The Dark Side of Leader Narcissism: The Relationship Between Leaders’ Narcissistic Rivalry and Abusive Supervision

Gauglitz, Iris K.; Schyns, Birgit; Fehn, Theresa; Schütz, Astrid Article — Published Version The Dark Side of Leader Narcissism: The Relationship Between Leaders’ Narcissistic Rivalry and Abusive Supervision Journal of Business Ethics Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Gauglitz, Iris K.; Schyns, Birgit; Fehn, Theresa; Schütz, Astrid (2022) : The Dark Side of Leader Narcissism: The Relationship Between Leaders’ Narcissistic Rivalry and Abusive Supervision, Journal of Business Ethics, ISSN 1573-0697, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Vol. 185, Iss. 1, pp. 169-184, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05146-6 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/309899 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Journal of Business Ethics (2023) 185:169–184 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05146-6 ORIGINAL PAPER The Dark Side ofLeader Narcissism: The Relationship Between Leaders’ Narcissistic Rivalry andAbusive Supervision IrisK.Gauglitz1 · BirgitSchyns2· TheresaFehn1· AstridSchütz1 Received: 3 April 2021 / Accepted: 9 May 2022 / Published online: 11 June 2022 © The Author(s) 2022 Abstract 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. Keywords Abusive supervision· Narcissism· Threatened egotism· Perceived self-esteem threat· Supervisor-directed deviance Over the last two decades, research has shown that followers and organizations as a whole suffer from abusive supervision, a form of unethical leadership defined as leaders’ “sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000). Abusive supervision includes morally unacceptable behaviors, such as lying to followers, talking badly about them, or making them responsible for the leader’s own mistakes. Extant research has shown that abusive supervision is associated with a wide range of harmful outcomes in followers, such as lower levels of life satisfaction, diminished well-being, and less productivity (for overviews, see e.g., Martinko etal., 2013; Schyns & Schilling, 2013). These findings highlight that abusive supervision is a serious problem for organizations and individuals and make it all the more important to study its antecedents (for reviews, see Martinko etal., 2013; Tepper etal., 2017; Zhang & Bednall, 2016). In our study, we strive to complement prior research on the antecedents of abusive supervision and provide new theoretical insights using existing theory to identify factors associated with this specific form of destructive leadership. As abusive supervision refers to leader behaviors, investigating leader-related antecedents is key. Business ethics scholars have been particularly concerned with the role of leader narcissism as an antecedent of abusive supervision, as narcissism is linked to unethical and self-serving behaviors (e.g., Harrison etal., 2018). Narcissism is defined as “a relatively stable individual difference consisting of grandiosity, self-love and inflated self-views” (Campbell etal., 2011). It is particularly relevant in the study of leadership because narcissists are highly motivated to get ahead and often attain leadership positions (e.g., Grijalva etal., 2015). This is even more important, as narcissists are interpersonally difficult (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), which may be reflected in the way narcissistic leaders behave toward their followers (Hansbrough & Jones, 2014). * Iris K. Gauglitz [email protected] 1 University ofBamberg, Markusplatz 3, 96047Bamberg, Germany 2 NEOMA Business School, Reims, France 170 I.K.Gauglitz et al. 1 3 However, empirical findings have been ambiguous, with some studies reporting a direct association between leader narcissism and abusive supervision (e.g., Waldman etal., 2018; Whitman etal., 2013) and others reporting none (Nevicka etal., 2018; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). On the one hand, these inconclusive findings are problematic because they still leave open the question of whether narcissism is good or bad for organizations (e.g., Campbell etal., 2011). On the other hand, previous ambiguous results also highlight the need to theoretically rethink the role of narcissism in negative leadership. This is especially relevant in light of robust evidence connecting narcissism to leader emergence (Grijalva etal., 2015). Hence, we build our study on the narcissistic admiration and rivalry concept (NARC; Back etal., 2013) and aim to provide theoretical insights into how narcissism and abusive supervision interrelate in order to clarify previous, inconclusive findings on narcissism and abusive supervision (Nevicka etal., 2018; Waldman etal., 2018; Whitman etal., 2013; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). Unlike prior research, which has neglected the facet structure of narcissism (Nevicka etal., 2018; Waldman etal., 2018; Whitman etal., 2013; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016), the NARC differentiates between agentic and antagonistic sides of narcissism, which each have distinct social consequences (Back etal., 2013; Helfrich & Dietl, 2019). Prior research employing the NARC in an organizational setting has shown, for instance, that the agentic side of narcissism (called narcissistic admiration) is positively associated with empowerment, whereas the antagonistic side of narcissism (called narcissistic rivalry) is negatively associated with empowerment (Helfrich & Dietl, 2019). Overall, according to the NARC, the negative consequences of narcissism (i.e., aggressive, immoral, and manipulative behaviors) can be traced back to narcissistic rivalry, whereas narcissistic admiration should be unrelated to social conflict (Back etal., 2013). Therefore, we assume that only leaders’ narcissistic rivalry (but not their narcissistic admiration) is positively related to abusive supervision. By building our study on the two-dimensional narcissism model of the NARC, we extend prior research on leader narcissism and abusive supervision, which has not differentiated between dimensions of narcissism. Furthermore, from an ethics perspective, it would be onesided to look for causes of abusive supervision only in the leader. Hence, we turned to relevant theory to derive antecedents for abusive supervision relating to the situation as, according to trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000), traits are triggered by situational cues. In line with this reasoning, we do not expect leadership to occur in a vacuum, and consider the role of followers as situational triggers of abusive supervision (Padilla etal., 2007; Thoroughgood etal., 2018). For instance, prior research has shown that followers are likely to experience more abusive supervision when they behave in deviant ways (Mawritz etal., 2017; Simon etal., 2015), show avoidant behaviors (Simon etal., 2015), or perform poorly (Liang etal., 2016), supporting the notion that followers might trigger abusive supervision, at least in some leaders. We wondered whether narcissistic leaders would behave abusively, particularly in response to certain follower behaviors. Hence, we took an integrative approach and examined the interactive effects of leader narcissism and follower behaviors as possible antecedents of abusive supervision, attempting to examine when and why leaders high in narcissistic rivalry show abusive supervision. Based on threatened egotism theory (Baumeister etal., 1996; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998), we propose that followers’ supervisor-directed deviance constitutes a selfesteem threat for leaders high in narcissistic rivalry. We argue that such leaders are especially likely to perceive that these followers evaluate them negatively and in a way that contradicts their grandiose self-views, thus threatening their inflated, but fragile, self-esteem. In response, we expect those leaders to show abusive supervision in order to reaffirm their superiority. In sum, we assume that followers’ supervisor-directed deviance (moderator) triggers narcissistic leaders’ abusive supervision via perceived selfesteem threat (mediator). We show the theoretical model of our research in Fig.1. Prior research on abusive supervision has relied mainly on follower ratings of abusive supervision by asking followers how often their leaders showed abusive behaviors (see Mackey etal., 2017; Tepper etal., 2017). However, it is also important to examine abusive supervision from the leaders’ perspective, as self-awareness of negative leadership is an important prerequisite for leader development (Day, 2000). In the current research project, we combine both perspectives by examining follower ratings of abusive supervision in Study 1, and leader ratings of abusive supervision intentions in Study 2. By doing so, we enhance prior research in an important way by combining both follower and leader perspectives on abusive supervision. Narcissism andLeadership Whereas narcissists are motivated to get ahead and often emerge as leaders (e.g., Grijalva etal., 2015; Nevicka etal., 2011), they are not motivated to get along with others (Bradlee & Emmons, 1992). Furthermore, in interpersonal contexts, narcissists are not interested in, and indeed have problems building and maintaining, positive relationships with others (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), including in the workplace (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). Narcissists are selfish, put their own interests above others’, derogate others (Park & Colvin, 2015), and tend to behave aggressively 171 The Dark Side ofLeader Narcissism: The Relationship Between Leaders’ Narcissistic Rivalry… 1 3 (Seah & Ang, 2008), all of which makes it likely that narcissistic leaders will show abusive supervisory behaviors (e.g., Krasikova etal., 2013; Tepper, 2007). However, despite these theoretical assumptions, the empirical results have been ambiguous. Whereas some authors did not find a direct association between leader narcissism and abusive supervision (Nevicka etal., 2018; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016), others did (Waldman etal., 2018; Whitman etal., 2013). One reason for these mixed findings could be the previous use of unidimensional narcissism measures, which reflect different aspects of narcissism but do not differentiate between assertive and antagonistic aspects of narcissism. In particular, Wisse and Sleebos (2016) employed the four narcissism items from the Dirty Dozen scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010), which has been criticized for not capturing the unique features of narcissism (Lee etal., 2013). By contrast, Nevicka etal. (2018) and Waldman etal. (2018) used different short versions of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Emmons, 1984; Raskin & Hall, 1979), calculating total NPI scores that combine different dimensions of narcissism. Thus, the potential differential effects of antagonistic and agentic aspects of narcissism on abusive supervision might have cancelled each other out in these studies. Finally, Whitman etal. (2013) used Campbell etal.’s (2004) Psychological Entitlement Scale, and thus captured only one core feature of leader narcissism (i.e., leaders’ psychological entitlement), while neglecting other, more antagonistic, aspects. In sum, it seems there is a potential association between leader narcissism and abusive supervision. However, it is unclear which dimensions of narcissism are relevant as previous research has used unidimensional measures combining both assertive (e.g., extraversion, self-assurance, charmingness) and antagonistic (e.g., hostility, malicious envy, aggression) aspects. Narcissism includes both a bright (assertiveness) and a dark side (antagonism), each relating differently to leadership (Campbell & Campbell, 2009; Hogan & Kaiser, 2005), and it would seem important to employ a narcissism measure to differentiate both. Thus, we base our study on a theoretical model that explicitly takes this differentiation into account, namely, the NARC (Back etal., 2013). The NARC differentiates between agentic and antagonistic sides of narcissism, that is, narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry. These two dimensions of narcissism are associated with distinct behavioral strategies (i.e., assertiveness versus antagonism) related to opposing interpersonal outcomes (e.g., social success vs social conflict, respectively). Therefore, the NARC is a potentially useful theoretical approach to clarify previously inconclusive findings on narcissism and abusive supervision as it (1) differentiates between narcissism dimensions (different from previous research treating narcissism as an unidimensional construct), and as (2) the behavioral dynamics associated with these two dimensions are related to opposing interpersonal outcomes, thus potentially revealing which aspects of narcissism are related to abusive supervision and which are not. More precisely, we argue that only the antagonistic side of narcissism (narcissistic rivalry) is associated with abusive supervision, while the agentic side (narcissistic admiration) is not. In the next section, we outline the NARC in more detail. The Narcissistic Admiration andRivalry Concept (NARC) The NARC posits that narcissists’ central goal is to build and maintain highly positive self-views, an idea that is in line with other models of narcissism (e.g., Campbell & Campbell, 2009; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). However, according to Back etal. (2013), narcissists differ in the social strategies they adopt to achieve and maintain their grandiose selfviews. Narcissistic admiration describes a self-enhancing interpersonal strategy associated with striving for uniqueness, grandiose fantasies, and charming behaviors. These Fig. 1 Proposed theoretical model 172 I.K.Gauglitz et al. 1 3 behavioral dynamics lead to social success (e.g., being perceived as assertive or sociable; Back etal., 2013), and consequently strengthen the narcissist’s grandiose self-view. In contrast, narcissistic rivalry describes a defensive interpersonal strategy associated with striving for supremacy and devaluing others, and includes aggression. The strategy is likely to lead to social failure (e.g., being perceived as untrustworthy or unlikeable; Back etal., 2013), and consequently perpetuates the narcissist’s negative views of others. Narcissistic admiration and narcissistic rivalry correlate moderately to strongly with each other (Back etal., 2013; Leckelt etal., 2015; Wurst etal., 2017), meaning that the two dimensions can co-occur, but do not have to. In sum, this two-dimensional approach describes how narcissists behave toward others and is therefore relevant for leadership contexts, which typically rely heavily on interactions between leaders and followers. As narcissistic rivalry reflects the antagonistic side of narcissism, which is supposed to lead to social conflict (Back etal., 2013), we argue that leaders’ narcissistic rivalry will be related to abusive supervision. In contrast, narcissistic admiration reflects the agentic side of narcissism, entailing charismatic, charming behavior. The latter is related to popularity and social status and is not supposed to be associated with dysfunctional interpersonal orientation and relationship outcomes (Back etal., 2013). Thus, we assume that this narcissism dimension plays a minor role in abusive supervision. In the next section, we outline our argument in detail and summarize the relevant research. Leaders’ Narcissistic Rivalry andAbusive Supervision According to the NARC, only narcissistic rivalry (but not narcissistic admiration) is related to problematic behaviors and negative interpersonal outcomes. For instance, narcissistic rivalry (but not narcissistic admiration) has consistently negative associations with empathy, trust, forgiveness, and gratitude (Back etal., 2013). Furthermore, in romantic relationships, only narcissistic rivalry (but not narcissistic admiration) is related to lower relationship quality and a higher occurrence of conflict (Wurst etal., 2017). Additionally, individuals high in narcissistic rivalry (but not those high in narcissistic admiration) show arrogant and aggressive behaviors and are perceived as untrustworthy, which results in a decrease in popularity over time (Leckelt etal., 2015). In sum, individuals high in narcissistic rivalry have little interest in others, are unable to maintain close relationships, and are likely to engage in aggressive behaviors toward others. Accordingly, we expect that the behavioral dynamics associated with narcissistic rivalry in interpersonal contexts (e.g., conflicts or aggressiveness; Leckelt etal., 2015; Wurst etal., 2017) will also be relevant for leadership contexts. More precisely, we propose that leaders high in narcissistic rivalry try to protect their grandiose self-views by behaving in hostile ways and by putting others down (Back etal., 2013). We argue that it is likely that the propensity of leaders high in narcissistic rivalry to aggress will translate into aggression against their followers because followers are relatively safe targets. Due to the power imbalance, followers will probably not retaliate. In addition, research on the characteristic intraand interpersonal dynamics of the antagonistic narcissism dimension suggests that individuals with high narcissistic rivalry maintain and defend their selfview by derogating and devaluing others (Back etal., 2013). Their belief in their own superiority is inextricably linked to the belief in others’ inferiority and justifies the mistreatment of others (Grapsas etal., 2019). Thus, we assume that individuals high in narcissistic rivalry see their abusive behavior as justified. By showing abusive supervision, leaders high in narcissistic rivalry can act out their aggressive tendencies. A few examples of abusive supervision can help illustrate this process. For instance, by putting followers down and ridiculing them, leaders high in narcissistic rivalry may feel superior and thus strengthen their own status. Furthermore, by not giving followers credit for their work and by reminding them of past mistakes, leaders high in narcissistic rivalry can make their followers feel small and prevent them from growing professionally. Also, blaming followers for the leader’s own mistakes can be seen as the self-protective strategy of a leader high in narcissistic rivalry, and this can help the leader defend their grandiose self-views. In sum, leaders high in narcissistic rivalry might use abusive supervision as a means to protect their superior status as a leader. Therefore, we propose: Hypothesis 1 Leaders’ narcissistic rivalry will be positively associated with abusive supervision. Followers’ Supervisor‑Directed Deviance andPerceived Self‑Esteem Threat Beyond a general predisposition to behave aggressively and show abusive supervision, we wondered when and why leaders high in narcissistic rivalry would show abusive supervision. According to the NARC, individuals high in narcissistic rivalry are particularly likely to aggress when their grandiose, but fragile self-views are threatened (Back etal., 2013). This assumption is rooted both in trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000) and threatened egotism theory (Baumeister etal., 1996; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Trait activation theory takes an interactionist approach and highlights the role of trait-relevant situational cues, which trigger the expression of traits (Tett & Burnett, 2003; 173 The Dark Side ofLeader Narcissism: The Relationship Between Leaders’ Narcissistic Rivalry… 1 3 Tett & Guterman, 2000). This means that the behavioral expression of a trait (i.e., leaders’ narcissistic rivalry) depends at least in part on the situational circumstances. According to threatened egotism theory, the most important trait-relevant cue that might explain aggressive behavior in narcissists is “threatened egotism, particularly when it consists of favorable self-appraisals that may be inflated or ill-founded and that are confronted with an external evaluation that disputes them” (Baumeister etal., 1996). Thus, ego threats can be seen as threats to self-esteem (e.g., Stucke & Sporer, 2002; Vohs & Heatherton, 2001). When narcissists have the impression that their inflated self-views are not validated, or are challenged by others, their self-esteem is threatened, and they are likely to react to that threat with aggression (e.g., Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). According to the NARC, individuals high in narcissistic rivalry are particularly attentive to cues that signal social failure (Back etal., 2013) or loss in status (Grapsas etal., 2019), and their self-esteem is fragile and highly contingent on external validation (Geukes etal., 2017). Consequently, individuals high in narcissistic rivalry are likely to perceive a mismatch between their own inflated self-esteem and any external evaluations of the self (e.g., indicated by cues signaling social failure or loss in status) and feel threatened by this mismatch. Whenever individuals high in narcissistic rivalry perceive self-esteem threats, their self-protection strategy is activated and triggers aggressive responses (Back etal., 2013). In support of this assumption, Back etal. (2013) found that individuals high in narcissistic rivalry engage in revenge-oriented behaviors in reaction to relationship transgressions. A typical example of follower behavior that may threaten the grandiose self-esteem of leaders high in narcissistic rivalry is supervisor-directed deviance (Simon etal., 2015), as it consists of undesirable behaviors aimed at harming the leader (Bennett & Robinson, 2003), and may humiliate the leader. It encompasses behaviors such as making fun of, being rude toward, or making negative comments about the leader (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). We assume that supervisor-directed deviance challenges the grandiose, but fragile self-esteem of leaders high in narcissistic rivalry, as it undermines their status, provoking the impression that they are unable to control the follower, and signals that the follower does not respect them. We expect that leaders high in narcissistic rivalry will respond with abusive supervision toward the source of the self-esteem threat (i.e., the follower who showed supervisor-directed deviance) in order to punish the follower, re-establish leader status, and ultimately restore their grandiose self-views. They respond in such a way because they see their behavior as justified (Back etal., 2013; Baumeister etal., 1996; Grapsas etal., 2019). For instance, by putting down their followers, leaders high in narcissistic rivalry will aim to re-establish the impression that they are powerful and superior to their followers. We thus expect that leaders high in narcissistic rivalry will react with abusive supervision in response to perceived selfesteem threats induced by followers who showed supervisordirected deviance. In sum, we propose: Hypothesis 2 Supervisor-directed deviance will moderate the indirect effect of leaders’ narcissistic rivalry on abusive supervision via perceived self-esteem threat. The indirect effect will be stronger when supervisor-directed deviance is high than when it is low. Study 1 In order to examine the hypothesized relationship between leaders’ narcissistic rivalry and abusive supervision in a field setting, we conducted an online study with leader–follower dyads. Method Sample andProcedure Study participants were recruited via personal and professional contacts, online platforms and the first author’s university’s press department and website. In the course of the survey, participants were asked to indicate the e-mail address of either their direct leader or one of their followers. These dyadic partners were then automatically invited to take part in the survey. We stressed anonymity and confidential treatment of the data in order to minimize concerns about the dyadic partners having insight into the data. Overall, 164 leaders and 192 followers completed the questionnaire. After matching the leaders and followers, the final sample consisted of 123 dyads because some participants could not be matched. A total of 35% of the leaders and 61% of the followers were women. Leaders were on average 46.84years old (SD = 11.02) and followers were 38.32years old (SD = 13.46). Leaders and followers had worked together for 4.91years (SD = 5.83) on average. Leaders and followers came from diverse industries and most often worked in public administration, education, health, and social services (26.8%); trade, traffic, storage, and the catering industry (15.4%); and the service sector (13%). Measures Narcissistic Rivalry We measured leaders’ narcissistic rivalry with the respective nine items of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ; Back etal., 2013). Leaders indicated 174 I.K.Gauglitz et al. 1 3 how much they agreed with the respective items on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = do not agree at all, 6 = agree completely). A sample item is “Most people won’t achieve anything”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78. Supervisor‑Directed Deviance Supervisor-directed deviance was measured with five items from Bennett and Robinson (2000). A sample item is “My follower says something hurtful to me” (Cronbach’s α = 0.75). Leaders were asked to think about their matched follower and indicate on a 5-point Likert scale how frequently the respective follower exhibited the described behaviors (1 = never to 5 = always). Perceived Self‑Esteem Threat In line with previous research (Leary etal., 2009; Stucke & Sporer, 2002), we measured perceived self-esteem threat with a German version of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale (RSE; von Collani & Herzberg, 2003). In general, the RSE assesses a person’s self-esteem and thus a person’s view of themselves. We employed the state version of the RSE to examine participants’ self-esteem in reaction to past interactions with their followers assuming that their self-esteem would be threatened when followers behaved in ways that challenge the leaders’ grandiose self-views (i.e., when they display supervisor-directed deviance). Prior research has shown that state self-esteem is sensitive to threatening events such as status threats (Mahadevan etal., 2016; Rudolph etal., 2020). When calculating the scale mean, we inverted the original items so that high values indicated high perceived self-esteem threat and low values indicated low perceived self-esteem threat. The items were put into the appropriate context by asking leaders to think about past interactions with their matched follower and indicate how often this follower elicited the described thoughts or feelings. A sample item is “I felt useless” (Cronbach’s α = 0.75). Participants indicated their agreement with the 10 items on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (almost always). Abusive Supervision We measured abusive supervision using the 15 items of the German version of Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision scale (Schilling & May, 2015). Followers indicated how often their leader showed the respective abusive behaviors (Cronbach’s α = 0.81). A sample item is “My leader ridicules me”. We used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Control Variable As narcissistic rivalry and admiration are moderately correlated (Back etal., 2013) and in line with prior research (e.g., Wurst etal., 2017), we controlled for leaders’ narcissistic admiration in order to make sure that effects could be traced back to the maladaptive dimension of narcissism only. We measured narcissistic admiration with the nine items from the NARQ (Back etal., 2013; Cronbach’s α = 0.87). Participants indicated their agreement with items such as “Being a very special person gives me a lot of strength” on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = do not agree at all, 6 = agree completely). We additionally ran all analyses without narcissistic admiration as a control variable. The results can be found in Online Appendix A. Results We present the means, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consistency estimates for the study variables in Table1. To test Hypothesis 1, we conducted a linear regression analysis examining followers’ ratings of abusive supervision as the outcome, leaders’ narcissistic rivalry as the predictor, and leaders’ narcissistic admiration as the covariate. Leaders’ narcissistic rivalry was significantly and Table 1 Means, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consistency estimates N = 123 (for Study 1) and N = 313 (for Study 2). Alpha coefficients are given in parentheses along the diagonal with Study 1 appearing first and Study 2 appearing second. Correlations from Study 1 appear below the diagonal, and correlations from Study 2 appear above the diagonal a Study 2: 1 = low supervisor-directed deviance, 2 = medium/high supervisor-directed deviance *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 Variable MStudy 1/MStudy 2 SDStudy 1/SDStudy 2 1 2 3 4 5 1. Narcissistic rivalry 1.91/1.99 0.52/0.85 (0.78/0.88/) 0.24*** 0.40*** 0.07 0.40*** 2. Perceived self-esteem threat 2.18/2.55 0.61/1.11 0.10 (0.75/0.89) 0.48*** 0.31*** 0.00 3. Abusive supervision 1.27/1.62 0.31/0.74 0.20* 0.16 (0.81/0.95) 0.35*** 0.14* 4. Supervisor-directed deviancea1.11/1.96 0.26/0.80 0.19* 0.26** 0.37*** (0.75/–) 0.10 5. Narcissistic admiration 3.11/3.30 0.79/0.93 0.30** −0.38*** −0.10 −0.00 (0.87/0.86) 175 The Dark Side ofLeader Narcissism: The Relationship Between Leaders’ Narcissistic Rivalry… 1 3 positively associated with follower-reported abusive supervision (β = 0.26, SE = 0.06, p = 0.007), thus providing support for Hypothesis 1. In contrast, leaders’ narcissistic admiration was unrelated to follower-reported abusive supervision (β = −0.18, SE = 0.04, p = 0.052). Results are presented in Table2 (see model 1). Without leaders’ narcissistic admiration as a covariate, we also found a direct positive association between leaders’ narcissistic rivalry and followers’ reported abusive supervision (β = 0.20, SE = 0.05, p = 0.026; see Online Appendix A), which renders further support for Hypothesis 1. To test the moderated mediation posited in Hypothesis 2, we used the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2018). The results revealed that followers’ supervisor-directed deviance did not moderate the indirect effect of leaders’ narcissistic rivalry on abusive supervision via perceived self-esteem threat (index of moderated mediation: B = 0.02, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.12]). This means that leaders’ narcissistic rivalry was unrelated to perceived self-esteem threat, irrespective of followers’ supervisor-directed deviance, and perceived self-esteem threat was unrelated to followers’ ratings of abusive supervision. The direct effect from leaders’ narcissistic rivalry on abusive supervision was still evident here (B = 0.14, SE = 0.06, p = 0.014). Leaders’ narcissistic admiration was unrelated to follower-rated abusive supervision (B = −0.06, SE = 0.04, p = 0.155) and was negatively related to perceived self-esteem threat (B = −0.34, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001). This model explained 7.5% of the variance in abusive supervision ratings (p < 0.05). The results are presented in Table2 (see models 2 and 3). In all, we could not find support for Hypothesis 2. The results without leaders’ narcissistic admiration as control variable were similar: the index of moderated mediation was also insignificant (B = 0.04, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.16]; see also Online Appendix A). A closer look at the results reveals that the direct effect of leaders’ narcissistic rivalry on perceived self-esteem threat was not significant in the low and medium values of the moderator, but was significant in the high value of the moderator (B = 0.27, SE = 0.10; p = 0.009). The indirect effects, however, were not significant in any value of the moderator because perceived self-esteem threat did not predict abusive supervision. Importantly, as the variance of supervisor-directed deviance was extremely low, both the low and medium values of the moderator were set at 1.00 by the PROCESS macro, and the “high” value was set at 1.20. Thus, these results have to be interpreted cautiously as being restricted by a potential floor effect and will be addressed in the discussion section. Furthermore, we decided to use an experiment in Study 2, as this allowed us to systematically manipulate followers’ supervisordirected deviance. Study 2 In Study 2, we tested all hypotheses using experimental vignettes, which allowed us to assess leaders’ perceptions of self-esteem threat, together with their intentions regarding abusive supervision in response to followers’ supervisordirected deviance (which was systematically manipulated in the experimental vignettes). We chose this methodological approach, as we were interested in the leaders’ internal processes (i.e., perceived self-esteem threats) and their own intent to show abusive supervision. Experimental vignettes offer the possibility of capturing short-term dynamics and direct reactions. In addition, we used behavioral intention as the most proximate predictor of actual behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). Method Sample andProcedure Participants were recruited via a German panel service (respondi) and were paid €1.25 for their participation. Table 2 Results multiple regression analyses (Study 1) N = 123 * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 Variable Abusive supervision Perceived self-esteem threat Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 B SE t B SE t B SE t Narcissistic admiration −0.07 0.04 -.18 −0.06 0.04 −1.43 −0.34 0.06 −5.20*** Narcissistic rivalry 0.15 0.06 .26* 0.14 0.06 2.49* −0.43 0.35 −1.21 Supervisor-directed deviance −0.84 0.74 −1.14 Narcissistic rivalry × supervisor-directed deviance 0.58 0.30 1.92 Perceived self-esteem threat 0.04 0.05 0.78 R20.07 0.07* 0.26*** 176 I.K.Gauglitz et al. 1 3 Eligible participants had to be currently employed in a leadership position, work at least 20h per week, and have at least three months of work experience. The study was conducted online and consisted of two measurement points. A total of 331 participants took part in the study.1 We excluded nine participants, who stated that they did not consider the described vignettes credible at all, or who could not imagine themselves in the situation described in the experimental vignette. Furthermore, we excluded six participants who reported substantially different ages at the two measurement points, and three participants who had participated twice at T2. Our final sample consisted of 313 participants (low supervisor-directed deviance condition: N = 107; medium supervisor-directed deviance condition: N = 112; and high supervisor-directed deviance condition: N = 94). Participants had a mean age of 47.66 (SD = 9.9), and 31% were women. On average, participants worked 42h per week (SD = 8.5); 14.7% held a low, 45.4% a medium, and 39.9% a high leadership position. Participants worked in diverse industries, most often in the service sector (12.8%), manufacturing sector (11.2%), and public administration (9.9%). In order to reduce method bias, we separated the measurements in time (Podsakoff etal., 2012). At the first measurement point, we assessed our independent variable (narcissistic rivalry) and our control variable (narcissistic admiration), and collected sociodemographic information. At the second measurement point (one week later), participants read one of three experimental vignettes in which we manipulated supervisor-directed deviance. Participants were randomly assigned to read either a low, medium, or high supervisordirected deviance vignette. Subsequently, participants indicated how threatened they felt by the followers’ behavior (perceived self-esteem threat, mediator) and their abusive supervision intentions (dependent variable). Development andContent ofExperimental Vignettes Following recommendations by Lapierre etal. (2009), we developed three experimental vignettes that described low, medium, and high supervisor-directed deviance, respectively. In line with best practice recommendations (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014; Lapierre etal., 2009), we chose three levels of supervisor-directed deviance in an attempt to represent various interactions in the workplace where supervisordirected deviance can also vary. By doing so, we not only tested whether it makes a difference if a follower shows low or high supervisor-directed deviance, but also what happens in-between (when a follower shows a medium level of supervisor-directed deviance). Thus, distinguishing between three levels of supervisor-directed deviance is a more conservative test of our hypothesis than when comparing only low and high conditions. Each experimental vignette included an introduction followed by a specific description of a follower’s supervisor-directed deviant behavior. First, all participants were instructed to put themselves in the role of a leader and read the scenarios carefully. Next, all participants received the same background information so that they could embed their responses contextually (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). They were told to imagine that they were working for a software company and were asked to read information about the company and their job duties. In the vignettes, participants’ duties were described as consisting of delegating work to followers, monitoring the followers’ work progress, and evaluating the followers’ performance. Participants were then told that they had to evaluate the work and interpersonal behavior of a follower named Alex while he worked on a specific project. The next paragraph in the vignette described Alex’s behavior. His interpersonal behavior varied across the conditions. We based the behaviors and wording of our experimental vignettes on existing scales and studies that had previously examined workplace deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Spector & Fox, 2005; Spector etal., 2006). Consequently, in the low supervisor-directed deviance condition, Alex was described as a follower who never ridiculed or verbally abused his leader; in the medium supervisordirected deviance condition, he sometimes showed these behaviors; and in the high supervisor-directed deviance condition, he often showed these behaviors toward his leader. Afterwards, we measured our focal variables, manipulation check items, and, in addition, we asked participants how credible they found the experimental vignettes, and whether or not they could imagine themselves in the situation. The full experimental vignettes can be found in Online Appendix H. Measures Narcissistic Rivalry We measured leaders’ narcissistic rivalry using the same measure as in Study 1 (Cronbach’s α = 0.88). Perceived Self‑Esteem Threat We used the same assessment of perceived self-esteem threat as in Study 1. We adapted the original instructions of the RSE scale (von Collani & Herzberg, 2003) to fit the experimental vignettes (i.e., “Please think again about the scenario 1 At T1, 388 participants took part in the online survey. Of these, 364 participants were invited to take part in the second online survey at T2. The other 24 participants were not invited to participate at T2 due to quality issues. As the acquisition of participants was stopped manually, we acquired slightly more participants than originally intended (331 total participants instead of the targeted number of 300 participants at T2). 183 The Dark Side ofLeader Narcissism: The Relationship Between Leaders’ Narcissistic Rivalry… 1 3 Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Dufner, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Egloff, B., etal. (2017). Puffed-up but shaky selves: State self-esteem level and variability in narcissists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(5), 769–786. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pspp0 000093 Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Kernan, M. C., Becker, T. E., & Eisenberger, R. (2018). Defeating abusive supervision: Training supervisors to support subordinates. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(2), 151–162. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ ocp00 00061 Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M. D., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2019). The “why” and “how” of narcissism: A process model of narcissistic status pursuit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 150–172. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17456 91619 873350 Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1–47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ peps. 12072 Hansbrough, T. K., & Jones, G. E. (2014). Inside the minds of narcissists: How narcissistic leaders’ cognitive processes contribute to abusive supervision. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 222(4), 214–220. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 21512604/ a0001 88 Harrison, A., Summers, J., & Mennecke, B. (2018). The effects of the Dark Triad on unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 53–77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510163368-3 Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press. Helfrich, H., & Dietl, E. (2019). Is employee narcissism always toxic?—The role of narcissistic admiration, rivalry and leaders’ implicit followership theories for employee voice. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(2), 259–271. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13594 32X. 2019. 15753 65 Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 169–180. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 10892680.9. 2. 169 Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0019 265 Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2014). Coaching the toxic leader. Harvard Business Review, 92(4), 100–109. Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308–1338. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06312 471388 Lapierre, L. M., Bonaccio, S., & Allen, T. D. (2009). The separate, relative, and joint effects of employee job performance domains on supervisors’ willingness to mentor. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(2), 135–144. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2009. 01. 005 Leary, M. R., Terry, M. L., Batts Allen, A., & Tate, E. B. (2009). The concept of ego threat in social and personality psychology: Is ego threat a viable scientific construct? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 151–164. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10888 68309 342595 Leckelt, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Behavioral processes underlying the decline of narcissists’ popularity over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 856–871. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pspp0 000057 Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., Wiltshire, J., Bourdage, J. S., Visser, B. A., & Gallucci, A. (2013). Sex, power, and money: Prediction from the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), 169–184. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ per. 1860 Liang, L. H., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Hanig, S., & Keeping, L. M. (2016). Why are abusive supervisors abusive? A dual-system self-control model. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1385–1406. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2014. 0651 Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 1018–1034. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67204 264762 Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940–1965. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06315 573997 Mahadevan, N., Gregg, A. P., Sedikides, C., & de Waal-Andrews, W. G. (2016). Winners, losers, insiders, and outsiders: Comparing hierometer and sociometer theories of self-regard [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychology. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2016. 00334 Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. D. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(Suppl. 1), S120–S137. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 1888 Mawritz, M. B., Greenbaum, R. L., Butts, M. M., & Graham, K. A. (2017). I just can’t control myself: A self-regulation perspective on the abuse of deviant employees. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1482–1503. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2014. 0409 Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159–1168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 92.4. 1159 Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 7965P LI1204_1 Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2018). Narcissistic leaders and their victims: Followers low on self-esteem and low on core self-evaluations suffer most. Frontiers in Psychology. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2018. 00422 Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A. H. B., Van Vianen, A. E. M., Beersma, B., & McIlwain, D. (2011). All I need is a stage to shine: Narcissists’ leader emergence and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 910–925. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2011. 07. 011 Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research: An introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(2), 79–93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 18665888/ a0000 09 Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–194. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2007. 03. 001 Park, S. W., & Colvin, C. R. (2015). Narcissism and other-derogation in the absence of ego threat. Journal of Personality, 83(3), 334–345. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jopy. 12107 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evpsych120710100452 Raskin, R., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 45(2), 590–590. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2466/ pr0. 1979. 45.2. 590 Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617–633. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2006. 10. 005 Rudolph, A., Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2020). I like myself, I really do (at least right now). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(1), 196–206. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 10155759/ a0005 01 184 I.K.Gauglitz et al. 1 3 Schilling, J., & May, D. (2015). Negative und destruktive Führung. In J. Felfe (Ed.), Trends der psychologischen Führungsforschung (pp. 317–330). Hogrefe. Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2012. 09. 001 Seah, S. L., & Ang, R. P. (2008). Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in Asian adolescents: Relations to narcissism, anxiety, schizotypal traits, and peer relations. Aggressive Behavior, 34(5), 553–562. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ab. 20269 Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., Kelley, K., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Understanding cycles of abuse: A multimotive approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1798–1810. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ apl00 00031 Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox, P. E. Spector, S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). American Psychological Association. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. R. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jvb. 2005. 10. 005 Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 845–851. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00223514. 89.6. 845 Stucke, T. S., & Sporer, S. L. (2002). When a grandiose self-image is threatened: Narcissism and self-concept clarity as predictors of negative emotions and aggression following ego-threat. Journal of Personality, 70(4), 509–532. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 14676494. 05015 Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 15563 75 Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06307 300812 Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 123–152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evorgps ych041015062539 Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 88.3. 500 Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 397–423. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ jrpe. 2000. 2292 Thoroughgood, C. N., Sawyer, K. B., Padilla, A., & Lunsford, L. (2018). Destructive leadership: A critique of leader-centric perspectives and toward a more holistic definition. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3), 627–649. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510163257-9 Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Self-esteem and threats to self: Implications for self-construals and interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00223514. 81.6. 1103 von Collani, G., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2003). Eine revidierte Fassung der deutschsprachigen Skala zum Selbstwertgefühl von Rosenberg [A revised version of the German adaptation of Rosenberg’s SelfEsteem Scale]. Zeitschrift Für Differentielle Und Diagnostische Psychologie, 24(1), 3–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1024// 01701789. 24.1.3 Waldman, D. A., Wang, D., Hannah, S. T., Owens, B. P., & Balthazard, P. A. (2018). Psychological and neurological predictors of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 71, 399–421. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ peps. 12262 Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R., & Shanine, K. K. (2013). Psychological entitlement and abusive supervision: Political skill as a self-regulatory mechanism. Health Care Management Review, 38(3), 248–257. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ HMR. 0b013 e3182 678fe7 Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: Perceived position power strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work teams. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 122–126. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2016. 05. 019 Wurst, S. N., Gerlach, T. M., Dufner, M., Rauthmann, J. F., Grosz, M. P., Küfner, A. C. P., etal. (2017). Narcissism and romantic relationships: The differential impact of narcissistic admiration and rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 280–306. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pspp0 000113 Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. (2016). Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 455– 471. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s105510152657-6 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.