Table 3.

Summary of studies, their procedures, and data/sample characteristics

Study	Procedures and variables	Data/sample
Study 1	Critical incident technique = 85 critical incidents Reduction of initial pool to 37 items in four dimensions using independent coders and content analysis Expert rating of content adequacy Lexical analyses with software support (Iramuteq)	N = 35 employees—25 managers (snowball sampling/not hierarchically related) M age = 38.65 years 52% of the managers and 60% of subordinates were male different industries
Study 2	Item reduction CFA and reliability estimation Correlational analysis discriminant/nomological: ethical leadership, abusive supervision HLB and AS regressed on satisfaction with the leader Power analysis	N = 218 employees—snowball sampling M age = 37.09 years 42.2% male different industries
Study 3	CFA and reliability estimation Correlational analysis Discriminant/nomological: abusive supervision, destructive leadership, initiating structure and consideration, laissez faire, management by exception active and passive, engagement, affective commitment and deviance Measurement invariance Incremental prediction of HLB over employee attitudes	N = 352 employees M age = 35.89 years 54.8% female Panel study, Different industries
Study 4	CFA and reliability estimation Correlational analysis Discriminant/nomological: knowledge sharing, knowledge hiding, psychological safety, workaholism follower, perfectionism follower, desire for control follower, distrust	N = 160 employees Snowball sampling M age = 32.65 years 64% female different industries
Study 5	Multilevel CFA Bayesian analysis predicting absenteeism hard data	N = 1921 employees 196 units M age = 42 years 52.6% male

AS  abusive supervision