Does it take two to Tangle? Subordinates’ Perceptions of and Reactions to Abusive Supervision Gang Wang • Peter D. Harms • Jeremy D. Mackey Received: 20 August 2013 / Accepted: 11 July 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract Research on abusive supervision is imbalanced in two ways. First, with most research attention focused on the destructive consequences of abusive supervision, there has been relatively little work on subordinate-related pre- dictors of perceptions of abusive supervision. Second, with most research on abusive supervision centered on its main effects and the moderating effects of supervisor-related factors, there is little understanding of how subordinate factors can moderate the main effects of perceptions of abusive supervision on workplace outcomes. The current study aims to advance knowledge of the roles of subordi- nates in the formation of and reactions to perceptions of abusive supervision. Specifically, based on victim precip- itation theory, the authors examined subordinates’ per- sonality traits and self-reports of task performance as antecedents of perceptions of abusive supervision. The results show that subordinates high in neuroticism or low in conscientiousness had high levels of perceived abusive supervision partially through their self-reported deleterious job performance. In addition, the authors investigated the moderating effect of subordinates’ personality on the relationship between perceptions of abusive supervision and subordinates’ interpersonal deviance. Consistent with trait activation theory, subordinates low in both agree- ableness and extraversion were more likely to engage in deviant behaviors in response to perceptions of abusive supervision than subordinates high in either or both agreeableness and extraversion. Keywords Abusive supervision Á Personality Á Interpersonal deviance Á Task performance Abusive supervision is defined as ‘‘subordinates’ percep- tions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behav- iors, excluding physical contact’’ (Tepper 2000, p. 178). Research suggests that abusive supervision can have severe consequences on subordinates’ well-being (e.g., Duffy et al. 2002; Hoobler and Brass 2006), attitudes (e.g., Tep- per et al. 2004), and deviant behavior (e.g., Burton and Hoobler 2011; Lian et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2010; Tepper et al. 2009; Thau et al. 2009). Despite the growing body of research on abusive supervision in the past decade (Martinko et al. 2013), rel- atively little research attention has been paid to predictors of abusive supervision, especially predictors related to subordinates (e.g., Henle and Gross 2014; Kiazad et al. 2010; Kiewitz et al. 2012; Mawritz et al. 2012; Restubog et al. 2011; Shoss et al. 2013). This is surprising given that victim precipitation theory (e.g., Aquino 2000; Aquino and Lamertz 2004; Curtis 1974; Elias 1986) suggests that some subordinates are likely to play a role in the abusive supervision process. Moreover, with most research on G. Wang (&) Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box 3061110, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, USA e-mail: gwang5@business.fsu.edu P. D. Harms College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska- Lincoln, CBA 265, P.O. Box 880491, Lincoln, NE 68588-0491, USA e-mail: pharms2@unl.edu J. D. Mackey Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box 3061110, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, USA e-mail: jdm10e@my.fsu.edu 123 J Bus Ethics DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2292-7