Abusive leadership and employee’s interpersonal interactions: the mediation effect of employee’s need for emotional help

Abstract

Purpose

Abusive supervision, a form of leader deviant behavior, is a destructive leadership style. It negatively impacts both its targets and the overall organization. This study, rooted in the conservation of resources theory, expands our understanding by the effects of abusive supervision on employee’s interpersonal interactions.

Design/methodology/approach

We conducted a two-wave survey using convenience sampling of employees from different companies in China, employing established scales translated into Chinese. We obtained 176 matched responses from 200 distributed questionnaires (88% response rate) and conducted correlation analyses, OLS regression, mediation analysis and moderated mediation analysis.

Findings

The results showed that abusive supervision was positively associated with employees’ need for emotional help (β = 0.226), which was further associated with greater interpersonal interactions (β = 0.271). The indirect effect was significant (95% CI = [0.0108, 0.1052]). This indirect association also varied by team trust, with a significant index of moderated mediation (β = 0.025, 95% CI = [0.0010, 0.0756]).

Originality

This research contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the ramifications of abusive supervision by establishing a connection between such conduct and the interpersonal interactions of employees. Furthermore, it delineates several promising avenues for future investigation.

Practical implications

The findings suggest that managerial training, supportive HR strategies, and organizational policies aimed at reducing abusive behaviors and fostering team trust can help transform employees’ emotional needs into constructive interpersonal engagement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-026-04016-4.

Introduction

Leaders’ unfavorable workplace behavior has always been one of the major problems plaguing business management. As the modern workplace is demanding and severe, management researchers have focused more attention on the study of leaders’ destructive behavior. One such behavior is abusive supervision. The phenomenon of abusive supervision has garnered significant attention from both academic and public spheres due to its heightened prevalence in the workplace over the past decade [1–3]. Recent data reveals that 49% of U.S. employees have either witnessed or directly experienced workplace bullying, with 65% of these incidents involving their immediate supervisors [4].

Abusive supervision, defined as hostile and non-physical behavior directed towards subordinates, including actions such as angry outbursts and public criticisms [5]. Contemporary research on abusive supervision predominantly underscores its detrimental impact on organizational and individual performance [6–8]. For instance, Lyu and colleagues [9] demonstrated that abusive supervision has the potential to diminish organizational identification, thereby undermining overall performance. In addition to the effects on performance, abusive supervision also influences various workplace behaviors. Given that modern organizations promote a positive communication climate and the decreasing gap between leaders and employees, a leader’s management style plays a crucial role in shaping the social behavior of employees [10]. However, we have observed that fewer studies have focused on the effects of abusive supervision on social behaviors in organizations. Therefore, we believe there is a need to further explore the impact of abusive supervision on employees’ social behaviors.

Interpersonal interaction among employees is pivotal for the receipt of social support and work-related resources [11]. Positive interpersonal interaction among employees is also instrumental for conflict resolution and team cohesion within an organization. With a growing body of research delving into the influence of leadership in the workplace, an increasing number of investigators have presented evidence suggesting that leadership may profoundly affect interpersonal interactions among employees within organizations [12]. For instance, moral leadership has been shown to contribute to a more favorable organizational climate, fostering an environment in which employees are more inclined to engage with others [13]. However, the specific impact that abusive supervision may have on employee’s interpersonal interactions remains unknown. To deepen our understanding of the consequence of abusive leadership in an organization, this study aims to explore the relationship between abusive supervision and employee’s interpersonal interactions.

A comprehensive review of related research suggests that employees exposed to abusive supervision experience threats to control and a depletion of emotional resources [14, 15]. According to conservation of resources theory [16], individuals who perceive resource loss tend to protect what remains and seek new resources to restore balance. Thus, when abusive supervision drains emotional resources, employees are likely to develop a stronger need for emotional help as an immediate strategy for replenishment [17]. Interacting with co-workers is an effective way to regain resources because collegial exchanges can provide emotional comfort, social support, and positive affect [18], helping employees rebuild both work-related and psychological resources [11]. Therefore, drawing from the conservation of resources theory, we propose that abusive supervision increases employees’ need for emotional help, which in turn encourages greater interpersonal interaction with co-workers. Furthermore, a trusting team environment makes employees feel safer to seek support and more willing to interact with co-workers when their emotional resources are strained. Thus, we focus on team trust as a boundary condition. This perspective also helps clarify that increased interaction is driven by employees’ attempts to restore emotional resources rather than by task pressure or obligatory coordination.

Our study makes several contributions to the existing literature. Firstly, we seek to broaden the understanding of the impact of abusive supervision. Previous research on the effects of abusive supervision has predominantly centered on performance outcomes [6, 8]. To respond to Tepper’s [19] call for more research on subordinates’ reactions, we examine the link between abusive supervision and employees’ interpersonal interactions. This focus also aligns with recent social exchange research emphasizing the importance of relational responses [20]. Secondly, we incorporate a resource perspective to explain employees’ social responses. Drawing on conservation of resources theory, we examine whether the experience of resource strain translates into a heightened need for emotional help, which then shapes interpersonal interaction patterns. This approach is consistent with emerging leadership research suggesting that employees cope with detrimental leadership not only by withdrawing but also by seeking resources [21]. Thirdly, we consider team trust as a potential boundary condition. Recent leadership studies emphasize the role of relational climates in shaping employees’ reactions to negative leader behaviors [7]. Exploring team trust helps clarify when employees rely on co-worker interaction as a coping strategy and adds nuance to discussions about the contextual factors that shape subordinate responses to abusive supervision.

Hypothesis

Abusive supervision and need for emotional help

Abusive supervision encompasses destructive behaviors, including scolding subordinates or inappropriately blaming them [22]. Most of researches demonstrate a robust association between abusive supervision and a spectrum of negative psychological responses among subordinates, such as anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and job-related stress [23, 24]. For instance, Yoon and colleagues [25] found that subordinates subjected to abusive supervision frequently experience emotional responses, such as anxiety and frustration, which, in turn, heighten their turnover intentions. While most evidence highlights its detrimental effects, abusive supervision may also trigger prosocial rallying behaviors, including providing support to colleagues or engaging in cooperative exchanges, as employees attempt to recover resources and safeguard their social identity [26, 27].

Hobfoll introduced the conservation of resources theory in 1989 to provide a novel theoretical framework for understanding the connection between stressors and strain, elucidating the origin and measurement of stress [28, 29]. This theory presents a comprehensive process of how stress occurs and how individuals respond to stress [16]. Hobfoll defines resources as “individual characteristics, conditions, energy, and other elements that contribute to individuals’ sense of value.” According to the conservation of resources theory, individuals have a strong incentive to acquire and conserve valuable resources, and the loss of resources is particularly detrimental to them. Therefore, when confronted with stressors, individuals are highly motivated to accumulate excess resources to prevent any further depletion of their remaining resources [30].

Abusive supervision, as a prominent workplace stressor, poses a threat to subordinates’ actual or potential loss of valued resources, particularly emotional resources [31, 32]. Selem and colleagues [33] discovered that abusive leadership can lead to the development of negative emotions in employees, including feelings of compulsion, powerlessness, and maltreatment. Furthermore, individuals working under abusive managers often experience various psychological reactions, such as anxiety [34] or anger [35]. These negative emotional and psychological reactions can deplete the emotional resources of employees. In situations where resources are being depleted, emotional assistance becomes a vital coping mechanism [36]. Individuals may develop a need for help and turn to coworkers, other supervisors, or support networks within the workplace to share their concerns and seek comfort. The act of seeking emotional assistance serves as a crucial mechanism for preventing further emotional distress and cultivating a sense of connection within the organizational fabric. Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

Abusive supervision is positively related to employee’s need for emotional help.

Need for emotional help and interpersonal interactions with Co-workers

Building on the definition by Langer and colleagues [37], we conceptualize interpersonal interactions among employees as non-work conversations that, while often manifested as casual social chatter, also serve as a critical channel for providing and receiving social support [38, 39]. Positive interactions with co-workers can assist employees in alleviating workplace stress, providing emotional resources, and enhancing well-being [40]. Therefore, interpersonal interactions among employees can be considered one of the strategies for employees to acquire emotional resources. When employees require emotional support, they are driven to engage in more interactive behaviors within the organization. Within organizational settings, line leaders and co-workers are the primary focal points of interpersonal interaction for employees [41]. Among these, co-workers are more approachable and important sources of providing emotional resources. Interacting with colleagues fosters closer communication, nurtures feelings of interpersonal dependency, and contributes to satisfaction [40, 42], thus forming psychological resources. Based on the above, when employees encounter a lack of emotional needs in their daily work and seek emotional help, turning to co-workers will help them recover their emotional resources, allowing them to experience emotional satisfaction. Therefore, employees are inclined to seek emotional help from co-workers. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2

Employee’s need for emotional help is positively related to interpersonal interactions with co-workers.

Abusive supervision and employee’s interpersonal interactions with Co-workers

According to the conservation of resources theory, abusive supervision threatens employees’ valuable emotional resources by eliciting negative emotions such as anxiety and anger. The depletion of resources motivates employees to protect their remaining resources and to seek additional ones [16, 30]. In this process, the need for emotional help emerges as an important psychological resource. Employees who feel emotionally exhausted under abusive supervision are more likely to seek support and comfort, thereby developing a stronger need for emotional help.

Prior studies have shown that employees under strain sometimes respond through withdrawal, threat rigidity, or knowledge hiding as a way to conserve limited resources [43, 44]. However, such strategies often restrict access to replenishing resources and may even intensify losses over time, particularly when disengagement or turnover is not a viable option. In contrast, approaching peers offers a more adaptive route. From the perspective of conservation of resources theory, when employees experience resource loss, their heightened need for emotional help motivates them to engage in social interactions with co-workers as an effective replenishment strategy [45]. Under abusive supervision, emotional strain heightens employees’ need for emotional help, which, in turn, directs them toward colleagues for encouragement, comfort, and assistance (Mehta & Sharma [40], . Such interactions not only restore depleted emotional reserves but also provide reassurance that employees remain socially embedded within their teams [46, 47]. Consequently, rather than retreating or concealing knowledge, employees may be more likely to engage in interpersonal interactions with co-workers as a constructive response to abusive supervision. Therefore, we propose that:

Hypothesis 3

Employee’s need for emotional help mediates the positive relationship between abusive supervision and employee’s interpersonal interaction with co-workers.

The moderating effect of team trust

Team trust refers to the shared confidence among members that both the team as a whole and its individual members can be relied upon, fostering mutual recognition and identification [48–50]. Drawing on conservation of resources theory, contextual resources are critical in shaping how employees cope with the loss of personal resources [16], 2018). The theory posits that when individuals experience resource depletion, they are motivated to restore balance by drawing upon supportive resources in their environment. Within teams, trust serves as a contextual resource, strengthening psychological safety, facilitating open communication, and reassuring employees that their needs will be acknowledged and met [51, 52].

Accordingly, team trust shapes how employees respond to emotional strain in their daily interactions. Trustful environments enable employees to turn emotional needs into opportunities for supportive exchanges, whereas in distrustful contexts, such needs are often silenced or unexpressed [50]. Under conditions of abusive supervision, employees in high-trust teams are more likely to seek emotional support from their colleagues to replenish depleted psychological resources [53–55]. By contrast, in low-trust teams, employees are more likely to withhold their needs, suppress help-seeking, and lose the opportunity to transform resource loss into compensatory social interactions. Thus, variations in team trust determine whether the need for emotional help becomes a catalyst for increased co-worker interaction. Therefore, we propose that:

Hypothesis 4

Team trust moderates the relationship between abusive supervision and employee’s interpersonal interactions with co-workers (via need for emotional help). The positive relationship between abusive supervision and employee’s interpersonal interaction with co-workers (via need for emotional help) will be strengthened (weaken) when the team trust is high (low), see Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Theoretical model

Method

Sampling

We employed a questionnaire survey to test our hypotheses. To ensure diversity, we recruited participants from different companies in China, an appropriate context for examining the effects of abusive supervision and team processes in contemporary workplaces. Recruitment was facilitated through the authors’ professional networks, alumni associations, and partnerships with organizations, where human resources managers and departmental supervisors supported the distribution of the online survey links. Participation was entirely voluntary, and respondents were assured of confidentiality and anonymity.

We adopted convenience sampling but strived to capture variation in demographic and occupational backgrounds by including individuals with 1–30 years of work experience across different sectors. To reduce common method bias, the data were collected in two waves separated by two weeks in 2022. In the first wave, employees provided demographic information (gender, education, tenure, team size, current position) and completed measures of abusive supervision and team trust. Of 200 distributed questionnaires, 184 valid responses were received (92% response rate). In the second wave, the same group of employees was invited to report their need for emotional help and interpersonal interactions with co-workers. After removing cases showing inattentive or patterned responding, we obtained 176 valid matched responses, yielding an 88% response rate across both waves.

A post hoc power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 for multiple regression with four predictors (K = 4). With N = 176, α = 0.05, and a medium effect size (f² = 0.15), the statistical power exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.80 [56], indicating that our sample size was adequate to detect medium-sized effects.

Measurement

This study used measurement scales that have been widely adopted in Chinese organizational research. All multi-item variables were assessed on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree,” 7 = “Strongly Agree”). The survey was administered in Chinese. All scales originally developed in English were translated following the Brislin’s [57] translation and back-translation method to ensure conceptual equivalence.

Abusive supervision. Drawing upon the scale proposed by Mitchell and Ambrose [58], this scale consists of ten items, including “My boss sometimes blames me to avoid embarrassment”. The Cronbach’s α is 0.85.

Need for emotional help. This variable is measured using the scale employed by Lee [59], which consists of five items, including “When I feel worried and anxious, I want to talk to a friend I trust”. The Cronbach’s α is 0.79.

Interpersonal Interactions with co-workers. We use the measurement proposed by Jin [60] by asking " How often have you had non-work conversations with colleagues in the last two weeks”.

Team trust. This variable is measured using the scale employed by Butler [61], which consists of six items, including “I feel that I am always treated fairly by my team members”. The Cronbach’s α is 0.93.

Control variables. This study controls for employee’s gender, education levels, positions, and team size.

Results

This study applied Mplus7.4 and SPSS 26.0 to analyze the data collected from the questionnaire survey. Prior to hypothesis testing, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was employed to establish the discriminant validity of the data. Since the dependent variable is an objective and unidimensional variable, discriminant validity testing was conducted for three variables: abusive supervision, need for emotional help, and team trust. As shown in Table 1, the three-factor model has a acceptable fit validity (χ2 = 420.400, df = 186, χ2/df = 2.260, RMSEA = 0.085, TLI = 0.874, CFI = 0.888, and SRMR = 0.058). The indicators for this model performed better than the other models, providing adequate evidence of discriminant validity.

Table 1.

Results of the confirmatory factor analysis

Description	χ2	df	χ2/df	RMSEA (90% CI)	TLI	CFI	SRMR
Three-factor model	420.400	186	2.260***	0.085 (0.074, 0.095)	0.874	0.888	0.058
(Hypothetical model)
Two-factor model	759.277	188	4.039***	0.131 (0.122, 0.141)	0.696	0.728	0.116
(Need for emotional help and team trust combined)
One-factor model	1379.431	189	7.299***	0.189 (0.180, 0.199)	0.370	0.433	0.180
(All combined)

***p < 0.001

Table 2 summarizes the mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient for each variable in this study. Abusive supervision has a positive correlation with interpersonal behavior (β = 0.058, p < 0.05), and need for emotional help (β = 0.241, p < 0.01), while the latter is positively correlated with interpersonal behavior (β = 0.232, p < 0.01). These findings preliminarily support some of the hypotheses posed in the above theoretical model. Moreover, the strong negative correlation between team trust and need for emotional help (β = -0.642, p < 0.01) suggests that when employees already perceive sufficient trust and support within their team, their perceived need for additional emotional help naturally diminishes.

Table 2.

Variables and coefficients: descriptive statistics of a correlation between variables

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1.Gender	1.76	0.427
2.Education	2.97	0.713	0.146
3.Team size	2.72	1.384	-0.335**	0.114
4.Position	1.36	0.671	-0.294**	0.034	0.227**
5.Abusive supervision	2.595	1.076	0.011	-0.043	0.000	-0.130
6.Need for emotional help	4.474	1.273	-0.002	0.020	0.140	-0.105	0.241**
7.Interpersonal interactions	3.15	1.026	0.003	-0.115	0.234**	0.054	0.058*	0.232**
8.Team trust	4.253	0.877	0.004	-0.190*	0.147	-0.010	-0.112	-0.642**	-0.132

Note: samples = 176, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.005

Table 3 illustrates the results of OLS regression. Hypothesis 1 suggests that abusive supervision is positively related to employee’ s need for emotional help. In Model 1, the regression coefficient for abusive supervision is 0.226 and statistically significant, indicating a modest positive relationship. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Table 3.

The results of regression

	Need for emotional help			Interpersonal interactions with co-workers
	Model 1			Model 2
	β	SE		β	SE
Gender	0.012	0.243		-0.082	0.162
Education	-0.028	0.134		0.121	0.090
Team size	0.172*	0.073		-0.033	0.049
Position	-0.110	0.148		-0.009	0.099
Abusive supervision	0.226**	0.087
Need for emotional help				0.271***	0.050

Note: samples = 176, * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.*** p < 0.001

Hypothesis 2

suggests that employee’s need for emotional help is positively related to their interpersonal interactions with co-workers. In Model 2, the coefficient for need for emotional help is 0.271 and statistically significant, providing support for Hypothesis 2 and suggesting a moderate positive association.

Hypothesis 3

suggests that the mediation effect of employee’s need for emotional help on the relationship between abusive supervision and employee’s interpersonal interactions with co-workers. To test this mediation, we applied bootstrapping and used the PROCESS proposed by Preacher and Hayes [62] in SPSS, which is grounded in the logic of structural equation modeling and ensures robust estimation of indirect effects. We used 5,000 bootstrap samples and examined the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect. The indirect effect was considered significant if the confidence interval did not include zero. The results showed that the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval around the bootstrapped indirect effect did not contain zero (bias-corrected CI = [0.0108, 0.1052]). Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Hypothesis 4

suggests that moderation effect of team trust on the relationship between abusive supervision and employee’s interpersonal interactions with co-workers through need for emotional help. To test this moderated mediation, we also used PROCESS (Model 7; Preacher & Hayes [62], with 5,000 bootstrap samples. This approach estimates the conditional indirect effects at different levels of the moderator and evaluates the index of moderated mediation as the formal test of moderation in the indirect pathway. The indirect effect is considered significant when the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval does not include zero. The results are shown in Table 4. When team trust is low, the indirect effect of abusive supervision on interpersonal interactions with co-workers through need for emotional help is not significant (indirect effect = 0.0066, SE = 0.0290, 95%CI = [-0.0464, 0.0735]). When team trust is at moderate level, the indirect effect of abusive supervision on interpersonal interactions with co-workers through need for emotional help is significant (indirect effect = 0.0370, SE = 0.0205, 95%CI = [0.0081, 0.0959]). When team trust is high, the indirect effect remains significant (indirect effect = 0.0674, SE = 0.0304, 95% CI = [0.0213, 0.1473]), indicating a clear pattern of increasing indirect effects across levels of team trust. Furthermore, the index of moderated mediation was significant (β = 0.0250, 95% CI = [0.0010, 0.0756]), confirming that team trust conditions the strength of the indirect effect. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is supported. The nature of this interaction is depicted in Fig. 2. As illustrated, when team trust is high, the positive relationship between abusive supervision and employees’ need for emotional help is strengthened. Conversely, when employees’ team trust is low, the positive impact of abusive supervision on the need for emotional help is weakened.

Table 4.

The results of unstandardized path coefficients

Dependent Variable	Moderator	Effect	Bootstrapped SE	Bootstrapped 95% CI
Interpersonal interactions with co-workers	− 1SD	0.0066	0.0290	[-0.0464, 0.0735]
	Mean	0.0370	0.0205	[0.0081, 0.0959]
	+ 1SD	0.0674	0.0304	[0.0213, 0.1473]
	Index of moderated mediation	0.0250	0.0177	[0.0010, 0.0756]

Note: N = 176, CI = confidence interval, Bootstrap = 5000

Fig. 2.

Moderating role of team trust

Discussion

Theoretical contributions

This study advances abusive supervision research by shifting the dominant focus from withdrawal-oriented outcomes to a resource-recovery perspective. It conceptualizes peer interaction as an adaptive response to resource depletion, identifies emotional help-seeking as the underlying mechanism, and highlights team trust as a boundary condition shaping this process. As a whole, these refinements demonstrate that under certain conditions, abusive supervision may be associated with greater interpersonal engagement. Building on these insights, we make the following contributions:

Firstly, our findings contribute to research on the impact of abusive supervision. Early studies in the field of abusive supervision primarily focused on its influence on performance outcomes [6, 8]. More recently, leadership scholars have shifted their attention to exploring outcomes beyond performance to achieve a comprehensive understanding of leadership [63]. Our results reveal a positive relationship between abusive supervision and employee’s interpersonal interaction, thereby expanding the range of outcome variables studied in the context of abusive leadership.

Secondly, by employing the conservation of resources theory, we developed a theoretical model to understand how abusive supervision may relate to employee’s emotional help and influences their interpersonal interactions. Based on this model, our findings align with the conservation of resources theory, we found that under the threat of resource loss, employees tend to seek emotional resources. Therefore, encountering abusive supervision and the subsequent depletion of emotional resources is associated with a greater need for emotional assistance, which in turn corresponds to higher levels of interaction with colleagues. Our findings provide a nuanced understanding of how abusive supervision impacts employee’s interaction with co-workers.

Lastly, the results unveil the moderating role of team trust, offering new insights into the boundary conditions of the relationship between abusive supervision and employee interpersonal interaction. Previous studies have lacked an exploration of the contextual factors that facilitate such positive effects. This study suggests that in teams with higher levels of trust, employees report greater tendencies to seek support within the organization when they experience abusive supervision. This pattern may reflect that individuals who trust their team feel more able to access emotional resources from their coworkers. Our study refines the boundary conditions of the research mechanism of abusive supervision and also enriches the research related to team trust.

Practical implications

Our findings provide several actionable implications for organizations seeking to mitigate the negative consequences of abusive supervision and foster constructive employee interactions.

First, our study reveals that abusive supervision, despite its destructive nature, may indirectly foster constructive peer interactions by heightening employees’ need for emotional help. This finding underscores the dual effects of abusive leadership. Organizations should not only reduce abusive behaviors through leader training and monitoring systems but also equip managers to recognize employees’ emotional strain and proactively direct them toward supportive peer resources [64, 65]. By doing so, leaders and human resource department can help ensure that employees’ coping efforts translate into constructive collaboration rather than withdrawal.

Second, our results show that employees’ emotional needs shape the frequency and quality of their informal conversations with colleagues. To leverage this channel of support, human resource department should create environments that normalize and encourage constructive informal exchanges. For example, they can provide dedicated spaces or digital platforms for peer interaction, train employees in empathetic listening, and recognize those who provide emotional support. These practices not only meet employees’ emotional needs but also strengthen resilience and cohesion within teams.

Third, the results suggest that team trust plays an important role in an organization. Employees with high team trust are more likely to be open, actively eliminate negative emotions, and engage in friendly interactions with colleagues. To act on this finding, Human resource department can implement initiatives that strengthen trust, such as organizing regular team-building activities, promoting transparent communication, and recognizing cooperative behaviors. These practices help foster a stronger sense of belonging and contribute to a more harmonious team climate.

Finally, based on this study, we propose a practical implications matrix across four scenarios defined by the intersection of abusive supervision and team trust. (1) When both abuse and trust are low, organizations should reduce abusive behaviors through leader training and implement basic trust-building practices. (2) When abusive supervision is relatively mild but team trust is high, managers should capitalize on the supportive climate by fostering knowledge-sharing activities and collaborative learning opportunities, ensuring that trust is translated into collective growth. (3) When abuse is present but trust is low, the priority should be to establish fair-process communication, strengthen psychological safety, and gradually build team trust before expecting employees to seek support. (4) When both abuse and trust are high, organizations should channel employees’ heightened needs into constructive outcomes by formalizing peer-support mechanisms such as buddy programs, peer mentoring, and employee assistance services.

Limitations and future research

This study has certain limitations that offer avenues for future research. Firstly, given that the data were collected using convenience sampling from employees in China, the findings should be interpreted with caution regarding causal inference and external validity. Cultural norms related to hierarchy, trust, and emotional expression may have shaped how employees perceived abusive supervision and responded through need of emotional help and interpersonal interactions, which may limit the transferability of the results to other contexts. In addition, although we attempted to reduce common method concerns by using a behavior-based item to measure interpersonal interactions, this variable was captured using a single indicator and was assessed in the same wave as employees’ need for emotional help, which only allows us to examine statistical associations rather than establish temporal sequencing. Future research could address these limitations by adopting longitudinal, experience-sampling, or experimental designs to more rigorously test the resource dynamics implied by conservation of resources theory and to verify whether the boundary conditions identified here hold across different cultural and organizational settings.

Secondly, the relatively small sample size and the omission of certain potentially relevant variables (e.g., family status, number of dependents, or other background characteristics) may have influenced the observed relationships. These unmeasured factors could shape employees’ emotional needs or their willingness to interact with co-workers, suggesting that the current results might not fully capture all relevant predictors. Future research should draw on larger and more diverse samples and incorporate additional covariates to provide a more comprehensive account of employees’ interpersonal interactions.

Thirdly, this study examined team trust as the sole moderator, which may provide only a partial view of the conditions under which abusive supervision affects employees’ social behavior. Although the team context is important, individual differences such as personality traits, sociability, or emotional expressiveness may also shape how employees seek emotional support and engage with colleagues. For example, outgoing employees tend to interact more actively with co-workers [66, 67]. Future studies could incorporate both contextual and individual-level moderators to develop a more layered understanding of the boundary conditions.

Fourthly, while the present study highlights an emotional-resource pathway, abusive supervision may influence interpersonal interactions through multiple mechanisms. Abusive leaders may raise job demands or complicate coordination, resulting in employees interacting more out of task-related necessity rather than emotional need. Other mechanisms, such as instrumental cooperation, defensive communication, or increased task interdependence, may therefore complement or compete with emotional-resource processes. Further research should explore these additional pathways to provide a more complete picture of how abusive supervision shapes employees’ social behavior.

Authors’ contributions

Xiao Deng: Writing-review and editing, visualization, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. Yaying Huang: Conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, datacuration, writing--original draft preparation. Jiayu Li: Conceptualization, methodology, software, validationJianwei Huang: methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation. Chaoqi Yang: formal analysis, investigation.

Funding

This research is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality (Grant No. 9234030).

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Declarations

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Business School, China University of Political Science and Law (protocol code 2022.596856).

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Consent to participate

Written Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.