The motivational effects of diminished self-esteem for employees who experience abusive supervision
Abstract
This research considers two theoretical perspectives on employees’ motivation associated with diminished self-esteem from abusive supervision. The self-defense view of diminished self-esteem suggests that abusive supervision motivates destructive behavior in an attempt to reassert personal control and protect victims’ self-image. The self-presentational view of diminished self-esteem suggests abusive supervision motivates behavior that attempts to signal fit with and value to the workgroup and organization. On the basis of these two theoretical perspectives, we examine how employees’ diminished self-esteem from abusive supervision can motivate destructive work behavior (i.e., supervisor-directed deviance, organizational deviance) and self-presentational behavior (i.e., putting on a façade, ingratiation). Additionally, employees’ turnover intentions, which are an indicator of employees’ psychological detachment from the organization, are considered a moderator of the effects of abusive supervision on diminished self-esteem and associated behavior such that high turnover intentions attenuate the effects. Results of two field studies and a daily diary study support the hypothesized model and show that abusive supervision indirectly influences employees’ workplace deviance and self-presentational behavior via diminished self-esteem. As predicted, the effects are stronger for employees with lower versus higher turnover intentions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Within-person leadership research suggests that leadership is a dynamic phenomenon that can vary from day to day within the same leader.
“This research suggests that leadership is a dynamic phenomenon that can vary from day to day within the same leader -for instance, a leader might exhibit more abusive supervisory behaviors on some days than others (e.g., Vogel & Mitchell, 2017).”
From The evolution of leadership: Past insights, present trends, and future directions (2025) · cites this paper as Vogel & Mitchell, 2017
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 121 · Cited by 151
- Authors
- Vogel, R. M., & Mitchell, M. S.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of Georgia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Vogel, Ryan M.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-01-15
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2218-2251
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W1992391590
- Cited by
- 151
- References
- 121
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 18.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Management (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 › Sociology and Political Science › Emotional Labor in Professions
- Keywords
- abusive supervision, employee motivation, organizational deviance, self-presentation, ingratiation, turnover intention, psychological detachment, self-presentation theory
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