OBSE DV
Low
M
High
Team-level AS Relationship conflict DV
M
.14
.08
.03
[.32, .03]
[.17, .02]
[.10, .02]
.39
[.61, .18]
Study 2
Individual-level AS (manipulation) OBSE DV
Low
M
High
Team-level AS (manipulation) Relationship conflict DV
M
Individual-level AS (perception) OBSE DV
Low
M
High
Team-level AS (perception) Relationship conflict DV
M
.35
.18
.06
[.69, .14]
[.35, .07]
[.23, .07]
.45
.26
.13
[.74, .22]
[.45, .10]
[.34, .02]
.72
.42
.23
[.39, 1.11]
[.24, .67]
[.03, .50]
.09
[.19, .02]
.12
[.25, .03]
.20
[.05, .39]
.14
.10
.07
[.29, .00]
[.18, .03]
[.15, .01]
.23
.14
.07
[.46, .05]
[.26, .04]
[.24, .02]
.36
.27
.19
[.02, .70]
[.08, .41]
[.03, .36]
.07
[.13, .03]
.09
[.17, .05]
.14
[.07, .24]
Note. CI confidence interval; OBSE organization-based self-esteem; DV dependent variable.
p .01 (two-tailed).
1083
Organization-based self-est
7.00
Low Team-level
Abusive Supervision
6.00
High Team-level
Abusive Supervision
5.00
Low Individual-level
Abusive Supervision
High Individual-level
Abusive Supervision
Figure 2. Plot of the interaction between individual- and team-level abusive supervision on individual
members organization-based self-esteem.
should positively relate to their voice behavior, whereas Hypothesis 6a proposed a negative linkage between team relationship
conflict and member voice. Additionally, according to our theoretical model, the two effects should occur simultaneously. In
support of this prediction, OBSE related positively to member
voice ( .18, p .01) and team relationship conflict was
negatively related to voice ( .29, p .05) in the same model
(Model 7 of Table 2), even after controlling for team OBSE at the
team level. Thus, Hypotheses 4a and 6a received full support.
Hypothesis 5a predicted the negative indirect relationship between individual abuse and member voice (via OBSE) would be
moderated by team-level abuse, such that the mediation pathway is
stronger when team-level abuse is low and weaker when teamlevel abuse is high. As shown in Table 3, results showed that this
indirect effect was significant when team-level abuse was low
( .14, p .01, 99% CI [.32, .03]). When team-level
abuse was high, however, the indirect effect through OBSE was
nonsignificant ( .03, ns, 95% CI [.10, .02]). Thus, Hypothesis 5a received support. Hypothesis 7a predicted that team relationship conflict would mediate the negative relationship between
team-level abuse and members voice. As shown in Model 7 of
Table 2, after including team relationship conflict, team-level
abuse did not relate to individual members voice ( .02, ns).
In Table 3, this indirect effect of team-level abuse on team member
voice (via relationship conflict) was significant ( .39, p
.01, 99% CI [.61, .18]). Moreover, it was team relationship
conflict ( .29, p .05) rather than team-level OBSE (
.19, ns) that mediated the negative impact of team-level abuse on
member voice. This finding suggests that team-level abuse affects
member outcomes above and beyond aggregated consequences of
individual abuse, and demonstrates that team- and individual-level
abuse influences member voice via different pathways. Thus,
Hypothesis 7a was supported.
Discussion
The results of Study 1 provided support for our multilevel model
and hypotheses pertaining to member voice. Further, in line with
the notion that negative events affect individuals more powerfully
and saliently than positive events (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Taylor, 1991), we demonstrated that abusive
supervision is distinct from and operates in team settings independently of supportive forms of leadership such as empowering
leadership. In Study 2, we sought to replicate these findings in a
controlled environment to increase internal validity, rule out alternative mechanisms identified in other studies not measured in
Study 1 (e.g., interpersonal justice perceptions, team identification,
collective efficacy; Priesemuth et al., 2013; Tepper, 2000), and
examine whether member OBSE and team relationship conflict
mediated the influences of abusive supervision on members voice,
team-role performance, and turnover intentions.
Study 2
Method
Sample, design, and procedure. Study 2 involved 276 undergraduate business majors (49.6% women and 50.4% men; mean
age 20.94 years, SD 1.41) enrolled at a large midwestern
university in the United States. Participants voluntarily participated in the study for extra credit and were randomly assigned to
a 2 (individual-level abusive supervision: high vs. low) 2
(team-level abusive supervision: high vs. low) between-subjects
design. Upon arriving to the laboratory and after completing an
unrelated task on stock price forecasting, each participant was
assigned to a computer terminal and was presented with the
scenario experiment through an online survey. Participants were
first assessed on several individual differences in cultural orientation and then read one of four scenarios, each of which instructed
participants to imagine they were members of a critical fourmember undergraduate task force in the business school (adapted
from the scenario manipulation in G. Chen et al., 2011). To hold
task performance constant (as in Study 1), participants were told
that the task force was struggling to meet deadlines and progress
was slow.
In each scenario, participants were presented with a set of four
e-mail messages sent to them by their team leader and two
FARH AND CHEN
1084
on, but noted that making mistakes is part of the learning process.
The e-mail encouraged the team to stay focused and committed to
the task, and ended with an update that several of the team
members suggestions were included in the final report delivered
to the dean. The participant then received e-mails among two
members that discussed their experiences working with the leader
(e.g., the leader gave straightforward feedback, credited team
members for their ideas, and was responsive in e-mail communication). The three messages were designed to create a situation
where the participant observes the leader interacting with the team
in a neutral tone and hears about the neutral but respectful treatment others received from the leader. The two manipulations were
identical in word count.
Measures. Descriptive statistics, internal consistency reliability coefficients, and correlations of our core measures are reported
in Table 4. Unless noted otherwise, all items were rated on a
5-point Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly
agree).
Individual team member OBSE. OBSE was assessed with the
same 10 items from Study 1. These items were from Pierce et al.s
(1989) scale, adapted to the team context ( .96).
Team member voice. Participants intended voice was assessed with the same 10-item scale used in Study 1, and the two
dimensions were moderately correlated (r .42, p .01;
.86). A CFA showed a two-factor model with a second-order factor
2
((23)
94.88, RMSEA .11, CFI .96, TLI .93, SRMR
.09) fit the data better than an alternative model with the two types
2
of voice as separate indicators ((2)
7.97, p .01, RMSEA
.14, CFI .92). As in Study 1, given our focus on capturing
overall voice, we averaged the two dimensions.
Member team-role performance. Participants reported their
intention to engage in team-role performance behaviors based on
the four-item scale from Welbourne et al. (1998) (I will respond
to the needs of others in the Task Force; .88).
Member turnover intention. Participants reported their intention to leave the task force on a four-item scale from Kelloway,
Gottlieb, and Barham (1999) (I will think about leaving this Task
Force; .93).
Team relationship conflict. Team relationship conflict was
assessed with eight items that captured the extent to which the
additional task force members. The e-mail contents distinguished

the four conditions by containing our manipulation of high versus
low individual-level abuse and high versus low team-level abuse.
The complete text of the manipulations appear in Appendices
AD. The order of manipulations for individual and team abusive
supervision was counterbalanced. Following the scenarios, participants completed manipulation checks, measures of OBSE and
team relationship conflict, and their intended voice, team-role
performance, and turnover intentions. Participants also completed
measures of alternative mediators as controls.
Manipulations.
Individual-level abusive supervision. Participants received a
personalized e-mail from the team leader. In the high individual
abuse condition, the leaders e-mail acknowledged the difficulties
encountered by the task force and ended with several negative and
belittling comments about the participants specific contributions
and competence. In the low individual abuse condition, participants also received an e-mail acknowledging the slow progress of
the team. However, rather than expressing a personal attack, the
e-mail maintained a respectful, neutral tone. The two manipulations were identical in word count.
Team-level abusive supervision. The manipulation of teamlevel abuse involved a single e-mail message from the team leader
addressed to the entire team, as well as two additional messages
sent from and addressed to members of the team only. In the high
team abuse condition, the leaders e-mail attributed current challenges encountered to the teams failures and publically ridiculed
the input of two of the teams members. Following the leaders
e-mail, the participant received an e-mail exchange among two
members of the team that complained about how difficult the
leader was to work with and recounted abusive experiences with
the leader (e.g., failing to give team members credit for their
ideas, rude and condescending behavior, and giving members the
silent treatment). The leader and team member e-mails collectively
painted a situation where the participant both observes the leader
abusing the entire team in group e-mail and hears about the
individualized abuse experienced by two other members of the
team.
In the low team abuse condition, the leaders e-mail attributed
current challenges encountered by the team to mistakes made early
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables in Study 2
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Individual AS (manipulation)
Team AS (manipulation)
Individual AS (perception)
Team AS (perception)
Team member OBSE
Team member voice
Team-role performance
Turnover intentions
Collectivism
Interpersonal justice
Collective efficacy
Team identification
SD
0.48
0.50
2.71
3.08
3.41
2.82
3.50
3.91
3.16
2.11
3.41
2.97
2.82
3.15
0.50
0.50
1.07
1.15
0.90
0.83
0.61
0.69
1.00
0.47
0.54
1.21
0.68
0.90
.05
.66
.27
.51
.30
.22
.16
.29
.04
.02
.64
.29
.17
.33
.70
.07
.29
.00
.02
.18
.00
.14
.35
.33
.18
(.97)
.61
.60
.48
.30
.30
.43
.00
.04
.88
.51
.27
(.97)
.25 (.96)
.49 .39
.16
.34
.16
.36
.41 .45
.09 .01
.07
.14
.64 .58
.58 .48
.06
.54
(.94)
.26 (.86)
.28 .56 (.88)
.47 .22 .34
.11 .09 .14
.05
.04
.14
.50 .25 .26
.62 .27 .31
.32 .29 .48
10
(.93)
.09
(.53)
.07 .07
.46
.03
.54 .05
.39 .04
11
12
13
(.71)
.04 (.96)
.01 .53 (.87)
.12 .27 .37 (.83)
Note. N 250. Reliability estimates (coefficient alpha) are on the diagonal. AS abusive supervision; OBSE organization-based self-esteem.
p .05 (two-tailed). p .01.
14
participants interactions with fellow members of team were likely

to be characterized by negative emotion, relationship tension,
unproductive personal attacks, and disagreements on interpersonal
issues and personal values (e.g., Jehn, 1995; Pelled et al., 1999).
Cronbachs alpha for this composite measure was .94.
Manipulation checks. For individual-level abuse, participants
indicated how strongly they agreed with the same 10-item measure
of abusive supervision utilized in Study 1 ( .97). To capture
team-level abusive supervision, we used a referent-shift adaptation
of the items. Participants indicated the extent to which their team
leader exhibited abusive behavior toward the team (e.g., My task
force leader makes negative comments about team members to
others, ridicules members of this team, tells team members
that they are incompetent; .97). With the individual-level
abuse manipulation check as outcome, analysis of variance tests
indicated a main effect for the individual-level abuse condition
(mean high individual abuse 3.49, mean low individual abuse
2.04), F(1, 274) 230.59, p .01, 2 .46. With the team-level
abusive supervision manipulation check as outcome, analysis of
variance tests indicated a main effect for the team-level abuse
condition (mean high team abuse 3.91, mean low team abuse
2.29), F(1, 274) 269.51, p .01, 2 .50. These results
provide strong evidence for the efficacy and validity of the two
manipulations featured in our scenarios.
In addition, participants completed three questions assessing the
realism of the scenario used in Chen et al. (2011) (It is realistic
that I might experience a supervisor like J. P., It is realistic that
I might experience team-events like those described above in the
Task Force, and At some point during my career, I will probably
encounter a situation like the one described above; .71). The
mean score across these items (M 3.89) indicated that participants generally agreed the scenario was realistic. We further included several items to ensure that participants read the scenario
carefully. Participants were asked to indicate the performance
progress of the task force. Participants who indicated that team
performance was excellent were considered to have failed the
manipulation check. After dropping these participants, as well as
those who indicated the scenario was low in realism (those scoring
lower than a 3), our final sample consisted of 250 individuals
(retaining 90.6% of our sample) randomly assigned across the four
conditions.
Additional variables. Several additional variables were assessed as control variables. Participants responded to a four-item
measure of interpersonal justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; My leader has treated me in a polite manner;
.96), a four-item measure of team identification (Allen &
Meyer, 1990; I feel a strong sense of belonging to my team;
.87), and a six-item measure of team collective efficacy (Riggs,
Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, & Hooker, 1994; This team has
above average ability; .83). Participants also responded to a
six-item measure of power distance orientation (Dorfman & Howell, 1988; Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees; .53)3 and collectivism (Dorfman & Howell, 1988;
Group welfare is more important than individual needs; .71)
to enable comparisons across our findings in Study 1 (a Chinabased sample) and Study 2 (a U.S.-based sample). Also, to assess
the different types of emotions participants might have experienced across conditions, we asked participants to respond to the
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark,
1085
& Tellegen, 1988), consisting of 10 positive (e.g., interested,

excited, enthusiastic; .89) and 10 negative adjectives (e.g.,
afraid, guilty, scared; .91). Participants were asked to describe the way they felt after reading the scenarios.
Analyses and Results

We conducted a series of CFAs to test whether the measures we
used are distinguishable from each other. First, we ran a 12-factor
baseline model composed of team- and individual-level abusive
supervision (perceptions), relationship conflict, OBSE, voice,
team-role performance, turnover intentions, interpersonal justice,
team identification, collective efficacy, power distance orientation,
and collectivism. Results showed that this baseline model fit the
2
data well ((3173)
6055.07, RMSEA .06, CFI .96, TLI
.96, SRMR .06) and fit the data better than competing models
in which (a) team- and individual-level abuse were set to equal 1
2
((1)
4633.25, p .01, RMSEA .10, CFI .94), (b)
team-level abuse and team relationship conflict were combined as
2
one factor ((1)
1711.4, p .01, RMSEA .08, CFI .95),
and (c) individual-level abuse and OBSE were combined as one
2
factor ((1)
3696.13, p .01, RMSEA .09, CFI .95).
These analyses demonstrated the discriminant validity of the measured variables in our model. To test our hypotheses, we used
hierarchical regression. Because we used scenarios to manipulate
team and individual abuse, we tested our hypotheses using both
manipulated and perceived abuse as independent variables. We
also used the same sample bootstrapping approach in Study 1 to
test the mediating effects of OBSE and relationship conflict
(Hayes, 2013). Tables 3, 5, and 6 summarize our results.
Hypothesis testing. Hypothesis 1 predicted that individuallevel abuse would be negatively related to member OBSE. Supporting this hypothesis, as shown in Table 5, we found that both
the manipulated ( .51, p .05) and perceived abuse
( .70, p .05) negatively predicted OBSE (Model 4).
Hypothesis 2 predicted that individual-level abuse would be more
negatively related to OBSE when team-level abuse was low. As
shown in Model 5, the interaction terms between individual- and
team-level abuse manipulations ( .19, p .05) and perceptions
( .16, p .05) were significant. Shown in Figures 3 and 4, the
negative relationship between the individual abuse and OBSE was
stronger when team abuse is lower than higher. Simple slopes
analyses showed that manipulated individual abuse related more
negatively to OBSE when team abuse was low ( .62, p
.05) than when team abuse was high ( .40, p .05).
Similarly, perceptual measures of abuse related more negatively to
OBSE when team abuse was low ( .90, p .05) than when
team abuse was high ( .63, p .05), supporting Hypothesis
2. Hypothesis 3 predicted that team-level abuse would positively
relate to team relationship conflict. Model 2 shows that the positive
3
Because Dorfman and Howells (1988) measure of power distance
orientation was designed to assess numerous domains of supervisorsubordinate interaction across various forms of power, the measure has
historically suffered from lower levels of reliability, often falling below the
.70 cut off (including a Cronbachs alpha of .51 in the original study).
Nonetheless, the measure has been shown to meaningfully capture individual differences in power distance values, and we elected to include it as
a control variable in order to compare our findings across our China- and
U.S.-based samples.
FARH AND CHEN
1086
Table 5
Regression Results of Study 2: Effects on Team Relationship Conflict, Member OBSE, and Member Voice
Team relationship
conflict
Model 1
Model 2
Team member OBSE

Model 3
Model 4
Team member voice
Model 5
Model 6
Model 7
Manipulated abusive supervision

.16 (.11) .16 (.10) .01 (.13) .02 (.10) .02 (.10) .09 (.08) .05 (.08)
Collectivism
.04 (.09) .01 (.08) .14 (.11)
.13 (.09)
.14 (.09)
.04 (.07)
.01 (.07)
.35 (.09)
.51 (.10) .62 (.14) .28 (.11) .03 (.12)
.20 (.09)
.08 (.10) .03 (.14) .05 (.11)
.05 (.11)
Individual Team AS (manipulation)
.19 (.20)
.10 (.15) .03 (.15)
Individual OBSE
.21 (.05)
.22 (.06)
Team identification
Collective efficacy

Collectivism
Individual Team AS (perception)
Individual OBSE
Team identification
Collective efficacy
.16 (.11) .17 (.09)

.04 (.09) .05 (.08)
.40 (.05)
.19 (.05)
Perceived abusive supervision

.00 (.13)
.00 (.10)
.02 (.10) .06 (.08)
.13 (.11)
.10 (.09)
.09 (.09)
.01 (.07)
.70 (.05) .77 (.06) .39 (.05)
.18 (.05)
.29 (.06)
.15 (.05)
.16 (.04)
.20 (.03)
.04 (.08)
.00 (.07)
.18 (.06)
.11 (.05)
.14 (.03)
.17 (.05)
.16 (.06)
Model 8
Model 9
.11 (.08)
.01 (.07)
.09 (.10)
.04 (.09)
.06 (.08)
.04 (.07)
.14 (.08)
.11 (.08)
.13 (.06)
.02 (.05)
.18 (.06)
.12 (.05)
.11 (.07)
.11 (.08) .05 (.08)

.01 (.07)
.03 (.07)
.13 (.07) .12 (.05)
.03 (.04)
.05 (.04)
.11 (.06)
.07 (.07)
.16 (.06)
.12 (.05)
.08 (.08)
Note. N 250. Standard errors are in parentheses. OBSE organization-based self-esteem; AS abusive supervision.
p .05 (two-tailed).
impact of team abuse on relationship conflict was significant for

both manipulated ( .20, p .05) and perceived team abuse
( .19, p .05), supporting Hypothesis 3.
Hypotheses 4 and 6 proposed that member OBSE and team
relationship conflict would simultaneously influence members
voice, team-role performance, and turnover intentions. After controlling for manipulated abuse at the individual and team levels,
OBSE related positively to member voice ( .21, p .05;
Model 7, Table 5) and team-role performance ( .17, p .01;
Model 2, Table 6) and negatively to turnover intentions

( .32, p .01; Model 6, Table 6), while team relationship
conflict was negatively related to voice ( .22, p .05; Model
7, Table 5) and team-role performance ( .27, p .01);
Model 2, Table 6) and positively to turnover intentions ( .42,
p .01; Model 6, Table 6). Likewise, after controlling for perceived abuse at the individual and team levels, OBSE related
positively to voice ( .17, p .05; Model 7, Table 5) and
team-role performance ( .13, p .05; Model 2, Table 6) and
Low Team-level Abusive

Supervision (Manipulation)
High Team-level Abusive
Member OBSE
Variable
2.50
1.50
Low
Individual-level Abusive
HighIndividual-level
Low
Individual-level
Abusive High
Abusive
Figure 3. Plot of the interaction between individual- and team-level abusive supervision manipulations on
individual members organization-based self-esteem (OBSE).
1087
Member OBSE
4.50
Low Team-level Abusive
Supervision (Perception)
High Team-level Abusive
3.50
2.50
1.50
LowIndividual-level
HighIndividual-level
Low
Abusive High
Abusive
Supervision
(Perception)
Supervision
(Perception)
Figure 4. Plot of the interaction between individual- and team-level abusive supervision perceptions on
individual members organization-based self-esteem (OBSE).
negatively to turnover intentions ( .29, p .01; Model 6,

Table 6), while team relationship conflict was negatively related to
voice ( .16, p .05; Model 7, Table 5) and team-role
performance ( .24, p .01; (Model 2, Table 6) and positively to turnover intentions ( .38, p .01; Model 6, Table 6).
We further examined whether OBSE and team relationship
conflict were significantly related to voice, team-role performance, and turnover intentions in the presence of other potential mediators at the individual and team levels. As shown in
Tables 5 and 6, after controlling for interpersonal justice perceptions, team identification, and team collective efficacy,
OBSE and team relationship conflict remained significantly
related to the outcome variables we proposed. Thus, Hypotheses 4 and 6 were supported.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that the indirect relationships between
individual abuse and member voice, team-role performance, and
turnover intentions (via OBSE) would be moderated by team-level
abuse, such that the respective mediation pathways would be
Table 6
Regression Results of Study 2: Effects on Member Team-Role Performance and Turnover Intentions
Team member team-role performance
Variable
Model 1

Collectivism
Individual Team AS (manipulation)
Individual OBSE
Team identification
Collective efficacy
.20 (.09)
.18 (.08)
.29 (.12)
.10 (.12)
.12 (.17)

Collectivism
Individual Team AS (perception)
Individual OBSE
Team identification
Collective efficacy
.18 (.09)
.15 (.08)
.21 (.05)
.04 (.05)
.04 (.03)
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Team member turnover intentions

Model 5
Model 6
Manipulated abusive supervision

.13 (.09) .20 (.09) .14 (.08) .20 (.13) .32 (.12)
.14 (.08)
.11 (.08)
.13 (.07) .20 (.11)
.12 (.10)
.15 (.13)
.10 (.11) .04 (.08) .79 (.17)
.06 (.17)
.09 (.12) .01 (.10) .07 (.09) .60 (.17)
.31 (.16)
.14 (.16)
.49 (.24)
.06 (.22)
.32 (.08)
.17 (.06) .23 (.06)
.27 (.06)
.16 (.07)
.42 (.09)
.07 (.06)
.29 (.05)
.03 (.08)
Perceived abusive supervision
.14 (.09) .20 (.09) .15 (.08)
.15 (.08)
.12 (.08)
.12 (.07)
.04 (.06) .12 (.08) .07 (.05)
.01 (.05) .03 (.05) .01 (.05)
.00 (.03)
.13 (.06) .21 (.06)
.24 (.07)
.13 (.07)
.05 (.07)
.28 (.05)
.01 (.08)
.18 (.12)
.14 (.11)
.29 (.07)
.17 (.07)
.05 (.05)
.25 (.12)
.13 (.10)
.03 (.08)
.22 (.07)
.03 (.04)
.29 (.08)
.38 (.09)
Note. N 250. Standard errors are in parentheses. OBSE organization-based self-esteem; AS abusive supervision.
p .05 (two-tailed). p .01 (two-tailed).
Model 7
.20 (.12)
.06 (.10)
.12 (.15)
.25 (.13)
.37 (.08)
.22 (.07)
Model 8
.30 (.11)
.13 (.10)
.19 (.11)
.17 (.12)
.23 (.09)
.22 (.07)
.45 (.10)
.15 (.12)
.08 (.10)
.06 (.11)
.23 (.06)
.28 (.11)
.11 (.10)
.09 (.06)
.10 (.06)
.37 (.08)
.14 (.10)
.21 (.09)
.21 (.07)
.38 (.11)
1088
FARH AND CHEN
stronger when team-level abuse was low and weaker when teamlevel abuse was high. As shown in the lower panel of Table 3, the
indirect effect of individual abuse on voice through OBSE was
significant when team-level abuse was low (for manipulated abuse,
.35, p .01, 99% CI [.69, .14]; for perceived abuse,
.14, p .01, 99% CI [.29, .00]). Similarly, when
team-level abuse was low, there was a stronger indirect effect via
OBSE from individual abuse to team-role performance (for manipulated abuse, .45, p .01, 99% CI [.74, .22]; for
perceived abuse, .23, p .01, 99% CI [.46, .05]) and
turnover intentions (for manipulated abuse, .72, p .01, 99%
CI [.39, 1.11]; for perceptions of abuse, .36, p .01, 99% CI
[.02, .70]). When team-level abuse was high, however, these
indirect effects were weaker for voice (for manipulated abuse,
.06, ns, 95% CI [.23, .07]; for perceived abuse, .07,
ns, 95% CI [.15, .01]), team-role performance (for manipulated
abuse, .13, ns, 99% CI [.34, .02]; for perceived abuse,
.07, ns, 99% CI [.24, .02]), and turnover intentions (for
manipulated abuse, .23, p .01, 99% CI [.03, .50]; for
perceived abuse, .19, p .01, 99% CI [.03, .36]). Taken
together, Hypothesis 5 received strong support.
Finally, Hypothesis 7 predicted that team relationship conflict
would mediate the linkage between team-level abuse and members voice, team-role performance, and turnover intentions. As
shown in Table 3, these indirect effects were significant for member voice (for manipulated abuse, .09, p .01, 99% CI
[.19, .02]; for perceived abuse, .07, p .01, 99% CI
[.13, .03]), team-role performance (for manipulated abuse,
.12, p .01, 99% CI [.25, .03]; for perceived abuse,
.09, p .01, 99% [CI .17, .05]), and turnover intentions
(for manipulated abuse, .20, p .01, 99% CI [.05, .39]; for
perceived abuse, .14, p .01, 99% CI [.07, .24]). Thus,
Hypothesis 7 was supported.
Supplementary analyses. Although our hypotheses centered
on the condition of being singled out for abuse, one of our stated
objectives was to better understand how abusive supervision affected all members of the team. Hence, we sought to examine how
individuals in the spared conditionthat is, members subjected
to low individual abuse but high team abusemight fare. Utilizing
the PANAS (Watson et al., 1988), we assessed the state emotions
of participants following each manipulated condition. Compared to
participants whose teams experienced low abuse, participants in
the low individual abuse and high team abuse conditions experienced fewer positive emotions such as pride, F(1, 129) 10.07,
p .05, 2 .07, and higher levels of negative emotions,
particularly feelings of guilt, F(1, 129) 59.78, p .05, 2 .32;
hostility, F(1, 129) 39.48, p .05, 2 .23; and shame, F(1,
129) 22.56, p .05, 2 .15. These findings suggest that
although spared individuals did not suffer lower OBSE, they
were nevertheless emotionally affected by what was happening
in the team environment. That is, the emotional toll of high
team abuse spreads beyond members who personally experience abuse.
Discussion
Overall, Study 2 demonstrated support for our hypothesized
pathways linking individual- and team-level abuse to member
voice, team-role performance, and turnover intentions (via mem-
ber OBSE and team relationship conflict). These pathways held for
manipulated and perceived individual and team abuse. Furthermore, member OBSE and relationship conflict simultaneously
mediated the effects of abuse on member outcomes, after controlling for the influence of other potential mediators (e.g., interpersonal justice perceptions, team identification, and collective efficacy). Study 2 thus constructively replicated the findings from our
field study (Lykken, 1968) and extended them by assessing additional member outcomes, addressing causality concerns, and controlling for alternative explanations.
General Discussion
Theoretical Implications
Our studies offer several important theoretical insights on the
manifestation and consequences of abusive supervision in team
settings. First, we demonstrate that abusive supervision is a multilevel phenomenon with consequences for the team as a collective
and the individuals that compose it. Consistent with multilevel
frameworks of team leadership (G. Chen & Kanfer, 2006; G. Chen
et al., 2007), our findings support three distinct ways abusive
supervision impacts teams: (a) an individual-level pathway, in
which individual abuse reduced member OBSE; (b) a cross-level
pathway, in which the negative effects of individual abuse on
member OBSE was strengthened under low team-level abuse; and
(c) a team-level pathway, in which team abuse increased team
relationship conflict. The simultaneous existence of these pathways suggests that prior work solely examining the consequences
of abuse on targeted victims or on a group of individuals may have
underestimated the pervasive influence of abusive supervision in
the larger team system, or overlooked the conditions leading some
members to suffer more than others. Thus, one aspect of our
theoretical contribution was to demonstrate the importance and
usefulness of an integrative, multilevel framework with which to
more fully assess the consequences of abusive supervision in
teams.
Second, our finding that the proximal outcomes of abuse differed at the individual and team levels of analyses points to the
value of integrating different social influence theories to delineate
these effects. In particular, we integrated group-value model
(Lind & Tyler, 1988) with social comparison theory (Festinger,
1954) to inform how both absolute and relative levels of individual
abuse can affect member OBSE, and utilized social learning theory
(Bandura, 1971) to explain how aggregate experiences of abuse
can produce dysfunctional interpersonal processes like team relationship conflict. Although these theories have received some
attention in prior abusive supervision research (Liu et al., 2012;
Mawritz et al., 2012), they have not yet been applied in combination to understand the multilevel effects of abusive supervision in
teams. Thus, another aspect of our contribution was to showcase
how team-relevant theories (as opposed to social exchange or
justice theories) can be integrated to highlight the unique
individual-, cross-, and team-level effects of abusive supervision in
teams. Importantly, in employing these team-relevant theories, we
introduce two new mediators to the literature: member OBSE at
the individual level and team relationship conflict at the team level.
Third, we extend known consequences of abusive supervision
beyond internalized psychological distress or reactance toward the
supervisor (reviewed in Martinko et al., 2013) to member behaviors and attitudes toward the team. By showing the indirect effects
of individual- and team-level abuse on members willingness to
engage in voice, team-role performance, and turnover intentions,
we conclude that abusive supervision undermines members teambenefiting contributions by (a) harming the OBSE of targeted
members (especially those who are singled out for abuse) and (b)
fundamentally altering the social context itself. Our findings extend prior assumptions that only targeted victims will demonstrate
lower voice (Burris et al., 2008) or higher turnover intentions
(Tepper, 2000)rather, in team settings, even nontargeted members may choose to withhold contributions because they share in a
team with relationship conflict. Thus, a key aspect of our contribution was to show that when abuse is present in teams, the
consequences extend beyond individual victims to harm the entire
team.
In addition to the core contributions above, our multilevel approach provided the unique opportunity to examine personteam
interactions (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000)specifically, how embedding team contexts shape individual experiences of abuse in
teams. Overall, our findings corroborate prior research (e.g.,
Duffy, Ganster, et al., 2006; Hannah et al., 2013; Peng et al., 2013)
showing the singled-out effectthat in a context of low team
abuse, the relationship between individualized abuse and OBSE
was more negative. More interesting, however, is the fate of those
individuals who were spared, that is, experienced low individual
abuse in a context of high team abuse. In our field study, we found
that these members demonstrated a lower level of OBSE compared
to members who experienced low individual abuse and resided in
a context of low team-level abuse. In other words, when team-level
abuse was high, even nontargeted members suffered lower OBSE
simply from being in that shared context of abuse. These findings
from our field study corroborate research from the incivility literature demonstrating that mere witnesses of incivility are subject to
the same consequences we typically associate only with targeted
victims (Porath & Erez, 2009).
However, individuals in the spared condition of our scenario
study demonstrated a somewhat different result. Whereas the intercept of the high team abuse slope was lower than the slope of
low team abuse in the field study, in the scenario study, the
intercept of the high team abuse slope was higher than the slope of
low team abuse. The difference in intercepts suggests that being
under high team abuseregardless of the level of individual
abusenegatively impacted the OBSE of those in the field study
more so than those in the scenario study. One possibility for this
difference is that those in real teams cannot help but be personally
affected by the social context of high abuse, whereas the lack of
actual embeddedness in hypothetical teams prevents members
from suffering to the same degree.
Another possible contributor to this difference may be culture.
Some research suggests that subordinates ascribing to higher
power distance values are less likely to perceive abusive behaviors
as negative (Lian et al., 2012; Lin, Wang, & Chen, 2013; Wang,
Mao, Wu, & Liu, 2012), while other research suggests that the
self-concept of subordinates ascribing to higher collectivism values is more closely tied to the fate of the in group (Oyserman,
Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). This combination of higher power
distance and collectivism orientation in our China-based field
study may potentially explain why team-level abuse had a negative
1089
main effect on member OBSE, regardless of whether one was

personally abused. However, given that we controlled for cultural
values in each of our studies and did not find cultural values to
moderate the effects of individual or team abuse on OBSE, the
more likely explanation is the increased actual embeddedness of
members in the field study. This is not to say, however, that in our
scenario study, spared individuals were not adversely affected by
residing in a context of high team abuse. Our supplementary
analyses showed that these individuals suffered emotionally, particularly in the areas of guilt, hostility, and shame. As such, when
team abuse is high, no one is truly spared from its negative effects.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Several limitations in our study design represent ripe opportunities for exploration. Although pairing a cross-sectional field
study with a scenario experiment helped to address concerns about
external as well as internal validity, we acknowledge that our
experiment allowed us to test several of our models hypotheses by
measuring participants intent to behave, as opposed to actual
behavior. Further, our experiment was conducted with an undergraduate student population, potentially limiting external validity.
A clear next step is to replicate our findings in the field using
time-lagged or longitudinal designs. Examining the effects of
abusive supervision over time in and of itself represents a fruitful
means of advancing the literature (Martinko et al., 2013), as
chronic versus punctuated instances of abuse may predict outcomes differently. The timing of abusive supervision may also be
of interest, as abusive supervision may potentially play a shortterm, strategic function in the face of poor performance or an
impending deadline (Tepper, Duffy, & Breaux-Soignet, 2011).
Although our multilevel model examines proximal consequences for the team and individual, one limitation of our approach
is that we do not dive deeper to consider the consequences of abuse
for membermember relationships within the team. How do fellow
team members deal with targeted members versus the spared? Are
the targeted ostracized as the black sheep of the team, further
reinforcing their already marginalized status? Or are the spared
ostracized for receiving preferential treatment from the leader boss?
In light of a recent shift toward understanding membermember
interactions from a configurational perspective (Crawford & LePine,
2013), it seems timely to depict a more fine-grained understanding of
the factions and subgroups potentially arising in the face of differential abuse in teams.
Although we targeted members contributions to the team as our
dependent variable of interest, our investigation was limited in that
we assessed members team-relevant responses, but did not assess
team-level outcomes of abuse. In view of prior work associating
relationship conflict with lowered team effectiveness and performance (see De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de Wit et al., 2012; Jehn,
1997), however, it seems likely that relationship conflict might
also mediate the effects of team-level abusive supervision on
outcomes such as these. Relatedly, given that collective levels of
abuse can hurt notions of team pride and social identification with
the team (Priesemuth et al., 2013), future research can assess how
abused teams perceive their standing in the organization, or how
they interact with other teams in their department. Additionally, if
more and more teams are abused, organizations may find themselves dealing with consequences at a higher level, such as an
1090
FARH AND CHEN
increased tolerance of abusive supervision in the organizations

culture or climate. Thus, future research should assess the lateral
and upward effects of abuse beyond individuals and teams.
Finally, the majority of research on abusive supervision to date
has chronicled primarily negative consequences, with very little
work on resilience in the face of abusethis describes a limitation
that applies to our work as well. In theory, there may be new
opportunities for resilience in team settings. Whereas abusive
supervision occurring within isolated supervisorsubordinate dyads leaves the victim with relatively few resources for resilience,
abusive supervision occurring among a collective provides potential access to a larger pool of resources that in turn can afford new
options for coping. Although we did not find evidence for this in
our study, we acknowledge that under certain circumstances,
abused team members may band together and build coalitions as a
means of gaining power against a powerful abuser (Emerson,
1962; Heider, 1946; Sherif et al., 1961). Future research may
examine the circumstances under which team members will engage in mutual support rather than multiply the toxicity of abuse.
Implications for Practice

To date, abusive supervision has been seen as a problem affecting targeted individuals but our research demonstrates that,
when manifested in teams, abusive supervision also has the potential to negatively affect the interpersonal functioning of the
entire team. This knowledge of the pervasive influence of abuse on
the larger social system and all those within it should provide
managers with the extra incentive to address instances of abuse
quickly and decisively. Beyond prevention, however, our findings
provide relevant insights for the design of intervention programs
aimed at helping teams and their members to recover from abusive
experiences.
Whereas prior interventions may have focused exclusively on
targeted members, this research demonstrates that managers need
to rehabilitate both teams and individuals. More importantly, restorative interventions directed at individual members must differ
from those directed at teams. Our finding that member OBSE is
harmed by abuse indicates a need for interventions to focus on
restoring member self-concept and self-esteem in the team. Although our research did not directly examine practices that might
enhance OBSE in the aftermath of abuse, on the basis of the OBSE
literature, some practical steps to increase OBSE might involve
favorable and fair treatment or restructuring jobs to maximize
opportunities for self-direction and autonomy (Pierce & Gardner,
2004). Our finding that team relationship conflict stems from team
abuse indicates a need for interventions that rehabilitate team
interpersonal processes. On the basis of the team conflict resolution literature, practical steps include reestablishing interaction
norms characterized by interpersonal trust and relational harmony
(Jehn, 1995) and providing third-party mediation to reduce conflict
(Giebels & Janssen, 2005). Doing so can increase the likelihood
that members harbor more team-benefiting cognitions, attitudes,
and behaviors after an abusive incident. Additionally, because
proximal consequences of abuse occurred simultaneously at the
individual and team levels of analyses and predicted unique variance in members outcomes, our findings suggest that managers
must enact both team- and member-directed interventions to
achieve maximal effect.
Finally, in carrying out these interventions, managers should

recognize that there are specific individuals in the team who may
be in need of more restorative attention than others. Members who
were singled out for abuse, for instance, may suffer the lowest
levels of OBSE and harbor perceptions that their fellow members
regard them as having little value or worth in the team. It is critical
to enact restoration efforts toward these individuals, particularly in
interdependent team settings where ensuring that all members are
restored and contributing in ways to benefit the team is critical for
subsequent performance (Steiner, 1972).
Conclusion
Nearly a decade ago, researchers called for investigations of
abusive supervision as a multilevel phenomenon (Tepper, 2007).
Our framework and findings set the stage for future research and
theory examining the multilevel manifestation and consequences
of abusive supervision in teams. We provide initial evidence that
individual- and team-level abusive supervision simultaneously and
jointly harm members OBSE and the teams interpersonal processes, which in turn demotivate members contributions to the
team. Although much work remains to be done, we hope our
framework acts as a stepping stone for future research seeking to
better understand abusive supervision across levels of analyses.
References
Adelson, E. (2012, November 10). Mike Leach, Tommy Tuberville just two
examples of coaches who take authority too far. Retrieved from http://
sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--mike-leach--tommy-tuberville-just-twoexamples-of-coaches-who-take-authority-too-far.html
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 118. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325
.1990.tb00506.x
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, 191201. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92
.1.191
Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. (2006). Abusive supervision and
subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress and subordinate
personality into account. Human Relations, 59, 723752. doi:10.1177/
0018726706066852
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001).
Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323370.
doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
Bies, R., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication
criteria for justice. In B. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in
organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 4355). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and
Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 84 104.
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the
victims perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 998 1012. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998
Brislin, R. W. (1990). Applied cross-cultural psychology. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483325392
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before
leaving: The mediating effects of psychological attachment and detach-

ment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 912922. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.912
Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteem and
abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 340 355.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in
teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 12171234. doi:10.2307/
20159921
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content
domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 246. doi:10.1037/00219010.83.2.234
Chen, G., & Gogus, C. I. (2008). Motivation in and of teams: A multilevel
perspective. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work
motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 285317). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated
behavior in work groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27,
223267. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27006-0
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., & Allen, D. (2007). A multilevel
study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 331346. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.331
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L.
(2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, 541557. doi:10.1037/a0021886
Chen, Z. X., & Aryee, S. (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes:
An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China.
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 226 238. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007
.24162389
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y.
(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of
organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425
445. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
Crawford, E. R., & LePine, J. A. (2013). A configural theory of team
processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork.
Academy of Management Review, 38, 32 48. doi:10.5465/amr.2011
.0206
Curseu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does
trust obliterate conflict? Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 14, 66 79. doi:10.1037/a0017104
De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., Mullenders,
D., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). Rewarding leadership and fair procedures as determinants of self-esteem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
312. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.3
De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote
cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 858 866. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.858
De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship
conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309 328. doi:10.1002/job.71
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship
conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741749. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.88.4.741
Detert, J. R., Trevio, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007).
Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 9931005. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.993
de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup
conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360 390.
doi:10.1037/a0024844
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture
1091
and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In R. N. Farmer,

R. B. Peterson, E. G. McGoun, & P. Marer (Eds.), Advances in international comparative management (Vol. 3, pp. 127149). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Pagon, M.
(2006). The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 105126. doi:
10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.04.005
Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., Scott, K. L., & Tepper, B. J. (2006). The
moderating roles of self-esteem and neuroticism in the relationship
between group and individual undermining behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 1066 1077. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1066
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31 41. doi:10.2307/2089716
Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team
creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 11731180. doi:10.1037/a0020015
Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2012). Interpersonal
injustice and workplace deviance: The role of esteem threat. Journal of
Management, 38, 1788 1811. doi:10.1177/0149206310372259
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7, 117140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within
the organizational context: An empirical examination. Group & Organization Management, 23, 48 70. doi:10.1177/1059601198231004
Giebels, E., & Janssen, O. (2005). Conflict stress and reduced well-being
at work: The buffering effect of third-party help. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 137155. doi:10.1080/
13594320444000236
Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups:
Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 486 496. doi:10.2307/30040640
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup
relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3,
pp. 269 313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315342). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations.
In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 199 267). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hannah, S. T., Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., Lord, R. G., Trevino,
L. K., Kozlowski, S. W., . . . Doty, J. (2013). Joint influences of
individual and work unit abusive supervision on ethical intentions and
behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 579 592. doi:10.1037/a0032809
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Heck, A. K., Bedeian, A. G., & Day, D. V. (2005). Mountains out of
molehills? Tests of the mediating effects of self-esteem in predicting
workplace complaining. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35,
22622289. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02102.x
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107112. doi:10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social
psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in
organizations: From inputprocess output models to IMOI models.
Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517543. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych
.56.091103.070250
1092
FARH AND CHEN
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and

detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,
256 282. doi:10.2307/2393638
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions
in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530
557. doi:10.2307/2393737
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations:
A contingency perspective on the conflict outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187242. doi:10.1016/S01913085(03)25005-X
Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of
conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes.
Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 465 495. doi:10.1007/s10726008-9107-0
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A
longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238 251. doi:10.2307/3069453
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational
leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246 255. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246
Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. (1999). The source, nature,
and direction of work and family conflict: A longitudinal investigation.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 337346. doi:10.1037/
1076-8998.4.4.337
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management
Journal, 42, 58 74. doi:10.2307/256874
Korman, A. K. (1970). Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 54, 31 41. doi:10.1037/h0028656
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory
and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations (pp. 390). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New
York, NY: Springer.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995).
Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518 530. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about
interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research
Methods, 11, 815 852. doi:10.1177/1094428106296642
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853 868. doi:10.1037/00219010.83.6.853
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the
outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 107123. doi:10.1037/
a0024610
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of
promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 7192. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0176
Liang, J., Huang, X., & Chen, Z. X. (2013, August). Why offering participative voice opportunities does not necessarily facilitate speaking up.
Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Orlando, FL.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming service employees and
climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1006 1019. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1006
Lin, W., Wang, L., & Chen, S. (2013). Abusive supervision and employee
well-being: The moderating effect of power distance orientation. Applied
Psychology, 62, 308 329. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00520.x
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural

justice. Plenum Publishing Corporation: New York. doi:10.1007/978-14899-2115-4
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A
three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision
on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1187
1212. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0400
Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research.
Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151159. doi:10.1037/h0026141
Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, W. C., Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (2000).
Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 670 689. doi:10.1037/00223514.78.4.670
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review
of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34,
S120 S137. doi:10.1002/job.1888
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team
effectiveness 19972007: A review of recent advancements and a
glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410 476. doi:
10.1177/0149206308316061
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova,
S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel
Psychology, 65, 325357. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01246.x
Mayer, D. M., Thau, S., Workman, K. M., Van Dijke, M., & De Cremer,
D. (2012). Leader mistreatment, employee hostility, and deviant behaviors: Integrating self-uncertainty and thwarted needs perspectives on
deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
117, 24 40. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.003
Mayer, K. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2013). Integrating theories in AMJ
articles. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 917922. doi:10.5465/
amj.2013.4004
Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more broadly: An
examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
99, 87112. doi:10.1037/a0034284
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. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.92.4.1159
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M.
(2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 11021121. doi:
10.2307/3069391
Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2005). Antecedents and performance consequences of helping behavior in work groups: A multilevel analysis.
Group & Organization Management, 30, 514 540. doi:10.1177/
1059601104269107
Ogunfowora, B. (2013). When the abuse is unevenly distributed: The
effects of abusive supervision variability on work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 11051123. doi:10.1002/
job.1841
Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and
meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 372. doi:10.1037/00332909.128.1.3
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black
box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 128. doi:10.2307/2667029
Peng, A., Schaubroeck, J., & Li, Y. (2013). Social exchange implications
of own and coworkers experiences of supervisory abuse. Academy of
Management Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.5465/amj
.2012.0080
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and
organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem

literature. Journal of Management, 30, 591 622. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003
.10.001
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989).
Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622 648. doi:
10.2307/256437
Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2009). Overlooked but not untouched: How
rudeness reduces onlookers performance on routine and creative tasks.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 29 44.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.01.003
Priesemuth, M., Schminke, M., Ambrose, M., & Folger, R. (2013). Abusive supervision climate: A multiple-mediation model of its impact on
group outcomes. Academy of Management Journal. Advance online
publication. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0237
Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2011). The influence of abusive
supervisors on followers organizational citizenship behaviours: The
hidden costs of abusive supervision. British Journal of Management, 22,
270 285. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00732.x
Rau, D. (2005). The influence of relationship conflict and trust on the
transactive memory performance relation in top management teams.
Small Group Research, 36, 746 771. doi:10.1177/1046496405281776
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models:
Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim:
Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 387 400. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005
.17407904
Riggs, M. L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. (1994).
Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
scales for job-related applications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 793 802. doi:10.1177/0013164494054003026
Rispens, S., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2007). It could be worse: A study
on the alleviating roles of trust and connectedness in intragroup conflicts. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18, 325344.
doi:10.1108/10444060710833450
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing
approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224 253. doi:10.2307/2392563
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects
of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization
Science, 4, 577594.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W.
(1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship
conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102111. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85
.1.102
Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Choosing the right pond: The impact
of group membership on self-esteem and group-oriented behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 146 170. doi:10.1006/jesp
.1996.1318
Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D., & Lind, E. A. (1998). The
self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership,
1093
self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 470 493. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1360
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Swann, W. B. (1997). The trouble with change: Self-verification and
allegiance to the self. Psychological Science, 8, 177180. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9280.1997.tb00407.x
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group
behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 724). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events:
The mobilizationminimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110,
67 85. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 178 190. doi:10.2307/1556375
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review,
synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261289.
doi:10.1177/0149206307300812
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Breaux-Soignet, D. M. (2011). Abusive
supervision as political activity: Distinguishing impulsive and strategic
expressions of downward hostility. In G. R. Ferris & D. C. Treadway
(Eds.), Politics in organizations: Theory and research considerations
(pp. 191212). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive
supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 54, 279 294. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263085
Thau, S., Trster, C., Aquino, K., Pillutla, M., & De Cremer, D. (2013).
Satisfying individual desires or moral standards? Preferential treatment
and group members self-worth, affect, and behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 133145. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1287-5
Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the
group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
830 838. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.830
Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice
of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the
group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
913930. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.913
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings
of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and
organization citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 439 459. doi:10.1002/job.249
Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W., & 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, 50, 43 60.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based
performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540 555. doi:10.2307/256941
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership.
Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451 483. doi:10.1016/S10489843(01)00093-5
(Appendices follow)
FARH AND CHEN
1094
Appendix A
Scenario Manipulation of High Team Abusive Supervision
Tuesday morning, you come in for work and receive the following e-mail from J. P., addressed to the entire team:
From: J. P.
To: Task Force Members
Subject: Obstacles along the way
Sent: Yesterday afternoon
Hi everyone,
I know you all have been facing some challenges in getting other
people to provide you with some important planning details for the
Retreat. Well, I guess these problems are the price you pay for the
critical mistakes this team made early on in the process. I want to
remind you that the success of this teams work is of great
consequence for the School. So its time to stop screwing around
and stay focused and committed to figuring out how to get the
information you need. Just get it done!
By the way, remember Chris and Morgans input on the communication strategy for the Retreat? I personally found your opinions to be an embarrassment, but against my better judgment,
included several of them in the final report I delivered to the Dean
and the rest of the Executive Leadership Team. Ill update you on
how the meeting went when I see you all next week.
J. P.
A few hours later, you also see e-mails that were sent to you and
the rest of the Task Force from two of its membersMorgan and
Chris. Specifically:
From: Morgan

Subject: The Last Few Weeks
Sent: This afternoon
Folks,
Just wanted to say that its been a real challenge working under
J. P., and I am so glad we are in the home stretch of being done.
Okay, our progress as a team has been slow, but was it really
necessary for J. P. to send me a nasty email questioning my value
added to this team? Also, at the last brainstorming meeting with
the Deans Leadership Team, J. P. gave me no credit for my ideas.
Why does J. P. keep blaming me for everything thats not working? After graduation, I hope I never have to deal with someone
like J. P. again!
Morgan
From: Chris
Morgan and all,
I have to agree with youas a leader, J. P. has violated all my
expectations. From Day 1 of my being on the task force, J. P. has
been nothing but rude about my ideas and condescending of my
work. J. P. has also made a habit of ignoring my emails for no
reason at all. I get depressed knowing that, even when this is over,
I could end up working under someone like J. P. again.
Chris
Appendix B
Scenario Manipulation of Low Team Abusive Supervision
Tuesday morning, you come in for work and receive the following e-mail from J. P., addressed to the entire team.
From: J. P.
Subject: Obstacles along the way
Sent: Yesterday afternoon
Hi everyone,
I know you all have been facing some challenges in getting other
people to provide you with some important planning details for the
Retreat. This is in part because of some mistakes this team made
early on in the process. But this sort of thing happens all the time.
. . . I want to remind you that the success of this teams work is of
great consequence for the School. Therefore, it is really important
to stay focused and committed to figuring out how to get the

information you need. Challenges are simply part of the process!
By the way, I received Chris and Morgans input on the communication strategy for the Retreat. I put several of those ideas in the
final report I delivered to the Dean and the rest of the Executive
Leadership Team. Well see what their reactions were to your
suggestions. Ill update you on how the meeting went when I see
you all next week.
Best regards,
J. P.
A few hours later, you also see e-mails that were sent to you and
the rest of the Task Force from two of its membersMorgan and
Chris. Specifically:
(Appendices continue)
Morgan
From: Morgan
1095
Hey folks,
Just wanted to say that its been a pretty stress-free experience
working under J. P., and I am excited we are in the home stretch
of being done! Even though our progress as a team has been slow,
J. P.s feedback to me on yesterdays presentation was right to the
point. Also, in our last brainstorming meeting with the Deans
Leadership Team, J. P. made sure to acknowledge the ideas I
brought to the table. What do you guys think about having a
straight-shooting leader like J. P.? After graduation, I wouldnt
mind working with someone like J. P. in the future.
From: Chris
Morgan and all,
I have to agree with youas a leader, J. P. has neither violated nor
surpassed my expectations. From Day 1 of my being on the task
force, J. P. has been more or less fair about my ideas and the work
I bring to the team. J. P. has also been pretty good about responding to my emails. I also wouldnt mind working under someone
like J. P. once this task force assignment is over.
Chris
Appendix C
Scenario Manipulation of High Individual Abusive Supervision
Later in the day, you receive the following e-mail from J. P.,
addressed to you personally.
From: J. P.
To: You
Subject: Task Force Progress
Sent: A few minutes ago
has been slow towards our upcoming deadline. From what Ive
been observed, your ideas have been pretty lousy and have little
potential to be successful. I question the value you add to this team
and your ability to deliver high quality work dont bring the
team down, okay?
J. P.
I realize youve been working hard over the past few weeks. I
know it hasnt been a productive time for the team, and progress
Appendix D
Scenario Manipulation of Low Individual Abusive Supervision
Later in the day, you receive the following e-mail from J. P.,
addressed to you personally.
From: J. P.
To: You
Subject: Task Force Progress
Sent: A few minutes ago
Heyyouve been working hard over the past few weeks. I know
it hasnt been a productive time for the team, and progress has been
slow towards our upcoming deadline. Nonetheless, from what Ive

observed, you contribute a lot of ideas to the team effort, and I can
see the many ways you influence the teams outcome. Im looking
forward to how this whole thing will turn out for you and the team.
J. P.
Received November 20, 2013
Revision received June 26, 2014
Accepted July 9, 2014

Multilevel Consequences

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Multilevel Consequences

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Applied Psychology

2014, Vol. 99, No. 6, 1074 1095

2014 American Psychological Association

Beyond the Individual Victim: Multilevel Consequences of Abusive

Michigan State University

University of Western Australia

Defined as the extent to which supervisors engage in the

This article was published Online First August 11, 2014.

ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS

stand how abusive supervision in team settings fundamentally

(OBSE) and team relationship conflict as dual-level mediators

Theory and Hypotheses

FARH AND CHEN

Theoretical model. H hypothesis.

ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS

Hypothesis 1: Individual-level abusive supervision is negatively related to member OBSE.

Moderating Effect of Team-Level

abusive reality is not extended to the self (Duffy, Ganster, et al.,

Team Consequences of Abusive Supervision

FARH AND CHEN

negative, devaluing behaviors from the leader and treat fellow

Consequences for Members Responses

ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS

role performance. Likewise, because hostile interactions in the

sponsors enabled us to identify true teams (i.e., members reporting

Team member voice

p .05. p .01 (two-tailed).

ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS

from the OBSE scale developed by Pierce et al. (1989) ( .94;

131.94, root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] .10,

ership scale developed by Kirkman and Rosen (1999) ( .94).

Analyses and Results

FARH AND CHEN

Team member OBSE

Team member voice

p .05. p .01 (two-tailed).

OBSE. As shown in Model 5 and Figure 2, this interaction effect

Team member team-role

Note. CI confidence interval; OBSE organization-based self-esteem; DV dependent variable.

ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS

FARH AND CHEN

additional task force members. The e-mail contents distinguished

ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS

participants interactions with fellow members of team were likely

& Tellegen, 1988), consisting of 10 positive (e.g., interested,

Analyses and Results

FARH AND CHEN

Team member OBSE

Team member voice

Manipulated abusive supervision

Power distance orientation

.16 (.11) .17 (.09)

Perceived abusive supervision

.11 (.08) .05 (.08)

impact of team abuse on relationship conflict was significant for

Model 2, Table 6) and negatively to turnover intentions

Low Team-level Abusive

ABUSIVE SUPERVISION IN TEAMS

negatively to turnover intentions ( .29, p .01; Model 6,

Power distance orientation

Power distance orientation

Team member turnover intentions

Manipulated abusive supervision

p .05 (two-tailed). p .01 (two-tailed).