Cited by 30Workplace Violence and BullyingJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEthics in Business and Education

When and how vicarious abusive supervision leads to bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance: A moderated–mediation model

Chen, Shu-Chen, Liu, Na-Ting·2019·Personnel Review

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance to vicarious abusive supervision by supervisor-directed attribution. Furthermore, this study developed a moderated–mediation model to explore how LMX between bystander and his/her supervisor moderate the relationship between vicarious abusive supervision and the supervisor-directed attribution, which subsequently influences bystanders’ supervisor-directed deviance. Design/methodology/approach The paper tested the model using a sample of 336 workers using a two-wave survey. A moderated–mediation analysis was conducted with bootstrapping procedure to test the first stage moderated–mediation model in this study. Findings The results showed that LMX (between bystander and his/her supervisor) weakens the indirect relationship between vicarious abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance by bystanders’ supervisor-directed attribution. Practical implications Leadership training programs should be conducted to caution supervisors in terms of the deleterious consequences of vicarious abusive supervision. Organizations also should plan perception and communication training courses for leaders; such training would reduce bystanders’ responsibility attribution to them by providing timely explanations and communication. Furthermore, organizations should monitor supervisors by managers’ performance appraisal and formulate rules to punish abusive managers. Originality/value These results clarif…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/pr-09-2018-0368

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • When holding justification attribution constant, observers' responsibility attributions for abusive supervision will be positively associated with the frequency and severity of supervisor-directed deviant behaviors.

    “When holding justification attribution constant, observers’ responsibility attributions for abusive supervision will be positively associated with the frequency and severity of supervisor-directed deviant behaviors.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Chen, S.-C., & Liu, N.-T.
Affiliations
Ming Chuan University (TW)
Venue
Personnel Review
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2019-11-04
Volume
48
Issue
7
Pages
1734-1755
ISSN
0048-3486 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2971561976
Cited by
30
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Personnel Review (publishedVersion)
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 › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
bystanders, leader-member exchange, attribution theory, abusive supervision, leadership training, supervisor monitoring, workplace 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