J Bus Ethics (2013) 118:623–634
DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1612-z
Standing by Your Organization: The Impact of Organizational
Identification and Abusive Supervision on Followers’ Perceived
Cohesion and Tendency to Gossip
Stijn Decoster • Jeroen Camps • Jeroen Stouten •
Lore Vandevyvere • Thomas M. Tripp
Received: 16 January 2012 / Accepted: 28 December 2012 / Published online: 8 January 2013
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Abusive supervision has been shown to have
significant negative consequences for employees’ well-
being, attitudes, and behavior. However, despite the dev-
astating impact, it might well be that employees do not
always react negatively toward a leader’s abusive behavior.
In the present study, we show that employees’ organiza-
tional identification and abusive supervision interact for
employees’ perceived cohesion with their work group and
their tendency to gossip about their leader. Employees
confronted with a highly abusive supervisor had a stronger
perceived cohesion and engaged in less gossiping behavior
when they identified more strongly with their organization.
Our findings illustrate that organizational identification
functions as a buffer for those confronted with an abusive
supervisor.
Keywords Abusive supervision
Organizational
identification
Cohesion
Gossip
Rumor
A fact of organizational life is that leaders do not always
act in a responsible and ethical manner (e.g., De Cremer
2003; Samuelson and Messick 1995). That is, supervisors
have shown to use abusive language toward their subor-
dinates, humiliate them in front of others, intimidate or
threaten them, withhold information from them, or behave
S. Decoster (&)
J. Camps
J. Stouten
L. Vandevyvere
Department of Psychology, University of Leuven, Tiensestraat
102, Box 3725, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
e-mail: stijn.decoster@ppw.kuleuven.be;
stijn.decoster@psy.kuleuven.be
T. M. Tripp
Washington State University, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue,
Vancouver, WA, USA
aggressively (Bies and Tripp 1998; Zellars et al. 2002).
Researchers revealed that abusive supervision has a nega-
tive impact on employees’ well-being, satisfaction, com-
mitment, and performance (Bamberger and Bacharach
2006; Hornstein 1996; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007; Tepper
2000, 2007; Tepper et al. 2004, 2001; Zellars et al. 2002).
However, it may well be that employees not always react
negatively to their abusive supervisor. That is, despite the
severity of leaders’ abusive behavior, followers do not always
turn to disapproval or counteractions (Stouten and Tripp
2009). Here, we will explore the buffering role of organiza-
tional identification (i.e., the psychologic attachment that
emerges when members adopt the critical characteristics of
the organization as defining characteristics of themselves; see
Dutton et al. 1994) for employees who are confronted with an
abusive supervisor. More specifically, since abusive supervi-
sion has been found to have a negative impact on employees’
loyalty to their work group (Mitchell and Ambrose 2007), we
focus on employees’ perceived cohesion with their work
group. Further, as a result of an abusive supervisor, we also
examine followers’ retaliatory reactions (i.e., reactions in
order to get even with their supervisor), more specifically
employees’ tendency to gossip about their leader.
In sum, we propose that when confronted with an abu-
sive supervisor, employees who identify with their orga-
nization are more likely to feel part of their work group and
will be less likely to gossip about their supervisor. Below,
we will discuss this rationale in greater detail.
Abusive Supervision
Tepper (2000, p. 178) defines abusive supervision as
‘‘subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which super-
visors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and
123
624
nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact.’’ Abusive
supervisors are known to intimidate and humiliate, use
derogatory names, shout, and ridicule their employees.
Estimates suggest that more than 13 % of working people
in the United States become targets of abusive supervision
or non-physical hostility perpetrated by employees’
immediate superiors (Schat et al. 2006). These conse-
quences translate into annual losses of an estimated $23.8
billion in increased health care costs, workplace with-
drawal, and lost productivity (Tepper et al. 2009).
During the past decade, a growing body of literature has
focused on the negative consequences of abusive supervi-
sion. For example, abusive supervision has been found to
be negatively related to organizational outcomes such as
affective commitment, organizational citizenship behav-
iors, job and life satisfaction, and self-efficacy (Tepper
2000, 2007; Zellars et al. 2002). Further, abusive supervi-
sion has been found to be positively related to negative
outcomes, for example, counterproductive behaviors,
turnover intentions, work-family conflict, psychologic
distress, as well as somatic health complaints (Duffy et al.
2002; Tepper 2000; Zellars et al. 2002). Moreover, abusive
supervision is positively related to supervisor-directed
deviance (e.g., gossiping about or acting impolite toward
one’s supervisor) as well as organizational and interper-
sonal deviance (Mayer et al. 2012; Mitchell and Ambrose
2007). In sum, in the event of an abusive supervisor,
employees not only feel less connected to their leader but
also feel less connected to their organization, their col-
leagues, and their job (cf. perceived cohesion).
Abusive Supervision and Employees’ Perceived
Cohesion
Perceived cohesion describes the individual’s perception of
one’s relationship with and the resulting force to remain in
his or her group (Bollen and Hoyle 1990). Bollen and
Hoyle (1990, p. 482) propose that perceived cohesion can
be defined as ‘‘the extent to which individual group
members feel ‘stuck to’, or a part of, particular social
groups.’’ Hence, their formal definition states that ‘‘per-
ceived cohesion encompasses an individual’s sense of
belonging to a particular group and his or her feelings of
morale associated with membership in the group.’’ Per-
ceived cohesion is a valuable good for organizations since
it has a beneficial impact on a wide range of group-related
and organizational outcomes. For example, it has been
associated with lower turnover and absenteeism (Price and
Mueller 1981; Shader et al. 2001), enhanced levels of
organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Wech
et al. 1998), and increased performance (Mullen and
Copper 1994). In sum, perceived cohesion is an important
123
S. Decoster et al.
organizational variable since high levels of perceived
cohesion have a positive effect on organizational outcomes,
whereas low levels of cohesion can hurt organizations.
Essential for group cohesion to exist, members of the
group have to work together and thus maintain some form
of interpersonal relationship (Bass 1960; Stogdill 1972). As
one such important interpersonal relationship concerns the
relationship between employees and their leader, the way a
leader treats his or her employees will affect employees’
perceived cohesion (Wu et al. 2007).
As abusive supervision can be regarded as an extreme
example of negative interpersonal behavior, employees
will suffer from their leaders’ mistreatment, resulting in
decreased perceived cohesion. In order to explain the
relationship between abusive supervision and perceived
cohesion, we draw on social exchange theory (Blau 1964;
Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005), which states that indi-
viduals are sensitive to valued outcomes they receive and
that they are motivated to reciprocate these outcomes. If
followers perceive to receive valued outcomes, they may
reciprocate these outcomes by feeling more cohesive with
their team. In contrast, when followers’ outcomes are
negative, they are expected to reciprocate in a negative way
in order to restore the balance. Indeed, previous research
pointed out that abusive supervision has a negative impact
on the relationships coworkers have with each other. For
example, employees who are confronted with an abusive
supervisor engage in less organizational citizenship
behaviors toward their coworkers (Aryee et al. 2007; Xu
et al. 2012) and display more negative behavior toward
coworkers of their work group (Mitchell and Ambrose
2007).
Abusive Supervision and Employees’ Tendency
to Gossip
When confronted with an abusive supervisor, drawing on
social exchange theory, followers reciprocate in a negative
way, such as engaging in gossiping behavior. This is in line
with previous research that pointed out that when
employees feel they are treated in a negative way (e.g.,
being intimidated, humiliated, ridiculed, or being yelled
at), they react with deviant behaviors to get back at the one
who mistreated them (Bennett and Robinson 2003; Rob-
inson and Greenberg 1998). Indeed, employees tend to
react to their leader’s abusive behavior by engaging in
supervisor-directed deviance in order to harm their super-
visor or to ‘‘get even’’ (Dupre et al. 2006; Inness et al.
2005; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007; Tepper et al. 2009;
Thau and Mitchell 2010). Although several studies have
provided evidence for this line of reasoning, reacting to the
offender is often not without danger for oneself as this
Standing by Your Organization
might result in renewed interpersonal mistreatment by the
other party, especially when the other party has an elevated
level of power (Aquino et al. 2001; Bies and Tripp 1996).
For example, research indicates that employees are less
likely to react when there exists a high power distance
between themselves and the person who engages in abusive
supervisory behavior (Wang et al. 2012). Given the hier-
archical nature of the relationship between an employee
and his/her direct supervisor, turning to overt reactions is
likely to be a costly action for oneself. As a result,
employees will opt for behavior that involves smaller
potential costs, but still provides them with an opportunity
to ‘‘get even,’’ such as gossip (Archer and Coyne 2005).
Gossip can be described as ‘‘verbal or written commu-
nication that regards personal matters of a third party’’
(Nevo et al. 1993, p. 975) that people use to gain infor-
mation about one’s social environment and to manipulate
others with the goal to raise one’s own status (Rosnow
1977). Traditionally, gossip is seen as a socially undesir-
able activity with negative effects for both the person that
is the target of gossip (Noon and Delbridge 1993) and
one’s organization as it can lower morale and productivity
(Baker and Jones 1996; DiFonzo and Bordia 2000; Di-
Fonzo et al. 1994). However, more recent studies pointed
out that gossip can promote the existence of groups
because it often is a response to the observation of anti-
social behavior (Feinberg et al. 2012). That is, when pos-
sible transgressors who behave in a self-interested way are
observed, the gossiper can warn the other group members
about this behavior by sharing information about these
transgressors. In this way, gossip can be viewed as an
efficient tool of punishment in order to constrain future
self-serving behavior (Beersma and Van Kleef 2011).
The Buffering Role of Organizational Identification
for Employees who are Confronted with an Abusive
Supervisor
As discussed above, when confronted with an abusive
supervisor, followers tend to react in a negative way (Tepper
2000; Zellars et al. 2002), for example by showing deviant
behavior toward the leader and the organization (Duffy et al.
2002; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007). Recently, however, it
has been argued that, depending on the situation, followers’
reactions may not always be negative (Stouten et al. 2005;
Stouten and Tripp 2009). For example, leaders’ behavior is
often tolerated because leaders have an important influence
in promotion procedures, evaluations, and how employees
are allowed to carry out their work (Camps et al. 2012; Hogan
et al. 1994; Yukl 1998). Stouten and Tripp (2009) argued that
leaders and followers are held against different rules. Con-
sequently, leaders’ abusive behavior may not always result in
625
disapproval or counteractions. Often, employees consider
that they are not in a position to help others or themselves by
responding with overt behavior toward the leader (Frost
2004; Lord 1998). These findings are consistent with the
argument that employees generally feel that they cannot raise
an issue of concern to their bosses (Uhl-Bien and Carsten
2007). We build upon this line of research and argue that
there are boundary conditions on the negative effects of
abusive supervision on employee outcomes. Exploring such
boundary conditions will allow for understanding when and
thus why employees may react toward an abusive supervisor.
In this study, we argue that the extent to which employees
identify with their organization plays an integral role in how
employees will react to an abusive supervisor. More spe-
cifically, in situations where followers are confronted with an
abusive supervisor, we expect that employees who identify
with their organization are more likely to feel part of their
work group (i.e., perceived cohesion) and will be less likely
to gossip about their supervisor.
Organizational Identification and Social Identity
Theory
Mael and Ashforth (1992, p. 109) defined organizational
identification as ‘‘a perceived oneness with an organization
and the experience of the organization’s successes and
failures as one’s own.’’ The conceptualization of organi-
zational identification is rooted in social identity theory
(Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner 1982). Tajfel
(1978, p. 67) defined social identity as ‘‘that part of an
individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowl-
edge of his or her membership of a social group [or groups]
together with the value and emotional significance attached
to that membership.’’
According to social identity theory (Tajfel 1978; Tajfel
and Turner 1979), individuals are striving toward a positive
self-image, which is partly based not only on their personal
identity (e.g., I am reliable, I am creative) but also on their
social identity (e.g., I am a member of the athletics team X, I
am an employee of organization Y), which they derive from
social groups they are a member of. Because being part of a
group has an impact on one’s self-image, group members
usually evaluate their groups positively and especially more
positive than other groups (Tajfel 1978). As a result, their
group and their evaluation of it become more important for
their self-image. The more positive an employee assesses
one’s organization, the more important one’s organization
becomes for his or her self-image. Thus, according to Dutton
et al. (1994, p. 242), ‘‘the strength of a member’s organiza-
tional identification reflects the degree to which the content
of the member’s self-concept is tied to his or her organiza-
tional membership.’’
123
626
The Buffering Role of Organizational Identification
According to Ashforth and Mael (1989), organizational
identification has a supportive and positive influence on
employees’ satisfaction and the effectiveness of the orga-
nization. For example, it increases long-term commitment
and support, physical well-being, job satisfaction, and
motivation (Mael and Ashforth 1992; Van Dick and
Wagner 2002). Organizational identification also has a
positive effect on cooperative and organizational citizen-
ship behaviors and on actual performance (Dukerich et al.
2002; Stellmachter et al. 2002, 2003). Moreover, organi-
zational identification is negatively related to turnover
intentions (Van Knippenberg and Van Schie 2000).
Hence, organizational identification has a positive influ-
ence in such a way that employees who identify with their
organization are likely to support their organization both in
good and in bad times (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Dukerich
et al. 2002; Mael and Ashforth 1992; Stellmachter et al.
2002, 2003; Van Dick et al. 2006; Van Dick and Wagner
2002; Van Knippenberg et al. 2007; Van Knippenberg and
Van Schie 2000). For example, Ashforth and Mael (1989,
p. 28) stated that ‘‘identification provides a mechanism
whereby an individual can continue to believe in the integrity
of his or her organization despite wrongdoing by senior
management.’’ In fact, research supports this assumption that
organizational identification goes a long way in employees’
reliance in difficult situations. For example, in organizations
in transition, employees with a high (pre-merger) organiza-
tional identification have less turnover intentions and nega-
tive feelings as well as higher satisfaction and more
citizenship behaviors (Van Dick et al. 2006). Moreover,
organizational identification buffers the negative impact of
low organizational support on deviant behavior, such as
employees’ absenteeism and turnover intentions (Van
Knippenberg et al. 2007).
Given that employees who identify with the organization
are likely to support their company in good and bad times, we
build on this research by arguing that organizational identi-
fication also will protect employees against the highly neg-
ative effects of abusive supervision. More specifically, when
confronted with an abusive supervisor, employees who
identify with their organization are more likely to feel con-
nected (i.e., perceived cohesion) with their colleagues and
will be less likely to gossip about their supervisor.
Perceived Cohesion and Organizational Identification
Drawing on social identity theory, the more important one’s
organization becomes for one’s self-image, the stronger
one’s cohesion with the organizational members will be
(Ashforth and Mael 1989; Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner
123
S. Decoster et al.
1979; Turner 1982, 1984). Moreover, social-categorization
theory (Turner 1985; Turner et al. 1987) states that when
group members perceive themselves as part of a particular
social category (e.g., their organization), they minimize the
differences within that social category. Given the buffering
role of organizational identification (Lipponen et al. 2011)
and the negative impact abusive supervision will have on
perceived cohesion (Wu et al. 2007), we expect that
Hypothesis 1 Organizational identification and abusive
supervision interact with regard to perceived cohesion. More
specifically, we expect that in the presence of an abusive
supervisor, employees’ perceived cohesion will be stronger
if their organizational identification is high rather than low.
Tendency to Gossip and Organizational Identification
Gossiping behavior has been shown to result in detrimental
consequences not only for the target but also for the
organization as a whole (Baker and Jones 1996; DiFonzo
et al. 1994; DiFonzo and Bordia 2000). As discussed
above, even though employees will be inclined to engage
in (covert) reactions (such as gossiping) in the situation of
an abusive supervisor, employees who value their organi-
zation (i.e., identify with their organization) will be less
inclined to engage in gossip as they try to protect the
organization’s image from potential harmful consequences.
Taken together, we expect that
Hypothesis 2 Organizational identification and abusive
supervision interact with regard to employees’ tendency to
gossip. More specifically, we expect that employees facing
an abusive supervisor will gossip less if their organiza-
tional identification is high rather than low.
Method
Participants and Procedure
We recruited participants using a snowball sampling pro-
cedure (e.g., Mayer et al. 2009; Morgeson and Humphrey
2006). Undergraduate students were contacted by the
researchers and were asked to invite participants to com-
plete the study (as partial fulfillment of an undergraduate
course). Two hundred twenty-four employees were invited
to voluntarily take part in a study concerning the well-
being of people in organizations. Paper versions were
handed out to employees from organizations in Flanders,
Belgium. Employees were asked to hand deliver the
supervisor’s survey and all surveys were returned in sealed
envelopes to the university in order to assure anonymity.
Employees were matched with their supervisor using a
Standing by Your Organization
specific code allowing for anonymous participation. Par-
ticipants were from a variety of different organizations,
including telecommunication, health care, manufacturing,
government, technology, and financial organizations. The
surveys that were returned resulted in hundred thirty-four
dyads of employees and their matched direct supervisors,
yielding an overall response rate of 59.8 %. Of the
employees’ sample, 40.3 % were male. The mean age was
38.89 years (range 20–58 years; SD = 10.86). Seventy-
two percent of the employees worked fulltime, 47 % of
employees only completed high school, and 52.2 %
obtained a college degree. Employees had an average
organizational tenure of 13.15 years (SD = 11.52) and had
an average team size of 12 workers (SD = 14.03).
Of the supervisors’ sample, 43.1 % were male and the
mean age was 47 years (range 26–58 years; SD = 7.57).
Ninety percent of the supervisors worked fulltime, 31.4 %
of supervisors only completed high school, and 68.6 %
obtained a college degree. On average supervisors’ job
tenure amounted to 9 years (SD = 5.85) and they super-
vised a team of on average 15 employees (SD = 17.31).
Measures
Employees completed measures of abusive supervision,
perceived cohesion, and organizational identification.
Supervisors reported subordinates’ tendency to gossip. All
items were completed on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 (never/strongly disagree) to 5 (very often/strongly agree).
Abusive Supervision
Abusive supervision was assessed with Tepper’s (2000)
15-item abusive supervision scale. Example items are ‘‘my
supervisor ridicules me’’ and ‘‘my supervisor blames me to
save himself/herself embarrassment’’ (Cronbach’s a = .94).
Organizational Identification
Employees’ organizational identification was assessed with
Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) six-item organizational iden-
tification scale. Example items are ‘‘when someone criti-
cizes my organization, it feels like a personal insult’’ and
‘‘the organization’s successes are my successes’’ (Cron-
bach’s a = .81).
Perceived Cohesion
Perceived cohesion was measured with Bollen and Hoyle’s
(1990) six-item perceived cohesion scale. As the original
627
scale refers to school groups, we adapted the scale to the
purpose of this study by altering the reference point (Chin
et al. 1999). That is, employees read that these six items
referred to their work group (i.e., employees working for the
same supervisor) and were asked to respond to the questions
with this in mind. Example items are ‘‘I feel that I belong to
this group,’’ ‘‘I am happy to be part of this group,’’ and ‘‘this
group is one of the best’’ (Cronbach’s a = .96).
Tendency to Gossip
Employees’ tendency to gossip was measured with eight
items of the 20-item Tendency to Gossip Scale (Nevo et al.
1993). We opted to collect this data from the supervisors
rather than from their employees. As discussed earlier,
gossip might result in harmful consequences for the target
of the gossiping behavior such as feelings of social isola-
tion (see Elias 1994; Soeters and van Iterson 2002).
Although it can be argued that a leader is not always aware
of the extent to which his/her employees gossip about him
or her, we believe that leaders do have such information at
hand (see Grosser et al. 2010). That is, gossip is widely
used: It is expected to constitute 65 % of all spoken
communication (Dunbar 2004). Indeed, Grosser et al.
(2010) showed that supervisors are aware of follower
gossiping as they punish gossipers with low-performance
ratings. Moreover, because people are more sensitive to
perceptions of the environment rather than the actual
environment itself (Lewin 1951), we focus on supervisor
perceptions of gossip rather than actual gossip. Indeed,
gossip is more likely to have a negative influence and
impact on supervisors if they perceive gossip to exist. For
this measure, only items that were relevant for the work
situation were chosen. Sample items are ‘‘my subordinates
like to talk about my clothes and appearance with their co-
workers,’’ ‘‘my subordinates like to talk about the problems
I encounter at work,’’ and ‘‘my subordinates have the
tendency to gossip about me’’ (Cronbach’s a = .79).
Control Variables
Based on previous research, we controlled for several factors
that have been shown to be related to one (or more) of the
variables incorporated in our hypotheses. More specifically,
we controlled for employees’ age as it has been shown to be
related to both organizational identification (Riketta 2005)
and deviant behavior (Aquino and Douglas 2003). We also
controlled for employees’ gender as gender is related to both
organizational identification (Riketta 2005) and interper-
sonal deviance (Henle et al. 2005). Finally, we controlled for
employees’ organizational tenure as previous research
123
628 S. Decoster et al.

revealed it to be related to employees’ organizational iden-
tification (Hall et al. 1970; Riketta 2005) and perceived
cohesion (Gilbert and Tang 1998).
Results
All data were analyzed by conducting stepwise, hierarchical
regression analyses. In step 1 of the regression analyses, we
entered the demographic variables age, gender (0 = female,
1 = male), and organizational tenure. In step 2, we entered
abusive supervision and organizational identification. In step
3, we predicted the interactive relationship between abusive
supervision and organizational identification for the depen-
dent variables of interest, perceived cohesion, and tendency
to gossip. The independent variables abusive supervision and
organizational identification were centered to avoid multi-
collinearity (Aiken and West 1991). Table 1 presents the
descriptive statistics and intercorrelations.
Perceived Cohesion
First of all, regression analysis revealed a significant nega-
tive relationship between abusive supervision and perceived
cohesion (Table 2). More important, the interaction between
abusive supervision and organizational identification was
significant (Fig. 1). Simple slopes analyses (Aiken and West
1991) showed that for employees who were confronted with
an abusive supervisor, organizational identification was
positively related to employees’ perceived cohesion (b =
.34, pone-tailed \ .01). However, the relationship between
organizational identification and perceived cohesion was not
significant when employees perceived their supervisor as
being low on abusive supervision (b = .01, pone-
tailed = .49). This provides support for Hypothesis 1.
Tendency to Gossip
Regression analysis revealed no significant negative rela-
tionship between abusive supervision and tendency to
gossip (Table 2). More important, the interaction between
abusive supervision and organizational identification was
significant (Fig. 2). Table 2 presents the results of the
regression analyses. Simple slopes analyses showed that in
the presence of an abusive supervisor, organizational
identification was negatively related to employees’ ten-
dency to gossip (b = -.14, pone-tailed \ .05). However, this
relationship was not significant when employees perceived
their supervisor as being low on abusive supervision
(b = .14, pone-tailed = .07). These findings provide support
for Hypothesis 2.
Discussion
Research recently revealed that abusive supervision has a
significant negative impact on the attitudes, well-being, and
behavior of employees (e.g., Duffy et al. 2002; Mitchell and
Ambrose 2007; Zellars et al. 2002). Here, we argued that
employees will not necessarily react negatively toward an
abusive supervisor. That is, we reasoned that there are
boundary conditions to the reactions of employees toward an
abusive supervisor. More specifically, it was put forward that
as employees identify with their organization, they are
expected to show weaker negative reactions to an abusive
supervisor in terms of perceptions of cohesion and gossiping
since organizational identification has a buffering effect on
followers’ negative reactions to abusive supervision.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, employees’ organizational
identification is particularly important for how employees
react to an abusive supervisor with regard to perceived
cohesion. Employees confronted with an abusive supervisor
had a stronger perceived cohesion to their work group when
their organizational identification was high rather than low.
Similarly, when confronted with an abusive supervisor,
employees’ organizational identification could be shown to
buffer employees’ tendency to gossip about their leader. That
is, when a leader was considered as abusive by his/her
employees, (s)he perceived employees to gossip less when
organizational identification was high versus low. Conse-
quently, results also confirmed Hypothesis 2. Therefore, we
argue that organizational identification functions as a

Table 1 Means, standard

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
deviations, and intercorrelations
between variables 1. Gender – –
2. Age 38.89 10.86 -.08
3. Organizational tenure 13.15 11.52 .03 .79**
4. Abusive supervision 1.38 0.55 -.07 .06 .08
5. Organizational identification 3.52 0.61 .10 .07 .05 -.12
6. Perceived cohesion 4.21 0.77 .08 -.07 -.03 -.39** .20*
N = 134
7. Tendency to gossip 2.46 0.46 .00 .06 -.05 -.05 -.02 .05
* p \ .05.; ** p \ .001

123
Standing by Your Organization 629

Table 2 Results of the hierarchical regression analyses for the

moderating effect of organizational identity (N = 134)
Perceived cohesion Tendency to
gossip
Step 2 Step 3 Step Step 3
2

Gender .03 .03 .00 .00

Age .14 .-14 .14 .14
Organizational tenure .11 .10 -.10 -.10
Abusive supervision -.37*** -.35*** -.05 -.08
Organizational identity .15 .14 -.03 -.00
Abusive supervision 9 .16* -.22*
Organizational identity
DR2 .17*** .03* .00 .05*
R2 .19 .21 .01 .06
Values are standardized regression weights
* p \ .05.; ** p \ .01.; *** p \ .001

Fig. 2 Interaction between abusive supervision and organizational

identification on tendency to gossip

of employees (Duffy et al. 2002; Mitchell and Ambrose

Fig. 1 Interaction between abusive supervision and organizational
identification on perceived cohesion
protecting mechanism for the negative consequences of
abusive supervision. Below, we will discuss these findings in
greater detail.
Theoretic Implications
We added to the growing body of research on abusive
supervision that showed the negative consequences of
abusive supervision on attitudes, well-being, and behavior
2007; Tepper 2000, 2007; Zellars et al. 2002). Previous
research showed that employees who identify with their
organization experience more positive outcomes concern-
ing attitudes, well-being, and behaviors, even in difficult
and personal enduring contexts (Ashforth and Mael 1989;
Dukerich et al. 2002; Mael and Ashforth 1992; Stellmacher
et al. 2003; Van Dick et al. 2006; Van Dick and Wagner
2002; Van Knippenberg et al. 2007; Van Knippenberg and
Van Schie 2000). Here, we showed that employees who
identify with their organization showed weaker negative
reactions when they were confronted with an abusive
supervisor.
Social identity research argues that group members
strive toward a positive self-image which is partly derived
from one’s social groups (Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner
1979; Turner 1982). In this study, we examined this by
means of employees who consider themselves part of their
organization—organizational identification. Because of the
link between employees’ self-image and their organiza-
tional membership, employees evaluate their organization
positively, even more so than they perceive other organi-
zations (Tajfel 1978). As a result, employees with strong
organizational identification support their organization in
many ways. Hence, organizational identification positively
influences employees’ perceptions and outcomes with
regard to their organization (Ashforth and Mael 1989;
Dukerich et al. 2002; Mael and Ashforth 1992; Stellmacher
et al. 2003; Van Dick and Wagner 2002; Van Knippenberg

123
630
and Van Schie 2000). It seems that this process functions as
a buffer for employees’ negative reactions to the abusive
behavior of their supervisor since employees with high
organizational identification showed weaker negative
reactions than when organizational identification was low.
This study contributed to research on organizational
identification by confirming that organizational identifica-
tion has an impact on employees not only in good times but
also in bad times (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Van Dick et al.
2006; Van Knippenberg et al. 2007). We showed that
subordinates’ high organizational identification protects
them for specific negative consequences (i.e., lower per-
ceived cohesion and higher gossip perceptions) of abusive
supervision. Hence, in the most enduring circumstances
(such as verbal abuse or intimidation), employees who
identified with a larger goal of the organization reacted in a
more positive way, i.e., they had a higher perceived
cohesion and they had a lower tendency gossip.
Future research on organizational identification and
abusive supervision could look into the impact of work group
or departmental identification on the negative effects of
abusive supervision. According to Van Knippenberg and
Van Schie (2000), departmental or work group identification
is often stronger than organizational identification. More-
over, work group or departmental identification has a
stronger positive influence on attitudes and behaviors (e.g.,
job satisfaction, turnover intentions, job involvement, and
job motivation) than organizational identification (Van
Knippenberg and Van Schie 2000). These authors draw their
statements from social identity theory and self-categoriza-
tion theory (Tajfel 1978; Tajfel and Turner 1982; Turner
1985; Turner et al. 1987), which argues that a particular
social categorization (e.g., work group or department)
becomes more salient than other categorizations (e.g., the
larger organization) if that particular social categorization is
relatively accessible, shows a comparative fit with oneself,
and positively distinguishes oneself from other categoriza-
tions. First of all, people interact on a daily basis with their
work groups and their department, which makes these sub-
groups highly accessible. Secondly, work groups and
departments generally consist of more similar people than
the larger organization (e.g., work group or department
members generally have the same educational background).
Finally, identifying with a smaller group (e.g., work group or
department) renders people more distinctiveness than iden-
tifying with larger groups (e.g., the organization as a whole).
Hence, it might well be that departmental identification can
be an even stronger buffer for employees’ negative conse-
quences of abusive supervision.
These findings also contributed to the present theoretic
research on abusive supervision. Existing research on abusive
supervision focused primarily on the negative consequences
these leaders induce for their employees. Our study
123
S. Decoster et al.
contributed to those few studies that investigated the boundary
conditions of employees’ reactions to abusive supervision
(Bamberger and Bacharach 2006; Harvey et al. 2007; Stouten
et al. 2005; Stouten and Tripp 2009; Tepper 2007). For
example, Tepper (2000) revealed that the impact of abusive
supervision on job satisfaction and depression was less pro-
found when employees’ perceived job mobility was high.
Also, Harvey et al. (2007) showed that if employees report
high levels of ingratiation behavior and positive affect, abu-
sive supervision is less strongly related to job tension, emo-
tional exhaustion, and turnover intention. Similarly, the
relationship between abusive supervision and alcohol abuse
was less strong for employees who were high in conscien-
tiousness and agreeableness (Bamberger and Bacharach
2006). Our study expands this line of work by focusing on an
institutional component, which is organizational identifica-
tion. This study showed that organizational identification has
an influence on employees’ reactions to abusive supervisory
behavior. More specifically, we provided evidence that
employees who identify with their organization showed
weaker negative reactions to the abusive behavior of their
supervisors. Future leadership research could focus more on
disclosing different boundary conditions that determine
employees’ reactions to an abusive supervisor. Future
research should focus not only on the short-term but also on
the long-term effects of these boundary conditions. For
example, it might well be that employees with strong orga-
nizational identification (or employees who are high in con-
scientiousness and agreeableness) respond more negatively
over time when the abusive behavior of the leaders remains.1
That is, followers with strong organizational identification
might be more sensitive to the fact that no steps have been
taken to address the leader’s abuse.
Practical Implications
Generally, employees consider supervisors who behave
disrespectful and abusive as a burden. However, employees
do not always react or speak up to their supervisor, even if
(s)he behaves abusively (Tepper 2007). Employees who
identify themselves with their organization, identify them-
selves with the organization’s goals, as being part of their
own self-image and therefore tend to show less negative
consequences when confronted with an abusive supervisor.
Indeed, organizational identification seems to work as a
buffer on followers’ negative reactions to abusive supervi-
sion. However, newcomers in the organization might be
deterred by the presence of abusive supervisors because they
do not yet identify with the organization or their organiza-
tional identification is just not strong enough to endure an
1
We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
Standing by Your Organization
abusive supervisor. In the course of time, this could result in
significant costs for the employees and the organization,
given the significance of abusive supervision on employees’
work experience. Therefore, organizations should try to
insure a sense of belongingness and provide a solid basis for
increasing employees’ organizational identity. Employees’
organizational identification can be improved by, for
example, employing clear communication about the deci-
sions and the procedures in the organization (Van Dick et al.
2006) or by applying identification-enhancing interventions
(Van Knippenberg and Van Schie 2000).
On the other hand, this buffering effect of organizational
identification may give abusive supervisors a free pass to
act in ways that are inappropriate since such leaders might
argue that followers’ reactions will be less severe. In such a
scenario, no efforts are being made toward the creation of a
non-abusive environment. Moreover, it might well be that,
despite employees’ strong organizational identification,
abusive supervision still leads to negative consequences
(e.g., somatic health complaints, absenteeism, and turnover
intentions) for employees in the long run. Therefore,
organizations should try to prevent the emergence or the
existence of abusive supervision, for example, by fostering
a culture that is incompatible with abusive supervision, by
implementing 360-degree feedback programs, by imple-
menting zero-tolerance policies, or by training employees
to respond in an appropriate way to abusive supervision
(Tepper 2007; Tepper et al. 2009).
Strengths and Limitations
This study was conducted by using a multi-source survey
where both employees’ responses and those of their super-
visors were assessed. Such a multi-source design has been
argued to be able to reduce common-method bias (Podsakoff
et al. 2003). This signifies that employees and supervisors are
less likely to bias the relationship between variables of
interest due to social desirability tendencies. However, this
research only partially assessed ratings from multiple sour-
ces. That is, supervisors rated employees’ tendency to gos-
sip, but employees rated perceived cohesion. Hence, the
findings with regard to perceived cohesion may still have
been subject to common-method bias. Nevertheless, given
the consistency in results and as common-method bias has
been shown to decrease the sensitivity of tests of moderation
(Evans 1985), we are confident that common-method bias
might be of lesser concern.
A second limitation of our study concerns the low levels
of abusive supervision reported in our sample
(mean = 1.38). However, as stated by Harris et al. (2007),
this finding is in line with previous research revealing
levels of abusive supervision ranging from low, such as
631
1.26 (Tepper et al. 2004) and 1.38 (Tepper 2000), to high,
such as 2.06 (Tepper et al. 2006) and 2.70 (Biron 2010).
Moreover, as we were able to reveal a significant interac-
tion effect between abusive supervision and organizational
identification for both perceived cohesion and tendency to
gossip, we feel confident that these low levels of abusive
supervision are of little concern for data analysis.
Finally, our design did not allow us to make causal
inferences because of the cross-sectional nature of the data.
It may well be that employees’ perceived cohesion and
tendencies to gossip set the stage for abusive supervision to
arise. However, prior longitudinal research showed that
abusive supervision is the antecedent of many negative
employee outcomes (Bamberger and Bacharach 2006;
Tepper 2000; Tepper et al. 2001). Hence, previous theo-
rizing does support our findings which provide some con-
fidence in the hypothesized direction.
Conclusion
Recent leadership research focused on abusive supervision
and the negative consequences it has on employees’ attitudes
and behavior (Duffy et al. 2002; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007;
Tepper 2000, 2007; Zellars et al. 2002). This study adds to
this line of research by showing that employees do not nec-
essarily react negatively toward an abusive leader. In fact,
our findings showed that organizational identification func-
tions as a protecting mechanism for the negative influence of
abusive supervision on employees’ perceived cohesion and
their tendency to gossip. In sum, this study illustrated that, in
the presence of an abusive supervisor, employees with high
organizational identification showed weaker negative reac-
tions than when organizational identification was low.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. New York, NY: Sage Publications.
Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Identity threat and antisocial
behavior in organizations: The moderating effects of individual
differences, aggressive modeling, and hierarchical status. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90,
195–208.
Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees
respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution,
victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation
in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 52–59.
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect,
relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Review, 9, 212–230.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents
and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201.
123
632
Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Baker, J. S., & Jones, M. A. (1996). The poison grapevine: How
destructive are gossip and rumor in the workplace? Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 75–86.
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.
Bass, B. M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational
behavior. New York: Harper.
Beersma, B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps
you in line: Gossip increases contributions to the group. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 642–649.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present, and future
of workplace deviance research. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organi-
zational behavior: The state of science (2nd ed., pp. 247–281).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: Getting even and
the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.),
Trust in organizations (pp. 246–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1998). Two faces of the powerless:
Coping with tyranny in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & M.
A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp.
203–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Biron, M. (2010). Negative reciprocity and the association between
perceived organizational ethical values and organizational devi-
ance. Human Relations, 63, 875–897.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual
and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69, 479–504.
Camps, J., Decoster, S., & Stouten, J. (2012). My share is fair, so I
don’t care the moderating role of distributive justice in the
perception of leaders’ self-serving behavior. Journal of Person-
nel Psychology, 11, 49–59.
Chin, W. W., Salisbury, W. M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Stollak, M. J.
(1999). Perceived cohesion in small groups: Adapting and
testing the perceived cohesion scale in a small-group setting.
Small Group Research, 30, 751–766.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory:
An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31,
874–900.
De Cremer, D. (2003). How self-conception may lead to inequality:
Effect of hierarchical roles on the equality rule in organizational
resource-sharing tasks. Group and Organization Management,
28, 282–302.
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2000). How top PR professionals handle
hearsay: Corporate rumors, their effects, and strategies to
manage them. Public Relations Review, 26, 173–190.
DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P., & Rosnow, R. L. (1994). Reining in rumors.
Organizational Dynamics, 23, 47–62.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social
undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 45, 331–351.
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in
the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identifi-
cation, identity, and image on the cooperative behaviors of
physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507–533.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review
of General Psychology, 8,100–110.
Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., Connelly, C. E., Barling, J., & Hoption, C.
(2006). Workplace aggression in teenage parttime employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 987–997.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organiza-
tional images and member identification. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 39, 239–263.
123
S. Decoster et al.
Elias, N., & Scotson, J. (1994). The established and the outsiders: A
sociological inquiry into community problems (Rev. ed.). London:
Sage.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of
correlated method variance in moderated regression analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36,
305–323.
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Stellar, J., & Keltner, D. (2012). The Virtues
of Gossip: Reputational information sharing as prosocial behav-
ior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102,
1015–1030.
Frost, P. J. (2004). Handling toxic emotions: New challenges for
leaders and their organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 33,
111–127.
Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. (1998). An examination of organizational
trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27, 321–338.
Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010). A social
network analysis of gossip in organizational life. Group and
Organization Management, 35, 177–212.
Hall, D. T., Schneider, B., & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in
organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly,
15, 176–190.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation
of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the
meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 252–263.
Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping
with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation
and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The
Leadership Quarterly, 18, 264–280.
Henle, C. A., Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2005). The role
of ethical ideology in workplace deviance. Journal of Business
Ethics, 56, 219–230.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about
leadership—Effectiveness and personality. American Psycholo-
gist, 49, 493–504.
Hornstein, H. A. (1996). Brutal bosses and their prey. New York,
NY: Riverhead Books.
Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding super-
visor-targeted aggression: A within-person, between-jobs design.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 731–739.
Lewin, K. (1951). In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social
science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.
Lipponen, J., Wisse, B., & Perälä, J. (2011). Perceived justice and
group identification: The moderating role of previous identifica-
tion. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10, 13–23.
Lord, V. B. (1998). Characteristics of violence in state government.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 489–504.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A
partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identi-
fication. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador,
R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a
trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 108, 1–13.
Mayer, D. M., Thau, S., Workman, K. M., Van Dijke, M., & De
Cremer, D. (2012). Leader mistreatment, employee hostility, and
deviant behaviors: Integrating self-uncertainty and thwarted
needs perspectives on deviance. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 117, 24–40.
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.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design
questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a
Standing by Your Organization
comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature
of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group
cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological
Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
Nevo, O., Nevo, B., & Derech-Zehavi, A. (1993). The development of
the tendency to gossip questionnaire: Construct and concurrent
validation for a sample of Israeli college students. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 53, 973–981.
Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand:
Gossip in organizations. Organization Studies, 14, 23–36.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Price, S. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). Handbook of organizational
measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly:
Dimensions, determinants, and dilemmas in the study of
workplace deviance. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau
(Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–30).
New York: Wiley.
Rosnow, R. L. (1977). Gossip and marketplace psychology. Journal
of Communication, 27, 158–163.
Samuelson, C. D., & Messick, D. M. (1995). When do people want to
change the rules for allocating shared resources? In D. A. Sch-
roeder (Ed.), Social dilemmas: Perspectives on individuals and
groups (pp. 143–162). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Schat, A., Frone, M., & Kelloway, E. (2006). Prevalence of
workplace aggression in the U.S. workforce: Findings from a
national research. In E. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. Hurrell (Eds.),
Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 47–89). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Shader K., Broome, M. E., West, M. E., & Nash, M. (2001). Factors
influencing satisfaction and anticipated turnover for nurses in an
academic medical center. Journal of Nursing Administration, 31,
210–216.
Soeters, J., & Van Iterson, A. (2002). Blame and praise gossip in
organizations: Established, outsiders, and the civilizing process.
In A. van Iterson, W. Mastenbroek, T. Newton & D. Smith
(Eds.), The civilized organization: Norbert Elias and the future
of organization studies (pp. 25–40). Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Stellmacher, J., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Lemmer, G. (2003).
Gruppenidentifikation und gruppenleistung [Group identification
and group performance]. Paper presented at Tagung experi-
mentell arbeitender Psychologen, TeaP, Kiel, Germany.
Stellmachter, J., Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). The importance
of group identification in task performances in a real-world
context. Poster session presented at the 13th General Meeting of
the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology,
San Sebastian, Spain.
Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 26–43.
Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). I’m doing the best
I can (for myself): Leadership and variance of harvesting in
resource dilemmas. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 9, 205–211.
Stouten, J., & Tripp, T. M. (2009). Claiming more than equality:
Should leaders ask for forgiveness? The Leadership Quarterly,
20, 287–298.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in
the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Aca-
demic Press.
633
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup
conflict. In M. J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds.), Organizational
identity: A reader (pp. 56–65). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. The
Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations:
Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Manage-
ment, 33, 261–289.
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C. Y., & Hua,
W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employ-
ees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109,
156–167.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006).
Procedural justice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision.
Personnel Psychology, 59, 101–123.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004).
Moderators of the relationships between coworkers’ organiza-
tional citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455–465.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators
of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates
resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974–983.
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.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social
group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations
(pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group
formation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European
developments in social psychology (pp. 518–538). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A
social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.),
Advances in group processes: Theory and research (pp. 77–122).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell,
M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categori-
zation theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Carsten, M. K. (2007) Being ethical when the boss is
not. Organizational Dynamics, 36, 187–201.
Van Dick, R., Ullrich, J. & Tissington, P. A. (2006). Working under a
black cloud: How to sustain organizational identification after a
merger. British Journal of Management, 17, 69–79.
Van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2002). Social identification among
school teachers: Dimensions, foci, and correlates. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 129–149.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Dick, R. & Tavares, S. (2007). Social
identity and social exchange: Identification, support and with-
drawal from the job. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37,
457–477.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and
correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.
Wang, W., Mao, J., Wu, W. & Liu, J. (2012). Abusive supervision
and workplace deviance: The mediating role of interactional
justice and the moderating role of power distance. Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 50, 43–60.
Wech, B. A., Mossholder, K. W.,Steel, R. P., & Bennett, N. (1998).
Does work group cohesiveness affect individuals’ performance
and organizational commitment? A cross-level examination.
Small Group Research, 29, 472–494.
123
634
Wu, C., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2007). Transformational leadership,
cohesion perceptions, and employee cynicism about organiza-
tional change: The mediating role of justice perceptions. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 327–351.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive
supervision and work behaviors: The mediating role of LMX.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 531–543.
123
S. Decoster et al.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive
supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behav-
ior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.