Attributions for abusive supervision: Who do subordinates blame and does it matter?

Drawing on attribution theory, we propose in Study 1 that subordinates' supervisor-directed responses to abusive supervision depend upon their causal attributions for the abuse. Using a scenario-based study (N = 183), we test a moderated mediation model in which the entity blamed for abusive supervision (supervisor, organization, self) is expected to predict subordinates' behavioral intentions toward their supervisor via affective responses (supervisor disliking). This relationship will be exacerbated when subordinates perceive the cause of abusive supervision as stable. We found that subordinates who blamed themselves or the organization for the abuse disliked their supervisor less and had higher OCB-supervisor intentions, and this relationship was stronger when subordinates perceived the cause of abuse as stable. Disliking mediated the relationship between supervisor attributions and OCB-supervisor, but this relationship is not moderated by perceived stability. In Study 2, we explore whether there are additional entities that are blamed for abusive supervision and the reasons they are held accountable. We examined qualitative responses (N = 107) from abused subordinates to find that they most commonly blame their supervisor, themselves, and the organization for abusive supervision. However, subordinates occasionally blame their relationship with their supervisor and their work group.

Leading across cultures in the human age: an empirical investigation of intercultural competency among global leaders.

This article reports on a major, large-scale two-year empirical study to investigate intercultural competencies among global leaders and the relationship of these competencies to criteria of high performance global leadership. The study was designed to contribute to the emerging field of global leadership research by identifying and measuring proximal attributes and leadership criteria as suggested by Zaccaro's trait-based leadership model (American Psychologist 62: 6-16, 2007). Only global leaders were included in the study - CEO's, General Managers, Function Heads, or those with Profit and Loss responsibility for their businesses. These 1867 leaders of 13 nationalities were engaged in leading people across cultures - either on international assignment or working from their home base. A set of six intercultural competencies and three criteria of global leadership success were identified and compared across nationalities. The competencies were measured and used to predict success over time. Applications are discussed in terms of global leadership assessment and development.