Abstract

Grounded on the conservation of resource theory and deontic theory of justice this study anticipated a model that examines the Observer reactions to abusive supervision that links to feedback avoidance and silence towards the supervisor. A physical and online survey was conducted, collecting data from approximately five hundred healthcare professionals in South Punjab. Observed abusive supervision shows a positive association with feedback avoidance and silence towards supervisors the moderating effect of social support reflected in such conditions of facing abusive supervision employees are looking for social support so social support moderates the indirect effect of observed abusive supervision on silence towards supervisor via feedback avoidance such that the indirect effect will be weaker when a high level of social support. We conclude our findings for research on observed abusive supervision, feedback avoidance, silence towards the supervisor, and social support.

Introduction

Abusive supervision is well-defined as the “subordinate’s perception of the extent to which their supervisor engages in hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors excluding physical contact”  (Tepper et al., 2017). Abusive supervision has expanded consideration from researchers and specialists attributable to its predominance and negative impacts on the working environment (Tepper et al., 2007). For instance, according to a study about 65.6 million workers in the United States have detailed having encountered some type of abusive supervision (Li et al., 2021).  Zhang and Liu (2024) The ripple effect of abusive supervision's Impact on Team Dynamics and Performance, examines how abusive supervision affects not only the direct victims but also the broader team dynamics and overall team performance. They find that abusive supervision negatively impacts team cohesion and collaborative behaviors, Abusive supervision is not occasional it is a continuous practice with a mutual routine between the supervisors and subordinates. It can be expressed or nonverbal, rude gestures, nonphysical hostile actions, or physical abuses and misbehaviors. Instead of the abusive victims, abusive supervision can similarly hurt peers (i.e., observers) who are not victimized. When observers observe abusing of peers they have behavior reactions that show caring for victims and aggression against abusive supervisors (Al-hawari & Bani-melhem, 2020; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper et al., 2017). All the research based on observer reactions to abusive supervision suggests that abusive supervision leads colleagues in this situation the observer practices emotions towards the abusive supervisor in the form of annoyance, feels empathic pain, unfairness, and prosocial support towards abusive supervision victims (Priesemuth & Schminke, 2017).

Our study aims to explore and contribute to research on observed abusive supervision and the observer responses by studying. In undertaking so, we improve and examine a research framework that describes when and why the observer responds by engaging in conduct toward the supervisor. We mention these activities as silence towards the supervisor which comprises reactions such as standing up for the abused colleague, showing defensive behavior with the victim beside the supervisor, or standing with the victim in offensive situations (Priesemuth, 2013). Limited research has examined the relationship between observed abusive supervision and silence towards supervisors.

Most of the research on observer responses to abuse has absorbed on penalty, obsessed by ethical violence and annoyance, in that way in which witnesses respond to mistreatment. (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Mitchell et al., 2012) The deontic theory of justice clarifies these responses, people must be treated according to the moral and ethical values they deserve for those values of morally suitable behavior (Cropanzano et al., 2003). Furthermore, the deontic values classify fair treatment and righteousness as morally commanding, thus demanding followers of a social system to endorse such behavior. Observing deviance from ethical standards and values like abusive supervision appeals to a strong passionate response inside the witness in the form of ethical violence or anger (Cropanzano et al., 2003).

While handling abusive supervision, as a coping strategy feedback avoidance is used by the victims to preserve their lasting assets and avoid extra reserve damage that they may put into practice while getting constructive criticism in the event that they experience more abuse. This theory is consistent with the findings of numerous earlier research that demonstrated how avoidance is regularly employed as a coping mechanism to accomplish unwanted interactions. Tepper et al. (2007) stated that mistreated workers are more likely to be 'involved in avoiding behaviors to improve the uneasiness related to bullying people and conditions' than individuals who did not observe mistreatment. Lacking study has examined abusive supervision from the perception of the observer (Xu et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2019)

Our study setting, Pakistani administrations, is more appropriate and aimed at the study of observed abusive supervision. By way of temperately high power distance values, most Pakistani societies are suffering from the unsatisfactory distribution of wealth and power  (Hofstede, 2011). High power distance in culture leads to unemployment and shortage of job opportunities affects susceptibility to abusive supervision  (Khan et al., 2017). 

The next section of the study starts by giving a thorough summary of how abusive supervision affects workers. We then investigate the connection between our main constructs and abusive supervision. The study's methodology, analyses, and interpretations of our results are all covered in the literature review. 




Observer Reactions to Abusive Supervision

Utmost studies on observer responses to abusive supervision have concentrated on punishment, determined by ethical violation and rage, as the pathway by which witnesses respond to abuse. The responses of the deontic theory of justice Folgers (2001) clarify these answers, focusing on moral standards and ethical behavior while dealing with the people (Cropanzano et al., 2003). Furthermore, the principles of deontic of moral authority are fair treatment and justice, thus such kind of behavior is expected from the members of society. Further, new researchers have focused their attention on examining the situations under which a witness may display responses to abuse other than those meant at distress, penalty, or revenge chosen by the supervisor. The latest research in this area tries to attempt to appreciate a third-party reaction to abuse: which is trying to help the victim of abusive supervision (e.g., (Mitchell et al., 2014; Reich & Hershcovis, 2014). 

Park & Kim (2023) explore how witnessing abusive supervision affects observers' psychological well-being. The study finds that high emotional intelligence and effective coping strategies can moderate the negative effects of observing abusive behavior. 




Observed Abusive supervision and Feedback Avoidance 

Feedback avoidance deals with management approaches such as purposeful, proactive, and including "active behaviors directed at evading feedback” (Khan & Moss, 2016, p. 647). Based on the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, we suggest that an observer uses feedback evading as a managing mechanism to protect their long-term assets and avert possible resource damage when they see abusive supervision. This behavior can be the result of their dread of more abuse if they ask for a managerial reaction.

For managing annoying relationships feedback avoidance is one of the coping strategies that is used by the observers, For illustration, the distance-keeping approach is frequently used by individuals to manage their undesirable relations either psychologically or physically (Gil et al., 2000).  Liu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2023) The character of self-worth and anxiety of bad assessment in feedback avoidance," explores how individuals with low self-esteem and high fear of negative evaluation are more likely to engage in feedback avoidance. They find that these factors significantly predict feedback avoidance behaviors and suggest interventions focusing on enhancing self-esteem and reducing fear.

Smith, A., & Nguyen, T. (2024) The impact of feedback avoidance on performance and career development," investigates how feedback avoidance affects job performance and career progression. The study highlights that individuals who avoid feedback tend to have poorer performance outcomes and slower career advancement.

H1: peers observed abusive supervision has been positively linked to feedback avoidance.




Feedback Avoidance and Silence toward the Supervisor

Worker quietness is considered as broken conduct that brings about the type of impediment in authoritative change and it lessens the positive occupation mentality of a representative's work fulfillment and responsibility (Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). 

Zhang & Wang (2023) "The silence of the lambs: Exploring reasons for silence towards supervisors," investigates the psychological and contextual reasons employees might choose to remain silent. They find that fear of retaliation, perceived futility of speaking up, and lack of trust in the supervisor are key factors contributing to silence. Discovering the reasons and factors because representative quiet is one of the huge issues in administration since, supposing that chiefs disregard such factors genuine and unfortunate results can happen. Dyne et al. (2003) discussed silence as a complex and multi-dimensional construct. Examination of adapting methodologies has proposed that people unexpectedly manage stressors. Some might fall back on more dynamic adapting methods, for example, resolving issues straightforwardly or utilizing quietness towards the chief to keep away from that conduct response, while others might adopt a more uninvolved strategy, for example, keeping away from the distressing circumstance or getting away from the upsetting climate through e.g., turnover intention (Hobfoll, 2001; Ito & Brotheridge, 2003). Given that manhandled assistants might not be able or reluctant to participate in forceful retaliatory practices in light of administrative maltreatment due to their reliance on the manager for esteemed assets like advancements and proceeding with business, evasion might fill in as a less forceful adapting system and a way to monitor remaining assets  (Tepper et al., 2007). 

Most people adopt avoiding behaviors just to secure themselves from hostile behavior and circumstances  (Tepper et al., 2007).  Since subordinates are frequently subject to their chief for assets, mishandled juniors face an "adapting predicament" in that they should keep an undesirable relationship (Tepper et al., 2007) People regularly resort to making physical or mental distance to adapt to the unwanted connections and the misery they reason (Gil et al., 2000). Juniors who see administrative maltreatment are bound to turn to administrative strategies more aloof adapting procedures including keeping away from contact than the individuals who don't see misuse (Tepper et al., 2007). On the foundations of the above contentions, we hypothesize that.

H2: Feedback Avoidance has a positive relationship with silence toward the supervisor  




Mediating Role of Feedback Avoidance

Silence towards the supervisor is a counterproductive activity resulting from an abused supervisor instead of discussing ideas and important information they choose silence and keep it (Pinder & Harlos, 2004; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). Emotionally exhausted persons thus frequently resort to specified by allocating their different resources by lessening their assurance, carrying down their promise as specified by the business, and reducing their overall performance.  

Lee & Bae (2023) examine how the anxiety of negative feedback drives individuals to avoid feedback situations. Silence holds employees' problems at the workplace like relations issues important or useful information. It is not about silence; somewhat, it is a person's choice of not intentionally recording problems, rather than sharing novel ideas while remaining quiet in the workplace (Pinder & Harlos, 2004; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).  Abused subordinates show ineffective work behaviors in the form of silence towards the supervisor and most of the time when they have innovative ideas or important information to share they choose silence rather than discussion or sharing of such novel ideas because of observed supervision towards the supervisor (Pinder & Harlos, 2004; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). Silence holds employees' expectations with respect to dynamic important data and issues comparable to issues at the workplace.

Based on the above arguments and the theoretic support of COR theory, we contend that the selection of feedback evading in contradiction of the observed abusive direction and remaining silent towards the supervisor helps the victims to preserve resources loss so Along these lines, Research in this field indicates that silence, like an isolated person, leads to counterproductive work, which is probably detrimental to relationships (Bolton et al., 2011).

H3: Feedback Avoidance will mediate the relationship between observed abusive supervision and silence toward the supervisor 




Moderating Effect of Social Support 

Employees strive for support when they face problems in the workplace it could be task-related or emotional support and it could be internal and external support. COR theory also suggests that seeking social support helps employees in acquiring new resources through their social circles when employees are observing with abusive supervision, and feedback avoidance Nevertheless, we contend that when confronting noticed oppressive management, the mishandled supervisees look for help. Our contention is in settlement with social support writing on the off chance that social support writing (Duffy et al., 2002) recommends that losing common help after one source, like a manager, might be repaid by acquiring support from another source, like colleagues. Subsequently, when dealing with the issue of feedback avoidance coming about because of observed abusive supervision, the mishandled supervisees are probably going to participate in looking for social support to more readily play out their work without administrative input. Besides, searching for social support from coworkers turns out to be more striking for representatives confronting oppressive management and choosing the criticism aversion approach. People look for help from individuals around them, Support gives them the sensation of being important for the gathering of people; with social help, people feel esteemed and belonging (Yousaf et al., 2020). we contend that supervisees' reception of input dislikes against oppressive managers briefly forestalls further asset misfortune yet additionally propels them to procure new assets by participating in looking for social support. However, the COR hypothesis contends coworker support is a significant source of gaining new assets, especially after input aversion. In any case, it doesn't suggest that the mentioned support will be conceded. In this manner, given these contentions, we guess the accompanying connections.

H4: Social support moderates the correlation between feedback avoidance and silence towards supervisors. When social support is elevated, the correlation between feedback avoidance and silence towards supervisors diminishes.

Key Words

Observed Abusive Supervision, Feedback Avoidance, Silence Towards the Supervisor, Social Support

Moderated Mediation

Therefore, we discuss that social support goes about as a limit state for the feedback avoidance's interfering effect on the supervisees' perception of the abusive supervision they witnessed and their silence toward the director. As such, the moderating impact of social support on the connection between feedback avoidance and silence towards the supervisor makes the intervening relationship contingent on the upsides of the mediator concerning evasion-situated conduct, Recent studies have continued to explore the reasons employees avoid feedback and choose silence over voicing concerns or suggestions. Feedback avoidance is often linked to fears of negative evaluations or conflicts, while silence can stem from concerns about retaliation or perceived futility (e.g., Morrison & Milliken, 2023).

Social support from peers and supervisors can influence whether employees feel empowered or constrained in their communication. This is because supportive relationships can alleviate the anxiety associated with feedback and provide a buffer against negative consequences (e.g., Lee & Lee, 2024)

A proactive and intentional response to the mistreated subordinate may be to avoid receiving feedback from an abusive boss to avoid or avoid an unpleasant association with the victimizer. (Moss et al., 2004) established that if pioneers react in a way that is unforgiving, corrective, or unsupportive, subordinates will avoid further input encounters with them. Even though experts have hypothesized that weak performance is the primary cause of criticism aversion, (Moss et al., 2004, 2009), we recommend that the danger of misuse, subordinates might depend on criticism aversion strategies, for example, staying away from eye-to-eye connection, evading verbal collaboration, relational separating, or pulling out from the actual climate  (Moss et al., 2009). Therefore, we hypothesize

 H5: Social support moderates the indirect effect of observed abusive supervision on silence towards the supervisor via feedback avoidance such that the indirect effect will be weaker when high level of social support.

Figure 1


Research Design and Methodology

For this study data is collected from the healthcare sector, especially paramedical staff mostly nurses are Respondents from Pakistan's healthcare system, including South Punjab's public and private hospitals. The price of observed abusive supervision is explored between the supervisor and subordinates in the healthcare sector nurses and the supervisors the head nurses and doctors are considered employers In this study on the healthcare sector, the data is gathered from nurses of the public and private sector hospitals, the public sector has poor healthcare setups as compared to the private sector, and due to unemployment employees have only a few options for employment they try to retain these resources for that the bear unwanted behavior observed abusive supervision is one of them in Pakistani setup of healthcare mostly Nurses join Healthcare sector as a career after completion of sixteen year of the education this sector has an insufficient resource. This worse situation in the healthcare sector leads to abusive supervision.




Sample and Procedure

By using convenient sampling, the data collection of this study is done visiting several healthcare sectors (Hospitals) of south Punjab, the medium of questionnaire was given in English which is officially used in Pakistan. (Arain et al., 2016; Syed et al., 2015) To steer clear of self-reported bias and typical issues with technique variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003), data regarding antecedents (i.e., witnessed abusive supervision, evasion of feedback), silence towards the supervisor, and social support ), and segment control factors were gathered.




Measures:

Observed Abusive Supervision

We modified Mitchell and Ambrose's (2007) five-item measure to gauge any abusive supervision that was witnessed during the course of the case. Participants answered the following question when answering items related to abusive supervision: "How much did you think the following during the incident you just wrote about?" Items like "My supervisor ridiculed my coworker" (? =.84).




Feedback Avoidance

We used a 6-item test to gauge supervisees' avoidance of feedback (Moss et al., 2004). Sample items from the scale include: (1) “I would try to schedule outside appointments to avoid my supervisor” and (2) “I would go the other way when I saw my supervisor coming.” In this study, the scale demonstrated a reliability score of 0.83.




Silence Towards Supervisor 

A five-item assessment of workers' quiet was created by (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008) The measure's sample questions include: "Did you decide to keep quiet when you had concerns about your work?" and "Did you refrain from offering ideas to make the work better?" These items document situations in which feedback and concerns are withheld.




Social Support 

The six items scale was used to analyze employee life satisfaction which is adopted from Karasek, R. A. (1998)

Data Analysis and Results

We continued previous research that examined the effects of abusive supervision on bystanders (Farh & Chen, 2014; Hershcovis & Bhatnagar, 2017; O'Reilly et al., 2016) and altered the level of abuse in our own study. Utilizing moment structure analysis, CFA was conducted to validate the measurement devices' factorial logic. Model fit was assessed using various indices, including RMSEA, TLI, CFI, and CMIN/df, in accordance with the guidelines provided by Byrne (2010) and Schreiber, Stage, King, Nora, and Barlow (2006).




 

Table 1

Model Fitness, Reliability, and Validity Measure:

Test	Standard Range	Results
RMSEA	<0.05	.028
CFI	?0.9	.993
GFI	>0.8	.961
AGFI	>0.8	.944
TLI	>.9	.991

 




When RMSEA is less than 0.08 and CFI and TLI are above 0.90, Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010) say that the model fits well. A good fit was found for the data with an AGF of.944, a CFI of 0.993, a TLI of 0.991, and an RMSEA of 0.028. The four factors are social support, feedback avoidance, perceived abusive supervision, and silence toward the supervisor. Look at Table 1.




 

Table 2

Reliability and Validity Measures:

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)	FBAO	OASU	SSP	STSU
FBAO	0.816	0.526	0.162	0.817	0.725
OASU	0.938	0.791	0.314	0.952	0.254	0.890
SSP	0.890	0.670	0.314	0.894	0.213	0.560	0.818
STSU	0.881	0.649	0.162	0.887	0.403	0.284	0.225	0.806

 




Finally, the suggested model was evaluated using hierarchical multiple regression analysis.  We used the PROCESS macro for SPSS for Hypothesis 5, which dealt with moderated mediation (Hayes, 2012). According to the correlations shown in Table 3, the only factor that significantly correlated negatively with feedback avoidance was employment status. The mediation analysis revealed that experience was significantly associated with feedback avoidance (? = 0.23; p < .05). Additionally, feedback avoidance demonstrated a strong positive correlation with observed abusive supervision (? = 0.31; p < .001) and with silence toward the supervisor (? = 0.32; p < .001). Consequently, Hypothesis 1, which predicted a positive association between feedback avoidance and abusive supervision, was supported.




 

Table 3

Descriptive statistics and correlations summary

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Observedabusive supervision	3.99	0.64
2. Feedback Avoidance	1.96	0.61	.228**	0.72
3. Silencetowards Supervisor	2.93	0.79	.254**	.325**	0.8
4. Social Support	3.8	0.64	.508**	.211**	.186**	0.81

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

 




Hypothesis 2, which proposed a direct positive correlation between silence toward the supervisor and avoiding input, was validated.




 

Table 4

Mediation and moderated mediation analyses

Silence Towards supervisor                   ?        SE         LL BCA         UL BCA            p               R 2
Direct effects
Observed Abusive supervision	0.31	0.06	0.19	0.43	.000	0.05
Feedback avoidance	0.23	0.05	0.14	0.32	.000
Social support	0.28	0.04	0.20	0.34	.000
Feedback avoidance × Social support (interaction term)	0.08	0.04	0.01	0.17	.041	0.02
Indirect effects
Direct effects (X ? Y)	0.22	0.060	0.10	0.34	.000
Indirect effects via feedback avoidance (X ? M ? Y)	0.08	0.02	0.04	0.05	.000
Conditional indirect effect
– 1 SD	0.10	0.03	0.05	0.16
Mean	0.14	0.04	0.08	0.21
+ 1 SD	0.18	0.05	0.11	0.26

5,000 bootstrapping resamples are noted.

 




The sum of IV's direct and indirect impacts on DV is known as the total effect (c path).

After adjusting for the mediator's influence, the direct effect (c? route) shows how IV directly affects DV. The total of a and b routes is what is meant by indirect effects.

The lower and upper bounds of the bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence interval are denoted by LL and UL BCA.

 

 

Tests of Mediation

Along with Preacher and Hayes (2007), we examined Hypothesis 3, which posits the mediation between feedback avoidance and perceived abusive supervision and silence toward the supervisor. This was achieved by assessing the connection between the independent variable and the mediator (X?M), and then by evaluating the relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable (M?Y).

Having satisfied both conditions in Hypotheses 1 and 2, we considered the mediating result of feedback avoidance on the relationship between observed abusive supervision and silence toward the supervisor. The findings, presented in Table 4, indicated that the indirect effect of abusive supervision on silence toward the supervisor (? = 0.08; p < .001) was mediated by feedback avoidance, thereby confirming Hypothesis 3.

 

Tests of Moderated Mediation

First, as described in Hypothesis 4, we looked at how social support moderated the direct association between silence toward the supervisor and feedback avoidance. According to the findings of the moderation study, the interaction term (i.e., social support × feedback avoidance)

significantly influenced silence towards the supervisor (? = 0.08; p < .05. This finding confirmed the direction of the noteworthy interaction effect between coworker support and feedback avoidance, thereby supporting the Hypothesis

We then examined Hypothesis 5, proposing that feedback avoidance has a conditional indirect impact on silence toward the supervisor when abusive supervision is perceived. Drawing on previous research (Epitropaki, 2013; Wiedemann et al., 2009), we applied the PROCESS macro in SPSS (Bolin, 2014). To investigate moderated mediation, we used a model in which the moderator affects the second stage (M?Y) of the mediating pathway (X?M?Y). The bootstrapped results validated the conditional indirect effects of abusive supervision on help-seeking behavior via feedback avoidance, evaluated at three stages of coworker support (i.e., ?1 SD, mean SD, and +1 SD).

Figure 2

These effects enlarged as social support levels increased. In particular, larger levels of social support dramatically increased the favorable incidental effects of abusive supervision on silence toward the supervisor, which were mediated by feedback avoidance. 

Discussion

Most research on abusive supervision so far has concentrated on various forms of deviant and counterproductive behavior, emphasizing the harmful impacts on both the organization and the affected employees (Mackey et al., 2017). To fill this knowledge vacuum, the current study examined how observed abusive supervision affected the silence of abused supervisees toward their supervisors using the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory.  Additionally, our findings indicated that feedback avoidance prompted these supervisees to engage in help-seeking silence as a strategy to preserve their existing resources. 

In this context, feedback avoidance acted as the underlying motivational mechanism that transformed experiences of abusive supervision into silence towards the supervisor findings further supported the concept that coworker support acts as a limit state for this mediation result. Overall, these outcomes are consistent with prior research on abusive supervision and employees' silence toward supervisors. For instance, drawing on the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, Whitman et al. (2014) discovered a significant positive relationship between feedback avoidance and abusive supervision.

 There are no directly comparable empirical findings in the literature on abusive supervision. Moss et al. (2009) showed that feedback avoidance significantly mediated the relationship between member performance and poor leader-member interactions. Their findings also showed that team member support significantly moderated the direct correlations among project anxiety, abusive supervision, and project satisfaction; these effects were stronger at greater team member support levels than at lower ones. 




Practical and Theoretical Contributions

Our discoveries recommend that despite the fact that they can't straightforwardly control the episodes of harmful oversight, supervisees can handle its recurrence by criticism aversion which They can obtain from more senior colleagues. By doing this, supervisees' positive relational associations with collaborators are probably going to establish a solid group a lot climate with less reliance on their administrators. Along these lines, strong associations with colleagues would help supervisees not exclusively to lessen the recurrence of encountering administrative maltreatment but additionally to build their efficiency by gaining from the encounters of collaborators. Nonetheless, the above ideas should be considered with the alert that they don't infer that businesses ought to give a free pass to directors to manhandle supervisees because of encouraging assistance looking for conduct. We placed assistance looking for conduct as a side-effect of harmful management that might in any case bring about extreme antagonistic outcomes of its essential item. In this way, businesses should take satisfactory endeavors, for example, try not to enlist directors who have tyrant-type characters, present 360° input, and execute a severe approach against any episode of oppressive management, to limit the development of harmful oversight in the work environment. 




Limitations and Future Research

Like some other investigations, this examination has constraints that future scientists may address while recreating and broadening the guessed connections analyzed in this investigation. For example, the current investigation was led in Pakistan, a once-in-a-while investigated setting in harmful management writing (Khan et al., 2016). Consequently, it very well may be conceivable that these social elements affected the manhandled supervisees to pick criticism aversion and accordingly participate in help-chasing conduct. For example, while testing the impacts of social elements on people's aiding conduct,(Perlow & Weeks, 2002). Additionally, there are some other individual components, like character attributes and confidence, which may likewise impact one's assistance in looking for conduct. Consequently, it would be fascinating if future scientists duplicate this investigation utilizing two examples. Additionally, this study used an example from the medical field, which has a certain working environment climate, which might have affected the results. To strengthen understanding of this influence.

Therefore, to investigate the causality of the model examined in this work, future researchers may choose to use time-lag or longitudinal methods. For instance, researchers may gauge how employees felt about social support and abusive monitoring at the first time point.

Conclusion

This study examines how observed abusive supervision fosters silence among supervisees towards their supervisors Our results show that supervisees engage in feedback avoidance to preserve their lasting resources when they perceive abusive supervision. Additionally, this avoidance of feedback encourages the impacted supervisees to seek social assistance to obtain fresh resources. The underlying motivational process in this situation that converts abusive supervision into behavior that seeks assistance is feedback avoidance. Our findings also point to social support as a prerequisite for this mediation effect.  This study has significant ramifications for management practices and adds insightful information to the body of knowledge on abusive supervision and silence toward supervisors.

References

• Al-Hawari, M. A., Bani-Melhem, S., & Quratulain, S. (2020). Abusive supervision and frontline employees’ attitudinal outcomes. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(3), 1109–1129. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-06-2019-0510

• Arain, G. A., Sheikh, A., Hameed, I., & Asadullah, M. A. (2016). Do as I Do: The Effect of Teachers’ Ethical Leadership on Business Students’ Academic Citizenship Behaviors. Ethics & Behavior, 27(8), 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1272457
• Bolton, L. R., Harvey, R. D., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2011). Counterproductive work behaviors in response to emotional exhaustion: a moderated mediational approach. Stress and Health, 28(3), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1425
• Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2003). Deontic justice: the role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 1019–1024. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.228
• Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). SOCIAL UNDERMINING IN THE WORKPLACE. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069350
• Gil, M. I., Tomás-Barberán, F. A., Hess-Pierce, B., Holcroft, D. M., & Kader, A. A. (2000). Antioxidant Activity of Pomegranate Juice and Its Relationship with Phenolic Composition and Processing. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48(10), 4581–4589. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf000404a
• Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the Nested‐Self in the Stress Process: Advancing Conservation of Resources Theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
• Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
• Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2003). Resources, coping strategies, and emotional exhaustion: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 490–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-8791(02)00033-7
• Khan, A. K., Moss, S., Quratulain, S., & Hameed, I. (2016). When and How Subordinate performance leads to Abusive supervision: A Social Dominance perspective. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2801–2826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316653930
• Khan, A. K., Quratulain, S., & Crawshaw, J. R. (2016). Double jeopardy: subordinates’ worldviews and poor performance as predictors of abusive supervision. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9442-0
• Li, A., Liao, C., Shao, P., & Huang, J. (2021). Angry but not Deviant: Employees’ Prior-Day Deviant Behavior Toward the Family Buffers Their Reactions to Abusive Supervisory Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(3), 683–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04750-2
• Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159
• Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2012). Beyond the consequences to the victim: The impact of abusive supervision on third-party observers. Handbook of unethical work behavior: Implications for individual well-being, 23–43.
• Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2014). Third parties’ reactions to the abusive supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1040–1055. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000002
• Moss, S. E., Sanchez, J. I., Brumbaugh, A. M., & Borkowski, N. (2009). The mediating role of feedback avoidance behavior in the LMX—Performance relationship. Group & Organization Management, 34(6), 645–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601109350986
• Moss, S. E., & Sanchez, J. I. (2004). Are your employees avoiding you? Managerial strategies for closing the feedback gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2004.12691168
• Perlow, L., & Weeks, J. (2002). Who’s helping whom? Layers of culture and workplace behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.150
• Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2004). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. In Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 331–369). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-7301(01)20007-3
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
• Priesemuth, M. (2013). Stand up and speak up. Business & Society, 52(4), 649–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650313490559
• Priesemuth, M., & Schminke, M. (2017). Helping thy neighbor? Prosocial reactions to observed abusive supervision in the workplace. Journal of Management, 45(3), 1225–1251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317702219
• Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2014). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036464
• Syed, S., Arain, G. A., Schalk, R., & Freese, C. (2015). Balancing work and family obligations in Pakistan and the Netherlands: a comparative study. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 34(5), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.21625
• Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). EMPLOYEE SILENCE ON CRITICAL WORK ISSUES: THE CROSS LEVEL EFFECTS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CLIMATE. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00105.x
• Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). ABUSIVE SUPERVISION, UPWARD MAINTENANCE COMMUNICATION, AND SUBORDINATES’ PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159918
• Tepper, B. J., Simon, L., & Park, H. M. (2017). Abusive supervision. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062539
• Vakola, M., & Bouradas, D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: an empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27(5), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450510611997
• Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs*. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384