Despite the extensive interest in abusive supervision, there remains conceptual ambiguity surrounding it, specifically concerning the overlap between leaders’ actions and subordinates’ perceptions. Drawing from leadership categorization theory, we propose that authoritarian leadership activates subordinates’ anti-prototype of leaders and perceptions of more abusive supervision. Moreover, such a relationship is moderated by subordinates’ ideal and typical leadership schema, with the former representing individual preference and the latter representing the social norm. Using an experiment (N = 344) and a multi-wave field study (N = 249), we found that subordinates holding high ideal leadership prototypicality (e.g., my ideal leader is sensitive) and low typical leadership anti-prototypicality (e.g., other leaders are domineering) perceive more leadership anti-prototypicality and more abusive supervision when faced with authoritarian leadership. Our research enriches the existing literature on leadership by providing a cognitive perspective that explains how subordinates’ implicit leadership schemas play a role in the leadership perception process.
AbdallaI. A.Al-HamoudM. A. (2001). Exploring the implicit leadership theory in the Arabian Gulf States. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 506-531. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00071
2.
AfthanorhanA.AwangZ.Abd MajidN.FoziahH.IsmailI.Al HalbusiH.TehseenS. (2021). Gain more insight from common latent factor in structural equation modeling. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1793(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1793/1/012030
3.
ArnulfJ. K.LarsenK. R. (2015). Overlapping semantics of leadership and heroism: Expectations of omnipotence, identification with ideal leaders and disappointment in real managers. Scandinavian Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.15714/scandpsychol.2.e3
4.
AronowP. M.BaronJ.PinsonL. (2019). A note on dropping experimental subjects who fail a manipulation check. Political Analysis, 27(4), 572-589. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.5
5.
AryeeS.ChenZ. X.SunL. Y.DebrahY. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191-201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191
6.
BarsalouL. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 629-654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.1-4.629
ChenX. P.EberlyM. B.ChiangT. J.FarhJ. L.ChengB. S. (2014). Affective trust in Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of Management, 40(3), 796-819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410604
9.
ChengB. S.ChouL. F.WuT. Y.HuangM. P.FarhJ. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2004.00137.x
10.
CialdiniR. B.TrostM. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). McGraw-Hill.
11.
DawkinsS.MartinA.ScottJ.SandersonK. (2013). Building on the positives: A psychometric review and critical analysis of the construct of psychological capital. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(3), 348-370. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12007
12.
DijksterhuisA.Van KnippenbergA. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 865. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.865
EichhornB. R. (2014). Common method variance techniques. In Cleveland state university, department of operations & supply chain management. Cleveland, OH: SAS Institute Inc, 1(11).
15.
EpitropakiO.MartinR. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 293-310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293
16.
EpitropakiO.MartinR. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659-676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.659
17.
FischerT.TianA. W.LeeA.HughesD. J. (2021). Abusive supervision: A systematic review and fundamental rethink. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(6), 101540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101540
18.
FisetJ.RobinsonM. A.Saffie-RobertsonM. C. (2019). Masking wrongs through brilliance: The moderating effect of vision on the relationship between abusive supervision and employee outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(6), 756-768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1637853
19.
FulkJ.SteinfieldC. W.SchmitzJ.PowerJ. G. (1987). A social information processing model of media use in organizations. Communication Research, 14(5), 529-552. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365087014005005
20.
GongS.LuJ. G.SchaubroeckJ. M.LiQ.ZhouQ.QianX. (2020). Polluted psyche: Is the effect of air pollution on unethical behavior more physiological or psychological?Psychological Science, 31(8), 1040-1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620943835
21.
GuoL.DecosterS.BabalolaM. T.De SchutterL.GarbaO. A.RiislaK. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and employee creativity: The moderating role of psychological capital and the mediating role of fear and defensive silence. Journal of Business Research, 92, 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.034
22.
HaggardD. L.RobertC.RoseA. J. (2011). Co-rumination in the workplace: Adjustment trade-offs for men and women who engage in excessive discussions of workplace problems. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(6), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9169-2
23.
HuangX.XuE.ChiuW.LamC.FarhJ. (2015). When authoritarian leaders outperform transformational leaders: Firm performance in a harsh economic environment. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(2), 180-200. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2014.0132
24.
JunkerN. M.Van DickR. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1154-1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.002
25.
Karakitapoğlu-AygünZ.GumusluogluL.ErturkA.ScanduraT. A. (2021). Two to Tango? A cross-cultural investigation of the leader-follower agreement on authoritarian leadership. Journal of Business Research, 128, 473-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.034
26.
KiazadK.RestubogS. L. D.ZagenczykT. J.KiewitzC.TangR. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 512-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004
27.
LiR.ChenZ.ZhangH.LuoJ. (2021). How do the authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision jointly thwart follower proactivity? A social control perspective. Journal of Management, 47(4), 930-956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319878261
28.
LordR. G.BrownD. J.HarveyJ. L.HallR. J. (2001). Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 311-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00081-9
29.
LordR. G.EpitropakiO.FotiR. J.HansbroughT. K. (2020). Implicit leadership theories, implicit followership theories, and dynamic processing of leadership information. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 49-74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045434
30.
LordR. G.FotiR. J.De VaderC. (1984). A test of the leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 84(1-4), 343-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6
31.
LordR. G.MaherK. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Unwin Hyman. https://doi.org/10.2307/258827.
32.
LordR. G.MaherK. J. (2002). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Routledge.
33.
MackeyJ. D.FriederR. E.BreesJ. R.MartinkoM. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940-1965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573997
34.
MartinkoM. J.HarveyP.BreesJ. R.MackeyJ. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S120-S137. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1888
35.
MartinkoM. J.HarveyP.SikoraD.DouglasS. C. (2011). Perceptions of abusive supervision: The role of subordinates’ attribution styles. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 751-764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.013
36.
Martinko, M. J., Mackey, J. D., Michalak, R., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2017). The effects of the interactions between subordinates' and supervisors' characteristics on subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervision. In N. A. Bowling & M. S. Hershcovis (Eds.), Research and theory on workplace aggression (pp. 93-120). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316160930.005
37.
MaslynJ. M.Uhl-BienM. (2001). Leader–member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 697-708. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.697
38.
MitchellM. S.AmbroseM. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159-1168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159
NguyenH.AshkanasyN. M.ParkerS. L.LiY. (2018). The role of implicit leadership theory in employees’ perceptions of abusive supervision. In Individual, Relational, and Contextual Dynamics of Emotions (pp. 119-138). Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1746-979120180000014014
41.
ObenauerW. G.KalsherM. J. (2023). Is white always the standard? Using replication to revisit and extend what we know about the leadership prototype. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(4), 101633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2022.101633
42.
OffermannL. R.Kennedy JrJ. K.WirtzP. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(94)90005-1
43.
OhJ. K.FarhC. I. (2017). An emotional process theory of how subordinates appraise, experience, and respond to abusive supervision over time. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 207-232. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0347
44.
PellegriniE. K.ScanduraT. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 566-593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316063
45.
PhillipsJ. S. (1984). The accuracy of leadership ratings: A cognitive categorization perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90015-1
46.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
47.
SalancikG. R.PfefferJ. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563
48.
ScanduraT. A.GraenG. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.428
49.
SchaubroeckJ. M.ShenY.ChongS. (2017). A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking the authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(2), 203. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000165
ShermanJ. W. (1996). Development and mental representation of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1126-1141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1126
52.
TepperB. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375
53.
TepperB. J.MossS. E.LockhartD. E.CarrJ. C. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1169-1180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159918
Van QuaquebekeN.GrafM. M.EckloffT. (2014). What do leaders have to live up to? Contrasting the effects of central tendency- versus ideal-based leader prototypes in leader categorization processes. Leadership, 10(2), 190-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715013476081
56.
Van QuaquebekeN.van KnippenbergD. (2012). Second-generation leader categorization research: How subordinates’ self-and typical leader perceptions moderate leader categorization effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1293-1319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00899.x
57.
WangG.Van IddekingeC.ZhangL.BishoffJ. (2019). Meta-analytic and primary investigations of the role of followers in ratings of leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 70-106. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000345
ZacherH.ChanF.BakkerA. B.DemeroutiE. (2015). Selection, optimization, and compensation strategies: Interactive effects on daily work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 101-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.12.008
60.
ZhangW.ZhengS.Luca PletzerJ.DerksD.BreevaartK.ZhangX. (2022). How to cope with an abusive leader? Examinations of subordinates’ affective reactions, CWB-O and turnover intentions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 29(4), 389-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221097278
61.
ZhouY.FeiZ.HeY.YangZ. (2022). How human–chatbot interaction impairs charitable giving: The role of moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 178, 849-865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05045-w
62.
ZuoL. (2023). Perception and misperception as reality: Examining emotional and attributional mechanisms of abusive supervision [Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Alabama.
