Supervisor Workplace Stress and Abusive Supervision: The Buffering Effect of Exercise

Author(s): James P. Burton, Jenny M. Hoobler and Melinda L. Scheuer

Source: Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 3 (September 2012), pp. 271-279
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41682913
Accessed: 12-03-2017 10:57 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41682913?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business and
Psychology

This content downloaded from 111.68.97.226 on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:57:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:271-279
DOI 10.1007/S10869-01 1-9255-0

Supervisor Workplace Stress and Abusive Supervision:

The Buffering Effect of Exercise

James P. Burton • Jenny M. Hoobler •

Melinda L. Scheuer

Published online: 7 January 2012

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract evidence that they do not necessarily have to transfer these

Purpose We examine how supervisor stress is associated
frustrations onto those they supervise. Our study supports a
with employee-rated abusive supervision. In addition, welink between supervisor stress and employee perceptions of
abusive supervision, but this is a link that can be loosened
test the premise that higher levels of physical exercise by
if supervisors engage in moderate levels of physical
supervisors can buffer the negative effects of stress on their
relationship with their subordinates. exercise.

Originality/Value The results of this study add to the

Design/Methodology/Approach A matched sample of 98
modest number of antecedents to abusive supervision that
employed individuals and their direct supervisors was used
to test our hypotheses. have been discovered in existing research. In addition, this
Findings Results suggest that increased levels of super-
is the first study to examine how exercise can buffer the
relationship between supervisor stress and employee per-
visor-reported stress are related to the increased experience
of employee-rated abusive supervision. We also find thatceptions of abusive supervision.
the relationship between supervisor stress and abusive
behavior can be diminished when supervisors engage Keywords
in Abusive supervision • Stress • Exercise
moderate levels of physical exercise.
Implications While the current economic conditions and
a host of other trying workplace factors mean that super-Demands for high productivity, the quest for efficiency,
and the competitiveness of modern work organizations
visors are likely to experience workplace stress, we found
have contributed to an environment for workers where job
stressors are many and commonplace. Supervisors, who are
J. P. Burton (El)
usually responsible for carrying out changes during tur-
Department of Management, College of Business,
Northern Illinois University, Barsema Hall, bulent economic times, are especially at risk of experi-
DeKalb, IL 60115, USA encing increased levels of stress at work (Hogan and
e-mail: jburton@niu.edu Overmyer-Day 1994; Srivastava et al. 1994). Therefore, at
J. M. Hoobler
the present time perhaps more than ever, it is crucial for
Department of Managerial Studies, College of Business researchers to understand how supervisors react to stressful
Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago, working situations.
2212 University Hall, 601 S. Morgan M/C 243, One possible result of supervisors experiencing dis-
Chicago, IL 60607, USA
tressing and/or dissatisfying conditions in their working
e-mail: jhoobler@uic.edu
environments is abusive supervision (Rafferty et al. 2010;
M. L. Scheuer Tepper 2007). The literature on abusive supervision
Department of Psychology, College of Liberal ("subordinates' perceptions of the degree to which their
Arts and Sciences, Northern Illinois University,
direct supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile
Psychology-Computer Science Building,
Rm. 400, DeKalb, IL 601 15, USA verbal and nonverbal behaviors toward them" - Tepper
e-mail: minscheuer@aol.com 2000, p. 178; examples include lying, public ridicule, and

Springer

This content downloaded from 111.68.97.226 on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:57:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 272 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:271-279

other put-downs)times,
has demonstrated
the unbalance asu
consequences for the
subordinates (Hershc
situation outpace t
2010). These consequences
energy include for
needed negativ
suc
as lower job perceptions
satisfaction of work
and organization
(Tepper 2000; Keashly et al.
examining 1994),
the ag
individu
deviant behavior (Mitchell and Ambrose
cle, but rather adopt t
2005), lower work (1984) and Lazarus
performance an
(Harris e
chological distress symptoms of al.
(Rafferty et stress ar
2010;
Ashforth 1997), and lower
stressors. self-estee
Therefore, w
Hoobler 2006). visor's
Although overall
there percept
is a multitud
examines potential the
on the outcomes of ab
time pressures a
very few Although
have studies
examined research is
the facto
workplace
a supervisor to become abusive situations
(Tepper e
2007). Our hypothesesbehavior,
add toin the
the body
few
antecedents
antecedents to abusive of abusive
supervision to sug
visor perceptions of framed abusive
stress are supe
associated
(Tepper abuse.
perceptions of supervisor 2007). Displace
However, we propose [person's] harm-doing
that stressful wor
do not always have ondary
to be target
associatedor vic
wi
p. 30). stress
vision; that is, supervisor Theorizing in
is not fat
(Miller supervisors
the relationship between et al. 2003; andTw
test the premise thatgested that,
higher when
levels thi
of ph
supervisor-subordinat
supervisors can buffer the negative effects
relationship with tials, subordinates.
their esteem-related
Weju
aggression (Tedeschi and Norman
displaced 198
aggression.
Lazarus and workplace
Folkman stress
1984), and may
recovery
ries (e.g., Meijman and
there isMulder 1998;
not a specific
underpin increased workload d
our hypotheses.
downsize his/her or d
unable to confront or define the source of his or her
Supervisor Stress and Perceptions of
workplace stressors. Therefore, instead of confronting a
Supervision
provocateur, the literature suggests (Aryee et al. 2007;
Hoobler and Brass 2006; Tepper et al. 2006), supervisors
Stress has been defined as the relationship
will turn toward other, less powerful individuals on whom
and his/her environment that is perceive
to vent their frustrations.
in terms of one's physical and psycholog
Both Hoobler and Brass (2006) and Aryee et al. (2007)
the demands of the situation (Lazarus an
found evidence that when supervisors are frustrated by
Individuals strive to maintain (or even
organizational circumstances (in their research, psycho-
resources, such as time and energy, and
logical contract breach and interactional injustice, respec-
resources can result in stress (Hobfoll
tively), their subordinates reported greater abusive
stress is often related
to the design of the
supervision. That is, congruent with the theory of displaced
environment of the workplace setting, r
aggression, when a supervisor confronts frustrating work-
exist in the workplace, or some combina
place events (here, stress from not being able to satisfy
et al. 2009). Job demands, such as working
workplace demands) this evokes the need for aggression.
the associated increased perceptions of t
Note that the parties that supervisors have power over in
make it difficult for supervisors to psyc
organizations are their subordinates. As such, when a
from their job (Sonnentag et al. 2010)
supervisor experiences workplace stress, this is positively
negative impacts on supervisors' moo
associated with their subordinate experiencing abusive
(Sonnentag and Zijlstra 2006). In addi
supervision.
experiences certain job demands, such as
hours, and the
person cannot
Hypothesis 1 Supervisor predict
perceptions of workplace stress ho
continue, are positively associated
stress results with employee perceptions
(Meurs and of Perre
from our abusive supervision.
arguments above, especially in t

ô Springer

This content downloaded from 111.68.97.226 on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:57:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:271-279 273

Supervisor Exercise as
et al. 2009), a exercise
it is likely Buffer of
buffers against stressful Stre
events through psychosocial mechanisms (Biddle 2000). It
As is thought not
one would expect, that exercise helps individuals
all individuals build psycho- r
way to stressful events (Meurs
logical resiliency to stressful events (Lovelace etand
al. 2007). Per
Meta-analyses
and Toijman 2009). The by Crews and Landers (1987)that
effect and Wipfli str
et al. (2008) demonstrated
individuals is primarily a result that physically fit
of individuals
the ina
had a lower psychosocial response to stressful events
from the stress, rather than the stress i
Perrewé 2011). In compared
fact, to controlindividuals
groups. Austin et al. (2005) demon-who
levels of time pressure atexperience
strated that when teachers work have
high levels of stress, d
greatest need for recovery
they are more (Sonnen
likely to engage in negative coping behaviors
Sonnentag and Kruel 2006;
(e.g., uncontrolled Sonnentag
aggression, less acceptance of respon- a
Sonnentag and Bayer 2005).
sibility for mistakes, and avoidanceThe ability
of others). However,
job demands over teacher exercise
the (e.g., a positive coping strategy)
weekend, or lessened
even ov
shown to be related to
these effects. greater
In addition, levels
exercise is likely to mitigate
(Binnewies et al. stressful
2010), events becausegeneral well-b
individuals who exercise interpret
Sonnentag 2005), positive
stressful moods,
events differently than individuals who do not an
(Sonnentag et al. exercise (e.g., Sonnentag
2008; Buckaloo et al. 2009; Ritvanen etand
al. 2007; Bay
Norris et al. 1990). For example,
there are many different Nguyen-Michel et al. tha
methods
undertake to recover
(2006) found that from or
individuals who engaged cope
in more phys- w
Binnewies et al. 2010;
ical activityMatheny
perceived and reported less stress
etor al.
"hassles" 1987
attention on exercise
than individualsand
who were lessexamine
physically active. As well, how
relationship individuals who
between supervisor exercise often report more perceived
stress an
treatment. We focus our attention on exercise because it control over their life and the events that happen to them
(Taylor 2000).
has been considered a leisure activity that helps a person
recover from and cope with stress (Gerber et al. 2010;
Although the exact mechanisms are unclear, there is
Sonnentag and Zijlstra 2006). ample evidence that exercise buffers the negative effects of
Although there is a long research history of support stress
for on a variety of outcomes, but especially mental and
physical health. What is not so clear is how or if exercise
the direct impact of exercise on physical and mental health
(e.g., Gerber et al. 2010; Craike et al. 2010; Mackay buffers
and the effect of stressful events on negative supervisor
Neill 2010; Crone et al. 2009), research has also demon-
behavior, such as abusive supervision. We believe it is
strated that exercise helps buffer the negative effectsnecessary
of to bring this type of study into a general work-
stress on health (Gerber and Pühse 2009). Specifically,
place situation to examine the effect exercise has on the
relationship between supervisor stress and abusive super-
exercise acts as a coping or recovery mechanism for stressful
life events and environments (Gerber et al. 2010; Coopervision,
and especially given the potential costs, both financial
and psychological, to organizations and employees when
Berwick 2001). This buffering effect has been demonstrated
to be especially potent when stress is perceived as high
this type of behavior is prevalent.
(Crone et al. 2005). In fact, Craike et al. (2010) state, Although the role of stress and exercise has not been
"...when the level of stress of an individual is low, the studied in relation to abusive supervision in the past, we
impact of the 'buffering factor' will be negligible. However, believe it is likely that the buffering mechanisms of exer-
when the level of personal stress is high, a successful buf- cise that limit the negative effect of stress on physical and
fering factor will block the impact of that high stress" mental health operate in a similar fashion to impact a
(p. 25). Taylor et al. (2008) demonstrated that a person's fitness supervisor's decision to become aggressive. Psychologi-
level reduced the impact of stressful events during military cally, supervisors who experience stress but exercise are
survival training. Crone et al. (2005) found in a qualitative likely to interpret these stressful events differently than
study that individuals who exercised more frequently ade- supervisors who do not exercise. We know that physically
quately coped with all aspects of their life and especially active individuals are less reactive to stressful events than
with stressful events. Sonnentag and Bayer (2005) demon- less active people (Rimmele et al. 2009; Taylor 2000). In
strated that physical activity in the evening was associated addition, we know that physical exercise is positively
with positive moods. In the workplace-related literature, related to moods (Sonnentag and Bayer 2005). This is
Le vinson (1996) argued that exercise is one tool for burned- likely to hold true for supervisors who experience high
out executives to deal with the effects of stress. levels of stress. If they are less reactive to stressful events,
Although there is no clear consensus on the exact they may be less likely to engage in abusive supervision. In
mechanisms for exercise's role in buffering stress (Crone fact, Kobasa et al. (1982) demonstrated that male managers

Springer

This content downloaded from 111.68.97.226 on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:57:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 274 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:271-279

who exercised Measures

frequently experienced fe
toms when exposed to high levels of s
Employee Perceptions
(1987) theorized that of Abusive Supervision
exercising helps
long-term to increase their resistance to
the workplace. In Employees
addition, in this study answered 15 items from Tepper
Falkenberg (1
in the short-term,(2000) designed to measure perceptions
managers who of abusive super-
exercise
more vision. Respondents usedand
cognitively
focused, a 7-point scale
less (1 = Strongly
anxio
Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) to experience
expect that when supervisors indicate the extent of
in exercise, their supervisor
subordinatesbehaviors such as "tells me my thoughts
will or
repor
abusive feelings are stupid," or "puts me down in front of others."
supervision.
To be consistent with past research using this scale, we
Hypothesis Supervisor exercise leve 2
averaged the 15 items to create our measure of abusive
relationship between supervisor percepti
supervision (Mean = 1.94, SD = .89, alpha = .91).
stress and employee perceptions of ab
such that higher exercise levels decr
Supervisor Perceptions of Workplace Stress
relationship between stress and abusive

The degree to which supervisors experienced workplace

stress was assessed using 7 items (1 = Strongly Disagree;
Method 7 = Strongly Agree) from Parker and DeCotiis (1983)
designed to measure the extent to which perceived time
Participants for this study were full-time employed MBA pressures on the job cause stress (e.g., "Working my cur-
rent job leaves little time for other activities;" "I have too
students (and their supervisors) located at two universities
in the Midwestern United States. The participants were much work and too little time to do it in"). To be consistent
approached in class and granted extra credit for theirwith past research and theory, we averaged the 7 items to
participation in this study. Individuals who agreedcreate
to our composite measure of workplace stress
(Mean = 3.58, SD = 1.22, alpha = .85).
participate completed a survey that measured their per-
ceptions of the abusiveness of their current supervisor as
Supervisor Exercise Frequency
well as various demographic variables. In addition, these
participants were asked to give a sealed envelope to their
immediate supervisor. The sealed envelope includedTo a access the degree to which supervisors in this sample
exercised, we utilized the approach suggested by Brown
survey and a postage-paid return envelope addressed to the
researchers. The supervisor survey included questions on(1991). Specifically, we asked each supervisor, on average,
exercise frequency and workplace stress, as wellhow as often they exercise per week (1 = never, 2 = 1 day,
demographic variables. All surveys had a unique identi-3 = 2-3 days, 4 = 4-5 days, 5 = 6-7 days) (Mean =
fying number so we could match the employee and 2.76, SD = 1.10). Self-reports of physical fitness/exercise
supervisor surveys upon receipt. A total of 148 MBA have been shown to be consistent with objective measures
of exercise (Brown 1991).
volunteers agreed to participate and complete the various
measures. Of these 148 students, we received 105 matched
surveys from their supervisors. However, we choseControl
to Variables

focus our attention on supervisors and employees who had

more than 2 months working together to allow for moreWe controlled for employees' level of negative affectivity to
accurate perceptions of abuse. Some research has sug-
help rule out alternative explanations for employees' per-
ceptions of abusive supervision. It is common practice
gested the existence of an initial "honeymoon" period
(c.f., Zellars et al. 2002; Aryee et al. 2007) to assume that
where uncivil, antisocial behavior may be tolerated from
supervisors (Pearson and Porath 2004). So, excluding employees' negative mood influences the degree to which
they interpret their supervisors' behavior as abusive.
employees who were "brand new" to their supervisors,
our final sample size consisted of 98 matched surveys.
Employees were asked 4 items (Watson et al. 1 988) designed
to measure their general level of negative affectivity. We
Sixty percent of the MBA students were male and they
created our composite measure of negative affectivity by
averaged 30.69 years of age (SD = 9.26), and 1 1 .04 years
of work experience (SD = 8.93). Seventy-two percentaveraging
of the items (Mean = 2.68, SD = .99, alpha = .76).
the supervisors were male, and they averaged 43.04 years
In addition, supervisor gender and age were controlled for in
of age (SD = 11.38) and 23.26 years of work experienceall analyses involving exercise since gender (Stephens and
(SD = 11.06). Caspersen 1994) and age (Caspersen et al. 2000) have been

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 111.68.97.226 on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:57:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:271-279 v 275

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Abusive supervision 1.94 .89 (.91)

2. Supervisor stress 3.58 1.22 .21* (.85)
3. Supervisor exercise 2.76 1.10 -.01 -.17
4. Employee N.A.a 2.68 .99 .22* .11 .12 (.76)
5. Tenure with supervisor 2.38 1.81 .05 -.04 .12 -.11
6. Supervisor gender - - .05 .08 .14 .03 -.02
7. Supervisor age 43.04 11.38 -.10 -.09 .24* .12 .24* .07

Numbers in parentheses are coefficient alpha

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two-tailed)
a Employee N.A. = Employee Negative Affectivity

additionparticipation
shown to influence exercise of supervisor stress to the regression
and, equation
sometimes,
explained an additional 4% of the
perceptions of stress (Nguyen-Michel et variance
al. in2006).
employee Finally,
we controlled for employees'
ratings of tenure
abusive supervisionwith
(F = 4.01, p < their
.05). Hypoth- supervisor
because even though we esis
excluded dyads
1 is supported. Please see Table 2. who had been
working together less than Hypothesis
2 2months,
indicated that supervisor
those
exercise levelemployees
moderates
working for their supervisors forthe relationship between supervisor
relatively ratings of
shorter duration
(3-6 months, for example) (1) stress
workplace may have
and employee ratingslimited
of abusive super- opportu-
nities to observe behaviorsvision. To test for moderation,
indicative of we utilized
abusive the approachsupervision
suggested bysupervisor
and (2) may still be giving their Baron and Kenny (1986). "the
All variablesbenefit
were of the
doubt" when judging the valence
centered of
to help control for their
the effects interpersona
of collinearity. In
the first step,
behavior (Pearson and Porath 2004).we included our control variables (i.e.,
employee negative affect, tenure with supervisor, supervi-
sor gender, and supervisor age). In the second step, we
Results entered our independent variable, supervisor stress, and our
moderator, supervisor exercise. In the final step, we
All means, standard deviations, and correlations for this included the interaction between our independent variables
study are reported in Table 1. In order to demonstrate
and our moderator variable. A significant interaction indi-
adequate model fit for our constructs of interest, we con-cates moderation. The results of our regression analyses
ducted a confirmatory factor analysis. Given our small
lend support to hypothesis 2 (please see Table 2). Specif-
sample size, we formed parcels using the approach sug-
ically, the addition of the supervisor stress and exercise
gested by Little et al. (2002). Specifically, the parcels were
interaction term explained an additional 4.5% of the vari-
formed by balancing the best and worst loading itemsance in employee ratings of abusive supervision ( F = 4.48,
p < .05).
across the parcels. The measurement model fit our data
well according to a variety of goodness of fit indices We also conducted an additional analysis to help rule
(NFI = .98; RFI = .97; RMSEA = .00; SRMR = .03). out an alternative explanation to this hypothesis (i.e., it is
Hypothesis 1 indicated that supervisor workplace stress
not that supervisor exercise buffers the negative effects of
would be positively associated with employee ratings ofon abusive supervision, it is simply that supervisors
stress
who exercise perceive lower levels of stress). The corre-
abusive supervision. A perusal of the correlation matrix
lends initial support for our hypothesis. Specifically,lation matrix reveals that supervisor perceptions of stress
supervisor stress is significantly related to employee and
per- exercise are not significantly related (r = -.17, n.s.).
ceptions of abusive supervision (r=.21, p < .05). To In addition, after controlling for supervisor age and gender,
more rigorously test this relationship, hierarchical regres- regression analyses demonstrate no significant influence of
sion analysis was conducted. After controlling for supervisor exercise on supervisor perceptions of stress
employee negative affect and tenure with supervisor,1 the (Change in R2 = .03, F = 3.22, n.s.).
We examined the interaction using a Johnson-Neyman
test (see Hayes and Matthes 2009) which allows us to
1 Please note that all of the results reported in this paper are similar
without the use of the control variables included in the regression identify a specific range of values of the moderator vari-
equations. able (i.e., supervisor exercise) where the relationship

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 111.68.97.226 on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:57:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 276 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:271-279

Table 2 Supervisor workplace stress, exercise

ceptions of abusive supervision

Variable Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2

Std. Beta Std. Beta

Emp. negative affectivity .21* .20

Emp. tenure with supervisor .08 .13
Supervisor gender - .04
Supervisor age - -.19
Supervisor stress .20* .15
Supervisor exercise - .01
Stress X exercise - -.22*

Total Ä2 .09 .16

Change in Ä2a .04* .05* Fig. 1 Supervisor workplace stress and exercise on employee ratings
of abusive supervision
Standardized betas shown for final regression equation
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Discussion
a Change in R2 for the addition of Supervisor Stress or interaction
term (stress x exercise) to the regression equation. For all interaction
analyses, all variables were centered In a study matching responses of supervisors and their
subordinates, we found evidence that when supervisors
reported experiencing time-based workplace stress, their
between supervisor perceptions ofsubordinates
stress is significantly
reported higher levels of being victimized by
related to employee perceptions abusive
of abusive supervision.
supervision. This finding adds to the modest
We also used the more common number
Aiken of and West
antecedents (1991)
to abusive supervision that have
approach where we examined the moderator atexisting
been discovered in values ±1 Our finding is con-
research.
standard deviation from the mean. Both approaches lend
sistent with the previous literature that has found that
additional support to our hypothesis. Using
supervisors the
seem to Aiken and
become aggressive (in a displaced
West (1991) approach, we see a stronger relationship
fashion) when workplace situations become frustrating,
between supervisor perceptions of stress and employee
such as when organizations and colleagues generate feel-
perceptions of abuse for supervisors who and
ings of injustice exercise less
imbalance (Rafferty et al. 2010; Aryee
frequently (please see Fig. 1). Inet al.addition, using
2007; Hoobler and theTepper et al. 2006).
Brass 2006;
Johnson-Neyman test, we findAsthat when
such, the evidencesupervisor
seems to be growing that supervisor
exercise level is 2.47 or below (again, this
frustrations tendnumber rep-
to be vented or displaced onto subordi-
resents the frequency of exercise pernates,week
and oneon a five-point
mechanism for this is through behaviors
scale), we see a significant relationship between supervi-
indicative of abusive supervision.
sor-reported workplace stress and employee-reported
We also found evidence that while supervisor stress was
abusive supervision. Above 2.47, the relationship between
associated with abusive behavior, this effect was dimin-
supervisor stress and employee ished
perceptions
when supervisors ofengaged
abusivein higher levels of phys-
supervision is not significantly different from
ical exercise. Please note zero. The
that we did not find a direct
results of our analyses demonstrate that it
relationship is supervisors
between supervisor exercise and their percep-
with low levels of exercise who appear to be most tions of workplace stress. Therefore, our results cannot be
responsive to stress by engaging in abusive supervision. explained by the fact that supervisors who exercise more
Hypothesis 2 is supported.2 simply experience less stress. Instead, our results lend
support to the idea that exercise buffers or minimizes the
negative effects of supervisor stress on their abusive
2 When conducting the analyses using the full sample (i.e., including behavior toward their subordinates. In addition, it is
employees who have worked for their supervisor for less than
important to note that we demonstrated that only relatively
2 months), the results for hypothesis 2 are almost identical. However,
hypothesis 1 is not supported. The difference in these results could be
moderate levels of exercise are necessary to minimize this
due to the fact that newer employees have not had the opportunity to particular negative effect of stress in supervisors. Recall
experience abusive supervision; the supervisors of new employees that we found this buffering effect when a supervisor
may be "taking it easy" on their new employees; or there may be a
reaches an exercise level of 2.47 (again the number of
"grace" period where employees give their new supervisor the benefit
of the doubt even when they exhibit negative behaviors which would
times per week they exercise on a five-point scale; 2.47 in
be considered later to be abusive. this study is equivalent to roughly 1-2 days of exercise per

ô Springer

This content downloaded from 111.68.97.226 on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:57:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:271-279 277

week). This level of

examinedexercise is
in future studies as potential actually
triggers of displaced
level of
exercise aggression.
reported We chose to focus our byattentionsupervis
on the per-
ceived time pressure supervisors experience
(2.76). Finally, in supplemental due to its
analyses,
buffering effect of frequent use as a quantitative measure
exercise of workload in
occurred reg
of exercise that previous
the stress supervisor engag
research (e.g., Sonnentag and Bayer 2005).
lifting, aerobic exercise, yoga,
We felt that the phenomenon etc.).
of supervisors having to "do The
our sample, it does
more" withnot
fewer resources
appear
given the current "Great
to mat
exercise a supervisor participates
Recession," made in
time pressure an apt indicator of stress but
act of
exercisingforthat appears
supervisors today. Relatedly, while we basedto
Hypoth-mini
esis 1 on theworkplace
effects of supervisor theory of displaced aggression,stress
the exact on
mechanism through which perceptions of time pressure
Implications for (stress) activate subordinates' perceptions
Managerial Practice of abusive
supervision remains somewhat unclear. Future studies
would docontribution
Perhaps the greatest well to include mediating variables such of as this
supervisor emotions (e.g.,
its potentially practical anger and frustration) and
implications.
abusive supervision literature
behaviors (e.g., impatience, close monitoring) thathas may do
specifying the antecedents to
explain subordinates' tendency to see their abuse.
supervisor as
resource (HR) managers are
abusive when the latter experiencesaware of
time pressure at work. th
outcomes of Anothersupervision,
abusive criticism that should be considered when
but ha
few tools with which toof combat
interpreting the results it.
our study is that supervisors who Pe
could be taught productive
exercise may be fundamentally
coping
different from those
skills
who
workplace stress do not.route
en For example, it could
to bestemming
that those who have the t
behavior toward self-discipline,
theiror subordinates.
who are perhaps higher in conscien- T
could tiousness,
emphasize and are more likely to follow a regular may
organizations exercise
exercise as a strategy
regimen, and to reduce
at the same time these traits the org
may allow them
care costs, but also
to do a
tobetter promote
job controlling and monitoring
healthy
their own
dinate emotions
relationships. and behavior in interactions
Wellness with those they
programs,
exercise components, have
supervise. This possible been
personality advo
difference, which
workplace stress could explain
for both dedicationbut
years, to exercisethis
and interpersonal
stud
their specific behavior, could be in
relevancy an alternative explanation for our
smoothing su
nate relationships.findings and future research may wish to test this.
Finally, in our study the percentage of variance
Limitations explained was rather small. However, we believe the
results are still informative to the literature (as well as
First, we did not measure actual fitness level, but rather practice) given that this is the first study to examine how
focused on self-reported levels of exercise. Although self- exercise moderates the relationship between supervisor
reported exercise has been shown to be consistent with workplace stress and employee perceptions of abuse. In
actual exercise levels (Brown 1991), it is possible that the addition, although the variance explained is small, the cost
results could differ if one examined the actual fitness level of abusive supervision to an organization is potentially
of the participants (e.g., treadmill test, waist-to-hip ratio, large. Abusive supervision can create a bullying culture
etc.). It may be that exercise level is simply a proxy for (Hoobler and Swanberg 2006) as well as lead to spirals of
fitness level - the latter being the better explanation for incivility (Andersson and Pearson 1999) in the workplace.
coping with workplace stressors in less aggressive ways. So getting rid of an abusive supervisor is not as easy as
Second, a shortcoming lies in our use of cross-sectional firing one "bad egg," but rather the insidious nature of this
data. Given the nature of the sample, we could not measure negative social contagion may take years and extensive
supervisor fitness and workplace stress at different times. interventions to erase from organizational cultures.
However, we were able to separate the measurement of the
independent and dependent variables by using different
sources (Podsakoff et al. 2003) which helps minimize this Conclusion

limitation to a degree.
Some may criticize the fact that we only measured one While the current economic conditions and a host of other
type of supervisor stress, namely perceived time pressure. trying workplace factors mean that supervisors are likely to
Other measures such as anxiety or burnout should also be experience workplace stress, we found evidence that they

^ Springer

This content downloaded from 111.68.97.226 on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:57:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 278 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:271-279

do not necessarily approaches to practice

have to (pp. 198-217).
transfer Oxford, UK: Wiley - these
Blackwell.
those they supervise. Our study support
Crone, D., Smith, A., & Gough, B. (2005). 'I feel totally at one,
supervisor stress and
totally alive, andemployee percep
totally happy' : A psycho-social explanation of
supervision, but this isanda
the physical activity mentallink that
health relationship. Health ca
supervisors engage inEducation Research, 20
the , 600-61 1.
healthy bufferi
Dohrenwend, B. S., Dohrenwend, B. P., Dodson, M., & Shrout, P. E.
moderate level of physical exercise.
(1984). Symptoms, hassles, social supports, and life events:
Problem of confounded measures. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 95, 222-230.
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2001). Social
undermining and social support in the workplace. Academy of
References
Management Journal, 45 , 331-351.
Falkenberg, L. E. (1987). Employee fitness programs: Their impact on
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and the employee and the organization. Academy of Management
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Review, /2,511-522.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health, and job
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling
effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management performance: Effects of weekend experiences. Journal of
Review , 24 , 452-471. Occupational Health Psychology, 10 , 187-199.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. (2007). Antecedents Gerber, M., Kellmann, M., Hartmann, T., & Pühse, U. (2010). Do
and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down exercise and fitness buffer against stress among Swiss police and
model. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92, 191-201. emergency response officers? Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
Ashforth, B. (1997). Petty tyranny in organizations: A preliminary 11, 286-294.
examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Jour- Gerber, M., & Pühse, U. (2009). Do exercise and fitness protect
nal of Administrative Sciences , 14, 126-140. against stress-induced health complaints? A review of the
Austin, V., Shah, S., & Muncer, S. (2005). Teacher stress and coping literature. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 37 , 801-819.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation
strategies used to reduce stress. Occupational Therapy Interna-
tional , 12 , 63-80. of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. Leadership
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, Quarterly, 18 , 252-263.
Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology , 5/, 1173-1182. probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and
Biddle, S. J. H. (2000). Emotion, mood, and physical activity. In S. SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41 ,
J. H. Biddle, K. R. Fox, & S. H. Boutcher (Eds.), Physical 924-936.
activity and psychological well-being (pp. 63-88). London, UK: Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci
Routledge. approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of the
Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Recovery during outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational
the weekend and fluctuations in weekly job performance: A Behavior, 31 , 24-44.
week-level study examining intra-individual relationships. Jour- Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at
nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 83 , conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44 , 513-524.
419-441. Hogan, E. A., & Overmyer-Day, L. (1994). The psychology of
Brown, J. D. (1991). Staying fit and staying well: Physical fitness asmergers
a and acquisitions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
moderator of life stress. Journal of Personality and Social
(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational
Psychology , 60 , 555-561. psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 247-282). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Buckaloo, B. J., Krug, K. S., & Nelson, K. B. (2009). Exercise and
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family
low-security inmate: Changes in depression, stress, and anxiety.undermining as displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psy-
The Prison Journal , 89 , 328-343. chology, 91 , 1125-1133.
Burton, J. P., & Hoobler, J. M. (2006). Subordinate self-esteem and
Hoobler, J. M., & Swanberg, J. (2006). The enemy is not us:
abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18 , 340-355.Unexpected workplace violence trends. Public Personnel Man-
Caspersen, C. J., Pereira, M. A., & Curran, K. M. (2000). Changes inagement, 55, 229-246.
Inness, M., Barling, J., & Turner, N. (2005). Understanding super-
physical activity patterns in the United States, by sex and cross-
sectional age. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise , 52,visor-targeted aggression: A within-person, between-jobs design.
1601-1609. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 , 731-739.
Cooper, C., & Berwick, S. (2001). Factors affecting psychological
Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in
well-being of three groups of suicide-prone prisoners. Current the workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and
Psychology, 20 , 169-182. Victims, 9, 341-357.
Craike, M. J., Coleman, D., & MacMahon, C. (2010). Direct and Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Puccetti, M. C. (1982). Personality and
exercise as buffers in the stress- illness relationships. Journal of
buffering effects of physical activity on stress-related depression
in mothers of infants. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,Behavioral Medicine, 5, 391-404.
32 , 23-38. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
Crews, D. J., & Landers, D. M. (1987). A meta-analytic review of New York, NY: Springer.
aerobic fitness and reactivity to psychosocial stressors. Medicine Levinson, H. (1996). When executives burn out. Harvard Business
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 79, SI 14-S120. Review, 74 , 152-163.
Crone, D., Heaney, L., & Owens, C. S. (2009). Physical activity and Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F.
mental health. In L. Dugdill, D. Crone, & R. Murphy (Eds.), (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question and
Physical activity and health promotion: Evidence -based weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.

Ô Springer

This content downloaded from 111.68.97.226 on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:57:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:271-279 279

Lovelace, K. J., Manz, C. S.,C,

Sonnentag, & C.,Alves,
Binnewies, J.
& Mojza, E. J. (2008). C.
"Did you have a(2007
leadership development: nice evening?"TheA day-level study
role on recovery
of experiences,
self-lea
sleep, and affect. Journal
leadership, physical fitness and of Applied
flowPsychology ,in93, 674-684.
manag
Sonnentag,Human
increasing job control. S., & Kruel, U. (2006). Resource
Psychological detachment fromManag
17, 374-387. work during off-job time: The role of job stressors, job
Luria, G., & Torjman, A. involvement, and recovery-related
(2009). self-efficacy. European Jour-
Resources and co
nal of Work and Organizational Psychology
events. Journal of Organizational , 15, 197-217.
Behavior, 30
Mackay, G. J., & Neill, J.
Sonnentag, T. I.,
S., Kuttler, (2010). The
& Fritz, C. (2010). Job effect o
stressors, emotional
state anxiety and theexhaustion,
role of
and need exercise
for recovery: A multi-source study duration
on the
greenness: A quasi -ex benefits
peri of psychological
mental detachment. Journal of Vocational
study. Psycho
Exercise , 11, 238-245. Behavior, 76, 355-365.
Matheny, B., Curlette, K. W.
Sonnentag, S., & Zijlstra, L.,
F. R. H. (2006). Job Aycock,
characteristics and off- D.
Taylor, H.
F. (1987). Thejob activities as predictors of needresources
coping for recovery, well-being, and inven
Atlanta, G
A: Health Prisms.
fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 330-350.
Meijman, T. F., & Mulder,
Srivastava, S., Hagtvet, K. G.A., & Sen,(1998).
A. K. (1994). A study ofPsych
role
stress and job anxiety H.
workload. In P. J. D. Drenth, among three groups of employees in
Thierry, & a C. J
Handbook of Work private and sectorOrganizational
organization. Social Science International, 10,Psyc
pp. 5-33). Hove, England:25-30. Psychological Press
Stephens, T.,
Meurs, J. A., & Perrewe, P. & Caspersen,
L. (201 C. J. (1994).1).
The demography
Cognitive of physical a
stress: An integrative activity. theoretical
In C. Bouchard, R. J. Shephard, & T. approach
Stephens (Eds.),
Journal of Management, 37,
Physical activity, fitness1043-1068.
and health (pp. 204-213). Champaign,
Miller, N., Pedersen, W. IL: Human
C.,Kinetics.Earleywine, M., & P
A theoretical modelTaylor,
of triggered
A. H. displaced
(2000). Physical activity, anxiety, and stress. In S. J. H. agg
Biddle, K. R. Fox, & S.
ality and Social Psychology H. Boutcher (Eds.), Physical
Review, 7, activity
75-97. and
psychological well-being
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. (pp. L. 10-45). London, UK: Routledge.
(2007). Abusi
workplace deviance and
Taylor, the
M. K., Markham, moderating
A. E., Reis, J. P., Padilla, G. A., Potterat, E.eff
reciprocity beliefs.G., Journal of
Drummond, S. P. A., et al. (2008). Applied
Physical fitness influences Ps
1159-1168. stress reactions to extreme military training. Military Medicine,
173, 738-742.
Nguyen-Michel, S. T., Unger, J. B., Hamilton, J., & Spruijt-Metz, D.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. M. (1985). A social psychological
(2006). Associations between physical activity and perceived
stress/hassles in college students. Stress and Health, 22,interpretation of displaced aggression. Advances in Group
179-188. Processes, 2, 29-56.
Norris, R., Carroll, D., & Cochrane, R. (1990). The effects of aerobic
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy
and anaerobic training on fitness, blood pressure, and psycho- of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.
logical stress and well-being. Journal of Psychosomatic Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations.
Research, 34, 367-375. Journal of Management, 33, 189-261.
Parker, D. F., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1983). Organizational determinants Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006).
of job stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervi-
32, 160-177. sion. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101-123.
Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2004). On incivility, its impact, and Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of
directions for future research. In R. W. Griffin & A. O'Leary- abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep-level sim-
Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. ilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance.
403-425). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Academy of Management Journal , 54, 279-294.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). "Isn't it fun to get the
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A respect that we're going to deserve?" Narcissism, social
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. rejection, and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. Bulletin, 29, 261-272.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
Rafferty, A. E., Restubog, S. L. D., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2010).
Losing sleep: Examining the cascading effects of supervisors' validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
experience of injustice on subordinates' psychological health. PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Work and Stress , 24, 36-55. 54, 1063-1070.
Rimmele, U., Seiler, R., Marti, B., Wirtz, P. H., Ehlert, U., & Wipfli, B. M., Rethorst, C. D., & Landers, D. M. (2008). The
Heinrichs, M. (2009). The level of physical activity affects anxiolytic effects of exercise: A meta-analysis of randomized
adrenal and cardiovascular reactivity to psychological stress. trials and dose-response analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychoneuroendoc rinolo gy, 34, 190-198. Psychology, 30, 392-410.
Ritvanen, T., Louhevaara, V., Helin, P., Halonen, T., & Hanninen, O. Yoo, H. L., Eisenmann, J. C., & Franke, W. D. (2009). Independent
(2007). Effects of aerobic fitness on the physiological stress and combined influence of physical activity and perceived stress
response at work. International Journal of Occupational Med- on the metabolic syndrome in male law enforcement officers.
icine and Environmental Health, 20, 1-8. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 51,
Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U. V. (2005). Switching off mentally: 46-53.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive
Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from
work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational Health supervision and subordinates' organizational citizenship behav-
Psychology, 10, 393-414. ior. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86, 1068-1076.

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from 111.68.97.226 on Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:57:22 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms