Cited by 368Workplace Violence and BullyingJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmployee Performance and Management

Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment

Open access
Shoss, Mindy K., Eisenberger, Robert, Restubog, Simon Lloyd D., Zagenczyk, Thomas J.·2013·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

Why do employees who experience abusive supervision retaliate against the organization? We apply organizational support theory to propose that employees hold the organization partly responsible for abusive supervision. Depending on the extent to which employees identify the supervisor with the organization (i.e., supervisor's organizational embodiment), we expected abusive supervision to be associated with low perceived organizational support (POS) and consequently with retribution against the organization. Across 3 samples, we found that abusive supervision was associated with decreased POS as moderated by supervisor's organizational embodiment. In turn, reduced POS was related to heightened counterproductive work behavior directed against the organization and lowered in-role and extra-role performance. These findings suggest that employees partly attribute abusive supervision to negative valuation by the organization and, consequently, behave negatively toward and withhold positive contributions to it.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0030687

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Observer attributions are a predictor of third-party deviance.

    “Following a similar approach, we argue that observer attributions are a predictor of third-party deviance.”

    From Blame or Justification: A Conceptual Model of How Attributions Shape Observers’ Deviant Responses to Abusive Supervision (2026) · cites this paper as Shoss et al., 2013

    The General Discussion (page unavailable) links employees’ blame of the organization to their own counterproductive behavior, but says the study did not directly ask employees about blame attributions. It does not establish that observers’ attributions predict third-party deviance; its findings concern employees who experienced abusive supervision and their organization-directed behavior. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073-1091. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199912)20:7Ͻ1073::AID-JOB943Ͼ3.0 .CO;2-7 · DOI
  2. Fox, S., & Spector, P. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915-931. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1099-1379(199911)20:6Ͻ915::AID-JOB918Ͼ3.0.CO;2-6
  3. Gonzalez-Morales, G., Kernan, M., Becker, T. E., & Eisenberger, R. (2012, April). Supervisory training to increase employee perceptions of sup- port. Poster presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology annual conference, San Diego, California.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J.
Affiliations
  • Saint Louis University (US)
  • University of Houston (US)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Clemson University (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2013-01
Volume
98
Issue
1
Pages
158-168
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W1996054797
Cited by
368
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8
FWCI
48.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Research Council (DP1094023)
  • Australian National University
  • Clemson University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
Keywords
abusive supervision, perceived organizational support, counterproductive work behavior, employee performance, organizational support theory
MeSH terms
Adult, Aggression, Female, Humans, Leadership, Male, Organizational Objectives, Personnel Loyalty, Personnel Management, Social Perception, Social Support, Organizational Culture, Workplace

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