Next Article in Journal
Economic Indicators for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Going beyond Life Cycle Costing
Previous Article in Journal
Using Detailing Concept to Assess Railway Functional Safety
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/su15010019
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Reducing the Negative Effects of Abusive Supervision: A Step towards Organizational Sustainability

by
Xinqi Du
1,
Md Sohel Chowdhury
2 and
Dae-seok Kang
3,*
1
College of Business Administration, Shandong Technology and Business University, Yantai 264005, China
2
Department of Management Studies, University of Barishal, Barishal 8254, Bangladesh
3
College of Business Administration, Inha University, Incheon 22212, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(1), 19; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010019
Submission received: 15 November 2022 / Revised: 15 December 2022 / Accepted: 17 December 2022 / Published: 20 December 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to examine how to reduce the influence of abusive supervision on subordinates’ work alienation and psychological well-being (PWB). Integrating the perspectives of career development and resource conservation, subjective job mobility and regulatory focus were combined into two-dimensional structures to assess their moderating effects on the relationships. The study draws on a survey sample of 487 employees from the manufacturing and service industries in China. The key findings show that abusive supervision has a direct and indirect influence on PWB through work alienation. Regarding the moderating effects, only perceived interorganizational job mobility mitigates the positive effect of abusive supervision on work alienation. Interestingly, the three-way interactions that involve perceived intraorganizational job mobility–prevention focus or perceived interorganizational job mobility–promotion focus mitigate the negative effects of work alienation on PWB. From these findings, we discussed the implications of a step towards organizational sustainability.

1. Introduction

As a subcategory of destructive leadership, abusive supervision is well known for being associated with negative outcome variables, such as job dissatisfaction, lower organizational identification, and even causing followers to quit (Tepper et al., 2017 [1]). This continued disruption is fatal to subordinates because their existing resources are constantly threatened. Especially those who depend on their supervisor for valued resources (e.g., promotions, raises, and continued employment) are more likely to be at risk for poorer well-being outcomes through a subjective feeling of alienation at work. Moreover, sustainable leadership, i.e., ensuring that responsibilities and authorities for sustainability initiatives are assigned, communicated, and understood within the organization, can no longer be expected. In order to increase productivity and retain talent, the question of how to effectively reduce the negative impact of abusive supervision has become a major challenge for researchers and practitioners (e.g., Fischer et al., 2021 [2]). However, if supervisors are not intentionally causing harm and the judgement of abusive supervision is an outcome of subordinates’ subjective perspectives (Tepper, 2007 [3]), it may be crucial to understand subordinates’ psychological states to solve the abusive supervision issue.
In this regard, we first explain the mechanism that can produce an adverse effect on the psychological and emotional state of an individual through work alienation, i.e., mental self-separation from work. As noted by Li and Chen (2018) [4], work alienation begins with employees’ responses to organizational conditions and ends with the supplement of their lost resources or poorer performance. Indeed, given that today’s workers are focused on career growth (Bai and Liu, 2018 [5]), the harm caused by abusive supervision is becoming the top threat to their careers. According to conservation of resources theory (COR), under such organizational stress, employees would use existing or new resources to offset the loss of their careers (Hobfoll and Freedy, 2017 [6]). Here, we also assume that an employee’s job mobility can play a role in alleviating their stress level at workplace. For example, employees can reintegrate into the known organizational environment by rearranging existing resources, i.e., perceived intraorganizational job mobility. As well, employees can explore the unknown organizational environment by pursuing new resources, i.e., perceived interorganizational job mobility. Victims who perceive more job mobility have better psychological and behavioral states at work than others (e.g., Tepper, 2000 [7]; Wei and Si, 2013 [8]).
The perception of resource gains and losses is caused by the cross influence of multiple factors (Hobfoll et al., 2018 [9]). In particular, the dual role of personality and environmental characteristics make the process of employees obtaining resources more complex. Considering the differences in career resource pursuit among individuals, promotion-focused individuals can favor approach strategies, so they frame goal pursuit in terms of gains and non-gains; prevention-focused individuals do so with respect to losses and non-losses because of their preference for avoidance strategic means (Higgins, 2012 [10]). We compare these two possible regulatory foci and combine them with subjective prospects of job mobility, exploring their two-dimensional role in the process of reducing the negative effects of abusive supervision. In short, the main goal of this study is to understand the relationship between work alienation and psychological well-being (PWB), which varies with subjective interpretation of abusive supervision from the perspective of career conservation, and to provide expedient measures to reduce its adverse impact by examining the moderating effects of the interactions of job mobility and regulatory focus.
The value of this study lies in its attention to employees’ subjective reactions to abusive supervision and its association with career growth from the perspective of COR. This approach complements existing research simply focused on a stimulus-organism-response (SOR) framework and helps to identify other potential ways to reduce the destructiveness of abusive supervision. Unlike previous similar studies, the current study further explores the different roles of job mobility in reducing the negative impact of disruptive leadership. By doing so, we extend the literature on job mobility perception and provide detailed information on how employees can utilize current resources to overcome the subjective threat detrimental to their future career. Furthermore, few studies have considered whether an employee’s personality changes the negative effects of abusive supervision. We fill this void by combining regulatory focus with job mobility perception and examining their moderating effects using three-way interactions, expecting it to be a good analytical tool for managers to manage a weak leader–member fit more effectively.

2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

2.1. Abusive Supervision, Work Alienation and Psychological Well-Being

In organizations, abusive supervision is viewed in the context of supervisor–subordinate relationships and includes such behaviors as ridiculing subordinates, taking personal credit for their work, and invading their privacy. Working with this concept and adapting it from Tepper (2000) [7], we highlight some of the key aspects of abusive supervision. Firstly, as with above negative behaviors, these verbal and nonverbal behaviors are not physical attacks or sexual assaults. Secondly, abusive supervision has a “sustained” nature rather than one or two episodes of hostile behavior. Thus, sudden abuse because of a bad mood is not considered abusive supervision. Finally, it hinges on the employee’s “subjective evaluation” by observing his/her superior’s behavior. This means that abusive supervision is difficult to be controlled by superiors, and they may even be unaware that their behaviors are being interpreted as abusive. In view of such characteristics, abusive supervision has become a cancer that consumes employees’ emotional resources and makes them unable to maintain a relatively stable cognitive emotion (Tepper et al., 2017 [1]). Its root reason may stem from uncontrollable career prospects.
According to Berkman (1971) [11], PWB is an individual’s relatively stable cognitive and emotional experience generated by subjective evaluation of the quality of life according to his/her standards. As a measure of positive mental health, psychological well-being refers to the extent to which people feel that they have meaningful control over their lives and activities. This means that an employee’s level of PWB depends on whether their demands are met. For employees, these demands are not only for a high salary and career development (Chen et al., 2022 [12]), but according to COR theory, are also for conservation of career resources. If an employee is severely deprived of these resources, they may become more vulnerable (Hobfoll et al., 2018 [9]). In situations where this deprivation of resources is caused by negative leadership, the issue will worsen over time (Rasheed et al., 2021 [13]) and employees will have to invest more resources to prevent further career resource losses. In the process, each employee may have a different level of PWB which will force them to play a different role in organizations. For example, employees with high PWB may have higher job performance and lower turnover intention, while those with low PWB may have the opposite (e.g., Shi et al., 2021 [14]).
The relationship between abusive supervision and PWB was first described by Tepper in 2000 [7], who believes that abusive supervision can cause helplessness, frustration, and other psychological problems to employees. The main reason is that victims tend to feel powerless to stand up for their own rights; they are economically and politically dependent on perpetrators and fear worse resource losses if they speak up. This constant subjective judgment is very likely to cause strong psychological concerns (e.g., no raise, no promotion, or even losing their job), which will weaken their PWB. It is worth mentioning that followers who suffer from abusive supervision often think their superior is hostile to them (Tepper, 2007 [3]). As stated in leader–member exchange theory (Schriesheim et al., 1999 [15]), the victims may consider themselves out-group members and not to be trusted by their superiors. In this hostile attribution, those employees will think that they cannot get the career resources they deserve, which will ultimately cause a lower PWB. Thus, we formulate our first hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Abusive supervision will be negatively associated with followers’ psychological well-being.
According to the COR theory, if abusive supervision causes a serious career threat, employees may develop a self-defense mode that can result in an irrational psychology (Hobfoll et al., 2018 [9]). In this context, work alienation may be one of the consequences of abusive supervision, defined as a discrepancy between the employees’ subjective cognition of the objective task conditions of specific dimensions (control, purpose, and self-expression) and their expectations of these dimensions (Mottaz, 1981 [16]). Work alienation highlights three dimensions: meaninglessness, powerlessness, and self-estrangement. These dimensions may be the direct consequences of employees’ feelings of negative leadership (Jiang et al., 2019 [17]). Indeed, employees are likely to perceive more hostility than support from their superiors and believe they will lose more career resources (Muttar et al., 2019 [18]). As work alienation can result in employees’ solid job burnout and lower organizational commitment, identification, and career satisfaction (Chiaburu et al., 2013 [19])—all of which can harm the organization and individual—it is necessary to address this issue.
Research shows that the incompatibility between work environment and personal expectations (e.g., career needs and organizational well-being) is a prerequisite for work alienation (Finney et al., 2018 [20]). If a follower’s disappointment with career resource loss is mainly caused by abusive supervision, the subjective psychological imbalance that results from the inability to meet expectations will be the most direct factor in work alienation. This idea can be indirectly supported by Tepper’s (2007) [3] study, which found that abusive supervision can cause lower organizational commitment, engagement, and altruism tendencies. Moreover, abusive supervision can convince subordinates that they have partially lost their autonomy (Ronen and Donia, 2018 [21]), which contributes to work alienation by hindering their career development. The COR theory suggests that people have the tendency to invest resources to recover losses (Hobfoll et al., 2018 [9]). From this point, victimized subordinates may invest more personal resources to restore autonomy to ensure occupational health. However, the huge power gap makes them futile and thus causes work alienation. On these grounds, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Abusive supervision will be positively related to their followers’ work alienation.
The relationship between an employee’s work alienation and PWB is also valid, as work alienation is always accompanied by the loss of employees’ basic needs (e.g., career success and personal happiness) (Mottaz, 1981 [16]). The negative emotions generated by resources loss will appear more frequently. This “career demand–happiness relationship” can easily be awakened in high-risk work environments. Furthermore, suppose a high career crisis is caused by abusive supervision and the resulting work alienation pervades the whole working process, followers will feel deprived of their job resources and be unable to work. In order to protect career resources, individuals who are subject to high-level abusive supervision will increasingly experience high stress and even emotional dysfunction. Combining the preceding arguments, by forming work alienation, those subject to high-level abusive supervision are more likely to turn negative emotions into low-level PWB. Based on this discussion, we propose that:
Hypothesis 3a (H3a).
Work alienation will be negatively related to psychological well-being.
Hypothesis 3b (H3b).
Work alienation will mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and psychological well-being.

2.2. The Moderating Role of Perceived Job Mobility and Regulatory Focus

Perceived job mobility is defined as an individual’s perception which involves whether he/she may have available alternative job opportunities (Kirves et al., 2014 [22]). An individual’s perception of available alternative job opportunities can be divided into two types according to the source of career resources: intraorganizational job mobility and interorganizational job mobility. The former emphasizes the ability to re-integrate into the organization by using the organization’s internal resources; the latter emphasizes the ability to enter a new organization by integrating the external resources. It is important to note that the two types of job mobility are based on subjective consciousness. Therefore, they should be positive roles for employees and do not involve actual dismissal or demotion. Perceived job mobility involves an intense color of career, because it can provide employees with more career choices (McGinley and Martinez, 2018 [23]). Moreover, its positive impact on the organization is also significant, in this instance through higher extra-role performance (Hui et al., 1999 [24]) and lower counterproductive work behaviors (Wei and Si, 2013 [8]).
As noted by Tepper (2000) [7], when individuals have greater control over themselves or have the possibility to escape from, avoid, or reduce the impact of stimulation, they will be relatively optimistic. Intraorganizational job mobility gives followers the confidence to integrate career resources within the organization, and it makes them believe that they are easily re-integrated into the organization, which is beneficial for easing work alienation. The research that career self-management increases career well-being indirectly supports this logic (Wilhelm and Hirschi, 2019 [25]). In addition, a fundamental reason for why work alienation is caused by abusive supervision may be the follower’s low organizational commitment (e.g., Muttar et al., 2019 [18]). High interorganizational job mobility reflects career commitment under a high level of occupational self-efficacy (Park and Jung, 2015 [26]). From the perspective of COR, followers may be committed to using the later to supplement the former, thereby reducing work alienation. On these premises, we suggest the following:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Both intra- and interorganizational job mobility will mitigate the relationship between abusive supervision and followers’ work alienation.
Moreover, each of intra- and interorganizational job mobility can affect the relationship between work alienation and PWB. As mentioned above, work alienation reflects a feeling of disappointment about personal career development and a current situation within an organization (Chiaburu et al., 2013 [19]). However, intraorganizational mobility, as an organizational support that can enhance employees’ self-efficacy (Islam and Ahmed, 2018 [27]), can allow them to temporarily shelve conflict over current work and re-enter new work instead of succumbing to feelings of powerlessness. In other words, intraorganizational job mobility provides support to help followers recover individual resources, thereby reducing the intensity of work alienation. Interorganizational job mobility can also provide the follower who feels alienated in his/her workplace with a new blueprint for career growth. It keeps employees from being bound by the organization, and it is easier to leave when work resources run out. Conversely, it may increase the sense of powerlessness and frustration, which has a negative effect on their PWB. Because they have no choice, once they resign, they may lose more resources such as valued investments (Dawley et al., 2010 [28]). Therefore, we develop the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Both intra- and interorganizational job mobility will moderate the relationship between work alienation and psychological well-being.
Apart from subjective career conditions, different modes of individual self-regulation, such as regulatory focus, may also be the factors that affect employees’ emotions. Regulatory focus is defined as individuals’ mindset on pursuing a goal in a way that maintains their beliefs and values, including promotion focus and prevention focus (Higgins, 2012 [10]). The former emphasizes the desire to achieve the goal and allows a high fault tolerance in order to ensure hitting the goal, which means that employees with a high promotion focus will strive to obtain resources to gain career development. Even in an extreme case, they will still maximize the value of resources within their framework of interests (Byron et al., 2018 [29]). The latter emphasizes the desire to ensure career safety and allows only low fault tolerance when completing responsible tasks. Therefore, employees with a high prevention focus will spare no effort to protect career resources from infringement. Especially in a harsh organizational environment, they will pursue the conservation of resources driven by safety awareness (Koopmann et al., 2016 [30]).
We believe that regulatory focus can enhance the moderating effect of perceived job mobility, but specific boundary conditions are required. Intraorganizational job mobility means that employees can shelve disputes without leaving the familiar organization, whereas interorganizational job mobility creates an uncertain situation because it requires employees to abandon the accumulated resources and explore a new environment. For followers with a prevention focus, considering job mobility within an organization can be more attractive than identifying different types of organizations because the risk is relatively low. When confronted with abusive supervision, the prevention focus can magnify the positive role of intraorganizational job mobility and thus reduce work alienation. However, the disharmony between superior and subordinate indicates that employees have few opportunities to improve their career within the organization (Jiang et al., 2016 [31]), which cannot meet the expectations of employees with a high promotion focus. Followers with a high promotion focus tend to have a strong pioneering spirit (Higgins, 2012 [10]). Under high levels of an achievement goal orientation, interorganizational job mobility may encourage them to explore new resources to restore their career potential under abusive supervision. Grounded on a perspective of the conservation of resources, we formulate the following:
Hypothesis 6a (H6a).
For the followers with high levels of prevention focus, intraorganizational job mobility will moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and work alienation, but interorganizational job mobility will not.
Hypothesis 6b (H6b).
For the followers with high levels of promotion focus, interorganizational job mobility will moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and work alienation, but intraorganizational job mobility will not.
Similarly, under work alienation, employees with a prevention focus will actively search for opportunities within the organization to shelve work disputes because they know how to minimize the loss of resources and survive better in the organization (Higgins, 2012 [10]). In contrast, because interorganizational job mobility is challenging, it brings them more confusion (e.g., fear of a new work environment and unemployment), which is bad for psychological well-being. Nevertheless, unlike followers with a prevention focus, those with a high promotion focus are more willing to eliminate work disputes through interorganizational job mobility to restore career prospects because they are more optimistic about new job opportunities (Kanar and Bouckenooghe, 2021 [32]). Intra- and interorganizational job mobility can indeed meet the work needs of followers with a high promotion focus. However, the former is controversial in that work alienation reflects employees’ sense of disappointment toward the organization (Khan et al., 2018 [33]); the latter is dangerous, but there may be infinite possibilities, which can improve PWB. Therefore, we propose that:
Hypothesis 7a (H7a).
For the followers with high levels of prevention focus, intraorganizational job mobility will moderate the relationship between work alienation and PWB, but interorganizational job mobility will not.
Hypothesis 7b (H7b).
For the followers with high levels of promotion focus, interorganizational job mobility will moderate the relationship between work alienation and PWB, but intraorganizational job mobility will not.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and Procedures

Participants were selected from 18 Chinese enterprises which included mainly manufacturing and services. By randomly sampling different organizations, we hoped to study a wider range of jobs. Considering that the front-line skilled workers rarely see their superiors and have less room for promotion in China, which may bring errors to the research results, the current study excluded them and included only office staff. We contact the HR managers of these enterprises by telephone or private contact to clarify the purpose of the research and asked if they wished to cooperate. After obtaining permission, the Enterprise WeChat was used to recruit volunteers. To minimize the error caused by the company culture, only 35 respondents were interviewed in each company. The participants were asked to put the completed questionnaire in the attached envelope and submit it directly to the author. This can ensure that employees can complete the questionnaire anytime and anywhere without being affected by their superiors.
From a sample of 630 employees, we obtained 586 questionnaires, of which 99 were not usable due to incomplete information or malicious response (an effective response rate of 83.1%). Of the 487 valid responses, 55.4% were males, and 78.6% of all respondents were in their 20s and 40s. The majority (77.8%) had at least a college diploma. As to work tenure, 34.7% were 1–5 years, and 53.0% were above 5 years.

3.2. Measures

The measurement items for each construct were selected based on well- known scales in their respective domains and were reported as reliable and valid in prior research. The items were somewhat tailored to fit into the study context. Respondents used a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The following are the details of each variable.

3.2.1. Abusive Supervision

This was measured using 15 items adapted from a scale developed by Tepper (2000) [7]. The items asked employees to rate the extent to which they feel their superior violates them. A sample is, “My superior often puts me down in front of others”. The Cronbach’s α for this construct in the study was 0.95.

3.2.2. Work Alienation

This was measured by selecting 8 items in line with the Chinese background from a scale developed by Mottaz (1981) [16]. The measure assesses the difference between employees’ subjective cognition of the objective work condition and their expectations. A sample is, “I have little control over how I carry out my daily tasks”. The Cronbach’s α was 0.86.

3.2.3. Psychological Well-Being

The employees were asked to assess the psychological well-being by using an 8-item scale developed by Berkman (1971) [11]. The scale measures an employees’ subjective cognitive emotional experience. A sample is, “I am often pleased about having accomplished work tasks”. The Cronbach’s α was 0.97.

3.2.4. Perceived Job Mobility

We used Hui et al., (1999) [24] scale and integrated 6 items to measure each of intra- and interorganizational job mobility. These items measure employees’ perceived reemployment ability (e.g., “If needed, I have many jobs to choose from besides this job”) inside and (e.g., “If needed, I can find a better job than I have now”) outside the organization. To further assess the distinctiveness of the two dimensions of this measure, we conducted a two-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The fit indexes for the two-factor CFA had an acceptable fit (χ2/df = 1.509, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.032, CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.995). The Cronbach’s α for intra- and interorganizational job mobility were 0.87 and 0.79, respectively.

3.2.5. Regulatory Focus

The scale used to measure regulatory focus was an 18-item instrument developed by Akhtar and Lee (2014) [34] and composed of two dimensions: prevention focus and promotion focus. Actively achieving the goals was measured by 9 items (e.g., “I take chances at work to maximize my advancement goals”), and efforts to maintain safety were measured by 9 items (e.g., “Fulfilling my work duties is very important to me”). The Cronbach’s α for promotion and prevention dimensions were 0.82 and 0.89, respectively.

3.2.6. Control Variables

The demographic variables such as age, education, work tenure, and industry belonging were also used as control variables in this study. In particular, such factors may influence the degree of perceived job mobility; for instance, it seems likely that older employees, those with longer work tenure, would have a high position and a deep attachment to their organization. Moreover, employees with higher education are apt to think they have stronger work abilities and more development opportunities.

3.3. Data Analysis

For the data analysis, SPSS version 24.0 was used to conduct descriptive statistics and hierarchical multiple regression analysis. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood was also used to estimate the measurement model using AMOS 24.0. Along with a hypothetical model to measure the direct and indirect effects, in terms of moderating effects, four new models were constructed to eliminate the interaction between intra- and interorganizational job mobility. More importantly, we built three-way interaction models to explore the influence mechanism of abusive supervision. This method is helpful to reveal the joint effect of three independent variables (e.g., abusive supervision, perceived job mobility, and regulatory focus) on dependent variables and can more effectively test the contingency process of abusive supervision (Dawson and Richter, 2006 [35]).

4. Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and reliabilities of the variables. There were significant correlations between abusive supervision, work alienation, and PWB. In addition, the correlation between promotion focus and interorganizational job mobility is stronger than that between promotion focus and intraorganizational job mobility; the correlation between prevention focus and intraorganizational job mobility is stronger than that between prevention focus and interorganizational job mobility. This may preliminarily confirm our conjecture about the relationship between regulatory focus and perceived job mobility.

4.1. Construct Validity and Common Method Bias

Before testing the hypotheses, construct validity and common method variance were examined with a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). First, our measurement model—which allowed every item to load on its respective construct—demonstrated a good fit: χ2/df = 2.061, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.047, and SRMR = 0.061. Factor loadings of all items on the seven scales exceeded 0.45, with t-values greater than 6.927 (p < 0.001), providing evidence of convergent validity for all measures. We also assessed discriminant validity by comparing the squared correlations between the constructs and the AVE for a construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981 [36]). All squared correlations were lower than the AVE values (composite reliability is between 0.775 and 0.969, and most AVE were greater than 0.50), thereby satisfying discriminant validity. We then conducted CFA with common method factors (Wang et al., 2022 [37]). Compared with the hypothetical model, the fit degree of the model that added common method factor was not significantly improved (Δχ2/df = 0.205, ΔCFI = 0.017 < 0.100, ΔTLI = 0.016 < 0.100, ΔRMSEA = 0.005 < 0.050, ΔSRMR = 0.010 < 0.050). This shows that there is no significant common method bias in our data.

4.2. Hypotheses Testing

The results of path analysis showed acceptable goodness of fit for the hypothesized model (χ2/df = 1.913, p < 0.001, GFI = 0.913, CFI = 0.973, RMSEA = 0.043, and SRMR = 0.042). Work alienation partially mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and PWB. Abusive supervision had a significant negative impact on PWB (β = −0.119, p < 0.05) and a significant positive impact on work alienation (β = 0.334, p < 0.001); the path between work alienation and PWB is negative and significant (β = −0.153, p < 0.01). We further used bootstrap re-sampling set to 5000 times to generate a 95% confidence interval (CI). All the CIs did not include zero, they were [−0.459, −0.094], [0.249, 0.496] and [−0.571, −0.086]. Furthermore, an additional analysis shows that the indirect effect of work alienation accounted for 29.6% of the total effect, which indicated that work alienation played an important role in the abusive supervision–PWB relationship. Thus, H1, H2, H3a, and H3b were supported.
Next, a series of hierarchical, moderated regression analyses were performed to test boundary conditions affecting the main effect. Prior to the analysis, we centered the variables associated with the interaction terms to reduce the potential effects of multicollinearity. As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, only interorganizational job mobility played a moderating role between abusive supervision and work alienation (β = −0.11, p < 0.01, CI = −0.237 to −0.027), whereas neither interorganizational job mobility nor intraorganizational job mobility had interaction effects in the relationship between work alienation and PWB. We further plotted Figure 1 to illustrate the simple slope difference regarding the effect of abusive supervision under high or low levels of interorganizational job mobility (±1 SD). As predicted, the positive relationship between abusive supervision and work alienation was weaker when subordinates had higher interorganizational job mobility. Thus, H4 was partially supported and H5 was rejected.
In terms of work alienation, all the three-way interactions were not significant on 0.05 level. In other words, with a regulatory focus, interorganizational job mobility and intraorganizational job mobility cannot moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and work alienation. Thus, Hypotheses 6a and 6b were only partially supported. Interestingly, in the relationship between work alienation and PWB, when adding a prevention focus, the moderating effect of intraorganizational job becomes significant (β = 0.14, p < 0.01, CI = 0.075 to 0.439). By contrast, when adding the promotion focus, the moderating effect of interorganizational job mobility becomes significant (β = 0.15, p < 0.01, CI = 0.114 to 0.507). Such results confirmed our inference that employees with a high prevention focus were more sensitive to intraorganizational mobility and employees with a high promotion focus were more sensitive to interorganizational mobility.
Significant three-way interactions were plotted using unstandardized regression coefficients following the procedures of Dawson and Richter (2006) [35]. As shown in Figure 2, the high intraorganizational job mobility–high prevention focus was more effective in weakening the negative impact of work alienation. Moreover, under the condition of high intraorganizational job mobility, a high-level prevention focus weakens those influences more than a low-level prevention focus; at low intraorganizational job mobility, a low-level prevention focus is more effective. Thus, H7a was supported. However, when employees perceived more interorganizational job mobility, high interorganizational job mobility–high promotion focus made it easier to mitigate the influence of work alienation than high interorganizational job mobility–low promotion focus; low interorganizational job mobility–low promotion focus was more effective than low interorganizational job mobility–high promotion focus (see Figure 3). Thus, H7b was supported. It is noteworthy that although low interorganizational job mobility–low promotion focus recovers PWB the best, it may lead to employees’ poor initiative, so high interorganizational job mobility–high promotion focus was more important.

5. Discussion

We examined the mechanism by which abusive supervision impacts employees’ PWB by applying COR theory, and we tested the boundary conditions that affect the path relationship. The results demonstrated that the negative impact of abusive supervision on employees’ PWB is transmitted by work alienation. Although perceived intraorganizational job mobility did not work alone on the whole path, perceived interorganizational job mobility alleviated the negative impact of abusive supervision on work alienation. In addition, the promotion and prevention focus caused intra- and interorganizational job mobility to exert a moderating effect on the relationship between work alienation and PWB. This result supports the following three important conclusions.
Firstly, work alienation was a robust explanatory factor in the relationship between abusive supervision and PWB, suggesting that the loss of control caused by person–supervisor misfit is the direct reason for employees’ emotional confusion. This is similar to the research result of Wang et al. (2020) [38], which showed that abusive supervision causes employees to lose autonomy, thus reducing job satisfaction. We believe that the career resource crisis is the main contributor to employees’ poor psychological state caused by abusive supervision. Abusive supervision makes employees think they are “outsiders” (Mackey et al., 2020 [39]), and this employee–supervisor misfit is a true portrayal of the serious threat to career resources. Perhaps employees are unable to balance the resource losses from the huge power distance. They can only accept unwanted labor as a means of survival, even when the labor is no longer voluntary but forced. In addition, this work state does not promote the free development of physical and mental energy but damages PWB.
Secondly, only perceived interorganizational job mobility moderated the negative role of work alienation in the relationship between abusive supervision and PWB, which indicates that social encouragement may be a more important factor to alleviate the employee–supervisor misfit. When employees are subjected to inhuman treatment, more practical social rewards can better change their bad mentality than “drawing big cakes”. Essentially, interorganizational mobility provides employees with social resource compensation (Sammarra et al., 2013 [40]), which weakens the impact of abusive supervision. However, intraorganizational mobility may also be under the control of previous superiors (Carson and Carson, 2007 [41]), thus it is more like a blank check. Employees may worry that management collusion could lead to abusive supervision occurring again. It should be noted that once work alienation occurs, even perceived interorganizational job mobility makes it difficult to change employees’ mentality. Perhaps due to lack of motivation, employees with work alienation are more confused about whether to leave or stay. Leaving the organization means that they completely give up existing career resources; staying is also what they are unwilling to choose.
Thirdly, representations of the interaction effect between job mobility prospects and regulatory foci (interorganizational job mobility–promotion focus; intraorganizational job mobility–prevention focus) appeared after the formation of work alienation. Consistent with the findings of Turkmenoglu et al. (2022) [42], forming work alienation may be an instinctive reaction for employees when suffering unfair treatment. When employees first begin to suffer from abusive supervision, they may be more concerned about the quantity of career resources lost rather than how to remedy it. Such stress response is greater than the behavioral response. Only interorganizational job mobility explained 13% of the relationship between abusive supervision and work alienation, which also indirectly proved this point. However, when work alienation has become an established fact, those with a specific regulatory focus strive to use the resources that meet their goals and expectations to make up for the lost career resources. For example, intraorganizational mobilities create conditions for employees with a prevention focus to shelve work disputes, while interorganizational mobilities provide new and challenging career development directions for those with a promotion focus. This consistency between job mobility and personal intentions is essential for promoting employees’ PWB (Liljegren and Ekberg, 2009 [43]).

6. Managerial Implications

The results of the current investigation have important implications. First, management must be deeply aware that abusive supervision will result in employees’ work alienation and eventually cause barriers to psychological well-being. Work alienation caused by abusive supervision superficially hurts organizational performance, but it is obvious that employees’ long-term career aspirations will deteriorate due to their continuous loss of resources. Managers should take various steps to convey a clear message to leaders at all levels: “zero tolerance for abusive supervision”. It is difficult to ensure the sustainability of the organization in such a situation. As a realistic approach to improving team effectiveness, HR managers need to use well-constructed surveys to detect occurrences of abusive supervision in advance. To ensure the authenticity of the survey responses, managers also must protect employees’ privacy to prevent superiors’ intimidation.
Second, it may be impossible for managers to solve the influence of abusive supervision on work alienation by providing employees with intraorganizational job mobility, though providing career-enhancing education is a viable option. This is because only interorganizational job mobility can mitigate the positive relationship between abusive supervision and work alienation. However, it also can lead to brain drain. Therefore, as a substitute, career-enhancing education can be one of the important measures to retain talents, avoid work alienation, and improve production efficiency. Managers should strengthen employees’ career-enhancing strategies through various means; for example, setting performance goals, providing ways to promote and raise salaries, or providing career skill training. Through these approaches, employees will manage their careers voluntarily and their career commitment will be greatly enhanced.
Third, in order to mitigate the negative relationship between work alienation and PWB, it is necessary for managers to fully understand the personality characteristics of each employee (e.g., either their promotion/prevention focus) and treat different employees differently. Our findings support the notion that employees’ personalities determine their roles in the workplace, and that different personalities react differently to the same stimuli (Higgins, 2012 [10]). A one problem-oriented strategy can ensure that employees work in the best conditions. Therefore, managers should provide new career development prospects within the enterprise for employees with security needs (e.g., prevention focus) to meet their sense of security such as multisectoral work involvement; for employees with challenging needs (e.g., promotion focus), managers also need to provide challenging tasks or education and training that can meet their challenges, which might include expatriation and internship abroad or even the encouragement of job rotation between the parent company and subsidiaries.

7. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Results from this study should be interpreted with an acknowledgment of the following limitations. First, the respondents in this study were office workers, so our findings may be less convincing for all types of employees and positions. Front-line workers generally have lower education levels and know little about their employability. In this regard, although the industry was considered as a control variable, the culture of each company may have also been affected. Future research should compare whether there are differences between office workers and front-line workers as well as their organizational cultures.
Second, the data used in this study targeted domestic enterprises in China, so the generalizability of the results is limited. For example, even when comparing eastern countries such as China, South Korea, and Japan, the class cultures of South Korea and Japan are stronger than that of China; China pays more attention to “Guanxi” or supportive business relationships, which may also cause the results to change. Therefore, future studies can focus on comparing the behaviors of employees in China and western cultures, or the differences between Chinese, Korean, and Japanese cultures.
Finally, future research can investigate the possible effects of potential moderators not considered in this study; the hypothesized framework does not rule out the possibility that other variables could also influence the relationships between abusive supervision, work alienation, and PWB. Therefore, future studies can extend the variables. For instance, the third characteristic variable, i.e., work experiences or personal experiences, falls between a promotion focus and a prevention focus.

8. Conclusions

In this paper, we investigated how to reduce the negative influence of abusive supervision on employees’ PWB and theorized that career growth and resource conservation are indispensable factors in this process. We suggest a different role for each of the two types of perceived job mobility in lessening the negative impact of disruptive leadership. More specifically, interorganizational job mobility–promotion focus and intraorganizational job mobility–prevention focus are more effective in remedying work alienation, a predictor for PWB. Accordingly, managers and HR practitioners can reduce the risk of poor leader–member fit with such tips on how to retain talent and increase employee well-being. Although this study is limited in scope and may only be applicable to office workers in China’s manufacturing or service sectors, it can help ensure organizational sustainability.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.D., M.S.C. and D.-s.K.; Methodology, X.D., M.S.C. and D.-s.K.; Software, X.D. and M.S.C.; Validation, D.-s.K.; Formal analysis, X.D., M.S.C. and D.-s.K.; Data curation, X.D.; Writing—original draft, X.D. and M.S.C.; Writing—review & editing, D.-s.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Inha University Research Grant (2022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data set used in this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tepper, B.J.; Simon, L.; Park, H.M. Abusive supervision. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017, 4, 123–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fischer, T.; Tian, A.W.; Lee, A.; Hughes, D.J. Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink. Leadersh. Q. 2021, 32, 101540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tepper, B.J. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. J. Manag. 2007, 33, 261–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Li, S.; Chen, Y. The relationship between psychological contract breach and employees’ counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effect of organizational cynicism and work alienation. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Bai, J.; Liu, J. A study on the influence of career growth on work engagement among new generation employees. Open J. Bus. Manag. 2018, 6, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Hobfoll, S.E.; Freedy, J. Conservation of resources: A general stress theory applied to burnout. In Professional Burnout; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; pp. 115–129. [Google Scholar]
  7. Tepper, B.J. Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 178–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wei, F.; Si, S. Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2013, 30, 281–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hobfoll, S.E.; Halbesleben, J.; Neveu, J.P.; Westman, M. Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018, 5, 103–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Higgins, E.T. Regulatory focus theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology; van Lange, P.A.M., Kruglanski, A.W., Higgins, E.T., Eds.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2012; pp. 483–504. [Google Scholar]
  11. Berkman, P.L. Life stress and psychological well-being: A replication of langner’s analysis in the midtown manhattan study. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1971, 12, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, J.; May, D.R.; Schwoerer, C.E.; Deeg, M. “Called” to speak out: Employee career calling and voice behavior. J. Career Dev. 2022, 08948453211064943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rasheed, M.I.; Weng, Q.; Umrani, W.A.; Moin, M.F. Abusive supervision and career adaptability: The role of self-efficacy and coworker support. Hum. Perform. 2021, 34, 239–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shi, X.; Gordon, S.; Tang, C.H. Momentary well-being matters: Daily fluctuations in hotel employees’ turnover intention. Tour. Manag. 2021, 83, 104212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schriesheim, C.A.; Castro, S.L.; Cogliser, C.C. Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadersh. Q. 1999, 10, 63–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mottaz, C.J. Some determinants of work alienation. Sociol. Q. 1981, 22, 515–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jiang, H.; Chen, Y.; Sun, P.; Li, C. Authoritarian leadership and employees’ unsafe behaviors: The mediating roles of organizational cynicism and work alienation. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 38, 1668–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Muttar, A.K.; Keir, M.Y.A.; Mahdi, O.R.; Nassar, I.A. Antecedents and consequences of work alienation–A critical. J. Stat. Appl. Probab. 2019, 8, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chiaburu, D.S.; Diaz, I.; De Vos, A. Employee alienation: Relationships with careerism and career satisfaction. J. Manag. Psychol. 2013, 28, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Finney, T.G.; Finney, R.Z.; Maes, J.D. Abusive supervision and work alienation: An exploratory study. J. Organ. Psychol. 2018, 18, 78–87. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ronen, S.; Donia, M.M. From abusive supervision to work outcomes: The role of autonomous and controlled motivation. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kirves, K.; Kinnunen, U.; De Cuyper, N. Contract type, perceived mobility and optimism as antecedents of perceived employability. Econ. Ind. Democr. 2014, 35, 435–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. McGinley, S.P.; Martinez, L. The moderating role of career progression on job mobility: A study of work–life conflict. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2018, 42, 1106–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hui, C.; Law, K.S.; Chen, Z.X. A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1999, 77, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wilhelm, F.; Hirschi, A. Career self-management as a key factor for career wellbeing. In Theory, Research and Dynamics of Career Wellbeing; Potgieter, I.L., Ferreira, N., Coetzee, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 117–137. [Google Scholar]
  26. Park, I.J.; Jung, H. Relationships among future time perspective, career and organizational commitment, occupational self-efficacy, and turnover intention. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2015, 43, 1547–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Islam, T.; Ahmed, I. Mechanism between perceived organizational support and transfer of training: Explanatory role of self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Manag. Res. Rev. 2018, 41, 296–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dawley, D.; Houghton, J.D.; Bucklew, N.S. Perceived organizational support and turnover intention: The mediating effects of personal sacrifice and job fit. J. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 150, 238–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Byron, K.; Peterson, S.J.; Zhang, Z.; LePine, J.A. Realizing challenges and guarding against threats: Interactive effects of regulatory focus and stress on performance. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 3011–3037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koopmann, J.; Lanaj, K.; Bono, J.; Campana, K. Daily shifts in regulatory focus: The influence of work events and implications for employee well-being. J. Organ. Behav. 2016, 37, 1293–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jiang, W.; Wang, L.; Lin, H. The role of cognitive processes and individual differences in the relationship between abusive supervision and employee career satisfaction. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 99, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kanar, A.M.; Bouckenooghe, D. Job seekers’ self-directed learning activities explained through the lens of regulatory focus. J. Career Dev. 2021, 49, 681–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Khan, T.I.; Nisar, H.G.; Bashir, T.; Ahmed, B. Impact of aversive leadership on job outcomes: Moderation and mediation model. NICE Res. J. 2018, 11, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Akhtar, S.; Lee, J.S. Assessing factor structure and convergent validity of the work regulatory focus scale. Psychol. Rep. 2014, 115, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dawson, J.F.; Richter, A.W. Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 917–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, J.; Yang, X.; Xi, Y.; He, Z. Is green spread? the spillover effect of community green interaction on related green purchase behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wang, C.C.; Hsieh, H.H.; Wang, Y.D. Abusive supervision and employee engagement and satisfaction: The mediating role of employee silence. Pers. Rev. 2020, 49, 1845–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mackey, J.D.; Huang, L.; He, W. You abuse and I criticize: An ego depletion and leader–member exchange examination of abusive supervision and destructive voice. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 164, 579–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sammarra, A.; Profili, S.; Innocenti, L. Do external careers pay-off for both managers and professionals? the effect of inter-organizational mobility on objective career success. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 2490–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Carson, P.P.; Carson, K.D. Demystifying demotion: A look at the psychological and economic consequences on the demote. Bus. Horiz. 2007, 50, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Turkmenoglu, M.A.; Cicek, B.; Erdur, D.A. Addressing leader-member exchange and self-regulation as remedies for work alienation: Insights from private and public sectors in Turkey. J. East Eur. Manag. Stud. 2022, 27, 311–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liljegren, M.; Ekberg, K. Job mobility as predictor of health and burnout. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2009, 82, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 00019 g001 550
Figure 1. Interaction of abusive supervision and interorganizational job mobility on work alienation.
Figure 1. Interaction of abusive supervision and interorganizational job mobility on work alienation.
Sustainability 15 00019 g001
Sustainability 15 00019 g002 550
Figure 2. Interaction between work alienation, intraorganizational job mobility, and prevention focus against PWB.
Figure 2. Interaction between work alienation, intraorganizational job mobility, and prevention focus against PWB.
Sustainability 15 00019 g002
Sustainability 15 00019 g003 550
Figure 3. Interaction between work alienation, interorganizational job mobility, and promotion focus against PWB.
Figure 3. Interaction between work alienation, interorganizational job mobility, and promotion focus against PWB.
Sustainability 15 00019 g003
Table
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlation for the variables.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlation for the variables.
VariablesMeanSD12345678910
1. Age1.940.79
2. Education0.770.42−0.34 **
3. Tenure2.690.990.58 **−0.33 **
4. Industry0.590.49−0.01−0.23 **−0.02
5. Abusive supervision1.290.530.060.070.000.07
6. Work alienation2.600.560.04−0.050.070.16 **0.31 **
7. PWB3.700.840.03−0.020.04−0.07−0.15 **−0.17 **
8. Interorg.JM2.870.93−0.11 *0.15 **−0.09−0.020.10 *−0.08−0.02
9. Intraorg.JM2.860.90−0.070.11 *−0.03−0.03−0.08−0.20 **0.030.65 **
10. Promotion focus3.250.59−0.11 *0.08−0.14 **−0.01−0.07−0.17 **−0.080.23 **0.27 **
11. Prevention focus3.730.630.04−0.050.04−0.08−0.24 **−0.28 **−0.020.09 *0.16 **0.42 **
Note: N = 487, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; two-tailed tests: Education (1 = college degree or above, 0 = high school diploma or lower); Industry (1 = manufacturing, 0 = services). Interorg.JM = perceived interorganizational job mobility; Intraorg.JM = perceived intraorganizational job mobility.
Table
Table 2. Regression analyses results for work alienation.
Table 2. Regression analyses results for work alienation.
VariablesDependent Variable: Work Alienation
Moderating Variable: Intraorg.JMModerating Variable: Interorg.JM
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Age−0.01−0.03−0.03−0.030.00−0.03−0.03−0.03
Education−0.03−0.01−0.010.00−0.03−0.01−0.02−0.02
Tenure0.080.090.090.090.080.080.080.08
Industry0.17 ***0.13 **0.13**0.13 **0.20 ***0.13 **0.12 **0.12 **
Abusive supervision (AS) 0.24 ***0.23 ***0.25 *** 0.26 ***0.29 ***0.29 ***
Intraorg.JM −0.14 ***−0.14 ***−0.15 ***
Interorg.JM −0.07−0.08−0.09 *
Prevention focus (Pre-focus) −0.18***−0.18***−0.19 *** −0.19 ***−0.18 ***−0.17 ***
Promotion focus (Pro-focus) −0.03−0.03−0.04 −0.05−0.05−0.06
AS × Intraorg.JM −0.04−0.06
AS × Interorg.JM −0.11 **−0.14 **
AS × Intraorg.JM × Pre-focus −0.06
AS × Intraorg.JM × Pro-focus −0.04
AS × Interorg.JM × Pre-focus −0.05
AS × Interorg.JM × Pro-focus 0.04
R20.030.190.190.190.030.170.180.19
ΔR20.030.160.000.000.030.140.010.01
ΔF4.14 **22.26 ***0.691.494.14 **20.09 ***6.12 *0.61
Notes: N = 487, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; two-tailed tests: Education (1 = college degree or above, 0 = high school diploma or lower); Industry (1 = manufacturing, 0 = services). Interorg.JM = perceived interorganizational job mobility; Intraorg.JM = perceived intraorganizational job mobility.
Table
Table 3. Regression analyses results for PWB.
Table 3. Regression analyses results for PWB.
VariablesDependent Variable: PWB
Moderating Variable: Intraorg.JMModerating Variable: Interorg.JM
Model Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Age0.010.010.010.010.010.010.01−0.01
Education−0.03−0.03−0.03−0.02−0.03−0.02−0.02−0.02
Tenure0.020.020.020.030.020.030.020.03
Industry−0.08−0.05−0.05−0.04−0.08−0.05−0.05−0.03
Work alienation (WA) −0.19 ***−0.19 ***−0.22 *** −0.20 ***−0.20***−0.25***
Intraorg.JM 0.030.030.06
Interorg.JM −0.01−0.010.01
Prevention focus (Pre-focus) −0.05−0.05−0.02 −0.05−0.05−0.03
Promotion focus (Pro-focus) −0.09−0.09−0.07 −0.08−0.09−0.06
WA × Intraorg.JM 0.01−0.04
WA × Interorg.JM −0.03−0.07
WA× Intraorg.JM × Pre-focus 0.14 **
WA × Intraorg.JM × Pro-focus 0.08
WA × Interorg.JM × Pre-focus 0.09
WA × Interorg.JM × Pro-focus 0.15 **
R20.010.050.050.070.010.050.050.08
ΔR20.010.040.000.020.010.040.000.03
ΔF0.815.09 ***0.015.69 **0.814.98 ***0.497.28 ***
Notes: N = 487, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; two-tailed tests: Education (1 = college degree or above, 0 = high school diploma or lower); Industry (1 = manufacturing, 0 = services). Interorg.JM = perceived interorganizational job mobility; Intraorg.JM = perceived intraorganizational job mobility.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Du, X.; Chowdhury, M.S.; Kang, D.-s. Reducing the Negative Effects of Abusive Supervision: A Step towards Organizational Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010019

AMA Style

Du X, Chowdhury MS, Kang D-s. Reducing the Negative Effects of Abusive Supervision: A Step towards Organizational Sustainability. Sustainability. 2023; 15(1):19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010019

Chicago/Turabian Style

Du, Xinqi, Md Sohel Chowdhury, and Dae-seok Kang. 2023. "Reducing the Negative Effects of Abusive Supervision: A Step towards Organizational Sustainability" Sustainability 15, no. 1: 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010019

APA Style

Du, X., Chowdhury, M. S., & Kang, D.-s. (2023). Reducing the Negative Effects of Abusive Supervision: A Step towards Organizational Sustainability. Sustainability, 15(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010019

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop