Abusive Supervision, Article Critique Example

In this journal article, B.J. Tepper, S.E. Moss, and M.K. Duffy examine in-depth three previously unexplored predictors related to abusive supervision in the workplace. As of 2011 when this article was published in the Academy of Management Journal, only three studies have examined “the antecedents of abusive supervision” in the workplace, framed against “a response to supervisor perceptions of mistreatment by their employer;” however, these earlier studies failed to discern the exact reasons why supervisors abuse (i.e., non-physically but verbally) certain employees (2011, p. 279).

Therefore, in order to determine the extent of mistreatment by supervisors toward their workplace subordinates, Tepper, Moss, and Duffy utilized the following predictors–1), as contrasted with surface-level dissimilarity, deep-level dissimilarity which concerns “perceived differences in values, attitudes, and personality” in relation to a specific employee and from the viewpoint of the abusive supervisor (2011, p. 281); 2), relationship conflict or the perception that a workplace relationship with an employee or “focal subordinate” involves “greater interpersonal conflict” when the supervisor perceives the employee to be dissimilar or possessing values and attitudes that the supervisor does not agree with or practice (2011, p. 282); and 3), subordinate performance or the evaluation of a lower-level employee in relation to his/her duties and responsibilities in the workplace. Not surprisingly, as noted by Tepper, Moss, and Duffy, employees that are seen as similar to that of the supervisor “are likely to be evaluated more favorably than their dissimilar counterparts” (2011, p. 282), due to sharing similar values and attitudes.

In order to arrive at a solid conclusion in regards to the above-mentioned predictors, Tepper, Moss, and Duffy sought out “key individuals with administrative responsibilities,” such as directors of human resources, CEOs, and top-level managers, from seven health care entities like hospitals and nursing homes located in the southeastern U.S. Tepper, Moss, and Duffy then asked these individuals to help identify and recruit “supervisor subordinate dyads” in their various organizations (2011, p. 284). The term “dyad” refers to a working relationship between two individuals, such as a supervisor and a subordinate, whose relationship is strained because of dissimilarities related to attitudes and values in the workplace.

After conducting extensive interviews and sorting through a myriad of responses, Tepper, Moss, and Duffy discovered that verbal abuse by supervisors toward their subordinates is much more widespread than previously believed; however, the results of their study failed to clearly determine the various factors that may help to predict when abusive supervision is more likely to occur in the workplace (2011, p. 287). One important implication is that deep-level dissimilarity in relation to perceived values and attitudes creates conflicts within a relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate in the workplace which in turn results in a low performance evaluation.

Basically, as highly skilled researchers, Tepper, Moss, and Duffy have brought together in this article a vast amount of data and information in regards to determining the extent and causes of abusive supervision in the workplace. However, it appears that their study would have resulted in better findings and more reliable data if they had also incorporated individuals from business organizations, rather than focusing on individuals from health care organizations. But most importantly, Tepper, Moss, and Duffy point out that their study may help to lower the incidence of abusive supervision in the American workplace and perhaps serve as an incentive for future research on the topic of abusive supervision in the workplace.

References

Tepper, B.J., Moss, S.E., & Duffy, M.K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, (54) 2, 279-294.