Detail View

최근 몇 년간, 조직 내에서 비인격적인 감독에 대한 연구들은 이를 직접 경험한 피해자뿐만 아니라, 이를 목격하는 제3자에게 미치는 영향에 대한 관심이 증가하였다. 또한, 조직 내 제3자는 비인격적인 언행의 목격자로서, 그들의 인식과 반응은 팀의 성과 및 조직 문화에 중대한 영향을 미칠 수 있다. 제3자의 직장 업무관련행동의 중요성에도 불구하고, 기존의 비인격적인 언행의 목격에 대한 연구들은 대부분 제3자의 피해자 중심 및 상사 중심 행동에 초점을 두어 제 3자의 업무관련행동을 간과해 왔다. 제3자의 업무관련행동에 대해 살펴본 소수의 연구들은 긍정적인 영향과 부정적인 영향이 혼재함을 보여주었다. 그러나, 이러한 혼재된 결과는 비인격적 감독의 목격에 대한 포괄적인 이해를 제공하지 못하였다. 
본 연구는 감정 사건 이론과 스트레스 거래 이론을 종합함으로써, 비인격적 감독의 목격행위가 제3자의 업무노력에 미치는 영향이 언제, 왜 각기 달라지는지를 규명하고자 한다. 이론적 모델을 실증적으로 검증하기 위해 국내 정규직 종사자들을 대상으로 3번에 걸쳐 일주일 간격으로 설문을 진행하였다. 본 연구의 결과는 제3자가 비인격적인 상사의 동기를 피해자의 성과향상으로 인식하는 정도에 따라 비인격적 감독의 목격이 제 3자의 업무노력행동에 미치는 영향이 달라진다는 것을 보여주었다. 구체적으로, 제3자가 비인격적 상사의 성과 향상동기가 높다고 (vs. 낮다고) 생각할 때, 비인격적 감독의 목격과 직무에 대한 경각심(vs. 상사에 대한 실망감) 간에 긍정적이고 강한 연관성을 포착하였다. 또한, 제3자가 비인격적 상사의 성과 향상동기가 높다고 (vs. 낮다고) 생각할 때, 직무에 대한 경각심 (vs. 상사에 대한 실망감)을 통한 비인격적 감독의 목격과 직무에 대한 성찰 (vs. 철회 인식)간의 간접적인 관계가 긍정적이고 강해지는 것을 발견하였다. 마지막으로, 제3자가 비인격적 상사의 성과 향상동기가 높다고(vs. 낮다고) 생각할 때, 직무에 대한 경각심 (vs. 상사에 대한 실망감)과 직무에 대한 경각심 (vs. 철회 인식)을 통한 비인격적 감독의 목격과 업무노력행동 간에 긍정적이고 강한 관련성이 있는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구 결과들을 바탕으로 비인격적 감독의 목격행위가 제3자의 업무관련 행동에 미치는 영향에 대한 더 통합적이고 포괄적인 이해를 제공한다. 


In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the significance of third parties who work alongside both victims and abusive leaders within organizations. These individuals play a crucial role as witnesses to abusive supervision and their own work-related behaviors are of great importance. While previous studies have mainly focused on victim-oriented and leader-oriented behaviors, limited attention has been given to the work-related behaviors of third parties who are part of this complex dynamic. Third parties in organizations often serve as witnesses to abusive behaviors, and their reactions can have significant implications for the overall work environment. Their perceptions and responses to abusive supervision can influence team dynamics, employee morale, and organizational culture. Despite the importance of third parties' work-related behaviors, most previous studies on witnessed abusive supervision have primarily focused on their victim-oriented and leader-oriented behaviors, neglecting third parties’ work-related behaviors. Moreover, the existing research has produced conflicting findings regarding the impact of witnessed abusive supervision on third parties' work-related behaviors. Therefore, it is crucial to develop a comprehensive understanding of how witnessed abusive supervision influences third parties' work-related behaviors, considering the context and conditions under which these effects tend to be predominantly positive or negative.
By integrating the affective event theory and the transactional theory of stress, we developed a theoretical model that aims to elucidate the boundary condition and underlying mechanisms that contribute to differential effects of witnessed abusive supervision on third parties' work effort. Through a time-lagged study at three different time points, we empirically examined our proposed model. Our findings revealed that the impact of witnessed abusive supervision on third parties' work effort is contingent upon the extent to which third parties attribute abusive leaders’ motive to improve the performance of the victim (i.e., performance promotion attribution). Specifically, we found a positive and strong association between witnessed abusive supervision and attentiveness toward the job (vs. frustration toward the leader) when third parties perceive high (vs. low) performance promotion attribution. Also, results also showed a positive and strong indirect relationship between witnessed abusive supervision and job reflection (vs. withdrawal cognition) via attentiveness toward the job (vs. frustration toward the leader) when third parties think high (vs. low) performance promotion attribution. In addition, the results also indicated that a positive and strong indirect impact of witnessed abusive supervision on third parties’ work effort via attentiveness toward the job (vs. frustration toward the leader) and job reflection (vs. withdrawal cognition) when third parties perceive high (vs. low) performance promotion attribution. Our findings offer a more integrated and comprehensive understanding of behavioral response to witnessed abusive supervision.

ABSTRACT	i
국문 초록	iv
ACKNOWLEDMENTS	viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS	xi
LIST OF TABLES	xiv
LIST OF FIGURES	xv
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION	1
Figure 1 Theoretical Model	18
CHAPTER 2. OVERVIEW OF WITNESSED ABUSIVE SUPERVISION	19
2.1 Overview of Witnessed Abusive Supervision	19
2.2 The Behavioral Outcomes of Witnessed Abusive Supervision	19
2.2.1 Leader (perpetrator)-related Behaviors	20
2.2.2 Victim-related Behaviors	21
2.2.3 Third Parties’ Work-related Behaviors	23
2.3 The Mediating Mechanisms of Witnessed Abusive Supervision	25
2.3.1 Affective Mechanisms	25
2.3.2 Cognitive Mechanisms	27
2.4 The Boundary Conditions of Witnessed Abusive Supervision	30
2.4.1 Third Parties’ Individual Characteristics	30
2.4.2 Situational Variables	34
CHAPTER 3. THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT	44
3.1 The Moderating Role of Performance Promotion Attribution in the Relationship Between the Witnessed Abusive Supervision and Frustration toward the Leader	44
3.2 The Moderating Role of Performance Promotion Attribution in the Relationship Between the Witnessed Abusive Supervision and Attentiveness toward the Job	51
3.3 The Moderating Role of Performance Promotion Attribution in the Indirect Effect of Witnessed Abusive Supervision on Withdrawal Cognition via Frustration toward the Leader	54
3.4 The Moderating Role of Performance Promotion Attribution in the Indirect Effect of Witnessed Abusive Supervision on Job Reflection via Attentiveness toward the Job	58
3.5 The Moderating Role of Performance Promotion Attribution in the Indirect Effect of Witnessed Abusive Supervision on Work Effort via Frustration toward the Leader and Withdrawal Cognition	63
3.6 The Moderating Role of Performance Promotion Attribution in the Indirect Effect of Witnessed Abusive Supervision on Work Effort via Attentiveness toward the Job and Job Reflection	65
CHAPTER 4. METHOD	69
4.1 Sample and Procedure	69
4.2. Remedies for Common Method Bias	74
4.2.1 Procedural Remedies	74
4.2.2 Statistical Remedies	75
4.3 Measures	76
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS	85
5.1 Common Method Bias	85
5.1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)	85
5.1.2 Partial Correlation Test	89
5.1.3 Conclusion	95
5.2 Hypotheses Tests	96
5.3 Supplementary Analyses	107
CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION	114
6.1 Theoretical Implications	115
6.2 Practical implications	119
6.3 Limitations	121
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION	127
REFERENCES	128
APPENDIX	143