Is abusive supervision always harmful toward creativity? Managing workplace stressors by promoting distributive and procedural justice

Abstract

Purpose: This paper aims to answer the question of how, why and when abusive supervision affects employee creativity. Drawing on the conservation of resources theory, this paper examines the direct and indirect (via psychological distress) effects of abusive supervision on employee creativity. It further investigates the boundary conditions imposed by employees’ perceived distributive and procedural justice in the relationships between abusive supervision, psychological distress and employee creativity. Design/methodology/approach: The study uses multi-sourced and time-lagged data collected in three waves from a survey of employees-supervisor dyads working in the Chinese manufacturing sector. In the first wave, the authors received data from 347 employees on perceived abusive supervision and perceived distributive and procedural justice. In the second wave, 320 employees shared their perceptions of psychological distress at work. In the third wave, the authors received ratings for employee creativity from the direct supervisors of 300 employees. The data were analyzed using bootstrapped moderated mediation procedures. Findings: The findings revealed a significant negative influence of abusive supervision on employee creativity both directly and indirectly in the presence of perceived psychological distress. However, distributive and procedural justice was found to mitigate the negative impact of abusive supervision on employee creativity. Practical implications: Abusive supervision has adverse consequences for employees’ creativity because it affects their psychological health. HR and top management should prioritize addressing abusive supervision first and foremost to boost employee creativity in the workplace. Managers should give employees opportunities for participation and foster a climate of fairness in the organization to mitigate the harmful consequences of abusive supervision. Originality/value: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study that examines the psychological distress-based mechanism in the relationship between abusive supervision and creativity while considering the interactive effects of distributive and procedural justice. It addresses an important research gap in the literature by proposing that organizational perceived distributive and procedural justice can mitigate the detrimental effects of abusive supervision.