Understanding the linkage between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behavior: the role played by resilience and psychological contract breach

Abstract

A productive and positive workplace culture is essential to gaining positive organizational work outcomes. At the same time, counterproductive work behaviour in Punjab has been observed as a prevailing negative behaviour that hinders positive workplace behaviour. Counterproductive work behaviour works against organizational goals and is considered one of the negative sides of organizational behaviour. The current research tested the influence of abusive supervision on counterproductive work behaviour with the mediating role of Transactional and relational psychological contract breach. However, this research has also tested Resilience as a moderator-mediator between abusive supervision and the two forms of psychological contract breach. The hypothesized associations among variables were tested through the primary quantitative research method. Convenience sampling under non-probability sampling approach was implemented. Data was collected from 350 Punjab civil secretaries’ employees. Three hundred twelve screened and cleaned data were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS. Results declared that Abusive supervision significantly impacts counterproductive work behavior, whereas the mediation moderation of Relational psychological contract breach among all variables has resulted in being insignificant. The mediation of Relational psychological contract breach between Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behavior was significant, while the mediation of Transactional psychological contract breach between Abusive supervision and counterproductive work behavior was insignificant. Resilience resulted as an insignificant mediator moderator in this model The research holds various theoretical and practical implications, and the research limitations have also been addressed.

IMPACT STATEMENT

This research examined how abusive supervision can lead to counterproductive work behavior, mediated by relational and transactional psychological contract breaches, and moderated by employee resilience. Data was collected from 350 civil servants in Punjab and analyzed using SPSS and AMOS. Results showed abusive supervision significantly impacted counterproductive work behavior. Relational contract breach mediated the relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work, while transactional breach did not. The hypothesized moderated mediation of resilience between abusive supervision, psychological contract breaches, and counterproductive behavior was insignificant. This contributes to theory by testing a model linking abusive supervision, contract violations, and counterproductive behavior, including the role of resilience. For practice, it highlights the need to curb abusive supervision to avoid psychological contract breaches and counterproductive behaviors. Limitations include the cross-sectional design and sampling employees from one region. Future research should use experimental and longitudinal approaches and sample more diverse organizations.

Keywords:

• Workplace ostracism
• abusive supervision
• transactional psychological contract breach
• relational psychological contract breach
• counterproductive work behaviour
• resilience

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Len Tiu Wright, De Montfort University Faculty of Business and Law, United Kingdom

SUBJECTS:

• Psychological Science
• Mental Health
• Business, Management and Accounting

1. Introduction

Traditionally the dark side of employees’ behavior has gained the attention of an extensive body of research, however, the growing number of research studies in present times, focuses on the dark side of organizational behavior, which is associated with counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) (Mahmood et al., 2021). This remarkable approach is rooted in the voluntary acts of organizations that violate their norms and are harmful for the legitimate interests of the organization. In this accordance, CWBs illustrate the devastating act of the organization and its members (Czarnota-Bojarska, 2015; Sackett, 2002). This determinant significantly impacts the efficient performance of an organization as CWBs harm the employees that lead them to reduce the success of the organization and the constituents of efficient success, which include the well-being of employees (De Clercq et al., 2021)

Along these lines, recent research studies have examined the factors which illustrate why employees engage in CWBs. Numerous empirical studies identify various aspects which have the potential to increase the employee’s deviant behavior (Makhdoom et al., 2019; Ma & Li, 2019), such as insinuations of Machiavellian corporate culture induce low trust, status orientation and cultural orientation. In this cultural context, employees demonstrate CWBs as they observe low trust, psychological contract violation and low organizational justice (Zheng et al., 2017). Furthermore, job demands, including workload and interpersonal demands, are associated with CWBs (Balducci et al., 2011). However, despite the recent growth in research on CWBs, the researcher has observed a scarcity of studies that focused on the contract breaches between employees and employer including transactional psychological and relationship psychological contract breach in one framework along with workplace ostracism and counterproductive work behavior. Therefore, this study aims to bridge the research gap by assessing the association between workplace ostracism and counterproductive work behavior. The originality of this research also lies in inculcating TP and RP together so that meaningful insights regarding counter-productive work behavior can be attained. The mediation moderation of resilience also enhances the novelty of this research.

Abusive supervision, thus, is notable as it commonly increases negative perceptions of employees (Ju et al., 2019) and threatens their social identity and self-interest (Kernan et al., 2016). A limited number of studies investigate abusive supervision (AS) and its impact on CWBs, which highlights the further need for the exploration of this determinant. This need is further heightened given the fact that the understanding of supervision is necessary as it is associated with employees’ outcomes (Ronen & Donia, 2020)

At second, the psychological contract breach (PCB) is the inability of an organization to fulfill the commitments to employees either explicitly or implicitly (Said et al., 2021). It brings inappropriate and negative consequences such as absenteeism, turnover intention and CWBs (Shen et al., 2019). In terms of PC contracts, the relational contract contains interactions that are built on trust and emotional attachment, while a transactional contract consists of exchanges that are established on uninterrupted expectations (Chan, 2021; O’Donoghue et al., 2014). A remarkable breach of these contracts happens when individuals perceive that the company has failed to fulfill its promises(H. Liu et al., 2020). A few studies have investigated the impact of PCB on the behavior of employees. Nevertheless, it has attracted our attention to explore the breach of this mechanism as psychological contract fulfillment is the significant predictor of task performance and behavior of employees (W. Liu et al., 2020)

Altogether, we offer a fresh look into the relevant literature on CWBs by investigating the significant predictors of organizations that impact CWBs. Precisely, we examine AS the notable factor of impacting CWBs in employees of Punjab Civil Secretaries, Pakistan. As the employee believes that their organization intentionally breaches a PC, it is more likely to engage them in CWBs (Astrove et al., 2015). Thus, studying the two dimensions of PCB (Relational psychological contract breach and transactional psychological contract breach), we tend to investigate its mediating impact on the association of AS with CWBs. Moreover, the resilience of employees weakens the negative consequences of job insecurity and emotional exhaustion thus, grounding on this aspect, we tend to analyze the moderating impact of resilience on the association of AS with CWBs and on the relationship of AS and two forms of psychological contract breach, i.e. transactional, and relational.

Taken all this together, this study provides significant implications to extend the literature on CWBs. With the focus on this significant topic in contemporary times, this study contributes to theoretical and practical grounds. In this regard, we extended the theoretical model of CWBs and expanded the relevant literature by highlighting the impact of significant determinants. On the practical ground, this study is significant for practitioners, policymakers, and managerial staff of organizations, which illustrate how to control the dark side of organizational behavior to enhance a work-friendly environment in the organization.

2. Literature review

2.1. Nexus between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour

As observed in many papers, the subjective assessment of employees is a reflection of their behavior and is referred to as ‘Abusive Supervision’ (Jain et al., 2023). Depending on different contexts, abusive behavior may be interpreted by other people differently. It is pertinent to note that physical harm is not a part of abusive supervision rather it only talks about the hostile behavior of the supervisor in terms of verbal as well as non-verbal behaviors toward subordinates (Koay & Lim, 2023). Making negative comments, giving silent treatment, being rude, as well as invading privacy are all prime examples in this regard. Abusive supervision has been related to several behavioral and psychological results as mentioned in the systematic paper by Yu et al. (2023).

As observed in several studies, one of the most common issues faced by organizations at work is ‘Deviant Conduct’. Conduct that involves hostility, sabotage, and verbal as well as physical abuse is referred to as abusing moral and ethical standards. Such behaviors are often characterized by the term ‘misconduct’, ‘deviant behavior’, ‘violence’, ‘aggression’, ‘unethical behavior’ as well as ‘workplace bullying’. As far as these terms are concerned, they all fit under CWB (‘Counterproductive Work Behavior’) (Ali Awad & Mohamed El Sayed, 2023). This type of behavior is exhibited by all those employees who tend to be very conscious of breaking ethical and moral standards. Their prime goal is to harm the members and institutions. Not only them, but it also tends to harm the clients, superiors, co-workers as well as subordinates. According to Kayani & Alasan (2021), intentional conduct that tends to breach the standards of the organization and jeopardizes the well-being of its members or the organization is referred to as counterproductive work behavior. Moreover, (Helle et al., 2018) described this behavior as behavior that is undesirable and voluntary as it predisposes quite adverse outcomes to any organization.

Several studies have demonstrated a strong association between ES and CWB. One of the most pertinent reasons in terms of this relationship is due to the fact that abusive supervision generates a negative effect (Raza et al., 2023). Employees tend to respond with resentment, feelings of anger as well as hostility, when they experience abusive treatment from their employers. Lack of commitment and a desire to retaliate are caused by the negative sentiments which may impede the growth of the organization to a great extent (Sulea et al., 2013). This may lead to certain outcomes such as counterproductive behaviors like sabotage, theft or spreading rumors to show their frustration and dissatisfaction. Moreover, organizational justice perceptions can be decreased due to abusive supervision (An & Wang, 2016). However, a hostile work environment is created because of abusive supervision as characterized by increased stress levels, low morale, and lower job satisfaction. Having said that, it can be said that employees in order to protect themselves tend to engage in CWB. Furthermore, many research studies constantly demonstrate a significant and strong relationship between ‘AS’ and likelihood of engaging in ‘CWB’. Hence, it can be evaluated:

H1: There exists a strong relationship between Abusive Supervision and Counterproductive Work Behaviour.

2.2. Role of transactional psychological contract breach

As far as the association between ‘Abusive supervision’ and ‘Counterproductive work behavior’ is concerned, it is considered to be complex as several factors can directly affect the association. Transactional psychological contract breach is one of those factors that plays a mediating role between these factors (Morsch et al., 2020). It is important to note that when employees perceive that their obligations in terms of exchange of rewards and resources are not fulfilled by their Employers, then this attitude gives birth to transactional psychological contract breach. By violating the explicit terms of this relationship, Abusive supervision can play its part in the breach. Employees may tend to perceive it as breach of the psychological contract as they face ‘Abusive Supervision’ (Tepper, 2000). Moreover, it can have cascading effects on their attitudes.

It can be asserted that Transactional psychological contract breach can mediate between AS and CWB for many reasons. A feeling of being mistreated and injustice discussed due to breach in the contract as perceived by the employees. Negative emotions usually get triggered by the perceived injustice such as resentment, anger, and a desire to avenge. Counterproductive behavior is formed due to these emotions in terms of retaliation (Jensen et al., 2010). Having said that, the association between the organization and employees also gets undermined by ‘TPCB’. Lastly, it has also been observed that the trust between organizations and employees is also eroded by TPCB (Li & Chen, 2018). Employees tend to perceive the company as untrustworthy and they don’t adhere to its goals and norms which may engage employees in CWB. By fostering negative emotions, eroding trust, and diminishing organizational commitment, TPCB acts a mediator.

H2: Transactional Psychological Contract Breach mediates between Abusive Supervision and Counterproductive Work Behaviour.

2.3. Role of relational psychological contract breach (RPCB)

Relational Psychological Contract Breach plays a significant role between AS and CWB which is considered to be worth exploring. As far as RPCB is concerned, it generally occurs when violence in terms of relational obligations is perceived by employees. It can be violence in terms of support, trust, respect or in their relationship. However, by violating the expectations that are relational and affecting the quality of the relationship between parties, it has been observed that AS can lead to this breach (Restubog et al., 2008). However, RPCB can play its role as a mediator between AS and CWB (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Research framework.

In many studies, it has been observed that through the erosion of trust, RPCB mediates between these variables. The trust that employees place in their organization and supervisors gets damaged by abusive supervision (Restubog et al., 2006). Hence, employees tend to perceive a breach in their relational obligations when they face abusive behaviors and it may lead to trust breakdown (Morsch et al., 2020). However, their hostile work environment was created by lack of trust which may engage employees in CWB. Furthermore, the normative beliefs of employers also get influenced by RPCB. Employees usually develop a perception that their obligations are not fulfilled by the organization, and they involve themselves in different activities related to CWB. However, negative sentiments and distress is generated through RPCB. By comprehending the mediating role of RPCB, organizations can interpret the significance of promoting trust and subordinate relationships.

H3: Relational Psychological Contract Breach mediates between Abusive Supervision and Counterproductive Work Behaviour.

2.4. Mediated moderation of resilience

Conservation of Resources Theory supports the hypothesis in order to highlight the moderating impact of resilience in the theoretical framework (Hobfoll, 2011). As far as the theory is concerned, it refers individuals protect their resources and strive to obtain them (Khan, 2019). However, one of the pertinent threats in this regard is abusive supervision as it involves threats to several factors such as job satisfaction, self-esteem and well-being (Naz, 2020). Individuals might replenish their resources or equip themselves in a better way if they have higher levels of resilience. This tends to buffer the influence of AS and diminish the likelihood to get engaged in CWB and related activities.

It is imperative to investigate the meaning of resilience as individuals’ ability to cope, adapt and revive from challenging situations is characterized as ‘Resilience’ (Arshad et al., 2021). It can surely moderate the association between AS and CWB. Resilience tends to play a significant role in terms of AS. It does this to lessen the negative repercussions as well as diminishing the likelihood of commuting in CWB (Nasir et al., 2017). Several studies have supported the moderating role of resilience empirically. Studies support the impact of resilience between the relationship of AS and CWB. However, resilience also mitigates the negative repercussions of abusing supervision as well as diminishing the likelihood of getting involved in CWB.

H4: Resilience moderates between Abusive Supervision and Counterproductive Work Behaviour.

Limited research that investigates the moderating impact of resilience between AS and TPCB has been found. Thus, in terms of broader comprehension and theoretical perspectives, it is pertinent to assert that the relationship between AS and TPCB is moderated by Resilience. It is basically referred as the ability of individuals to recover from the challenges which may involve navigation of interpersonal situations (McCoy & Elwood, 2009). By the violation of perceived expectations and obligations, AS can lead to TPCB (Lee & Faller, 2005). Having said that, resilience may play its significant role to lessen AS effect on the perception of TPCB. However, the theoretical explanation of the moderation also exists in several studies as the ‘Resource-building perspective’ is crucial in this regard. In order to cope with certain challenging situations, individuals utilize personal resources such as resilience. However, individuals having higher levels of resilience tend to possess psychological resources (Jones et al., 2020). Most importantly, they possess problem-solving skills, self-efficacy along with optimism. Thus, they assist individuals in re-evaluating and reframing the significant influence of AS in order to reduce the perceived breach of TPC. Though there is limited research available in this context to figure out the direct impact that exists between AS and TPCB, several studies that explore the influence of resilience in a similar, yet broader context may be crucial in this research as they may be useful in the provision of relevant insights.

H5: Resilience moderates between Abusive Supervision and Transactional Psychological Contract Breach.

It has been observed that not much literature is available related to the moderating impact of resilience in terms of AS and RPCB. However, it is reasonable to say that there exists a relationship between AS and RPCB that is moderated by resilience based on the research available. As the individuals’ ability to cope, adapt and revive from challenging situations is characterized as ‘Resilience’ (Arshad et al., 2021). It is pertinent to note that it may assist to recover from the challenges which may involve navigation of interpersonal situations (McCoy & Elwood, 2009). AS can result in RPCB by violating perceived expectations and commitments. However, resilience may play a crucial role in mitigating the AS effect on RPCB perception. Yet, some research provides a theoretical explanation for moderation, since the ‘Resource-building perspective’ is critical in this respect. Individuals use personal resources such as resilience to cope with hard conditions (Shoss et al., 2018). Despite the fact that there is limited research available in this context to determine the direct impact that exists between AS and RPCB, several studies that investigate the influence of resilience in a similar context. Relevant insights in the same context are worth observing.

H6: Resilience moderates between Abusive Supervision and Relational Psychological Contract Breach.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants and procedure

The present research was conducted in the context of Pakistan and the relevant data was collected from Punjab civil secretaries’ employees. The study was initiated with the distribution of a survey questionnaire, which lasted for three weeks. The researcher collected the data in a cross-sectional setting, as there were no pauses or breaks in the data collection (Graetz et al., 2021). The data collection was completed within three weeks. The research survey of the employees working in the Punjab civil secretaries’ sector was conducted under personal administration. A non-probability convenience sampling approach was adopted to select the sample, which allowed the Punjab civil secretaries employees to participate in the survey based on their availability and willingness (Smyth et al., 2021). The researcher reached out to the Punjab civil secretaries’ employees and asked them about their participation in the data collection. Moreover, the participants were informed about the purpose of the investigation; upon their consent, the questionnaires were distributed among them. The 5-point Likert scale was used, which presented five options to the participants, ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree’, ‘Disagree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘Agree’, and ‘Strongly Agree’. Participants filled out the forms, which were later collected by the researcher. In total, 350 employees responded and filled out the forms; upon doing preliminary analysis, the researcher eliminated the irrelevant, incorrect, and incomplete responses, and kept only 312 responses for further statistical analysis.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Abusive supervision

To measure ‘Abusive supervision’, the researcher has used the measurement scale of 5 items from Mitchell and Ambrose (2007), this scale is a reduced form of the measurement scale developed by Tepper (2000); this scale contains 15 items. The authors developed this scale by drawing on the instruments for capturing nonphysical abuse in other relationships. The ‘internal reliability coefficient (alpha)’ for ‘Abusive Supervision’ in their study was .89. This high value indicates a high level of internal consistency among the items used for measuring abusive supervision in the questionnaire. The authors have done an extensive literature review in management, which defines the action that better fits the behavioural discipline of abusive supervision.

An exemplary item of this scale is ‘My supervisor does not give me credit for jobs requiring a lot of effort’.

3.2.2. Transactional psychological contract breach and relational psychological contract breach

To measure these variables, i.e. ‘Transactional Psychological Contract Breach and Relational Psychological Contract Breach’, the researcher has adopted a six items scale from (Wang et al., 2017). This is a twelve-item scale, which contains six items for one variable and six for the other one. The ‘Cronbach’s α coefficient’ for the ‘Transactional Psychological Contract’ is the study conducted by Wang et al. (2017) was 0.759. This value indicates a high level of internal consistency of the instrument. Furthermore, the Cronbach’s α coefficient ‘Relational Psychological Contract’ was 0.756, which also indicated the high internal consistency of this scale. An exemplary item for the transactional psychological contract is ‘My wage is out of proportion to my cost’; for the relational psychological contract, it is ‘In the work, I can get a leader’s trust and respect’.

3.2.3. Counterproductive work behaviour

For the measurement of ‘Counterproductive Work Behaviour’, the researcher has adopted the organisational deviance five items scale from Fox et al. (2012) in which the internal reliability coefficient (alpha) for ‘Counterproductive Work Behaviour’ was .98. This indicated an extremely high level of internal consistency among the items measuring ‘Counterproductive Work Behaviour’ in the questionnaire. An exemplary item of this scale is, ‘Told people outside the job what a lousy place you work for’.

3.2.4. Resilience

For measuring Resilience, the researcher has adopted a nine items scale from Al-Omar et al. (2019) who adopted the scale from the ‘Brief Resilience Scale (BRS-6)’ developed by Smith et al. (2008) who reported a high level of internal consistency with ‘Cronbach’s alpha’ ranging from .80–.91. A sample item of this scale is, ‘It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens’.

3.3. Data analysis approach

For data analysis, the researcher has utilised statistical analysis tools and techniques. Moreover, the researcher has utilised IBM SPSS and AMOS. The preliminary analysis of the data collected through survey was conducted with the help of IBM SPSS software. Through this, the researcher has assessed the observed constructs attrition, sample characteristics and distributions. After making sure that the data was validated and normal, the researcher analysed the research model and formulated the hypotheses of the study by using AMOS. The researcher has used the Structure Equation Modelling (SEM) for hypothesis testing as this method helps overcome the limitations of ‘First-generation multivariate data analysis techniques’, and allows the researcher to model and estimate complex correlations between multiple variables at the same time (Hair et al., 2021). AMOS was used in the research as it AMOS offered a convenient ‘graphical user interface’. Moreover, AMOS can easily use SEM for hypothesis testing of frameworks involving complex relationships among variables and help draw valuable insights (Nam et al., 2018).

3.4. Research ethics

The researcher has followed the ethical considerations in the study as Orb et al. (2001) have stated that ethical considerations are the set of ethical values and norms which guides the researcher regarding the study’s design and research processes. Therefore, the researcher has ensured that the present study complied with all the ethical standards and guidelines in the study. In this regard, the researcher has also informed Punjab civil secretaries’ employees about the purpose of the study, and has also taken their consent to fill out the survey. Furthermore, the researcher has ensured the confidentiality of the identity and answers the study’s respondents provided.

4. Findings

Before other tests, the descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to assess the demographic characteristics of respondents. There were 350 questionnaires disbursed among employees of Punjab civil secretaries, of which 312 survey forms were finalized for data analysis. Results showed that all the demographic traits of respondents fluctuated in terms of their gender, age and working experience. Table 1 displays the results of the demographic traits of participants.

Table 1. Demographics of participants.

	Frequency	Percent
Gender
Male	163	52.2
Female	149	47.8
Total	312	100
Age
21–30	75	24
31–40	91	29.2
41–50	97	31.1
More than 50Y	49	15.7
Experience
Less than 2 Years	37	11.9
2 to 5 years	136	43.6
5 to 8 years	104	33.3
More Than 8 years	35	11.2
Total	312	100

4.1. Descriptive summary

After assessing the demographic characteristics of respondents, the descriptive studied variables were analyzed. Results showed no missing values and outliers in the data, as were 312 responses reported against each variable. Furthermore, the skewness results also met the criteria of cut-off values and fell within the range of –1 and +1. Therefore, it was concluded that the data were normal. As there were no missing values or data issues in the results, it was expected that the factor loadings would also yield significant results and the data could yield adequate results (Table 2).

Table 2. Descriptive summary.

	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation	Skewness		Kurtosis
AB	1.00	5.00	3.5216	1.06884	−.700	.138	−.526	.275
RES	1.00	5.00	3.4994	1.09439	−.684	.138	−.584	.275
TP	1.20	5.00	3.4974	.93781	−.485	.138	−.792	.275
RP	1.17	5.17	3.4108	.93308	−.310	.138	−.717	.275
CPB	1.00	5.00	3.2821	1.12519	−.274	.138	−.786	.275

4.2. Preliminary tests

After assuring the data adequacy, the next test performed was to ensure the sample sufficiency for the measurement model. For this purpose, firstly, the test of KMO & Bartlett was performed. The value from this test showed that data was adequate because its value was .923, which was greater than 0.7, so the rotated component matrix was projected to yield significant results (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. KMO & Bartlett’s test.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy		.923
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	5626.265
	df	300
	Sig.	.000

Table 4. Rotated component matrix.

		Component
		1	2	3	4	5
	AB1	.715
	AB2	.737
	AB3	.790
	AB4	.746
	RES1				.627
	RES2				.649
Factors	RES3				.646
	RES4				.706
	RES5				.702
	TP1					.805
	TP2					.852
	TP3					.835
	TP4					.755
	TP5					.815
	RP1			.809
	RP2			.782
	RP3			.747
	RP4			.778
	RP5			.821
	RP6			.781
	CB1		.658
	CB2		.711
	CB3		.783
	CB4		.697
	CB5		.624

Table 4 displays the results for the factor loadings. The consequences analyzed that factor loading values were greater than 0.4, and there was no identity matrix formulation or cross or double-loading issue in the data. Each item of the variables appeared in its column, so factor loading results were significant. And it indicated that CFA would also be accurate and model fitness would be observed.

4.3. Validity results

The validity of variables was tested through convergent and discriminant validity. Results confirmed the presence of both validities in the measurement model because there was internal consistency among the scale items. The AVE and CR values fall in the threshold range of values larger than 0.5 and 0.7, correspondingly, indicating ‘convergent validity’ in the measurement model. Furthermore, the ‘inter-construct correlation’ was less than the ‘intra-construct correlation’, highlighting the presence of discriminant validity. Since both validities were significant, it was concluded that construct validity was established (Table 5).

Table 5. Discriminant and convergent validity.

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)	ABS	CPB	RPSY	RSC	TPSY
ABS	0.903	0.699	0.656	0.906	0.836
CPB	0.891	0.621	0.629	0.893	0.722***	0.788
RPSY	0.852	0.514	0.500	0.907	0.626***	0.707***	0.717
RSC	0.897	0.635	0.656	0.899	0.810***	0.793***	0.648***	0.797
TPSY	0.782	0.446	0.263	0.860	0.509***	0.472***	0.459***	0.513***	0.668

p < 0.05, indicating statistical significance.

*p < 0.01, signifying high statistical significance.

**p < 0.001, representing very high statistical significance.

CFA was conducted and measured through five main indices to evaluate the model fitness, as shown in Table 6. Results indicated that the observed values fall in the range of threshold values for all five indices. Furthermore, Figure 2 also indicates the confirmation of model fitness. Since the validities have been established and CFA has indicated the significant results of model fitness, it was confirmed that SEM could also be performed.

Figure 2. Model fitness through confirmatory factor analysis.

Table 6. Model fitness.

Indices	Threshold	Observed
CMIN/df	Less than 5	2.968
GFI	More than 0.8
IFI	Greater or equal to 0.9	.867
CFI	Greater or equal to 0.9	.908
RMSEA	Less than or equal to 0.08	.907

4.4. Hypotheses testing

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied to examine the relationship among variables. Table 7 reported that the AB significantly impacts CPB as one-unit increase in AB affects CPB with .388 units. Therefore, the hypothesis has been accepted. The mediation moderation of RES between AB and CPB has resulted in being insignificant as the p-value is greater than the threshold value of 0.05. Therefore, the hypothesis has been rejected.

Table 7. SEM results.

Parameter			Estimate	Lower	Upper	P
CPB	←	AB	.388	.299	.505	.005
ZCPB	←	ZABXRES	−.306	−.719	.159	.314
ZTP	←	ZABXRES	.254	−.264	.766	.384
ZRP	←	ZABXRES	−.031	−.514	.391	.896

Table 8. SEM results (Indirect effects).

Indirect path	Standardized estimate	Lower	Upper	P-Value
AB → RP → CPB	0.216***	0.172	0.287	0.001
AB → TP → CPB	0.049†	0.005	0.100	0.062

Table 8 shows that RP is a significant mediator between AB and CPB, whereas TP is an insignificant mediator as its p-value is 0.06. Therefore, the mediation of TP has been rejected, whereas the mediation of RP has been accepted, having a p-value of less than 0.05, i.e. 0.001.

The mediation moderation of RES between AB and TP has been rejected as its p-value is .384; the moderation of RES between AB and RP has also resulted as insignificant because the p-value is .896. Therefore, it was concluded that Resilience resulted as an insignificant mediator moderator in this model, as shown in Table 7.

5. Discussion

The present study was aimed at evaluating the impact of AB on CWB among employees. The extensive review of the existing studies led to the formulation of the first hypothesis. The findings from the SEM indicated that AB had a significant impact on CWB, thus supporting the first hypothesis. The finding suggests that the employees who face abusive supervision are more likely to engaged in counter-productive activities. This reduces the overall work productivity of the employees. The acceptance of the first hypothesis also suggests that leaders have a strong influence on the workplace behaviour of employees. The leaders who use abusive tactics, end up damaging the productivity of the employees. The findings aligns with the previous studies conducted by Ju et al. (2019); Khattak and Rizvi (2021). Furthermore, the present study also examined the mediation of TP and RP, which led to the formulation of the second and third hypotheses. The findings from the SEM indicated that RP was a significant mediator, which supported the H3. However, the mediation of TP was rejected. The significant mediation of RP between AB and CWB indicates that the breach of relational psychological contract increased the occurrence of CWB among employees. Relational psychological contract breach implies the violation of trust and expectation between employees and leadership. The employees who experience this breach by the abusive supervisor, may end up engaging in counter-productive activities. These counter-productive activities may involve knowledge-hiding behaviour of employees (Pradhan et al., 2020). In addition, the present study also analyzed the mediation moderation of resilience, which led to the formulation of H4. However, the hypothesis was rejected, which indicated that resilience was insignificant in enhancing the effect of AB on RP and TP (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Path Analysis in Structural Equation Model (SEM).

6. Theoretical implications

There are different theoretical implications of the present research work. Firstly, the research contributes to the existing literature as the current research study tests the hypotheses related to abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour. This provides insight into how abusive supervision affects counterproductive work behaviour. The study also describes what part transactional psychological contract breach and relational psychological contract breach can play in the relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour. In this way, this study contributes to the existing literature. Second, being an empirical and quantitative study, the research study strengthens the empirical evidence that exists for the relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour. Third, the research study provides a framework for the understudy variable. This is one of the great theoretical implications of this study. It can provide great guidance to the readers for a better understanding. This framework deals with the visual representation of the relationship between all the variables understudy and the hypotheses that are being tested in this study. This framework can also be helpful in the theory building about counterproductive work behaviour. This framework can help in building the theory about the relationship of variables understudy. Fourth, the current study uses abusive supervision as an independent variable and counterproductive work behaviour as a dependent variable. It provides an insight into the relationship of these variables directly, which is not part of many prior research studies. Fifth, the present research study also uses transactional psychological contract breach and relational psychological contract breach as mediators. The research study provides information about how these two variables mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour. Another important theoretical implication in this context is related to the moderator. The study uses resilience as the moderating variable to see how it can moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour, abusive supervision and transactional psychological contract breach & abusive supervision and relational psychological contract breach.

7. Practical implications

The present research study has analyzed the relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour. The study shows how abusive supervision can have a negative impact on the behaviour of employees. It mainly examined how abusive supervision can generate counterproductive behaviour in an employee. This can have direct practical implications certainly. Firstly, for the managers of the organizations. While working in an organization or even in different teams within the organization, there are certain things that every employee expects. If the employee is not being treated well in the team or organization, it will affect the productivity of the employee. This study can help managers to understand how harmful, abusive supervision can be for the employees and, ultimately, for the organization so that they can pay attention towards such things. Managers can have an idea about how they should not behave with their employees in order to have the best productivity. Second, for organizations, it is very important to see how the counterproductive work behaviour of employees can harm the organization. The damage is not limited to only the reputation but to the profits of the organizations also. This research study will help organizations to better understand how abusive supervision a bad impact on the employees can have, which ultimately affects the organization. Organizations can have training programs about such kind of supervision and how to deal with it. Lastly, the practical implications are for the employees. This research study provides insight into the moderating and mediating relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour. This result also described how resilience can play an important role to handle this abusive supervision. The employees can have an idea about the factors that can help them to withstand such situations of abusive supervision.

8. Limitations and future directions

Even after having such strong and rational contributions, the present study has some limitations. Firstly, this study has used cross-sectional data. The data that is used for this study is not collected at two different points of time. However, it would be a great novelty for future researchers to use some other type of data, e.g. collect data at different points of time. It can also help to see whether some other factors affect the relationship between variables understudy and change the results. Secondly, the study has collected data from Pakistan which is a developing country. The factors understudy may have a different relationship or effect on each other in some other countries. Future researchers can conduct studies in countries other than Pakistan to see whether the results vary from country to country or not. Researchers can especially compare the results of developed and developing countries by conducting this type of study in developed countries. Another limitation in this context is the population and sample chosen by this study for the purpose of data collection. The population chosen for this research study was the civil secretariat Punjab. The sample used by this research study is the employees of the Punjab civil secretariat. However, for future research, other sectors can also be used. The population and sampling in future research should be more precise. The researchers can use other designations also for the purpose of data collection as their sample. Third, the method of data collection used by the research study is a personalized administered survey with the help of which the data was collected for the current research study. However, there can be other methods for the collection of data, such as one-to-one or online interviews etc. Another limitation in the context of data analysis is the technique that is used in this study for the purpose of data analysis. The technique of data analysis used in this study is Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with AMOS. However, there can be other techniques of data analysis and software, such as regression, SmartPLS etc. Fourth, this research study has used only one independent variable, which is abusive supervision. There can be other variables which can have an impact on counterproductive work behaviour. For example, culture, leadership, training etc. (Hattab et al., 2022). Similarly, this research study has used only one dependent variable, which is counterproductive work behaviour. But there can be other factors also which can be affected by abusive supervision, such as the mental health and creativity of employees (Akram et al., 2022). For future research, the researchers should use more dependent or independent variables that are related to the current variables understudy. Fifth, this research study has used only one moderator that is resilience and two mediators, which are transactional psychological contract breach and relational psychological contract breach. There can be other variables also that can be used as mediators or moderators in the relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behavior in future research studies. Such as culture can be used as a mediator, training can be used as a moderator etc. However, future researchers can use different other factors as mediating and moderating variables to see the impact of different variables on the relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour. Sixth, this research study used the time horizon of data collection as the cross-section data. Due to this reason, this study is most likely to have the problem of common method bias. The reason is that the data collected is from the point of time. However, by using other data types or time horizons, future researchers can overcome this problem or at least lessen the chances of common method bias in some other way.

9. Conclusion

To address the outrage in the behaviour of employees caused by the supervisor, this study has investigated the relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour. It examines the mediating role of transactional psychological contract breach and relational psychological contract breach between the relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour. This study also analyzed the moderating role of resilience in the relationship between abusive supervision and counterproductive work behaviour, abusive supervision and transactional psychological contract breach & abusive supervision and relational psychological contract breach. The results of the study show that there is a strong influence of abusive supervision on counterproductive work behaviour. It also shows that relational psychological contract breach is a significant mediator in this relationship, but resilience is not accepted as the moderator. The study emphasizes that abusive supervision becomes the cause of outrage by the employee and also reduces productivity of the employee.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Muhammad Rizwan Sabir

Muhammad Rizwan Sabir is an PhD Scholar in Business Administration from The Superior University Lahore, Pakistan. His area of interests are human behavior, human resource management and Organizational Behavior. Currently, he is working as Deputy Director in Federal Investigation Agency Pakistan.

Muhammad Bilal Majid

Muhammad Bilal Majid earned his PhD in Business Management from Malaysia. Currently, he is working as an Assistant Professor at The Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan. His area of interest are brand management, consumer psychology. marketing management and general management.

Muhammad Zia Aslam

Muhammad Zia Aslam earned his PhD in Management from University of Malaya, Malaysia. Currently, he is working as Assistant Professor at The Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan. His area of interest are general management, organizational behavior and human resource management.

Abdul Rehman

Abdul Rehman earned his PhD in Human Resource Management from UK. Currently, he is serving as an Chairman at The Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan. His area of interest are human resource management, leadership and organizational behavior.

Sumaira Rehman

Sumaira Rehman earned her PhD in Entrepreneurship from UK. Currently, she is serving as an Rector at The Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan. Her area of interest are entrepreneurship, leadership and work force diversity.