Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The present literature review includes analysis and assessment of pertinent sources within the field of leadership. The goal of this literature review is twofold: The first goal is to examine the nature of abuse in the workplace, as it is necessary for a broader introspection into the specific problem of leadership abuse. The second goal is to determine how leadership abuse effects work performance and creativity, which is an integral part of the contemporary work environment. In line with the stated goals of the dissertation, the purpose of this literature review is to find any linkage between abuse and poor work performance. This will necessitate a deeper look into the reported consequences of workplace abuse, such as health, mental, economic, and other outcomes.
The first part of the literature review includes examination of literature regarding the concept of workplace abuse, its causes, effects, and methods of delivery; and discusses the various forms it takes depending on the setting. In the second part, the researcher will contextualize the findings from the first part to determine the effects of abuse on work performance. The volume of research about abuse and leadership is extensive. Publications that were consulted in the process of preparing this literature review included the Journal of Business and Psychology, the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and the Academy of Management Journal. The consulted journals, articles, and other scholarly sources indicated the danger of abusive leadership and pointed to the severe psychological, physiological, economical, and social consequences of abuse. However, the most notable consequence, from the perspective of management, is the loss of productivity that arises from leadership abuse. This is the most frequent and expensive consequence, as it prevents individuals affected by abuse from performing their duties.
Conceptual Framework
Transformational Leadership
It has been acknowledged that the leadership style has considerable effects on employees performance and work environment, and transformational leadership is regarded as one of the most effective models. Transformational leadership can be defined as an approach by which leaders motivate followers to identify with organizational goals and interests and to perform beyond expectations (Buil et al., 2019, p. 65). Some of the most common features of this type of leadership include charisma or individualized impact, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration (Buil et al., 2019). These aspects may be manifested differently in a leader, which may affect the strategy the leader will utilize in different situations.
Intellectual stimulation encompasses leaders ability to encourage employees to explore their creativity, innovate, as well as the capacity to challenge personnel and facilitate the development of new ideas. Recent research shows that transformational leadership is instrumental in enhancing employees innovative effort and creativity (Ng, 2017). As far as inspirational motivation is concerned, transformational leaders articulate their vision and inspire followers to share it and achieve this vision (Buil et al., 2019). Such leaders facilitate the enhancement of employees proactivity and adaptability, which has a positive influence on their performance (Wang et al., 2017). Transformational leadership also contributes to the development of a learning organization culture where employees share knowledge and innovate, which enhances their and organizational performance (Para-González et al., 2018). Companies also need to provide ongoing training to the staff to maintain the established culture.
Individualized consideration is critical for the effective use of transformational leadership. Employees performance improves when their needs are met, including the needs in a specific amount of support from a transformational leader (Tepper et al., 2018). Sufficient or excessive amount of received transformational leadership has a positive impact on organizational citizenship and work attitudes. The increase in employees engagement and organizational citizenship is associated with the development of a psychological attachment to a transformational leader (Sahu et al., 2018). These attachment types play a mediating role in employees engagement with different levels of exhaustion. At that, personnel engagement is lower when transformational leadership is low on days with high job demands (Breevaart & Bakker, 2018). A high level of transformational leadership on such days is a mediator of employees engagement.
At the same time, transformational leadership has a darker side as well because it can have negative outcomes on certain aspects related to performance, motivation, and working environment. For instance, this leadership paradigm can hinder employees thriving if associated with a moderate or high level of employees exhaustion (Niessen et al., 2017). Inconsistent transformational leadership can also have mixed effects. For instance, transformational leadership does not correlate with the creativity of employees with a low level of perceived organizational support (Suifan et al., 2018). Therefore, it is critical to consider the diverse aspects and influences of transformational leadership.
Transformational Leadership and Abusive Supervision
Although the impact inconsistent transformational leadership has on performance at organizational and individual levels has received certain attention in academia, the relationship between transformational leadership and destructive forms of leadership is still under-researched. It has been found that leaders tend to alternate leadership styles, which has diverse effects on employees job performance, satisfaction, psychological wellbeing, creativity, and commitment (Mullen et al., 2018). For instance, although transformational leadership contributes to the enhancement of safety participation, the positive influence of this working environment can be hindered when abusive supervision occurs. When leaders alternate transformational leadership and abusive supervision, employees feel higher levels of stress and are less productive. Due to the damage to employees psychological wellbeing, their behavior can change to counterproductive, which will lead to negative effects for the workplace atmosphere. According to Mullen et al. (2018), in order to minimize the occurrence of abusive supervision, it can be effective to encourage leaders to develop successful leader-member relationships. Enhanced leader-member exchange mitigates the adverse consequences of abusive behaviors and makes leaders more empathetic and improves their emotional intelligence as well as the corresponding competencies.
Inconsistent transformational leadership can also lead to a change in employees engagement and performance on a daily basis (Huang et al., 2019). For instance, the personnels performance can be high on one day while employees may be disengaged on another day depending on the leadership the supervisor uses. Sustained abusive leadership results in low morale, disengagement from current tasks, and low performance. Huang et al. (2019) emphasize that researchers may need to explore the relationship between abusive supervision and employee performance in day-to-day contexts in order to identify the exact mechanisms involved in the process.
Transformational leadership can have no mediating effect on employees performance if abusive supervision prevails and the former leadership style is utilized occasionally (Barling et al., 2018). Leaders often switch to different forms of leadership due to the availability of resources, and it has been found that autocratic leadership was effective in the presence of scarce resources while abusive supervision had milder negative consequences compared to similar circumstances and the use of transformational leadership (Barling et al., 2018). It is noteworthy that Barling et al. (2018) conducted their research in the healthcare setting, which displays certain limitations and the need to address the topic in a larger context.
The abusive behavior of ethical leaders can have rather negative effects making subordinates more receptive to abusive supervision in the future. Prior use of ethical leadership posed the focus on interactional justice that had a moderating impact on the relationship between abusive supervision and work outcomes (Wang & Chan, 2020). Interactional justice is associated with peoples perceptions of the degree to which they are treated with respect and dignity in different contexts (Wang & Chan, 2020). On the one hand, when employees feel they are treated unfairly, their psychological wellbeing is negatively affected, which may result in vulnerability to abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Such people may become victims of abusive leaders or react in an increasingly intense manner. On the other hand, inconsistent leadership tends to increase peoples need for interactional justice, and if abusive supervision frequency or magnitude grows, negative workplace outcomes intensify.
Individual characteristics and skills of the staff also play a significant role in their performance under such conditions. For example, employees with high levels of mindfulness perform better when transformational leadership is utilized, but they are also increasingly affected by abusive supervision, which has detrimental effects on their psychological well-being and performance (Walsh & Arnold, 2020). Therefore, employees mindfulness can result in their poor performance and job dissatisfaction, or full work engagement, if inconsistent leadership is utilized, depending on the used leadership style on a daily basis. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies, which makes researchers more attentive to inconsistent leadership and its outcomes. Walsh and Arnold (2020) also suggest that employees may need extensive training regarding effective coping strategies to ensure their mindfulness will not enhance negative responses to abusive leadership and will facilitate the development of a favorable working environment.
At the same time, Lange et al. (2018) found a positive relationship between leaders mindfulness and transformational leadership, while the leaders mindfulness and abusive supervision were characterized by a negative relationship. An important observation has been made as mindful leaders tended to exert transformational leadership when addressing innovation-related incentives and individuals ideas or performance rather than team-based aspects (Lange et al., 2018). This trend is explained by the resource-based approach as mindfulness is mainly related to personal links and interpersonal relationships. Although some aspects of inconsistent leadership use have been explored, the link between transformational leadership and abusive behavior requires further investigation, as well as the impact these leadership styles have on employees performance.
Workplace Abuse
Workplace abuse is a behavioral model that happens when one or more individuals either other employees, managers, leaders, or others persistently abuse another individual over a prolonged period. In most cases, the abuse is psychological, whereby the victim endures continued attacks on his or her dignity, professional reputation, or moral integrity (Duffy &Yamada, 2018). Further, workplace abuse is targeted and systematic, aimed at diminishing ones ability to perform. This causes harmful side-effects including damaging the work environment, limiting productivity, and a myriad of health-related issues for individuals (Bowling, Camus & Blackmore, 2015). The goals of abuse in the workplace are as diverse as the methods. In some cases, leaders use abuse to control their subordinates, or as a tool to push unwanted elements out of the team (Bowling et al., 2015). Abused workers are continuously exposed to degradation and physical torment, which limits their ability to function and reduces their communication with peers and managers, causing them to either leave the position or suffer through the abuse indefinitely (Okechukwu et al., 2014).
Workplace abuse need not be targeted to a single employee, rather, some leaders may use abuse in the workplace as a method of exerting control. In such instances, all, or almost all, employees are subjected to overt or covert abuse. Leaders who are particularly skilled at this form of control do not do it openly, rather, they exert different methods of abuse for different employees with the goal of subverting them (Kemp, 2014; Duffy & Yamada, 2018). It was noted that leaders who exert negative traits in the workplace have a significant degree of influence on the performance of their subordinates (DInnocenzo, Mathieu,&Kukenberger, 2016).
While not all leaders with negative traits abuse their subordinates, they do have a detrimental effect on employee morale. Job performance is a critical indicator for nearly all decisions within companies. For example, a good performer will earn promotions, bonuses, and other benefits more frequently than a low performer, which then determines the outcomes of employees careers (DInnocenzo, Mathieu,&Kukenberger, 2016).
Workplace abuse has three basic elements: It is systematic, it occurs over an extended period,andit is performed with the goal to cause stress and discomfort in the target. In the most extreme cases, workplace abuse can lead to other forms of abuse, such as sexual or physicalindividual (Bowling et al., 2015). The main motivator for workplace abuse is the destruction of the targets dignity and self-image, and it pertains only to traits that are linkedto the work environment. In comparison, sexual and racial abuse are linked with innate, unchangeable traits of an individual (Bowling et al., 2015).
Causes of Workplace Abuse
Interpersonal Aspects
In most cases, abuse is caused by interpersonal conflicts in the workplace. The most common causes are linked with the inadequate organization and work processes such as scheduling, the disproportion between work requirements and rewards, lack of autonomy, and accommodation for the specific skills of employees (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011). Additionally, abuse can be caused by poor work conditions: exposure to dangerous substances, noise, high or low temperatures (Fox & Cowan, 2015). Lack of communication and inadequate management procedures are also very commonly associated with abuse, as are frequent changes in working conditions, re-assignment to different positions, and lack of managerial support. The cause of abuse is often linked with whistleblowing, as managers and leaders abuse subordinates who perform illegitimate or unethical business practices, contact authorities, or in any way undermine the position of the company (Fox & Cowan, 2015).
Generally, abuse is more frequent in companies with diminished interpersonal relationships as compared to companies with strong interpersonal relationships. Workplace abuse arises from unsolved conflicts between employees or between managers and employees, inadequate work procedures that lead to mistrust and conflict, and when the company faces legal confrontation with its employees over work rights (Fox & Cowan, 2015). Long-term unresolved personal conflicts can be especially volatile within a competitive working environment. According to Ashanasy et al. (2016), when coupled with inadequate managerial practices and low support, this can lead to horizontal abuse, whereby employees attack each other to eliminate competition. The most common victims of this type of abuse are over-achievers (Qureshi et al., 2014; Ashkanasy et al., 2016).
Vertical abuse is directly related to leadership. While most leaders do not engage in workplace abuse directly, there are instances when they can become hostile towards an employee, usually because of a perceived threat from that individual to the leaders station. However, leaders can be abusive if they lack the social and cognitive skills necessary to manage their departments, and they may use psychological and verbal abuse to exert control over subordinates (Hogh et al., 2011).
Leaders Traits
Leaders personal traits also pave the way to abusive supervision in organizations. Leaders creative mindset is linked to abusive supervision through moral disengagement (Qin et al., 2019). Leaders negative creativity is closely related to abusive leadership as supervisors use all possible means to achieve their vision irrespective of their followers needs, features, and performance. Leaders high in moral disengagement tend to have low capacity to self-regulate, which results in their abusive behavior. Qin et al. (2019) paid specific attention to day-to-day fluctuations in leaders supervision and employees performance and found a direct link between the mentioned variables and within-person factors rather than interpersonal aspects. For instance, the quality of sleep and the perception of work-family balance plays a more significant role in choosing a behavioral pattern than specific workplace processes or relationships.
Such personal characteristics as extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and neuroticism are associated with abusive supervision (Tahira et al., 2019). Such features as conscientiousness and neuroticism have been long associated with abusive behaviors as such people are often inflexible and prone to negative emotions. However, extraversion is not commonly linked to abusive behavior, which creates a considerable gap in the knowledge on the matter. Tahira et al. (2019) address this gap identifying the relationship between leaders extraversion and abusive supervision. It is stated that extraverted people feel freer when articulating their ideas and expressing their emotions, and this confidence tends to lead to abusive leadership. At that, diverse factors, such as organizational culture, cultural peculiarities, as well as employees perceptions and individual traits, can have a moderating impact on leaders abusive behaviors.
Leaders attachment orientation is an influential factor affecting their leadership style as well. Attachment theory has been widely used in studies examining leadership and peoples occupational behavior (Robertson et al., 2018). This theoretical framework is based on the exploration of the relationships between infants and their caregivers, as well as the influence of these patterns on cognitive and social models the former develop and employ during their adulthood. Diverse patterns and modes of adult behavior exist. When applied to occupational behavior, it is stated that people with anxious attachment orientation are more likely to display abusive supervision while close/dependent attachment orientation had a negative relationship with abusive leadership (Robertson et al., 2018). In contrast, supervisors high on close/depend attachment domains tend to think they are capable of cultivating effective relationships, so they do not engage in abusive behaviors. Social self-efficacy is a strong mediator affecting the use of leadership styles in both cases. The training aimed at the development of social skills and increasing leaders confidence in their ability to build successful relationships is regarded as an successful strategy to minimize abusive leadership.
In addition to personal characteristics, leaders beliefs regarding abusive supervision outcomes are also instrumental in their use of this type of leadership. It has been found that leaders who believe that abusive leadership is appropriate and results in better performance tend to display abusive behaviors (Watkins et al., 2017). Supervisors empathic concern plays a moderating role in the relationship between abusive behavior and adverse workplace outcomes. Such leaders may use abusive supervision irrespective of employees previous performance. High-achievers can also become victims of negative leadership due to their leaders beliefs regarding the effectiveness of abusive supervision and its favorable effects on performance (Watkins et al., 2017). Depending on the degree to which the leader exhibits empathic concerns, the leader uses abusive supervision to achieve organizational goals.
Employees Traits
Employees personal features are linked to workplace abuse in various domains. Worldviews and the attitude to authority, as well as the level of performance of individuals, can predict their victimization by abusive leaders (Khan et al., 2017). Khan et al. (2017) utilized the dual-process model to investigate the role personnels perspectives play in the relationship between abusive supervision and performance. The model implies the focus on the competitive and dangerous worldviews. In the former case, people attempt to achieve dominance in a group due to their assumptions regarding the competitiveness and the importance of dominance. In the latter case, people see the world as a dangerous environment and seek enhanced social cohesion, as well as collective security. These perspectives affect the staffs attitudes and responses to abusive supervision (Khan et al., 2017). People who have the dangerous worldview are more likely to be submissive and display obedience with autocratic and abusive leadership. Higher submission to authority is associated with poor performers and employees deviant behaviors in the presence of abusive leadership. Such employees tend to be victimized due to their poor performance and behavior (passivity and submissiveness).
Employees neuroticism and introversion were strong predictors of exposure to abusive supervision (Nielsen et al., 2017). Employees with such personal features were more likely to engage in workplace deviation and low performance. Extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to new experiences had a negative relationship with abusive leadership although openness had a less significant influence on peoples response to abusive supervision. It is also evident that people with such traits are vulnerable to victimization, so the vicious circle emerges as they are prone to enhanced reactions that lead to their further abuse. Nielsen et al. (2017) also add that the meta-analysis they implemented showed that methodology had an effect on the results as the variables (openness, extraversion, and the rest) were conceptualized and measured differently. Hence, further research on the relationship between individuals personal traits and abusive supervision is needed.
Machiavellianism is another characteristic feature of employees that is associated with the use of abusive leadership. Under abusive supervision employees Machiavellianism is activated and people engage in unethical behavior as a response to leaders abusive conduct (Greenbaum et al., 2017). Such Machiavellianism dimensions as a desire for control, distrust in others, amoral manipulation, and a desire for status have been in researchers lenses. The primary predictors of the counterproductive workplace and unethical behavior are the desire for control and amoral manipulation (Greenbaum et al., 2017). Hence, abusive leadership activates some negative traits in employees and deteriorates their commitment and performance, which leads to diverse negative effects, including but not confined to an inappropriate workplace environment.
Subordinates attentional bias and trait self-control is influenced by abusive supervision and can play a mediating role in employees safety behaviors (Yuan et al., 2018). Emotional exhaustion also moderates the link between abusive leadership and safety behaviors. Trait self-control had the strongest mediating effect on the relationship between emotional exhaustion and abusive supervision (Yuan et al., 2018). Employees psychological capital is another feature that can enhance the negative relationship between abusive supervision and employee productivity (Raza et al., 2019). Psychological capital is the complex notion consisting of such aspects and traits as self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, and hope. Employees with a strong psychological capital are less affected by leaders abusive behaviors and remain high performers. Psychological capital can be accumulated through the development of the corresponding culture and the enhancement of proactive relationships between the leader and followers, as well as a social exchange among employees.
Organizational culture also has a direct and indirect impact on the occurrence of abusive supervision. Companies with weak organizational cultures are often characterized by the existence of counterproductive work behavior (CWB) norms, which is one of the factors contributing to the use of abusive leadership (Ju et al., 2019). Employees personal control plays a considerable role in the process as the presence of CWB norms alone does not always result in CWB. Leaders personal traits, as well as workload, work-related stress, and personal control, intertwine with CWB norms, which results in abusive supervision. Companies with autocratic leadership tend to be an illustration of this phenomenon as they are associated with rather strong CWB norms. An effective way to diminish the adverse outcomes of abusive leadership and minimize its occurrence is training provided to managers who need to understand the detrimental effects of abusive supervision and ways to avoid undesirable behaviors (Ju et al., 2019). The establishment of proper organizational culture with no CWB norms is another goal to attain to make abusive supervision in the working place impossible.
Abuse in the workplace grew alongside globalization and market liberalization, mainly because of the development of authoritative management systems (Hogh et al., 2011). The need of authoritative managers to exert control over employees, coupled with increasingly competitive markets, and pressure from global competitors make authoritative leadership a contributing element tosuccess(Hogh et al., 2011). It should be noted that this applies only to authoritative leaders, as other types manage employees without the need to control them (Hogh et al., 2011). However, the need to increase efficiency of the organization, which is the key determinant of authoritative leadership, has led to reductions in employee representation due to the ossification of the vertical power structures (Hogh et al., 2011). This causes poor working conditions and creates friction for employees and managers. Under such circumstances, leaders turn to authoritative measures, among which abuse presents the least frequent but most detrimental measure available (Manotas, 2015; Zapf et al., 2011).
Leadership and Abuse
When observing the indicators of poor performance and their linkage to abusive leadership, several key themes emerge mediating factors, group association, meaning derived from work. Primarily, this relates to the various mediating factors such as salary, role in the organization, gender, age that influence the damage abusive leaders exert on employee performance. Within this context, employees who value their work are more susceptible to abuse. Their counterparts, who derive little meaning from their work, can endure abuse because they are disconnected from their work and any abuse will not affect them as severely (Branch et al., 2013; Johnson, 2017).
Employees can be categorized into three broad groups according to their approach to work: motivated, unmotivated, and somewhat motivated. The level of motivation is mediated by the sense of meaning derived from work. Workers who derive meaning from their work are often highly motivated, highly productive, and valuable to the company. However, such employees are also the most common targets of abusive leaders, as they are perceived as a threat to the integrity of the leaders position, or as a competitor for the position (Branch et al., 2013; Johnson, 2017). Meaning of work is one of the strongest predictors of employee performance (Johnson, 2017; Branch et al., 2013). Out of the four key dimensions of psychological empowerment (meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact), meaning is the most notable predictor and the one that can be mitigated by abuse the most (Johnson, 2017; Branch et al., 2013). Performance is mediated by social interactions, interpersonal relationships, and intra-company power relations (Johnson, 2017; Branch et al., 2013).
Two of the theoretical approaches that can be used to measure the effects of abusive leadership on work performance is the COR (conservation of resources theory) or social exchange theory(Johnson, 2017; Branch et al., 2013). Under the framework of COR, there are four main conditions that mediate work performance: perceived thethreat of resource loss, resource loss, the individuals perception of excessive resource loss, and resource investment fails to accrue returns(Johnson, 2017; Branch et al., 2013). This implies that abusive leadership leads to either one of these outcomes, or more, and has a negative impact on employee performance. This costs the company resources as the workers do not provide any added value(Johnson, 2017; Branch et al., 2013).
According to the social exchange theory developed by Thibaut & Kelley (Johnson, 2017; Branch et al., 2013), reciprocity is a critical component of all social contracts, including employment. Employees reciprocate their rewards by providing added value to the company. Thus, with negative reciprocity,one wrong is reciprocated by another. For example, employees who are abused will not be as effective in their performance because they experience a negative approach by the leader who is then reciprocated by their unwillingness to perform(Johnson, 2017; Branch et al., 2013).
Managers are predominately the perpetrators of abuse in companies, especially in less developed economies, where the possibility of finding alternative employment are negligible. By cross-referencing the data from the most developed nations, it is possible to notice a very frequent theme: bossing (Gerstein & Friedman, 2017; Gu, Tang, & Jiang, 2015). According to research from the US and other countries (Okechukwu et al., 2014; Van Heughten& Schmitz, 2015; Yamada & Duffy, 2018), almost 81% of victims experienced vertical abuse, which is higher than the 63% of cases reported in the UK and other EU nations. In 83% of the cases, the perpetrator of violence is the manager who is a direct superior to the victim. Thus, workplace abuse is most frequent in environments where victims and abusers have frequent contact (Lavoie-Treemblay et al., 2016; Xia, Zhang,& Li, 2017).
Managers are most often the perpetrators of abuse, which has significant consequences on individuals who suffer from their abuse and on the company. One of the factors that influences company performance is employee motivation. Motivation is then influenced by a number of intrinsic and extrinsic elements such as workplace environment, salary, respect, recognition of excellence, job enrichment, career development, the ability to critique processes, and goal-oriented management (Lavoie-Treemblay et al., 2016; Xia, Zhang,& Li, 2017). Most of these elements constitute non-material factors, which lose their value in cases when vertical abuse is present. As a result, the company suffers and can lose its position in the global market (Lavoie-Treemblay et al., 2016; Xia, Zhang & Li, 2017).
Although abuse is often not the byproduct of the actions of victims, but rather the effect of personality and traits of abusers, disrupted interpersonal relationships in the workplace can lead to abuse. The problem of abuse is especially evident in companies operating within stress intensive markets, which causes frequent dissatisfaction among employees and managers. This, in turn, can lead to abuse. Individuals working in high-stress positions have a lower tolerance for aggression, and lower understanding of interpersonal conflicts as compared to individuals in low-stress positions.
Successful organizational management lies i
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.