CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorWorkplace Violence and BullyingLeadership and Management in Organizations

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why and how predators pick prey: Followers’ personality and performance as predictors of destructive leadership

Mackey, Jeremy D.·2021·Journal of Business Research
DOI 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.002

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. Aasland, 2010, The prevalence of destructive leadership behavior, British Journal of Management, 21, 438, 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00672.x · DOI
  2. Aguinis, 2020, Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 27, 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.02.007 · DOI
  3. Aguinis, 2011, Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: Implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact, Journal of Management, 37, 5, 10.1177/0149206310377113 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Aguinis, 2011, Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis, Organizational Research Methods, 14, 306, 10.1177/1094428110375720 · DOI
  5. Alvesson, 2011, Generating research questions through problematization, Academy of Management Review, 36, 247
  6. Aquino, 2009, Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective, Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717, 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163703 · DOI
  7. Ashford, 2019, From problems to progress: A dialogue on prevailing issues in leadership research, The Leadership Quarterly, 30, 454, 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.01.003 · DOI
  8. Ashton, 2009, The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality, Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340, 10.1080/00223890902935878 · DOI
  9. Aytug, 2012, Revealed or concealed? Transparency of procedures, decisions, and judgment calls in meta-analyses, Organizational Research Methods, 15, 103, 10.1177/1094428111403495 · DOI
  10. Barrick, 1991, The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, 44, 1, 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · DOI · Paper page
  11. Bennett, 2000, Development of a measure of workplace deviance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349, 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349 · DOI
  12. Carnevale, 2018, Speaking up to the “emotional vampire”: A conservation of resources perspective, Journal of Business Research, 91, 48, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.041 · DOI
  13. Chan, 2014, Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia, Academy of Management Review, 39, 44, 10.5465/amr.2011.0419 · DOI
  14. Chiaburu, 2011, The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140, 10.1037/a0024004 · DOI
  15. Combs, 2019, Meta-analytic research in management: Contemporary approaches, unresolved controversies, and rising standards, Journal of Management Studies, 56, 1, 10.1111/joms.12427 · DOI
  16. Cortina, 2018, Beyond blaming the victim: Toward a more progressive understanding of workplace mistreatment, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11, 81, 10.1017/iop.2017.54 · DOI
  17. Desimone, 2019, If it were only that easy: The use of meta-analytic research by organizational scholars, Organizational Research Methods, 22, 867, 10.1177/1094428118756743 · DOI
  18. Dhanani, 2020, Do you only have yourself to blame? A meta-analytic test of the victim precipitation model, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41, 706, 10.1002/job.2413 · DOI
  19. Digman, 1997, Higher-order factors of the big five, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246, 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Duffy, 2002, Social undermining in the workplace, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331, 10.2307/3069350 · DOI
  21. Einarsen, 2007, Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model, The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207, 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002 · DOI
  22. Fisher, 2017, Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements, Organizational Research Methods, 20, 438, 10.1177/1094428116689707 · DOI
  23. Fox, 2001, Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291, 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803 · DOI
  24. Geyskens, 2009, A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research, Journal of Management, 35, 393, 10.1177/0149206308328501 · DOI
  25. Goldberg, 1990, An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216, 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Griffin, 2007, A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts, Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327, 10.5465/amj.2007.24634438 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Hogan, 2003, Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100, 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100 · DOI
  28. Hughes-Morgan, 2018, A meta-analytic review of competitive aggressiveness research, Journal of Business Research, 85, 73, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.053 · DOI
  29. Iqbal, 2019, Effectiveness of performance appraisal: Evidence on the utilization criteria, Journal of Business Research, 101, 285, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.035 · DOI
  30. Johnson, 2000, A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1, 10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1 · DOI
  31. Kepes, 2013, Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the meta-analytic reporting standards), Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 123, 10.1007/s10869-013-9300-2 · DOI
  32. Klaussner, 2014, Engulfed in the abyss: The emergence of abusive supervision as an escalating process of supervisor-subordinate interaction, Human Relations, 67, 311, 10.1177/0018726713493027 · DOI
  33. Kluemper, 2019, How leaders perceive employee deviance: Blaming victims while excusing favorites, Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 946, 10.1037/apl0000387 · DOI
  34. Krasikova, 2013, Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda, Journal of Management, 39, 1308, 10.1177/0149206312471388 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Landis, 2013, Successfully combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling: Recommendations and strategies, Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 251, 10.1007/s10869-013-9285-x · DOI
  36. Le, 2011, Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 113, 10.1037/a0021016 · DOI
  37. Lian, 2014, Abusive supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework, Academy of Management Journal, 57, 116, 10.5465/amj.2011.0977 · DOI
  38. Lian, 2014, Blame it on the supervisor or the subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational deviance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 651, 10.1037/a0035498 · DOI
  39. Mackey, 2013, Subordinate social adaptability and the consequences of abusive supervision perceptions in two samples, The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 732, 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.003 · DOI
  40. Mackey, 2017, Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review, Journal of Management, 43, 1940, 10.1177/0149206315573997 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., Ellen III, B. P., & Carson, J. E. (in press). A meta-analysis of interpersonal and organizational workplace deviance research. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206319862612. · DOI
  42. Mackey, 2019, Leaders and followers behaving badly: A meta-analytic examination of curvilinear relationships between destructive leadership and followers’ workplace behaviors, Personnel Psychology, 72, 3, 10.1111/peps.12286 · DOI
  43. Martinko, 2013, A review of abusive supervision research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S120, 10.1002/job.1888 · DOI
  44. Martinko, 2018, An exploration of the role of subordinate affect in leader evaluations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 738, 10.1037/apl0000302 · DOI
  45. McNeely, 1994, The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836, 10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.836 · DOI
  46. Min, 2019, A systematic comparison of three sadism measures and their ability to explain workplace mistreatment over and above the dark triad, Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 1, 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103862 · DOI
  47. Motowidlo, 1997, A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance, Human Performance, 10, 71, 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_1 · DOI
  48. Mount, 2006, Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction, Personnel Psychology, 59, 591, 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00048.x · DOI
  49. Oh, 2009, The five-factor model of personality and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings, Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1498, 10.1037/a0017221 · DOI
  50. Olson-Buchanan, 2008, An integrative model of experiencing and responding to mistreatment at work, Academy of Management Review, 33, 76, 10.5465/amr.2008.27745325 · DOI
  51. Ones, 2017, Realizing the full potential of psychometric meta-analysis for a cumulative science and practice of human resource management, Human Resource Management Review, 27, 201, 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.011 · DOI
  52. Padilla, 2007, The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments, The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176, 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Paulhus, 2002, The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556, 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Pierce, 2013, The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management, Journal of Management, 39, 313, 10.1177/0149206311410060 · DOI
  55. Rauch, 2016, The effectiveness of cohesive and diversified networks: A meta-analysis, Journal of Business Research, 69, 554, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.011 · DOI
  56. Robinson, 1995, A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555, 10.2307/256693 · DOI
  57. Russell, 2016, Overqualified human resources, career development experiences, and work outcomes: Leveraging an underutilized resource with political skill, Human Resource Management Review, 26, 125, 10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.09.008 · DOI
  58. Russell, 2018, High performance work practice implementation and employee impressions of line manager leadership, Human Resource Management Review, 28, 258, 10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02.003 · DOI
  59. Schmid, 2019, Shedding light on leaders’ self-interest: Theory and measurement of exploitative leadership, Journal of Management, 45, 1401, 10.1177/0149206317707810 · DOI
  60. Selvarajan, 2018, Performance appraisal fairness, leader member exchange and motivation to improve performance: A study of US and Mexican employees, Journal of Business Research, 85, 142, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.043 · DOI
  61. Shaw, 2017, The suitability of simulations and meta-analyses for submissions to Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Journal, 60, 2045, 10.5465/amj.2017.4006 · DOI
  62. Shepherd, 2017, Theory building: A review and integration, Journal of Management, 43, 59, 10.1177/0149206316647102 · DOI
  63. Snyder, 2019, Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines, Journal of Business Research, 104, 333, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249-288). New York: Academic Press. · DOI
  65. Tepper, 2000, Consequences of abusive supervision, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178, 10.2307/1556375 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Tepper, 2007, Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda, Journal of Management, 33, 261, 10.1177/0149206307300812 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Tepper, 2006, Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision, Personnel Psychology, 59, 101, 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x · DOI
  68. Tepper, 2017, Abusive supervision, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 123, 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062539 · DOI
  69. Thoroughgood, 2012, The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 897, 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.007 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Úbeda-García, 2018, High performance work system and performance: Opening the black box through the organizational ambidexterity and human resource flexibility, Journal of Business Research, 88, 397, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.045 · DOI
  71. Van Der Linden, 2010, The general factor of personality: A meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study, Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 315, 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.003 · DOI
  72. Van Dijk, 2005, Deservingness and schadenfreude, Cognition and Emotion, 19, 933, 10.1080/02699930541000066 · DOI
  73. Vogel, 2020, Recurring nightmares and silver linings: Understanding how past abusive supervision may lead to posttraumatic stress and posttraumatic growth, Academy of Management Review, 45, 549, 10.5465/amr.2017.0350 · DOI
  74. Von Hentig, 1940, Remarks on the interaction of perpetrator and victim, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 31, 303
  75. Zhang, 2016, Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review, Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 455, 10.1007/s10551-015-2657-6 · DOI
  76. Zhang, 2019, Why abusive supervision impacts employee OCB and CWB: A meta-analytic review of competing mediating mechanisms, Journal of Management, 45, 2474, 10.1177/0149206318823935 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 14

Metadata

Authors
Mackey, J. D.
Affiliations
Auburn University (US)
Corresponding author
Mackey, Jeremy D.
ORCID
Mackey, Jeremy D.
Venue
Journal of Business Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
130
Pages
159-169
ISSN
0148-2963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.002
OpenAlex
W3148093506
Cited by
14
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Business Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Workplace Violence and Bullying
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
Keywords
destructive leadership, counterproductive work behavior, organizational deviance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review