A Multidimensional Model of Abusive Supervision and Work Incivility

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

This is an interesting study. However, I have the following suggestions:

1- Highlight proper research gaps in the introduction section and discuss how this study is contributing to the existing literature. The used references are dated, few of the references on abusive supervision and work engagement have not been incorporated, therefore, I suggest the following studies:

• Abusive supervision and knowledge hiding: the moderating roles of future orientation and Islamic work ethics
• Abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: moderating roles of Islamic work ethic and learning goal orientation

2- The literature review section of the study needs further elaboration.

3- Where is the methodology?

4- where are analysis?

5- where are the implications?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your review, it's indeed a significant academic contribution by yourself. Your valuable observations and suggestions helped us to improve this manuscript as well as we learned a lot. We have incorporated all suggested changes through track changes and new references have been highlighted in red for your convenience. 

Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have carefully read the manuscript titled: “S A Multidimensional Model of Abusive Supervision and Work Incivility”. It is an interesting topic. In its current form, this paper is on the quality standards of an academic paper. So, I accept this paper with minor revisions. The minor revisions are express below.

1. The introduction and conclusions are not clear and logical. Please relate the conclusions to the introduction.
2. Some of the claims made by the authors in the paper have insufficient evidence, specifically in findings and conclusions section.
3. The researcher is required to update literature review, as the literature mentioned in this paper is very old. Therefore, I suggest that at least 5 well reputed (Impact Factor/SSCI) research journal papers should be cited. Below mentioned paper will help you to improve your literature part.

• https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105307
• https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052294

 

4. The authors should also explain the relevance of their research to practitioners.
5. The authors also need to add how their research contribute to the body of knowledge.
6. Please provide the motivations of the choice about the software.
7. Several grammatical errors are there in the manuscript. Please, proofread thoroughly!
8. Overall formatting as per Journal requirement is also required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your review, it's indeed a significant academic contribution by yourself. Your valuable observations and suggestions helped us to improve this manuscript as well as we learned a lot. We have incorporated all suggested changes through track changes and new references have been highlighted in red for your convenience. 

Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, I think the manuscript deals with exciting and significant issues, i.e., abusive supervision, organisational politics, incivility, injustice, social exchange theory, and uncertainty management theory. I believe much more empirical research is needed. However, I do think there are some issues in this manuscript that warrant further attention. My comments follow the given structure below: 

 

First, the paper needs a more detailed treatment of the recent 2021 and 2022 empirical literature (e.g., Jha et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2022; Thompson et al., 2022). I can see the further prospect or development of the applied theories in the literature to justify their current standing and relation to this paper. 

 

Second, the research gap is not clear enough. It is essential to understand how this study - what is examined here - offers new insights into the literature and how abusive supervision, organisational politics, incivility, injustice, social exchange theory, and uncertainty management theory for higher organisational performance.

 

Third, variables such as abusive supervision, organisational politics, incivility, injustice, social exchange theory, uncertainty management theory care and quality of care traits have significant relationships with strategic HRM (Haque, 2018) in the literature. Hence, there should be a section highlighting the role of leadership and HRM in the outcome of these issues for their implementation and practice interventions.  

 

Fourth, the abstract is not convincing enough and needs more clarity.

 

Fifth, Figure one is very difficult to follow because of its arrows and ‘H’ items. This paper needs further clarity there.

 

Finally, I found the “consequences for theory and future research guidelines” part is also unclear. How should the paper contribute to the theory and HRM practice is not clarified? What new insight can this paper offer for the importance of abusive supervision, organisational politics, incivility, injustice, and social exchange be managed? It is not easy to see clear and new takeaways here. 

 

Thanks for this opportunity to review this paper. I see the prospect, but this paper can be better with its solid theoretical and practical contributions.

 

 

 

 

References:

Jha, J. K., & Sud, K. (2021). Exploring influence mechanism of abusive supervision on subordinates’ work incivility: A proposed framework. Business Perspectives and Research, 9(2), 324-339.

Haque, A. (2018). Strategic human resource management and presenteeism: A conceptual framework to predict human resource outcomes. New Zealand Journal of Human Resources Management, 18(2), 3-18.

Srivastava, S., Pradhan, S., Singh, L. B., & Madan, P. (2022). Consequences of abusive supervision on Indian service sector professionals: a PLS-SEM-based approach. International Journal of Conflict Management.

Thompson, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Hackney, K., & Vogel, R. M. (2022). Vicarious abusive supervision and turnover in expectant working mothers: Does financial dependency trigger emotional disconnect? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(3), 448-464.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for your review, it's indeed a significant academic contribution by yourself. Your valuable observations and suggestions helped us to improve this manuscript as well as we learned a lot. We have incorporated all suggested changes through track changes and new references have been highlighted in red for your convenience. 

Regards!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version of the manuscript is acceptable. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Good luck!