Abusive Supervision, Psychological Capital, and Turnover Intention: Evidence from Factory Workers in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a dark side of leadership, scholars have shown that abusive supervision (AS) has negative consequences for subordinates work, organizations and society. This study focuses on the detrimental effects of AS on employee turnover intention, which is one of the major concerns for firms in China. We examined the underlying psychological mechanism between AS and turnover intention, specifically by focusing on the mediational role of psychological capital (Luthanset al., 2007) based on the conservation of resources theory (COR, from Hobfoll, 2002). By explaining the process of how AS can deplete individuals’ resources, which leads to protective behaviour and attitudes, we attempt to integrate COR theory into the existing AS literature. We also investigated the moderating role of broader organizational contexts represented by organizational justice perception in the relationship between AS and turnover intention, showing boundary conditions where the effects of AS can be amplified with regard to overall organizational justice perception. Based on survey data collected from young factory workers in northern China, this study finds that abusive supervision is positively correlated with turnover intention. Psychological capital, especially optimism, mediates this relationship. In addition, when workers perceived high levels of procedural and distributive organizational justice, this association between abusive supervision and turnover intention was even stronger. Furthermore, the perception of procedural organizational justice also moderated the mediation mechanism of optimism between abusive supervision and turnover intention. This paper enriches the extant studies by considering the relationship between abusive supervision and its negative consequences for manufacturing workplaces in a non-western country, a context that has been little studied. In addition, by showing how psychological capital and the perception of organizational justice affect the AS-turnover intention relationship, this paper provides a nuanced and deeper understanding of the psychological mechanism and organizational context of abusive supervision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".