text:
Abusive Supervision
Summary and Keywords
In recent years scholars of abusive supervision have expanded the scope of outcomes examined and have advanced new psychological and social processes to account for these and other outcomes. Besides the commonly used relational theories such as justice theory and social exchange theory, recent studies have more frequently drawn from theories about emotion to describe how abusive supervision influences the behavior, attitudes, and well-being of both the victims and the perpetrators. In addition, an increasing number of studies have examined the antecedents of abusive supervision. The studied antecedents include personality, behavioral, and situational characteristics of the supervisors and/or the subordinates. Studies have reported how characteristics of the supervisor and that of the focal victim interact to determining abuse frequency. Formerly postulated outcomes of abusive supervision (e.g., subordinate performance) have also been identified as antecedents of abusive supervision. This points to a need to model dynamic and mutually reciprocal processes between leader abusive behavior and follower responses with longitudinal data. Moreover, extending prior research that has exclusively focused on the victim's perspective, scholars have started to take the supervisor's perspective and the lens of third-parties, such as victims' coworkers, to understand the broad impact of abusive supervision. Finally, a small number of studies have started to model abusive supervision as a multilevel phenomenon. These studies have examined a group aggregated measure of abusive supervision, examining its influence as an antecedent of individual level outcomes and as a moderator of relationships between individuals' experiences of abusive supervision and personal outcomes. More research could be devoted to establishing the causal effects of abusive supervision and to developing organizational interventions to reduce abusive supervision.
Keywords: abusive supervision, aggression, deviance, social exchange, leadership, justice, multilevel research, reciprocal relationship
A seminal article by Tepper (2000) initiated a large body of research on the topic of abusive supervision. Abusive supervision is defined as "subordinates' perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact" (p. 178). According to a recent review of abusive supervision (Kermond & Schaubroeck, 2015), by 2013 over 100 journal articles had been published on the topic. The high volume of published work has continued during the last five years.
Examining recent abusive supervision literature highlights trends in the following areas: (1) the concept of abusive supervision, (2) abusive supervision consequences, (3) mechanisms of abusive supervision, (4) abusive supervision predictors, (5) methodological issues, and (6) promising new directions.
The Concept of Abusive Supervision
Abusive supervision is viewed in the context of supervisor–subordinate relationships in the workplace and includes such behaviors as ridiculing subordinates, taking personal credit for their work, and invading their privacy. Within the aforementioned definition of abusive supervision, its "sustained" nature means that abusive supervision is not seen to occur if the follower experienced only one or two episodes of hostile behavior. While abusive supervision may certainly be distressful and trigger harmful health outcomes, it does not rise to the level of physical abuse. Abusive supervision also hinges on the subordinate's judgment of whether the behavior constitutes abuse by being both hostile and sustained. This also suggests that two people may have very different perceptions of the same behavior and may not agree on the presence of abusive supervision. With a few exceptions in which authors manipulated a specific form of abusive behavior in a laboratory setting (Porath & Erez, 2007; Rodgers, Sauer, & Proell, 2013), researchers have measured abusive supervision using subordinates' self-reports of being abused by their leaders. The subjective nature of its operationalization has raised a concern that research captures only subordinates' appraisals of abusive supervision but not the actual leader behaviors (Chan & McAllister, 2014). The exclusive focus on subordinates' perceptions, albeit consistent with the conceptualization (Tepper, 2000), may lead to overestimates of the causal relationship between abusive supervision and follower self-reported attitudes and psychological states. It is thus valuable to examine abusive supervision from others' perspectives besides through the lens of the targeted subordinates. For example, recent work has examined abusive supervision from the perspective of the supervisors (Barnes, Lucianetti, Bhave, & Christian, 2015; Li, Wang, Yang, & Liu, 2016) and from the perspective of the third parties (Mitchell, Vogel, & Folger, 2015; Peng, Schaubroeck, & Li, 2014).
As compared with a list of similar constructs (Kermond & Schaubroeck, 2015, Table 1), what distinguishes abusive supervision is that it relates to behavior rather than constituting a trait (cf. aversive leadership, petty tyranny), is sustained (cf. supervisor incivility, verbal aggression), and is directed toward a particular subordinate (cf. aversive leadership, petty tyranny, supervisor bullying). In a review, Tepper (2007) noted that supervisor social undermining is very similar to abusive supervision, the difference being that perceived intention to harm the focal subordinate is included in defining social undermining but not abusive supervision.
Abusive Supervision Consequences
Much of the research on the consequences of abusive supervision is concentrated on the victim's responses and reactions, including behaviors, attitudes, and well-being.
Work Behaviors and Attitudes
Aggression and Deviance
Abusive supervision can spark victim aggression, deviant behaviors, and even bullying of other co-workers (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Mackey, Frieder, Brees, & Martinko, 2017). Meta-analytic findings show a moderate relationship between perceptions of abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors (ρ = .41, k = 7, N = 1,715) (Mackey et al., 2017). Similarly, across different targets, workplace deviance has a moderate to strong relationship with abusive supervision (interpersonal-directed: ρ = .35, k = 13, N = 3,726; supervisor-directed: ρ = .53, k = 14, N = 5223; organization-directed: ρ = .41, k = 22, N = 7,761) (Mackey et al., 2017). However, there are several important moderators. Organizational environment variables, such as hostile work environment or an uncertain climate, attenuate deviance behaviors of abused subordinates (Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012; Tepper, Lambert, Henle, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009). Job characteristics and individual differences, such as job autonomy and core self-evaluations, can also buffer this relationship (Velez & Neves, 2016; Kluemper et al., 2018). Finally, some research has shown that employees who feel less embedded in their organization are more likely to turnover when they are in an abusive environment (Allen, Peltokorpi, & Rubenstein, 2016). Other research indicates that abuse victims who reported higher turnover intentions exhibited less deviant responses to abusive supervision (Lian, Ferris, Morrison, & Brown, 2014).
Performance and Behaviors in the Organization
Meta-analytic findings demonstrate that perceived abusive supervision is associated with lower job performance and fewer organizational citizenship behaviors (performance: ρ = −.19, k = 16, N = 4,012; OCB: ρ = −.24, k = 13, N = 2,842) (Mackey et al., 2017). Adverse organizational outcomes of abusive supervision have also expanded significantly in recent years to include diminished creativity, decreases in knowledge sharing, reduced team innovation, and increased silence (Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012; Han, Harms, & Bai, 2017; Lee, Kim, & Yun, 2018; Kim, Kim, & Yun, 2015; Xu, Loi, & Lam, 2015; Rousseau & Aubé, 2018).
Attitudes and Justice Perceptions
High levels of abusive supervision can affect employees' attitudes toward the organization, their jobs, and their feelings of injustice. Abused employees report lower levels of affective organizational commitment (ρ = −.26, k = 9, N = 2,758) and perceived organizational support (ρ = −.40, k = 7, N = 1,603) (Kermond, Malonson, & Schaubroeck, 2013). They also feel less satisfied with their jobs (ρ = −.34, k = 17, N = 6,560) and have a greater sensitivity to tensions in the work environment (ρ = .24, k = 5, N = 1,777) (Mackey et al., 2017). Perceptions of abusive supervision are also related to higher turnover intentions (ρ = .32, k = 21, N = 7,982) (Kermond et al., 2013). Abusive supervision can influence employees' justice perceptions. Across the three justice dimensions, distributive justice (i.e., fairness of distribution of resources; ρ = −.25, k = 5, N = 1,492), interactional justice (i.e., fairness of interpersonal treatment; ρ = −.55, k = 7, N = 1,419), and procedural justice (i.e., fairness of the process around resource distribution; ρ = −.36, k = 7, N = 1,859), there are moderate to strong associations with subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision (Mackey et al., 2017).
Abuse Victim and Family Well-Being
Psychological and Physical Health
Abusive supervision has a reliably negative relationship with employees' psychological and physical well-being. Perceptions of abusive supervision take a toll on employees, draining their emotional resources (ρ = .36, k = 15, N = 4,343) (Mackey et al., 2017) and hindering their ability to self-regulate (Lian et al., 2014). Abusive supervision is associated with higher levels of psychological distress (ρ = .36, k = 40, N = 13,330) (Kermond et al., 2013). Employees who perceive abusive supervision are more depressed (ρ = .24, k = 6, N = 1,283) (Mackey et al., 2017), more anxious (Tepper, 2000), and have a greater tendency to self-medicate with alcohol (Bamberger & Bacharach, 2006). Recent research has indicated that abusive supervision is associated with poor sleep quality and quantity (Rafferty, Restubog, & Jimmieson, 2010; Allen et al., 2016) and higher levels of somatic complaints (Liang, Hanig, Evans, Brown, & Lian, 2018). Lack of job mobility can exacerbate the problem, strengthening the influence of abusive supervision on psychological distress (Tepper, 2000). Physical outcomes, however, have a weaker relationship with abusive supervision (ρ = .16, k = 10, N = 4,662) (Kermond et al., 2013).
Abusive supervision appears to have spillover effects outside of the work realm. The Mackey et al. (2017) meta-analysis shows a low to moderate-size positive relationship between perceptions of abusive supervision and work-to-family conflict (ρ = .35, k = 6, N = 1,527) (Mackey et al., 2017; Tepper, 2000). In a study on the connection between electronic communication during non-work time and work-to-non-work conflict, Butts, Becker, and Boswell (2015) found that abusive supervision strengthened the relationship through increasing anger and conflict. Employees who have abusive supervisors are more likely to bring negative work emotions home, acting aggressively toward their family members or domestic partners (Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Additionally, abused subordinates may experience greater relationship tension and lower family satisfaction (Carlson, Ferguson, Perrewé, & Whitten, 2011).
Abusive Supervision Mechanisms
Scholars have sought to understand what might explain the relationship of abusive supervision to negative outcomes. Perhaps the most popular approaches have been relational theories, such as social exchange, and emotion-based theories, such as the emotion response theory.
Relational Theories
We refer to relational theories as those that seek to explain how abusive supervision impacts the relationship between a subordinate and their supervisor or organization. For example, social exchange theory claims that relationships are grounded in reciprocity norms, which govern employees' assessments of the costs and benefits of relationships (Blau, 1964).
Social Standing and Esteem
Exchange perspectives have been applied to explain how abusive supervision promotes deviant behavior or decreases helping behaviors (Peng et al., 2014). Separate from exchange are relational theories of abusive supervision that emphasize how it undermines employees' sense of social status among other employees. Tyler and Blader's (2000) group engagement model proposes that mistreatment by the leader reduces social status among peers, which in turn leads to lower motivation to behave in ways that benefit the group ("group promoting" behaviors) and weakens motivational constraints on behaviors that are antagonistic to well-being or effectiveness ("group limiting" behaviors), such as deviant or counterproductive behaviors. For example, Schaubroeck, Peng, and Hannah (2016) found that a relatively high (compared with group peers) level of abusive supervision (i.e., relative abusive supervision) influenced performance and other outcomes through lower perceived peer respect. The relationships were stronger among groups with higher levels of group potency. Some researchers have also suggested that abuse victims' diminished self-confidence contributes to their deviant behaviors (Nandkeolyar, Shaffer, Li, Ekkirala, & Bagger, 2014). For example, Vogel and Mitchell (2017) found that state self-esteem mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and deviant behavior.
Fairness theory argues that fairness perceptions are created through individual assessments of responsibility (Folger & Corpanzano, 2001). Similarly, uncertainty management theory asserts that when employees are uncertain about their abilities or social standing, they are more sensitive to fairness cues (Van den Bos & Lind, 2002). Tepper (2000) discovered that overall justice perceptions partially mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and emotional exhaustion and anxiety. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in Park et al.'s (2017) meta-analysis, individuals attribute injustice perceptions resulting from abusive supervision to supervisors rather than to organizations (supervisor: rc = −.54, k = 19, N = 5,219; organization: rc = −.36, k = 12, N = 3,756). Moreover, both supervisor and organizational injustice were related to employee deviance that is directed toward the source of the injustice. For example, supervisor injustice across all justice dimensions was related to supervisor-directed deviance (rc = .54, k = 29, N = 9,270; rc = .41, k = 43, N = 13,127). They found a stronger average relationship in cultures with lower power distance. These results suggest that abusive supervision generates feelings of injustice that precipitate targeted deviant behaviors. Likewise, studies have reported that feelings of injustice at least partially mediate the associations of abusive supervision with interpersonal aggression, reduced organizational citizenship behaviors, and reduced organizational commitment (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). In general, research that refers to justice theories, such as uncertainty management theory or fairness theory, argues that abusive supervision elicits a perception of unfairness that is misaligned with their expectations of the organization or supervisor, resulting in destructive behaviors (e.g., Mayer, Thau, Workman, Van Dijke, & De Cremer, 2012; Thau et al., 2009).
Social Exchange
Leader–member exchange (LMX), an indicator of trust and loyalty perceived in the supervisor–subordinate relationship (Scandura & Graen, 1984), has been utilized to operationalize social exchange quality in some studies of abusive supervision. For example, Xu, Huang, Lam, and Miao (2012) found that LMX quality mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviors. Peng et al. (2014) found that LMX, and, separately, affect-based trust in co-workers, mediated the relationship of abusive supervision on task performance and helping behaviors. However, none of these studies conclusively supported a particular causal order of abusive supervision and LMX. Recent work has also indicated that this relationship may be reversed, such that poor LMX triggers higher levels of abusive supervision (Pan & Lin, 2018).
Attributing Blame to the Organization
In some cases, employees with abusive supervisors may retaliate against the organization. Employees tend to view their leaders as representing the organization (Eisenberger et al., 2010), and given the power asymmetry with leaders, subordinates may be more fearful of acting out against them. Shoss, Eisenberger, Restubog, and Zagenczyk (2013) supported this idea in a study examining perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between abusive supervision and organization-directed citizenship behaviors. Tepper et al. (2008) found that victims of abusive supervision reported lower organizational commitment than non-victims. They attributed this to victims' blaming of the organization for their abuse. Yu et al. (2016) similarly found that the link between abused subordinates and job performance was mediated by affective organizational commitment.
Emotions and Self-Regulation
Recent theoretical work has examined the effects of abusive supervision through the lens of emotional process theory (Oh & Farh, 2017). In their article, Oh and Farh (2017) argued that abusive supervision elicits feelings of anger, fear, and sadness in victims that then affects their behaviors. Emotional states are associated with particular action tendencies (Frijda, Kuipers, & TerSchure, 1989). Empirical work broadly supports that emotional states at least partially explain relationships between abusive supervision and victim behaviors. For example, higher abusive supervision is associated with higher levels of fear, anger, and anxiety (Mayer et al., 2012; Rafferty et al., 2010; Tepper et al., 2009), which in turn precipitates behavioral outcomes such as deviance. These emotional states can also reinforce the abusive behavior, creating a cycle of abuse (Simon, Hurst, Kelley, & Judge, 2015).
Abusive supervision is also seen to drain emotional and psychological resources, which in turn produces destructive behaviors. For example, studies have reported that victims of abusive supervision were more prone to emotional exhaustion, which in turn was associated with lower levels of knowledge sharing with the team or organization, more employee silence, and reduced creativity (Lee et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2015; Han et al., 2017). Abused subordinates may suffer from a reduced ability to self-regulate their emotions, which diminishes impulse control (Lian et al., 2014; Thau & Mitchell, 2010). Based on a longitudinal study, Liang et al. (2018) reported that rumination in the aftermath of abusive supervision explains its relationship with physical health.
Abusive Supervision Predictors
In recent years there has been a heightened focus on identifying antecedents of abusive supervision. The studied antecedents are primarily characteristics of supervisors and characteristics of the subordinates. Future research may expand this stream to study other overlooked supervisor or subordinate characteristics as antecedents of abusive supervision. In addition, researchers may examine how contexts and situations (e.g., time and performance pressure, resource constraints, and organizational norms) trigger supervisory abuse or exacerbate the propensity for a certain type of stimulus (e.g., subordinate deviance) to instigate abuse.
Supervisor Characteristics
Supervisor Traits
A small number of studies have examined supervisor traits as antecedents of abusive supervision. Supervisor Machiavellianism, a behavioral tendency to manipulate and exploit others to maximize self-interests (Christie & Geis, 1970), predicted abusive supervision (Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, & Tang, 2010; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). Kiazad et al. further showed that an authoritarian leadership style, defined as "leader's behaviour that asserts absolute authority and control over subordinates and demands unquestionable obedience from subordinates" (Cheng, Chou, Wu, Huang, & Farh, 2004, p. 91), explained the positive association between supervisor Machiavellianism and abusive supervision. A study by Wisse and Sleebos (2016) indicated that supervisors' perceived position of power exacerbated the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and their display of abusive behavior in the work units. While previous research suggests that subordinate trait negative affect precipitates abusive supervision, Pan and Lin (2018) also found that supervisors' trait negative affect was positively associated with subordinates' reports of abuse.
Supervisor Experience
Drawing on displaced aggression theory (Miller, Pedersen, Earleywine, & Pollock, 2003), studies have proposed and found that leaders who themselves have experienced abuse or unfair treatment by their supervisors and/or the organization are more likely to displace their aggression onto their subordinates. For example, studies have shown that the extent to which higher-level managers engage in abusive supervision is positively associated with the abusive behavior displayed by the lower-level managers (Liu et al., 2012; Mawritz et al., 2012). This phenomenon is also known as a "trickle-down" (or "cascading") effect. Supervisors who experience procedural injustice (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006), interactional injustice (Hoobler & Hu, 2013; Rafferty et al., 2010), or psychological contract violations (Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Rafferty et al., 2010) have also been found to engage in abusive supervision.
Researchers have recently employed conceptual frameworks such as ego depletion theory (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998) and conservation of resource theory (Hobfoll, 2001) to suggest that a lack of self-regulatory resources, or factors that drain self-regulatory resources, promotes supervisory abuse. Studies have connected abusive supervision to leaders' psychological distress (Li et al., 2016; Lam, Walter, & Huang, 2017), job stress (Burton, Hoobler, & Scheuer, 2012), and poor quality of sleep the night before (Barnes et al., 2015). Leaders' experienced work–family conflict (Courtright, Gardner, Smith, McCormick, & Colbert, 2016) and conflict with colleagues at the same organizational level (Harris, Harvey, & Kacmar, 2011) are also positively associated with their display of hostility. Recent studies have shown that demands of the job, such as task difficulty (Collins & Jackson, 2015), role overload (Eissa & Lester, 2017), and surface acting during customer interactions (Yam, Fehr, Keng-Highberger, Klotz, & Reynolds, 2016), are positively associated with abusive supervision. Gonzalez-Morales, Kernan, Becker, and Eisenberger (2018) provided a particularly notable contribution by conducting a quasi-experiment. They demonstrated that a training intervention that focuses on providing support to the leaders reduced abusive supervision.
Studies have also examined the interaction between supervisor self-regulatory capabilities (e.g., self-control) and the resource-depleting situational factors on abusive supervision. Yam et al. (2016), for example, showed that engaging in surface acting depleted state self-control resources and, in turn, led to elevated abusive behavior, but only among supervisors with relatively low trait self-control. Similarly, across two independent field studies, Lam et al. (2017) found that supervisors' experience of emotional exhaustion was positively associated with abusive supervision when both subordinate performance and supervisors' self-monitoring were relatively low. Kiewitz et al. (2012) reported that supervisors' childhood experiences of family undermining (e.g., parent insults) were associated with a proneness to exhibiting abusive supervisory behaviors among those who had limited control over their impulses.
Subordinate Characteristics
Subordinate Traits
The victim precipitation model (Elias, 1986) suggests that targets of abuse often possess certain traits or characteristics that directly or indirectly make them more likely to be mistreated by others. A subordinate trait that is often examined is negative affectivity, a tendency to experience negative mood states such as distressed, angry, jittery, or upset (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Subordinates with higher negative affectivity report higher levels of abusive supervision (e.g., Hoobler & Hu, 2013; Tepper et al., 2006). Studies have also shown a positive association between psychological entitlement and abusive supervision (Harvey, Harris, Gillis, & Martinko, 2014; Mackey et al., 2016). Other subordinate traits that have been linked to abusive supervision include a hostile attribution style (i.e., a tendency to attribute negative events to external and stable causes) (Martinko, Harvey, Sikora, & Douglas, 2011), neuroticism (Wang, Harms, & Mackey, 2015), lower levels of core self-evaluation (Kluemper et al., 2018), and lower organization-based self-esteem (Kiazad et al., 2010). It is unclear, however, whether such findings reflect the tendency of individuals with certain traits to provoke abuse or whether individuals with these traits tend to interpret their interactions with the leader in a negative way.
Subordinate Performance
Recent work has examined how low job performance can precipitate abusive supervision (Lam et al., 2017; Liang et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2015; Walter, Lam, van der Vegt, Huang, & Miao, 2015). The tendency for leaders to abuse poor-performing subordinates is also found to be contingent on the leader's traits and beliefs. For example, Walter et al. (2015) showed that leaders abused poor performers only when they perceived relatively little dependence on the subordinates to achieve their outcomes. Lam et al. (2017) reported a three-way interaction between subordinate performance, supervisor emotional exhaustion, and supervisor self-monitoring on abusive supervision. Subordinate performance had the strongest negative relationship with abusive supervision among supervisors with relatively low self-monitoring tendencies and higher emotional exhaustion. Similarly, Liang et al. (2016) showed that leaders with relatively low trait mindfulness and a bias toward making hostile attributions were more prone to abusing poor-performing subordinates.
Subordinate Deviance
Abusive supervision is also found to be provoked by subordinates' acts of workplace deviance. In a two-wave longitudinal study, Lian et al. (2014) reported a time-lagged positive relationship between organizational deviance and abusive supervision. More recently, Mawritz, Greenbaum, Butts, and Graham (2017) found across two field samples that subordinates' supervisor-directed deviance was positively related to their subsequent reports of supervisory abuse and that supervisor self-regulation impairment explained this relationship. In addition, the authors found the indirect positive effect of subordinate deviance on abusive supervision was stronger among supervisors who had a high bottom-line mentality and among those who perceived their subordinates exhibited high levels of job performance.
Methodological Issues
Kermond and Schaubroeck's (2015) review identified several methodological issues in the abusive supervision literature. These included construct proliferation (i.e., a variety of constructs that are similar to abusive supervision), cross-sectional research design that is subject to common method bias, and inadequate model specification in which studies often test a single mediator. We found that, generally speaking, these issues have persisted in the abusive supervision literature, although a number of studies have utilized either longitudinal or time-lagged designs and have included different sources to measure predictors or outcomes (e.g., Barnes et al., 2015; Liang et al., 2018; Schaubroeck et al., 2016; Simon et al., 2015). In this review, we primarily focus on the magnitude of the abusive supervision effect.
Potentially Inflated Abusive Supervision Effect
To date, abusive supervision research has primarily relied on between-person correlational designs in which self-reports on abusive supervision relate to an outcome variable of interest. While a design in which the outcome variable is rated by a different source and/or measured at a later point of time would alleviate concerns of common method bias, the observed abusive supervision effect may still be inflated owing to omitted variables that confound the effect. For example, Mackey et al. (2017) reported a meta-analytic correlation of .41 between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behavior (CWB; k = 7, N = 1,715). Yet this relationship may not represent the true causal influence of abusive supervision on CWB. This is because, as noted above, the abusive supervision–CWB relationship may be at least partly determined by unmeasured variables such as hostile personality. Subordinates with high trait hostility, for example, may tend to interpret leader behaviors as hostile and abusive (Lerner & Keltner, 2001), and meanwhile they tend to express their hostility by engaging in CWB. As a result, the observed positive effect of abusive supervision on counterproductive behavior may be spurious due to the omission of trait hostility.
One remedy to this issue is to use a longitudinal design in which abusive supervision and the focal outcome are measured at multiple points in time. Using the abusive supervision–CWB relationship as an example, one could test a cross-lagged model that controls for the prior level of counterproductive behavior and thus reduces the concerns for unmeasured confounding variables. Simon et al. (2015) illustrated this approach by examining a time-lagged relationship between abusive supervision and deviance directed toward the supervisor while controlling for the prior level of deviance. Not surprisingly, the reported effect size (B = .11, p < .01, one-tailed) was relatively smaller than those typically reported in the literature. Another example can be seen in the study by Liang et al. (2018). The authors tested a cross-lagged model of the relationships between abusive supervision and subordinate health outcomes. With a longitudinal design, one may examine a two-level model that differentiates within-person from between-person effects. In this way, the within-person effect would suggest that any intrapersonal change in experience of abusive supervision is associated with change in the focal outcome. The within-person effect therefore would provide a better approximation of the causal effect of abusive supervision by modeling intrapersonal change. For instance, Barnes et al. (2015) showed a positive within-person relationship between abusive supervision and next-day work engagement in an experience-sampling study.
Promising Future Directions
Third-Party Reactions to Abusive Supervision
The deontic justice perspective proposes that third-party observers may experience feelings of anger in responding to another person's injustice experience and exhibit behavioral tendencies to restore justice such as punishing the perpetrator or helping the victim (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001; Turillo, Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, & Gee, 2002). A third-party observer refers to an individual who witnesses another individual's mistreatment or learns about the unfair treatment indirectly through conversations with the victim or others. Drawing from this perspective, experimental research has examined how third-party observers react to leader abusive behaviors as manipulated in scenarios (Skarlicki & Rupp, 2010; Umphress et al., 2013, Study 1; Shao, Li, & Mawritz, 2018, Study 1). In an experimental study with 186 managers, Skarlicki and Rupp (2010) showed that third-party observers of leader abuse reported higher retribution tendencies such as reporting and reprimanding the supervisors' misbehavior. Their retribution tendencies were also stronger among participants with higher moral identity and those who were primed with an experiential (vs. rational) informational processing frame. Similarly, Umphress et al. (2013) showed across three experimental studies that third-party observers displayed anger toward the abusive supervisor and they reported an intention to punish the supervisor, especially when the supervisor intended to inflict injustice on the targeted follower. In two studies (Studies 2 and 3), Umphress et al. (2013) created a realistic experience in which the participants believed that an actual interaction between a supervisor and a subordinate had occurred.
Scholars have also examined the third-party experience of abusive supervision in field settings (Harris, Harvey, Harris, & Cast, 2013; Jiang, Gu, & Tang, 2017; Mitchell et al., 2015; Shao et al., 2018, Study 2; Peng et al., 2014). These studies have examined how employee outcomes are influenced by peer abusive supervision. Peer abusive supervision refers to the extent to which other co-workers are abused by the leader (Peng et al., 2014). For example, Mitchell et al. (2015) found that employees who witnessed or were aware of leader abuse toward other co-workers reported higher levels of anger and accordingly deviant behavior toward the supervisor. Jiang et al. (2017) found that peer abusive supervision was negatively related to creative self-efficacy, which was in turn positively related to creative performance. Compared with own abusive supervision, the unfavorable influence of peer abusive supervision in their study was significantly weaker. While peer abusive supervision was linked to higher deviance and lower creative performance, Peng et al. (2014) reported no relationship between peer abusive supervision and job performance (or helping behavior) after controlling for one's own abusive supervision. Finally, across two field studies and one experimental study, Shao et al. (2018) similarly reported a nonsignificant relationship between peer abusive supervision and performance effort. Interestingly, the authors found that among individuals with a relatively high trait prevention focus, peer abusive supervision had a positive effect on effort. Their finding thus revealed a self-protection motive whereby employees may invest more effort to avoid being abused by the leader.
In addition, research has found an interaction between own and peer abusive supervision on employee outcomes (Harris et al., 2013; Jiang et al., 2017; Peng et al., 2014). Harris et al. (2013) found that abused employees were more likely to abuse their co-workers when peer abusive supervision was low (vs. high). Own abusive supervision, however, was more negatively associated with perceived organizational support when peer abusive supervision was higher. Drawing from social exchange theory, Peng et al. (2014) proposed and found that peer abusive supervision moderated the relationship between own abusive supervision and employees' perceived exchange relationships with the leader and, separately, with their peers. When peer abusive supervision was high, employees perceived a lower quality of exchange relationships regardless of the extent to which they were personally abused. The perceived social exchange relationships, in turn, explained the interaction effect on task performance and helping behavior. In line with the findings reported by Peng et al., Jiang et al. (2017) found that own abusive supervision had a negative influence on creative self-efficacy only when peer abusive supervision was low. They attributed such an interactive effect to the social comparison triggered by being singled out for abuse, and they found indirect support for this theorizing by showing that social comparison orientation moderated the aforementioned two-way interaction.
To summarize, research has emerged to understand the third-party observer's experience of abusive supervision. The influence of peer abusive supervision on employee outcomes, however, remains relatively unexplored, particularly in field settings. Compared with the pervasive influence of own abusive supervision (Mackey et al., 2017), peer abusive supervision seems to have a less negative impact on the observers' outcomes. Peer abusive supervision may even have the potential to promote better performance owing to the self-protective motive (Shao et al., 2018). Nevertheless, peer abusive supervision may create a negative social environment that fuels mistrust and hinders cooperation (Peng et al., 2014). We thus encourage research that examines a variety of employee and organizational outcomes to better gauge the impact of the vicarious experience of leader abuse. For example, studies may examine how abusive supervision of co-workers affects observers' engaging in either prosocial behavior (e.g., taking initiative) or pro-self behavior (e.g., political behavior). In addition, research may compare different theoretical perspectives (e.g., social comparison, social exchange, social learning, deontic justice) in explaining the effect of peer abusive supervision. Considering alternative theoretical perspectives may be particularly fruitful to understand the interaction effect between own and peer abusive supervision on employee psychological states and behavior.
Multilevel Research
Tepper (2007) noted that "abusive supervision is a multilevel phenomenon and the field needs to move beyond individual-level research" (p. 281). Responding to this call, studies have examined the influence of abusive supervision at the work group level (Farh & Chen, 2014; Hannah et al., 2013; Rousseau & Aubé, 2018). By surveying a sample of 2,572 U.S. Army personnel deployed in Iraq, Hannah et al. (2013) found that the mean level of abusive supervision reported by the soldiers within the same squad (group abusive supervision, hereafter) had a negative influence on soldiers' moral courage and identification with army values. The authors examined the influence of group abusive supervision in a two-level model whereby they controlled for individual-level abusive supervision. They also found a cross-level interaction between group and individual abusive supervision on courage and identification. Specifically, high levels of courage and identification were found among soldiers who were not personally abused by the leader nor had their squads reported supervisory abuse. Through moral courage and values identification, abusive supervision indirectly influenced unethical behaviors (e.g., mistreating noncombatants). In both a field study and an experimental study, Farh and Chen (2014) showed that group abusive supervision had a positive effect on relationship conflict at the team level, which negatively related to employee voice and in-role performance measured at the individual level. Consistent with Hannah et al. (2013), Farh and Chen reported a similar pattern of cross-level interaction between group and individual abusive supervision on individuals' perceived organization-based self-esteem. Moreover, Rousseau and Aubé (2018) proposed and found a negative relationship between work group abusive supervision and team innovation as mediated by team proactive behavior. Finally, in a study of relative abusive supervision (i.e., abusive supervision centered by its group mean), Schaubroeck et al. (2016) found that group potency moderated the mediated effect through peer respect on performance and organizational commitment, as well as on turnover intentions.
The studies have primarily focused on the main effect of group abusive supervision on individual and/or group outcomes (see exceptions by Farh & Chen, 2014; Hannah et al., 2013). Future research might explore the idea that group abusive supervision serves as a social context that shapes individuals' interpretations of their own treatment by the leader and/or their work experience in general. A high level of group abusive supervision may create a fearful environment in which individuals are less likely to trust others including their peers. Consequently, individuals may be prone to interpret their interactions with co-workers as hostile and respond with destructive behaviors. Alternatively, the shared experience of leader abuse may serve to unite the group members, leading to more supportive behaviors among them. Future research may also attend to the variability of leader abuse within the work units. Ogunfowora (2013) showed that variation in abusive supervision within the work unit was associated with employees' unfavorable attitudes toward their leader, the job, and the organization. Yet when and how such an effect exists is unclear. Moreover, researchers may test a multilevel model that takes into consideration the abusive behavior of the higher-level leaders. Not only may higher-level leaders influence employee attitudes and outcomes indirectly through a trickle-down effect (Liu et al., 2012; Mawritz et al., 2012), the abusive supervision exhibited by the higher-level leaders may also strengthen or weaken the influences of the lower-level leaders' abuse on employee outcomes, as seen in research on ethical leadership (Schaubroeck et al., 2012). Finally, as noted earlier, we encourage multilevel research that models both within-person and between-person effects of abusive supervision using longitudinal study designs.
The Reciprocal Relationship Between Abusive Supervision and Outcomes
Earlier research has primarily focused on the influence of abusive supervision on subordinate behavior (see review by Tepper, 2007). Recent work, as noted earlier, shows an increasing interest in proposing and testing subordinate outcomes (e.g., performance) as a predictor of abusive supervision (Lam et al., 2017; Liang et al., 2016; Walter et al., 2015). These suggest a possible reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and employee outcomes. In a six-wave longitudinal study, Simon et al. (2015) provided indirect evidence for this reciprocal relationship. They found that employees' deviance directed toward their supervisors was positively associated with their reports of abusive supervision one month later. In a separate model, they showed a positive time-lagged relationship between abusive supervision and supervisor-directed deviance. In addition, Kiewitz, Restubog, Shoss, Garcia, and Tang (2016, Study 3) tested and found a reciprocal relationship between abusive supervision and employee silence. Employee silence "refers to the withholding of potentially important input or to instances when an employee fails to share what is on his or her mind" (Morrison, 2014, p. 174). Abusive supervision reported at Time 1 was positively associated with a subsequent measure of employee silence, which, in turn, had a time-lagged association with abusive supervision measured at Time 3.
This reciprocal relationship raises an important concern on the adequacy of the research models that have largely focused on abusive supervision as either a predictor or an outcome. Focusing on one side of the story represents an incomplete picture of the relationship between abusive supervision and employee outcomes, and it may contribute to an inflated estimate of the relationship in cross-sectional studies. To fully model this reciprocal relationship, longitudinal data analytical techniques may be used to model change in abusive supervision and change in employee outcomes over time. In particular, the recent developments in latent growth modeling and latent change score modeling (see review by McArdle, 2009) may be valuable to help model the reciprocal relationship more precisely. For example, researchers may use a latent change score model to specify a dynamic and reciprocal relationship between change in abusive supervision and change in employee outcomes. In such a model, the change in leader abuse is linked to the subsequent change in an employee outcome and the change in the outcome is also linked to subsequent change in abusive supervision (Liao, Peng, Li, Schaubroeck, & Liu, 2016). The use of longitudinal designs in conjunction with refined statistical techniques could aid researchers in developing a more comprehensive understanding of how antecedents of abusive supervision are related to its consequences.
In recent years abusive supervision research has continued to flourish. Our review identified a number of promising empirical trends and theoretical advances. A focus on self-regulatory processes has emerged, and there has been greater attention to mediating emotional states, supervisor and subordinate precipitating characteristics, multilevel models, and third-party processes. There have also been interesting empirical advances that tested alternative causal orders and reciprocal relationships using longitudinal designs, and a quasi-experiment suggesting that training can reduce abusive supervision. Although the research is moving in promising directions, more effort could be devoted to establishing a causal process model of abusive supervision. This would in turn provide a foundation developing organizational interventions that prevent leader abusive behavior.
Further Reading
Kermond, C. M. Y., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2015). Abusive supervision. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 23, pp. 701–708). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.Find this resource:
Liang, L. H., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Hanig, S., & Keeping, L. M. (2016). Why are abusive supervisors abusive? A dual-system self-control model. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1385–1406.Find this resource:
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, 1940–1965.Find this resource:
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S120–S137.Find this resource:
Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2015). Third parties' reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1040–1055.Find this resource:
Peng, A. C., Schaubroeck, J. M., & Li, Y. (2014). Social exchange implications of own and coworkers' experiences of supervisory abuse. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1385–1405.Find this resource:
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.Find this resource:
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.Find this resource:
Tepper, B. J., & Henle, C. A. (2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 487–498.Find this resource:
Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 123–152.Find this resource:
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, 1056–1072.Find this resource:
Allen, D. G., Peltokorpi, V., & Rubenstein, A. L. (2016). When "embedded" means "stuck": Moderating effects of job embeddedness in adverse work environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1670–1686.Find this resource:
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, 191–201.Find this resource:
Bamberger, P. A., & Bacharach, S. B. (2006). Abusive supervision and subordinate problem drinking: Taking resistance, stress and subordinate personality into account. Human Relations, 59, 723–752.Find this resource:
Barnes, C. M., Lucianetti, L., Bhave, D. P., & Christian, M. S. (2015). "You wouldn't like me when I'm sleepy": Leaders' sleep, daily abusive supervision, and work unit engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1419–1437.Find this resource:
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.Find this resource:
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Find this resource:
Burton, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Scheuer, M. L. (2012). Supervisor workplace stress and abusive supervision: The buffering effect of exercise. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 271–279.Find this resource:
Butts, M. M., Becker, W. J., & Boswell, W. R. (2015). Hot buttons and time sinks: The effects of electronic communication during nonwork time on emotions and work-nonwork conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 763–788.Find this resource:
Carlson, D. S., Ferguson, M., Perrewé, P. L., & Whitten, D. (2011). The fallout from abusive supervision: An examination of subordinates and their partners. Personnel Psychology, 64, 937–961.Find this resource:
Chan, M. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of Management Review, 39, 44–66.Find this resource:
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 71, 89–117.Find this resource:
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.Find this resource:
Collins, M. D., & Jackson, C. J. (2015). A process model of self-regulation and leadership: How attentional resource capacity and negative emotions influence constructive and destructive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 386–401.Find this resource:
Courtright, S. H., Gardner, R. G., Smith, T. A., McCormick, B. W., & Colbert, A. E. (2016). My family made me do it: A cross-domain, self-regulatory perspective on antecedents to abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1630–1652.Find this resource:
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1085–1103.Find this resource:
Eissa, G., & Lester, S. W. (2017). Supervisor role overload and frustration as antecedents of abusive supervision: The moderating role of supervisor personality. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 38, 307–326.Find this resource:
Elias, R. (1986). The politics of victimization: Victims, victimology, and human rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Farh, C. I., & Chen, Z. (2014). Beyond the individual victim: Multilevel consequences of abusive supervision in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1074–1095.Find this resource:
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.Find this resource:
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & TerSchure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228.Find this resource:
Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Kernan, M. C., Becker, T. E., & Eisenberger, R. (2018). Defeating abusive supervision: Training supervisors to support subordinates. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23, 151–162.Find this resource:
Han, G. H., Harms, P. D., & Bai, Y. (2017). Nightmare bosses: The impact of abusive supervision on employees' sleep, emotions, and creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 21–31.Find this resource:
Hannah, S. T., Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., Lord, R. G., Trevino, L. K., Kozlowski, S. W., … Doty, J. (2013). Joint influences of individual and work unit abusive supervision on ethical intentions and behaviours: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 579–592.Find this resource:
Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., Harris, R. B., & Cast, M. (2013). An investigation of abusive supervision, vicarious abusive supervision, and their joint impacts. Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 38–50.Find this resource:
Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship conflict. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1010–1023.Find this resource:
Harvey, P., Harris, K. J., Gillis, W. E., & Martinko, M. J. (2014). Abusive supervision and the entitled employee. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 204–217.Find this resource:
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50, 337–421.Find this resource:
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1125–1133.Find this resource:
Hoobler, J. M., & Hu, J. (2013). A model of injustice, abusive supervision, and negative affect. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 256–269.Find this resource:
Jiang, W., Gu, Q., & Tang, T. L. P. (2017). Do victims of supervisor bullying suffer from poor creativity? Social cognitive and social comparison perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics.Find this resource:
Kermond, C. M. Y., Malonson, B., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2013). Meta-analytic investigation of abusive supervision in the workplace. Paper presented at the Annual Congress of European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology. Munster, Germany.Find this resource:
Kermond, C. M. Y., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2015). Abusive supervision. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioural sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 23, pp. 701–708). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.Find this resource:
Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors' Machiavellianism and subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervisory behaviour. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 512–519.Find this resource:
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Shoss, M. K., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Tang, R. L. (2016). Suffering in silence: Investigating the role of fear in the relationship between abusive supervision and defensive silence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 731–742.Find this resource:
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Scott, K. D., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Tang, R. L. (2012). Sins of the parents: Self-control as a buffer between supervisors' previous experience of family undermining and subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervision. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 869–882.Find this resource:
Kim, S. L., Kim, M., & Yun, S. (2015). Knowledge sharing, abusive supervision, and support: A social exchange perspective. Group & Organization Management, 40, 599–624.Find this resource:
Kluemper, D. H., Mossholder, K. W., Ispas, D., Bing, M. N., Iliescu, D., & Ilie, A. (2018). When core self-evaluations influence employees' deviant reactions to abusive supervision: The moderating role of cognitive ability. Journal of Business Ethics.Find this resource:
Lam, C. K., Walter, F., & Huang, X. (2017). Supervisors' emotional exhaustion and abusive supervision: The moderating roles of perceived subordinate performance and supervisor self‐monitoring. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 38, 1151–1166.Find this resource:
Lee, S., Kim, S. L., & Yun, S. (2018). A moderated mediation model of the relationship between abusive supervision and knowledge sharing. Leadership Quarterly, 29, 403–413.Find this resource:
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.Find this resource:
Li, Y., Wang, Z., Yang, L. Q., & Liu, S. (2016). The crossover of psychological distress from leaders to subordinates in teams: The role of abusive supervision, psychological capital, and team performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21, 142–153.Find this resource:
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., Morrison, R., & Brown, D. J. (2014). Blame it on the supervisor or the subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 116–139.Find this resource:
Liang, L. H., Hanig, S., Evans, R., Brown, D. J., & Lian, H. (2018). Why is your boss making you sick? A longitudinal investigation modeling time‐lagged relations between abusive supervision and employee physical health. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 39, 1050–1065.Find this resource:
Liang, L. H., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Hanig, S., & Keeping, L. M. (2016). Why are abusive supervisors abusive? A dual-system self-control model. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1385–1406.Find this resource:
Liao, Z., Peng, A. C., Li, W. D., Schaubroeck, J. M., & Liu, J. (2016). Is abuse always bad? A latent change score approach to examine consequences of abusive supervision. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.Find this resource:
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1187–1212.Find this resource:
McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.Find this resource:
Mackey, J. D., Brees, J. R., McAllister, C. P., Zorn, M. L., Martinko, M. J., & Harvey, P. (2016). Victim and culprit? The effects of entitlement and felt accountability on perceptions of abusive supervision and perpetration of workplace bullying. Journal of Business Ethics.Find this resource:
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, 1940–1965.Find this resource:
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, 751–764.Find this resource:
Mawritz, M. B., Greenbaum, R. L., Butts, M. M., & Graham, K. A. (2017). I just can't control myself: A self-regulation perspective on the abuse of deviant employees. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 1482–1503.Find this resource:
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325–357.Find this resource:
Mayer, D. M., Thau, S., Workman, K. M., Van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2012). Leader mistreatment, employee hostility, and deviant behaviours: Integrating self-uncertainty and thwarted needs perspectives on deviance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 117, 24–40.Find this resource:
Miller, N., Pedersen, W. C., Earleywine, M., & Pollock, V. E. (2003). A theoretical model of triggered displaced aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 75–97.Find this resource:
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1159–1168.Find this resource:
Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2015). Third parties' reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1040–1055.Find this resource:
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197.Find this resource:
Nandkeolyar, A. K., Shaffer, J. A., Li, A., Ekkirala, S., & Bagger, J. (2014). Surviving an abusive supervisor: The joint roles of conscientiousness and coping strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 138–150.Find this resource:
Ogunfowora, B. (2013). When the abuse is unevenly distributed: The effects of abusive supervision variability on work attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 34, 1105–1123.Find this resource:
Oh, J. K., & Farh, C. I. (2017). An emotional process theory of how subordinates appraise, experience, and respond to abusive supervision over time. Academy of Management Review, 42, 207–232.Find this resource:
Pan, S. Y., & Lin, K. J. (2018). Who suffers when supervisors are unhappy? The roles of leader–member exchange and abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 799–811.Find this resource:
Park, H., Hoobler, J. M., Wu, J., Linden, R. C., Hu, J., & Wilson, M. S. (2017). Abusive Supervision and Employee Deviance: A Multifoci Justice Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. Online publicationFind this resource:
Peng, A. C., Schaubroeck, J. M., & Li, Y. (2014). Social exchange implications of own and coworkers' experiences of supervisory abuse. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1385–1405.Find this resource:
Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1181–1197.Find this resource:
Rafferty, A. E., Restubog, S. L. D., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). Losing sleep: Examining the cascading effects of supervisors' experience of injustice on subordinates' psychological health. Work & Stress, 24, 36–55.Find this resource:
Rodgers, M. S., Sauer, S. J., & Proell, C. A. (2013). The lion's share: The impact of credit expectations and credit allocations on commitment to leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 80–93.Find this resource:
Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2018). When leaders stifle innovation in work teams: The role of abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 651–664.Find this resource:
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428–436.Find this resource:
Schaubroeck, J. M., Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Kozlowski, S. W., Lord, R. G., Treviño, L. K., … & Peng, A. C. (2012). Embedding ethical leadership within and across organization levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1053–1078.Find this resource:
Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., & Hannah, S. T. (2016). The role of peer respect in linking abusive supervision to follower outcomes: Dual moderation of group potency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 267–278.Find this resource:
Shao, P., Li, A., & Mawritz, M. (2018). Self‐protective reactions to peer abusive supervision: The moderating role of prevention focus and the mediating role of performance instrumentality. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 39, 12–25.Find this resource:
Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 158–168.Find this resource:
Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., Kelley, K., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Understanding cycles of abuse: A multimotive approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1798–1810.Find this resource:
Skarlicki, D. P., & Rupp, D. E. (2010). Dual processing and organizational justice: The role of rational versus experiential processing in third-party reactions to workplace mistreatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 944–952.Find this resource:
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.Find this resource:
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289.Find this resource:
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C. Y., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees' workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 109, 156–167.Find this resource:
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123.Find this resource:
Tepper, B. J., Lambert, L. S., Henle, C. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates' organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 721–732.Find this resource:
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, 279–294.Find this resource:
Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management theory perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 79–92.Find this resource:
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1009–1031.Find this resource:
Turillo, C. J., Folger, R., Lavelle, J. J., Umphress, E. E., & Gee, J. O. (2002). Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 839–865.Find this resource:
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioural engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Find this resource:
Umphress, E. E., Simmons, A. L., Folger, R., Ren, R., & Bobocel, R. (2013). Observer reactions to interpersonal injustice: The roles of perpetrator intent and victim perception. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 34, 327–349.Find this resource:
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Find this resource:
Velez, M. J., & Neves, P. (2016). Abusive supervision, psychosomatic symptoms, and deviance: Can job autonomy make a difference? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21, 322–333.Find this resource:
Vogel, R. M., & Mitchell, M. S. (2017). The motivational effects of diminished self-esteem for employees who experience abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 43, 2218–2251.Find this resource:
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), 1056–1072.Find this resource:
Wang, G., Harms, P. D., & Mackey, J. D. (2015). Does it take two to tangle? Subordinates' perceptions of and reactions to abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 487–503.Find this resource:
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.Find this resource:
Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: Perceived position power strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work teams. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 122–126.Find this resource:
Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 763–774.Find this resource:
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work behaviours: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 33, 531–543.Find this resource:
Yam, K. C., Fehr, R., Keng-Highberger, F. T., Klotz, A. C., & Reynolds, S. J. (2016). Out of control: A self-control perspective on the link between surface acting and abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 292–301.Find this resource:
Yu, K., Lin, W., Wang, L., Ma, J., Wei, W., Wang, H., … Shi, J. (2016). The role of affective commitment and future work self salience in the abusive supervision–job performance relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89, 28–45.Find this resource:
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.Find this resource:


text:
The physically handicapped and the community: some challenging breakthroughs
C. Thomas, 1970 - Social Science - 122 pages
From inside the book
32 pages matching things in this book
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-3 of 32
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Common terms and phrases
ability able able-bodied accepted accomplished action adaptive equipment adult development centers answer architectural barriers assistance basic become better breakthrough capped cerebral palsied Certainly challenges Christ Church concern create creative dance darkness despair disabled person empathy encouragement euphoria experience feel frequently friends friendships frustration give goals God's love greater habilitating hand handi handicapped individual handicapped member handicapped person handicapped students hope housing ical ideas important interest John Q last chapter learning life's mainstream live martyr complex maturity meaningful means ment mentally retarded ministry negative attitude never one's PHILOSOPHY OF ACTION physically disabled physically handicapped physically normal pity poor speech positive attitude problem question real sense realize reason recreation relationships response Seattle Housing Authority share step struggle therapist things tion tive total rehabilitative transportation understanding Velcro walk wheelchairs words

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Straub Insurance Agency – St. Marys, Emporium PA
Straub Insurance Agency and Erie Insurance are committed to maintaining a high standard of excellence and establishing a strong relationship of mutual trust and service to each of our clients.
We offer personal attention, full-time professional service, competitive pricing, a broad range of insurance products to meet your needs and an experienced staff of conscientious professionals.
Our Philosophy of Service Continues Today
"To provide our Policyholders with as near perfect protection, as near perfect service, as is humanly possible, and to do so at the lowest possible cost."
That was Erie Insurance's guiding philosophy back in 1925 when the company was founded and one that continues to lead the way for Straub Insurance Agency. Our agency is committed to this promise from Erie Insurance. Thank you for visiting our Web site. We value your opinion. Contact us with any questions or concerns.


text:
Recently added item(s)
You have no items in your shopping cart.
or registration
Profile Informations
Login Datas
or login
In stock
Regular Price:
Special Price
PANDORA's dangling number charms offer limitless possibilities. Celebrate a birthday or anniversary, commemorate a jersey number, or create your own message by combining numbers with the matching alphabet and symbol charms. The clean and graphic design of this number '1' pendant charm is embellished with tiny hand-set sparkling cubic zirconia, creating an elegant shimmer with every movement.


text:
This 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe is insane – It goes fast, it handles and it looks cool, but this guy wanted to add something more to the back of the car, and it was a proper LED Backup Lights. Most of you will probably say: "Why did you do that? This 306hp V8 baby is meant to go forward, not backward!" and there's a big point in that statement, but we still think that safety is first. What's the point of having 300+HP sports car and hit something while backing up in dark places?
This is why we decided to present you The Brand New 1.5W High Power T15 LED bulbs with projector that will fit in most housings for backup reverse light, which means you don't have to own a 2010 Hyundai genesis Coupe to get this great product. Don't be fooled by the look of these bad boys – these LED bulbs look almost the same as any other LED bulbs at daytime, but wait for the night to come: this kind of high power LED bulbs is 3 times brighter than conventional LED bulbs, so you can literally see a circular projected lighting on the back wall. Most of our customers absolutely look this.
There's nothing tricky in the replacement of the old stock bulbs – with a length of 1.80 inches and diameter of 0.58 inches, this High Power LED bulb will fit in most 912, 921 or 906 housings for backup reverse light. If the bulb won't light up, then simply plug it out, turn it 180 degrees and plug it in again. That's it, enjoy your new car improvement.
Hyundai pulled out the red carpet to launch the Genesis Coupe, a rear-drive, V-8-motivated luxury car with power and grace akin to that of a Lexus LS 460, but they certainly left room for many improvements – we just wrote about one of them – the 921 High Power LED bulb. In case you decide to increase the safety and improve the overall look of your ride and you have just one shot – this is your chance.
Brought to you by iJDMTOY.com, the expert for your Car LED. Follow us on Facebook for exclusive promo codes.


text:
In this Angular 8 and Node.js tutorial, we are going to look at how to upload files on the Node server. To create Angular image upload component, we will be using Angular 8 front-end framework along with ng2-file-upload NPM package; It's an easy to use Angular directives for uploading the files.
In this Angular 8 and Node.js tutorial, we are going to look at how to upload files on the Node server. To create Angular image upload component, we will be using Angular 8 front-end framework along with ng2-file-upload NPM package; It's an easy to use Angular directives for uploading the files.
We are also going to take the help of Node.js to create the backend server for Image or File uploading demo. Initially, we'll set up an Angular 8 web app from scratch using Angular CLI. You must have Node.js and Angular CLI installed in your system.
We'll create the local server using Node.js and multer middleware. Multer is a node.js middleware for handling multipart/form-data, which is primarily used for uploading files. Once we are done setting up front-end and backend for our File uploading demo then, we'll understand step by step how to configure file uploading in Angular 8 app using Node server.
In order to show you Angular 8 File upload demo, you must have Node.js and Angular CLI installed in your system. If not then check out this tutorial: Set up Node JS
Run following command to install Angular CLI:
npm install @angular/cli -g
Run command to install Angular 8 project:
ng new angular-node-file-upload
# ? Would you like to add Angular routing? No
# ? Which stylesheet format would you like to use? CSS
cd angular-node-file-upload
We are going to install and configure ngx-toastr an NPM package which helps in showing the alert message when the file is uploaded on the node server.
npm install ngx-toastr --save
The ngx-toastr NPM module requires @angular/animations dependency:
npm install @angular/animations --save
Then, add the ngx-toastr CSS in
angular.json file:
"styles": [
Import BrowserAnimationsModule and ToastrModule in
app.module.ts file:
import { BrowserAnimationsModule } from '@angular/platform-browser/animations';
import { ToastrModule } from 'ngx-toastr';
imports: [
BrowserAnimationsModule, // required animations module
ToastrModule.forRoot() // ToastrModule added
export class AppModule { }
In this step, we'll Install and configure ng-file-upload library in Angular 8 app. Run command to install ng-file-upload library.
npm install ng2-file-upload
Once the ng2-file-upload directive is installed, then import the FileSelectDirective and FormsModule in
app.module.ts. We need FormsModule service so that we can create the file uploading component in Angular.
import { FileSelectDirective } from 'ng2-file-upload';
import { FormsModule } from '@angular/forms';
declarations: [
imports: [
export class AppModule { }
To upload the file on the server, we need to set up a separate backend. In this tutorial, we will be using Node & Express js to create server locally along with multer, express js, body-parser, and dotenv libraries.
Run command to create backend folder in Angular app's root directory:
mkdir backend && cd backend
In the next step, create a specific
package.json file.
npm init
Run command to install required dependencies:
npm install express cors body-parser multer dotenv --save
In order to get rid from starting the server again and again, install nodemon NPM package. Use –
-save-dev along with the npm command to register in the devDependencies array. It will make it available for development purpose only.
npm install nodemon --save-dev
Have a look at final pacakge.json file for file upload demo backend:
"name": "angular-node-file-upload",
"version": "1.0.0",
"description": "Angualr 8 file upload demo app",
"main": "server.js",
"scripts": {
"test": "echo \"Error: no test specified\" && exit 1",
"start": "node server.js"
"author": "Digamber Rawat",
"license": "ISC",
"dependencies": {
"body-parser": "^1.19.0",
"cors": "^2.8.5",
"dotenv": "^8.0.0",
"express": "^4.17.1",
"multer": "^1.4.1"
"devDependencies": {
"nodemon": "^1.19.1"
Create a file by the name of
server.js inside
backend folder:
To configure our backend we need to create a
server.js file. In this file we'll keep our backend server's settings.
touch server.js
Now, paste the following code in
backend > server.js file:
const express = require('express'),
path = require('path'),
cors = require('cors'),
multer = require('multer'),
bodyParser = require('body-parser');
// File upload settings
const PATH = './uploads';
let storage = multer.diskStorage({
destination: (req, file, cb) => {
cb(null, PATH);
filename: (req, file, cb) => {
cb(null, file.fieldname + '-' + Date.now())
let upload = multer({
storage: storage
// Express settings
const app = express();
extended: false
app.get('/api', function (req, res) {
res.end('File catcher');
// POST File
app.post('/api/upload', upload.single('image'), function (req, res) {
if (!req.file) {
console.log("No file is available!");
return res.send({
success: false
} else {
console.log('File is available!');
return res.send({
success: true
// Create PORT
const PORT = process.env.PORT || 8080;
const server = app.listen(PORT, () => {
console.log('Connected to port ' + PORT)
// Find 404 and hand over to error handler
app.use((req, res, next) => {
// error handler
app.use(function (err, req, res, next) {
if (!err.statusCode) err.statusCode = 500;
Now, while staying in the backend folder run the below command to start the backend server:
nodemon server.js
If everything goes fine then you'll get the following output:
[nodemon] 1.19.1
[nodemon] to restart at any time, enter `rs`
[nodemon] watching: *.*
[nodemon] starting `node server.js`
Connected to port 8080
In this last step, we are going to create a file upload component in Angular 8 app using Express js API.
Get into the
app.component.ts file and include the following code:
import { Component, OnInit } from '@angular/core';
import { FileUploader } from 'ng2-file-upload/ng2-file-upload';
import { ToastrService } from 'ngx-toastr';
const URL = 'http://localhost:8080/api/upload';
selector: 'app-root',
templateUrl: './app.component.html',
styleUrls: ['./app.component.css']
export class AppComponent implements OnInit {
public uploader: FileUploader = new FileUploader({
url: URL,
itemAlias: 'image'
constructor(private toastr: ToastrService) { }
ngOnInit() {
this.uploader.onAfterAddingFile = (file) => {
file.withCredentials = false;
this.uploader.onCompleteItem = (item: any, status: any) => {
console.log('Uploaded File Details:', item);
this.toastr.success('File successfully uploaded!');
Go to
app.component.html file and add the given below code:

Angular Image Upload Demo

<input type="file" name="image" ng2FileSelect [uploader]="uploader" accept="image/x-png,image/gif,image/jpeg" />
<button type="button" (click)="uploader.uploadAll()" [disabled]="!uploader.getNotUploadedItems().length">
Now, It's time to start the Angular 8 app to check out the File upload demo in the browser. Run the following command:
ng serve --open
Make sure your NODE server must be running to manage the
When you upload the image from front-end you'll see your image files are saving inside the
backend > uploads folder.
In this Angular 8 tutorial, we barely scratched the surface related to file uploading in a Node application. There are various other methods available on the internet through which you can achieve file uploading task quickly. However, this tutorial is suitable for beginners developers. I hope this tutorial will surely help and you if you liked this tutorial, please consider sharing it with others.
A Guide to Hire Node.js Developers who can help you create fast and efficient web applications. Also, know how much does it cost to hire Node.js Developers.
A thoroughly researched list of top NodeJS development companies with ratings & reviews to help hire the best Node.JS developers who provide development services and solutions across the world. List of Leading Node.js development Service Providers...
I this article, you'll learn how to create an Angular client using RxJS WebSocketSubject, WebSocket, Node.js and Express.js
Throughout my career, a multitude of people have asked me what does it take to become a successful developer?


text:
- 1 + 1 = 2
- 2 + 2 = 4
- 3 + 4 = 7
- 6 + 7 = 13
- 19 + 3 = 22
- 5 + 3 = 11
Do me a favor & check over my maths please, we'll come back to this, so remember your 1st impression.
This is a post about many things, arguably everything, but I guess I will make a feeble attempt to relate it to topics this blog has covered in the past.
A couple of days ago I attended a seminar on men's health put on by the organisation I work for. It was a couple of fun filled hours touching on many aspects of men's health, including the topic of depression which I am all too familiar with, but it was more like visiting a comedy club for a couple of hours.
One of the exercises he threw at us was the math above.
What did you see when you looked at those sums?
Let me put this another way.
- Loving family
- Reasonable marks at school/University
- The odd sporting achievement
- A group of solid friends
- A good job with good performance reviews
- I'm a loser
What did you see when you looked at these points?
Or another way.
- Good group of guildies – some of whom I call friends.
- Ability to choose any character, class and faction of my choice
- Server uptime of 96.5% (on a maintenance week, otherwise 99.99%)
- Many options of playstyles, activities and rewards
- A new expansion every 18 months, new content every few months.
- Paladins are overpowered.
WoW sucks doesn't it?
Of course that would depend on how you read each of those lists.
5 out of 6 doesn't make a right
When you looked at my math, what was it you noticed, what stuck with you?
Was it that the last sum was wrong?
Was it that the first five were correct?
I'm software tester by trade, I find my perspective often gets twisted so I am looking for the 6th calculation. I am looking to find fault in the work of others, when in reality, my job is to confirm the correctness of their work.
Oh sure, I wouldn't want to let the 6th calculation into production, but then neither does the developer. The developer is relying on me to prove that the code works under normal conditions, not that it fails, because you know a developer takes and error or bug as a mortal wound.
I realised that when I tested the software given to me, I all too rarely report on the excellent quality work delivered to me.
I realised that when the developer sees me approaching, their heart sinks and the prepare for the bad news.
Even when it is bad news, I rarely present it in the fashion of…
Your code passed 5 out of the 6 test steps in this early stage of testing and with a quick fix, we will be 6/6 or 100% good to go!
No, I approach the developer with my hand crafted NEW BUILD! sign in my hand.
Of course life is good, from your perspective!
What about when you looked through my "life story" summary?
I'm going to guess, unless you relate to the complete table, that you crossed out the last point automatically.
Just for the record, that list is similar to the one that saved my life some 14 years back. I did an exercise from the book I'm Ok, you're Ok by Thomas Harris, where you list out your successes to get some perspective, something that is desperately missing when you are suffering from depression.It not only gave me perspective, it allowed me to realize that something was wrong, something that could be treated.
If you aren't one that ignored the first five points, it can be hard to appreciate that someone can invalidate those 5 positive points with one (quite likely) baseless point.
If you honed in on point 6, give your family doctor a call, or utilize the many resources out there these days that will help you see the first 5 points. (U.S.A., U.K., Australia)
If you know someone that ignores the first 5 points and lives by the sixth, talk with them… NO, listen to them without providing solutions, without interruptions, without your view of the first five points.
Then encourage them to seek help, better yet, make the 1st appointment for them, with them.
WoW sucks!
What about my last example?
I know it's hard, but f you play a Pally, you need to image that 6 is a bad thing.. it is a bad think kk?
Is your WoW filled with amazement that so much can be provided for so many for so long?
Or is it WoW filled with bugs, class imbalance and downtime?
If its the 1st, then that may explain why you play WoW, your perspective is good, keep enjoying the game!
If its the 2nd, then WoW may not be the game for you, but then there may be no game for you.
Just remember that many other people can put that bad 6th point in perspective and enjoy the game for all that is good in the game.
As it is in WoW, it is in life.
Try to get perspective.
When the things in WoW, or life are getting you down, draw up a list of all those things that shit you to tears, then draw up a list of all those things in the situation that bring you joy.
If the bad still outweighs the good, then something needs to change, you need to change. Life is meant to be a long list of good, not a long list of bad.
Is it really worth expending all that energy bitching about the bad, dragging down yourself and your loved ones to meet your level of despair, when a little perspective could turn your day, your life, around?
All that time spent around the water cooler, colluding with your peers about all that is wrong, when the "all that is wrong" is just a small percentage of all that is right. Often the things that are wrong can be swept away with perspective, and if not, the right perspective will allow you to tackle them head on, so those molehills are no longer mountains.
Sometimes, just sometimes, all it really takes is to understand that it isn't all about you.
May the math be with you!
Gnomer and Out!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.


text: She might not be able to write her book, but the Queen B sure as hell knows how to sink a test-tube or two or seven. Word is she had another birthday celebration in NYC where she kicked it with her drinking buddy Lisa Raye at Spotlight Live. Kim turned 33 on July 11th and I guess with nothing better to do you may as well celebrate until the 34th comes knocking.


text: BROOKLYN, NY -- The husband-wife team of Michael Feigin and Lawson Harris transformed a printing house into a 3,400-square-foot fitness center with virtual reality training devices, cardio and Pilates equipment, free weights, a recording studio and an exercise video production facility. The club, which is adjacent to Gleason's Gym in Dumbo, Brooklyn, features a 55-minute cardio and strength circuit and offers such classes as Urban Rebounding, a 60-minute class using a trampoline; a Yo Mama prenatal/postnatal workout; and Sweet Science, a class with footwork drills. Feigin and Harris, cohosts of The Fitness Guru on Sirius Radio, used their radio show listeners' advice to design their new fitness facility.


text:
I Was Born A Man: Sex Addict Who Claims She Had Slept With $1,000 Men...Used To Be A Man Herself!
" A woman who revealed she has slept with 1,000 men has made another startling confession - she used to be a man herself. Crystal Warren admits that there could be 'a lot of angry men out there' after they learn her secret. The 42-year-old appeared on This Morning earlier this week to discuss her sex addiction - prompting Eamonn Holmes to ask why she hadn't turned to prostitution. But she chose not to reveal her true identity until now, though insists she wasn't 'trying to hide anything'. Miss Warren was born Christopher Snowden and changed gender in 2005, she has admitted. She told The Sun: 'I'm scared there will be a lot of angry men out there reading this but I have to tell the truth. 'A lot of people will think I've lied to those I've had sex with. But I don't feel I have because I'm a woman and my past is all behind me. 'I don't want any man I've ever been with to doubt his sexuality now because of this. They didn't know they were sleeping with somebody like me.' She says that even when she was young she felt as though she was a female trapped in a boy's body - a condition known as gender dysphoria. Miss Warren said her parents realised from a young age - and her dad even bought her a skirt for her fourth birthday. And she has revealed that as a teenager she would stay at home to try on his mother's clothes, when her parents were out of the house. She said: One day when I was 14 I was at the swimming pool with my mum and feeling very depressed and she just told me, "Don't worry, I know what's going on. You're not gay — you're just not in the right body".' Eventually, in 2002 Miss Warren began having hormone and laser treatment to remove body hair and develop a 38B bust. She underwent counselling before finally having full gender reassignment surgery seven years ago. She was issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate after the operation, which allowed her to legally change her birth certificate to reflect her new name and sex. Even before the operation the former shop worker from Brighton, East Sussex, would sleep with men, but says she has bedded most her lovers since she took her decision to become a woman. She says she admitted to some of them that she was born male. Miss Warren, who grew up in Bridgwater, in Somerset, told The Sun: 'I first had sex when I was 17 or 18. I didn't feel it was right because I was in a man's body. But I was at the age when you want to experiment sexually and it was the only way I could"
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.


text:
Psychotherapy and Couples Counseling
I have moved all psychotherapy and couples counseling to secure VIDEO or PHONE sessions for the time being. For video sessions, please go to my Video Appointments page or simply check in at the link below:
Welcome to my psychotherapy practice. My work is dedicated to helping people develop healthy, productive, and satisfying lives and relationships. Though it can be difficult to make the decision to begin psychotherapy, I have found that those who have sought my help and guidance have achieved remarkable results. I offer confidential psychotherapy for individuals, couples and families. I have particular expertise in working with couples. My approach with couples is fair, kind and collaborative. I also work extensively with individual patients, dealing with difficulties ranging from depression, anxiety and trauma to trouble with relationships, creative blocks and challenging life transitions.
The benefit you receive from therapy is directly related to your feeling of comfort and connection with your therapist. I am committed to helping you receive the services best suited for you, so I am happy to discuss your circumstances to determine whether working together would be a good fit. Please explore this website to learn a bit more about my practice and do not hesitate to contact me for an appointment or simply to ask any questions you might have. I look forward to hearing from you and helping in any way that I am able.
Effective, Compassionate, and Confidential
With over 20 years of experience treating Individuals and Couples, Dr. Bear Korngold can help you achieve lasting change in your life and relationships.
Get Expert Help • Gain Insights • Make a Lasting Change
About Me
Bear Korngold, Psy.D.
Clinical Psychologist, License #PSY21643
I have a doctoral degree in Clinical Psychology (Psy.D.) and have been providing psychological services for over 20 years. I am licensed in the State of California and am a member of the American Psychological Association, the California Psychological Association, and the Northern California Society for Psychoanalytic Psychology. In addition to private practice, I have worked in a variety of mental health clinics, hospitals, and corporate settings, and have treated patients diverse in ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, gender, and life circumstances. I also supervise and teach doctoral students in psychology.
Frequently Asked Questions
My approach to therapy draws inspiration from multiple theories and perspectives, from psychodynamic and psychoanalytic ideas, to cognitive-behavioral techniques, brief therapy models and the framework of Eastern medicine. I strongly believe that who we are and how our problems and ailments manifest results from the interaction between our innate character and constitution, the important formative relationships in our lives, our physical and social environment, and the various demands with which we are asked to contend.
Whether I am working with you in ongoing, long-term therapy to understand and alter unhealthy or disruptive lifelong patterns, or briefly consulting on a specific issue, my therapy approach always includes openness, compassion, and a dedication to developing an understanding of the issues at hand within the context of who you are and your particular circumstances.
Appointments are generally available Monday through Friday, with start times between 8:30am and 6:30pm. Therapy sessions run 50 minutes. Longer session times may also be arranged. I require at least 48 hours notice for cancelled or changed appointments. Under certain circumstances we may be able to have sessions by phone or video chat. This is available after we have established a working relationship in person.
The process and overall length of therapy varies quite a bit and is wholly dependent on the nature of the problems being addressed and the goals one hopes to achieve. The more recent and isolated an issue, the more likely it can be improved or resolved in a relatively short period of time. The longer a problem or condition has lasted, the more likely it will take time to heal or resolve. I have expertise in both brief, solution-focused methods as well as long-term psychotherapy. A discussion of your current situation, goals and resources is always a key component of developing a tailored approach to fit your particular needs.
I do not prescribe psychiatric medications but I have a strong working knowledge of them, and I work closely with prescribing physicians and psychiatrists as a normal part of coordinating a patient's treatment. I can provide referrals for an initial medication evaluation if necessary.
I am not on any preferred provider panels and do not deal directly with any insurance companies. However, many PPOs offer reimbursement for out of network mental health providers. I will provide you with monthly statements so that you are able to seek reimbursement from your insurance company. It is your responsibility to pay our agreed upon fee for services at the time they are rendered, regardless of your insurance arrangements. Services may be covered in full or in part by your health insurance or employee benefit plan. Please check your coverage carefully by asking your insurance provider the following questions:
• Do I have mental health benefits?
• What is my deductible and has it been met?
• How many sessions per calendar year does my plan cover?
• How much does my plan cover for an out-of-network provider?
• What is the coverage amount per therapy session?
• Is approval required from my primary care physician?
• What exact information is necessary to submit for reimbursement (i.e diagnosis code, provider tax ID, etc.)?
Beacon Health Options Members: Please note that I am no longer accepting new patients through Beacon Health Options (Kaiser).
In general, the privacy of all communications between a patient and a psychologist, and all written treatment records, are protected by law, and I may only release information about our work to others with your written permission. There are a few exceptions, under California law, when disclosure is required. When:
• There is a reasonable suspicion of child, dependent or elder abuse or neglect
• A patient presents a danger to self, to others, to property, or is gravely disabled
• A patient's family members communicate to the patient's therapist that the patient presents a danger to others
These situations have rarely occurred in my practice. If such a situation occurs, I will make every effort to fully discuss it with you before taking any action. I occasionally participate in professional consultations. In such cases neither your name nor any other identifying information about you will be revealed.
Noe Valley Office
1201 Noe Street (at 25th Street)
San Francisco, CA 94114
My San Francisco office is located in the heart of Noe Valley. The entrance is on the corner of Noe Street and 25th Street in the Chinese Medicine Works Clinic.
The office is easily accessible by public transportation as it is on or near several MUNI lines (24, 35 & 48) as well as a short walk or bus ride from the 24th and Mission BART station or J-Church line. Please click here for public transportation trip planning. For driving directions, click "view larger map" on the map below.
Email Dr. Bear Korngold (usually faster response)
To reach me by email, please fill out the form below. Please note that the security of email cannot be guaranteed, so it is recommended that messages be limited to requests for contact, appointment arrangements, or requests for information. (all fields are required)