Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Military Psychology logoLink to Military Psychology
. 2022 Mar 1;34(6):635–646. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2022.2031779

When does subordinate performance strengthen abusive supervision? A study of a three-way interaction in Korean military

Seung Yeon Son a, Youn Kyung Jeong b, Seung-Wan Kang c,✉
PMCID: PMC10013443  PMID: 38536329

ABSTRACT

Drawing on the moral exclusion theory and resource allocation perspective, we examine the association between supervisor perception of subordinate performance and abusive supervision (AS), and the interaction effects of a supervisor’s need for achievement and second-level superiors’ close monitoring of first-line supervisors, as key boundary conditions for the performance-AS relationship. We conducted a time-lagged survey with 142 matched reports from supervisors and subordinates who had direct reporting relationships with the supervisors in the South Korea military. The results of this study indicate that subordinate performance, as rated by the supervisor, was negatively associated with AS. Furthermore, a supervisor’s need for achievement moderated the relationship between subordinate performance and AS, such that the relationship was more negative under a supervisor who had a higher need for achievement. In addition, second-level superiors’ close monitoring of first-line supervisors moderated the effect of the interaction of subordinate performance and a supervisor’s need for achievement on AS, such that the existing moderation effect of a supervisor’s need for achievement is more pronounced when supervisors are under high close monitoring by their superiors. Our investigation of antecedents of supervisor’s abusive behavior could help expand our previous knowledge regarding the mechanism of the performance-AS relationship.

KEYWORDS: Performance, moral exclusion theory, abusive supervision, close monitoring, need for achievement

What is the public significance of this article?—This study is designed to investigate the antecedent of supervisor’s abusive behavior in the South Korean military. According to the findings, supervisors with a high need for achievement willingly impose abusive treatment on underperforming subordinates. In addition, the close monitoring of supervisors by superiors further encourages supervisors with a high need for achievement to treat their subordinates abusively. The implication of this study lies in its contribution to the prevention of excessive abusive supervision by shedding light on the boundary conditions in which it may be intensified.

Abusive supervision (AS) is a type of destructive leadership behavior (Gallus et al., 2013; Krasikova et al., 2013), defined as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178). Many researchers have studied AS over the years, because it causes serious negative effects in organizations and individuals (Harris et al., 2007; Mackey et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007; B. Tepper et al., 2009). Most of the existing literature on AS has focused on its impact on individuals and organizations (Lee et al., 2013; Lian et al., 2012; Mackey et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2015). Through the endeavors of several researchers, an adequate body of findings has been accumulated on the AS-consequence link.

There has been scant research on the factors that affect AS, and several scholars have attempted to fill this research gap by investigating the cause-AS link (e.g., Aryee et al., 2007; Lian et al., 2014; Tepper et al., 2011; Walter et al., 2015; Y. Zhang & Bednall, 2016). Recent researchers have identified subordinates’ performance (especially low performance) as a precedent of AS (e.g., Khan et al., 2018; Lam et al., 2017). By interpreting AS as supervisors’ responses to low subordinate performance, the authors of these studies provide complementary perspectives on the dominant traditional approach, which focuses on the consequences of AS (e.g., Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Tepper et al., 2011; Walter et al., 2015). Nonetheless, research on the association between subordinate performance and AS is still in an early stage, and much remains to be examined (Tepper et al., 2017).

For instant, to gain a clearer understanding of subordinate performance and AS relationship, both personal and environmental factors must be considered (Barling, 1996). Specially, a supervisor’s need for achievement, a personal factor known to be beneficial to individual performance (Robbins & Judge, 2011), coupled with a subordinate’s low performance will increase AS. Additionally, it is common in many organizations for company higher-ups to closely monitor supervisors to an excessive degree that hinders rather than contributes to task performance (Hauff et al., 2014). The combination of this close monitoring from above interacts with subordinates’ low performance and an individual supervisor’s need for achievement can also reinforce AS. Nevertheless, there are few empirical verifications of this possibility. Our study is a response to the call for research that explains when AS is more or less likely to be observed (Tepper et al., 2017).

The main contribution of the present study is that we investigate the mechanism that moderates the association between subordinate performance and AS. First, we suggest and verify a new perspective according to which the interaction between supervisors’ high need for achievement and subordinates’ low task performance increases AS. Need for achievement is known to be beneficial for improving individual performance and goal accomplishment (Hollenbeck et al., 1989; Loon & Casimir, 2008; Slocum et al., 2002), although it should be noted that supervisors with high needs for achievement are preoccupied with success and focus excessively on subordinates’ task performance to judge their utility; such a focus can result in stronger moral exclusion of subordinates with low performance. Second, we include the superiors of the first-line supervisors in the research model in an attempt to expand the scope of traditional AS studies (i.e., the subordinate-supervisor relationship). Particularly, we choose superiors’ close monitoring of supervisors, which is quite common in organizations (Hauff et al., 2014), as an environmental factor because excessive monitoring by superiors that interacts with supervisors’ own high achievement needs can reinforce AS. We therefore establish a theoretical model of three-way interaction to demonstrate that a supervisor’s need for achievement and superiors’ close monitoring of supervisors strengthens the negative relationship between subordinate performance and AS (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Hypothesized research model.

Supervisor perception of subordinate performance and AS

As a representative of the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986), a supervisor implements policies and norms, supervises team members’ role behaviors, and bears responsibility for members’ completion of their tasks (Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). Because the supervisor’s managerial role serves as the basis for the organization’s effective operation and goal accomplishment, and ultimately for its survival and prosperity, supervisors can feel their managerial responsibilities as heavy burdens (Masterson & Stamper, 2003). A subordinate’s task performance is intimately related to his or her supervisor’s managerial responsibilities (Bass, 1990). Moral exclusion theory states that each individual has a scope of justice, defined as “the boundary in which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply” (Opotow, 1990, p. 1), and that each person metes out various forms of hostile and adverse treatment to individuals or organizations that lies outside his or her scope of justice (Opotow, 1995). According to moral exclusion theory (Opotow, 2001) and prior research (e.g., Tepper et al., 2011), subordinates’ usefulness or utility based on task performance is an important consideration in supervisors’ decisions to morally exclude them (Hafer & Olson, 2003). Specifically, subordinates’ outstanding performance is conducive to their supervisors’ goal accomplishment and is perceived as an outcome of successful leadership (Yukl, 2013), whereas subordinates’ low performance undermines supervisors’ goal accomplishment and poses risks to their managerial responsibility (Tepper et al., 2017). Therefore, underperforming subordinates (i.e., subordinates of low utility) are easily excluded from a supervisor’s scope of justice, and they experience more AS.

A few studies have verified this notion empirically. For example, in a study of full-time-employed MBA students by Hoobler and Brass (2006), subordinate performance (as reported by the supervisor) was negatively related to AS. Tepper et al. (2011) confirmed a negative relationship between supervisor perception of subordinate performance and AS in a study that examined pairs of supervisors and subordinates within healthcare organizations. In addition, Walter et al. (2015) found a negative relationship between perceived performance and AS in their experiment involving undergraduate students in the Netherlands. Accordingly, we formulate the following hypothesis:

HYPOTHESIS 1. Supervisor perception of subordinate performance is negatively related to abusive supervision.

Moderating role of a supervisor’s need for achievement

Researchers who applied the theory of moral exclusion to AS research looked at employees’ performance in terms of the usefulness perceived by their supervisors (Tepper et al., 2011; Walter et al., 2015). We assert that it is reasonable to assume that the performance of subordinates does not have the same utility to all supervisors, because the level of importance of performance in evaluating the usefulness of subordinates may vary from one supervisor to another. In this study, we argue that the importance and sensitivity that a supervisor places on employees’ achieving goals and completing tasks will vary depending on the supervisor’s need for achievement (Steers & Braunstein, 1976).

The need for achievement refers to an individual’s desire or motivation to perform a task as well as possible (McClelland, 1965). The desire and effort for high achievement are known to have a positive effect on individual goal accomplishment and performance improvement (Britt et al., 2004; Loon & Casimir, 2008; Slocum et al., 2002).

However, the effect of the need for achievement on managerial effectiveness is inconsistent (House et al., 1991; Stahl, 1983). In fact, supervisors with a high need for achievement may have less interest in wielding an effective and successful influence, due to their excessive focus on the accomplishment of tasks per se (Miller & Toulouse, 1986). We suggest that the supervisors’ need for achievement may produce an undesirable outcome when met with the burden of managerial responsibility. As supervisors are assigned managerial responsibilities, their tasks and duties are not limited to their own assignments, but extend to those of their subordinates (Bass, 1990). Hence, supervisors with a high need for achievement are more likely to consider their subordinates’ performance as reflective of their own.

The destructive leadership framework sees the low performance of a subordinate as a goal blockage that hinders the achievement of the supervisor’s goal (Krasikova et al., 2013). Supervisors with a high need for achievement, in particular, may find it important to achieve the goal of building self-regard and a positive image. This means that underperforming subordinates seriously infringe on such supervisors’ goals and threaten the supervisors’ identity (Tepper et al., 2017), leading to frustration and anger (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009). The frustration-aggression perspective (Berkowitz, 1989) suggests that underperforming subordinates are tangible subjects of retaliation because they damage supervisors’ self-regard and identity. Thus, the underperformance of subordinates induces more AS from supervisors with a relatively higher need for achievement.

According to the moral exclusion theory (Opotow, 1990), subordinates’ utility is an important determinant of supervisors’ decision to place them in the out-group of their scope of justice. One important factor considered by supervisors when estimating a subordinate’s utility is the usefulness of the subordinate’s task performance in the accomplishment of the supervisor’s goals or performance (Hafer & Olson, 2003). Consequently, supervisors with a high need for achievement will rate underperforming subordinates as having low utility and will promptly exclude them from their scope of justice (Hafer & Olson, 2003). Furthermore, such supervisors will willingly impose adverse and impersonal treatment on underperforming subordinates (Tepper et al., 2011). Accordingly, we formulate the following hypothesis:

HYPOTHESIS 2. A supervisor’s need for achievement negatively moderates the relationship between supervisor perception of subordinate performance and abusive supervision, such that the relationship is more negative under a supervisor who has a higher need for achievement.

Three-way interaction among subordinate performance, supervisor’s need for achievement, and second-level superiors’ close monitoring of supervisors on AS

In an organizational hierarchy, supervisors are also the subordinates of superiors in the organization. We focus on the dysfunctional behavior of supervisors who are under close monitoring by their superiors and thus include this close monitoring by superiors in the research model. By doing so, we broaden the scope of traditional AS studies (i.e., the subordinate-supervisor relationship) to a wider perspective (i.e., the subordinate-supervisor-superior of supervisor relationship).

Monitoring refers to the examination, inspection, or recording of a subordinate’s performance behaviors (Stanton, 2000). Supervisors are usually the tangible agents who perform the monitoring of subordinates on behalf of the organization (Hackman & Walton, 1986), because they are the ones who frequently interact with subordinates and are, therefore, well aware of the subordinates’ level of performance and outcomes. Some types of monitoring found in organizations involve excessive intensity and frequency (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Due to the pressure of managerial responsibility or doubts about subordinates’ performance, supervisors may sporadically engage in close monitoring that exceeds an acceptable level (McDermott et al., 2013). Close monitoring refers to the continuous and meticulous monitoring of a subordinate to observe whether he or she accurately performs given tasks using the expected methods, and to confirm that the subordinate does not engage in activities opposed by the supervisor (George & Zhou, 2001). According to previous studies, excessive monitoring generally creates negative outcomes. For example, Jeske and Santuzzi (2015) found that close performance monitoring through various electronic means had a negative effect on subordinates’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Similarly, Zhou (2003) found that supervisors’ close monitoring undermined subordinates’ creativity. In addition, Banker et al. (2010) reported a negative relationship between close monitoring and sales productivity.

What happens if a supervisor feels that he or she is receiving excessively close monitoring by their superiors? According to Zhou (2003), close monitoring by a superior may be perceived as an expression of mistrust and control rather than as the provision of useful information and guidance required for task performance. Similarly, when supervisors feel closely monitored by their superiors, they may feel that upper-level supervisors do not trust them to perform their managerial roles. This control and lack of trust by upper-level supervisors may mean that such supervisors’ own utility is called into question and, as a result, such supervisors may fear being out of the “scope of justice” of the upper-level supervisors (Opotow, 1990). Especially for supervisors who have a high need for achievement, close monitoring of the upper-level superior is a stressor accompanied by a large burden, which eventually cripples the supervisors’ autonomy and internal motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Supervisors with a high need for achievement under a second-level superior’s close monitoring may also come to believe that a way to mitigate their superiors’ mistrust and control is to show them that they manage their subordinates stringently based on performance.

The resource allocation perspective proposes that humans have limited cognitive resources that they allocate to task, non-task, and self-control activities (Norman & Bobrow, 1975). Close monitoring by their superiors depletes first-line supervisors’ self-resources for coping, and according to resource allocation perspectives, self-regulatory activities such as coping are non-task activities. Exhausting self-resources on non-task activities in turn drains the resources available for tasks and self-control activities (Nohe et al., 2014). When self-resources are depleted, supervisors with a high need for achievement are more likely to exhibit destructive and aggressive behavior with a relatively stronger intensity for the underperforming subordinate (Opotow, 1990). For these reasons, when supervisors with a high need for achievement are under close monitoring by their superiors, the existing moderation effect of a supervisor’s need for achievement will be more pronounced. Accordingly, we formulate the following three-way interaction hypothesis:

HYPOTHESIS 3. Second-level superiors’ close monitoring of supervisors moderates the effect of the interaction of subordinate performance and a supervisor’s need for achievement on abusive supervision, such that the supervisor’s need for achievement strengthens the negative effect of subordinate performance on abusive supervision when second-level superiors’ close monitoring of supervisors is high rather than low.

Method

Sample and procedures

We used a time-lagged field survey design to examine the full set of relationships proposed in our research. We collected data regarding commissioned and noncommissioned officers from the Republic of Korea Air Force. We guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality of the data collected and emphasized that responses would be used only for academic purposes. Questionnaire items were originally developed in English. We confirmed consistency of meanings through a translation-back translation process (Brislin, 1970).

To address the potential problem of common method bias, we separated the response sources into supervisors for independent and moderating variables and subordinates for the dependent variable. Additionally, we designed our study to have two different survey times. We set the time interval between two surveys at one month following the previous research of AS (Walter et al., 2015).

In the first survey, we distributed a total of 220 questionnaires to supervisors and received 185 answered questionnaires. In the second survey, we distributed the questionnaires to 185 subordinates who had direct reporting relationships with the 185 supervisors who previously answered questionnaires, and received 153 answered questionnaires. After excluding incomplete answers, responses from 142 dyads were used for analysis. All supervisors were male and the average age was 32.14 (SD: 7.36). The most supervisors (75.4%) possessed four-year bachelor’s degrees. Of the subordinates, 83.8% were male and 16.2% were female, and the average age was 29.17 (SD: 4.86). The majority of subordinates (44.4%) were high school graduates and two-year college graduates (24.6%).

Measures

A seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) was used to measure each variable unless otherwise stated. All items were presented in Appendix A.

Performance

At time one, the supervisors completed a seven-item measure of subordinates’ performance developed by Williams and Anderson (1991) (α = .94).

Need for achievement

At time one, the supervisors completed a five-item measure of need for achievement developed by Steers and Braunstein (1976) (α = .83).

Close monitoring

At time one, the supervisors completed a six-item measure of close monitoring developed by George and Zhou (2001) (α = .70).

Abusive supervision

At time two, the subordinates completed a fifteen-item measure of abusive supervision developed by Tepper (2000) (α = .98).

Control variables

Because prior research suggested a significant association between supervisor-subordinate tenure and AS (Hoobler & Brass, 2006), we controlled for supervisor-subordinate tenure (in years) in our study. Additionally, we controlled for supervisor’s age (in years) because there is evidence of a significant relationship between age and aggression (Tremblay et al., 1999). Finally, we controlled for supervisor’s rank (1 = staff sergeant, 2 = master sergeant, 3 = senior master sergeant, 4 = second lieutenant, 5 = first lieutenant, and 6 = captain) because our survey participants worked in the military, which has a rigid hierarchy.

Model validation

We conducted confirmatory factor analysis to validate our hypothesized model. Considering the parameter-to-sample ratio (Bentler & Chou, 1987; Kline, 2005), we created three AS indicators through item parceling because we used 15 items for the full measurement of AS. An item parcel is an aggregate-level indicator composed of the average of several items (Little et al., 2002). As in prior leadership studies (e.g., Chen et al., 2011; Rafferty & Restubog, 2011; X. Zhang & Bartol, 2010), we made three parcels consisting of five AS items through random assignment. The results of the CFA show that the hypothesized research model was appropriate to the data (χ2(180) = 252.38, p < .001; TLI = .96; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .05). Additionally, we compared the fit of this four-factor model with a series of competing models and found that the four-factor model was significantly superior to the competing models (Table 1).

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Supervisor age (years) 32.14 7.36              
2. Supervisor rank 4.99 1.60 −.41***            
3. Supervisor-subordinate tenure (year) .80 .60 .32*** −.36***          
4. Subordinate performance 5.82 .87 −.01 −.11 .06 (.94)      
5. Need for achievement 5.18 .96 .26** −.11 .14† .31*** (.83)    
6. Close monitoring 4.29 .86 −.31*** .20* −.28** .03 .07 (.70)  
7. Abusive supervision 1.45 .78 .00 .00 .02 −.22** .07 .01 (.98)
Open in a new tab

N = 142. Reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses.

†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Hypothesis testing

To test the hypothesis, we implement hierarchical multiple regression analyses using an ordinary least-squares method. As shown in Model 2 of Table 2, subordinate performance is significantly negatively related to AS (β = −.23, p < .01) and the explanatory power of Model 2 is significantly higher than that of Model 1 (Model 1 → Model 2: ΔR2 = 0.05, ΔF = 7.33, p < .01), which means that Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Table 2.

Results of hierarchical multiple regressions on abusive supervision.

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Step 1: Controls  
 Supervisor age −.01 −.02 −.07 −.07 −.06
 Supervisor rank .00 −.03 −.04 −.01 .00
 Supervisor-subordinate tenure .02 .03 .02 .04 .04
Step 2: Independent variable  
 Subordinate performance   −.23** −.28** −.28** −.25**
Step 3: Moderators  
 Need for achievement     .17† .14 .15†
 Close monitoring     .00 −.01 .04
Step 4: 2-way interaction  
 Subordinate performance × need for achievement       −.22* −.28**
 Subordinate performance × close monitoring       −.18* −.23*
 Need for achievement × close monitoring       −.04 −.01
Step 5: 3-way interaction  
 Subordinate performance × need for achievement × close monitoring         −.22*
Overall F .02 1.85 1.84 3.14 3.56
R2 .00 .05 .08 .18 .21
F Change   7.33** 1.78 5.39** 6.25*
R2 Change   .05 .02 .10 .04
Open in a new tab

N = 142. Entries are standardized regression coefficients.

†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Hypothesis 2 concerns the moderating effect of a supervisor’s need for achievement on the relationship between subordinate performance and AS. Before making the interaction terms, we grand mean centered each variable following the suggestion of Aiken and West (1991). As shown in Model 4 of Table 2, the interaction term of subordinate performance multiplied by a supervisor’s need for achievement is significantly negative on AS (β = −.22, p < .01) and the explanatory power of Model 4 is significantly higher than that of Model 3 (Model 3 → Model 4: ΔR2 = 0.10, ΔF = 5.39, p < .01). We used Aiken & West’s (1991) approach of plotting ±1 SD values to investigate this interaction, as shown in Figure 2. The simple slope test shows that subordinate performance is negatively related to AS when it is high (β = −.44, p < .01), but when a need for achievement is low, the association between subordinate performance and AS is weaker and non-significant (β = −.11, ns). These results provide support for Hypothesis 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The moderating effect of a supervisor’s need for achievement on the relationship between subordinate performance and abusive supervision.

Hypothesis 3 forecasts a three-way interaction among subordinate performance, need for achievement, and close monitoring, such that the negative relationship between subordinate performance and AS will be strongest when a need for achievement and close monitoring are high. Model 5 in Table 2 indicates that the three-way interaction term is significant on AS (β = −22, p < .05) and the explanation power of Model 5 is significantly higher than that of Model 4 (Model 4 → Model 5: ΔR2 = 0.04, ΔF = 6.25, p < .05). Figure 3 depicts the effect of a three-way interaction among all three precursors on AS. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the negative relationship between subordinate performance and AS is strongest and significant when the need for achievement and close monitoring are high (β = −.89, p < .01). However, the other three slopes are not significant (β = −.10, −.05, .01, ns). These findings support Hypothesis 3.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

The three-way interaction effect of subordinate performance, need for achievement, and close monitoring on abusive supervision.

Discussion

Theoretical contributions

Many existing researchers on AS have studied its negative effects on individuals and organizations (Harvey et al., 2014; Mayer et al., 2012), and scholars have been consistently interested in what factors influence AS (Tepper et al., 2017); some researchers have even presented empirical evidence of employee performance as a significant variable in degree of AS (e.g., Khan et al., 2018; Lam et al., 2017; Tepper et al., 2011; Walter et al., 2015). However, the relationship between employee performance and AS can be dynamic, and thus, there is a need for examination of the individual and situational variables that could be influencing AS (Aryee et al., 2007; Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Krasikova et al., 2013; Martinko et al., 2013). This paper contributed to expanding knowledge on the relationship between employee performance and AS by presenting boundary conditions that varied the association of the two variables.

This paper is an accumulation of the evidence about influencing factors of AS that includes examining new variables to explain the relationship between low employee performance and AS. Under destructive leadership frameworks, low employee performance hinders supervisors’ goal achievement and threatens their identities (Krasikova et al., 2013), resulting in higher AS levels. The moral exclusive theory also predicts that the underperformer may stimulate AS because he/she cannot enter in the justice scope of the supervisor. This study integrates these two perspectives, arguing and demonstrating that the higher the achievement need of supervisor, the stronger the AS for the low performance of the employees (Opotow, 2001; Tepper et al., 2017). We contribute to expanding the findings from prior studies with an interest in factors affecting AS (e.g., Tepper et al., 2011; Walter et al., 2015). In particular, we suggest that it might be more useful to consider various perspectives simultaneously in understanding the diversity of the relationships between an employee’s performance and AS. We also present the need to further study differences in individual supervisor variables that previous AS researchers have overlooked. This contributes to relevant studies by providing a new boundary condition for the negative association between subordinate performance and AS.

In an organizational hierarchy, supervisors are also subordinates of their superiors. We considered this fact and included the supervisor’s superior of the focal employee in the theoretical model. This can be viewed as an attempt to complement the traditional perspectives in AS studies that focused only on supervisor-subordinate relationships. Leveraging the resource allocation perspective, we verified that superiors’ excessive monitoring of first-line supervisors can strengthen the effect of the interaction between employee task performance and supervisor’s achievement need on AS. By introducing a resource allocation perspective (Kahneman, 1973; Norman & Bobrow, 1975) to the AS research domain, this study provides new insight into the employee performance-AS relationship. The theoretical framework we suggest here stresses that the relationship between subordinate performance and AS should not be explained merely by variables related to supervisors and subordinates but also by variables related to second-level superiors, which are important environmental factors in the workplace.

We present and empirically verify a three-way interaction effect by which supervisors exhibit more abusive behavior toward underperforming subordinates when the supervisors have high need for achievement and are themselves under close monitoring by their superiors. The theoretical framework suggested by this study stresses that the relationship between subordinate performance and AS should not be explained merely by variables related to supervisors and subordinates, but also by variables related to second-level superiors, which are important environmental factors in the workplace.

Some recent researchers who examined the antecedents of AS focused on subordinate performance, but this perspective is still at an early stage of development (Walter et al., 2015). In the findings of this study, underperforming subordinates influenced supervisors’ abusive behaviors, which supports the current new viewpoint. Our research complements the unbalanced view of prior studies mainly focusing on the harmful effects of AS by investigating the influencing factor of AS (Martinko et al., 2013).

Practical implications

We know that aggression and destructive behavior cause serious problems in the workplace (O’Reilly et al., 2015). Considering the potential influence of supervisors on subordinates, AS can significantly damage both subordinates’ individual lives and entire organizations (Geen, 1991; Han et al., 2017; Hoobler & Brass, 2006). Prior researchers have consistently demonstrated the harmful effects of AS (e.g., Mackey et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007). Supervisors interact with their employees frequently, including checking subordinates’ performance levels, and the results of this study revealed that supervisors can show AS when employees perform poorly. Thus, supervisors with a high need for achievement should note that their excessive success- or achievement-oriented attitudes could manifest as abusive supervision that inflicts serious damage on subordinates and organizations. This paper suggests that by identifying the influencing factor (i.e., low performer) and the AS boundary condition (i.e., need for achievement), it is possible to prevent or minimize AS, which ultimately harms the organization. Supervisors in the field, for whom evaluating employees’ performance is one of the core roles, should remember that they can show AS under low employee performance. In particular, supervisors with high achievement needs should bear in mind that their individual dispositions can heighten their abusive behavior. Effective supervisors instead will consider the most desirable leadership behaviors that will help improve the performance of underperforming subordinates rather than immediately giving negative treatment. Organizations must also help supervisors develop their leadership capacities by implementing systematic human resources development programs.

Top management and human resources managers should acknowledge that the close monitoring of supervisors by superiors further encourages supervisors with a high need for achievement to treat their subordinates abusively. In the workplace, second-level superiors should avoid excessively close monitoring of first-line supervisors and should empower them with discretionary power to foster an environment in which they can manage subordinates effectively.

Limitations and future research directions

While we can verify subordinate performance as one of the antecedents of AS and shed light on boundary conditions of the performance-AS relationship, the research model that we propose is not a comprehensive model to account for the diverse factors that may affect AS. Future studies should investigate the mechanism of the performance-AS relationship by considering various factors that may affect AS.

This study was conducted in the military. The military is similar to other types of organizations in that subordinate performance is critical to accomplishing organizational goals, and members of the organization are professional servicepersons who have chosen to join the military as their occupation. The military as an organization has been called a pioneer in the field of leadership and has made considerable contributions to leadership development in civilian organizations (Laurence, 2011). However, because the military is a rigidly hierarchical organization, these findings could be less applicable in less hierarchical organizations. These findings need to be confirmed in future research on less hierarchical organizations such as venture capital businesses and startup companies.

In addition, there was a limitation in verifying the causal relationship between subordinate performance and AS. We designed two surveys with a one-month time lag because the study participants’ work performance was usually assessed monthly, and a previous field research group also used a one-month time lag design (Walter et al., 2015). However, the one-month interval between surveys was not based on theory, and it is still necessary to theoretically examine the appropriate time interval between two surveys for most rigorously investigating the influences on AS. In addition, we separated the administration of the survey on subordinates’ performance and the survey on AS (Walter et al., 2015) to minimize common method bias. However, that bias still remained due to using questionnaires as a common method (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Future researchers will need to further mitigate common method bias using different measurement methods (observations, surveys, etc.) as well as time separation. Furthermore, the supervisor-employee dyads that formed the sample of this study had relationships that existed prior to the survey, and supervisor’s behavior at Time 0 could have affected employee’s performance in Time 1. However, we did not control for this possibility, and future scholars should conduct a more rigorous research design to closely identify the causal relationships between performance and AS.

Finally, it would be imprudent to argue that all supervisors exhibit AS of underperforming subordinates. Some supervisors may adopt a long-term view and approach underperforming subordinates with expansive and supportive leadership to help them improve their capacities and performance. Future studies should study positive leadership behaviors, as well as negative ones, in response to low subordinate performance. Specifically, elucidating the responses of positive leadership (e.g., transformational leadership, ethical leadership, authentic leadership, and so forth) to the low performance of subordinates would have significant implications.

Appendix A.

Items used to measure abusive supervision, subordinate performance, need for achievement, and close monitoring.

Abusive Supervision (α = .98)Tepper (2000)

The items were prefaced with the statement, “My supervisor … ”

  1. Ridicules me pejorative

  2. Tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid

  3. Gives me the silent treatment

  4. Puts me down in front of others

  5. Invades my privacy

  6. Reminds me of my past mistakes and failures

  7. Doesn’t give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort

  8. Blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment

  9. Breaks promises he/she makes

  10. Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason

  11. Makes negative comments about me to others

  12. Is rude to me

  13. Does not allow me to interact with my coworkers

  14. Tells me I’m incompetent

  15. Lies to me

Performance (α = .94)Williams and Anderson (1991)

The items were prefaced with the statement, “This subordinate … ”

  1. Adequately completes assigned duties

  2. Fulfills responsibilities specified in the job description

  3. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her

  4. Meets formal performance requirements of the job

  5. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation

  6. Neglects aspects of the job that he/she is obligated to perform (R)

  7. Fails to perform essential duties (R)

*Note: R=Reverse item

Need for Achievement (α = .83)Steers and Braunstein (1976)

  1. I do my best work when my job assignments are fairly difficult

  2. I try very hard to improve on my past performance at work

  3. I take moderate risks and stick my neck out to get ahead at work

  4. I try to perform better than my coworkers

  5. I try to avoid any added responsibilities in my job (R)

*Note: R=Reverse item

Close Monitoring (α = .70)George and Zhou (2001)

  1. It sometimes feels like my supervisor is always looking over my shoulder

  2. I am careful not to do things that my supervisor might disapprove of

  3. My supervisor keeps pretty close tabs on me

  4. It is clear to me that to get ahead in this unit, I need to do exactly what I am told

  5. My supervisor likes to see things done in a certain way

  6. My work is constantly being evaluated

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2016S1A5A8017090].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The study data is available as follows: https://doi.org/10.3886/E151262V1

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  2. 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(1), 191–201. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Banker, R. D., Lee, S.-Y., Potter, G., & Srinivasan, D. (2010). The impact of supervisory monitoring on high-end retail sales productivity. Annals of Operations Research, 173(3), 25–37. 10.1007/s10479-009-0572-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence. In Van den Bos G. R. & Bulatao E. Q. (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 29–49). American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (2000). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Mind Garden. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16(1), 78–117. 10.1177/0049124187016001004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59–73. 10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. 10.1177/135910457000100301 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Britt, T. W., Stetz, M. C., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). Work-relevant values strengthen the stressor-strain relation in elite army units. Military Psychology, 16(1), 1–17. 10.1207/s15327876mp1601_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 183–204. 10.1037/a0013965 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 541–557. 10.1037/a0021886 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gallus, J. A., Walsh, B. M., van Driel, M., Gouge, M. C., & Antolic, E. (2013). Intolerable cruelty: A multilevel examination of the impact of toxic leadership on U.S. military units and service members. Military Psychology, 25(6), 588–601. 10.1037/mil0000022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Geen, R. G. (1991). Human aggression. Brooks/Cole. [Google Scholar]
  16. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513–524. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in organizations. In Goodman P. S. (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 72–119). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (2003). An analysis of empirical research in the scope of justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 311–323. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_04 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Han, G. H., Harms, P. D., & Bai, Y. (2017). Nightmare bosses: The impact of abusive supervision on employees’ sleep, emotions, and creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 21–31. 10.1007/s10551-015-2859-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 252–263. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Harvey, P., Harris, K. J., Gillis, W. E., & Martinko, M. J. (2014). Abusive supervision and the entitled employee. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 204–217. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hauff, S., Alewell, D., & Hansen, N. K. (2014). HRM systems between control and commitment: Occurrence, characteristics and effects on HRM outcomes and firm performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(4), 424–441. 10.1111/1748-8583.12054 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hollenbeck, J., Williams, C., & Klein, J. (1989). An empirical examination of the antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 18–23. 10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hoobler, J., & Brass, D. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125–1133. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 364–396. 10.2307/2393201 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jeske, D., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Monitoring what and how: Psychological implications of electronic performance monitoring. New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(1), 62–78. 10.1111/ntwe.12039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  28. Khan, A. K., Moss, S., Quratulain, S., & Hameed, I. (2018). When and how subordinate performance leads to abusive supervision: A social dominance perspective. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2801–2826. 10.1177/0149206316653930 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308–1338. 10.1177/0149206312471388 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lam, C. K., Walter, F., & Huang, X. (2017). Supervisors’ emotional exhaustion and abusive supervision: The moderating roles of perceived subordinate performance and supervisor self‐monitoring. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1151–1166. 10.1002/job.2193 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Laurence, J. H. (2011). Military leadership and the complexity of combat and culture. Military Psychology, 23(5), 489–501. 10.1080/08995605.2011.600143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee, S., Yun, S., & Srivastava, A. (2013). Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between abusive supervision and creativity in South Korea. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 724–731. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does taking the good with the bad make things worse: How abusive supervision and leader-member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 41–52. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., Morrison, R., & Brown, D. J. (2014). Blame it on the supervisor or the subordinate? Reciprocal relations between abusive supervision and organizational deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 651–664. 10.1037/a0035498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Loon, M., & Casimir, G. (2008). Job-demand for learning and job-related learning: The moderating effect of need for achievement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(1), 89–102. 10.1108/02683940810849684 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mackey, J. D., Ellen, B. P., III, Hochwarter, W. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2013). Subordinate social adaptability and the consequences of abusive supervision perceptions in two samples. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 732–746. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940–1965. 10.1177/0149206315573997 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S120–S137. 10.1002/job.1888 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Masterson, S. S., & Stamper, C. L. (2003). Perceived organizational membership: An aggregate framework representing the employee–organization relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 473–490. 10.1002/job.203 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. 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(1), 24–40. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20(5), 321–333. 10.1037/h0022225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. McDermott, A. M., Conway, E., Rousseau, D. M., & Flood, P. C. (2013). Promoting effective psychological contracts through leadership: The missing link between HR strategy and performance. Human Resource Management, 52(2), 289–310. 10.1002/hrm.21529 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Miller, D., & Toulouse, J. (1986). Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and structure in small firms. Management Science, 32(11), 1389–1406. 10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1389 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Nohe, C., Michell, A., & Sonntag, K. (2014). Family-work conflict and job performance: A diary study of boundary conditions and mechanisms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 339–357. 10.1002/job.1878 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. B. (1975). On data-limited and resource limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1), 44–64. 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90004-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S. L., Berdahl, J. L., & Banki, S. (2015). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organization Science, 26(3), 774–793. 10.1287/orsc.2014.0900 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 1–20. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00268.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Opotow, S. (1995). Drawing the line: Social categorization, moral exclusion, and the scope of justice. In Bunker B. & Rubin J. Z. (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice (pp. 347–369). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  51. Opotow, S. (2001). Reconciliation in times of impunity: Challenges for social justice. Social Justice Research, 14(2), 149–170. 10.1023/A:1012888902705 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2011). The influence of abusive supervisors on followers’ organizational citizenship behaviours: The hidden costs of abusive supervision. British Journal of Management, 22(2), 270–285. 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00732.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational behavior (14th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689–695. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.689 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Slocum, J. W., Jr., Cron, W. L., & Brown, S. P. (2002). The effect of goal conflict on performance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 77–89. 10.1177/107179190200900106 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Stahl, M. J. (1983). Achievement, power and managerial motivation: Selecting managerial talent with the job choice exercise. Personnel Psychology, 36(4), 775–789. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb00512.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Stanton, J. M. (2000). Reactions to employee performance monitoring: Framework, review, and research directions. Human Performance, 13(1), 85–113. 10.1207/S15327043HUP1301_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9(2), 251–266. 10.1016/0001-8791(76)90083-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Tepper, B., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Deider, S., Hu, C., & Hui, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 156–167. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. 10.5465/1556375 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and directions for future research. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289. 10.1177/0149206307300812 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 279–294. 10.5465/amj.2011.60263085 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 123–153. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062539 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Tremblay, R. E., Japel, C., Perusse, D., McDuff, P., Boivin, M., Zoccolillo, M., & Montplaisir, J. (1999). The search for the age of “onset” of physical aggression: Rousseau and Bandura revisited. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 9(1), 8–23. 10.1002/cbm.288 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Walter, F., Lam, C. K., Van der Vegt, G. S., Huang, X., & Miao, Q. (2015). Abusive supervision and subordinate performance: Instrumentality considerations in the emergence and consequences of abusive supervision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1056–1072. 10.1037/a0038513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. 10.1177/014920639101700305 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader-member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763–774. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128. 10.5465/amj.2010.48037118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. C. (2016). Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 455–471. 10.1007/s10551-015-2657-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413–422. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The study data is available as follows: https://doi.org/10.3886/E151262V1

Articles from Military Psychology are provided here courtesy of Division of Military Psychology of the American Psychological Association and Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES