Making nice or faking nice? Exploring supervisors’ two-faced response to their past abusive behavior

Authors

Shawn T. McClean, University of WyomingFollow
Stephen H. Courtright, University of IowaFollow
Junhyok Yim, Texas A&M UniversityFollow
Troy A. Smith, University of Nebraska at LincolnFollow

ORCID IDs

Shawn T. McClean https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7681-7610

Junhyok Yim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8126-9110

Troy A. Smith https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8173-8511

Date of this Version

2021

Citation

Published in Personnel Psychology 74 (2021), pp. 693–719.

doi:10.1111/peps.12424

Comments

Copyright © 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Used by permission.

Abstract

Although extant research has shown that abusive supervision is a destructive and immoral form of leader behavior, theory provides conflicting perspectives on how supervisors respond to their own abusive behavior. We therefore draw upon and integrate moral cleansing theory and impression management and construction theory to explore whether and when supervisors engage in genuine reparations or impression management following episodes of abusive behavior. Results taken from a 3-week, experience sampling study of supervisors suggest support for the impression management path; following episodes of abusive behavior, supervisors higher on symbolized moral identity become more concerned with their image, and thus engage in increased ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification toward their subordinates. In contrast, we found no support for the genuine, moral cleansing path. This study thus extends knowledge regarding supervisors’ responses to their own abusive behavior, challenging the existing notion that such responses are genuine and focused on addressing the moral implications of the behavior.