Abstract
Orientation: Prior research has identified several moderators that can mitigate the effects of abusive supervision on employee outcomes; however, the role of high-performing employees (HPEs) has been virtually overlooked.
Research purpose: Drawing on social exchange theory (SET), this study explores the effects of abusive supervision on employee silence and employee alienation, as well as the moderating role of HPEs in the indigenous banking sector in Ghana.
Motivation for the study: Supervisors, as key facilitators of employee performance and commitment, often face immense pressure to achieve departmental and organisational goals. While effective leadership promotes collaboration, commitment and performance, some supervisors resort to dysfunctional behaviours, such as abusive supervision, to drive results.
Research approach/design and method: The study adopted a cross-sectional survey to collect data from 227 employees from indigenous banks in Ghana using cluster sampling. Four hypotheses were tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM).
Main findings: Abusive supervision significantly and positively affects employee silence and employee alienation. However, HPEs significantly reduced these effects.
Practical/managerial implications: This study covered only the indigenous banking sector in Ghana, limiting generalisability. The results provide useful information for managers seeking to address abusive supervision and its outcomes.
Contribution/value-add: This study contributes novel insights into the moderating effects of HPEs in mitigating the adverse effects of abusive supervision on employee silence and employee alienation in Ghana’s indigenous banking sector.
Keywords: abusive supervision; employee silence; employee alienation; high-performing employees; social exchange theory.
Introduction
Organisational success depends on employee performance and commitment (Webster et al., 2022). Supervisors, responsible for these outcomes, often face immense pressure to achieve organisational goals (Nanjundeswaraswamy, 2023; Nwosu et al., 2021; Sayyadi, 2019; Strand & Skogseid, 2013). While effective leadership fosters collaboration, commitment and performance (Nanjundeswaraswamy, 2023; Sayyadi, 2019; Strand & Skogseid, 2013), some supervisors engage in abusive supervision to drive results.
Abusive supervision, defined as ‘subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviours, excluding physical contact’ (Tepper, 2000, p. 178), is a pervasive organisational challenge. Since its conceptualisation, abusive supervision has been linked to detrimental outcomes for both individuals and organisations, such as reduced job satisfaction, higher burnout, and greater intention to quit (Salton Meyer & Ein-Dor 2021). Less yet critical outcomes include employee silence and alienation.
Employee silence, the withholding of work-related ideas or concerns (Dyne et al., 2003) and employee alienation, the disconnection from one’s professional life (Hirschfeld & Field, 2000), are non-confrontational strategies employees use to cope with abusive supervision (Al-Hawari et al., 2020; Sarwar et al., 2022). These reactions harm both individual well-being and organisational growth, impeding innovation, collaboration and morale. Despite increasing global research on these outcomes (Du et al., 2022; Osei et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2020; Zia & Ahmed, 2024), studies on their dynamics in Africa, particularly in Ghana’s indigenous banking sector, are scarce.
Prior research identified several moderators that mitigate the effects of abusive supervision on employee outcomes (Bayhan Karapinar et al., 2024; Du et al., 2022). However, the role of high-performing employees (HPEs) has been overlooked. Regarded as organisational stars, HPEs possess exceptional skills, promote teamwork and drive organisational success (De Waal & Oudshoorn, 2015; Kehoe et al., 2018). Their ability to create supportive work environments may mitigate the adverse effects of abusive supervision, offering a new way to address toxic behaviours.
This study applies social exchange theory (SET) to examine how abusive supervision affects employee silence and alienation, considering the moderating role of HPEs. Firstly, it examines how abusive supervision influences employee silence and alienation. The SET posits that workplace relationships involve reciprocal actions, where behaviours elicit corresponding responses (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano et al., 2017). Social exchange theory has been used to examine the impacts of abusive supervision on employee outcomes, such as organisational citizenship behaviour (Liu et al., 2024), counterproductive work behaviours (Maqbool et al., 2024) and knowledge hiding (Koay & Lim, 2023). In line with these studies, this study posits that employees facing abusive supervision may respond with non-confrontational behaviours such as withholding ideas (silence) or emotionally disconnecting from their work (alienation). These reactions serve as psychological retaliation, with employees withdrawing valuable resources (Cropanzano et al., 2017), such as effort, engagement or creativity.
Secondly, the study examines whether HPEs, known for promoting supportive and collaborative environments, can moderate employee silence and alienation by offsetting abusive leadership. This study assesses how SET influences perceived support (Blau, 1964; Ladd & Henry, 2000). Social exchange theory emphasises reciprocal workplace exchanges, where negative behaviours often disrupt the balance (Cropanzano et al., 2017). High-performing employee help to restore the balance by fostering psychological safety, open communication and adaptive coping. From the SET perspective, HPEs transform negative interactions into opportunities for engagement and resilience. By applying SET, this research provides a nuanced understanding of the relationship between leadership behaviour, employee responses and the mitigating role of workplace stars.
This study contributes to theory and practice. Theoretically, it extends the application of SET by showing how abusive supervision triggers employee silence and alienation as psychological retaliation. It also introduces HPEs as an essential but underexplored moderator, highlighting their role in mitigating the effects of toxic leadership. Studying Ghana’s indigenous banking sector, the study enriches the understanding of these dynamics in a collectivist, high-power distance cultural context (Hofstede, 2001), addressing a key research gap. Practically, the findings guide organisations to address abusive supervision and its consequences. The findings highlight HPEs as buffers against dysfunctional leadership and stress need for targeted leadership training and employee support programmes to create healthier and more productive workplaces.
Subsequent sections focus on hypotheses development, methodology and interpretations of results. Furthermore, the sections present the discussions of the findings, theoretical and practical implications, limitations, future research directions and conclusions.
Literature review and hypotheses development
Abusive supervision
According to Tepper (2000, p. 178), abusive supervision is subordinates’ perception of the degree to which supervisors consistently exhibit aggressive verbal and nonverbal behaviours, excluding physical harm. This definition indicates that subordinates’ evaluations are subjective and shaped by personal characteristics and context. For instance, a supervisor’s behaviour may seem offensive in one context but not in another, and subordinates may interpret the same conduct differently. Another aspect of the definition is that nonphysical hostility persists until either the targeted individual or the perpetrator ends the relationship or the perpetrator alters their behaviour (Tepper, 2000, 2007). Furthermore, the definition indicates that abusive leaders act intentionally for specific purposes, such as to incentivise subordinates to excel or to implement a zero-tolerance policy for failure (Tepper, 2007). Finally, Teppers’ (2000) definition includes behaviours such as yelling, using derogatory language, swearing, threatening intimidation, exhibiting aggressive eye contact, administering the ‘silent treatment’ and subjecting someone to public humiliation (Wang et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2023).
Abusive supervision and employee reactions
Employee reactions at the workplace have interested researchers for many decades. Bhal et al. (2009, p. 605) define employee reaction as ‘how employees think, feel, and act’ to issues at work. The literature outlines categories of employee reactions, including supportive or resistant, active or passive, overt or covert, positive or negative, strong or weak, and favourable or unfavourable behaviour (Aldossari et al., 2023). This study focuses on employee silence and employee alienation.
Pinder and Harlos (2001) define employee silence:
[A]s the withholding of any form of genuine expression about the individual’s behavioural, cognitive and/or affective evaluations of his or her organisational circumstances to persons who are perceived to be capable of effecting change or redress. (p. 334)
Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) contend that employees remain silent regarding work-related concerns, withhold ideas for improvement, conceal work-related issues, withhold information that could avert incidents and avoid asking questions to obtain further information about their tasks.
Scholars have identified different predictors of employee silence. In a meta-analysis, Hao et al. (2022) categorised the antecedents into individual dispositions, job perceptions and beliefs, and leader-related factors, which included abusive supervision and authoritarian leadership. Substantial empirical studies have confirmed abusive supervision as an antecedent of employee silence (Lee et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2020). For instance, a study by Bayhan Karapinar et al. (2024) in Türkiye revealed that abusive supervision has a harsh influence on employee’s preparedness to voice opinions. Similarly, Zia and Ahmed (2024) confirmed the same correlation in Pakistan. In line with these findings, this study proposes the following:
H1: There is a positive relationship between abusive supervision and employee silence.
According to Hirschfeld and Field (2000, p. 790), alienation refers to the extent to which an individual experiences a disconnection from their professional life. Jiang et al. (2019) also define it as a condition in which employees see a diminishment of control over the work process and a restriction on their ability to express themselves in the workplace. Nair and Vohra (2009) conceptualise employee alienation as a unidimensional phenomenon characterised by a lack of enjoyment in work, perception of daily tasks as tedious and burdensome, feelings of estrangement from oneself, a desire for alternative pursuits, disillusionment regarding work, minimal effort exerted in job responsibilities, and a lack of connection to workplace events.
Research shows employee alienation often results from abusive or dysfunctional supervision (Du et al., 2022; Sarwar et al., 2022). For example, in investigating the mediating role of work alienation on the relationship between abusive supervision and service sabotage in Egypt, El-Gazar et al. (2024) discovered a strong correlation between abusive supervision and work alienation. Therefore, this study proposes:
H2: There is a positive relationship between abusive supervision and employee alienation.
Moderating role of high-performing employees
Scholars view abusive supervision as a workplace stressor that heightens situational demands on employees and results in negative outcomes (Qu et al., 2023). To cope with this stressor, subordinates need esteem support, informational support, social companionship and instrumental support, as outlined by He, Jiang, Zhu and Hu (2023). A better choice to provide this support both officially and unofficially, is HPEs, sometimes referred to as stars (Morris et al., 2021). De Waal and Oudshoorn (2015, p. 572) define HPE as an individual who ‘performs better than an average employee and, therefore, contributes above average to the overall performance of an organisation’. High-performing employees are skilled in teamwork, creativity, mentoring, collaboration, sponsorship and technology, and possess broad knowledge and competencies (De Waal & Oudshoom, 2015; Kehoe et al., 2018).
Scholars emphasise the advantages of HPEs for other employees. Kehoe et al. (2018) assert that employees collaborating with HPEs benefit from formal and informal cooperation, mentorship, sponsorship and support, enabling them to adopt successful work outcomes and leverage higher performers’ expertise to improve their own performance. Conversely, HPEs also need support from other colleagues such as information, ideas, views and participation to thrive. A study by Kehoe and Bentley (2021) demonstrated that the presence of a star co-manager diminishes employers’ attributions of positive or negative performance to a primary non-star manager, owing to assumptions regarding the star’s excessive impact on collaborative decisions. Another study by Oh et al. (2021) in South Korea found that more high-performing surgeons correlate with a rise in surgical patients and a decrease in postoperative length of stay. Based on these studies, this study proposes:
H3: High-performing employees moderate the positive relationship between abusive supervision and employee silence.
H4: High-performing employees moderate the positive relationship between abusive supervision and employee alienation.
Methodology
Study design and procedure
This study followed a quantitative approach with a cross-sectional survey design, targeting employees in the indigenous banking sector in Ghana’s Western Region. A multistage cluster sampling accounted for the geographical distribution of the branches. Three banks with 32 branches were selected and all full-time employees (N = 227) were invited to participate.
Data were collected in two phases. In the first phase, respondents completed an online questionnaire covering demographic information, employee silence and employee alienation. A total of 205 responses were received (90.3% response rate). Seven weeks later, the second phase collected data on supervisory behaviours and HPEs, with 183 participants (89.7% of first-phase respondents) completing this stage. After matching responses, data from 183 participants (80.6% of the total sample) were included in the final analysis.
The online questionnaire was administered through a secure online platform, with hyperlinks shared through the HR and supervisors. For each phase, designated contacts were sent reminders to encourage timely participation. Efforts to reduce response biases included assuring participants of anonymity and confidentiality, emphasising voluntary participation, refining questionnaire items to be clear and concise, and collecting the data in two phases (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
The data were analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). The respondents’ demographic profile showed that 57.49% were female, with 49% aged 30–39 years. In addition, 51% were junior staff, and 42.11% had up to 5 years of employment. Further demographic details are presented in Table 1-A1.
Measures
The constructs were measured using validated items from the literature (Table 1-A2). Items were adapted to fit the context of the indigenous banking sector in Ghana.
Abusive supervision was assessed using a 15-item scale adapted from Tepper’s (2000) measures of abusive supervision. The only modification was to the item, ‘My boss puts me down in front of others,’ which was reworded as ‘My boss disgraces me in front of others’. All other items were used in their original form. An example of one such item is, ‘My boss ridicules me’. Respondents rated each item on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘I cannot remember him or her ever using this behaviour with me’ to ‘He/she uses this behaviour very often with me’.
Employee Silence was measured using five items adapted from Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008), which assessed the tendency to withhold work-related ideas, concerns or information. An example of an item is, ‘I chose to remain silent when I had concerns about my work’. Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale (‘Never’ to ‘Always’).
Employee Alienation was measured using an eight-item scale developed by Nair and Vohra (2009). Items reflected feelings of disconnection from the work environment, such as ‘I do not enjoy work; I just put in my time to get paid,’ and ‘Facing my daily tasks is a painful and boring experience’. Respondents indicated their responses on a five-point Likert scale (‘Definitely false’ to ‘Definitely true’).
High-Performing Employees were measured using a 10-item scale adapted from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) framework. Items reflect behaviours such as ‘I adequately complete assigned duties’ and ‘I help others who have heavy workloads’. A five-point Likert scale (‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’) was used.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Durban University of Technology-Institutional Research Ethics Committee (No. IREC 103/22). The participants had to click YES to the consent statement to access the questionnaire. Those who clicked NO could not proceed.
Results
Measurement model assessment
The measurement model assessed reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity (Table 1). Appendix 2 (TABLE 1-A2) presents the number of items used to measure abusive supervision, employee silence, employee alienation and HPEs. Five of the abusive supervision items and three of the items measuring employee silence, employee alienation and HPEs loaded well and were retained. Table 1 shows that all retained items had factor loadings above 0.70. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (rho_c). All constructs, except HPEs, exceeded the 0.70 threshold for Cronbach’s alpha (Hair et al., 2020). Similarly, composite reliability (rho_c) for all constructs was above 0.70, as shown in Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha may underestimate internal consistency reliability, making composite reliability (rho_c) a more appropriate measure (Hair et al., 2021). Thus, all constructs met internal consistency reliability (Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015).
Convergent validity was established using the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct. The AVE values surpassed the threshold of 0.50, indicating that the constructs explained a significant proportion of the variance in their indicators (Hair et al., 2021).
We tested discriminant validity tested using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio (Table 2). The Fornell-Larcker analysis showed that each construct’s AVE square root exceeded its correlations with other constructs. Additionally, HTMT values were below the recommended threshold of 0.85, confirming that the constructs were distinct (Hair et al., 2021).
Structural model assessment
The structural model was assessed using established guidelines for robustness and validity (Hair et al., 2020). Key evaluations included multicollinearity, path coefficients, explanatory power, effect size, predictive relevance and model fit. Multicollinearity was checked using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) (Table 3), with all values below 3.0, confirming the absence of multicollinearity among the exogenous constructs (Sarstedt et al., 2021).
| TABLE 3: Model’s goodness of fit, collinearity and explanatory power assessment. |
Bootstrapping (5000 resamples) was used to analyse path coefficients. H1 and H2 examined the effects of abusive supervision on employee silence and alienation. Table 4 shows abusive supervision positively affected employee silence (β = 0.468, t = 6.786, p < 0.001) and employee alienation (β = 0.363, t = 4.228, p < 0.001), supporting H1 and H2. Furthermore, H3 and H4 tested whether HPEs moderated these effects. Results confirmed that HPEs weakened the relationships between abusive supervision and employee silence (β = 0.161, t = 2.076, p = 0.038) and employee alienation (β = 0.158, t = 2.295, p = 0.022), supporting H3 and H4.
| TABLE 4: Summary of the model path results. |
R2 values were used to assess explanatory power. Abusive supervision and HPEs explained 23.4% of the variance in employee silence and 31.9% in employee alienation, exceeding the 0.10 threshold, indicating adequate explanatory power (Sarstedt et al., 2021). Effect size (f2) measured each predictor’s contribution, with abusive supervision showing medium effect on employee silence (f2 = 0.263) and a small effect on employee alienation (f2 = 0.141). The HPEs interacting terms had small effect on employee silence (f2 = 0.029) and employee alienation (f2 = 0.031). Predictive relevance Q2 = 0.012 for employee silence, 0.011 for employee alienation, was above zero, supporting model validity (Hair et al., 2019). Finally, Standardised root means square residual (SRMR) value (0.067) met < 0.08 threshold, indicating model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Discussions of results and implications
The study evaluated the moderating effect of HPEs on the relationship between abusive supervision and employee reactions in Ghana’s indigenous banking sector. It examined how abusive supervision influences employee silence and alienation, as well as the moderating roles of HPEs. Using the SET and social support theory, four hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, H4) were developed and tested.
The findings confirm a positive relationship between abusive supervision and employee silence, supporting H1. This aligns with the SET and previous studies showing that employees experiencing abuse often remain silent to avoid conflict or retaliation (Lee et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2020). Abusive supervision erodes trust and psychological safety, creating an environment where employees prioritise self-preservation over engagement. In Ghana’s collectivist, high-power distance culture, respect for authority reinforces this silence, discouraging employees from challenging supervisors. These results highlight the need for interventions that enhance psychological safety and encourage open workplace dialogue.
The findings validate H2 by showing a significant positive relationship between abusive supervision and employee alienation. Consistent with prior research, abusive supervision increases disconnection and emotional withdrawal (Du et al., 2022; Jiang et al., 2019). Employees experiencing such behaviours often view work as burdensome and meaningless, disengaging to protect themselves from hostility (Sarwar et al., 2022). In high-power distance culture, this effect is amplified, as employees feel powerless to challenge authority, deepening their isolation. These findings emphasise the detrimental effect of abusive supervision on employee well-being and organisational cohesion, underscoring the need for leadership development and supportive workplace practices.
The findings confirm H3, indicating that HPEs moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and employee silence. The HPEs foster psychological safety, encourage open communication and reduce the fear-driven withdrawal typically linked to abusive supervision (Kehoe et al., 2018; Kenworthy et al., 2023). This finding supports research on workplace stars promoting team cohesion and empowering colleagues to speak up (Call et al., 2021; Kehoe et al., 2018). In Ghana’s collectivist culture, where hierarchical difference often discourages expression, HPEs play a crucial role in mitigating the silencing effects of dysfunctional leadership.
Similarly, the results support H4, showing that HPEs also buffer the relationship between abusive supervision and employee alienation. Employees with high-performing colleagues feel more included and purposeful, reducing emotional withdrawal. By promoting teamwork and providing informal support, HPEs counteract isolation and sustain engagement. This aligns with studies highlighting the morale-boosting and stress-buffering capacities of workplace stars (Kehoe & Bentley, 2021; Oh et al., 2021). In rigid hierarchical cultures with limited recourse, empowering high-performers can enhance workplace dynamics and mitigate negative impacts of abusive leadership.
Theoretical implications
The application of the SET in this study offers new insights into these phenomena. While previous research often relied on resource-based theories such as conservation of resources (COR) and framed silence and alienation as defensive strategies to conserve personal resources (Bayhan Karapinar et al., 2024; Sarwar et al., 2022), this study emphasises their relational nature, presenting them as active, reciprocal responses to perceived mistreatment. This distinction is crucial for understanding employee motivations, where positive or negative behaviours elicit corresponding responses ultimately disrupting workplace reciprocity. This study also underscores the role of abusive leadership in destabilising exchanges dynamics, reinforcing SET’s value in explaining the relational processes underlying employee reactions.
By examining both employee silence and alienation within a single framework, this research enhances understanding of how these distinct yet interconnected responses emerge under dysfunctional leadership. Situating the study in Ghana’s organisational context broadens theoretical perspectives on the impact of abusive supervision on employee reactions across diverse settings.
Furthermore, the study identifies HPEs as key moderators in the relationship between abusive supervision and negative employee outcomes. Prior research primarily focused on moderators such as organisational support, locus of control, psychological contract fulfilment; relational attachment, organisational tenure and organisational citizenship behaviours (Bayhan Karapinar et al., 2024; Bhattacharjee & Sarkar, 2024; Fischer et al., 2021; Hanu et al., 2024). However, the role of HPEs in shaping these relationships remained unexplored, particularly in collectivist, high-power distance culture where hierarchical deference amplifies the negative consequences of abusive supervision. This study addresses this gap by demonstrating that HPEs significantly reduce the impact of abusive supervision on both employee silence and alienation. Star employees provide support, collaboration and a social safety net that mitigates the harmful effects of abusive supervision (Kehoe & Tzabbar, 2015; Kehoe et al., 2018). These findings highlight high-performers not only as key contributors to organisational success but also as buffers against dysfunctional leadership.
Practical implications
This study offers recommendations for reducing the effects of abusive supervision. Firstly, the findings on abusive supervision require leadership development programmes that emphasise respect, accountability and open communication. Organisations should conduct regular assessments, coaching sessions and feedback mechanisms to identify and correct abusive behaviours before they escalate.
Secondly, the discovery of the buffering role of HPEs in work teams with abusive supervisors emphasises there is the need for management to actively assess and nurture HPEs. This can be carried out through structured recruitment and training programmes that enhance resilience, teamwork and leadership skills. Providing mentorship and career development opportunities ensures that HPEs can effectively counterbalance toxic leadership.
Finally, organisations should position HPEs in teams where they can serve as role models to enhance collaboration and serve as psychological safety. Moreover, HPEs should be encouraged to mentor colleagues and provide support systems that buffer employees from the negative effects of abusive supervision. These strategies enhance employee well-being, reduce silence and alienation, and drive organisational success.
Limitation and recommendation for future research
This study focused on Ghana’s indigenous banking sector, limiting generalisability to other industries or cultures. Future research could examine similar relationships in other sectors and regions to test consistency across contexts.
The cross-sectional design, although effective for studying relationships at a specific point in time, limits causal inference. Longitudinal studies could offer deeper insights into the temporal effects of abusive supervision and the evolving role of HPEs.
The study used self-reported data, which may introduce common method or social desirability bias, despite efforts to mitigate these issues. Future research could address this limitation by incorporating multi-source data, such as peer and supervisor ratings for more robust assessment. Furthermore, alternative questionnaire could be used to measure HPE’s behaviour and enhance reliability.
Finally, while the study applied SET, integrating additional frameworks, such as the conservation of resources theory or the emotional regulation theory, could provide a fuller understanding of employee silence and alienation. Future studies could also examine moderators such as organisational climate, peer support, organisational justice or team dynamics to identify factors that mitigate the effects of abusive supervision.
Conclusion
Drawing on social exchange and social support theories, this study examined the impact of abusive supervision on employee silence and alienation, along with the moderating role of HPEs. The findings show that abusive supervision significantly increases both outcomes, while HPEs weaken this effect. These results offer strategies to mitigate employees’ negative reactions to abusive supervision in Ghana’s indigenous banking sector.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the management of Durban University of Technology (DUT) and Takoradi Technical University (TTU) for collaborating to make this research possible. This article is partially based on the author, P.M.’s PhD thesis entitled, ‘Supervision processes and employee reactions: a study of selected indigenous banks in the Western Region of Ghana’, towards the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Management Sciences in Business Administration in the Faculty of Management Science, Durban University of Technology, South Africa, with supervisor Obianuju E. Okeke-Uzodike, received May 2025.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
P.M. conceptualised the research study. The study was supervised and reviewed by O.E.O-.U.
Funding information
The authors disclosed receipt of funding from the Durban University of Technology’s GOOT project. The grant number is P02S8GT074. The author has disclosed those interests fully and has implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated University in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.
Data availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available and can be requested from the corresponding author, P.M. upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Aldossari, K.M., Lines, B.C., Smithwick, J.B., Hurtado, K.C., & Sullivan, K.T. (2023). Employee reactions to adoption of alternative project delivery methods within the AEC industry. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 19(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2021.1900463
Al-Hawari, M.A., Bani-Melhem, S., & Quratulain, S. (2020). Abusive supervision and frontline employees’ attitudinal outcomes: The multilevel effects of customer orientation. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(3), 1109–1129. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2019-0510
Bayhan Karapinar, P., Tayfur Ekmekci, O., Metin Camgoz, S., López Bohle, S., & Miski Aydin, E. (2024). Et tu Brute? The roles of subordinate–Supervisor similarities on the relationship between abusive supervision and employee silence behavior: A study from the subordinates’ perspectives. Behavioral Sciences, 14(7), 582. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14070582
Bhal, K.T., Uday Bhaskar, A., & Venkata Ratnam, C.S. (2009). Employee reactions to M&A: Role of LMX and leader communication. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 30(7), 604–624. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910991637
Bhattacharjee, A., & Sarkar, A. (2024). Abusive supervision: A systematic literature review. Management Review Quarterly, 74(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00291-8
Blau, P.M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x
Call, M.L., Campbell, E.M., Dunford, B.B., Boswell, W.R., & Boss, R.W. (2021). Shining with the stars? Unearthing how group star proportion shapes non-star performance. Personnel Psychology, 74(3), 543–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12420
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E.L., Daniels, S.R., & Hall, A.V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099
De Waal, A.A., & Oudshoorn, M. (2015). Two profiles of the Dutch high performing employee. European Journal of Training and Development, 39(7), 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-12-2014-0082
Dijkstra, T.K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS quarterly, 39(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02
Du, X., Chowdhury, M.S., & Kang, D.S. (2022). Reducing the negative effects of abusive supervision: A step towards organisational sustainability. Sustainability, 15(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010019
Dyne, L.V., Ang, S., & Botero, I.C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384
El-Gazar, H.E., Zoromba, M.A., Zakaria, A.M., Ibrahim, S.F., & Elzohairy, M.H.S. (2024). Linking abusive supervision to service sabotage through work alienation in nurses: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 80(2), 745–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15861
Fischer, T., Tian, A.W., Lee, A., & Hughes, D.J. (2021). Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink. Leadership Quarterly, 32(6), 101540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101540
Hair Jr, J.F., Howard, M.C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069
Hair Jr, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C.M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hanu, C., Agbenyegah, A.T., Kumadey, G., Amankwaa, R., & Ofosu-Appiah, S. (2024). Bottom-line mentality and abusive supervisory behaviour in MSMEs: How do they affect employee outcomes?. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 16(5), 1276–1297. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-07-2022-0215
Hao, L., Zhu, H., He, Y., Duan, J., Zhao, T., & Meng, H. (2022). When is silence golden? A meta-analysis on antecedents and outcomes of employee silence. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(5), 1039–1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09788-7
Hirschfeld, R.R., & Feild, H.S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 21(7), 789–800. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200011)21:7<789::AID-JOB59>3.0.CO;2-W
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage.
Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jiang, H., Chen, Y., Sun, P., & Li, C. (2019). Authoritarian leadership and employees’ unsafe behaviours: The mediating roles of organisational cynicism and work alienation. Current Psychology, 38(6), 1668–1678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9726-1
Kehoe, R.R., & Tzabbar, D. (2015). Lighting the way or stealing the shine? An examination of the duality in star scientists’ effects on firm innovative performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(5), 709–727. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2240
Kehoe, R.R., & Bentley, F.S. (2021). Shadows and shields: Stars limit their collaborators’ exposure to attributions of both credit and blame. Personnel Psychology, 74(3), 573–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12436
Kehoe, R.R., Lepak, D.P., & Bentley, F.S. (2018). Let’s call a star a star: Task performance, external status, and exceptional contributors in organizations. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1848–1872. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316628644
Kenworthy, J.B., Marusich, L.R., Paulus, P.B., Abellanoza, A., & Bakdash, J.Z. (2023). The impact of top performers in creative groups. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 17(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000365
Koay, K.Y., & Lim, P.K. (2023). Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding: The moderated mediation role of overall justice and gender. Global Business and Organisational Excellence, 42(2), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22181
Ladd, D., & Henry, R.A. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping the organization: The role of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(10), 2028–2049. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02422.x
Lee, W.R., Kang, S.W., & Choi, S.B. (2022). Abusive supervision and employee’s creative performance: A serial mediation model of relational conflict and employee silence. Behavioural Sciences, 12(5), 156. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12050156
Liu, B., Ma, Y., Wang, H., Li, F., & Liu, G. (2024). Abusive supervision and organisational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis based on the perspective of multiple theories. Current Psychology, 43(6), 5341–5354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04738-3
Maqbool, M., Lyu, B., Ullah, S., Khan, M.T., Abeden, A.Z.U., & Kukreti, M. (2024). Abusive supervisor triggers counterproductive work behaviors in nursing staff: Role of psychological contract breach and Islamic work ethics. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 45(3), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2023-0295
Morris, S.S., Alvarez, S.A., & Barney, J.B. (2021). Dancing with the stars: The practical value of theory in managing star employees. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0223
Nair, N., & Vohra, N. (2009). Developing a new measure of work alienation. Journal of Workplace Rights, 14(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.2190/WR.14.3.c
Nanjundeswaraswamy, T.S. (2023). The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between leadership styles and employee commitment. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 39(2), 286–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-02-2021-0029
Nwosu, I.A., Ohuruogu, B., Ekpechu, J.O., Okoronkwo, E., Chukwu, C.O., Obi, C.F., & Ofoegbu, F.C. (2021). Structured supervision propelling job performance in universities: Achieving goals without chains. SAGE Open, 11(4), 21582440211050375. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211050375
Oh, S., Park, O., & Hong, W. (2021). Do star employees help or hinder department performance: The case of surgeons in South Korean hospitals. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2021.43
Osei, H.V., Ofori, H., Otsen, E., Adjei, T., & Odoom, L. (2022). The effects of leaders’ abusive supervision on employees’ work engagement: A moderated-mediation model of employees’ silence and employees’ proactive personalities. Leadership in Health Services, 35(4), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-03-2022-0021
Pinder, C.C., & Harlos, K.P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. In K.M. Rowland, & G.R. Ferris (eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (vol. 20, pp. 331–69). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Qu, Y., Todorova, G., Dasborough, M.T., & Shi, Y. (2023). A mindfulness perspective on the link between abusive supervision climate and team conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 34(5), 907–930. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-03-2023-0035
Salton Meyer, E., & Ein-Dor, T. (2021). Psychological and organisational antecedents and consequences of abusive supervision in Israel: Review and research. In P. D’Cruz, E. Noronha & A. Mendonca (eds.), Asian perspectives on workplace bullying and harassment (pp. 211–244). Springer.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., & Hair, J.F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann & A.E. Vomberg (eds.), Handbook of market research (pp. 587–632). Springer International Publishing.
Sarwar, A., Zakariya, R., Afshari, L., & Ishaq, E. (2022). But I’ve got my powers: Examining a moderated mediation model of punitive supervision, work alienation and well-being in hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 51, 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.03.018
Sayyadi, M. (2019). How effective leadership of knowledge management impacts organisational performance. Business Information Review, 36(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382119829643
Strand, G. L., & Skogseid, I. (2013). Management and employees’ collaboration: is the Norwegian work life model suited for all?. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 26, 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-012-9269-1
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00105.x
Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375
Tepper, B.J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812
Wang, C., Zhang, Y., & Feng, J. (2023). Is it fair? How and when exploitative leadership impacts employees’ knowledge sharing. Management Decision, 61(11), 3295–3315. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2022-1289
Webster, B.D., Greenbaum, R.L., Mawritz, M.B., & Reid, R.J. (2022). Powerful, high-performing employees and psychological entitlement: The detrimental effects on citizenship behaviours. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 136, 103725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103725
Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organisational commitment as predictors of organisational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305
Xu, Q., Zhao, Y., Xi, M., & Li, F. (2020). Abusive supervision, high-performance work systems, and subordinate silence. Personnel Review, 49(8), 1637–1653. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2019-0029
Yang, J., Shen, C., Jiang, C., & He, P. (2023). Abusive supervision and employee knowledge sharing: The roles of psychological safety and perceived motivational climate. SAGE Open, 13(1), 21582440231158256. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231158256
Zia, S., & Ahmed, K. (2024). Employee creativity deterrence by abusive supervision through the lens (mediation) of employee silence. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2350787. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2350787
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
