Abusive Supervision: Deep-Level Dissimilarity and Conflict

Introduction and Overview of the Article

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, examining subordinate performance, relationship conflicts, and supervisor perceptions of deep-level similarity. The authors assert that there is an indirect relationship between abusive supervision and deep-level dissimilarities, and that this relationship operates through supervisor evaluations of subordinate performance and supervisor perceptions of relationship conflict. Contrary to the authors' position, this review holds that perceived deep-level dissimilarity only fuels abusive supervision, and that embracing diversity in the workplace is the key to reducing distrust and conflict.

Deep-Level Dissimilarity and Relationship Conflict

Tepper, Moss, and Duffy (2011) 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. Supervisor perceptions may be biased and flawed, causing supervisors to automatically discriminate against subordinates whose values, attitudes, and opinions differ from their own. In agreement with Byrne (as cited in Tepper, Moss, and Duffy, 2011), perceived deep-level dissimilarities only serve to increase conflict, because dissimilar colleagues are less likely to validate each other's beliefs and opinions.

Subordinate Performance and Victimization

The authors base their argument on the premise 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 subordinates whom they believe are poor performers rather than establishing ways to motivate them. This review therefore agrees with the authors' finding that lower performers are the most likely to evoke victimization in the form of abusive supervision. Tepper, Moss, and Duffy (2011) also note that lower performers tend to make supervisors look bad, making them the most likely targets for supervisory hostility.

Conclusion

All three hypotheses tested by the authors examine how abusive supervision is linked to poor performance by employees, while in truth supervisors may be victimizing targets to cover up their own insecurities and prejudices. It would have been more productive for Tepper, Moss, and Duffy to address how supervisors, as leaders, can analyze dissimilarities and determine whether they are counterproductive or whether they can be leveraged for the benefit of the organization. Rather than resorting to abuse and hostility in an attempt to correct poor performance, the authors should have emphasized how performance management measures can be used effectively to address the needs of both supervisors and subordinates, and to motivate employees to improve their performance.

References

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.