Attributions for abusive supervision: Who do subordinates blame and does it matter?

Abstract

Drawing on attribution theory, we propose in Study 1 that subordinates' supervisor-directed responses to abusive supervision depend upon their causal attributions for the abuse. Using a scenario-based study (N = 183), we test a moderated mediation model in which the entity blamed for abusive supervision (supervisor, organization, self) is expected to predict subordinates' behavioral intentions toward their supervisor via affective responses (supervisor disliking). This relationship will be exacerbated when subordinates perceive the cause of abusive supervision as stable. We found that subordinates who blamed themselves or the organization for the abuse disliked their supervisor less and had higher OCB-supervisor intentions, and this relationship was stronger when subordinates perceived the cause of abuse as stable. Disliking mediated the relationship between supervisor attributions and OCB-supervisor, but this relationship is not moderated by perceived stability. In Study 2, we explore whether there are additional entities that are blamed for abusive supervision and the reasons they are held accountable. We examined qualitative responses (N = 107) from abused subordinates to find that they most commonly blame their supervisor, themselves, and the organization for abusive supervision. However, subordinates occasionally blame their relationship with their supervisor and their work group.