Alice McGaw: “Mother of Anesthesia”

Medical attendants were the main expert gathering to rehearse sedation benefits in the United States. This began 125 years prior and little was thought about sedation in those days. One of the most popular medical caretaker anesthetists was Alice McGraw. She was to be given the name â€Å"Mother of Anesthesia† for her master use of sedation during medical procedure and her many distributed works with respect to the technique. Medical caretaker anesthetists were pioneers in their field. Specialists started searching them out to help with sedation during medical procedure since they could give full focus to the patient.The most punctual records set up the start of attendant anesthetists in 1887. From that point forward, they have been instrumental in proceeding improve sedative methods and gear. Albeit formal training for nurture anesthetists was not made accessible until 1909, it is the prior medical caretaker anesthetists who prepared for safe sedation and opened way to this s trength for attendants. Patients announced less inconvenience and the specialists detailed less passings because of injury during operations.Currently Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA) are authorized proficient medical attendants who experience broad preparing in the wake of accepting their Registered Nurse (RN) degree. This is viewed as a specific field and expects medical attendants to become board guaranteed through a state test before having the option to rehearse as a CRNA. The motivation behind this examination was to advise and teach about the ladies in nursing who lead the path being developed and utilization of sedation. Alice McGaw is generally secret to standard society but then she gave the absolute most complete investigations to this profession.She likewise went through her time on earth as a rehearsing medical attendant anesthetist and earned the title â€Å"Mother of Anesthesia† Alice McGaw is known as the â€Å"Mother of Anesthesia†, a tit le given her by Dr. Charles Mayo. She was conceived in 1860 and little else can be found with respect to her childhood or tutoring before 1893. It was in this year that she turned into the attendant anesthetist to Drs William J. also, Charles H. Mayo of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Nursing sedation was the principal clinical nursing forte and at the outset comprised of predominately women.Factors crediting to this were low wages, most medical caretakers were female and it was viewed as a respectful situation with the specialist responsible for everything. Prior to the incorporation of attendant anesthetists in surgeries, most sedations had been controlled by clinical understudies or doctors with practically zero sedation preparing. During the Civil War (1861-1865) sedation was utilized on the injured however almost no on the grounds that it was considered excessively hazardous. It was not until 1878 that the first â€Å"official† nurture anesthetist came into bein g.The first school of nursing sedation was not shaped until 1909. Specialists started looking for nurture anesthetists to attempt to diminish the mortality numbers and on the grounds that medical caretakers could concentrate their whole consideration on the patient instead of on the activity. Sedation advanced distinctively in Europe and the United States. Chloroform was the favored decision in Europe and ether the inclination in the United States. One of Alice McGaw’s significant achievements was her mastery in the open drop inward breath technique for sedation utilizing a mix of ether and chloroform.It was this ability that earned her the title â€Å"Mother of Anesthesia†. She culminated this strategy while working for Dr. Charles Mayo and it was he who gave her this moniker. McGaw was additionally exceptionally worried about the patient’s mental state preceding medical procedure. She accepted that the patient ought to be set up with mitigating words before be ing anesthetized. She refined a strategy that arranged the patient intellectually in order to build the viability of the sedation It was this procedure that lead to a decline in mid-usable sedation being required.It was in 1899 that Alice McGaw distributed the primary paper at any point composed by a medical caretaker anesthetist dependent on her work in nursing sedation. The paper was titled â€Å"Observations in Anesthesia† and was distributed in the Northwestern Lancet. Alice McGaw proceeded to distribute five papers aggregate regarding the matter of medical attendant sedation. The paper in 1906 distributed in Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics was titled â€Å"A Review of 14,000 Surgical Anesthetics†. It noticed that in the 14,000 surgeries for which she had been the anesthetist, there had been no complexities or passings credited to issues with the sedative or its application.This was an achievement in the field of nursing sedation. . During the time that McGaw wa s the medical caretaker anesthetist for Drs. William J. furthermore, Charles H. Mayo, she and Dr. Charles Mayo set up an exhibit for medical procedure and sedation. This grandstand pulled in understudies from everywhere throughout the world. This was not formal preparing but rather urged numerous understudies to execute McGaw’s procedure with sedation. St. Mary’s Hospital, where McGaw was the medical attendant anesthetist for the Mayo siblings later turned into the world popular Mayo Clinic. McGaw worked for Drs. William J. furthermore, Charles H.Mayo from 1893-1908. Somewhere in the range of 1912 and 1920, right around 20 post graduate schools for nurture sedation opened. The Mayo Clinic was among one of those contribution the program. It was McGraw’s early work that assisted with making the progress of the medical caretaker anesthetist and its resulting preparing programs. She and other like her spearheaded the field of medical attendant sedation. Beforehand d octors were 95 percent male and nursing was not a specific field. This changed with the expansion of the medical caretaker anesthetist. Medical attendant Anesthetists today are Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA).These are authorized proficient medical attendants (RNs) who need o have practical experience in sedation. They are required to take broad preparing and should be board confirmed by test before having the option to offer types of assistance to patients and specialists. In 1931 the National Association of Nurse Anesthetists (NANA) was shaped. It would later turn into the American Association of Nursing Anesthetists (AANA). It was the principal national association for rehearsing anesthetists and still exists today. In 1986, the Clinical Anesthesia Practitioner Award was set up by the AANA.This grant was to perceive the achievements of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists who have made significant commitments to the headway of medical attendant sedation. In 1998 this honor turned into the Alice McGaw Outstanding Clinical Practitioner Award to respect McGaws accomplishments as a medical caretaker anesthetist and for her distributions on her work. Without Alice McGaw, nursing sedation would not have pushed forward as fast. Her commitment to culminating her art and the distributions that she permitted others to gain from were instrumental in the field of nursing anesthesia.Her preparing and displaying showed others the significance of sedation and its application. Confirmed Registered Nurse Anesthetists of today can rehearse their abilities with certainty as a result of the significance Alice McGaw put on knowing and consummating the claim to fame of sedation. She was one of the most significant trailblazers in her field and her heritage keeps on developing with headways and accomplishments dependent on her work. References 1. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (2006) History of Nurse Anesthesia Practice Retrieved November 30, 2006 fr om http://www. aana. com/aboutaana. aspx? ucNavMenu_TSMenuTargetID=173&ucNavMenu_2. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (2006) A Brief Timeline of Nurse Anesthesia Retrieved November 30, 2006 from http://www. aana. com/chronicles/course of events. asp 3. Bankert, M. Attentive Care: A History of America’s Nurse Anesthetists. New York: Continuum 1989 4. Evans, T. CRNA, MS What is a CRNA? (1998) http://www. sedation nursing. organization/wina. html 5. Michigan Association of Nurse Anesthetists (2006) History of Nurse Anesthesia Practice Retrieved November 30, 2006 from http://www. miana. organization/history/history. html 6. Thatcher, V. History of Anesthesia with Emphasis on the Nurse Specialist Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1953

Analysis of Johnson Johnsons production Essay Example for Free

Examination of Johnson Johnsons creation Essay 1. Organization attributes and flexibly chainJohnson Johnson is a worldwide American pharmaceutical, clinical gadgets and customer bundled products producer established in the territory of New Jersey, United States in 1886 (Wikipedia, 2008). The enterprises central command is situated in New Brunswick and its customer division is situated in Skillman, New Jersey. The organization remembers approximately 250 auxiliary organizations with activities for more than 57 nations while its items are sold in more than 175 nations. Johnson and its auxiliaries have roughly 115,600 representatives around the world. Johnson Johnsons essential spotlight has been on items identified with human wellbeing and prosperity. As indicated by MarketWatch (2006) states that Johnson Johnsons overall business is partitioned into three portions: Consumer, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices and Diagnostics. The Consumer section makes and markets a scope of items utilized in the infant and youngster care, healthy skin, oral and wound consideration and womens medicinal services fields, just as wholesome and over-the-counter pharmaceutical items. These items, accessible without solution, are promoted primarily to the overall population and offered both to wholesalers and legitimately to autonomous and chain retail outlets all through the world (MarketWatch, 2006). The Pharmaceutical fragment remembers items for the accompanying remedial regions: hostile to parasitic, against infective, cardiovascular, preventative, dermatology, gastrointestinal, hematology, immunology, nervous system science, oncology, torment the executives, psychotropic and urology. These items are conveyed straightforwardly to retailers, wholesalers and human services experts for remedy use by the overall population (MarketWatch, 2006). The Medical Devices and Diagnostics section incorporates a scope of items appropriated to wholesalers, emergency clinics and retailers, utilized chiefly in the expert fields by doctors, attendants, specialists, emergency clinics, indicative research centers and facilities. Appropriation to these medicinal services proficient markets is done both straightforwardly and through careful gracefully and different vendors (MarketWatch, 2006). From the examination we accumulate, that powerful flexibly chain at Johnson is like the above situation of trust based organizations, which mean providers are working couple with the business for shared advantage. It likewise recommends a proactive methodology being taken as opposed to a receptive way to deal with oversee coordinations issues. 2. Significance of Supply chain managementThe organization and its auxiliary like Lifescan are one of the top clients of community oriented item lifecycle the board (PLM) answers for the worth chain. For instance it utilizes MatrixOnes PLM condition, which gives a protected, community oriented item advancement condition that will smooth out item plan and improvement across LifeScan Scotlands worldwide tasks, empowering the organization to rapidly and cost-successfully put up new items for sale to the public. The sending was incited by the consequences of a Johnson concentrate into the key item lifecycle arrangements in the market. Johnson expected to cut their item improvement cycle by as much as 20%. What's more, the organization expects to drive improved consumer loyalty, coordinate providers into the advancement procedure, improve perceivability to configuration focuses all through the world, and have simple access to all imperative item data. (Lifescan public statement 2005 from HREF 1)Fig 1 Mutual Accountability Map between purchaser Seller at Johnson (Source Slobodow, B Abdullah, O Babuschak, W C 2008p 78) Dissemination CentresJohnson Johnson has completed the development of a 440,000 square foot dispersion focus in Memphis, TN to give direct shipment of their clinical items with no outsider merchant association (Healthcare Purchasing News, 2004). Furthermore, Johnson Johnsons new European circulation places for its clinical gadgets diagnostics division in Courcelles, close to Charleroi, Belgium (Janssen Pharmaceutica, 2005). Along these lines, the middle will expand the seriousness of the association and encourage conveyance to the companys clients. Requests finished through the Johnson direct model would wipe out that wholesaler increase, giving gradually lower acquisition expenses to clients. Along these lines, this lower evaluating will be sufficient to tempt clients to sidestep the accommodation of their one stop conveyance relationship (Healthcare Purchasing News, 2004). The Supply Chain diagram source Heizer, J. what's more, Render, B. 2004 p 414The flexibly chain incorporates all the communications between providers, producers, wholesalers and clients. The chain incorporates transportation, planning data, money and credit moves, thoughts, structures, and materialâ transfers. Hazard ManagementAccording to a report from Goldman Sachs, Johnson is requiring the entirety of its clinical items wholesalers to consent to not source any Johnson items from any element other than Johnson (Healthcare Purchasing News, 2004). Apparently the point of this command is to diminish the danger of fake clinical items arriving at end clients by driving wholesalers to make a deal to avoid taking an interest in the auxiliary market and to buy just from Johnson. While more than 100 merchants have consented to the arrangement none of the traded on an open market clinical wholesalers are on Johnson Johnsons rundown of the individuals who have concurred with the companys terms and consented to its arrangement. This choice is significant as a result of the reasonable command made in its exchanging accomplices. As per Healthcare Purchasing News (2004) Goldman Sachs accepts that Johnson items may represent as much as 14% of the medical clinic dissemination market and Owens Minor shows that Johnson items speak to roughly 16% of all out organization deals. Be that as it may, Johnson stays a critical provider for any clinical items wholesaler whose administrations are feeling the squeeze to come to concurrence with organization requests and to stay as approved merchants (Healthcare Purchasing News, 2004). 3. Operational Features reflecting normal practice in flexibly chain the executives. Effective Consumer Response (ECR)It is where accomplices in a gracefully chain synchronize the item course through the appropriation pipeline from purpose of production to purpose of conclusive deal. ECR is fundamentally identified with vital associations in the dispersion channels of the basic food item industry to expand the exhibition of the shoppers while Johnson states two-digit turnover increments in their separate business portions by utilizing it (Kotzab, 2000, p. 145). Ace Cyclist PrinciplesIt is characterized that how a market proficient supervisory crew would move toward short-run practical choices with respect to stock, creation, advertising and estimating just as increasingly vital choicesâ regarding capital development, acquisitions and divestitures (Navarro, 2004, p. 19). As indicated by Navarro (2004, p. 19) detailed, Johnson cut its capital uses by over $100 million the first diminishing in quite a while and as the huge money saves, it saw twofold digit development in the two incomes and profit. Two-Way ScorecardThe Two-Way Scorecard is an unmistakable methods for installing participation in the provider purchaser relationship. In Johnson, gracefully chain execution is estimated across five segments: execution, consistence, money related effect, new items and organization. Besides, the Two-Way Scorecard has been tried with vital providers in the course of the most recent four years. Positive outcomes have been found in a scope of territories, from settling potential provider liquidity issues to tending to the wasteful aspects of worldwide exchanging. A few constant torment focuses have facilitated; most remarkably new item dispatches (Slobodow, Abdullah Babuschak, 2008, p.76). 4. Successful collaboration. Johnson Health Care Systems Inc. (JJHCS) utilizes a standard interior procedure for plan, improvement, and execution while using Six Sigma and change the executives apparatuses. Significance of Organizational DesignOrganizational configuration is significant for a few reasons. Authoritative plan can be a serious apparatus by giving the association adaptability expected to react to changing client needs while supporting hierarchical proficiency and viability. It can make the framework to empower a system to be actualized and give responsibility to workers by plainly separating the territories of possession and control. It can likewise give self-improvement by making open doors for individuals to take on various and testing jobs inside a similar association. Any work procedure in the association can be in scope for hierarchical plan (Yacovone, 2007, p. 105). Advantages of Organizational DesignJJHCS distinguished the requirement for an authoritative structure model and procedure through an inside Six Sigma business evaluation. Six Sigma is a thorough and trained methodologyâ that utilizes information and factual investigation to gauge and improve a companys operational execution by recognizing and disposing of deformities in assembling and administration related procedures (Six Sigma.com refered to in Yacovone, 2007, p. 106). This guaranteed the clients needs and basic quality elements were the drivers of the upgrade. These discoveries drove the improvement of the JJHCS hierarchical structure system, procedure, and toolbox to direct authoritative plan, alongside the acknowledgment that few enormous change activities inside the organization would require noteworthy authoritative structure. Furthermore, the association perceived that the (HR) colleague job required new abilities, for example, change the executives and authoritative plan, to address the issues of the business (Yacovone, 2007, p. 107). ResultsA key business metric for debt claims is days deals outstandin

The Major Branches of Psychology

The Major Branches of Psychology Theories Print The Major Branches of Psychology By Kendra Cherry facebook twitter Kendra Cherry, MS, is an author, educational consultant, and speaker focused on helping students learn about psychology. Learn about our editorial policy Kendra Cherry Medically reviewed by Medically reviewed by Steven Gans, MD on July 12, 2017 Steven Gans, MD is board-certified in psychiatry and is an active supervisor, teacher, and mentor at Massachusetts General Hospital. Learn about our Medical Review Board Steven Gans, MD Updated on July 14, 2019 More in Theories Behavioral Psychology Cognitive Psychology Developmental Psychology Personality Psychology Social Psychology Biological Psychology Psychosocial Psychology How do psychologists think about and study the human mind and behavior? Psychology is such a huge topic and conveying the depth and breadth of the subject can be difficult. As a result, a number of unique and distinctive branches of psychology have emerged to deal with specific subtopics within the study of the mind, brain, and behavior. Each branch or field  looks at questions and problems from a different  perspective. While each has its own focus on psychological problems or concerns, all areas share a common goal of studying and explaining human thought and behavior. Psychology can be roughly divided into two major areas:Research,  which seeks to increase our knowledge basePractice, through which our knowledge is applied to solving problems in the real world Because human behavior is so varied, the number of subfields in psychology is also constantly growing and evolving. Some of these subfields have been firmly established as areas of interest, and many colleges and universities offer courses and degree programs in these topics.   Each field of psychology represents a specific area of study focused on a particular topic. Oftentimes, psychologists specialize in one of these areas as a career. The following are just some of the major branches of psychology. For many of these specialty areas, working in that specific area requires additional graduate study in that particular field. Abnormal Psychology Abnormal psychology is the area that looks at psychopathology and abnormal behavior. Mental health professionals help assess, diagnose, and treat a wide variety of psychological disorders including anxiety and depression. Counselors, clinical psychologists, and psychotherapists often work directly in this field. Behavioral Psychology Behavioral psychology, also known as behaviorism, is a theory of learning based on the idea that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning. While this branch of psychology dominated the field during the first part of the twentieth century, it became less prominent during the 1950s. However, behavioral techniques remain a mainstay in therapy, education, and many other areas. People often utilize behavioral strategies such as classical conditioning and operant conditioning to teach or modify behaviors. For example, a teacher might use a system of rewards in order to teach students to behave during class. When students are good, they receive gold stars which can then be turned in for some sort of special privilege. Biopsychology Biopsychology is a branch of psychology focused on how the brain, neurons, and nervous system influence thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. This field draws on many different disciplines including basic psychology, experimental psychology, biology, physiology, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience. People who work in this field often study how brain injuries and brain diseases impact human behavior. Biopsychology is also sometimes referred to as physiological psychology, behavioral neuroscience, or psychobiology.?? Clinical Psychology Clinical psychology  is the  branch of psychology  concerned with the assessment and treatment of  mental illness,  abnormal behavior,  and psychiatric disorders. Clinicians often work in private practices, but many also work in community centers or at universities and colleges. Others work in hospital settings or mental health clinics as part of a collaborative team that may include physicians, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals. Cognitive Psychology Cognitive psychology is the branch of psychology that focuses on internal mental states. This area of psychology has continued to grow since it emerged in the 1960s. This area of psychology is centered on the science of how people think, learn, and remember. Psychologists who work in this field often study things such as perception, motivation, emotion, language, learning, memory, attention, decision-making, and problem-solving. Cognitive psychologists often use an information-processing model to describe how the mind works, suggesting that the brain stores and processes information much like a computer. Comparative Psychology Comparative psychology is the branch of psychology concerned with the study of animal behavior. The study of animal behavior can lead to a deeper and broader understanding of human psychology. This area has its roots in the work of researchers such as Charles Darwin and George Romanes and has grown into a highly multidisciplinary subject. Psychologists often contribute to this field, as do biologists, anthropologists, ecologists, geneticists, and many others. Counseling Psychology Counseling psychology is one of the largest individual subfields in psychology. It is centered on treating clients experiencing mental distress and a wide variety of psychological symptoms. The Society of Counseling Psychology describes the field as an area that can improve interpersonal functioning throughout life by improving social and emotional health as well as addressing concerns about health, work, family, marriage, and more. Cross-Cultural Psychology Cross-cultural psychology is a branch of psychology that looks at how cultural factors influence human behavior. The International Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP) was established in 1972, and this branch of psychology has continued to grow and develop since that time. Today, increasing numbers of psychologists investigate how behavior differs among various cultures throughout the world. Developmental Psychology Developmental psychology focuses on how people change and grow throughout the entire lifespan. The scientific study of human development seeks to understand and explain how and why people change throughout life. Developmental psychologists often study things such as physical growth, intellectual development, emotional changes, social growth, and perceptual changes that occur over the course of the lifespan. These psychologists generally specialize in an area such as infant, child, adolescent, or geriatric development, while others may study the  effects of developmental delays. This field covers a huge range of topics including everything from  prenatal development  to Alzheimers disease. Educational Psychology Educational psychology is the branch of psychology concerned with schools, teaching psychology, educational issues, and student concerns. Educational psychologists often study how students learn or work directly with students, parents, teachers, and administrators to improve student outcomes. They might study how different variables influence individual student outcomes. They also study topics such as learning disabilities, giftedness, the instructional process, and individual differences. 2:07 8 Things to Know About Educational Psychology Experimental Psychology Experimental psychology is the branch of psychology that utilizes scientific methods to research the brain and behavior. Many of these techniques are also used by other areas in psychology to conduct research on everything from childhood development to social issues. Experimental psychologists  work in a wide variety of settings including colleges, universities, research centers, government, and private businesses. Experimental psychologists utilize the scientific method to study a whole range of human behaviors and psychological phenomena. This branch of psychology is often viewed as a distinct subfield within psychology, but experimental techniques and methods are actually used extensively throughout every subfield of psychology. Some of the methods used in experimental psychology include experiments, correlational studies, case studies, and naturalistic observation. Forensic Psychology Forensic psychology is a specialty area that deals with issues related to psychology and the law. Those who work in this field of psychology apply psychological principles to legal issues. This may involve studying criminal behavior and treatments or working directly in the court system. Forensic psychologists perform a wide variety of duties, including providing testimony in court cases, assessing children in suspected child abuse cases, preparing children to give testimony and evaluating the mental competence of criminal suspects. This branch of psychology is defined as the intersection of psychology and the law, but forensic psychologists can perform many roles so this definition can vary. In many cases, people working in forensic psychology are not necessarily forensic psychologists. These individuals might be clinical psychologists,  school psychologists, neurologists or counselors who lend their psychological expertise to provide testimony, analysis or recommendations in legal or criminal cases. Health Psychology Health psychology is a specialty area that focuses on how biology, psychology, behavior and social factors influence health and illness. Other terms including medical psychology and behavioral medicine are sometimes used interchangeably with the term health psychology. The field of health psychology is focused on promoting health as well as the prevention and treatment of disease and illness. Health psychologists are interested in improving health across a wide variety of domains. These professionals not only promote healthy behaviors, but they also work on the prevention and treatment of illness and disease. Health psychologists often deal with health-related issues such as weight management, smoking cessation, stress management, and nutrition. They might also research how people cope with illnesses and help patients look for new, more effective coping strategies. Some professionals in this field help design prevention and public awareness programs, while others work within the government to improve health care policies. Industrial-Organizational Psychology Industrial-organizational psychology is a branch that applies psychological principles to research on workplace issues such as productivity and behavior. This field of psychology often referred to as I/O psychology works to improve productivity and efficiency in the workplace while also maximizing the well-being of employees. Research in I-O psychology is known as  applied research  because it seeks to solve real-world problems.  I-O psychologists study topics such as worker attitudes, employee behaviors, organizational processes, and leadership. Some psychologists in this field work in areas such  as human factors, ergonomics, and human-computer interaction. Human factors psychology is an interdisciplinary field that focuses on topics such as human error, product design, ergonomics, human capability, and human-computer interaction. People who work in human factors are focused on improving how people interact with products and machines both in and out of the workplace. They might help design products intended to minimize injury or create workplaces that promote greater accuracy and improved safety. Personality Psychology Personality psychology is the branch of psychology that focuses on the study of the thought patterns, feelings, and behaviors that make each individual unique. Classic theories of personality include Freuds  psychoanalytic theory  of personality and  Eriksons theory of psychosocial development. Personality psychologists might study how different factors such as genetics, parenting, and social experiences influence how personality develops and changes. School Psychology School psychology is a field that involves working in schools to help kids deal with academic, emotional, and social issues. School psychologists also collaborate with teachers, students, and parents to help create a healthy learning environment. Most school psychologists work in elementary and secondary schools, but others work in private clinics, hospitals, state agencies, and universities. Some go into private practice and serve as consultants, especially those with a doctoral degree in school psychology. Social Psychology Social psychology seeks to explain and understand social behavior and looks at diverse topics including group behavior, social interactions, leadership, nonverbal communication, and social influences on decision-making. This field of psychology is focused on the study of topics such as group behavior, social perception,  nonverbal behavior, conformity, aggression, and prejudice. Social influences on behavior are a major interest in social psychology, but social psychologists are also focused on how people perceive and interact with others. Sports Psychology Sports psychology is the study of how psychology influences sports, athletic performance, exercise, and physical activity. Some sports psychologists work with professional athletes and coaches to improve performance and increase motivation. Other professionals utilize exercise and sports to enhance people’s lives and well-being throughout the entire lifespan. A Word From Verywell Psychology is always evolving and new fields  and branches continue to emerge. It is important to remember that no single branch of psychology is more important or better than any other. Each specific area contributes to our understanding of the many different psychological factors that influence who you are, how you behave, and how you think. By conducting research and developing new applications for psychological knowledge, professionals working in every branch of psychology are able to help people better understand themselves, confront the problems they may face, and live better lives.

The Whole Issue Of Christianity - 1985 Words

Introduction The whole issue of Christianity begins with the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. This large character leaves an infinite number of lessons to be entrusted to the Apostles for preach and teach the people. This whole process is going to have much success and also is going to have their lowest, as being the persecutions, who did not cease to Christians to practice their religion freely. During all these sufferings also appear characters with power, which defend Christians and at the end were to succeed in overcoming and completely eliminate the persecution against them. Then appear Christian authorities that cause the Christianity is considered as the official religion of the empire. Jesus and Christianity: Jesus was born during†¦show more content†¦Although, Jesus did not think in a policy rebellion only in moral and spiritual release. Many Jews become disillusioned and turned against him. Jesus was convicted and handed over to the Roman authorities. The procurator Pontius Pilate did die on the cross. After the death of Jesus, the Apostles continued the preaching of his doctrine. Most of them lived in Jerusalem, and made his preaching among the inhabitants of Palestine. The first converts Christians were, therefore, of Jewish origin. They were called Nazarenes, believers in the Nazarene Jesus. Very soon, the Christianity began to spread among the Gentiles, between those who were not Jews. (The Jews used to call gentiles to all those who were not of their race and religion.) The main preacher of Christianity among the Gentiles, was St Paul and therefore tends to be called the apostle of the gentiles. He was a Jew, born in Tarsus, Asia Minor, and initially had persecuted viciously to Christians, but then converted to the new creed and devoted his life to propagate the faith that previously combat. Its action evangelist exercised, preferably, in the Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Macedonia towns between the populations of the empire of speech and Greek civilization. Therefore, the Gr eek language was who served as the principal vehicle of transmission to Christianity in the first moments of their development,

Lgbt Research Paper - 954 Words

Erica Chavarin Erwin English 10 (H) 9 March 2012 Sophomore English Research Paper Imagine if you were to be judged for who you were, or what you did, or even your gender type. In the world there are a lot of social injustices going on even to this very day. One of the most common and heard of social injustice would probably be the one of people being lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender. This issue has been going on for quite a long time now. Some people do not agree with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender projects. A lot of people suffer because of this injustice, and it also affects their whole lives. A lot of the people that go through this most likely end up fighting back for what they believe is right, which in their†¦show more content†¦With all of the unfairness going on right now with LGBT people, sometimes the people adjudicating do not know how it is affecting the victims. If they did know they would know that it has an emotional impact on them in many ways. According to the ACLU they carry out this ty pe of work through five central priority areas: Basic Rights and Liberties, Parenting, Relationships and Marriages, Youth and Schools, and Transgender Discrimination. Basic Rights and Liberties, the ACLU works hard to make LGBT people have equal opportunity to participate fully in civil society. â€Å"No LGBT person should experience discrimination in employment, housing, or in business and public places, or the suppression of their free expression or privacy rights.†(LGBT Rights, 1). Parenting, a lot of people especially do not agree that LGBT people should be able to have or adopt kids because it will affect how they grow throughout time and will teach them the wrong things about life. â€Å"Fighting restrictions on parenting by LGBT people is critical because this discrimination causes serious, enduring harm to the lives of LGBT people and their children.†(LGBT Rights, 1). Relationships and Marriage, the ACLU believes that LGBT people, like everyone else, should hav e the freedom to build the kinds of personal, intimate relationships most meaningful to them without risking that their families will be disregarded or harmed by the state (LGBT Rights, 2). Youth andShow MoreRelatedGay, Lesbian, Bisexual And Transgendered Youth ( Lgbt )1610 Words   |  7 PagesThe purpose of this paper is to address various types of discrimination among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth (LGBT). This research will identify the different types of discrimination that affect LGBT students, grades 9 through 12, and the mental health impacts discrimination has on LGBT youth. The data provided is from a school-based, empirical survey conducted in 2009 by Joanna Almeida, Renee M. Johnson, Heather L. Corliss, Beth E. Molnar and Deborah Azrael. Their survey measuredRead MoreGay, Bisexual, And Transgender Aging : A Comprehensive And Analytical Sociological Perspective On Lgbt Aging849 Words   |  4 PagesThis paper investigates four published articles that rep ort on results from research conducted on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender aging (LGBT) and the psychosocial consequences they experience resulting from disparities. The articles, however, differ in that the research takes a one-dimensional approach to an unambiguous issue. Therefore, this paper will focus on the article titled Helping Gay and Transgender People as they Age (McDaniels, 2015) given it offers an interdisciplinary perspectiveRead MorePersonal Values For Ethical Behavior1337 Words   |  6 Pages applying modes of expression to our papers, demonstrate developed academic reading and interpretation skills, participate in groups with fellow classmates, expand a personal values for ethical behavior in a classroom setting, enhance the student’s writing abilities, and develop the ability to complete research (Rougeau-Vanderford). I, as a student in this course, was able to meet all of these seven objectives throughout the school year using various papers, work shops, and journals assigned to usRead MoreA Brief Note On Lgbt Persons And Development1599 Words   |  7 PagesSSMPA, LGBT Persons and Development in Nigeria. In the first month of 2014, the former Nigerian president, Goodluck Jonathan signed into law the Same-Sex Marriage Prevention Act (SSMPA). The day he signed it, he effectively pushed the already greatly oppressed LGBT population further into the closet. The effect of the law wasn’t only symbolic in the fact that it inconvenienced the LGBT population, but it made their whole identity a punishable offence, while barring them from even organizing to appealRead MorePsy 230 : Fall 2016 Paper Assignment Essay1064 Words   |  5 Pages Charlie Student. PSY 230 – Fall 2016–PAPER ASSIGNMENT, REVIEW OF ARTICLE #1 Article. Ryan, Caitlin Ryan; Russell, Stephen, T.; Huebner, David; Diaz, Rafael; Sanchez, Jorge, 2010, Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT young Adults, Journal of Child and Adolescence Psychiatric Nursing, Volume 23, pp. 205-213 Research Question. In this article, the key research questions and hypothesis proposed are: 1) does the family acceptance and supportive behavior predicts show a differenceRead MoreLgbt Community And The Community1240 Words   |  5 PagesThe main topic of the paper will be discussing about the LGBT community or, also known as the GLBT community, which is defined as a group of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders. The LGBT community organizes a lot of support and movement for civil rights all around the world, for example, parades. The paper in mind for this integrative project will be discussing about how North Americans became more approachable to be acceptant towards the LGBT community mainly concentrating in Canada andRead MoreThe Lgbt Population Throughout My Exploration1700 Words   |  7 Pages While most of this research was not new to me, I learned quite a bit about the LGBT population throughout my exploration. I think that this research expanded my awareness in that it increased my understanding of individuals who may be struggling with their LGBT identification. I, at first, was not aware that sexual orientation and gender identification were formed at such a young age. I was aware that most individuals become aware of gender at the ages of three and four, but had not previouslyRead MoreLgbt Health Issues And The Lgbt1263 Words   |  6 Pagesand transgender (LGBT) population has recently become a national health care priority. There are specific health care disparities and barriers to quality health care that significantly affect the LGBT population. A change in medical education curriculum is essential to combat these issues. Health care providers feel undereducated and ill prepared to treat the LGBT population. Research findings indicate there is a significant deficiency in medical education regarding specific LGBT health concernsRead MoreFamily Acceptance And The Health Of Lgbt Young Adults846 Words   |  4 PagesRazeeyeh Isfahanizadeh. PSY 230- Spring 2016- PAPER ASSIGNMENT, REVIEW OF ARTICLE #1 Article. Ryan, C., Russell, S., Hueber, D., Diaz, R., and Sanchez, J. (2010). Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults, 205- 213. Research Question. The main research question proposed in this study is; Does family acceptance and support have a positive impact on LGBT health, and can it protect against suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and other negative health outcomes? The hypothesisRead MoreMy Operational Definition Of Social Justice1263 Words   |  6 Pages My operational definition of social justice (the distribution of advantage and disadvantage within a society) is controversial to my social justice (LGBT Liberation) because they have a disadvantage in today s society. It s controversial because people today are afraid to come out because they re afraid of other people s reactions. Everyone in today s society depends on other people s opinions. On what s right or what s the â€Å"norm†. Many people feel this is a lifestyle choice not part of

Abusive Supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict Free Essays

The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Leadership Quarterly j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship con? ict Kenneth J. We will write a custom essay sample on Abusive Supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict or any similar topic only for you Order Now Harris a,? , Paul Harvey b, K. Michele Kacmar c Indiana University Southeast, School of Business, 4201 Grant Line Road, New Albany, IN 47150, USA Management Department, Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, USA Department of Management and Marketing, Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, 143 Alston Hall, Box 870225, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0225, USA b c a a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t This study extends research on abusive supervision by exploring how supervisor reports of conflict with their coworkers are related to abusive behaviors and resulting outcomes. We utilize research on displaced aggression, conflict, and leader–member exchange (LMX) theory to formulate our hypotheses. Results from two samples of 121 and 134 matched supervisor– subordinate dyads support the idea that supervisors experiencing coworker relationship conflict are likely to engage in abusive behaviors directed toward their subordinates and that LMX quality moderates this relationship. Additionally, abusive supervision was associated with decreased work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). Results also indicate that in both samples abusive supervision mediates the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship conflict and OCB, and in one sample mediates the association between supervisor-reported coworker relationship conflict and work effort.  © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Available online 10 August 2011 Keywords: Abusive supervision Coworker relationship con? ict Multi-level 1. Introduction Abusive supervision, or the prolonged hostile treatment of subordinates, has been recognized as a signi? ant threat to employee well being and productivity in both the popular press (e. g. , Elmer, 2006) and in organizational research (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster, Pagon, 2002; Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, 2007; Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, Kacmar, 2007; Hoobler Brass, 2006; Mitchell Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000, 2007; Tepper, Duffy, Shaw, 2001; Zellars, Tepper, Duffy, 2002). Behaviors that fall under the umbrella of abusive supervision, such as sabot aging, yelling at, or ignoring subordinates, have been linked to an array of negative consequences (see Tepper, 2007 for an overview). Research also suggests that these forms of abuse are alarmingly common in modern organizations (Namie Namie, 2000; Tepper, 2007). The purpose of this study is to develop and test a conceptual model that expands our knowledge of antecedents, moderators, and consequences of abusive supervision. We also build on past research showing that supervisors’ relationship con? icts can â€Å"trickle down† to subordinates in the form of abusive behaviors (Aryee, Chen, Sun, Debrah, 2007). Speci? cally, we test the notion that supervisors who experience relationship con? ct, de? ned as interpersonal â€Å"tension, animosity, and annoyance† (Jehn, 1995, p. 258), with their coworkers respond by abusing subordinates. The proposed relationship between supervisor-level coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision is rooted in the notion of displaced aggression, which occurs when the reaction to an unpleasant outcome or behavior from one source is redirected to a second source (Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine, Pollock, 2003; Tedeschi Norman, 1985). Consistent with Tepper (2007), we argue that the relatively weak retaliatory power of subordinates, as compared to coworkers, increases the likelihood that relationship con? ict-driven frustration will be vented at subordinates. We qualify this assumption, however, by arguing that supervisors who experience coworker relationship con? ict will not behave abusively toward all of their subordinates. We explore ? Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: harriskj@ius. edu (K. J. Harris), Paul. Harvey@unh. edu (P. Harvey), mkacmar@cba. ua. edu (K. M. Kacmar). 1048-9843/$ – see front matter  © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2011. 07. 020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1011 this idea by examining leader–member relationship (LMX) quality as a moderator of the relationship between supervisors’ levels of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision. Finally, we advance the extant research by investigating two supervisorrated employee outcomes (work effort, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB)), one of which has not previously been examined in the context of abusive supervision. These outcomes were chosen as they extend the literature and we were interested in actual behaviors directed toward the job/task (work effort and task-focused OCB). We examine these relationships, shown in Fig. 1, in two separate samples of matched supervisor–subordinate dyads. Thus, the current study makes several contributions to the literature. First, we examine the in? uence of con? ict between supervisors on subordinate reports of abusive supervision. Examining this relationship is important because although coworker relationship con? cts have negative outcomes, studies have yet to investigate how supervisors experiencing these con? icts treat their subordinates. Second, we investigate LMX quality as a relationship variable that changes how supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are related. Third, we extend the nomological network of abusive supervision by examining the outcomes of work effort and OCB. Finally, we investigate the pot ential for abusive supervision to mediate the associations between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and distal consequences. Thus, this study takes a ? rst step toward explaining how (through the intermediary mechanism of abusive supervision) supervisors’ experiences of coworker relationship con? ict ultimately impact important job outcomes. 2. Abuse as a displaced response to coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision is de? ned as prolonged hostile treatment toward subordinates, excluding physical violence (Tepper, 2000). Research indicates that supervisors who perceive that they are victims of interactional or procedural injustice, both of which may be associated with coworker relationship con? ct (Fox, Spector, Miles, 2001), are relatively more likely than others to abuse their subordinates (Aryee, Chen, Sun, Debrah, 2007; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, Lambert, 2006). Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert (2006) argued that this trickle-down effect, in which supervisors’ frustrations are channeled into abusive behaviors targeted at subordinates, may occur because subordinates are a relativ ely safe target toward which supervisors can vent their frustrations (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, Lambert, 2006). This argument suggests abusive supervision may be a response to frustrating workplace events such as coworker relationship con? ict. Coworker con? ict has been linked to undesirable emotional states and can negatively impact interpersonal relationships (e. g. , Bergmann Volkema, 1994; Deutch, 1969). Emotion research suggests that the anger and frustration associated with interpersonal con? ict can promote verbal (e. g. , shouting) and behavioral (e. g. , theft, sabotage, violence) aggression toward those who stimulate the con? ct (e. g. , Ambrose, Seabright, Schminke, 2002; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, Sears, 1939; Fox Spector, 1999; Greenberg, 1990; Spector, 1975). Many of these behaviors, with the exception of physical violence, would fall under Tepper’s (2000) de? nition of abusive supervision if aimed at subordinates. Drawing on ? ndings from research on displaced aggression we argue that, due to the relative power of supervisors’ coworkers, these relationship con? ict-driven behaviors might, in fact, be targeted at subordinates. Displaced aggression occurs when individuals experience mistreatment from one party and respond by mistreating a second party (Hoobler Brass, 2006, Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine Pollock, 2003, Twenge Campbell, 2003). Several triggers of displaced aggression have been identi? ed, including social rejection (Twenge Campbell, 2003) and negative feedback (Bushman Baumeister, 1998). Hoobler and Brass (2006) also showed that abusive supervision at work can promote displaced aggression toward family members at home. We examine abusive supervision as a form of displaced aggression ather than a predictor, although both conceptualizations are logical. Displaced aggression is often triggered by unpleasant workplace events (e. g. , Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine Pollock, 2003) and abusive supervision ? ts this criteria. We argue that abusive supervision also can ? t the criteria of displaced aggression if it is triggered by events beyond the control of subordinates, such as the abusers’ coworker relationship con? ict. Thus, abusive supervision can likely be both a cause of displaced aggression and a type of displaced aggression. Note: Dashed lines represent hypothesized mediated linkages Supervisor-Rated Subordinate Work Effort Supervisor-Rated Coworker Conflict Abusive Supervision Supervisor-Rated Subordinate TaskFocused OCB Moderator: Leader-Member Exchange Fig. 1. Hypothesized model. 1012 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 As Tepper, Duffy, Henle and Lambert (2006) argued, abusive supervision can be used as a means for venting frustration because subordinates have relatively low levels of retaliatory power and, therefore, serve as a lower-risk target for venting behaviors than do employees in positions of greater hierarchical power. Victim precipitation research also supports this logic, indicating that displaced aggression is often targeted at those who are unable or unwilling to defend themselves, as is likely the case among subordinates who can be disciplined and terminated by their supervisors (e. g. , Aquino, 2000). This desire to vent frustration at individuals who are unassociated with the initial con? ict, similar to the anecdotal notion of â€Å"kicking the dog† after a bad day at work, can be understood in the context of displaced aggression. Coworker relationship con? ct is a potent source of stress and frustration (Thomas, 1976, 1992) and, because these are unpleasant, individuals are motivated to engage in coping behaviors that will diminish their presence (Kemper, 1966). These emotion-driven coping behaviors can often take the form of hostile behaviors such as sabotage (Ambrose, Seabright Schminke, 2002) and verbal assaults (Douglas Martinko, 2001). Thus, coworker relationship con? ict may trigger aggressive behaviors (e. g. , yelling at others) that serve a coping function. Thomas (1976) noted, however, that the relative power of the parties to a con? ct in? uences the manner in which both parties will respond. When legitimate power levels are equal, as in the case of coworkers, hostile responses are likely to be met with retaliation although it is possible that the target of retaliation will respond with additional hostility, creating an escalating cycle of con? ict. Subordinates, on the other hand, are often reluctant to respond in kind to hostile supervisor behaviors for fear of losing their jobs. The fact that subordinates are not the cause of the supervisor’s frustration, that is, the frustration is caused by supervisors’ con? ct with their coworkers, may have little impact on the behavioral response if the behavior is largely motivated by emotion as opposed to logic. That is, the desire to vent anger over coworker relationship con? ict using a sa fe target may override concerns that subordinates are not the logical targets for retaliation, given that they are not the cause of the con? ict. Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 1. Supervisors’ reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, as rated by subordinates. 2. 1. The moderating in? ence of LMX relationship quality Thomas (1976, 1992) argued that a conceptualization process occurs between the con? ict experience and the behavioral outcome in which information is processed and behavioral options are evaluated. Although this cognitive process is likely to incorporate a wide range of information, we argue that an evaluation of relationships with subordinates is particularly relevant when behaviors toward these individuals are concerned. LMX theory suggests that the quality of leader–member relationships varies from high to low (Dienesch Liden, 1986; Graen Uhl-Bien, 1995). Subordinates in high quality exchanges are seen more favorably and receive advantages from their supervisors that their low quality LMX counterparts do not (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe, Wayne, 1997). As such, members in high quality exchanges receive preferential treatment from supervisors who are motivated to maintain these productive relationships. We expect that supervisors who experience high levels of coworker relationship con? ict may become abusive toward subordinates, but will be selective in choosing which subordinates to target. Abusive supervisory behaviors generally have a negative effect on ictims’ levels of motivation and attitudes toward their jobs (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster Pagon, 2002; Schat, Desmarais, Kelloway, 2006). Although it can be argued that effective managers would not want to risk these consequences with any employees, LMX theory would suggest that supervisors are especially motivated to maintain effective relationships with their high quality LMX subor dinates. We argue, therefore, that supervisors who are frustrated by coworker relationship con? ict and who choose to react in an abusive manner will generally choose low quality LMX subordinates as their targets. Put differently, we expect that when con? ict-driven abuse occurs, members in low quality exchanges will experience it more strongly and frequently than members in high quality exchanges. Justice and victim precipitation theories provide additional support for this argument (e. g. , Aquino, 2000; Bies Moag, 1986). From a justice perspective, instead of perceiving members of low quality LMX relationships as less risky targets for abuse, it can also be argued that supervisors ? nd it easier to justify abuse toward these employees. Members of low quality exchanges are often characterized by relatively low performance levels (e. . , Deluga Perry, 1994; Liden, Wayne, Stilwell, 1993), and it might be argued that supervisors who use abusive behaviors to cope with relationship con? ict-driven frustration will feel most justi? ed in focusing on these employees. That is, supervisors might rationalize the abuse by convincing themselves that relatively lowperforming subordinates in low qualit y LMX relationships deserve the abusive behavior. Victim precipitation research also suggests that several characteristics common among low quality LMX subordinates make them likely targets of abuse. Although provocative and threatening behaviors have been linked to retaliatory aggression (e. g. , Aquino Byron, 2002; Tepper, 2007), more salient to our focus on leader–member relationships is the precipitation research indicating that abusive individuals often target those who are seen as weak or defenseless. Individuals who are hesitant to defend themselves or view themselves or their situations negatively appear to draw the attention of aggressive individuals (Aquino, 2000; Olweus, 1978; Rahim, 1983; Tepper, 2007). As discussed above, the hierarchical nature of their relationship likely promotes the former tendency among subordinates, making them relatively safe targets for abuse. Members in low quality exchanges, in particular, might be unwilling to further jeopardize their relationship with their supervisors by retaliating against abuse and might also internalize their undesirable status, promoting the negative perceptions of their workplace competence and situation (e. g. , Ferris, Brown, Heller, 2009) that can provoke victimization. Similar to our arguments concerning displaced abuse of subordinates, victim precipitation research suggests that these aggressors might wish to engage in abusive behavior as a means to K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1013 preserve their social standing and bolster perceptions of their control over a situation (e. g. , Baumeister, Smart, Boden, 1996; Felson, 1978). As such, this line of research reinforces the notion that subordinates might be targeted for displaced abuse and suggests that low quality LMX subordinates are especially likely to be viewed as vulnerable, and therefore relatively safe, targets. Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 2. The relationship between supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict and member-reported abusive supervision is moderated by LMX, such that the positive relationship is stronger when LMX relationship quality is lower. 2. 2. Outcomes of abusive supervision The outcome portion of our conceptual model, shown in Fig. 1, examines the effects of abusive supervisory responses to coworker relationship con? ict on work effort and OCB. While we do not posit that abusive supervision is the only factor mediating the relationships between supervisors’ coworker relationship con? ct and these outcomes, we argue that abuse can serve as an explanatory mechanism and explain a relevant amount of variance in each consequence. Abusive supervision is a negative workplace event that, like con? ict, can have negative attitudinal and behavioral consequences (Tepper, 2007; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, Duffy, 2008; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, Carr, 2007). It has been argued that these outcomes are caused by the stress and emotional strain associated with abuse from individuals in a position of power (e. g. Duffy, Ganster Pagon, 2002; Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter Kacmar, 2007; Tepper, 2000). Further, Duffy, Ganster and Pagon (2002) found evidence suggesting that abuse promotes diminished self-ef? cacy. As we discuss in the following sections, each of these consequences of abusive supervision can be logically linked to the outcomes depicted in Fig. 1. 2. 2. 1. Work effort Because abusive supervision can diminish victims’ con? dence in their abilities (Duffy, Ganster Pagon, 2002), it follows that motivation to exert high levels of effort at work will likely decrease in response to abuse. Abusive supervisors, who by de? nition are consistent in their abuse (Tepper, 2000), might eventually wear employees down with a steady onslaught of aggressive behavior (e. g. , yelling, criticizing), reducing their con? dence and motivation. Similarly, it may be that over time abusive supervision promotes emotional exhaustion (Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter Kacmar, 2007; Tepper, 2000), a condition characterized by diminished emotional and physical coping abilities and closely associated with job burnout (Brewer Shapard, 2004; Cropanzano, Rupp, Byrne, 2003). Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter and Kacmar (2007) argued that this relationship was likely due to the persistent assault on employees’ feelings and ef? cacy perceptions (Savicki Cooley, 1983) associated with abusive supervision. When emotional exhaustion occurs, individuals demonstrate diminished motivation and a reduced ability to handle stressful work events, promoting a reduction in work effort (Brewer Shapard, 2004; Kahill, 1988; Leiter Maslach, 1988). Using a different lens to view the abuse–work effort association, employees might also view abusive supervision as a form of psychological contract breach, as subordinates generally do not expect to be abused by those given the authority to supervise them (Tepper, 2000). When employees perceive that a breach has taken place, they often feel less compelled to ful? ll their obligation to exert high levels of work effort (Harris, Kacmar Zivnuska, 2007). 2. 2. 2. Citizenship behaviors The ? nal outcome depicted in Fig. 1 concerns the negative in? ence of coworker relationship con? ict-driven abuse and subordinates’ propensity to engage in OCB. This predicted relationship is based on research indicating that abusive supervision is associated with factors, including decreased organizational commitment, poor work-related attitudes, and injustice perceptions (Aryee, Chen, Sun Debrah, 2007; Duffy, Ganster Pagon, 2002; Schat, Desmarais, Kelloway, 2006; Zellars, Tepper Duffy, 2002), that can inhibit citizenship behaviors (Ambrose, Seabright Schminke, 2002; Zellars, Tepper Duffy, 2002). Victims of abusive supervision often feel that they have been treated unjustly (Tepper, 2000), a perception that is associated with reduced levels of OCB (Moorman, 1991). As Judge, Scott, and Ilies (2006) argued, unjust treatment is likely to qualify as a negative affective event and can therefore provoke a retaliatory behavioral response. One such response could logically be the withholding of citizenship behaviors, which are not a requirement of the job and could run counter to the goal of retaliation by making the supervisor’s job easier (e. g. , Zellars, Tepper Duffy, 2002). In support of this reasoning, additional research indicates that abusive supervision motivates retaliatory behaviors such as workplace deviance and aggression that run contrary to the notion of citizenship behavior (Dupre, Inness, Connelly, Barling, Hoption, 2006; Schaubhut, Adams, Jex, 2004). Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 3. Abusive supervision is negatively related to supervisor reports of subordinate work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 2. 3. The mediating role of abusive supervision We have argued that relationship con? ct between supervisors and their coworkers is associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, and that such behaviors have negative implications for victims’ levels of work effort and OCB. Implicit in this line of reasoning is the notion that coworker relationship con? ict at the supervisor level is ultimately associated with decreased levels of 1014 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–10 23 effort and OCB at the subordinate level, and that abusive supervision acts a mediator between these variables. More speci? ally, the negative effects of supervisors’ relationship con? ict with their coworkers are predicted to manifest themselves in the form of abusive behaviors that negatively affect employees’ attitudes and behaviors, promoting negative subordinate outcomes. Thus, while a relationship between a supervisor’s level of coworker relationship con? ict and subordinates’ levels of effort and OCB may seem somewhat abstract, we suggest that coworker relationship con? ict-driven abusive supervision provides an intermediary link between these variables. Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 4. Abusive supervision mediates the negative relationships between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 3. Method 3. 1. Samples and procedures The samples utilized in this study were from two different divisions of a state government. The division in Sample 1 was responsible for handling disease related issues (e. g. , STDs, immunizations, tuberculosis), whereas the division in Sample 2 handled environmental health related issues (e. g. , radiation, clean water). To begin the data collection efforts, the director of each division sent an email to all employees in their branch. The email informed the potential respondents of the study’s purpose, that participation was voluntary, and that the results would be con? dential. After this email, the researchers sent a personalized message again explaining the goal of the survey, the con? dentiality of responses, and a web link to the survey. Respondents were asked to complete the survey during the next month. Respondents were required to provide their supervisor’s name to match supervisor–subordinate responses. At the same time, supervisors were asked to provide ratings on each of their direct reports. In Sample 1, eliminating responses with missing data or those that were unable to be matched (i. e. , we received a subordinate response, but not a matching supervisor response) resulted in a sample size of 121 (58% response rate). Subordinates were 68% female, the average age was 41. 68 years, the average job tenure was 3. 38 years, and their average organizational tenure was 5. 22 years. In total, 28 supervisors provided ratings, resulting in an average of 4. 32 ratings per supervisor. For the supervisors, the demographic breakdown was 57% female, the average age was 47. 91 years, the average job tenure was 4. 79 years, and their average organizational tenure was 7. 73 years. After the elimination of unusable responses in Sample 2, our usable sample size was 134 (64% response rate). Participants in Sample 2 were 60% male, had an average age of 46. 04 years, average job tenure of 7. 04 years, and average organizational tenure of 11. 51 years. Forty-four supervisors provided ratings, which resulted in an average of 3. 05 ratings per supervisor. The demographic breakdown for the supervisors was 75% male, an average age of 49. 29 years, average job tenure of 9. 64 years, and average organizational tenure of 16. 26 years. 3. 2. Measures Unless otherwise noted, a 5-point Likert scale (anchors: â€Å"strongly disagree† (1) to â€Å"strongly agree† (5)) was used for all survey items. Scales were coded with high values representing high levels of the constructs. 3. 3. Subordinate measures 3. 3. 1. Abusive supervision In both samples abusive supervision was measured with six items from Tepper’s (2000) measure. We were unable to use the full 15-item measure due to management concerns about the survey’s overall length. Thus, we had experts in the area look at the content of each of the items, and we chose 6 items that best captured the full range of abusive supervisory behaviors. The items we chose were â€Å"My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others,† â€Å"My supervisor gives me the silent treatment,† â€Å"My supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason,† â€Å"My supervisor is rude to me,† â€Å"My supervisor breaks promises he/she makes,† and â€Å"My supervisor puts me down in front of others. In an effort to establish the validity of our shortened scale, we compared our reduced scale to the full measure using the data from the Tepper (2000) article. 1 We found that the full 15-item scale was correlated with our 6-item scale at . 96. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 90 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sa mple 2. 3. 3. 2. Leader–member exchange We used Liden and Maslyn’s (1998) 12-item leader–member exchange multidimensional scale to measure exchange quality in both samples. A sample item included â€Å"My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 94 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 1 We thank Ben Tepper for allowing us to use his original data for this correlation. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1015 3. 4. Supervisor measures 3. 4. 1. Coworker relationship con? ict In both samples supervisors rated their relationship con? icts with their coworkers using the 4-item Jehn (1995) scale. A sample item included â€Å"Is there tension among your coworkers? † These questions were included in a section of the survey here the supervisors were answering questions about their attitudes, behaviors, and relationships with their coworkers. Th is section was separate from the section where supervisors commented on their subordinates, thus making it clear that these relationship con? ict questions were focused on coworkers at their level in the organization (e. g. , managers’ relationship con? icts with other managers). The response scale for this construct was â€Å"Not at all (1)† to â€Å"To a very great extent (5)†. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 95 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 2. Work effort In both samples supervisors rated subordinates’ work effort using Brown and Leigh’s (1996) 5-item scale. A sample item was â€Å"When there’s a job to be done, this subordinate devotes all his/her energy to getting it done. † The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 93 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 3. Organizational citizenship behaviors Supervisors responded to Settoon and Mossholder’s (2002) 6-item scale to measure subordinate task-focused OCB in both samples. A sample item was â€Å"This subordinate assists coworkers with heavy work loads even though it is not part of the job. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 84 for Sample 1 and . 81 for Sample 2. 3. 5. Control variables We controlled for four variables, all measured from the subordinate, in an effort to minimize potentially spurious relationships. The variables we controlled for were age (measured in years), job tenure (measured in months), organizational tenure (mea sured in months), and supervisor–subordinate relationship tenure (measured in months). 3. 6. Analytical approach In both samples in this study, supervisors’ coworker relationship con? ict responses were used as predictors of subordinate outcomes (i. . , cross-level main effect). Thus, a single supervisor coworker relationship con? ict rating was used as the predictor variable for multiple subordinates. As a result, for these variables there was no within-supervisor variance and all of the variance was between supervisors (i. e. , ICCs were 1. 00). Additionally, supervisors provided ratings on certain scales (e. g. , work effort and OCB) for multiple subordinates, thus resulting in a supervisor effect (e. g. , ICC1s for OCB of . 11 in sample 1 and . 13 and sample 2, and ICC2s of . 48 in sample 1 and . 51 in sample 2). To account for the supervisor-level effect in our data, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM: Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, 2004) with grand-mean centering was used to carry out our analyses. In the HLM analyses involving supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, this variable was included as a Level 2 variable (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong Congdon, 2004). To test Hypotheses 1–2, there were four steps. In the ? rst step, we entered the four control variables. In the second step we entered the Level 2 variable of supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, and it was here that we tested Hypothesis 1. In the third step, we entered the Level 1 moderator variable, LMX. In the fourth step, we entered the cross-level interaction term formed between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and LMX. It was in this step that we tested Hypothesis 2. To test the abusive supervision-outcome and mediation hypotheses (3 and 4), we conducted Baron and Kenny’s (1986) threestep procedure. The HLM equations are available from the ? rst author request. 4. Results The means, standard deviations, and correlation matrix for the variables in this study are provided in Table 1 for Sample 1 and Table 2 for Sample 2. In both samples abusive supervision was signi? cantly correlated with supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, as well as our dependent variables. Given that a few of the correlations between our focal variables were high, we elected to run a series of con? rmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the scales used in our study to ensure that they were independent and that the items produced the expected factor structures. These analyses were run on both samples separately. To conduct our CFAs, we used LISREL 8. 80, a covariance matrix as input, and a maximum-likelihood estimation. We elected to conduct our CFA analyses using composite indicators rather than items due to the large number of items and our moderate sample sizes. To create our composite indicators, we assigned items based on factor loadings from an exploratory factor analysis (Bagozzi Heatherton, 1994; Eddleston, Viega, Powell, 2006). Speci? cally, for our four-item scales we combined the two items with the highest and lowest factor loadings to the ? rst indicator and the remaining two items to the second indicator. For the ? ve-item scales we created the ? st indicator as described above and included the remaining three items on the second indicator. For our six-item scale we paired the highest and lowest loading item to create the ? rst indicator and then repeated this process for the remaining two indicators. Finally, for the LMX scale we used the four subscales (loyalty, contribution, professional respect, and affect) as composite indicators. Our approach resulted in 15 indicators for our 6 scales. 1016 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 1. Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. Leader–member exchange (LMX) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9. LMX professional respect 10. Age 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 31 3. 03 3. 92 4. 03 3. 87 3. 86 4. 10 3. 69 4. 03 41. 68 3. 38 5. 22 1. 99 SD . 57 1. 02 . 77 . 79 . 72 . 97 . 68 . 84 1. 09 11. 1 3. 88 5. 23 2. 02 1 . 77 . 21? ? . 67 ? . 27 ? . 29 .60 .36 .69 .62 .10 . 10 . 05 . 25 2 . 95 ? .11 ? .20? ? . 18? ? . 05 . 04 . 19? ? . 14 . 01 . 23? .01 . 17 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .76 . 3 .35 .91 .77 .83 .90 ? . 00 . 05 . 08 ? .00 .86 . 40 .28 .22? .35 .28 .03 ? .00 . 10 . 00 .65 . 27 .22? .33 .35 .01 ? .03 . 05 . 12 .92 . 62 .68 .79 ? . 02 . 11 . 11 . 04 .75 . 56 .58 .11 . 05 . 11 . 04 .74 . 64 ? . 04 ? .01 . 05 ? .11 .94 ? .03 . 02 . 01 . 02 – . 35 .39 .26 – . 69 .48 – . 49 Note: Values in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which must be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell Larcker, 1981). N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. We began by estimating a six-factor solution, with each factor representing a scale in our study. Fit indices, shown in Table 3, indicate that the six-factor model ? t the data. To verify that the six-factor structure was the best representation of our data, we estimated three alternative models and compared them to our baseline model via chi-square difference tests. The alternative models estimated included two ? ve-factor models and a unidimensional model. The alternative models were created by combining scales that had strong correlations to form a larger factor. The ? rst alternative model combined abusive supervision and LMX into one factor while the second combined OCB and work effort. A description of each alternative model and the CFA results are offered in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the chi-square difference test results support the six-factor structure as originally designed. To further explore the discriminant validity of our scales we followed the procedure outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and calculated the square root of the average variance explained for each of the scales in our study. This value, which we present on the diagonal in Tables 1 and 2, represents the variance accounted for by the items that compose the scale. To demonstrate discriminant validity, this value must exceed the corresponding latent variable correlations in the same row and column. If this condition is met, then we have evidence that the variance shared between any two constructs is less than the average variance explained by the items that compose the scale (i. e. , discriminant validity). As shown in Tables 1 and 2, this condition is met for all of the scales used in our study. The HLM results predicting abusive supervision are shown in Tables 4 (for Sample 1) and 5 (for Sample 2) and the HLM results investigating abusive supervision as a mediator and/or predictor are provided in Tables 6 and 7. First describing our interaction results in Table 4, step 1 reveals that relationship tenure (? = . 08, p b . 05) was the only control variable signi? cantly associated with abusive supervision. Step 2 shows that supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05). This result provides support for Hypothesis 1 in Sample 1. Step 3 in this analysis shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 48, p b . 01). Finally, step 4 shows that the interaction term between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and LMX was negatively and signi? cantly related to abusive Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 2. Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. LMX12 (overall) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9. LMX professional respect 10. Age 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 32 2. 42 4. 04 4. 31 4. 31 4. 04 4. 15 3. 78 4. 19 45. 86 6. 55 11. 16 6. 08 SD . 58 . 76 . 60 . 73 . 67 . 78 . 56 . 78 . 95 6. 89 2. 66 4. 37 2. 12 1 . 92 . 15? ? . 55 ? . 26 ? . 21? ? . 53 .05 ? .52 ? . 57 .04 . 02 . 01 ? .01 2 . 94 ? .04 ? .03 ? .19? ? . 03 ? .06 ? .02 ? .02 ? .15 ? .09 ? .07 . 00 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .92 . 09 . 05 . 84 .53 .83 .86 ? . 07 . 08 . 05 . 07 .87 . 72 ? . 01 ? .03 . 18? .11 ? .03 ? .00 . 03 ? .02 .85 . 01 ? .13 . 09 . 13 ? .13 . 1 ? .05 . 07 .88 . 28 .56 .69 ? . 10 . 05 ? .03 . 00 .71 . 38 .22? .08 . 16* . 18? .15 .84 . 59 ? . 08 . 03 . 03 . 01 .95 ? .06 . 04 . 01 . 08 – . 14 . 23 .18? – . 61 .27 – . 26 Note: Values in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which must be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell Larcker, 1981). N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 3 Alternative model test results. Model Sample 1 (N = 121) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor Sample 2 (N = 134) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor X2 102 196 127 706 df 75 80 80 90 X2diff dfdiff CFI . 98 . 95 . 97 . 59 NFI . 95 . 91 . 94 . 57 1017 RMSEA . 048 . 093 . 059 . 200 94 25 604 5 5 15 112 276 224 1177 75 80 80 90 164 112 1065 5 5 15 .98 . 93 . 93 . 47 .94 . 89 . 89 . 46 .056 . 125 . 107 . 280 Note: Abuse = abusive supervision, LMX = leader–member exchange, OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. p b . 001. supervision (? = ?. 12, p b . 01). Overall, the results in Table 5 (Sample 2) are similar. In step 1 none of the control variables were signi? cantly associated with the outcome, but in step 2, supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict were positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 11, p b . 05), again supporting Hypothe sis 1. Step 3 in Table 5 shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 54, p b . 01). In the ? nal step, the supervisor reported coworker relationship con? ict ? LMX interaction term was negatively and signi? antly related to abusive supervision (? = ? .29, p b . 05). To determine support for our interaction hypothesis, we graphed the two signi? cant moderating effects. We did so by plotting two slopes, one at one standard deviation below and one at one standard deviation above the mean (Stone Hollenbeck, 1989). Figs. 2 (for Sample 1) and 3 (for Sample 2) illustrate the signi? cant interactions and show that the positive relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision were stronger when LMX relationship quality was lower. Additionally, we calculated simple slopes for each of our interactions. In sample 1, we found that the slope of the low LMX line was signi? cant (t = 2. 00, p b . 05), whereas the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. Similar to sample 1, in sample 2 the slope of the low LMX was signi? cant (t = 2. 11, p b . 05), but the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. In total, these results provide support for Hypothesis 2 in both samples. Tables 6 and 7 provide the results of our mediation analyses. First discussing the results from Sample 1 shown in Table 6, supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ct was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05) (which ful? lls one of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation requirements) and to OCB (? = ? .08, p b . 10) and work effort (? = ?. 14, p b . 05) (ful? lling another mediation requirement). Steps 2c and 3c show that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive super vision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer signi? cant. In particular, the gammas for supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict predicting OCB dropped from ?. 08 to ?. 6 and for predicting work effort dropped from ?. 14 to ? .11. However, abusive supervision is signi? cantly and positively related to OCB (? = ?. 37, p b . 01) and signi? cantly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 27, p b . 05). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported in Sample 1. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and OCB and partially mediated the relationship with work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported in Sample 1. Table 4 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 1. Step 1 Control variables: Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator: LMX (B) Interaction term: A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 2 . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 3 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 07? .05? ? . 48 Step 4 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 06? .05 ? .46 ? . 12 .02 .02 .02 .45 Note: Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, LMX = leader–member exchange. N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. 018 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 5 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 2. Step 1 Control variables: Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator: LMX (B) Interaction term: A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 2 . 01 .00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 3 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 09? ? . 54 Step 4 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 13? ? . 55 ? . 29 .05 .01 .01 .35 Note: Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct, LMX = leader–member exchange. N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. Next we turn to the HLM results presented for Sample 2 in Table 7. This table shows that supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision in step 1b (which passes Baron and Kenny’s (1986) ? rst step) and OCB (in step 2b), but not work effort (in step 3b). These results pass the ? rst two steps for mediation for OCB, but not work effort. Table 7 also reveals that abusive supervision is negatively and signi? cantly related to OCB (? = ?. 26, p b . 05) in step 2c, and signi? antly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 39, p b . 01) in step 3c. Thus, Hypothesis 3, which was supported in Sample 1, is also supported in Sample 2. Step 2c shows that when both supervisor report s of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer a signi? cant predictor of OCB. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct and OCB, but not work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4, which was supported for both dependent variables in Sample 1, was only supported for OCB in Sample 2. 5. Discussion The purpose of this study was to further our knowledge of the predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. We pursued this goal by examining supervisor reports of relationship con? ict with their coworkers as a predictor of subordinate-rated abusive supervision, and LMX quality as a situational variable in? uencing this relationship. Additionally, we examined the outcomes of supervisor-rated OCB nd work effort and found that abu sive supervision fully mediated the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and OCB in both samples and the outcomes of work effort in one sample. Returning to our theoretical arguments, we found that displaced aggression and LMX theories provide useful lenses for discussing predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. Coworker relationship con? ict at any level is a potent source of stress and frustration as it impedes the achievement of goals and the attainment of desired outcomes (e. g. , Thomas, 1976). Like past abusive supervision research (Tepper, Duffy, Henle Lambert, 2006), our results suggest that some supervisors will resort to abusive behaviors against their employees as a means of coping with these consequences. This study advances existing research by explicitly examining situations where subordinates are not the logical target of retaliation (i. e. , they are not the source of the con? ict). Because subordinates are an easy and accessible target, however, having less power and less of an ability to retaliate, they make relatively safe candidates for abuse from frustrated supervisors. Table 6 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 1. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note: OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 1b . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 2a . 00 ? .02 . 00 . 05 DV = OCB DV = work effort Step 2b . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 05 ? .08+ Step 2c . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 07 ? .06 ? .27? Step 3a ? .00 ? .02 . 02 . 00 Step 2b ? .00 ? .01 . 02 . 01 ? .14? Step 3c . 0 ? .01 . 01 . 04 . 11 ? .37 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 7 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 2. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note: OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 1b . 01 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 2a ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 DV = OCB DV = work effort 1019 Step 2b ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 ? .13? Step 2c ? .01 . 0 ? .00 . 00 ? .09 ? .26? Step 3a ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 Step 3b ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .03 Step 3c . 00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 02 ? .39 Additionally, when supervisors experience coworker relationship con? ict, our results indicate that they are most likely to abuse subordinates with whom they have low quality LMX relationships. This ? nding appears to support our argument that supervisors will focus their abusive behaviors on those employees in low quality exchanges in order to shield their high quality relationships from the detrimental effects of abusive supervision. In this way, supervisors may reason that abusive behaviors allow them to vent frustration while minimizing the negative in? uence of this coping behavior on their most valued employees. Naturally, there are ? aws in this method of coping, most notably that the performance levels of abused employees will likely suffer, causing added strain and frustration for other employees and the supervisors themselves. Among supervisors who make the problematic choice to cope through abuse, however, it appears that employees in low-quality relationships are the most likely targets. We also extended abusive supervision research with our ? ndings indicating that this variable is related to the outcomes of OCB and work effort. These ? ndings are noteworthy as they extend the nomological network of outcomes related to abusive supervision, and because both outcomes were supervisor-rated, which helps to minimize common source bias concerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, Podsakoff, 2003). Additionally, in sample 1 we found that abusive supervision served as an intermediary mechanism explaining the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and both consequences examined, and that there was also mediation on the outcome of OCB in sample 2. These results are important as they begin to answer the questions related to how situational supervisor variables, such as coworker relationship con? ict, ultimately are translated into subordinate outcomes. Surprisingly, we did not ? nd support for the work effort mediation hypothesis in Sample 2. A post hoc explanation for these insigni? cant ? ndings may relate to the demographic composition of the samples. Sample 2 was different from Sample 1 for both subordinates and supervisors. It was primarily male, the average age was higher, and average job and organizational tenure were both more than double (except for supervisor job tenure) those in the ? rst sample. Although it is possible to deduce explanations as to how these differences might have in? uenced our results, such atheoretical logic would be overly speculative. Thus, as we suggest below, we encourage replicative research in additional samples that would allow for a more systematic assessment of these, or other, sample-speci? c characteristics. 5. 1. Contributions These ? dings make several contributions to the extant research on abusive supervision and LMX relationships. First, they build support for the notion of displaced abusive supervision and undermine a potential alternative explanation. In Tepper’s (2007) review of abusive supervision literature, he concluded that supervisors’ perceptions of organization-level factors, such as Fig. 2. Moderating effect of LMX on the relationship be tween supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 1. 1020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Fig. 3. Moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 2. injustice and contract violation, can trigger abuse toward individual targets (i. e. , subordinates). He argued that this phenomenon might be explained by displaced aggression logic, in that subordinates serve as safe abuse targets even if the abuse is unlikely to resolve the perceptions triggering the desire to be abusive. An alternative, although somewhat tenuous, explanation is that these negative perceptions in? ence animosity toward the overall organization and that supervisors justify the abuse of subordinates who are seen as complicit in the perceived negative aspects of the organization. Our ? ndings suggest that this alternative basis of justi? cation would not adequately explain displaced abusive supervision. Looking beyond generalized organizational perceptions, we found that even frustration stemming from speci? c, identi? able non-subordinate sources (i. e. , supervisors’ coworkers) might translate into abuse toward subordinates. This suggests that abusive supervision may serve as a â€Å"self-defeating† coping mechanism (e. g. , Baumeister Scher, 1988), akin to mechanisms such as problem drinking and procrastination, in that it seeks short-term stress-reduction (e. g. , through emotional venting) in a harmful way that does not address the true source of the underlying problem (e. g. , con? ict with peers). We also expand on Tepper’s conclusion, again stemming from his 2007 review of abusive supervision research, that subordinate characteristics in? uence the likelihood that they will experience abuse. As in the present study, Tepper (2007) cited victimization research to argue that subordinates who appear overly provocative or passive put themselves at a heightened risk for abuse. Expanding on the latter idea, we argued and observed that employees in low quality LMX relationships, who we expect demonstrate relatively high levels of passivity and vulnerability, report higher levels of abuse. This suggests that instead of identifying each of the potential subordinate characteristics that can incite abuse, a more parsimonious approach might be to look at broad relationship variables such as LMX that can be viewed as re? cting the aggregate impact of these individual characteristics. This conclusion also adds to LMX research by revealing an additional consequence of low-quality LMX relationships. In addition to the wide body of research showing that low-quality LMX subordinates experience outcomes such as fewer rewards, lower resource levels, and reduced job satisfaction (e. g. , Lide n, Sparrowe Wayne, 1997), this study suggests a more serious potential consequence in the form of victimization by abusive supervisors. Additionally, our results, and the fact that most were replicated across the two samples, demonstrate the utility of multi-level models for predicting employee consequences of abusive supervision. Abusive supervision is an inherently multi-level phenomenon and this study shows that insights into some causes of abuse, such as con? ict levels between supervisors, exist that cannot be assessed from subordinate self-reports. Similarly, it identi? es supervisor-rated subordinate outcomes of abusive supervision (effort levels and OCB) that are dif? cult to assess with self-reports due to social desirability and common source bias concerns. Further, these supervisor-rated effects provide some indication that abusive supervisors are at least indirectly aware of the selfdefeating consequences of abuse. Our data do not tell us whether supervisors consciously related their abuse to lower levels of employee effort and citizenship behavior. Their awareness of lower levels among the abused subordinates, however, suggests that a degree of denial would be necessary for the supervisors to overlook these cause–effect relationships. Although existing research has not, to our knowledge, explicitly stated that supervisors are unaware of the consequences of abusive behavior, this ? ding suggests that future research on preventing abuse might bene? t from focusing not on why supervisors view the behavior as acceptable, but why they engage in it despite an apparent awareness of these consequences. 5. 2. Limitations In addition to the aforementioned strengths and contributions, there are limitations that we must acknowledge to pro perly interpret the study’s results. First we acknowledge that the theoretical framework we have developed is not the only logical explanation for the hypothesized and observed relationships. For example, it is plausible that the link between supervisors’ coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision is less cognitive than we have argued. Instead of selectively choosing subordinates as a low-risk target for venting frustration, it might be that some supervisors simply possess traits that predispose K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1021 them toward con? ict and abusive behaviors (with higher levels of abuse directed at low quality members). Examples of such traits might include negative affectivity or hostile attribution styles (Douglas Martinko, 2001). An investigation of these possibilities would be useful in forming a more comprehensive understanding of the empirical relationships observed in the present study. In terms of methodological limitations, survey length constraints required us to use a reduced version of the abusive supervision scale. Even though we chose items that tapped into the full set of behaviors and found an extremely high correlation between our shortened measure and the full scale, this may still be viewed as a limitation. Another limitation is that we were unable to measure causality. Thus, there is the potential that our relationships actually have reverse causality or that variables predict each other in a recursive manner. This is particularly true regarding the association between LMX perceptions and abusive supervision. Our results suggest that supervisors are more abusive toward some employees than others and that this difference is associated with variations in subordinates’ LMX scores. It can be argued, and is indeed very likely, that an abused employee would report lower LMX scores because of the abuse. The ? nding that supervisors are selective in their abuse targets suggests that some criterion is evaluated before targets are chosen and we have argued that preexisting LMX relationship qualities could serve as this criterion. Our design does not allow us to make this claim de? nitively, however. Similarly, it may be that abusive supervision is not the predictor of work effort, but that insuf? cient effort by subordinates promotes higher levels of abusive supervision or that both variables in? uence each other in a cyclical manner. We are particularly sensitive to the argument that there may be a feedback loop between abusive supervision and the outcome variables, such that abuse reduces subordinates’ effort and citizenship levels, and this reduction provokes further abuse, although the design of the study did not allow us to test this possibility. Along a similar line, it could be that abusive supervision toward subordinates is actually the cause of the supervisors’ con? ict among peers. We hope that future studies will be designed to better answer these causality questions. There are also limitations associated with the sampling of public, white-collar organizations. Different organizations (e. g. , private, military, blue-collar) have different rules and norms governing behavior and it is likely that the abusive supervisory behaviors studied would be more or less permissible, and therefore more or less common, in different organizational settings. 5. 3. Directions for future research This study’s ? ndings suggest a number of directions for future research. First, we hope future researchers will examine our hypotheses in other, more diverse samples. Although we examined two separate organizations, it is necessary to examine additional samples to better establish the generalizability or boundary conditions of our relationships. A second suggestion is to examine the relationships in this study with a longitudinal research design. The extant research on abusive supervision, including this study, has primarily relied on cross-sectional designs. Although telling, these studies leave out situations and behaviors that impact subordinates over time. In the case of both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and abusive supervision, it may be that supervisors and subordinates learn to cope with these situations, and become accustomed to them. Conversely, it could be that these situations and behaviors become worse as they accumulate over time (Harris, Kacmar, Witt, 2005) as argued by Tepper (2000) and as noted in our discussion of cyclical relationships between abuse and behavioral outcomes in the previous section. Another avenue for future research is to conduct additional multi-level investigations to determine how supervisor experiences and situations impact their subordinates. In this study we examined supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, but it also would be interesting to investigate the effect of supervisors’ supervisor relationship con? ict, abusive supervision, LMX, team member exchange, and perceived organizational support (Erdogan Enders, 2007; Tangirala, Green, Ramanujam, 2007) as these variables are likely to have â€Å"trickle-down† effects on employee outcomes. Additionally, the aforementioned implication that supervisors might be aware of the consequences of abusive supervision suggests that a multilevel, or at least supervisor-level, focus on understanding the justi? ation process might provide insight into interventions for preventing such behavior. It would also be interesting to investigate personality characteristics, such as Machiavellianism, entitlement, and narcissism, of supervisors and subordinates and how these variables are related to abuse (Harvey Harris, 2010; Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, Tang, 2010). Finally, we examined LMX from the perspective of the member, but it would be insightful to investigate leader reports of the LMX quality with their subordinates and how this rating interacts with supervisor coworker con? ict. 5. 4. Practical implications Before discussing speci? practical implications from this study, it should be noted that the overarching implication from this and most of the existing body of research on abusive supervision is that abusive supervision is detrimental to all parties. It is stressful for victims and hurts organizational performance and a supervisor’s effectiveness by negatively affecting desirable outcomes (see Tepper, 2007) such as increased levels of effort and OCB. Employees may feel intimidated and afraid to report the behavior of abusive supervisors, however, making it dif? cult for organizational leaders to identify and eliminate these abusive managers. Because of the dif? culty in reducing existing levels of abuse, preventative techniques for reducing the likelihood of abusive supervision are advisable. The results of this study suggest that one such technique is for organizational leaders to observe and mediate con? icts between supervisory employees, thereby removing an antecedent of abusive behaviors. Additionally, because the supervisors in our study were more likely to abuse employees with whom they shared low-quality relationships, an organization-wide focus on the development of strong leader–member relationships might foster a climate where there are few 022 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 desirable targets for abuse. We acknowledge that neither of these suggestions (i. e. , mediating supervisor con? icts and promoting strong leader–member relationships) are simple tasks. We suggest, however, that a continuous focus on these goals would consume far less time and energy than dealing with the consequences of abusive supervision. 6 How to cite Abusive Supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict, Essay examples