Abstract:Abusive supervision, manifesting in nonphysical forms of hostility from supervisors toward subordinates (Tepper, 2000), has been found to cause serious harms to subordinates and organizations, such as diminishing subordinates’ well-being, proactive behaviors, and job performance (for reviews, see Mackey, Frieder, Brees, & Martinko, 2017; Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013; Tepper, 2007; Tepper, Simon, & Park, 2017). A number of theoretical perspectives have been used to understand abusive supervision, including a social construction perspective (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2017), a self-control theory perspective (Lian, Brown, Ferris, Liang, Keeping, & Morrison, 2014; Lian, Ferris, Morrison, & Brown, 2014), and a mixed relationship perspective (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). However, questions remain to be answered with these theoretical perspectives. For example, although a social construction perspective suggests that abusive supervision reflects subordinates’ perception (Tepper, 2000), it is unclear what factors may affect subordinates’ perceptions of supervisors’ behaviors and thus affect subordinates’ experiences of and reactions to abusive supervision. Moreover, a self-control theory perspective suggests that organizations can benefit greatly from selecting individuals with high self-control because supervisors with high self-control are less likely to engage in abusive supervision and subordinates with high self-control are less likely to retaliate against abusive supervisors. However, considering the downside of high self-control as suggested by recent development in self-control theory, is it likely that high self-control may promote abusive supervision among supervisors or bring in negative outcomes for subordinates who refrain from retaliating against abusive supervisors? Finally, a mixed relationship perspective suggests that supervisors may engage in both abusive and supportive supervision and abusive supervision is more detrimental when it occurs in combination with supportive supervision. However, it is unclear why supervisors switch between abusive and supportive supervision and if a combination of abusive and supportive supervision is always worse. In this symposium, we provide rich theoretical and empirical accounts of the mechanisms and boundary conditions to address these unanswered questions. The four papers included in this symposium adopt different methodologies including a multi-wave survey design, an experience sampling design, and latent profile analyses. Participants of this symposium are form different countries including USA, China, Canada, and Singapore. We believe that these different backgrounds and approaches will not only allow us to collide our views and thus generate new understandings of abusive supervision, but also enable us to better understand how to manage and reduce abusive supervision in the workplace. When Critical Supervisory Feedback is Perceived as Abusive Supervision: Social Hierarchy Perspective Presenter: Jo K. Oh; U. of Connecticut Presenter: Hun Whee Lee; Michigan State U. Too Much Self-Control? The Case of Abusive Supervision and Employee Job Tension Presenter: Lindie Hanyu Liang; Wilfrid Laurier U. Presenter: Douglas J. Brown; U. of Waterloo Presenter: Dan Ni; School of Economics and Management Tsinghua U. Presenter: Xiaoming Zheng; Tsinghua U. Impulsive and Strategic Abuse: An Actor-Centric Model with a Self- Regulation Perspective Presenter: Mingyun Huai; Tongji U. Presenter: Huiwen Lian; U. of Kentucky Presenter: Jiing-Lih Farh; China Europe International Business School (CEIBS) Presenter: Haijiang Wang; School of Management, Huazhong U. of Science and Technology Worse Together? A Latent Profile Analysis of Abusive and Supportive Supervisory Behaviors Presenter: Lingtao Yu; U. of British Columbia

How Machiavellian Leaders Strategically Use Abusive Supervision to Overpower Their Subordinates

Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: How and When Machiavellian Leaders Demonstrate Strategic Abuse

The Complexity of Machiavellian Leaders: How and when Leader Machiavellianism Impacts Abusive Supervision

Influence of Subordinates' and Supervisors' Network Positions on the Effect of Abusive Supervision

Middle Power Plays: How and when Mach Middle Managers Use Downward Abuse and Upward Guanxi to Gain and Maintain Power

How Machiavellian Middle Managers Gain Power

Abusive supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX

Abusive Supervision Mediates Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: the Moderating Role of Outcome Dependence

Leader's Machiavellianism and employees' counterproductive work behavior: testing a moderated mediation model

Abusive supervision and subordinate performance: Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and consequences of abusive supervision.

Supervisory Consequences of Abusive Supervision: an Investigation of Sense of Power, Managerial Self-Efficacy, and Task-Oriented Leadership Behavior

Whatever It Takes: Leaders' Perceptions of Abusive Supervision Instrumentality

Abusive Supervision and Destructive Voice: an Ego Depletion and LMX Differentiation Perspective

Subordinate poor performance as a stressor on leader well-being: The mediating role of abusive supervision and the moderating role of motives for abuse.

How Does Abusive Supervision Affect Subordinate's Counterproductive Work Behavior? A Perspective of Social Cognitive Theory

You Abuse and I Criticize: an Ego Depletion and Leader–Member Exchange Examination of Abusive Supervision and Destructive Voice

Abusive Supervision: New Understandings and Practical Implications

Abusive Supervision and Subordinate Supervisor‐directed Deviance: the Moderating Role of Traditional Values and the Mediating Role of Revenge Cognitions

Effect of Supervisor–subordinate Guanxi on Supervisory Decisions in China: an Empirical Investigation

Can a leader's ethical leadership and abusive supervision be a gain? Workplace emotions as mediators

From Struggle to Strength: Coping with Abusive Supervision in Project Teams through Proactive Behavior and Team Building