The Ripple Effects of Abusive Supervision  How LMX and Interpersonal Justice Shape Job Satisfaction  and Turnover intentions in Saudi Organizations?

Abdelmohsen A. Nassani; Abdulmohsen M. Alotaibi

doi:10.64190/abj.1.1.2026.1

Abdelmohsen A. Nassani ⁽¹⁾ , Abdulmohsen M. Alotaibi ⁽¹⁾

(1) King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

https://doi.org/10.64190/abj.1.1.2026.1

Issue
Vol. 1, No. 1, January, 2026

Submitted
September 18, 2025

Accepted
September 18, 2025

Published
September 19, 2025

Keywords:

Abusive Supervision, LMX, Interpersonal Justice, Job Satisfaction, Turnover Intention, Social Exchange Theory

PDF XML

Abstract

This study explores the consequences of abusive supervision, Abusive supervision hurts employees by destroying leader-member relationship quality (LMX), lowering fairness perceptions (interpersonal justice), lowering job satisfaction, and increasing intent to leave, based on Social Exchange Theory, the study concludes that when supervisors are abusive, it disrupts trust and respect, so workplace relationship and morale of the employee deteriorate, this highlights the need for respectful leadership to have a good and stable work environment.

Full text article

Generated from XML file

References

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In Research on Negotiation in Organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). JAI Press.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71–138). Wiley.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, *86*(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.386

Cropanzano, R., Preacher, K. J., & Chen, P. Y. (2001). Organizational justice and the experience of emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, *86*(2), 405–418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.418

Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2001). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, *27*(3), 324–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027003002

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, *86*(1), 42–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.42

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, *87*(3), 565–573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.565

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, *82*(6), 827–844. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.82.6.827

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of LMX theory of leadership over 25 years. The Leadership Quarterly, *6*(2), 219–247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Witt, L. A. (2005). An examination of the curvilinear relationship between leader-member exchange and intent to turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, *26*(4), 363–378. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.314

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.

Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. South-Western College Publishing.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, *92*(1), 269–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269

Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations and the quality of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, *47*(3), 368–384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/20159587

Jensen, J. M., Patel, P. C., & Messersmith, J. G. (2013). High-performance work systems and job control. Journal of Management, *39*(6), 1699–1724. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419663

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, *86*(1), 80–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.80

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, *127*(3), 376–407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.127.3.376

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, *24*(1), 43–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80053-1

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the future. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 15, pp. 47–119). JAI Press.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, *78*(4), 662–674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.78.4.662

Loi, R., Hang‐Yue, N., & Foley, S. (2009). The relationship between justice perceptions, trust, and employee attitudes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, *20*(5), 1086–1105.

Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, *43*(6), 1940–1965. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573997

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, *52*, 397–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

McNatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management. Journal of Applied Psychology, *85*(2), 314–322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.2.314

Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, *92*(4), 1159–1168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159

Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, *62*(2), 237–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.62.2.237

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, *21*(5), 525–546. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<525::AID-JOB40>3.0.CO;2-T

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, *43*(2), 178–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in organizations. Academy of Management Review, *32*(3), 178–190.

Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision and employees’ workplace deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, *109*(2), 156–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.004

Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, *59*(1), 101–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover. Personnel Psychology, *46*(2), 259–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, *40*(1), 82–111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/257021

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, *87*(3), 590–598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.590

Authors

Abdelmohsen A. Nassani

King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9658-8299

Abdulmohsen M. Alotaibi

King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4792-8207

Author Biographies

Abdelmohsen A. Nassani, King Saud University

Department of Management
College of Business Administration
King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Nassani@ksu.edu.sa
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9658-8299

Abdulmohsen M. Alotaibi, King Saud University

Department of Management
College of Business Administration
King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 445107806@student.ksu.edu.sa
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4792-8207

Nassani, A. A., & Alotaibi, A. M. (2025). The Ripple Effects of Abusive Supervision How LMX and Interpersonal Justice Shape Job Satisfaction and Turnover intentions in Saudi Organizations?. Arado Business Journal, 1(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.64190/abj.1.1.2026.1

Download Citation

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

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.

Problem Statement

Although abusive supervision has been extensively studied in Western contexts, there remains a significant gap in understanding its consequences in high power-distance cultures such as Saudi Arabia. Specifically, the mechanisms through which abusive supervision impacts employee outcomes like job satisfaction and turnover intention are underexplored. This study seeks to address this gap by examining the mediating roles of interpersonal justice and Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) in this relationship.

Research Questions

How does abusive supervision affect employees’ perceptions of interpersonal justice?
What is the impact of abusive supervision on turnover intention?
Does interpersonal justice mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and LMX quality?
How does LMX quality influence job satisfaction and turnover intention?
Do interpersonal justice and LMX sequentially mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and job satisfaction?

Research Objectives

To investigate the negative effects of abusive supervision on interpersonal justice.
To examine the direct relationship between abusive supervision and turnover intention.
To explore how interpersonal justice influences the quality of LMX.
To determine the role of LMX in enhancing job satisfaction and reducing turnover intention.
To test the mediating roles of interpersonal justice and LMX in the relationship between abusive supervision and job satisfaction.

Study Distinctiveness and Contribution

Distinguishing Features

This study advances abusive supervision scholarship by offering new cultural, theoretical, and methodological insights in a high power-distance culture (Saudi Arabia). The primary distinctions include:

Cultural Focus

Abusive supervision research has tended to focus primarily on Western, low power-distance cultures. This study examines its effects in Saudi Arabia, where leadership expectations in a hierarchical environment may serve to strengthen the harm inflicted by abusive supervision.

Integrated Mediation Model

As opposed to previous research, which has tested LMX or interpersonal justice alone, the present study tests them as concomitant and consecutive mediators. The finding thatabusive supervision → interpersonal justice → LMX → job satisfaction → turnover intentionis a significant path is a key theoretical contribution.

Support for Social Exchange Theory

The study provides strong empirical support for Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964), demonstrating how abusive supervision demolishes trust and reciprocity and thereby causes diminished perceptions of justice, lower LMX, and more turnover intent.

Robust Methodology

The study employs structural equation modelling (SEM) using AMOS and SPSS for path analysis, showing an extremely high model fit (CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.000). It confirms job satisfaction as a stronger turnover buffer than the direct effects of abusive supervision.

Practical Implications for Non-Western Workplaces

The findings imply culturally sensitive solutions such as training for leadership in respectful communication and justice-based interventions to rebuild trust.

Key Contribution

This study provides deeper insight into abusive supervision by combining cultural context, dual mediation processes, and state-of-the-art statistical verification, offering useful insights for both practice and theory.

Figure 1.The research modelConceptual model linking abusive supervision, interpersonal justice, LMX, job satisfaction, and turnover intention.

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

.....

Read Counter : 173 Download : 48

Share Now

The Ripple Effects of Abusive Supervision How LMX and Interpersonal Justice Shape Job Satisfaction and Turnover intentions in Saudi Organizations?

Abstract

Full text article

References

Authors

Abdelmohsen A. Nassani, King Saud University

Abdulmohsen M. Alotaibi, King Saud University

Similar Articles

Related Articles based on the article keywords

Address

Contact

Article Sidebar

Abstract

Full text article

References

Authors

Abdelmohsen A. Nassani, King Saud University

Abdulmohsen M. Alotaibi, King Saud University

Article Details

Similar Articles

Related Articles based on the article keywords

Address

Contact