Previous research has shown that leaders’ narcissistic rivalry is positively associated with abusive supervision. However, it remains unclear when and how leaders high in narcissistic rivalry show abusive supervision. Building on trait activation theory and the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC), we assumed that leaders high in narcissistic rivalry particularly show abusive supervision in reaction to follower workplace deviance due to their tendency to devaluate others. We argued that leaders’ injury initiation motives explain why leaders high in narcissistic rivalry (...) react with abusive supervision when experiencing organization-directed or supervisor-directed deviance. However, this should not be the case for coworker-directed deviance, as leaders high in narcissistic rivalry are less likely to find such behavior violates their internal norms. We conducted two studies. In the first study, we provided participants with experimental vignettes of follower workplace deviance. In the second study, we used a mixed-methods approach and investigated leaders’ autobiographical recollections of follower workplace deviance. We found a positive direct effect of leaders’ narcissistic rivalry across both studies. Leaders high in narcissistic rivalry showed abusive supervision (intentions) in response to organization-directed deviance (Studies 1 and 2) or supervisor-directed deviance (Study 1), but not in response to coworker-directed deviance (Studies 1 and 2). Leaders’ injury initiation motives could in part explain this effect. We discuss findings in light of the NARC and devaluation of others and derive implications for theory and practice. (shrink)

Narcissists often attain leadership positions, but at the same time do not care for others and often engage in unethical behaviors. We therefore explored the role of leader narcissism as an antecedent of abusive supervision, a form of unethical leadership. We based our study on the narcissistic admiration and rivalry concept (NARC) and proposed a direct positive effect of leaders’ narcissistic rivalry—the maladaptive narcissism dimension—on abusive supervision. In line with trait activation and threatened egotism theory, we also proposed a moderated (...) mediation assuming that leaders high in narcissistic rivalry would be particularly prone to showing abusive supervision in reaction to followers’ supervisor-directed deviance, as this form of follower behavior would threaten their self-esteem. We conducted a field study with leader–follower dyads (Study 1) and an experimental vignette study with leaders (Study 2). Leaders’ narcissistic rivalry was positively related to abusive supervision (intentions) in both studies. This effect was independent of followers’ supervisor-directed deviance and leaders’ perceived self-esteem threat. We discuss our findings in light of the NARC, as well as threatened egotism theory, and offer directions for future research. Finally, we make practical recommendations for organizations. (shrink)

There is a growing interest in understanding how follower reactions towards abusive leadership are shaped by followers’ perceptions and attributions. Our studies add to the understanding of the process happening between different levels of leaders’ abusive behavior (from constructive leadership as control, laissez-faire, mild to strong abusive) and follower reactions. Specifically, we focus on the role of perception of abusive supervision as a mediator and attribution as a moderator of the relationship between leader abusive behavior and follower reactions. Follower reactions (...) are defined in terms of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Two studies using a two point experimental design and vignettes and a cross-sectional field study were conducted. Perception partly mediates the relationship between leader behavior and reactions (Study 1 and 2). Different attributions (intention, control) moderate the relationship between the perception of abusive supervision and reactions in Study 2 and 3. In Study 2, attribution of intentionality of the leader behavior served as a moderator of the relationship between abusive supervision and loyalty, turnover, and voice. Attribution of intentionality reduced the relationship between perception of abusive supervision and reactions. Attribution of intentionality only strengthened negative reactions when milder abusive leadership was perceived. These results were not supported in Study 3. However, in Study 3, attribution to the supervisor’ control served as moderator for loyalty and voice. A stronger relationship between the perception of abusive supervision and reactions emerged for high versus for low attribution to the supervisor. The differences in results between the studies reflect that in Study 1 and 2 abusive behavior was manipulated and in Study 3 the perception of abusive supervision of actual leaders was assessed. Our findings show that avoidance of abusive supervision should be taken seriously and followers’ perception and suffering is not only due to subjective judgment but reflects actual differences in behavior. The relationships are stronger in the field study, because, in practice, abusive behaviors might be more ambiguous. The research presented here can help leaders to better understand their own and the followers’ role in the perception of and reaction to abusive supervision. (shrink)

Research to date provides only limited insights into the processes of abusive supervision, a form of unethical leadership. Leaders’ vulnerable narcissism is important to consider, as, according to the trifurcated model of narcissism, it combines entitlement with antagonism, which likely triggers cognitive and affective processes that link leaders’ vulnerable narcissism and abusive supervision. Building on conceptualizations of aggression as a self-regulatory strategy, we investigated the role of internal attribution of failure and shame in the relationship between leaders’ vulnerable narcissism and (...) abusive supervision. We found across three empirical studies with supervisory samples from Germany and the United Kingdom (UK) that vulnerable narcissism related positively to abusive supervision (intentions), and supplementary analyses illustrated that leaders’ vulnerable (rather than grandiose) narcissism was the main driver. Study 1 (N = 320) provided correlational evidence of the vulnerable narcissism-abusive supervision relationship and for the mediating role of the general proneness to make internal attributions of failure (i.e., attribution style). Two experimental studies (N = 326 and N = 292) with a manipulation-of-mediator design and an event recall task supported the causality and momentary triggers of the internal attribution of failure. Only Study 2 pointed to shame as a serial mediator, and we address possible reasons for the differences between studies. We discuss implications for future studies of leaders’ vulnerable narcissism as well as ethical organizational practices. (shrink)

Perceived consistency, and even more so inconsistency of behavior is an important factor in the evaluation of other people. This is especially true for leaders, whose behavior is typically closely monitored and interpreted by their followers. While perceived consistency is typically rewarded, behaving inconsistently as a leader can be ethically problematic, as it violates fundamental ethical principles. To theoretically capture how followers interpret and react to unexpected, ambiguous and/or confusing leader behavior, we introduce the concept of inconsistent leadership. We define (...) this new concept as a process in which over a longer period of time the activities, experiences, and/or relationships of an individual or the members of a group are repeatedly influenced by their leader in a way that followers cannot make sense of in light of prior behavior or traits of that leader. We propose that a sensemaking process is triggered in followers whenever they register salient/important leader behavior that is novel, ambiguous and/or confusing when compared to behavioral expectations for that leader. Ascriptions of inconsistent leadership arise when followers’ sensemaking strategies temporarily or permanently fail to resolve the behavior–expectation discrepancy. Moreover, we clarify the relationships to other leadership concepts and delineate relevant follower and environmental influences on the sensemaking process. In doing so, we offer a clear conceptualization of inconsistent leadership and provide a solid base for future research. (shrink)