Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2014

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business
Vol. 16, No. 1 (January-April 2014): 55-68

Abusive Supervision Scale Development in Indonesia
Fenika Wulani,a* B M Purwanto,b and Hani Handokoc
a
bc

Faculty of Business, Widya Mandala Catholic University, Surabaya, Indonesia

Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to develop a scale of abusive supervision in Indonesia. The
study was conducted with a different context and scale development method from Tepper’s (2000)
abusive supervision scale. The abusive supervision scale from Tepper (2000) was developed in the U.S.,
which has a cultural orientation of low power distance. The current study was conducted in Indonesia,
which has a high power distance. This study used interview procedures to obtain information about
supervisor’s abusive behavior, and it was also assessed by experts. The results of this study indicated that
abusive supervision was a 3-dimensional construct. There were anger-active abuse (6 items), humiliationactive abuse (4 items), and passive abuse (15 items). These scales have internal reliabilities of 0.947, 0.922,
and 0.845, in sequence.
Abstrak: Studi ini bertujuan untuk mengembangkan skala abusive supervision di Indonesia. Studi ini dilakukan
pada konteks dan metode pengembangan skala yang berbeda dari skala abusive supervision milik Tepper
(2000). Tepper (2000) mengembangkan skalanya di US., yang masyarakatnya secara umum memiliki budaya
jarak kekuasaan rendah. Studi ini dilakukan di Indonesia yang memiliki budaya jarak kekuasaan tinggi.
Studi ini menggunakan wawancara untuk menghasilkan informasi mengenai perilaku atasan yang abusif.
Selanjutnya daftar perilaku tersebut dinilai oleh para pakar. Hasil studi ini mengindikasikan bahwa abusive
supervision merupakan konstruk tiga dimensi. Ketiga dimensi tersebut adalah abusif aktif-kemarahan (6
indikator), abusif aktif-penghinaan (4 indikator), dan abusif pasif ( 15 indikator). Skala ini, masing-masing
ketiga dimensinya memiliki reliabilitas 0,947; 0,922; and 0,845; secara berurutan.

Keywords: abusive supervision; dimensionality; Indonesia; scale development

* Corresponding author’s e-mail: fwulani@yahoo.com
ISSN: 1141-1128
http://www.gamaijb.mmugm.ac.id/

55

Wulani et al.

Introduction
In a working relationship between a supervisor and his or her subordinate, the destructive behavior of a supervisor toward
subordinates cannot be avoided. One of the
constructs used to investigate the improper
behavior of superiors to their subordinates is
abusive supervision. Since the early 2000s,
this construct has been widely studied - all
studies showed that abusive supervision had
a negative impact on its victims, who were
subordinates (e.g. Tepper et al. 2000, 2007,
2008, 2009; Mitchell and Ambrose 2007;
Thau et al. 2009; Lian et al. 2012).
Abusive supervision is a construct of
negative behavior in an organization with the
focus being on the treatment by leaders to
their subordinates. In the various studies,
most of the abusive supervision construct
was measured using a scale by Tepper (2000).
A scale was developed for abusive supervision, and mostly used in studies conducted
in the U.S. However, referring to divergence
perspective, culture has a primary effect on
the value of work and personal values
(Rotundo and Xie 2008). Tepper (2000) argued that in countries with different cultures,
different notions may come up of what constitutes abusive behavior. This is consistent
with Aquino et al. (2004) who stated that
individual perceptions are often biased by
their cultural orientation. Furthermore, according to Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Zhen, and
Lowe (2009), cultural values which are held
by an individual determine the individual’s
reaction to aspects of his work. One of the
dimensions of culture that is very relevant to
leadership studies is power distance. This is
because it can explain how subordinates perceive their leader (Lian et al. 2000).
Kirkman et al. (2009) argued that compared with other cultural dimensions offered
56

by Hofstede’s study (e.g. individualism-collectivism, uncertainty-avoidance, and masculinity-femininity), power distance has a more
direct relationship to leadership. In addition,
power distance as a cultural value also plays
an important role in explaining the behavior
of bullying and harassment in the organization (Hofstede 1994, in Galpertin 2002).
Samnani (2013) explained that, with regard
to Hofstede’s dimensions, only the dimension
of individualism-collectivism and power distance have a relational nature, because they
describe how individuals relate to one another.
But the individualism-collectivism dimension
reflects more on the relationship between individuals in the same level of hierarchy.
While the dimension of power distance describes the relationship between people at
different levels of hierarchy (Samnani 2013).
This is consistent with the concept of power
distance which is the individual’s beliefs
about the status, authority, and power in organizations (Kirkman et al. 2009).
Employers in the countries with a high
power distance have unlimited power and
control over their subordinates (Khatri 2009).
Therefore, it is possible that abusive supervision is more common in countries with that
high power distance culture (Tepper 2007;
Lian et al. 2000). However, most of the research into abusive supervision and its scale
development has been conducted in the U.S.
where there is a low power distance (Ralston
et al. 2005).There has been limited research
on abusive supervision conducted in a country with a high power distance culture, especially in understanding the supervisor’s behavior that is regarded as abusive treatment.
One of the countries that has a high power
distance cultural value is Indonesia (Hofstede
2007). Empirically, the studies by Wolf (1999
in Nourse 2002) and Hancock (2000) found
that women workers in Indonesia experience

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2014

abusive behavior from their manager. However, there has been a lack of studies of abusive supervision conducted in Indonesia.
In addition, although the abusive supervision scale from Tepper (2000) has been
widely used in various studies, it has never
been tested psychometrically (Tepper 2007).
Furthermore, there was a contradiction about
the dimensionality of the abusive supervision
scale. The initial scale that was developed by
Tepper (2000) showed an unidimensional result. Whereas, Mitchell and Ambrose (2007)
found that this construct has two dimensions
of abusive behaviors, namely active and passive abuse.
Given the importance of studies to investigate this construct –because of its negative impact for employees and their organization as a whole, as well as a need to find a
measure for abusive supervision which is
appropriate for using in studies in different
contexts (in their cultural value orientations),
then this current research explores the items
of abusive supervision within an Indonesian
sample. This study identified the indicators
of abusive supervision using a sample of Indonesian workers, to try to know whether
abusive supervision reflects a different meaning in the Indonesian culture. Results of this
study provide an initial validation of the abusive supervision scale, especially to address
the issue of whether the abusive behavior by
supervisors is interpreted in the same way by
the participants in different countries, which
have different cultural values to those of the
U.S., and whether the scale is a unidimensional or multidimensional.

Theoretical Background
Abusive Supervision and
Indonesian Culture
Tepper (2000: 178) defined abusive supervision as “subordinates’ perceptions of
the extent to which supervisors engage in the
sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact.” The behavior of supervisors, as shown
in the construct indicators, such as ridiculing
the subordinate, telling the subordinate his/
her thoughts or feelings are stupid, giving the
subordinate the silent treatment, putting the
subordinate down in front of others, invading the subordinate’s privacy, constant reminders of the subordinate’s past mistakes
and failures, doesn’t give the subordinate
credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort, placing blame on the subordinate to save himself/herself embarrassment, breaking promises he/she makes, expressing anger at the
subordinate when he/she is mad for another
reason, making negative comments about the
subordinate to others, being rude to the subordinate, does not allow the subordinate to
interact with his/her co-workers, telling the
subordinate he/she is incompetent, and lying to the subordinate (Tepper 2000).
Abusive supervision is also said as a
psychologically abusive behavior that continues to exist and be directed at subordinates
(Tepper 1998, in Nelson 1998). Various empirical studies have found other forms of
psychological abuse. For example, referring
to Shepard and Campbell (1992, in Nelson

57

Wulani et al.

1998), psychologically abusive behavior in
intimate relationships (male and female) includes six sub-categories, that is passive abuse
(humiliating and degrading treatment), insulation (to limit social contact), intimidation
(actions or gestures to frighten), threat (harm,
hazard), using male privilege (demanding
obedience based on faith in the rights of man),
and economic abuse (restrictions on financial resources). While Neuman and Baron
(1997, in Nelson 1998) defined abusive supervisor behavior as including the use of
obscenities, unfair performance evaluations,
spreading rumors, and providing adverse information.

leader is expected to play the role of a father
who has authority and correct moral values,
as well as showing benevolent behavior
(Irawanto and Ramsey 2011). In Javanese
culture, subordinates will respect positively
to their leader who is not cruel and abrasive,
and who acts fairly (Irawanto and Ramsey
2011). Based on those cultural values, it can
be argued that even though the leaders have
unlimited power, they should have positive
morals and behavior. Consequently, if the
leaders do not have those values, subordinates will perceive them negatively.

Tepper (2007) suggested that abusive
behavior by superiors to subordinates potentially more often occurs in countries with a
high culture of power distance. A society with
a high power distance, particularly in the superior-subordinate relationship, has subordinates who would expect their superior to be
a benevolent and autocratic leader, as well
as one who provides them with some direction (Hostede 1998), they fear a negative
evaluation from their superiors (Liew et al.
2011), they are more accepting of differences
in their status and treatment (Mamman et al.
1996; at Paine and Organ 2000), they accept
being controlled by tight rules and procedures, as well as they do not want to oppose
their superiors (Khatri 2009), and they are
more tolerant to a tyrannical and autocratic
leader (Padilla et al. 2007). Therefore, in the
high power distance, superiors have almost
unlimited control and power over their subordinates (Katri 2009). According to Hofstede
(2007), Asian countries, including Indonesia,
have this high power distance.

The abusive supervision scale that was
developed by Tepper (2000) using a set of
non-physical abusive behaviors derived from
the kinds of interpersonal relationships outside the relationships between supervisors
and subordinates. This scale also was built
from literatures which describes the actions
suited to abusive supervision, and of the
physical behavior which occurred in personal
relationships (male and female). Furthermore,
this set of behaviors was given to 68 MBA
students to classify them in the category of
nonphysical abuse, physical abuse, and non
abusive behaviors.

In Indonesia, the culture of high power
distance is reflected by Javanese culture. The
Javanese are the largest ethnic group in Indonesia (Wright and Tellei, 1993). The Javanese
58

Abusive Supervision Scale

Tepper’s scale was a unidimensional
measure, with 15 indicators (Table 1.). Some
researchers combined this scale with measures of social undermining (Zellars et al.
2002) and verbal aggression (Thau et al.
2009). Several other researchers (Zellars et
al. 2002; Duffy and Farrier 2003; Aryee et al.
2007; Detert et al. 2007; Harris et al. 2007;
Mitchell and Ambrose 2007; Burris et al.
2008; Thau et al. 2009) used the short version of Tepper’s scale (2000). But the study
of Mitchell and Ambrose (2007), which
tested the construct validity of the 15 items
of Tepper’s abusive supervision scale (2000),

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2014

introduced an abusive supervision scale as
multidimensional. This multidimensional
scale included active abusive behavior (lead-

ing to verbal abuse) and passive abusive behavior (leading to nonverbal abuse).

Table 1. Tepper (2000) Scale Items
No.

Items

1.

Ridicules me

2.

Tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid

3.

Gives me the silent treatment

4.

Puts me down in front of others

5.

Invades my privacy

6.

Reminds me of my past mistakes and failures

7.

Doesn’t give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort

8.

Blames me to save himself/herself embarrassment

9.

Breaks promises he/she makes

10.

Expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for anotherReason

11.

Makes negative comments about me to others

12.

Is rude to me

13.

Does not allow me to interact with my coworkers

14.

Tells me I’m incompetent

15.

Lies to me

Note: The items were prefaced with the statement, “My boss . . .” Respondents used a five-point
response scale where 1 was “I cannot remember him/her ever using this behavior with me,” 2 was “He/
she very seldom uses this behavior with me,” 3 was “He/she occasionally uses this behavior with me,” 4
was “He/she uses this behavior moderately often with me,” and 5 was “He/she uses this behavior very
often with me.”

Source: Tepper (2000).

59

Wulani et al.

Methods and Results

would conduct face validity for these behaviors.

Study 1 - Instrument
Development

Stage 2: Item review

Stage 1: Item generation
Exploration of the abusive supervision
items was done through interviews with 23
participants. These participants were employees that work as marketing staff (in various
industries), administrative staff (in various
industries), customer service officers (CSO)
and banking tellers (the banking industry).
Referring to tenure, 13 participants have
worked for between 1-3 years, 5 participants
had worked for 5 years and over, 3 of the
participants have worked for between 3-5
years, and 2 participants have worked for less
than 1 year.
The interviews were conducted privately. The researcher met personally with
each participant. At the beginning of the interview, the interviewees were given the definition of abusive supervision from Tepper
(2000). Further, semi-structured interviews
were conducted with the participants. They
were asked to recall if in the last 6 months
they had experienced and/or seen painful
treatment by their immediate supervisor according to the definition given. Finally, participants were asked to explain in detail what
kind of treatment they had experienced. The
entire interviews process was recorded.
These interviews resulted in 163 items
of supervisor abusive behaviors. Because
some respondents mentioned the same abusive behavior, we narrowed down the amount
of those behaviors. A total of 99 behaviors
were then submitted to panelists/experts who
1

At this stage we conducted an analysis
of abusive supervision measurement instruments by adopting The Lawshe procedure
(1975). This procedure involves an evaluation process of the instrument by individuals who have knowledge of the concepts being measured. The list of the 99 behaviors
of abusive supervision, resulting from study
1, was submitted to 6 expert panelists. The
six experts included two subordinates – who
worked respectively as a secretary of a manufacturing company, and an administrative
staff from a distributor company; two supervisors – who worked as the head of a branch
of a financial services firm, and a supervisor
in a manufacturing firm, and two consultants
who have backgrounds in psychology education.
The expert panelists conducted a face
validity analysis referring to the definition of
abusive supervision or improper behaviors by
superiors to subordinates. There are three
important things in this definition: first, the
behavior of the unpleasant/rude/adverse
(hostile) kind; second, behavior of a nonphysical nature, and the third, behavior being repeated. The result of the analysis was
quantified by calculating the Content Validity Ratio (CVR). The panelists were given a
copy of the interview results and asked to
respond to the abusive supervision relevance
of each behavior on a 3-point scale; 1= not
relevant, 2= important (but not essential), 3=
essential. The responses of the six experts
were calculated based on the formula CVR
[CVR= (n/2)/(N/2)].1

n is an frequency count of the number of panelists rating them as either 3= essential or 2= important. N is the
total number of panelist (Templeton et al. 2002)

60

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2014

CVR will be statistically significant if
more than 50 percent of the panelists assess
certain items as ‘essential’ (Templeton et al.
2002). While referring to the Lawshe table
(1975), for assessment by the six panelists,
the minimum CVR value considered to be
significant (at the 0.05 level) is 0.99. However, Lawshe (1975) stated that although using a CVR to drop an item, researchers may
also consider traditional item analysis procedures. The use of the Lawshe table is not
rigid, as stated by Shultz and Whitney (2005),
if the CVR value is positive, although less
than the requirements of Lawshe’s table, it
can still be used if the amount of panelist
was relatively small. In this study, items with
a value of CVR 0.67 was retained by consideration of the fact that five of the six panelists rate the item as being important and essential, and these items would still be tested
again on a larger sample. Based on these considerations, there were 57 abusive behaviors
by supervisor that can be maintained. Based
on further analysis, there were several items
considered that had the same meaning. Some
other items showed non-specific objects (not
specifically against individual employees).
Based on this analysis, there were 16 items
which were dropped. Thus, for subsequent
analysis we used the remaining 41 items.

Study 2: Instrument refinement
In the second study, according to the
Ideal Survey Attributes (ISA) of Maholtra
and Grover (1998; in Templeton et al. 2002),
we tested the psychometric properties of the
abusive supervision instruments (indicators)
that have been revised. Testing of the abusive supervision scale was done by using a
questionnaire survey. A total of 103 questionnaires were distributed to respondents
from various fields of employment, and types
of organizations in Surabaya (the second larg-

est city in Indonesia). Respondents were asked
to respond to abusive supervision on a 41
point Likert 5-point scale (1= TDM= cannot remember the abusive behavior of my
supervisor, up to, 5= SS= my supervisor very
often do abusive behavior on me). There were
101 questionnaires completed and returned.
Most respondents were female (64.4%),
aged between 25 to less than 35 years old
(58.4%), who had been working for 1 to less
than 5 years (52.5%). They worked in various fields of employment and industries. Most
respondents worked in the field of administration (37.6%), accounting (12.9%), marketing (7.9%), and customer service (6.9%). The
others worked as programmers, secretaries,
reporters, supervisors, analysts, quality controllers, managers, tellers, HRD staff, foremen, designers (pharmaceutical companies),
teachers and lecturers, estimators, and auditors. There were four respondents who did
not fill in their occupation. Most respondents
worked in the trade business types (such as
distributors) which is about 31.7 percent, financial services (16.8%), manufacturing
(11.9%), tourism services (5%), health services (3%), retail (2%), and the other 28.7
percent worked in various types of organizations such as the media, IT, education, and
ship repair services. There was one respondent who did not fill in the kind of organization where he works.
The 41 indicators were examined by
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify
the relationship between the abusive supervision items and to determine the dimensionality of this construct. We tested this EFA
by using principal component analysis with
varimax rotation. EFA Test results showed
that the three factors model was the most
likely model for further analysis. In order to
retain items for our scale construction, we

61

Wulani et al.

used a factor loading at least 0.4. Model with
3 factors dropped 13 items and maintained
28 items. These three factors formed explained 66.015 percent of the total variance.
The first factor was composed of 13 indicators, second factor was composed of 10 indicators, and third factor was composed of 5
indicators. The three factors model was then
tested for its reliability by using Cronbach’s
Alpha reliability. The analysis showed that in
the third factor, there was one indicator that
had a low reliability value. After this indicator was dropped, the reliability test showed
that each factor has a fairly high reliability (a
> 0.7). These results indicated a high internal consistency, and that there was a high inter-correlation between indicators (Coltman
et al. 2008).

Study 3 - Scale validation
A validation test of the three factors
was conducted in the third study. In this study
we also tested the convergent of abusive
supervision’s construct. In testing of this
convergent validity, we analyzed the correlation between abusive supervision that was
developed in this study and the 15 point scale
of abusive supervision of Tepper (2000).
A total of 706 respondents participated
in this study. Questionnaires were distributed
to respondents who worked as 1) nurses and
medical support staff in hospitals, 2) backoffice and front-office staff of various banks,
3) administration staff, sales reps, and technicians in various fields of industry in
Surabaya, Sidoarjo and Gresik; the three cit-

62

ies of trade in Indonesia. Most of the respondents were women (55.4%) and had been
working with their current supervisor for 1
to less than 5 years (45.8%). Distribution of
the questionnaires was carried out by 79 coordinators of distribution. Respondents were
asked to respond on a 121 items Likert 5point scale (1= TDM= cannot remember the
abusive behavior of my supervisor, up to, 5=
SS= my supervisor very often do abusive
behavior on me).

Dimensionality Testing
We examined the construct validity of
the three factors model generated in the second study by using an exploratory factor analysis/EFA and confirmatory factor analysis/
CFA. The EFA testing was done by using a
principal component analysis with oblimin
rotation, and the minimum cut-off at the loading factor was 0.4. As in the second study,
the EFA produced three dimensions of abusive supervision (Table 2.). The dimensions
were anger-active abuse, humiliation-active
abuse, and passive abuse. The analysis
showed that to obtain a measure of convergence, there are several indicators that should
be dropped (i.e.: passive abuse1/ap1 and
passive abuse2/ap2).
Furthermore, in order to cross-validate
the three-factor solution obtained by the
EFA, we performed a CFA. The model provided an acceptable fit to the data, 2 (df=
272, = 0.05)= 1578.501, CMIN/df= 5.803,
RMSEA= 0.083, GFI= 0.833, AGFI= 0.8,
and TLI= 0.887.

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2014

Table 2. The Result of Factor Analysis
Indicator

Factor Loadings
1

2

aa1. My supervisor says something rude to me

0.817

aa2. My supervisor angry to me out loud

0.859

aa3. My supervisor angry to me with a very high level of emotion

0.832

aa4. My supervisor angry to me but never explained what I should do

0.728

aa5. My supervisor scolds me in front of others

0.756

aa6. My supervisor reprimands me in a high intonation

0.789

3

aa7. My supervisor says I am stupid

0.783

aa8

0.785

My supervisor ridicules me

aa9. My supervisor intimidates me

0.617

aa10. My supervisor hits the table hardly when angry at me

0.769

ap1. My supervisor vents their hate at me with my quip.

0.390

ap2. My supervisor compares me with other subordinates
in front of others

0.411

ap3. My supervisor gives the impression as if the success of a job
is because of his/her effort, not because of mine.

0.557

ap4. My supervisor gives me the silent treatment

0.495

ap5. My supervisor underestimates me

0.450

ap6. My supervisor gives orders without understanding
my difficulties

0.576

ap7. My supervisor treats me unfairly

0.691

ap8. My supervisor does not provide important information
about the kinds of the reward will I receive if I can complete
the task

0.738

ap9. My supervisor does not keep his/her promise to me

0.874

ap10. My supervisor does not trust me

0.550

ap11. My supervisor does not appreciate my hard work

0.764

ap12. My supervisor does not give important information to me,
related to task completion

0.773

ap13. My supervisor accuses me of the mistake I did not do

0.572

.421

0.324

63

Wulani et al.

Table 2. (Continued)
Indicator

Factor Loadings
1

aa1. My supervisor says something rude to me

2

3

0.817

ae1. My supervisor forces me to work up to longer hours of
work without giving compensation

0.723

ae2. My supervisor forces me to keep working even in the rest hour

0.666

ae3. My supervisor orders me to do a task that does not make sense

0.688

ae4. My supervisor asks me to perform duties beyond the job
description without giving compensation

0.838

Notes: 1. Indicators in Table 1 were results of EFA test on the study of 3.
2. Bold statements/indicators were indicators which were dropped on the study 3 as result
of EFA test (the dimensions of the passive abuse).
3. Factor 1 is passive abuse (a= 0.947), factor-2 is anger-active abuse (a= 0.922), and factor 3
is humiliation-active abuse (a= 0.845). Reliability testing conducted for indicators that
are not dropped. These factors explain (in sequence) 51.662 percent, 6.868 percent, and
4.747 percent of the total variance (n= 706).

We also compared the three-factor
model to a single-factor model that combined
all abusive supervision items in a one-factor
abusive model, 2 (df= 324, 5%)= 3270.275,
CMIN/df= 10.093, RMSEA= 0.114, GFI=
0.671, AGFI= 0.616, dan TLI= 0.770. Our
analysis shown that the three-factor model
was significantly better than the single-factor model, 2 (df= 52, = 0.05). The scales
showed an acceptable internal consistency,
with Cronbach’s Alpha reliabilities at 0.92 for
anger-active abuse, 0.85 for humiliation-active abuse, and 0.95 for passive abuse. The
correlation between anger abuse and humiliation abuse, anger abuse and passive abuse,
and humiliation abuse and passive abuse were
moderate (sequentially, r2= 0.71, p= 0.01; r2=
0.78, p= 0.01; and r2= 0.69, p= 0.01).

64

To assess the convergent validity of our
abusive supervision scale, we correlated this
scale with the 15-item version of Tepper’s
(2000) abusive supervision scale. The result
showed that each dimension of abusive supervision, anger-active abuse, humiliationactive abuse, and passive abuse, significantly
correlated with a single dimension of Tepper
(in sequence, r2= 0.759, p= 0.01; r2= 0.722;
p= 0.01; and r2= 0.902, p= 0.01).

Discussion
This study found that the abusive supervision construct has three dimensions,
namely angry-active abuse, humiliation-active
abuse, and passive abuse. Angry-active abuse,
which consists of 6 indicators, refers to the

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2014

supervisor’s verbal behavior with regard to
the forms of anger shown, such as scolding
the subordinate in front of others, shows anger with no explanation, and anger with a very
high level of emotion. Humiliation-active
abuse, which consists of 4 indicators, refers
to verbal and nonverbal behavior such as
taunts and threats from the supervisor, and
nonverbal behavior (hitting the table hard)
when angry with subordinates. Lastly, passive
abuse, which comprised of 15 indicators, refers to the nonverbal behavior of superiors
to their subordinates with regard to the
completion of their work.
This study found five items that were
similar with Tepper’s scale(2000), namely
the supervisor says that his subordinate is
stupid, and ridicules them (dimension of humiliation-active abuse), gives the silent treatment, does not keep his promise, and does
not appreciate the subordinate’s hard work
(dimension of passive abuse). Although there
are some indicators that are not captured in
Tepper’s scale (2000), there are several items
in this study that have similarities to the findings of abusive behavior from researchers
besides Tepper (at the time yet to be named
abusive supervision). For example, rude supervisors (Asforth 1997; at Thau et al. 2009;
Newman and Baron 1997; in Nelson 1998),
supervisors intimidate their subordinates and
superiors insulting their subordinates
(Keashly et al. 1994: in Nelson 1998), supervisors behave irrationally (Clarke 1995 in
Nelson 1998), and supervisors claiming subordinates performance as their performance
(Keashly et al. 1994: in Nelson 1998).
The findings from the three dimensions
of abusive supervision differs with the abusive supervision’s construct that was originally developed by Tepper (2000), which is a
unidimensional construct, and also the findings of the 2-dimensional abusive supervi-

sion by Mitchell and Ambrose (2007). Among
the three dimensions abusive supervision,
only the dimension of humiliation-active
abuse has items which show similarity with
abusive behavior that are found in the U.S.
(i.e. the supervisor ridicules and intimidates
the subordinates, and calls them stupid). In
regard to the dimension of angry-active abuse,
this dimension includes the items which related to angry outbursts. This abusive behavior has been proposed by Keashly et al.
(1994). This finding shows that workers in
Indonesia, although under a high power distance, they will accept unequal power, but
they expect not to be treated roughly. It is in
line with the study by Irawanto and Ramsey
(2011) that subordinates, under the Javanese
value, show no respect to an autocratic leader
that acts cruelly to them. Additionally, intimidation can be considered by subordinates as
disrespectful to them (Larson and Kleiner
1992).
Although some items of passive abuse
show similarity to abusive items in the U.S.,
this study found that most of the other items
in this dimension have not been uncovered
in previous studies of abusive supervision.
These items include the provision of information on how to complete the work, and
what kind of rewards will be obtained by the
subordinates after they complete their task,
as well as asking subordinates to completing
their tasks beyond their job description and
beyond their normal working hours without
compensation.
Interestingly, even though Clarke (1995;
in Nelson 1998) found that enforcing the
rules is an abusive act, in a high power distance, workers expect their leader to give
them direction and control them with rules.
According to Larson and Kleiner (1992),
Asian employees, who tend to have hierarchical relationships, typically will not take the
65

Wulani et al.

initiative because they do not want to take
the risk of making any mistakes in their work.
It is because, if they make a mistake, they
would feel very ashamed in front of their superiors. Consequently, they show respect to
the rules and procedures (Larson and Kleiner
1992). Thus, it can be argued that they are
expecting their supervisor to provide clear
guidelines so that they do not make mistakes
on the job. Furthermore, regarding the results of the supervisor not providing possible
reward information and asking subordinates
to work without compensation, workers in a
high power distance have a belief in social
investment (Irawanto and Ramsey 2011). It
is possible that they expect their leader to give
them a reward for their compliance.
In addition to the cultural factor, it is
possible that the context of the industry and
job function play a role in that difference. In
this study, exploratory items of abusive supervision were done by collecting data on
participants who worked in the banking industry, marketing and administration positions in various industries. Those types of jobs
have complex tasks and the task demand is
high, which allows for a wide range of abusive supervision and forms of abuse.
However, the differences in the result
in the behavioral indicators of abusive supervision may also be due to the study design in the exploration of abusive supervision items. Tepper (2000) was using a set of
non-physical abusive behaviors derived from
the kinds of interpersonal relationships outside of the relationship between supervisors
and subordinates. He also derived them from
literature describing the actions suited to abusive supervision, and of physical behavior
occurring in the relationship between pairs
(male and female). In our study, we asked the
participants to describe incidents of abusive

66

supervision that they experienced or had
known in their workplace. Procedures used
in this study allow us to capture more detailed
form which was considered as abusive behavior.

Conclusions and Implications
The development of the study and validation of the abusive supervision measure
provided some important results. First, there
were differences between abusive supervision
indicators that were found in this study and
the indicators in Tepper (2000). Although
from the 25 indicators that were found in this
study, only five indicators had similarities
with the 15 abusive supervision indicators in
Tepper (2000), some other items in this study
have been proposed by other researchers in
the U.S. as being supervisor’s abusive behavior. Second, in contrast to Tepper (2000) which
found the abusive supervision construct as a
unidimensional one, and Mitchell and
Ambrose (2007) who found a two-dimensional supervision abusive, the current study
found a 3-dimensional abusive supervision.
The dimensions were angry-active abuse,
humiliation-active abuse, and passive abuse.
This study found that in general there is a
similarity in abusive supervision’s items both
in the U.S. and in Indonesia. Nevertheless,
there are some items that have not been captured in the items of abusive supervision in
the U.S. It is possible that those items appear
because of the effects of cultural factors, industry characteristics, and the research
method used in this study.
Referring to some of the differences
found in this study compared with the scales
of Tepper (2000) and other researchers in the
U.S., further research should investigate more
deeply the effects of the Indonesian culture
on the items of the abusive supervision. The

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2014

resulting scale of this study is at an early stage.
To increase the generalizing of constructs of
abusive supervision, future studies need to

validate it again in a different cultural context.

References
Aquino, K., S. Douglas, and M. J. Martinko. 2004. Overt anger in repsonse to victimization: attributional
style and organizational norms as moderators. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 9 (2):152-164.
Aryee, S., X. C. Zhen, S. Li-Yun, and A. D. Yaw. 2007. Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision:
Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (1): 191-201.
Burris, E. R., J. R. Detert, and D. S. Chiaburu. 2008. Quitting before leaving: The mediating effects of
psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (4): 912-922.
Detert, J. R., L. K. Trevino, E. R. Burris, and M. Andiappan. 2007. Managerial modes of influence and
counterproductiveity in organizations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of
Applied Psychology 92 (4): 993-1105.
Duffy, M. K., and W. J. Ferrier. 2003. Birds of a feather…? How supervisor-subordinate dissimilarity
moderates the influence of supervisor behaviors on workplace attitudes. Group and Organization
Management 28 (2): 217-248.
Hancock, P. 2000. The lived experience of female factory in rural West Java. Labour and Management in
Development Journal 1 (1): 1-18.
Harris, K. J., K. M. Kacmar, and S. Zivnuska. 2007. An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor
of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership
Quarterly 18: 252-263.
Hofstede, G. 1998.Think locally, act globally: Cultural constraints in personnel management. Management
International Review 38: 7-26.
Hofstede, G. 2007. Asian management in the 21st century. Asia pacific Journal of Management 24: 411-420
Irawanto, D. W., and P. H. Ramsey. 2011. Paternalistic leadership and employee responses in Javanese
culture. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business 13 (2): 185-203.
Khatri, N. 2009. Consequences of power distance orientation in organizations. The Journal of Business
Perspective 13 (1 ) (January-March): 1-9.
Kirkman, B. L., G. Chen, J. L. Farh, X. C. Zhen, and K. B. Lowe. 2009. Individual power distance
orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: a cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal 52 (4): 744-764.
Larson, H. H., and B. H. Kleiner. 1992. Understanding and effectively managing Asian employees. Equal
Opportunities International 11 (2): 18-22.
Lawshe, C. H. 1975. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology 28: 563-575.
Lian, H., D. L. Ferris, and D. J. Brown. 2012b. Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of
abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (1): 107–123.
Liew, S., Y. Ma, S. Han, and Aziz-Zadeh. 2011. Who’s afraid of the boss: cultural differences in social
hierarchies modulate self-face recognition in Chinese and Americans. Plos One 6 (2): 1-8.

67

Wulani et al.

Mitchell, M. S., and M. L. Ambrose. 2007. Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (4): 1159-1168.
Morison, E. W., Y-R.Chen, and S. R. Salgado. 2004. Cultural differences in newcomer feedback seeking:
A aomparison of the United States and Hong Kong. Applied Psychology: An International Review 53
(1): 1-22.
Nelson, R. J. 1998. Abusive supervision and subordinates’ coping strategies. Dissertation. The graduate
school University of Kentucky.
Ralston, D. A., P. Hallinger, C. P. Egri, and S. Naothinsuhk. 2005. The effects of culture and life stage on
workplace strategies of upward influence: A comparison of Thailand and the United States. Journal of World Business 40: 321–337.
Samnani, A. 2013. The early stages of workplace bullying and how it becomes prolonged: The role of
culture in predicting target responses. Journal of Business Ethics 113:119–132.
Scandura, T., and P. Dorfman. 2004. Leadership research in an international and cross-cultural context.
The Leadership Quarterly 15: 277-307.
Shultz, K. S., and D. J. Whitney. 2005. Measurement Theory in Action: Case Studies and Exercise. New Delhi:
Sage Publication, Inc.
Templeton, G. F., B. R. Lewis, and C. A. Snyder. 2002. Development of a measure for the organizational
learning contruct. Journal of Management Information Systems 19 (2) (Fall): 175-218.
Tepper, J. P. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal 43: 178-190.
Tepper, B. J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: review, synthesis, and research agenda.
Journal of Management 33: 261-289.
Tepper, B. J., S. E. Moss, D. E. Lockhart, and J. C. Carr. 2007. Abusive supervision, upward maintenance
communication, and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal 50 (5):
1169-1180.
Tepper, B. J., C. A. Henle, L. S. Lambert, and M. K. Duffy. 2008. Abusive supervision and subordinates’
organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (4): 721-732.
Tepper, B. J., J. C. Carr, D. M. Breaux, S. Geider, C. Hu, and H. Wei. 2009. Abusive supervision, intention
to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes (article in press).
Thau, S., R. J. Bennet, M. S. Mitchell, and M. B. Marrs. 2009. How management style moderates the
relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 108: 79-92.
Wright, L., and V. C. Tellei. 1993. Women in management in Indonesia. International Studies of Management
and Organization 23 (4):19-45.
Zellars, K. L., B. J. Tepper, and M. K. Duffy. 2002. Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (6): 1068-1076.

68