Introduction
Abusive supervision, defined as subordinates’ perceptions of sustained hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors from leaders (Tepper, 2000), has been linked to detrimental employee outcomes, including reduced job satisfaction and increased turnover intentions (Mackey et al., 2017). While prior research has established these negative effects, the mediating mechanisms—particularly in non-Western contexts like Saudi Arabia—remain underexplored. This study examines Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) and interpersonal justice (Bies & Moag, 1986) as key mediators in the relationship between abusive supervision and employee outcomes.
In high power-distance cultures such as Saudi Arabia, where hierarchical leadership and relational dynamics heavily influence workplace behavior (Hofstede, 1980), abusive supervision may have amplified effects. Poor LMX quality, resulting from abusive supervision, can weaken leader–subordinate trust and cooperation, reducing job satisfaction and increasing turnover intentions (Erdogan & Bauer, 2010). Additionally, abusive supervision violates interpersonal justice norms, further eroding employee morale and commitment (Tepper et al., 2009).
By the integration of LMX and interpersonal justice as equal mediators, this study offers a culturally grounded explanation of how abusive supervision triggers negative workplace consequences in Saudi organizations.
Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
The Relationship between Abusive Supervision and Interpersonal Justice
Abusive supervision has been defined as subordinates’ experience of a supervisor’s chronic hostile nonverbal and verbal actions, excluding physical violence (Tepper, 2000). It may present itself in forms of belittling, public criticism, or other abusive behavior that lowers the dignity of a subordinate. Abusive supervision is a deviant organizational behavior with immense implications for the well-being of employees, performance at work, and organizational performance (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007).
Interpersonal justice is the feeling of fairness in the way people are treated interpersonally by others in organizational settings; it is concerned with respect, dignity, and respectfulness of communication and conduct (Bies & Moag, 1986). Employees experience interpersonal justice when being treated with courtesy, sensitivity, and respect by others, particularly by supervisors (Colquitt, 2001). When there is high interpersonal justice, employees are valued and respected, and this leads to positive attitudes and behaviors.
Abusive supervision transgresses interpersonal justice by entailing mistreatment, disrespect, and violations of basic dignity—central principles of interpersonal justice. Abusive supervisors employ behavior such as humiliation, insults, and neglect of employees, which go against respectful treatment and equity, leading to lower perceptions of justice at work. Research shows employees exposed to abusive supervision perceive the workplace as unfair and feel not valued, weakening their sense of interpersonal justice. Earlier studies, such as Tepper et al. (2006), found a negative correlation between abusive supervision and interpersonal justice, where abusive behaviors lead to dissatisfaction with the job, low organizational commitment, and greater turnover intentions. The absence of fairness leads to emotional anguish, anxiety, and decreased trust in leadership, compounding conflict and disengagement at work.
H1: Abusive supervision is anticipated to have a negative impact on employees’ perceptions of interpersonal justice.
The Relationship between Abusive Supervision and Turnover Intention
Turnover intention refers to the psychological state or mind-set an employee holds regarding quitting a job. It is typically viewed as an initial indicator of actual turnover, which signifies an employee’s inclination to quit an existing job for a perceived superior opportunity (Mobley, 1977). When workers are dissatisfied or treated unjustly at work, they will be more likely to contemplate leaving, and abusive supervision is often a major inducement to such contemplation.
Abusive supervision plays a significant role in shaping employee turnover intentions by creating a series of negative psychological and emotional reactions. Employees subjected to abusive treatment are likely to be disturbed emotionally—experiencing anxiety, frustration, and helplessness—which depletes job satisfaction (Tepper, 2000). As job dissatisfaction is a potent predictor of turnover intention (Hom & Griffeth, 1995), targeted employees are more likely to think about quitting their jobs. Abusive supervision also constitutes a violation of the psychological contract, wherein the expected norms of respectful treatment are breached. This perceived betrayal leads employees to seek alternative employment better aligned with their psychological needs (Robinson & Morrison, 2000; McNatt, 2000).
Additionally, abusive supervision undermines perceptions of organizational support and justice, and workers feel underappreciated and treated unjustly. These perceptions further intensify the desire to leave the organization (Eisenberger et al., 2001). Behaviorally, employees may respond through negative reciprocity by disengaging or withdrawing effort as a form of revenge, which eventually leads to turnover (Tepper, 2007). Previous studies confirm these findings; for instance, Tepper (2000) and Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) found a positive correlation between abusive supervision and turnover intention, driven by perceived mistreatment and injustice.
H2: Abusive supervision is predicted to have a positive relationship with turnover intention.
The Relationship between Interpersonal Justice and LMX
Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory focuses on the dyadic level of a leader and a follower’s relationship. LMX denotes the quality of the relationship, ranging from low to high. High-quality LMX is characterized by mutual respect, trust, and loyalty, while low-quality LMX is typically described by infrequent communication, low trust, and lack of support (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Leaders develop different levels of exchange with their subordinates, generating different levels of support, influence, and commitment.
Studies repeatedly establish that interpersonal justice—the sense of fairness in interpersonal exchanges—is positively and significantly related to LMX quality. Interpersonal justice is necessary for establishing high-quality leader–member relationships since it determines how leaders treat their subordinates and how subordinates view such treatment. When leaders treat employees fairly and respectfully, employees feel valued, which induces mutual respect and trust, necessary components of successful LMX (Cropanzano et al., 2001). Fair treatment also builds up trust and motivates employees to repay such treatment through higher commitment and participation in the leader–subordinate relationship (Colquitt, 2001; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Furthermore, leaders practicing interpersonal justice are more likely to build stronger, supportive leader–member relationships with their team members (Eisenberger et al., 2001). The interaction is reciprocal: fair treatment maintains LMX quality, and high-quality LMX maintains leaders’ fair behaviors, creating a positive feedback cycle (Liden et al., 1997).
H3: Interpersonal justice is expected to have a positive influence on Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) quality.
The Relationship between LMX and Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is the degree to which individuals enjoy their job, including aspects such as the kind of work, relationships with coworkers and supervisors, and compensation. It is an important indicator of worker well-being and organizational effectiveness. Highly satisfied employees are more committed, engaged, and productive (Judge & Bono, 2001).
Research consistently discovers a strong positive relationship between LMX quality and job satisfaction. High-quality LMX produces a supportive, respectful, and equitable work climate that enriches workers’ experience and attitudes. First, mutual respect and trust serve as the foundation for successful LMX, allowing employees to feel worthwhile and supported, and increasing satisfaction (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Second, such relationships provide more support and access to resources, such as advice, opportunities for career development, and participation in decision making, all of which contribute to a more satisfying work experience (Liden et al., 1997). Third, positive affective connections between leaders and employees give rise to emotional involvement and feelings of gratitude, further enhancing satisfaction (Wayne et al., 1997). Fourth, high LMX quality promotes perceived fairness and equity through open communication and equitable treatment—key predictors of job satisfaction (Colquitt, 2001; Eisenberger et al., 2002). Finally, high-LMX relationships often bring reciprocal payoffs, in which employees feel motivated to repay in kind by improving performance and commitment, decreasing stress, and heightening satisfaction (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).
H4: High-quality Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) is expected to be positively related to job satisfaction.
The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention
A large body of research indicates a substantial negative relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention. When workers are dissatisfied with their job, they are likely to show turnover intention—a desire to quit their organization. Several theoretical models describe how job dissatisfaction culminates in turnover intention.
Job dissatisfaction and disengagement constitute a central mechanism. Unhappy workers often disengage themselves emotionally and cognitively from their roles, thus weakening organizational commitment and promoting the likelihood of leaving (Mobley, 1977). The process of dissatisfaction may arise from role ambiguity, poor working conditions, strained interpersonal relationships, and attractive perceived alternatives in the job market. Dissatisfied employees become more likely to find alternatives in the job market attractive and accessible, thereby increasing their intention to leave the organization (Hom & Griffeth, 1995).
Psychological contract violation is another mechanism: employees perceive the organization’s failure to meet psychological obligations such as providing growth opportunities or equal treatment, and thereby feel betrayed, experiencing reduced satisfaction and higher intention to quit the organization (Robinson & Morrison, 2000). Emotional exhaustion and burnout, which usually accompany dissatisfaction, erode employees’ ability to cope with job stress. Burnout generates the desire to leave the organization in a bid to psychologically protect oneself (Maslach et al., 2001). Finally, Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) underlines the need for fairness and reciprocity in social exchanges. Employees who experience devaluation or unfair treatment at work consider the exchange imbalanced, which can increase intention to leave (Hom & Griffeth, 1995).
H5: Job satisfaction is expected to be negatively related to turnover intention.
The Relationship between Abusive Supervision and LMX through Interpersonal Justice
The linkage of abusive supervision to LMX is primarily mediated by interpersonal justice, which deals with respect and fairness in interpersonal interaction. Abusive supervision, which involves hostile, humiliating, or disrespectful treatment, violates employees’ expectations of fair treatment, thus lowering their perceptions of interpersonal justice (Tepper, 2000). These negative interactions create a dysfunctional relational climate, harming trust and respect, both of which are the building blocks of high-quality LMX.
When abusive supervision occurs, it destroys critical building blocks of high-quality LMX, including trust, mutual respect, and open communication, leading to the deterioration of LMX quality. Employees subjected to abusive supervision experience interpersonal injustice, resulting in poor communication, poor support, and low-quality relationships (Wayne et al., 1997). Interpersonal justice is therefore a significant mediator in this linkage: abusive behaviors lower perceptions of interpersonal justice, which in turn lowers the quality of LMX. Conversely, when supervisors are respectful and fair to employees, interpersonal justice is boosted, strengthening trust-based LMX relationships. Respectful and fair supervisor behavior encourages effective social exchanges, eliciting employees’ reciprocity in the form of trust, involvement, and commitment. Such responsiveness drives the development of high-quality LMX.
H6: Abusive supervision is expected to have a negative impact on LMX via interpersonal justice mediation.
The Relationship between Interpersonal Justice and Job Satisfaction through LMX
Research supports a strong theoretical model linking interpersonal justice, LMX, and job satisfaction. Interpersonal justice, or respectful and fair treatment by supervisors, enhances job satisfaction by inducing feelings of recognition, belonging, and value (Colquitt, 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001). Fair treatment is also necessary in forming high-quality LMX relationships: supervisors who display interpersonal justice establish trust and cooperation and build relational bonds with subordinates (Liden et al., 1997; Wayne et al., 2002).
High-quality LMX relationships lead to higher job satisfaction because of greater access to support, recognition, and developmental opportunities (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007). LMX mediates the effect between interpersonal justice and job satisfaction; when employees are treated fairly, they tend to form strong LMX relationships, which further enhance job satisfaction (Loi et al., 2009).
H7: LMX quality is expected to mediate the positive impact of interpersonal justice on job satisfaction.
The Relationship between LMX and Turnover Intention through Job Satisfaction
The theoretical foundation of the relationship between LMX and turnover intention comes from Social Exchange Theory and has been supported by a significant body of empirical work. Higher-quality LMX produces favorable work outcomes, while lower-quality LMX can lead to disengagement and turnover. Job satisfaction is a strong mediator of this relationship.
Employees in high-quality LMX relationships receive more support, trust, and autonomy, which generate organizational loyalty and lower their intention to leave, while low-quality LMX generates relational disconnection and a higher likelihood of resignation (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Harris et al., 2005). Research repeatedly confirms that high-quality LMX boosts job satisfaction: when leaders provide recognition, support, and fair treatment, employees are more satisfied and motivated to work; such relationships promote open communication and a positive work environment (Ilies et al., 2007; Liden et al., 1997). Job satisfaction is a strong negative predictor of turnover intention: satisfied employees are less likely to leave, while dissatisfaction often results in withdrawal behaviors such as the intention to leave (Tett & Meyer, 1993).
Thus, job satisfaction mediates the relationship between LMX and turnover intention: high-quality LMX increases job satisfaction, and increased job satisfaction reduces turnover intention. LMX indirectly lowers turnover intention through its positive effect on job satisfaction.
H8: The quality of Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) is expected to exert a mediated negative influence on turnover intention via job satisfaction.
Discussion and Conclusion
The results strongly support Hypothesis 1: abusive supervision is negatively related to interpersonal justice perceptions. By its very nature, abusive supervision violates the fundamental components of interpersonal justice, such as respect, dignity, and fairness. The mistreatment embedded in abusive behavior diminishes employees’ sense of being valued and respected, leading to lower interpersonal justice perceptions. Consistent with Tepper et al. (2006) and Colquitt (2001), the findings reinforce that abusive supervisory behavior erodes the quality of interpersonal exchanges, creating an emotionally hostile work environment. This underscores the importance of leadership training that emphasizes respectful communication to foster fairness perceptions.
Regarding Hypothesis 2, abusive supervision was found to positively influence turnover intention, aligning with extensive literature that links mistreatment by supervisors to employee withdrawal (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000). This relationship is driven by emotional strain, job dissatisfaction, and perceived violation of psychological contracts. Employees subjected to chronic supervisory mistreatment may view departure as the only viable option to restore psychological equilibrium. This highlights the critical need for organizations to implement zero-tolerance policies toward abusive behaviors and establish reporting systems to safeguard employee well-being and reduce attrition.
Hypothesis 3, which posited a positive impact of interpersonal justice on the quality of LMX, is supported. Fair treatment by leaders is core to building effective dyadic relationships, as argued by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995). LMX relies on mutual trust and respect—qualities developed directly via interpersonal justice. When employees perceive fairness in how they are treated, they are likely to respond with loyalty, openness, and trust, thereby enhancing LMX quality. This finding stresses the need for leadership styles that prioritize justice to establish more productive and stronger supervisor–subordinate relationships.
For Hypothesis 4, the robust positive relationship between LMX and job satisfaction confirms existing findings (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007). High-quality LMX provides employees with greater emotional and instrumental support, boosting their sense of competence, inclusion, and appreciation—key drivers of job satisfaction. Leaders who maintain close, supportive exchanges with employees create work environments that fulfill psychological needs, thereby enhancing morale and reducing dissatisfaction. Organizational interventions aimed at strengthening LMX should be prioritized to improve overall employee well-being.
Hypothesis 5, predicting an inverse relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention, is also well supported and consistent with prior research (Mobley, 1977; Hom & Griffeth, 1995). Satisfied employees are emotionally and psychologically invested in their roles and organizations, reducing their inclination to seek alternatives. Conversely, dissatisfaction prompts employees to disengage and explore new employment opportunities. These findings advocate for continuous assessment of job satisfaction levels and proactive adjustments to job roles, work conditions, and leadership practices to mitigate turnover.
Regarding Hypothesis 6, the mediating role of interpersonal justice in the relationship between abusive supervision and LMX provides valuable insights into the mechanism by which abusive behavior deteriorates leader–member relationships. Abusive supervision directly undermines perceptions of interpersonal justice, which are critical for fostering trust-based LMX relationships. When interpersonal justice is low, employees are less likely to reciprocate with trust and cooperation, weakening relational quality with their supervisors. This mediation pathway (Tepper, 2000; Cropanzano et al., 2001) suggests that mitigating perceptions of injustice could buffer the detrimental effects of abusive supervision on LMX quality.
For Hypothesis 7, the mediating role of LMX in the relationship between interpersonal justice and job satisfaction suggests a sequential mechanism through which fair treatment enhances employee well-being. Interpersonal justice fosters strong LMX bonds, which in turn contribute to heightened job satisfaction. This indirect path aligns with prior studies (Loi et al., 2009; Colquitt, 2001) emphasizing the social-exchange foundation of workplace satisfaction. These findings reinforce the need for managerial practices that prioritize fairness and respectful treatment to indirectly enhance job satisfaction via relational quality.
Hypothesis 8, addressing the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between LMX and turnover intention, confirms a dual-layered model of employee retention. High-quality LMX improves job satisfaction, which then decreases the likelihood of turnover. This indirect pathway aligns with Social Exchange Theory and empirical evidence (Tett & Meyer, 1993; Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Organizations seeking to reduce turnover should focus on both enhancing LMX quality and maintaining high levels of job satisfaction as part of a holistic employee retention strategy.
In conclusion, this study outlines a comprehensive, theoretically derived and empirically supported model that interrelates abusive supervision, interpersonal justice, LMX, job satisfaction, and turnover intention. Abusive supervision emerges as a critical destructive force that erodes justice perceptions and leader–member relationships, contributing to turnover intentions. In contrast, interpersonal justice and high-quality LMX foster job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The mediation analyses further illuminate the complex pathways by which supervisory behavior and interpersonal treatment affect critical outcomes.
These findings highlight the importance of leadership development, justice-focused workplace policies, and employee engagement initiatives. Future research could explore boundary conditions such as organizational culture or individual resilience that may moderate these relationships. Practically, the results advocate for leadership interventions, respectful workplace training, and justice-enhancing organizational practices to strengthen employee retention and satisfaction.