Predictors of Abusive Supervision: Supervisor Perceptions of

¶ … Predictors of Abusive Supervision: Supervisor Perceptions of Deep-Level Dissimilarity, Relationship Conflict, and Subordinate Performance' by Bennett Tepper, Sherry Moss, and Michelle Duffy In their article, 'Predictors of Abusive Supervision: Supervisor Perceptions of Deep-Level Dissimilarity, Relationship Conflict, and Subordinate Performance', Tepper, Moss and Duffy (2011) explore why employees in different organizations become victims of non-physical hostility and abusive supervision. To explore the predictors of abusive supervision, they invoke concepts described in the moral exclusion literature, which examine subordinate performance, relationship conflicts and supervisor's perceptions of deep level similarities.

They assert that there is an indirect relationship between abusive supervision and deep level dissimilarities; and that this relationship operates through supervisor evaluations of subordinate's performance and supervisor's perceptions of relationship conflict. Contrary to the author's opinion, I hold that perceived deep level dissimilarity only fuels abusive supervision, and that embracing diversity in the workplace is the key to reducing distrust and conflict.

Tepper, Moss and Duffy (2006) state that individuals become targets of abuse and hostility when the perpetrator views them as dissimilar, is in conflict with them, or feels that they are injurious or impractical. In my opinion sometimes the supervisor's perceptions may be biased and flawed, and hence they will automatically discriminate against subordinates whose values attitudes and opinions differ from their own.

In agreement with Bryne (as cited by Tepper, Moss and Duffy, 2006) perceived deep level dissimilarities only serve to increase conflict because dissimilar colleagues are less likely to validate each other's beliefs and opinions. The authors' base their argument on the fact that supervisor perceptions are the link between abusive supervision and relationship conflicts. This implies that there are specific individual characteristics that put people at risk of becoming victims of abuse and aggression.

Using this premise, supervisors will target victims who they believe are poor performers and instead of establishing ways to motivate them. I, therefore, agree with the author's opinion that lower performers are the most likely to evoke victimization in the form of abusive supervision. Tepper, Moss and Diffy (2011) also state that lower performers tend to make the supervisors look bad, making them the best targets for supervisory hostility. Generally, I disagree with the author's opinion that subordinates are in one way or another to blame for supervisory hostility and abuse.

The article takes all form of blame away from leaders and supervisors when in fact they should be responsible for identifying the root cause of the problem and looking for workable solutions. Workplace diversity is a key element in today's business environment and it will be disadvantageous for an organization to use the differing opinions, values and views of employees against them.

All the three hypotheses tested by authors examine how abusive supervision is linked to poor performance by the employees, while in truth the supervisors may be victimizing the targets to cover up for.