Editorial summary. This is our text summary of an article published by frontiers. Charts, figures, and the author’s full voice are at the original — read it there .
Editorial verdict
Methodologically sound systematic review with genuine gaps identified, but the proposed theoretical expansions remain speculative — the empirical base for recovery-focused and emotional-process interventions in abusive supervision is nearly absent, limiting actionability.
Executive summary
This systematic review examines a decade of empirical research on abusive supervision (AS), defined as subordinates' perceptions of supervisors engaging in sustained hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Authored by Gallegos, Guàrdia-Olmos, and Berger (2022), the article argues that existing AS research is theoretically narrow, methodologically insufficient, and neglects both the supervisor's perspective and employee recovery processes. Following PRISMA guidelines, the authors analyzed 171 empirical manuscripts comprising 239 samples published between 2010 and July 2020, sourced via Web of Science. Key findings reveal that AS research has grown substantially between 2018 and 2020, with 101 distinct theories identified, predominantly social-relational and affective frameworks. Four mechanism types were classified: simple relations, moderators, mediators, and combined models. The review identifies persistent reliance on cross-sectional, single-source, individual-level designs as a core methodological limitation. The authors conclude that theoretical expansion toward emotional process theories and recovery constructs, combined with longitudinal, diary-based, and multilevel methodologies, represents the primary direction for future AS research.
Key insights
- 1AS research grew substantially between 2018 and 2020, with 48% of total reviewed studies published during that period, but the field remains concentrated at the individual employee level with little attention to supervisor self-perception or team-level dynamics.
- 2The dominant theoretical frameworks — Social Exchange Theory, Social Learning Theory, Conservation of Resources Theory, and Affective Events Theory — treat emotions as static outcomes, failing to capture the dynamic, cyclical nature of abusive supervision as a process.
- 3Recovery from abusive supervision is a near-absent construct in the literature: only two studies included variables examining how subordinates might recover from abuse, representing a significant empirical gap.
Practical takeaways
- Organizations measuring the impact of leadership behavior on employee well-being may find that cross-sectional, single-source survey designs systematically underestimate or misrepresent the relational dynamics of abusive supervision, as the review documents widespread common method variance in existing studies.
- Existing AS research provides limited evidence on how abusive supervision affects entire teams or how supervisors themselves perceive their own abusive behavior, suggesting that multi-source, multilevel data collection approaches capture a more complete picture of workplace dynamics than individual self-reports alone.
Frameworks mentioned
Conservation of Resources Theory (COR)
A stress theory proposing that individuals are motivated to obtain, retain, and protect resources; applied in AS research to explain how abusive leadership depletes followers' personal resources, increasing distress and strain.
Affective Events Theory (AET)
A theoretical framework by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) proposing that workplace events trigger affective reactions that influence attitudes and behaviors; used in AS research to examine differential emotional responses to abusive supervisory behavior.
Social Exchange Theory (SET)
A sociological framework explaining interactions as exchanges governed by norms of reciprocity; applied in AS research to analyze supervisor-subordinate relational dynamics.
Social Learning Theory (SLT)
Bandura's (1977) theory proposing that behavior is learned through observation and modeling; used in AS research to explain how aggressive supervisory behavior may be emulated or transmitted organizationally.
References
- Academy of Management Journal (2000).Consequences of Abusive Supervision.
- Asia Pacific Journal of Management (2015).Consequences of Abusive Supervision: A Meta-Analytic Review.
- Journal of Business Ethics (2016).Antecedents of Abusive Supervision: A Meta-Analytic Review.
- Journal of Management (2017).Abusive Supervision: A Meta-Analysis and Empirical Review.
- PLOS Medicine (2009).Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
- Research in Organizational Behavior (1996).Affective Events Theory: A Theoretical Discussion of the Structure, Causes and Consequences of Affective Experiences at Work.
- American Psychologist (1989).Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress.
- Academy of Management Review (2017).An Emotional Process Theory of How Subordinates Appraise, Experience, and Respond to Abusive Supervision over Time.
- Academy of Management Review (2017).Affective Events and the Development of Leader-Member Exchange.
- Prentice-Hall (1977).Social Learning Theory.
Source & Provenance
frontiers
Ivonne Gallegos, Rita Berger, Joan Guardia-Olmos
January 6, 2022
Meta-Analysis/Review
Global
Original source metadata is preserved. AI analysis is generated separately.
Like this? Get the Monday Decision Brief — free, every week.
No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Rate this article
Want the full article? Read it at the original source — free, no paywall.
Read original article