4. The main conclusions of this article are explicitly indicated as “simultaneously improving individual internally focused satisfaction and reducing work-unit absenteeism is the most promising approach to reducing individual absenteeism” (Diestel, Wegge, & Schmidt, 2014, p. 353).
5. The implications of these conclusions are: management should design factors in the job setting that would assist in reducing absenteeism. as an integration of both internally focused satisfaction (job conditions) and externally focused satisfaction factors (work unit). Future research could focus on increasing sample sizes or extending applications to other organizations from different cultural settings to validate the consistency of the results.
Tepper, B., Moss, S., & Duffy, M. (2011). Predictors of abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions .of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 279–294.
1. The main purpose of this article is to determine predictors of abusive supervision from among three components: supervisor perceptions of deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate performance.
2. The key issue that the author is addressing is determining which among the three components were identified as the most reliable predictor of abusive supervision.
3. The most important information in this article is to respond to the question on “Why do supervisors abuse specific subordinates?” (Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011, p. 288).
4. The main conclusions of this article are: “perceived deep-level dissimilarity evokes perceived relationship conflict, which produces lower evaluations of subordinate performance, which, in turn, lead to higher levels of abusive supervision” (Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011, p. 288).
5. The implications of these conclusions are the noted need to conduct further research on the subject in other organizational settings, particularly in health care organizations, to validate the consistency of results. In addition, perceived levels of dissimilarity could not be structured as constant due to the personality differences of both, supervisors and subordinates, in different work settings. As such, future studies should rule out limitations, noted therein.