AI-Demand Abusive Supervision Triggers Follower Workplace Deviant Behavior: Intervening Role of Silence and AI Knowledge
With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and its potential benefits for enterprise management, more companies are applying AI in the workplace. The increasing demand for AI within organizations may, however, trigger negative emotional experiences among employees, particularly when leaders use abusive supervision practices to force followers to adopt AI. This could provoke negative behavioral reactions among employees. Considering the process of digital transformation in enterprises, research has, to date, paid limited attention to the mechanisms by which AI-demand abusive supervision affects follower behavior. To address this research gap, this study draws on social exchange theory to examine how AI-demand abusive supervision influences follower workplace deviant behavior, through the mediating role of silence. We also explore the moderating role of AI knowledge in the relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviant behavior. We tested our hypotheses using 295 participants from a two-wave survey in China. The results indicate that AI-demand abusive supervision strengthens organizational and interpersonal workplace deviant behavior. Contrary to expectations, follower silence did not mediate the relationship between AIdemand abusive supervision and organizational deviance; however, it did mediate interpersonal deviance. Additionally, although AI knowledge negatively moderates the relationship between AI-demand abusive supervision and both organizational and interpersonal deviant behavior, it does not moderate the relationship between AI-demand abusive supervision and silence behavior. This study's findings have important implications for enterprise management. Organizations should establish effective communication channels regarding AI implementation, to encourage employees to express their opinions and reduce silence. Furthermore, providing AI technology training can enhance employees' understanding and confidence in AI usage, thereby alleviating the negative emotions and behavioral responses caused by abusive supervision.
[1] Aeen, M. N., Bagheri, G., & Zarei, R. (2012). Organizational silence (Basic concepts and its development factors). Ideal Type of Management, 1(1), 47-58.
[2] Al-kashab, H. T. (2024). Effect of abusive supervision on emotional exhaustion and organizational citizenship behavior: A moderating role of workplace friendship. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 45(8), 1281-1300.
[3] AlNuaimi, B. K., Singh, S. K., Ren, S., Budhwar, P., & Vorobyev, D. (2022). Mastering digital transformation: The nexus between leadership, agility, and digital strategy. Journal of Business Research, 145, 636-648.
[4] Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360.
[5] Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In Field methods in cross-cultural research. Sage.
[6] Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(1), 1-16.
[7] Chiu, Y. T., Zhu, Y. Q., & Corbett, J. (2021). In the hearts and minds of employees: A model of pre-adoptive appraisal toward artificial intelligence in organizations. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102379.
[8] Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
[9] Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., Connelly, C. E., Barling, J., & Hoption, C. (2006). Workplace aggression in teenage part-time employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 987-997.
[10] Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362.
[11] Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People's Republic of China. Organization Science, 15(2), 241-253.
[12] Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
[13] Hays, R. D., Hayashi, T., & Stewart, A. L. (1989). A 5-item measure of socially desirable response set. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(3), 629-636.
[14] He, C., Teng, R., & Song, J. (2024). Linking employees' challenge-hindrance appraisals toward AI to service performance: The influences of job crafting, job insecurity and AI knowledge. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 36(3), 975-994.
[15] He, Q., Li, Y., Cheng, Y., & Li, X. (2020). Research on the impact of artificial intelligence technology application on employment and its mechanism — Micro evidence from manufacturing enterprises. China Soft Science, 35(S1), 213-222.
[16] He, G., Zheng, X., Li, W., Tan, L., Chen, S., & He, Y. (2024). The mixed blessing of leaders’ artificial intelligence (AI)-oriented change behavior: Implications for employee job performance and unethical behavior. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 19(2), 469-497.
[17] Jöhnk, J., Weißert, M., & Wyrtki, K. (2021). Ready or not, AI comes—An interview study of organizational AI readiness factors. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 63(1), 5-20.
[18] Li, A., Hua, T., & Gao, W. (2013). The "feature-process-outcome" theoretical framework of abusive supervision research. Psychological Science Progress, 21(11), 1901-1912.
[19] Liu, S., Li, J., Zhang, K., & Zhang, S. (2023). The mutual influence between digital transformation and leadership: A perspective based on adaptive structural theory. Foreign Economics & Management, 10, 116-136.
[20] Mawritz, M. B., Greenbaum, R. L., Butts, M. M., & Graham, K. A. (2017). I just can’t control myself: A self-regulation perspective on the abuse of deviant employees. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1482-1503.
[21] Meske, C., & Junglas, I. (2021). Investigating the elicitation of employees’ support towards digital workplace transformation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(11), 1120-1136.
[22] Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.
[23] 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.
[24] Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world [Review]. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725.
[25] Oh, J. K., & Farh, C. I. (2017). An emotional process theory of how subordinates appraise, experience, and respond to abusive supervision over time. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 207-232.
[26] Park, J. H., Carter, M. Z., DeFrank, R. S., & Deng, Q. (2018). Abusive supervision, psychological distress, and silence: The effects of gender dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates. Journal of Business Ethics, 153, 775-792.
[27] Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. In Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 331-369). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
[28] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
[29] Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.
[30] Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.
[31] Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can ‘good’ stressors spark ‘bad’ behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1438-1451.
[32] Shoss, M. K., Eisenberger, R., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2013). Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor's organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 158-168.
[33] Tahir, M. A., Da, G., Javed, M., Akhtar, M. W., & Wang, X. (2024). Employees’ foe or friend: Artificial intelligence and employee outcomes. The Service Industries Journal. Latest Articles.
[34] Tang, P. M., Koopman, J., McClean, S. T., Zhang, J. H., Li, C. H., De Cremer, D., Lu, Y., & Ng, C. T. S. (2022). When conscientious employees meet intelligent machines: An integrative approach inspired by complementarity theory and role theory. Academy of Management Journal, 65(3), 1019-1054.
[35] Tepper, B. J., (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178-190.
[36] Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 156-167.
[37] Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A. & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision., Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 101-123.
[38] Wang, Y. D., & Hsieh, H. H. (2013). Organizational ethical climate, perceived organizational support, and employee silence: A cross-level investigation. Human Relations, 66(6), 783-802.
[39] Wei, F., & Si, S. (2013). Tit for tat? Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviors: The moderating effects of locus of control and perceived mobility. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(1), 281-296.
[40] Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 763-774.
[41] Xu, G. L., & Wang, H. T. (2022). Research on the influence of technological disruption awareness on employees’ intentions to engage in change-supportive behaviors: With the development of artificial intelligence as the background. East China Economic Management, 36(06), 119-128.
[42] Xu, P., & Xu, X. Y. (2020). Change logic and analysis framework of enterprise management in the era of artificial intelligence. Journal of Management World, 36(1), 122-129+238.
[43] Yan, A. & Gao, Y. (2010). The impact of abusive supervision on employees' workplace deviant behavior: The mediating role of organizational identification. Journal of Capital University of Economics and Business, 12(6), 55-61.
[44] Yin, M., Jiang, S., & Niu, X. (2024). Can AI really help? The double-edged sword effect of AI assistant on employees’ innovation behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 150, 107987.
[45] Yu, L., Duffy, M. K., & Tepper, B. J. (2018). Consequences of downward envy: A model of self-esteem threat, abusive supervision, and supervisory leader self-improvement. Academy of Management Journal, 61(6), 2296-2318.
[46] Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., Zhang, X., & Wu, L. -Z. (2014). High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1151-1174.
[47] Zhang, Z. X., & He, W. (2024). Human-AI research and its significance for organizational management. Foreign Economics & Management, 46(10), 3-17.
[48] Zheng, X., Ke, J., Shi, J., & Zheng, X. (2008). Measurement of employee silence in the context of China and the impact of trust. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40(2), 219-227.
[49] Zhou, Q., Chen, K., & Cheng, S. (2024). Bringing employee learning to AI stress research: A moderated mediation model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 209, 123773.