Transformational Leadership and Abusive Supervision Research Paper

Inconsistent transformational leadership at the organizational and individual levels has received particular attention in academia, the relationship between transformational leadership and destructive forms of leadership is still under-researched (Eisele, 2020). Leaders tend to alternate between leadership styles, which can have diverse effects on employees’ job performance, satisfaction, psychological well-being, creativity, and commitment (Mullen et al., 2018). Transformational leadership contributes to enhancing safety participation, the positive influence of this working environment can be hindered when abusive supervision occurs. When leaders alternate between transformational leadership and abusive supervision, employees feel more stressed and less productive (Barling et al., 2018). Due to the resulting damage to employees’ psychological well-being, their behavior can change and become counterproductive, leading to adverse effects on the workplace atmosphere. According to Mullen et al. (2018), the possible changes in employees’ behavior can encourage leaders to develop successful leader-member relationships to minimize abusive supervision. Enhanced leader-member exchange mitigates the adverse consequences of abusive behaviors, makes leaders more empathetic, and improves leaders’ emotional intelligence and corresponding competencies (Xiong et al., 2021).

Inconsistent transformational leadership can also change employees’ engagement and daily performance (Huang et al., 2019). For instance, personnel performance can be high one day and disengaged another day, depending on the leadership style. Sustained abusive leadership results in low morale, disengagement from current tasks, and low performance. Huang et al. (2019) stated that researchers might need to explore the relationship between abusive supervision and employee performance in day-to-day contexts to identify the exact mechanisms involved in the process.

Transformational leadership can have no mediating effect on employee performance if abusive supervision prevails and the former leadership style is only occasionally utilized (Barling et al., 2018). Leaders often switch to different forms of leadership according to the availability of resources. Barling et al. (2018) have found that the presence of scarce resources can drive autocratic leadership. In contrast, abusive supervision has milder negative consequences compared to those resulting from the use of transformational leadership in similar circumstances (Barling et al., 2018). Barling et al. (2018) conducted their research in the healthcare setting, which has certain limitations that gave rise to the need to address the topic in a broader context. For instance, most organizations in the healthcare setting are primarily not commercial, meaning they have different goals, which can cause other leadership behavior.

The abusive behavior of ethical leaders can have adverse effects that make subordinates more sensitive to abusive supervision (Taylor et al., 2019). Prior research on ethical leadership focused on interactional justice that had a moderating impact on the relationship between abusive supervision and work outcomes (Wang & Chan, 2020). Interactional justice is associated with people’s perceptions of the degree to which they are treated with respect and dignity in different contexts (Wang & Chan, 2020). When employees feel mistreated, their psychological well-being is negatively affected, resulting in sensitivity to abusive supervision and workplace deviance (Javed et al., 2018). Employees may become victims of offensive leaders or react in an increasingly intense manner. On the other hand, inconsistent leadership tends to increase people’s need for interactional justice, and if abusive supervision frequency or magnitude grows, adverse workplace outcomes intensify (Park et al., 2019).

Individual characteristics and skills also play a significant role in employee performance under such conditions. For example, employees with high levels of mindfulness perform better when transformational leadership is utilized (Qian et al., 2020). Employees’ mindfulness enables them to be fully aware of their capabilities and areas where they need certain development. Mindful employees also understand the efforts the transformational leader makes to help them individually and the entire team to progress, which contributes to the development of the sense of belongingness (Qian et al., 2020).

At the same time, those employees are highly affected by abusive supervision, which has detrimental effects on their psychological well-being and performance (Walsh & Arnold, 2020). Employee mindfulness can result in poor performance, job dissatisfaction, or total work engagement depending on daily leadership style if inconsistent leadership is utilized (Qian et al., 2020). Employees characterized by high mindfulness are also aware of the unfairness of situations and activities, as well as the overall incivility of the leader, and mindful individuals tend to reflect on negative experiences, which results in their low morale (Qian et al., 2020). These findings are consistent with previous studies, and researchers have been more attentive to inconsistent leadership and its outcomes as a result.

For instance, Zhang and Liu (2018) examined the positive and adverse influences of abusive and transformational leadership in different cultural contexts. The researchers stated that abusive behavior could have a positive impact on employees’ performance in Asian countries due to their cultural peculiarities. However, inconsistent leadership was associated with poor performance and low morale, so Zhang and Liu (2018) concluded that the use of consistent (be it transformational or abusive leadership) leadership is beneficial for organizational performance.

Taylor et al. (2019) note that abusive behaviors of ethical leaders have a stronger negative impact on employees compared to the incivility of abusive leaders. One of the reasons behind this adverse influence is the unmet expectations as ethical leaders are regarded as transformational leaders who do not utilize autocratic methods (Taylor et al., 2019). When transformational and ethical leaders’ actions in some situations are inconsistent with their overall behaviors and image, employees feel even more vulnerable when exposed to abusive acts. In the case with abusive leaders, employees expect a certain degree of incivility and tend to build the corresponding resilience or some behavioral patterns mitigating the negative effects of this kind of abuse. Walsh and Arnold (2020) suggested that employees need extensive training ineffective coping strategies to ensure that their mindfulness does not enhance negative responses to abusive leadership and facilitate a favorable working environment.

Lange et al. (2018) found a positive relationship between leaders’ mindfulness and transformational leadership, while a negative relationship characterized leaders’ mindfulness and abusive supervision. Importantly, mindful leaders exert transformational leadership when addressing innovation-related incentives and individuals’ ideas or performances rather than team-based elements (Lange et al., 2018). This trend toward individualism is explained by the resource-based approach, as mindfulness is mainly related to personal links and interpersonal relationships. Although some aspects of inconsistent leadership use have been explored, the connection between transformational leadership and abusive behavior and the impact these leadership styles have on employees’ performance requires further investigation.

References

Barling, J., Akers, A., & Beiko, D. (2018). The impact of positive and negative intraoperative surgeons’ leadership behaviors on surgical team performance.The American Journal of Surgery, 215(1), 14-18.

Eisele, P. (2020). Transformational and devious leadership and how it predicts stress and workplace wellbeing.International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 9(3), 163-169.

Huang, L., Su, C., Lin, C., & Lu, S. (2019). The influence of abusive supervision on employees’ motivation and extra-role behaviors. Chinese Management Studies, 13(3), 514-530.

Javed, B., Fatima, T., Yasin, R. M., Jahanzeb, S., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (2018). Impact of abusive supervision on deviant work behavior: The role of Islamic work ethic.Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(2), 221-233.

Lange, S., Bormann, K. C., & Rowold, J. (2018). Mindful leadership: Mindfulness as a new antecedent of destructive and transformational leadership behavior.Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 49(2), 139-147.

Mullen, J., Fiset, J., & Rhéaume, A. (2018). Destructive forms of leadership.Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(8), 946-961.

Park, H., Hoobler, J. M., Wu, J., Liden, R. C., Hu, J., & Wilson, M. S. (2019). Abusive supervision and employee deviance: A multifoci justice perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4), 1113-1131.

Qian, S., Yuan, Q., Lim, V. K. G., Niu, W., & Liu, Z. (2020). Do job insecure leaders perform less transformational leadership? The roles of emotional exhaustion and trait mindfulness.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(4), 376-388.

Taylor, S. G., Griffith, M. D., Vadera, A. K., Folger, R., & Letwin, C. R. (2019). Breaking the cycle of abusive supervision: How disidentification and moral identity help the trickle-down change course.Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 164-182.

Walsh, M. M., & Arnold, K. A. (2020). The bright and dark sides of employee mindfulness: Leadership style and employee well‐being. Stress and Health, 36(3), 287-298.

Wang, R., & Chan, D. K. S. (2020). Subordinate reactions to ethical leaders’ abusive behavior: A multiple‐wave study. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(3), 427-449.

Xiong, G., Huang, H., Ma, Y., Liang, C., & Wang, H. (2021). Abusive supervision and unethical pro-organizational behavior: The mediating role of status challenge and the moderating role of leader–member exchange. SAGE Open, 11(3), 1-10.

Zhang, J., & Liu, J. (2018). Is abusive supervision an absolute devil? Literature review and research agenda.Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(3), 719-744.