近二十年，辱虐管理受到了学术界和工业界广泛且持久的关注。尽管大量学术研究验证了辱虐管理的消极结果，但工业界部分人依旧认为“辱虐管理是有效的管理方式”。过往研究较多从单维视角探讨辱虐管理，鲜少有研究关注到辱虐管理存在不同类型，如基于表达动机的冲动型辱虐管理和基于工具性动机的策略型辱虐管理。为揭示学术界与工业界对辱虐管理存在不一致认知的原因，进一步整合学术界与工业界的观点，本研究首先从领导视角探讨不同类型辱虐管理成因及其影响，再进一步从下属视角探究不同类型辱虐管理对下属的影响。基于此，本文设计并展开了四个研究。

研究一为质性访谈，本研究采用程序性扎根理论研究方法，建立冲动型和策略型辱虐管理的前因和结果理论模型。通过访谈19位实施过辱虐管理或者了解辱虐管理的领导，研究者抽取出5个主范畴以及3个行为阶段；最终形成研究理论模型。研究结果发现，就不同类型辱虐管理的成因而言，特质愤怒增强了冲动型辱虐管理的发生，马基雅维利主义增强了领导策略型辱虐管理的发生；高管理效能感会降低特质愤怒和冲动型辱虐管理二者之间的正向关系，但是会增强马基雅维利主义和策略型辱虐管理二者之间的正向关系。此外，就不同类型辱虐管理的结果而言，冲动型辱虐管理在短期内可能帮助领导获得更高的放松体验，但是长期可能损害其放松体验；策略型辱虐管理在短期内可能增强领导对下属的任务绩效和服从度的评价，长期来看也可能帮助领导筛选高任务绩效、高服从度和高心理韧性的下属。

研究二为实验研究和调查研究，旨在进一步验证冲动型和策略型辱虐管理的前因及边界条件，为研究一提供实证支持。研究2a在358名学生样本中进行实验，通过操纵被试的管理效能感，验证了特质愤怒和冲动型辱虐管理倾向二者之间关系显著、马基雅维利主义和策略型辱虐管理倾向二者之间正向关系显著；管理效能感削弱了特质愤怒和冲动型辱虐管理倾向之间的正向关系，增强了马基雅维利主义和策略型辱虐管理倾向之间的正向关系。研究2b采用时间滞后的问卷调研法，在工作人群中进行了假设验证。研究者在相隔2个月前后收集了265位实施过辱虐管理的领导数据，结果和研究2a一致，为研究2a提供外了部效度的支持。

研究三为调查研究，旨在进一步探究冲动型和策略型辱虐管理给领导带来的短期和长期影响。研究3a采用日记法，收集了118名领导在10个工作日中1022个时间点的数据。多水平结构方程模型的结果表明：与预期相反，无论在个体内还是个体间水平，冲动型辱虐管理和领导的放松体验均呈负相关关系，领导的策略型辱虐管理与领导对下属的任务绩效和服从度评价呈正相关关系。在个体间水平，冲动型辱虐管理中介了特质愤怒和领导放松体验的负向关系，策略型辱虐管理中介了马基雅维利主义与对下属任务绩效和服从度评价的正向关系。研究3b采用纵向追踪的研究方式，在为期1年的3个时间点中收集了435名领导的数据。结果表明，冲动型辱虐管理和领导长期的放松体验之间呈负相关，冲动型辱虐管理并在特质愤怒和长期的放松体验之间起负向中介作用；策略型辱虐管理和领导对下属长期任务绩效、服从度、心理韧性的评价呈正相关，并在马基雅维利主义和领导对下属任务绩效和心理韧性的正向关系中起中介作用；管理效能感削弱了特质愤怒和冲动型辱虐管理之间的正向关系，同时增强了马基雅维利主义和策略型辱虐管理之间的正向关系。

前三个研究均从领导的视角探究了两类辱虐管理的前因和结果。为进一步探究遭受辱虐管理的下属的行为和健康模式，研究四采用了以个体为中心的研究方法，探究了两类辱虐管理对不同下属的反应模式及应对模式转变的影响。研究4a收集了1855名遭遇过辱虐管理的下属的数据，潜剖面分析结果显示，根据下属工作表现、服从度和心理健康三个维度，可划分出四个潜类别。按照人数占比从高到低，这四个类别依次是：工作表现、服从度和心理健康水平较低的“备受打击组”；工作表现和服从度较好，但心理健康较差的“应激组”；工作表现、服从度和心理健康水平都高的“越挫越勇组”；以及工作表现较差、服从度较低，但心理健康水平较高的“得过且过组”。下属感知到辱虐管理的类型无法预测其潜在类别。研究4b进一步考察了经历辱虐管理的下属潜类别在6个月后的转变情况，本研究收集了842名有辱虐管理体验的下属数据，潜转换分析结果表明，当下属感知领导的冲动型辱虐管理较高时，“备受打击组”更可能转换到“得过且过组”，而“应激组”则更可能转换到“备受打击组”和“得过且过组”；当下属感知领导的策略型辱虐管理较高时，“备受打击组”转变到“得过且过组”的可能性相对较低，转变到“越挫越勇组”的可能性较大，“应激组”更可能转换到“越挫越勇组”。

本研究在资源保存理论的大框架下，探究了两种辱虐管理的前因和条件；并进一步综合领导和下属的双重视角，考察了冲动型和策略型辱虐管理给领导和下属带来的影响。研究发现从领导视角出发，冲动型辱虐管理和领导短期和长期的放松体验均呈负向关系，而策略型辱虐管理在短期能激发某些下属的任务绩效、增强其服从度，长期来说能帮助领导筛选出在打压下维持高任务绩效和高心理韧性的下属。然而，从下属视角出发，大部分下属在遭遇辱虐管理时会产生低绩效、低服从和高压力的反应，少部分下属维持高绩效、高服从和高心理韧性。“辱虐管理有效”更多是从领导视角出发，只考虑少数个体的结论。对于大部分员工，辱虐管理特别是冲动型辱虐管理会负向影响其工作表现和心理健康。总体而言，本研究为辱虐管理领域的研究提供了新的视角，为矛盾的观点提供了可能的解释和实证支持。

Abusive supervision has received widespread and sustained attention from both academia and industry over the last two decades. A large body of academic research has validated the negative outcomes of abusive supervision, however, the view that “abusive supervision works” still persists in industry. Most of the research that has been conducted examines abusive supervision from a unidimensional perspective, with little attention paid to the different types of abusive supervision, such as impulsive abusive supervision based on expressive motivation and strategic abusive supervision based on instrumental motivation. To reveal the reasons for the contradictory perceptions of abusive supervision between academia and industry, this study first explores the antecedents and outcomes of different types of abusive supervision from the perspective of leaders, and further explores the effects of different types of abusive supervision on subordinates. Based on this, four studies were designed and conducted.

This qualitative interview-based study aims to use the Proceduralised Grounded Theory research method to confirm the existence of two types of abusive supervision, impulsive and strategic, and to further distinguish their connotations and extensions. At the same time, the study establishes a theoretical model for the antecedents and outcomes of these two types of abusive supervision. Through interviews with 19 leaders who have experienced or understand abusive supervision, and by going through three steps of open, axial, and selective coding, five main categories and three behavioral stages were extracted to form the final theoretical model framework. Leaders with high power perception and high trait anger are more likely to adopt impulsive abusive supervision, while those with high Machiavellianism are more likely to adopt strategic abusive supervision. Additionally, high managerial effectiveness can reduce the possibility of high trait anger leaders adopting impulsive abusive supervision and enhance the possibility of high Machiavellianism leaders adopting strategic abusive supervision. The two types of abusive supervision have different impact outcomes. Impulsive abusive supervision may help leaders to experience relaxation in the short term, but it may harm their relaxation experience in the long term, while strategic abusive supervision may enhance the task performance and obedience of some subordinates in the short term and help leaders select subordinates with high task performance, high obedience, and high psychological resilience in the long term.

Study 2 aims to use experimental and survey research methods to verify the antecedents and conditions of impulsive and strategic abusive supervision, and to provide empirical support for Study 1. Based on the framework of trait activation theory, Study 2a manipulated the participants’ managerial efficacy and verified the positive correlation between trait anger and impulsive abusive supervision tendency, Machiavellianism and strategic abusive supervision tendency in a sample of 358 students. Managerial efficacy weakened the positive relationship between trait anger and impulsive abusive supervision tendency, and strengthed the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and strategic abusive supervision tendency. Study 2b used a time-lagged survey method to validate the hypotheses among working population. Data were collected from 265 leaders who had engaged in abusive supervision behavior over a period of two months. The results of the full model validated the conclusions of Hypothesis 2a and provided support for external validity.

Study 3 aims to replicate the results of Study 2 using a survey method and further explore the short-term and long-term effects of impulsive and strategic abusive supervision on leaders, as well as the mediating effects of the two types of abusive supervision on leadership traits and outcome variables. Study 3a used a diary method to collect data from 118 leaders at 1,022 time points over 10 working days. The results of a multilevel structural equation model showed that contrary to the hypothesis, at both the individual and between-individual levels, impulsive abusive supervision was negatively correlated with leaders’ relaxation experience on the same evening, while strategic abusive supervision was positively correlated with leaders' evaluations of their subordinates’ task performance and obedience. At the between-individual level, impulsive abusive supervision mediated the negative relationship between trait anger and relaxation experience, while strategic abusive supervision mediated the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and evaluations of subordinates' task performance and obedience. Study 3b used a longitudinal tracking research method to collect data from 435 leaders at three time points over a period of one year. The results of the path analysis showed that after controlling for leadership baseline levels of experience and evaluations of subordinates, impulsive abusive supervision was negatively correlated with leaders' long-term relaxation experience, while strategic abusive supervision was positively correlated with leaders’ long-term evaluations of their subordinates’ task performance, obedience, and psychological resilience. Impulsive abusive supervision played a negative mediating role between trait anger and long-term relaxation experience, while strategic abusive supervision played a mediating role between Machiavellianism and leaders’ evaluations of subordinates’ task performance and psychological resilience. Furthermore, the moderating effects and directions of power perception and managerial effectiveness were consistent with the first two studies: power perception enhanced the positive effects of the two traits on the two types of abusive supervision, while managerial effectiveness weakened the relationship between trait anger and impulsive abusive supervision, but enhanced the positive relationship between Machiavellianism and strategic abusive supervision.

The first three studies explored the antecedents and effects of the two types of abusive supervision from the perspective of leaders to further investigate the perception and behavior of subordinates in response to abusive supervision, Study 4 examined the effects of the two types of abusive supervision on different subordinates' coping strategies and coping strategy transformation from the perspective of subordinates. As previous research has ignored the heterogeneity of subordinates, this study adopted an individual-centered approach to explore the issue. Study 4a collected cross-sectional data from 1,855 subordinates who had experienced abusive supervision. Using latent profile analysis, four latent subgroups of subordinates were identified based on their work performance, obedience, and mental health: the “devastated group”, who had lower levels of work performance, obedience, and mental health; the “stressful group”, who had better work performance and obedience but poor mental health; the “resilient group”, who had high levels of work performance, obedience, and mental health; and the “slacker group”, who had low levels of work performance and obedience but high mental health. Furthermore, subordinates' perception of their leaders’ abusive supervision could not predict their latent subgroups. Study 4b further examined the transformation of subordinates’ coping subgroups after six months. The data were collected from 842 subordinates who had experienced abusive supervision. Using latent transition analysis, the results showed that the “resilient group” and “slacker group” had high stability and remained in their original subgroups at T2, with a probability of 85% or higher. The “devastated group” had a higher probability of transitioning to the “resilient group” or “slacker group”, while the “stressful group” had a higher probability of transitioning to the other three groups. Furthermore, when subordinates perceived their leaders' abusive supervision as impulsive, the “devastated group” was more likely to transition to the “slacker group”, while the “stressful group” was more likely to transition to the “devastated group” or “slacker group”. When subordinates perceived their leaders’ abusive supervision as strategic, the "devastated group" was less likely to transition to the "slacker group" and more likely to transition to the “resilient group”, while the “stressful group” was more likely to transition to the “resilient group”.

This study combines theoretical articles and qualitative interviews to identify the existence of two types of abusive supervision, impulsive and strategic, and explores their antecedent conditions through the lens of trait activation theory. It further examines the impact of these two types of abusive supervision on both leaders and subordinates from a dual perspective. The study resolves the academic debate between the view that “abusive supervision is harmful” and the industrial perspective that “abusive supervision is effective”. From the perspective of leaders, impulsive abusive supervision can provide a sense of relaxation in the short term, while strategic abusive supervision can enhance task performance and obedience in the short term and help leaders identify subordinates who maintain high task performance, obedience, and psychological resilience under pressure in the long term. However, from the perspective of subordinates, most people respond to abusive supervision with low performance, obedience, and high pressure, with only a few maintaining high performance, obedience, and psychological resilience. The conclusion that “abusive supervision is effective” is mainly based on the perspective of leaders and only considers a small proportion of individuals. For most people, abusive supervision, especially impulsive abusive supervision, has a negative impact on their job performance and mental health. This study provides a new perspective on the study of abusive supervision and offers a possible explanation and empirical support for the conflicting views on its effectiveness.