HIGH PERFORMANCE AND ABUSIVE SUPERVISION: COMPARISON BETWEEN ORGANIC AND MECHANISTIC WORK STRUCTURES
Keywords:
Performance, Work Structure, Organic Structure, Mechanistic Structure, Abusive Supervision
Abstract
Individuals are the intellectual capital of an organization and the driving force of a company. It is their treatment which is of the prime importance that leads to their retention for long time. Thus, management should focus on improving the relationships between managers and their respective subordinates. This research investigates the factors which lead to abusive behavior of managers. One such factor is the high performance of sub ordinates which posits a threat to their hierarchy, thus managers involve in abuse. Furthering the study, the role of mechanistic and organic work structures has also been measured. This study was carried out in Karachi, Pakistan and a comparison was made between the mechanistic work structure of a government agency and organic structure of a software house. Total of sixty employees and their respective supervisors were taken as sample of the study. It was found that organic structures are more conducive for abuse as compared to mechanistic structures, where managers are socially dominant and exert power over resources. From this study the human resource professionals can gain insight into the effect of work structures on employees’ performance. It is important for organizations to highlight and identify abuse even if it is subtle or done indirectly by the supervisors for the wellbeing of employees and good will of companies. The paper corroborates results from previous studies. A novelty in the study is its attempt to use the work structure as a moderator and the findings highlight the likely impact of organic versus mechanistic structures which have not been addressed previously.
References
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a
moderator of the relationship between procedural justice,
interactional justice perceived organizational support, and
supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 295–305.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents
and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191-201.
Aryee, S., Sun, L. Y., Chen, Z. X. G., & Debrah, Y. A. (2008). Abusive
supervision and Contextual performance: The mediating role of
emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit
structure. Management and Organization Review, 4(3), 393-411.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human relations,
47(7), 755-778.
Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive
supervision: The role of interactional justice and narcissism.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(4), 389-398.
Chan, M. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the
lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of Management
Review, 39(1), 44-66.
Davis, M. D., & Stephan, W. G. (2011). Electromyographic analyses of
responses to intergroup threat. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 41(1), 196-218.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of
ideology and prejudice. In Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-113). Academic Press.
Elias, R. (1986). The politics of victimization: Victims, victimology, and
human rights. OUP Catalogue.
Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup
competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration:
An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social
Issues, 54(4), 699-724.
Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Raver, J. L. (2014). Is it better to be average?
High and low performance as predictors of employee
victimization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 296.
Keashly, L. (1997). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and
empirical issues. Journal of emotional abuse, 1(1), 85-117.
Khan, A. K., Moss, S., Quratulain, S., & Hameed, I. (2016). When and
how subordinate performance leads to abusive supervision: A
social dominance perspective. Journal of Management,
0149206316653930.
Khandwalla, P. N. (1977). The design of organizations. New York:
Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2014). Victimization of high performers: The
roles of envy and workgroup identification. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99(4), 619.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on
the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017).
Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical
review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940-1965.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review
of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34(1), S120-S137.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011).
Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’
attribution styles. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 751-764.
Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction.
Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1-20.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and
the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and
looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1),
271-320.
Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., Sidanius, J., & Siers, B. (1997). The gender
gap in occupational role attainment: a social dominance approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 37.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social
dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social
and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67(4), 741.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of
enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes
in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213-1232.
Shao, P., Resick, C. J., & Hargis, M. B. (2011). Helping and harming
others in the workplace: The roles of personal values and abusive
supervision. Human Relations, 64(8), 1051-1078.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance
theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25(6), 845-880.
Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Strategy formation patterns,
performance, and the significance of context. Journal of
Management, 23(2), 189-209.
Sutton, J. (2007). Healing the Hurt Within 3rd Edition: Understand selfinjury
and self-harm and heal the emotional wounds. Hachette
UK.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive
actions. American Psychological Association.
Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 4, 123-152.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Breaux-Soignet, D. M. (2012). Abusive
supervision as a political activity: Distinguishing impulsive and
strategic expressions of downward hostility. In Politics in
organizations (pp. 225-246). Routledge.
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.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review,
synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3),
261-289.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006).
Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive
supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
Walter, F., Lam, C. K., Van Der Vegt, G. S., Huang, X., & Miao, Q. (2015).
Abusive supervision and subordinate performance:
Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and
consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(4), 1056.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of economic and social organization. Trans. AM
Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press
moderator of the relationship between procedural justice,
interactional justice perceived organizational support, and
supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 295–305.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents
and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191-201.
Aryee, S., Sun, L. Y., Chen, Z. X. G., & Debrah, Y. A. (2008). Abusive
supervision and Contextual performance: The mediating role of
emotional exhaustion and the moderating role of work unit
structure. Management and Organization Review, 4(3), 393-411.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human relations,
47(7), 755-778.
Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2011). Aggressive reactions to abusive
supervision: The role of interactional justice and narcissism.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(4), 389-398.
Chan, M. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the
lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of Management
Review, 39(1), 44-66.
Davis, M. D., & Stephan, W. G. (2011). Electromyographic analyses of
responses to intergroup threat. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 41(1), 196-218.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of
ideology and prejudice. In Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-113). Academic Press.
Elias, R. (1986). The politics of victimization: Victims, victimology, and
human rights. OUP Catalogue.
Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup
competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration:
An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social
Issues, 54(4), 699-724.
Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Raver, J. L. (2014). Is it better to be average?
High and low performance as predictors of employee
victimization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 296.
Keashly, L. (1997). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and
empirical issues. Journal of emotional abuse, 1(1), 85-117.
Khan, A. K., Moss, S., Quratulain, S., & Hameed, I. (2016). When and
how subordinate performance leads to abusive supervision: A
social dominance perspective. Journal of Management,
0149206316653930.
Khandwalla, P. N. (1977). The design of organizations. New York:
Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2014). Victimization of high performers: The
roles of envy and workgroup identification. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99(4), 619.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on
the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017).
Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical
review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940-1965.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review
of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34(1), S120-S137.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Sikora, D., & Douglas, S. C. (2011).
Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’
attribution styles. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 751-764.
Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction.
Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1-20.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and
the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and
looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1),
271-320.
Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., Sidanius, J., & Siers, B. (1997). The gender
gap in occupational role attainment: a social dominance approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 37.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social
dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social
and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67(4), 741.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of
enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes
in the work environment. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213-1232.
Shao, P., Resick, C. J., & Hargis, M. B. (2011). Helping and harming
others in the workplace: The roles of personal values and abusive
supervision. Human Relations, 64(8), 1051-1078.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance
theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25(6), 845-880.
Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Strategy formation patterns,
performance, and the significance of context. Journal of
Management, 23(2), 189-209.
Sutton, J. (2007). Healing the Hurt Within 3rd Edition: Understand selfinjury
and self-harm and heal the emotional wounds. Hachette
UK.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive
actions. American Psychological Association.
Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 4, 123-152.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Breaux-Soignet, D. M. (2012). Abusive
supervision as a political activity: Distinguishing impulsive and
strategic expressions of downward hostility. In Politics in
organizations (pp. 225-246). Routledge.
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.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review,
synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3),
261-289.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006).
Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive
supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
Walter, F., Lam, C. K., Van Der Vegt, G. S., Huang, X., & Miao, Q. (2015).
Abusive supervision and subordinate performance:
Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and
consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100(4), 1056.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of economic and social organization. Trans. AM
Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press
Published
2018-12-15
How to Cite
Usmani, D. S. (2018). HIGH PERFORMANCE AND ABUSIVE SUPERVISION: COMPARISON BETWEEN ORGANIC AND MECHANISTIC WORK STRUCTURES. Journal of Business Strategies, 12(2), 65-84. Retrieved from http://greenwichjournals.com/index.php/businessstudies/article/view/342
Section
Articles
