From Organizational Gossip to Documentation: The Role of Abusive Supervision in Instituting High-Performer Sabotage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajhrpa.v1i2.8788Keywords:
Abusive Supervision, Documentation Escalation, High Performers, Institutionalized Disadvantage, Performance Appraisal Bias, Public Sector BureaucracyAbstract
Merit-based personnel systems are designed to reward competence, creativity, and strong performance. But even the highest-performing employees are often not recognized or promoted in direct proportion to their accomplishments. Ego and fear are at the basis of this structural failure. An insecure supervisor does not view a good performance as an advantage but as an existential danger to his power and a mirror of managerial constraints. In private organizations, the owners keep a careful eye on the operations to preserve the stars. There is no such direct financial oversight in government environments, which are protected by strict civil service protections. Insecure managers realize they can’t reject empirical data or arbitrarily fire superior talent. So, they consciously push the evaluation fight to a very subjective measure: the employee's personality. The manager builds an unchallengeable narrative by judging arbitrary factors such as “attitude”, “tone” or “communication style”. This research develops a four-stage model of fabricated paper trails that successfully overcome empirical merit, causing the involuntary separation of exceptional talent.
Downloads
References
Abdu, A. K., Endris, A. D., & Bayeh, L. D. (2026). Leadership styles and employee performance in public sector offices: Mediating role of employee commitment. American Journal of Human Resources and Public Administration, 1(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajhrpa.v1i2.7801
Bozeman, B. (1993). A theory of government “red tape”. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037171
Braun, S., Schyns, B., Zheng, Y., & Lord, R. G. (2025). When vulnerable narcissists take the lead: The role of internal attribution of failure and shame for abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 202(4), 707–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05805-w
Büyükyılmaz, O., & Kara, C. (2024). Linking leaders’ toxic leadership behaviors to employee attitudes and behaviors. Serbian Journal of Management, 19(2), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm19-43650
Chang, K. (2023). A review of workplace gossip: The development of a process model for studying workplace gossip. Office Gossip and Minority Employees in the South African Workplace, 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2691-6_2
Currie, D., Gormley, T., Roche, B., & Teague, P. (2017). The management of workplace conflict: Contrasting pathways in the HRM literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12107
Daswati, Hattab, S., Rachmad, & Ruslan, A. (2024). Untangling challenges and opportunities: Overcoming toxic leadership in public organizations in Donggala Regency. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Publik, 14(2), 395–404. https://doi.org/10.26858/jiap.v14i2.66004
Dent, E. B. (2021). Learning from a lifetime of provocative thinking about organizational dynamics. Organizational Dynamics, 50(2), Article 100780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2020.100780
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1994). Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/258704
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069350
Dusaran, M. J. T., & Caballero, D. J. A. (2026). Organizational culture and leadership style and its impact on employee productivity among multipurpose cooperatives in the Province of Bukidnon. American Journal of Human Resources and Public Administration, 1(2), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajhrpa.v1i2.7882
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002
Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., & Aasland, M. S. (2010). The nature, prevalence, and outcomes of destructive leadership: A behavioral and conglomerate approach. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-61735-069-620251008
Eissa, G., & Lester, S. W. (2017). Supervisor role overload and frustrated needs: An antecedent of abusive supervision and a trigger for subordinate turnover intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2123
El-Gazar, H. E., Zoromba, M. A., Zakaria, A. M., Ibrahim, S. F., & Elzohairy, M. H. S. (2024). Linking abusive supervision to service sabotage through work alienation in nurses: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 80(2), 745–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15861/v2/review1
Festinger, L. (1957). Social comparison theory. Selective Exposure Theory, 16(401), 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Fischer, T. (2025). Abusive supervision and destructive forms of leadership at work. In Handbook of Counterproductive Work Behavior (pp. 91–103). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035306671.00013
Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2022). Toxic leadership: Behaviors, characteristics, and consequences. Journal of Management Research, 22(1), 19–27.
Garcia, S. M., Reese, Z. A., & Tor, A. (2020). Social comparison before, during, and after the competition. Social Comparison, Judgment, and Behavior, 105–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190629113.003.0005
Geng, Z., Song, M., Li, B., Xue, J., & Qiao, Z. Proactive or Withdrawal? When and How Supervisor Negative Gossip Influence Targeted Employee Behavior. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5400437
Huai, M. (2014). Supervisor Abuse as Retaliation Against Employee Production Deviance: The Moderating Role of Supervisor Power Distance Orientation (Doctoral dissertation, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology). https://doi.org/10.14711/thesis-b1334537
Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004
Lewin, D. (2001). IR and HR perspectives on workplace conflict: What can each learn from the other? Human Resource Management Review, 11(4), 453–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00049-3
Marler, J. H., & Fisher, S. L. (2013). An evidence-based review of e-HRM and strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.002
Milosevic, I., Maric, S., & Lončar, D. (2020). Defeating the toxic boss: The nature of toxic leadership and the role of followers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(2), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819833374
Moon, M. J., Kim, J., Jung, S., & Cho, B. (2020). What makes administrative and hierarchical procedures more burdensome? Effects of degree of procedures, outcome favorability, and confucian values on red tape perception. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(6), 1237–1259. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1760113
Park, S., & Liang, J. (2020). Merit, diversity, and performance: Does diversity management moderate the effect of merit principles on governmental performance? Public Personnel Management, 49(1), 83–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019848459
Pheko, M. M. (2018). Rumors and gossip as tools of social undermining and social dominance in workplace bullying and mobbing practices. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 28(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2017.1421111
Sahabuddin, M., Tan, Q., Ayub, A., Fatima, T., Ishaq, M., & Khan, A. J. (2023). Workplace ostracism and employee silence: An identity-based perspective. Kybernetes, 52(1), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2021-0306
Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2012). Social comparison theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1, 460–482. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n23
Tariq, H., Ding, D., & Bilal, M. (2020). Supervisory abuse of high performers: A social comparison perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(5), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12229
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375
Tepper, B. J., Dimotakis, N., Lambert, L. S., Koopman, J., Matta, F. K., Man Park, H., & Goo, W. (2018). Examining follower responses to transformational leadership from a dynamic, person-environment fit perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1343–1368. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0163
Velez, M. J., & Neves, P. (2017). The relationship between abusive supervision, distributive justice and job satisfaction: A substitutes for leadership approach. European Review of Applied Psychology, 67(4), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2017.05.005
Wang, X., & Zheng, X. (2020). Do high performers always receive more supervisory career mentoring? The role of perspective-taking. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), 15139. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2020.15139abstract
Zhu, D., Duan, J., & Tian, X. (2013). Social undermining in organization: conceptualization, consequences and formation mechanism. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(1), 135. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00135
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Thewodros K. Geberemariam (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
