IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v31y2021i3p386-420_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making Sense of “Good” and “Bad”: A Deonance and Fairness Approach to Abusive Supervision and Prosocial Impact

Author

Listed:
  • Johnson, Michael A.
  • Priesemuth, Manuela
  • Bigelow, Bailey

Abstract

This article challenges the unidimensional view of abusive supervisors and examines how employees respond to abuse when the transgressing boss also has a positive impact on others. Drawing on deonance and fairness theory, we propose competing hypotheses about the influence of prosocial impact. Specifically, we use deonance theory to suggest that prosocial impact might buffer the effects of abusive supervision. Alternatively, we incorporate fairness theory to predict that prosocial impact strengthens injustice perceptions and thereby worsens consequences of abuse. Two field studies show support for fairness theory, demonstrating that employees perceive greater injustice, and show stronger retaliatory behaviors, when the abusive supervisor makes a positive difference in the workplace. A final field study replicates these results, while also testing the underlying cognitive process employees use to assess the interplay between “good” and “bad” supervisory characteristics. This article contributes insights to abusive supervision, prosocial impact, organizational justice, and behavioral ethics literatures.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnson, Michael A. & Priesemuth, Manuela & Bigelow, Bailey, 2021. "Making Sense of “Good” and “Bad”: A Deonance and Fairness Approach to Abusive Supervision and Prosocial Impact," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 386-420, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:31:y:2021:i:3:p:386-420_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X20000317/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:31:y:2021:i:3:p:386-420_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.