The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology (문화기술의 융합)

The International Promotion Agency of Culture Technology (국제문화기술진흥원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Third Parties' Reactions to Peer Abusive Supervision: An Examination of Current Research

비인격적 감독행위에 대한 제3자 반응 연구동향

  • Received : 2021.12.27
  • Accepted : 2022.01.08
  • Published : 2022.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Abusive supervision occurs in a social context in which third-party observers react and interact with the abused victims and supervisors. Despite the importance of third-party observers' behavior in abusive supervision, research on abusive supervision has mainly focused on the dyadic relationship between direct victims and supervisors. Although in recent years research on third parties' reactions to peer abusive supervision has attracted growing attention, there are still insufficient studies examining the topic especially within domestic research in Korea. As such, this study comprehensively reviews empirical studies on third parties' reactions to peer abusive supervision and aims to broaden the scope of research in the field. Firstly, the results of previous studies show that the effects of observed peer abusive supervision are mediated by cognitive and affective processes. Secondly, previous studies are found to investigate the boundary conditions where the effects of observed peer abusive supervision can be amplified or mitigated with regard to various outcomes. Overall, compared to research on direct victims, research on third-party observers of abusive supervision is found to capture a wider spectrum of responses. In order to explain the mechanisms of this phenomena, this study thoroughly examines theoretical assumptions presented in previous studies and categorizes them into five theory types. Finally, this study identifies a couple of central methodological issues, including common method bias and inadequate model specification in the literature and suggests future research directions.

비인격적 감독행위는 사회적 맥락에서 발생하기 때문에 피해자와 가해자, 두 당사자와 만의 문제가 아니며, 이를 목격하는 제3자와의 상호작용과 개입 역시 중요하게 고려되어야 한다. 그러나 비인격적 감독행위 연구는 그동안 당사자 간 관계에 치중해왔고, 제3자 반응에 대한 연구가 최근 부상하는데도 불구하고 관련 국내 연구는 여전히 미진한 상황이다. 본 연구는 최근까지 진행된 비인격적 감독의 제3자 반응 연구를 체계적으로 검토함으로써, 비인격적 감독행위 연구영역의 확장에 기여하고자 한다. 선행연구를 검토한 결과, 상사의 비인격적 감독행위를 목격한 제3자는그 사건의 의미에 대한 해석 및 평가라는 인지적 매개과정과, 피해자의 아픔에 공감하거나 이를 고소해하는 등의 정서적 매개과정을 거치는 것으로 나타났다. 이후 제3자는 궁극적으로 행동 반응을 보이는데, 피해자에게 도움을 제공하거나 상사에게 맞서기도 하고, 때로는 반대로 피해자를 괴롭히거나 배제하기도 한다. 또한 직무태도 및 성과 측면에서 스스로 영향을 받기도 한다. 이때, 어떠한 조건에서 제3자가 피해자를 돕거나 돕지 않는지, 그 경계조건을 규명하기 위해 수행된 선행연구에서 제3자의 개인적 특성이나 피해자와의 관계, 그리고 목표나 공정성 관련 조직 상황요인들의 유의미한 조절효과를 다수 확인하였다. 이처럼 제3자의 반응양태는 직접적인 피해자의 반응과 비교할 때 그 스펙트럼이 넓은데, 이러한 다양한 반응양태를 촉발하는 메커니즘을 규명하기 위해 본 연구에서는 선행연구에서 이론적 토대로 삼았던 다섯 가지 접근법들을 전체적으로 함께 조망해본다. 더불어 비인격적 감독행위의 제3자 연구에서 발견된 방법론상의 문제점을 검토하고, 이를 극복하기 위해 선행연구에서는 어떤 해결책들을 모색하는지 살펴보았다. 마지막으로, 후속 연구를 수행할 때 참고할만한 몇 가지 연구 방향을 제안하였다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2021-2023학년도 청주대학교 경영경제연구소가 지원한 학술연구조성비(특별연구과제)에 의해 연구되었습니다.

References

  1. 김민정, "상사 갑질에 극단적 선택 잇따라...허점 많은 '직장 내 괴롭힘 금지법' " 조선비즈. 2021.
  2. 권미경, "직장 내 괴롭힘과 노조의 대응: 세브란스병원 사례를 중심으로," 직장 내 괴롭힘 방지법 시행 1년, 현장의 대응과 향후 과제, 국회의원회관 제7간담회실, 2020.
  3. S. Bang and E. Lee, "Empathy and Involvement in Bullying in Adolescents," International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology, Vol. 9, No. 3, 46-54, 2021. https://doi.org/10.17703/IJACT.2021.9.3.46
  4. B. J. Tepper, Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261-289, 2007. doi:10.1177/0149206307300812
  5. 백연정.김문정, "비인격적 감독행위의 연구동향: 국내 연구를 중심으로," 리더십연구, Vol. 10, No. 4, 57-90, 2019.
  6. J. D. Mackey, R. E. Frieder, J. R. Brees, and M. J. Martinko, "Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review," Journal of Management, Vol. 43, No. 6, 1940-1965, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573997
  7. 이경근.이은숙, "상사의 비인격적 감독과 제3자의 반응행동, 상사책임귀인의 관계," 인적자원관리연구, Vol. 28, No. 2, 61-83, 2021.
  8. M. S. Mitchell, R. M. Vogel, and R. Folger, "Third parties' reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100, No. 4, 1040-1055, 2015. doi:10.1037/apl0000002
  9. 곽지원, Influence of Coworker's Abusive Supervisor on the Focal Employee, 석사학위논문, 서울대학교 대학원, 서울, 2019.
  10. 정지은, 비인격적 감독 목격에 따른 구성원의 반응, 석사학위논문, 이화여자대학교 대학원, 서울, 2020.
  11. C. Chen, X. Qin, K. C. Yam, and H. Wang, "Empathy or schadenfreude? Exploring observers' differential responses to abusive supervision," Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(6), 1077-1094, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10869-020-09721-4
  12. K. J. Harris, P. Harvey, R. B. Harris, and M. Cast, "An investigation of abusive supervision, vicarious abusive supervision, and their joint impacts," The Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 2013.
  13. Y. Zhang, X. Liu, and W. Chen, "Fight and Flight: a Contingency Model of Third Parties' Approach-Avoidance Reactions to Peer Abusive Supervision," Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 6, 767-782, 2020. doi:10.1007/s10869-019-09650-x
  14. R. Folger, Fairness as Deonance. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Theoretical and Cultural Perspectives on Organizational Justice (pp. 3-33), Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, 2001.
  15. M. Priesemuth, "Stand up and speak up: Employees' prosocial reactions to observed abusive supervision," Business & Society, 52, 2013.
  16. R. S. Lazarus, Emotion and Adaptation, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
  17. H. M. Weiss, and R. Cropanzano, Affective events theory: Atheoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequencesof affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organization behavior: anannual series of analytical essays and critical reviews. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 1996.
  18. J. Huang, G. Guo, D. Tang, T. Liu, and L. Tan, "An Eye for an Eye? Third Parties' Silence Reactions to Peer Abusive Supervision: The Mediating Role of Workplace Anxiety, and the Moderating Role of Core Self-Evaluation," International journal of environmental research and public health, Vol. 16, No. 24, 5027, 2019. doi:10.3390/ijerph16245027
  19. M. Priesemuth, and M. Schminke, "Helping thy neighbor? Prosocial reactions to observed abusive supervision in the workplace," Journal of Management, 45, 2019.
  20. R. M. Emerson, "Social Exchange Theory," Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362, 1976. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003
  21. J. M. Schaubroeck, A. C. Peng, and S. T. Hannah, "The role of peer respect in linking abusive supervision to follower outcomes: Dual moderation of group potency," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101, No. 2, 267, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000050
  22. E. Xu, X. Huang, R. Jia, J. Xu, W. Liu, L. Graham, and E. Snape, "The "Evil Pleasure": Abusive Supervision and Third-Party Observers' Malicious Reactions Toward Victims," Organization Science, Vol. 31, No. 5, 1115-1137, 2020. doi:10.1287/orsc.2019.1349
  23. S.-C. Chen, and N.-T. Liu, "When and how vicarious abusive supervision leads to bystanders' supervisor-directed deviance: A moderated-mediation model," Personnel Review, Vol. 48, No. 7, 1734-1755, 2019. doi:10.1108/PR-09-2018-0368
  24. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  25. Skarlicki, D. P., & Kulik, C. T. (2005). Third-party reactions to employee (mis)treatment: A justice perspective Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, Vol 26. (pp. 183-229). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
  26. M. J. Martinko, and K. L. Zellars, Toward a theory of workplace violence: A cognitive appraisal perspective, In A. O. L.-K. R. Griffin & J. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 1-42), Stanford, CT: JAI Press, 1998.
  27. C. S. Carver, and M. F. Scheier, On the Self-Regulation of Behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  28. A. B. Eder, A. J. Elliot, and E. Harmon-Jones, "Approach and avoidance motivation: Issues and advances," Emotion Review, 5(3), 227-229, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073913477990
  29. A. P. Brief, and S. J. Motowidlo, "Prosocial organizational behaviors," Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710-725, 1986. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1986.4283909
  30. P. E. Spector, The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations. (pp. 1-17), Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc, 1997.
  31. M. S. Hershcovis, N. Turner, J. Barling, K. A. Arnold, K. E. Dupre, M. Inness, and N. Sivanathan, Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228-238, 2007. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228
  32. C. Kiewitz, S. L. D. Restubog, M. K. Garcia, P. R. J. M. Shoss, Garcia, and R. L. Tang, "Suffering in silence: Investigating the role of fear in the relationship between abusive supervision and defensive silence," Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(5), 731-742, 2016. doi:10.1037/apl0000074
  33. K. L. Zellars, B. J. Tepper, and M. K. Duffy, "Abusive supervision and subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 2002.
  34. L. Tan, Z. Ma, J. Huang, and G. Guo, "Peer abusive supervision and third-party employee creativity from a social exchange theory perspective," Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5, 1-12, 2021. doi:10.2224/sbp.9641
  35. P. Shao, A. Li, and M. Mawritz, "Self-protective reactions to peer abusive supervision: The moderating role of prevention focus and the mediating role of performance instrumentality," Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 1, 12-25, 2018. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2206
  36. R. Cropanzano, and M. S. Mitchell, "Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review," Journal of Management, 31, 874-900, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
  37. Y. Qiao, Z. Zhang, and M. Jia, "Their Pain, Our Pleasure: How and When Peer Abusive Supervision Leads to Third Parties' Schadenfreude and Work Engagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 169, No. 4, 695-711, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04315-4
  38. F. Heider, The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1958.
  39. H. H. Kelley, "Attribution theory in social psychology," Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192-238, 1967.
  40. B. Weiner, "An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion," Psychological Review, Vol. 92, No. 4, 548-573, 1985. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
  41. R. Eisenberger, R. Huntington, S. Hutchison, and D. Sowa, "Perceived organizational support," Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507, 1986. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
  42. R. Cropanzano, and J. Stein, "Organizational Justice and Behavioral Ethics: Promises and Prospects," Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 193-233, 2009. doi:10.5840/beq200919211
  43. S. L. Blader, B. M. Wiesenfeld, M. Fortin, and S. L. Wheeler-Smith, "Fairness lies in the heart of the beholder: How the social emotions of third parties influence reactions to injustice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 121, No. 1, 62-80, 2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.12.004
  44. E. T. Higgins, "The "self digest": Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1062-1083, 1996. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1062
  45. E. T. Higgins, "Beyond pleasure and pain," American Psychologist, Vol. 52, No. 12, 1280-1300, 1997. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
  46. S. Opotow, "The scope of justice, intergroup conflict, and peace," The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict. (pp. 72-86), New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press, 2012.
  47. P. L. Jennings, M. S. Mitchell, and S. T., Hannah, "The moral self: A review and integration of the literature," Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36, No. S1, S104-S168, 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1919
  48. K. M. Sherony, and S. G. Green, "Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader-member exchange, and work attitudes," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 3, 542-548, 2002. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.542
  49. J. A. Colquitt, B. A. Scott, and J. A. LePine, "Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 4, 909-927, 2007. . doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
  50. G. S. Vegt Van der, J. S. Bunderson, and A. Oosterhof, "Expertness diversity and helping in teams: Why those who need the most help end up getting the least," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5, 877-893, 2006. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22798169
  51. R. T. Lee, and B. E. Ashforth, "A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout," Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123-133, 1996. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.123.
  52. T. R. Tyler, and S. L. Blader, Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement, New York, NY, US: Psychology Press, 2000.
  53. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press, 1994.
  54. A. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY, US: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co, 1997.
  55. A. Peng, R. Mitchell, and J. M. Schaubroeck, Abusive Supervision: Oxford University Press, 2019.
  56. P. Podsakoff, S. MacKenzie, J. Lee, and N. Podsakoff, "Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies," Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  57. 김현수.윤희장.곽은미, "간호사의 직장 내 폭력상황 대처경험," 문화기술의 융합, Vol. 4, No. 4, 233-240, 2018. https://doi.org/10.17703/JCCT.2018.4.4.233