Mutual exclusion theory holds that people or groups have the capacity to define in-groups and out-groups and that such definitions invariably benefit the in-group at the expense of the out-group. This essay examines recent research into the role of mutual exclusion antecedents in determining the quality of supervisor-subordinate relationships, specifically whether the subordinate is at risk for maltreatment when these antecedents are present.
Abusive Supervision and Moral Exclusion Theory
Abusive Supervision
Abusive Supervision through the Lens of Moral Exclusion Theory
Abusive Supervision through the Lens of Moral Exclusion Theory
Abusive supervisor practices have captured the attention of psychologists interested in understanding what factors determine workplace bias. Such practices can range from simple rudeness to outright criminal acts that violate basic human rights. In their research paper, Tepper and colleagues (2011) examine this issue through the lens of moral exclusion theory as defined by Opotow (1990, 2006). This essay will analyze their research findings and provide a critique on the value of these findings to society.
Moral Exclusion in the Workplace
The boundaries of moral exclusion in the workplace, as in other social situations, define the 'scope of justice' (Opotow, 2006). For example, Jim Crow laws instituted after the end of Reconstruction in the South defined an 'in' and 'out' group at the expense of the out-group. When moral exclusion occurs in the workplace, specific employees or groups of employees are not treated fairly compared to others of equivalent status or rank. Moral exclusion could be institutional like the Jim Crow laws of the South or based on the character traits of an individual manager or owner. Whatever the cause, moral exclusion tends to occur in situations when there are conflicts and difficult social problems that limit a person's or group's willingness to treat everyone fairly and with respect.
Based on early research by Susan Opotow (2006) the antecedents for moral exclusion include perceptions of similarity and usefulness, and the degree of conflict present. Tepper and colleagues (2011) focused on the same antecedents in their study by measuring felt deep-level dissimilarity (values and attitudes) as a measure of similarity, perceived relationship conflict towards the employee as a measure of conflict, and performance evaluations as a measure of usefulness.
A total of 183 supervisor:subordinate dyads across several healthcare organizations completed the survey instruments (Tepper, Moss, and Duffy, 2011). The main focus of the study was supervisors' perceived dissimilarity, conflict, and subordinate usefulness, although perceptions of abusive supervision were also collected from subordinates using a questionnaire. The results revealed no difference among the four measures across seven healthcare organizations, which suggests that institutional factors play an insignificant role. The main conclusion was that perceived dissimilarity increased conflict, which in turn lowered performance evaluation scores and subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision. A secondary finding was that poor performance led to conflict, which in turn led to increased perceptions of dissimilarity and perceived abusive supervision. These findings agreed with the basic concepts in moral exclusion theory.
Discussion
Tepper and colleagues (2011) distinguished their study from prior studies by the fact that they ignored the possibility that abusive supervision could be the result of supervisors experiencing maltreatment at the hands of their superiors. As the authors state "Our research shifts the focus from the mistreatment supervisors experience to concepts described in Opotow's […] work on moral exclusion" (p. 287). The authors therefore made a deliberate decision to expand the theories being investigated within this field to include the supervisor-subordinate dynamic. Their results suggest that perceived dissimilarity leads to conflict, in addition to moral exclusion by virtue of a lower performance evaluation.
When dissimilarity is discussed as a source of bias in American culture the first thing that comes to mind is race and gender. Tepper and colleagues (2011) controlled for these and other possible confounding factors and could not detect a significant effect. The lack of an effect could be due to restricting the study to the healthcare field where gender is less of a factor (69% female) and both employees and supervisors are well-educated. The fairly uniform demographic characteristics of the supervisors and subordinates included in the study restrict the generalizability of these results. In support of this conclusion there is a substantial body of research showing measurable between group dynamics across diverse societies that limit the scope of justice (Passini, 2010). These results are not so much surprising, as they are limited in the number of situations that can be informed by the findings of Tepper and colleagues.
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.