Performance is a central theme in management research, with predicting employee performance and understanding its variability posing ongoing challenges (Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018). Among the factors influencing performance, leadership style has consistently attracted scholarly attention (Lei et al., 2021). While research has traditionally focused on positive leadership and its benefits for organizational effectiveness, recent studies have shifted toward the impact of negative leadership behaviors, such as abusive supervision, on organizational outcomes (Son & Pak, 2024). Abusive supervision, defined as employees’ perception of sustained hostile behavior from supervisors, excluding physical contact (Tepper, 2000), has garnered significant academic interest due to its negative effects on employee performance (Mackey et al., 2021). Recent evidence has indicated that abusive supervision does not invariably lead to negative outcomes, however; under specific conditions, it may even foster proactive behaviors (e.g., Xu et al., 2019; J. Zhang & Liu, 2018).

 

This paper built on the existing literature by examining abusive supervision through the cognitive appraisal theory of stress (Folkman, 2020). This theory suggests that individuals evaluate stressors based on perceived threats or challenges to their well-being, which, in turn, affects their coping strategies (Folkman, 2020; F. Zhang & Parker, 2022). Abusive supervision can be appraised both as a challenge and a threat, resulting in varied outcomes. This study explored the dual impact of abusive supervision on job performance by analyzing passive cognitive responses and proactive coping behaviors. Specifically, we examined the mediating roles of job burnout and job crafting, and introduced workaholism as a moderating factor. Figure 1 outlines the proposed model.

This paper adopted the cognitive appraisal theory of stress to explore the dual effects of abusive supervision. Cognitive appraisal theory (Folkman, 2020) argues that stress is not caused directly by external stressors but is shaped by an individual’s subjective evaluation of these stressors. This process of cognitive appraisal involves both primary and secondary evaluations. In the primary appraisal, individuals assess whether a stressor threatens or challenges their goals and well-being, whereas in the secondary appraisal, individuals evaluate what coping resources are available to them and what abilities they can use to manage or respond to the stressor. When seen as a challenge, the stressor can trigger positive coping strategies. When seen as a threat, it can lead to negative outcomes like avoidance or burnout. Because stressors can be multidimensional, individuals may simultaneously appraise a single stressor as both a challenge and a threat. Appraisals are also influenced by individual traits and resources.

 

Abusive supervision represents a significant source of workplace stress. Abusive behaviors, such as public derogation or harsh reprimands (Islam et al., 2020; Mackey et al., 2017), have been shown to negatively affect employees’ psychological well-being and work attitudes (Khalid et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2016). Over time, this can lead to job burnout, a psychological syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). Employees experiencing burnout due to abusive supervision may struggle to maintain energy and focus, resulting in diminished job performance. Thus, we formed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Leader abusive supervision will be positively related to employee job burnout.

Hypothesis 2: Leader abusive supervision will have an indirect negative effect on employee job performance through the mediator of job burnout.

 

However, the effects of abusive supervision are not always negative. Individual differences in perception and resources play a critical role in how employees interpret abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2017). Some employees may view abusive supervision as a sign of high expectations, appraising it as a challenge rather than a threat. In such cases, employees are more likely to engage in proactive behaviors, such as job crafting, to cope with the perceived challenge. Job crafting refers to employees’ efforts to redesign their own job tasks to improve the meaningfulness of their work (F. Zhang & Parker, 2019). By engaging in job crafting, employees can regain control over their work environment, reduce perceived threats, and improve their performance. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Leader abusive supervision will be positively related to employee job crafting.

Hypothesis 4: Leader abusive supervision will have an indirect positive effect on employee job performance through the mediator of job crafting.

 

In addition, cognitive appraisal theory highlights that individual traits can significantly influence how stressors are appraised. One such trait is workaholism, defined as a compulsive drive to work excessively, which manifests in motivation, cognition, emotion, and behavior (Clark et al., 2020). Workaholics tend to feel guilt or anxiety when they are not working and often dedicate more time and energy to their jobs than expected by organizational norms (Clark et al., 2020; Cook & Gilin, 2023). We anticipated that those with high levels of workaholism would view abusive supervision as a challenge, which may reduce the negative effects of job burnout and enhance proactive responses like job crafting. Conversely, employees with lower levels of workaholism may perceive abusive supervision as more of a threat, resulting in increased burnout and less proactive behavior. Therefore, we formed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5: Employee workaholism will moderate the relationship between leader abusive supervision and job burnout, such that the positive relationship becomes weaker for those with high levels of workaholism.

Hypothesis 6: Employee workaholism will moderate the relationship between leader abusive supervision and job crafting, such that the positive relationship becomes stronger for those with high levels of workaholism.

We distributed 550 questionnaires via the Prolific survey platform. The study followed a two-wave longitudinal design over 2 weeks, with participants completing a weekly questionnaire. After excluding incomplete or mismatched responses, the final sample consisted of 413 employees (52% men, 48% women), most of whom had been employed for over 6 months. In terms of age, 13.8% were under the age of 25 years, 57.6% were 25–35 years old, 26.6% were 36–55 years old, and 1.9% were aged 56 years and above. At Time 1, participants provided demographic data and rated their leader’s abusive supervision. At Time 2, they assessed their own job burnout, job crafting, workaholism, and job performance. Participation was voluntary, with anonymity and confidentiality ensured. Participants in the first wave were compensated at a rate of USD 8.49 per hour, while those in the second wave received USD 8.56 per hour.

All items were presented in English and rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

 

Leader abusive supervision was measured using a five-item scale from Mitchell and Ambrose (2007). A sample item is “My supervisor tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid” (α = .91). Job burnout was measured using a 16-item scale from Demerouti and Bakker (2008). A sample item is “After work, I regularly feel worn out and weary” (α = .93). Job crafting was measured with a 21-item scale by Tims et al. (2012). A sample item is “If there are new developments at work, I am one of the first to learn about them and try them out” (α = .83). Job performance was assessed using a 14-item scale from Janssen (2001). A sample item is “I never neglect aspects of the job that I am obligated to perform” (α = .89). Workaholism was measured with a 16-item scale from Clark et al. (2020). A sample item is “I work because there is a part inside of me that feels compelled to work” (α = .92).

We controlled for several demographic factors, following prior research (Parker et al., 2010; Rudolph et al., 2017): gender, age, location, level of education, organizational tenure, occupation, supervisor–subordinate relationship tenure, and leader–member exchange.

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using Mplus 8.3 to evaluate the fit of the five-factor measurement model, which included leader abusive supervision, job burnout, job crafting, job performance, and workaholism. The model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data, χ² = 4238.40, df = 2454, comparative fit index = .90, Tucker–Lewis index = .90, root-mean-square error of approximation = .04, standardized root-mean-square residual = .08.

To test the hypotheses, we used the PROCESS 4.1 macro for SPSS to conduct hierarchical regression and bootstrapping analyses. As shown in Table 2, leader abusive supervision was positively related to both job burnout and job crafting. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 3 were supported.

To further test the mediation effect hypotheses, we used the Monte Carlo bootstrapping method with 20,000 resamples to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The indirect effect of leader abusive supervision on job performance via job burnout was −.02, 95% CI [−0.041, −0.004], and via job crafting was .08, 95% CI [0.028, 0.126]. Since the 95% CIs did not include zero, both indirect effects were significant, supporting Hypotheses 2 and 4.

 

We then conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to examine the moderating effect of workaholism. As shown in Table 2, the interaction between abusive supervision and workaholism significantly affected job burnout (Model 2) but not job crafting (Model 4), indicating that workaholism negatively moderated the relationship between abusive supervision and job burnout, supporting Hypothesis 5. However, Hypothesis 6 was not supported. A simple slope analysis further explained this moderating effect. As shown in Figure 2, the positive effect of abusive supervision on job burnout was weaker under conditions of high workaholism (b = 0.08, ns) compared to low workaholism (b = 0.40, p < .001).

This study advances theoretical understanding in three key ways. First, by applying cognitive appraisal theory, we conceptualized abusive supervision as a dual stressor, contributing to both positive and negative job-performance outcomes. This perspective addresses Tepper’s (2007) call for diverse theoretical approaches to understanding abusive supervision. While most previous research emphasized negative outcomes through frameworks like social exchange and equity theories, our study revealed that abusive supervision can simultaneously trigger both challenge and threat appraisals, affecting performance in complex ways.

 

Second, we empirically examined the mechanisms linking abusive supervision to job performance, incorporating both a passive cognitive response (burnout) and a proactive coping behavior (job crafting). Prior studies often focused on either passive responses, such as withdrawal, or proactive responses, such as deviance (e.g., Harvey et al., 2007; Tepper et al., 2017), but few integrated both within a single framework. Our findings have clarified how these dual responses shape job performance, thereby contributing to a more nuanced understanding of the impact of abusive supervision.

 

Third, we introduced workaholism as a boundary condition, exploring how it moderates the effects of abusive supervision on job burnout and job crafting, which extends the literature on abusive supervision, demonstrating how individual traits like workaholism can buffer or exacerbate its effects.

The findings offer three main practical insights. First, we found that abusive supervision had both positive and negative effects on performance. Although, in theory, abusive supervision may have some potential positive effects on employees, this does not mean managers can engage in abusive supervision without restraint in actual management practices. The impact of abusive supervision on employees is a complex process, and managers must carefully consider when to cautiously apply this particular leadership style.

 

Second, understanding how employees appraise abusive supervision as either a challenge or a threat provides valuable leadership guidance. Organizations should foster environments that encourage challenge appraisals, supporting employees through constructive feedback and training in cognitive and emotional management to promote proactive responses such as job crafting, while minimizing threat appraisals that lead to burnout.

 

Third, we found that workaholism played a critical role in moderating the impact of abusive supervision. For employees with lower workaholic tendencies, abusive supervision is more likely to trigger threat appraisals and lead to burnout. Therefore, organizations should implement tailored management approaches based on employees’ traits, such as minimizing abusive supervision for those with lower workaholism and providing them with more routine tasks to prevent burnout.

This study has several limitations. First, while two-wave data collection reduces common method variance, all data were self-reported. Future research could incorporate multiple data-collection sources, such as supervisor evaluations, to assess job performance more objectively. Second, while we focused on workaholism as a moderator, other factors, such as organizational climate, may also influence the relationship between abusive supervision and performance. Future studies could explore additional contextual variables, such as a climate of overwork, to further understand these dynamics.

Clark, M. A., Smith, R. W., & Haynes, N. J. (2020). The Multidimensional Workaholism Scale: Linking the conceptualization and measurement of workaholism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(11), 1281–1307. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000484

 

Cook, R., & Gilin, D. (2023). Concurrent experiences of work engagement and workaholism: A factor-level profile analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 202, Article 112000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.112000

 

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2008). The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: A good alternative to measure burnout and engagement. In J. R. B. Halbesleben (Ed.), Handbook of stress and burnout in health care (pp. 65–78). Nova Science Publishers.

 

Folkman, S. (2020). Stress: Appraisal and coping. In M. D. Gellman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine (pp. 2177–2179). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39903-0_215

 

Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.008

 

Islam, T., Ahmad, S., Kaleem, A., & Mahmood, K. (2020). Abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: Moderating roles of Islamic work ethic and learning goal orientation. Management Decision, 59(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2019-1069

 

Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039–1050. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069447

 

Khalid, M., Bashir, S., Khan, A. K., & Abbas, N. (2018). When and how abusive supervision leads to knowledge hiding behaviors: An Islamic work ethics perspective. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 39(6), 794–806. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2017-0140

 

Lee, K., Kim, E., Bhave, D. P., & Duffy, M. K. (2016). Why victims of undermining at work become perpetrators of undermining: An integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 915–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000092

 

Lei, H., Gui, L., & Le, P. B. (2021). Linking transformational leadership and frugal innovation: The mediating role of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(7), 1832–1852. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2020-0247

 

Lichtenthaler, P. W., & Fischbach, A. (2018). Leadership, job crafting, and employee health and performance. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 39(5), 620–632. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2017-0191

 

Mackey, J. D., Ellen, B. P., III, McAllister, C. P., & Alexander, K. C. (2021). The dark side of leadership: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of destructive leadership research. Journal of Business Research, 132, 705–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.037

 

Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1940–1965. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573997

 

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20311

 

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

 

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732

 

Rudolph, C. W., Katz, I. M., Lavigne, K. N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008

 

Son, S. Y., & Pak, J. (2024). Enough is enough! The impact of core self-evaluation on the relationship between despotic leadership and individual outcomes. Review of Managerial Science, 18(3), 777–798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00622-3

 

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375

 

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812

 

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

 

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the Job Crafting Scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009

 

Xu, Q., Zhang, G., & Chan, A. (2019). Abusive supervision and subordinate proactive behavior: Joint moderating roles of organizational identification and positive affectivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(3), 829–843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3691-3

 

Zhang, F., & Parker, S. K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332

 

Zhang, F., & Parker, S. K. (2022). Reducing demands or optimizing demands? Effects of cognitive appraisal and autonomy on job crafting to change one’s work demands. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(5), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2022.2032665

 

Zhang, J., & Liu, J. (2018). Is abusive supervision an absolute devil? Literature review and research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(3), 719–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9551-y