An Organizational System Approach to Internal Retaliation Behavior within Chinese SMEs: The Serial Multiple Mediation Model and Moderating Role of Workplace Incivility

Abstract

With the global economic downturn, the impact on internal systems of Chinese SMEs has also received great attention. However, the provocative and destructive nature of retaliation behavior by SME employees shifts resources meant for organizational system development towards addressing internal balance issues. Employees’ retaliation behavior poses significant harm to organizations systems, limiting their long-term sustainability and competitiveness in the long run. This study argues for a close relationship between employee behavior and leadership management style, particularly in the context of inadequate management systems in SMEs, which can easily subject employees to direct influence from their leaders. For example, abusive supervision or oppressive practices at the management level can trigger resistance and rebellious behavior among employees, leading them to choose retaliatory actions as a response to the organizational system. This study aims to explore the causal relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior within the system. We aim to clarify the pathway through which abusive supervision triggers retaliation behavior among employees within the system and examine the serial multiple mediating effects of psychological distress and negative emotions as well as the moderating effect of workplace incivility. To validate the hypotheses proposed in this study, a survey was conducted among employees of Chinese SMEs. The data provided by 303 employees were analyzed using SPSS ver. 26.0, AMOS ver. 23.0, and SPSS PROCESS Macro 3.4.1 Model 6. The findings indicate that abusive supervision has an indirect effect on employee retaliation behavior through the serial multiple mediating effects of psychological distress and negative emotions. Workplace incivility moderated the influence of negative emotions on retaliation. This study explored the process by which abusive management triggers retaliative behavior through a serial multiple mediation model, providing theoretical evidence for related research. This study explicitly reveals the process leading to retaliation behavior within the system and presents the differences from previous research. Additionally, this study demonstrates the interactive effect between abusive supervision and incivility through the moderating role of incivility in determining the level of retaliation behavior. Ultimately, this study has pioneering significance in exploring the causes of retaliation behavior within the Chinese SME organizational system and how to prevent the occurrence of retaliation behavior.

1. Introduction

According to Kroll’s global fraud survey, the proportion of losses caused by workplace retaliation in Asian countries is also high, with a loss amounting to nearly $20 billion, next to the United States of America and Africa [1]. Employee retaliation incurs high operational costs for organizations and jeopardizes their overall stability owing to its inflammatory nature [2]. Retaliative behavior can also result in an actual or potential loss of resources, such as property damage, reputational harm, or trust crises within the organization [3]. Employee retaliation behavior is detrimental to an organization’s achievement of performance or strategic goals, but this is likely not the outcome employees desire, and it may be a result of unfair treatment and employees’ attempts to defend themselves [4]. According to cognitive–motivational–relational theory, leadership styles likely trigger the occurrence of employee retaliation within organizations, and exploring the influence of leadership styles on retaliation behavior holds constructive significance, particularly in the cultural context of China [5].

This study argues that abusive supervision is a key factor in triggering employee retaliation. Managers’ leadership styles can directly influence employees’ behaviors and attitudes [6]. Moreover, in recent years, the issue of suicide resulting from conflicts between employees and leaders has sparked significant societal discussions [7]. Scholars have found that when a leader’s management style is destructive, its negative impact tends to outweigh its positive effects, with abusive supervision being the most representative example [8]. Abusive supervision is subjective, and employees perceive it as an insult that harms their self-esteem and causes psychological distress [9]. After implementing abusive supervision, leaders rarely feel guilty about their behavior; they may intensify their demands on employees to serve their own goals, leading to employee resistance [10]. Therefore, this study argues that abusive supervision by leaders can trigger retaliation among employees in the workplace.

Abusive supervision refers to employees’ perceptions of sustained hostile behaviors displayed by leaders, either through verbal or non-verbal means, and has destructive effects [11]. Retaliative behavior is also a negative variable that can disrupt organizational structures, sustainability, and development. Additionally, in a high-pressure environment created by abusive supervision, there is a possibility of a role reversal between the aggressor and the victim because of employees’ retaliation. Employees may become aggressors through acts of retaliation, whereas leaders may become victims because of their engagement in abusive supervision practices [12]. Based on these perspectives, this study emphasizes the significance of exploring the levels of abusive supervision among Chinese SMEs and uncovering the causal relationship between abusive supervision and retaliative behavior.

In emphasizing the importance of retaliation behavior, this study focuses on abusive supervision as a fundamental factor that increases employee retaliation and explores other factors that trigger retaliation behavior among organizational members. Therefore, this study aims to investigate how abusive supervision leads to retaliation behavior. This study indicates that under the implementation of abusive supervision by leaders, employees’ space for existence is squeezed, leading to psychological distress. This, in turn, fuels negative emotions among employees and ultimately prompts them to engage in retaliation. Furthermore, there is a lack of research specifically examining the relationship between abusive supervision and employees’ perceptions of exclusion as well as the pathways through which it influences employee retaliation [13]. Therefore, based on these perspectives, this study aims to examine the impact of abusive supervision on employee retaliation behavior through a serial multiple mediation model involving psychological distress and negative emotions.

Furthermore, this study suggests that the moderating effect of workplace incivility influences an increase in employee retaliation. In an era where workplace incivility (rude language or demeaning gestures) towards others is prevalent, employees’ negative emotions are easily heightened [14]. Workplace incivility also normalizes abusive supervision within an organization, allowing leaders to freely humiliate or mock employees, ultimately pushing them to choose destructive work behaviors for resistance [15]. Therefore, this study argues that workplace incivility triggers employees’ negative emotions or abusive supervision by leaders, thereby providing a foundation for employee retaliation. Thus, it is necessary to explore the moderating effect of workplace incivility, as the interaction between employees’ negative emotions, leaders’ abusive supervision, and workplace incivility is likely to generate employee retaliation.

In general, the purpose of this study is to logically elucidate how abusive supervision triggers retaliation behavior among organizational members. This study’s main contribution lies in uncovering the process through which leadership influences retaliation behavior. Furthermore, the concept and role of retaliative behavior are clearly identified and introduced through a literature review. Previous studies have focused on exploring the parameters associated with reducing retaliation behavior and validating each mediating effect. However, this study proposes a serial multiple mediation model involving psychological distress and negative emotions to verify the process through which abusive supervision triggers retaliation among organizational members. Despite emphasizing the negative effects of abusive supervision, there is still a lack of empirical research validating the relationship between abusive supervision and organizational members’ perceptions of exclusion and its impact on retaliation behavior. Additionally, while most studies treat workplace incivility as a dependent or mediating variable, this study positioned workplace incivility as a moderating variable and examined its roles. Specifically, this study triggers employee retaliation by examining the interaction between abusive supervision, negative emotions, and workplace incivility. The review of retaliation behavior research revealed that the current academic understanding of retaliation behavior remains insufficient. In today’s context of China’s economic slowdown, leadership and employee behavior directly influence the sustainable development of organizations. Therefore, this study validates the harmful effects of abusive supervision and retaliation behavior on Chinese SMEs. Through these efforts, this study expands research in the field of abusive supervision and retaliation. Finally, theoretical and practical implications are presented, along with suggestions on how to reduce abusive supervision and retaliation.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

2.1. Abusive Supervision

Abusive supervision is the perceived degree to which subordinates are subjected to hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors from their supervisors, excluding physical contact [16]. This refers to the sustained display of non-physical hostile behavior and the continuous mistreatment of subordinates [17]. Additionally, abusive supervision encompasses self-reports by organizational members who experience or perceive abuse [18]. This is primarily based on subordinates’ subjective perceptions of their supervisors’ observed behaviors [19]. Abusive supervision involves the ongoing manifestation of negative and abusive behaviors rather than singular events [20].

Abusive supervision is an important social issue that requires continuous academic research [17]. According to traditional stress-coping theory, abusive supervision creates a hostile and fearful work environment, diminishing organizational members’ ability to resist temptation and pressure and leading them to engage in involuntary behaviors [21]. Previous research has found that bullying behaviors can originate from various sources, including colleagues, subordinates, and supervisors; however, abusive supervision is limited to the hierarchical relationship between leaders and subordinates [18]. Therefore, abusive supervision hinders subordinates’ basic psychological needs, such as a sense of belonging or autonomy, ultimately resulting in negative consequences [19]. Furthermore, organizational members who experience a sense of meaningfulness in their work may be concerned with their status within the company (conditional resources) and spend significant time and energy (energetic resources) coping with abusive leaders [20].

On 8 April 2023, “Legal Daily” reported that a leader of a company in Beijing suspected an employee of leaking his personal information and repeatedly insulted the employee in the work WeChat group without fully grasping sufficient evidence, causing the employee to suffer from severe depression. Consequently, this study investigates previous research and finds that in most cases, abusive supervision exerts a detrimental effect on organizations. For instance, abusive supervision is negatively (−) correlated with job performance [20], life satisfaction [16], and ethical behavior [21], whereas it is positively (+) correlated with turnover intention [19] and deviant behavior [17]. Based on these observations, this study defines abusive supervision as destructive leadership behavior whereby leaders perceive employees as targets for negative emotions and engage in persistent abusive behavior through non-physical contact.

2.2. Psychological Distress

Psychological distress refers to emotional turmoil typically caused by external or internal stressors, often stemming from unresolved or difficult-to-cope-with conflicts in daily life [22]. Psychological distress is a state of emotional discomfort that often arises in response to stress [23]. It encompasses various feelings experienced by individuals who may be at risk of mood or anxiety disorders or who are under extreme stress due to specific situational factors [24]. Psychological distress is often accompanied by a range of non-specific psychological symptoms, such as stress, mood swings, inner restlessness, and negative thoughts [25]. Psychological distress is a potential pathological condition characterized by bodily sensations, depressive symptoms, and anxiety [26].

Individuals who experience high levels of psychological distress in the workplace often hold positions of higher power or greater responsibility, which can be triggering factors for their psychological distress [25]. When facing psychological distress, individuals tend to seek solace from close relationships with friends to share their emotional pain rather than seeking help from professional psychological counseling and therapy services [27]. Although individuals with high levels of psychological distress may not meet the clinical criteria for mental illness, they clearly experience interference from external sources at a psychological level [28]. Psychological distress is characterized by physical changes, such as tension, worry, and increased blood pressure, and when accompanied by other symptoms, it often leads to health problems [24]. Additionally, individuals with alcohol or Internet addictions are prone to high levels of psychological distress because returning to real-life situations forces them to confront unpleasant experiences and unstable emotional states [22].

In recent years, the number of individuals or employees experiencing psychological distress has been increasing owing to factors such as economic downturns and unexpected public health events, such as COVID-19. Previous studies have found that psychological distress has a positive impact on self-concealment [27], Internet addiction [22], feelings of loneliness [25], and depression [28]. However, it has a negative impact on mental health [24]. Based on these observations, this study defined psychological distress as an individual’s experience of discomfort or disturbance at the psychological level, including emotional pain, anxiety, tension, and confusion.

2.3. Negative Emotions

Negative emotions refer to the subjective experiences of individuals feeling dissatisfied, experiencing failure, or encountering other negative life events [29]. Specifically, negative emotions are more precise adaptive phenomena that manifest as reactions to setbacks, sadness over losses, or fear of threats [30]. Negative emotions have a negative impact on people’s psyche, causing emotional fluctuations, functional impairments, and behavioral disorders [31]. Negative emotions also refer to the subjective dimensions of distress and unpleasantness, encompassing various aversive emotional states, such as anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, and neuroticism [32]. Negative emotions also refer to emotions that lead to a loss of motivation and feeling bad for individuals [33].

Organizational members with higher levels of negative emotions may experience more negative events in their personal or professional lives [29]. Consequently, individuals with higher levels of negative emotions tend to become more conservative and have a pessimistic mindset about the future; they may also lose awareness of innovation and courage to solve problems in their day-to-day work [34]. While experiencing negative emotions is natural, negative emotions and their reactions can sometimes lead to daily psychological discomfort for individuals [32]. When dealing with negative emotions, organizational members often exhibit either introverted or extroverted behaviors: in introverted cases, they may display silence, disregard, caring for others, or self-motivation; in extroverted cases, they may engage in shouting, seeking solace from others, or even aggressive behavior towards others [33]. Overall, negative emotions are triggered by varying degrees of harm or changes in life circumstances [31].

According to reports from relevant Chinese medical and health departments, when individuals encounter crises, these can cause changes in the autonomic nervous and neuroendocrine systems, triggering defensive behaviors accompanied by intense emotional experiences, which are mostly negative emotions. Therefore, based on previous research, it has been found that negative emotions have a positive (+) impact on rumination [29] and emotional regulation [33] but have negative (−) effects on creativity [31], social expectations [32], and health [30]. Based on these perspectives, this study defined negative emotions as a series of subjective experiences, including but not limited to sadness, anxiety, anger, fear, and depression.

2.4. Workplace Incivility

Workplace incivility refers to rude and disrespectful behaviors that violate the norms of mutual respect in the workplace [35]. It is a low-intensity deviant behavior with the intention of harming others, often in an ambiguous manner [36]. Workplace incivility is defined as a low-intensity, personally directed mistreatment that occurs in any type of interpersonal workplace interaction, including interactions with individuals (including clients) [37]. Workplace incivility also refers to low-intensity negative behaviors that violate the norms of respect within the workplace [38]. Workplace incivility is commonly defined as a behavior that lacks moderation, friendliness, politeness, and good manners in work relationships [39].

Isolating colleagues, using derogatory language towards organizational members, and interrupting others during meetings are examples of workplace incivility [35]. When incivility exists in the workplace of a company or organization, employees affected by such behavior may experience an increase in human resource costs [40]. Furthermore, lower-ranking members within an organization are the primary victims of workplace incivility because they face constraints in power and resources and are often unable to control the development of situations, thus making incidents increasingly threatening and stressful [36]. Therefore, despite the low intensity of workplace incivility, it can potentially become a long-term characteristic of the organizational climate and a daily source of stress for employees [37]. When individuals experience uncivil behavior from others in the workplace, they may feel threatened, leading them to allocate time and energy that could have been used for work towards defending their self-esteem and interests [41]. Moreover, individuals who endure long-term workplace incivility suffer from severe physiological and psychological effects, resulting in changes in work-related attitudes and behaviors [42].

In recent years, owing to the scarcity and restrictions of social and organizational resources (such as promotion opportunities and salary benefits), a significant amount of workplace incivility has emerged, drawing widespread attention from researchers of organizational behavior and practitioners in organizational management. By examining previous research, this study found that workplace incivility has a positive (+) impact on exhaustion [35], emotional depletion [38], and pessimism [37]. However, it has a negative (−) impact on health [40] and well-being [36]. Based on these observations, this study defines workplace incivility as a series of negative interactions and behaviors that violate basic respect, courtesy, and professional norms within the work environment.

2.5. Retaliation Behavior

Retaliative behavior refers to the punitive actions taken by employees in response to the perceived unfairness of an organization or its leaders [43]. Specifically, retaliative behavior involves acting with the intention of seeking revenge against someone who has previously mistreated oneself [44]. Retaliative behavior is defined as actions taken by individuals or groups in response to perceived differential treatment or offenses within an organization [45]. Furthermore, retaliative behavior refers to the conscious ability of human behavior to seek revenge intentionally [46]. Retaliation behavior is defined as employees’ response to the abuse of power by leaders, often involving destructive acts, such as counterattacks [47].

When employees engage in retaliation behavior, they often resort to deliberate acts of damaging equipment, intentionally slowing down the work pace, and frequently extending breaks, among other behaviors; these actions are aimed at expressing resistance and response to their leaders [48]. However, retaliation toward leaders is generally an unwise choice, as it can ultimately worsen an already unfavorable situation [47]. From the organization’s short-term perspective, retaliation is seen as harmful in the long run, although it may have beneficial and constructive effects on the organization or other individuals [44]. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of mistreated employees, retaliation is considered justified, as it holds the perpetrator accountable for their actions [49]. Moreover, when lower-ranking employees fail to promptly engage in retaliation after being harmed, their colleagues may perceive them as weak or incapable, leading to future instances of retaliation [45].

In recent years, changes in China’s economy, labor market, and social interaction methods have further highlighted the issue of retaliation behavior. Retaliation behavior has a dual nature: appropriate retaliation actions can help prevent further harm, whereas excessive retaliation behavior can have serious negative consequences for society. However, regardless of the positive or negative aspects, this study believes that retaliative behavior has some degree of negative impact. Therefore, by examining previous research, it has been found that retaliation behavior has a positive (+) impact on negative emotions [45], reputation attacks [46], abusive supervision [47], and workplace incivility [44] but a negative (−) impact on job performance [49]. Based on the above perspectives, this study defines retaliative behavior as intentional and negative actions taken by individuals or groups in response to or in opposition to harm, offense, injustice, or unfair treatment inflicted upon them.

2.6. Abusive Supervision and Psychological Distress

When employees choose to avoid abusive supervision, unresolved issues can lead them to deplete more of their internal resources while coping, potentially resulting in changes at the psychological level and exacerbating psychological distress [50]. This management style traps employees in a vicious cycle; when they cannot meet the demands of their leaders, they may become silent due to the leader’s management approach, leading to a lack of feedback, which deprives them of the opportunity to reflect on their experiences, contributing to increased psychological distress in the workplace due to poor job performance [51]. In addition, employees who have experienced this type of leadership style feel a lack of support from their leaders; as a result, when facing unexpected events, they worry about being reprimanded by their leaders and the negative consequences of being unable to handle them effectively, which further triggers psychological distress [52]. Moreover, this style of leadership does not provide information and resources helpful for nurturing and guiding employees, which restricts their ability to perform their work and diminishes their skills and motivation, leading them to experience psychological distress [53]. Therefore, for employees dealing with abusive supervision, this leadership style can result in lasting psychological trauma and may cause self-doubt and feelings of frustration, making abusive supervision a fundamental cause of long-term psychological distress [54]. Based on these theories, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1.

Abusive supervision will positively impact psychological distress.

2.7. Abusive Supervision and Negative Emotions

Negative work environments formed by abusive supervision can lead to employees developing feelings of inferiority, and this sense of inferiority is one of the main causes of negative emotions among employees [55]. When leaders criticize, ridicule, or belittle employees through abusive supervision tactics, such behavior can have extremely harmful effects on employees’ self-esteem and well-being and can trigger negative emotions within employees, including fear, shame, anger, or sadness [56]. Additionally, abusive supervision is an oppressive style that relies on inflicting mental or physical torment, humiliation, and violence to control and motivate employees, and this lack of warmth and respect in the management environment can make employees feel oppressed, further fueling the generation of negative emotions [57]. Furthermore, when employees perform poorly, both employees and leaders can fall into a vicious cycle of internal attribution, and leaders may resort to abusive supervision because of the poor performance, which in turn imposes a greater psychological burden on employees and makes them more prone to negative emotions [58]. As a result, leaders with such leadership styles are typically unpleasant in terms of temperament and personality, as they are more likely to vent their own emotions and have limited self-restraint when it comes to behavior, which increases employees’ negative emotions [59]. Based on these theories, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2.

Abusive supervision will positively impact negative emotions.

2.8. Abusive Supervision and Retaliation Behavior

According to social exchange theory, when employees perceive a leader’s abusive supervision, that is, when employees perceive negative management from the leader, negative feedback will be given abusive supervision, which will lead to a strong resistance attitude and result in employee retaliation [60]. When employees perceive abusive supervision as unjust, it can trigger crises in workplace order and respect, and employees may perceive such behavior as invasive, leading them to retaliate to protect their interests [61]. The presence of abusive supervision within an organization results in employees experiencing more negative psychological states; to vent their dissatisfaction, employees in a state of a loss of control may resort to retaliation actions to change their circumstances [62]. Furthermore, this type of management style can cause previously dedicated employees to lose their sense of belonging to the organization, and as a result of resentment and distress, they may engage in retaliation against the leadership’s management approach [63]. Even if employees initially choose to avoid confrontation after experiencing abusive supervision, they may still engage in retaliating against the leader by affirming their position and attitude in response to negative evaluations from others [64]. Based on these theories, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3.

Abusive supervision will positively impact retaliation behavior.

2.9. Psychological Distress and Negative Emotions

Individuals’ negative emotions are influenced by the intensity of the psychological distress they experience; the stronger their reaction to psychological distress, the greater their depletion of internal resources, leading to heightened negative emotions towards external stimuli [65]. The prevalence of infectious diseases results in individuals experiencing higher levels of psychological distress due to negative impacts from health, social, economic, and other aspects; consequently, individuals’ worries about life increase their level of negative emotions [66]. Individuals with higher levels of psychological distress also exhibit stronger emotional suppression, leading to more negative emotions, such as anxiety, feelings of powerlessness, and fear [67]. Furthermore, when leaders in an organization display dominance, employees experience intense psychological distress in the workplace, which, combined with an unfriendly work environment and atmosphere, further triggers negative emotions [68]. Therefore, when employees demonstrate signs of psychological distress, if organizations actively implement intervention measures, listen to employees’ grievances and dissatisfaction regarding the current situation, and make changes to the existing work environment, they can effectively reduce employees’ negative emotions and save on manpower costs [69]. Based on these theories, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4.

Psychological distress will positively impact negative emotions.

2.10. Psychological Distress and Retaliation Behavior

Irreconcilable points of contention in interaction and communication are the fundamental cause of employees’ psychological distress, and the inability to reach a consensus on both sides’ demands leads to further retaliation behavior [70]. Threats posed by the organization or leadership to employees’ resources (psychological, social, and physical) and unfair treatment can trigger psychological distress; when psychological distress reaches a certain level, employees may engage in retaliation behavior to protect themselves [71]. Moreover, the manifestation of psychological distress by employees indicates the presence of management issues within the organization, leading to excessive worry and other psychological states that hinder their work and even express dissatisfaction through retaliation [72]. Employees exposed to organizational or leadership misconduct during work may face harassment and discrimination, resulting in psychological distress; in situations where they cannot change this predicament, employees may resort to retaliation to defend their voices [73]. Furthermore, healthcare workers have to tend to the emotions of patients’ family members while working, which keeps their psychological distress at a high level, and during times of external criticism or conflict, healthcare workers are more likely to choose retaliation behavior as an expression of their internal emotions [74]. Based on these theories, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5.

Psychological distress will positively impact retaliation behavior.

2.11. Negative Emotions and Retaliation Behavior

Competitive or derogatory feedback can trigger negative emotions (such as anger, disappointment, and sadness) in employees, which are more likely to lead to conflicts of retaliation within an organization [75]. Negative emotions (such as anger, hostility, and frustration) are common responses to perceived unfairness. The process by which negative emotions trigger retaliation behavior is due to a decrease in tolerance for the current situation and a desire to escape it [76]. Employees with high levels of negative emotions can damage an organization’s reputation, and when the organization is punished for its poor performance, it breeds resentment and triggers retaliation [77]. Furthermore, negative emotions in the workplace can persist for a long time, and individuals, based on the principle of reciprocity, may magnify their feelings under intense emotional fluctuations and even plan and execute effective retaliation behavior in response to conflicts that occurred a long time ago [78]. Employees often develop negative emotions towards unfair behaviors within the organization. When employees become angry due to negative emotions, the organization fails to intervene or respond in a timely manner, which further provides motivation and justification for employees to engage in retaliation behavior [79]. Based on these theories, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6.

Negative emotions will positively impact retaliation behavior.

2.12. The Serial Multiple Mediation Effect of Psychological Distress and Negative Emotions

High levels of abusive supervision can lead to psychological distress, causing employees to enter a state of silent defense and attempt to express dissatisfaction through retaliation [51]. Furthermore, employees who experience negative emotions due to abusive management may engage in retaliation behavior to escape resource depletion and minimize resource consumption [80]. Moreover, reflecting on and intending to change one’s behavior in response to abusive supervision has limited effectiveness in alleviating the source of stress, resulting in psychological distress for employees, which, in turn, can lead to negative emotions, such as anxiety and depression, which linger with employees. To escape the fear or breakdown caused by these circumstances, employees may resort to retaliation behavior against the perpetrators of abusive supervision [81].

Employees who have experienced abusive supervision may face a difficult situation where fear leads to a vicious cycle of resource scarcity and psychological distress, which ultimately reduces their motivation to work; this can worsen the situation and potentially lead to the venting of emotions through acts of retaliation behavior [82]. Employees also recognize that abusive supervision is a major source of psychological distress, as this leadership style depletes their psychological and emotional resources, eventually provoking retaliation behavior [83]. Abusive supervision triggers negative emotions such as anger or anxiety in employees, and when victims of these negative emotions choose coping strategies, they categorize retaliation behavior as a means of dealing with the situation [84]. The negative emotions experienced by employees are caused by abusive supervision from leaders who, due to power imbalances within the organization, redirect their frustration to employees, leading to employees experiencing negative emotions, such as anxiety and depression, with retaliation behavior being a consequence of these negative emotions [85].

Employees subjected to abusive supervision feel that they are not receiving the respect they deserve and perceive their leaders as lacking empathy, which leads to high levels of psychological distress, a loss of organizational identification, and negative emotions, such as boredom and demoralization. Consequently, employees may resort to retaliation behavior, expressing anger or sadness [86]. Abusive supervision deeply affects employees, triggering physiological and psychological changes characterized by negative emotions that may prompt retaliation behaviors, such as verbal attacks, spreading rumors, and withholding information [87]. The workplace environment created by abusive supervision does not encourage employees to express their psychological state, and in such a situation, employees inevitably experience psychological distress; when employees perceive differential treatment, this suppressed psychological state amplifies negative emotions, leading to an increase in retaliation behavior [88]. Based on these theories, this study proposes the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 7.

Psychological distress will positively mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior.

Hypothesis 8.

Negative emotions will positively mediate the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior.

Hypothesis 9.

Psychological distress and negative emotions will positively serial multiple mediation the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior.

2.13. The Moderating Role of Workplace Incivility

Employees’ negative emotions are related to negative social interactions, particularly those provoked by workplace incivility, and these employees are more likely to exhibit retaliation behavior because of these negative emotions [89]. Furthermore, suppose employees perceive themselves as victims of workplace incivility (i.e., observe lower levels of workplace incivility experienced by others). Then, they will experience higher levels of negative emotions, and harmful negative emotions will be a critical factor in engaging in retaliative behavior [90]. Workplace incivility triggers employees’ negative emotions because it leads to a heightened state of anxiety; when employees lose their sense of identification with their current work due to negative emotions, retaliation behavior becomes a means of protecting their resources [91]. Workplace incivility within the organization fosters a sense of exclusion among employees, intensifying the level of negative emotions and further depleting their emotional resources. Retaliation helps employees assert their demands in such circumstances [92]. The everyday occurrence of uncivil behaviors in the workplace amplifies employees’ experiences of negative emotions, and anger within negative emotions is more prominently magnified than fear or sadness; employees realize that their rights have been violated, and thus, they instigate other employees to engage in retaliation behavior against the organization [93]. Based on these theories, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 10.

Workplace incivility will moderate the relationship between negative emotions and retaliation behavior.

The display of rude remarks, mocking, and aggressive behavior by leaders as workplace incivility enhances the level of abusive supervision, and employees, due to a series of such behaviors by their leaders, experience increasing distress in the workplace, ultimately leading them to choose retaliation as a form of resistance [94]. Workplace incivility fuels abusive supervision by leaders, and an uncivil work environment, along with a high-pressure atmosphere, makes employees more inclined toward retaliation by damaging the organization’s or leader’s reputation [95]. Under a cycle of abusive supervision by leaders and workplace incivility, employees evaluate their situations (such as disrespectful treatment, infringement, and unequal treatment), and in such an environment, they are more likely to trigger employee retaliation [96]. Employees engage in retaliation behaviors against the organization or leaders due to workplace incivility because abusive behaviors, including harassment, bullying, and verbal attacks, stem from abusive supervision by management. Thus, employees exhibit deviant work behaviors (retaliation behavior) [97]. Furthermore, when power flows down to lower-level leaders, employees face the harm of abusive supervision, and workplace incivility exacerbates this situation. These discriminatory practices force employees to choose retaliation behaviors (verbal attacks) to protect themselves [98]. Based on these theories, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 11.

Workplace incivility will moderate the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample Characteristics

This study conducted a survey using WJX.cn to investigate employees of Chinese SMEs. As China is undergoing economic transformation and recovery, SMEs face various pressures in the current market environment. The harmful effects of leaders’ abusive supervision and employees’ retaliation further challenge the already difficult environment for SMEs. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether there is a direct relationship between abusive supervision from leaders and retaliation behavior among employees in SMEs. Additionally, the main reason for selecting Chinese SME employees as research subjects was that SMEs are typically newly established, often have chaotic management systems and inadequate employee welfare, and frequently require employees to take on additional responsibilities beyond their roles. Consequently, employees often perceive dissatisfaction with management as abusive supervision, and it is normal for them to choose retaliation when experiencing prolonged exhaustion, fatigue, or discontent [99]. Based on these viewpoints, this study believes that both abusive supervision from leaders and retaliation from employees must be taken seriously by SMEs. Furthermore, there is a relative lack of research on how abusive supervision triggers retaliation behavior; therefore, this study believes that empirical research focusing on Chinese SME employees aligns with the current needs of societal development.

This study examined organizational members working in Chinese small- and medium-sized enterprises and conducted a survey using an online questionnaire. This study was investigated 3 days, from 16 May 2023, to 18 May 2023. Finally, a total of 303 data were collected.

Regarding the demographic characteristics of this study’s participants, 227 (74.9%) were males and 76 (25.1%) were females. Regarding age, 26 (8.6%) participants were under 20 years old, 160 (52.8%) were 20–29 years old, 79 (26.1%) were 30–39 years old, 23 (7.6%) were 40–49 years old, and 15 (5%) were 50 years or older. Regarding education, 21 (6.9%) had completed technical secondary school or high school, 72 (23.8%) had completed junior college, 132 (43.6%) had undergraduate degrees, 61 (20.1%) had master’s degrees, and 17 (5.6%) had doctoral degrees. Regarding service years, 61 (20.1%) had worked for a year or less, 47 (15.5%) had worked for one to two years, 61 (20.1%) had worked for three to five years, 44 (14.5%) had worked for five to seven years, and 90 (29.7%) had worked for seven years or more.

3.2. Measurement

Abusive supervision refers to how the respondent perceived he or she is personally treated by his or her leader rather than the leader’s behavior in general [21]. To measure Chinese SME abusive supervision, this study used a tool mentioned in the studies of Khan et al. (2017) [100]. Sample items included “My supervisor does not allow me to interact with my co-workers”. or “My supervisor reminds me of my past mistakes and failures”.

Psychological distress refers to a highly adverse mental state involving marked depression and/or anxiety [28]. To measure Chinese SME psychological distress, this study used a tool mentioned in the studies of Kessler et al. (2002) [101]. Sample items included “You feel so depressed that nothing could cheer you up?” or “You feel so nervous that nothing could calm you down?”.

Negative emotions refer to the feelings that individuals are affected by internal or external factors that are not conducive to the individual’s continued work or thinking [34]. To measure Chinese SME negative emotions, this study used a tool mentioned in the studies of Watson et al. (1988) [102]. Sample items included “Irritable”. or “Jittery”.

Workplace incivility refers to antisocial behaviors such as rudeness, gossiping, and alienation within an organizational setting [103]. To measure Chinese SME workplace incivility, this study used a tool mentioned in the studies of Cortina et al. (2001) [70]. Sample items included “Put you down or was condescending to you?” or “Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you?”.

Retaliation behavior refers to an effort by the victim of harm to inflict damage, injury, discomfort, or punishment on the party judged responsible for causing the harm [45]. To measure Chinese SME retaliation behavior, this study used a tool mentioned in the studies of Skarlicki and Folger (1997) [43]. Sample items included “Refused to work weekends or overtime when asked”. or “Spent time on personal matters while at work”.

All items were measured with a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Negative emotion items were measured with a scale ranging from 1 = very less to 7 = very more. According to the above variables, and based on SPSS PROCESS Macro 3.4.1 Model 6, the research model was constructed, as shown in <Figure 1>.

3.3. Statistical Analysis

To test the data part in this study, we used SPSS ver. 26.0, AMOS ver. 23.0, and SPSS PROCESS Macro 3.4.1 Model 6 for data analysis, respectively. The sequence of the statistical analysis in this study is as follows. First, a demographic analysis was carried out. Second, this study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Third, a reliability analysis was performed to check the reliability of the measurement tool. Fourth, descriptive statistics and correlations between variables were analyzed. Finally, hypothesis testing was conducted.

4. Results

4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Through the confirmatory factor analysis, we confirmed the applicability of data and different models [104]. <

Table 1. The Result of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Variables		Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	p	Standardized Regression Weights	AVE	C.R
Abusive Supervision (A)	A5	1				0.707	0.624	0.776
	A4	1.346	0.051	26.538	***	0.886
	A3	1.217	0.056	21.658	***	0.795
	A2	1.25	0.050	24.96	***	0.858
	A1	1.166	0.067	17.324	***	0.685
Psychological Distress (B)	B1	1				0.725	0.635	0.885
	B2	1.249	0.049	25.549	***	0.846
	B3	1.34	0.057	23.582	***	0.853
	B4	1.204	0.053	22.582	***	0.805
	B5	1.308	0.056	23.55	***	0.860
	B6	1.117	0.057	19.713	***	0.738
	B7	1.215	0.056	21.873	***	0.824
	B8	1.141	0.064	17.803	***	0.722
	B9	1.159	0.055	21.264	***	0.806
	B10	1.175	0.058	20.146	***	0.776
Negative Emotions (C)	C1	1				0.627	0.552	0.801
	C2	1.084	0.066	16.36	***	0.635
	C3	1.304	0.077	16.831	***	0.723
	C4	1.466	0.069	21.144	***	0.849
	C5	1.29	0.077	16.67	***	0.724
	C6	1.065	0.080	13.351	***	0.609
	C7	1.399	0.073	19.23	***	0.821
	C8	1.379	0.074	18.633	***	0.791
	C9	1.441	0.081	17.68	***	0.768
	C10	1.475	0.075	19.697	***	0.835
Workplace Incivility (D)	D7	1				0.538	0.694	0.849
	D6	1.3	0.054	24.274	***	0.853
	D5	1.326	0.054	24.35	***	0.860
	D4	1.355	0.051	26.823	***	0.898
	D3	1.403	0.049	28.549	***	0.946
	D2	1.292	0.058	22.222	***	0.813
	D1	1.392	0.056	24.786	***	0.862
Retaliation Behavior (E)	E1	1				0.773	0.532	0.879
	E2	1.119	0.037	30.506	***	0.854
	E3	1.118	0.036	30.811	***	0.845
	E4	1.135	0.060	18.997	***	0.718
	E5	1.222	0.047	26.23	***	0.865
	E6	0.944	0.079	12.023	***	0.512
	E7	1.209	0.044	27.624	***	0.886
	E8	1.105	0.051	21.47	***	0.776
	E9	1.004	0.063	15.857	***	0.636
	E10	1.058	0.064	16.546	***	0.656
	E11	1.19	0.045	26.526	***	0.871
	E12	1.154	0.056	20.652	***	0.759
	E13	1.218	0.048	25.504	***	0.855
	E14	0.942	0.071	13.206	***	0.553
	E15	0.967	0.074	13.005	***	0.546
	E16	0.986	0.070	14.158	***	0.584
	E17	0.859	0.075	11.387	***	0.502
Model Fit Index		X²(p) = 2634.492(0.000), X²/df = 2.519, RMSEA = 0.071, IFI = 0.908, CFI = 0.907, PGFI = 0.606, PNFI = 0.761

***: p < 0.001.

> shows the results of the CFA in this study. First, the absolute fit index was X²(p) = 2634.492(0.000), X²/df = 2.519, and RMSEA = 0.071. Second, the incremental fit index was IFI = 0.908 and CFI = 0.907. Third, the parsimonious adjusted index was PNFI = 0.761 and PGFI = 0.606.

This study analyzes the values of the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). For the average variance extracted (AVE), the abusive supervision was 0.624, psychological distress was 0.635, negative emotions were 0.552, workplace incivility was 0.694, and retaliation behavior was 0.532, and these values were all greater than 0.5. For composite reliability (CR), the abusive supervision was 0.776, psychological distress was 0.885, negative emotions were 0.801, workplace incivility was 0.849, and retaliation behavior was 0.879, and all of these values were greater than 0.7. The measurement has significant validity if the AVE of variables is higher than 0.5 and the CR is higher than 0.7.

4.2. Reliability Analysis

A reliability analysis analyzes the reliability of measurement and evaluation indicators, namely, whether the overall logic is consistent in participants’ responses [105]. Thus, this study used the value of Cronbach’s alpha to examine the reliability of the variables. The reliability analysis results are summarized as follows: First, abusive supervision was measured using five items rated on a 7-point Likert scale, and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.933. Second, employees’ psychological distress was measured using ten items rated on a 7-point Likert scale, and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.962. Third, employees’ negative emotions were measured using ten items rated on a 7-point Likert scale, and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.937. Fourth, workplace incivility was measured using seven items rated on a 7-point Likert scale, and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.951. Finally, retaliation behavior was measured using seventeen items rated on a 7-point Likert scale, and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.965. All coefficient values of Cronbach’s alpha were confirmed to be higher than 0.7. Thus, the reliability of the variables was significant and valid. <

Table 2. Reliability analysis results.

Variables	Item	Cronbach’s Alpha
Abusive Supervision (A)	1. My supervisor lies to me.	0.933
	2. My supervisor tells me I’m incompetent.
	3. My supervisor does not allow me to interact with my co-workers.
	4. My supervisor is rude to me.
	5. My supervisor reminds me of my past mistakes and failures.
Psychological Distress (B)	1. You feel depressed?	0.962
	2. You feel so depressed that nothing could cheer you up?
	3. You feel hopeless?
	4. You feel restless or fidgety?
	5. You feel so restless that you could not sit still?
	6. You feel tired out for no good reason?
	7. You feel that everything was an effort?
	8. You feel worthless?
	9. You feel nervous?
	10. You feel so nervous that nothing could calm you down?
Negative Emotions (C)	1. Distressed	0.937
	2. Upset
	3. Guilty
	4. Scared
	5. Hostile
	6. Irritable
	7. Ashamed
	8. Nervous
	9. Jittery
	10. Afraid
Workplace Incivility (D)	1. Put you down or was condescending to you?	0.951
	2. Paid little attention to your statement or showed little interest in your opinion?
	3. Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you?
	4. Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either publicly or privately?
	5. Ignored or excluded you from professional camaraderie?
	6. Doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have responsibility?
	7. Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of personal matters?
Retaliation Behavior (E)	1. On purpose, damaged equipment or work process.	0.965
	2. Took supplies home without permission.
	3. Wasted company materials.
	4. Called in sick when not ill.
	5. Spoke poorly about the company to others.
	6. Refused to work weekends or overtime when asked.
	7. Left a mess unnecessarily (did not clean up).
	8. Disobeyed a supervisor’s instructions.
	9. “Talked back” to his or her boss.
	10. Gossiped about his or her boss.
	11. Spread rumors about coworkers.
	12. Gave a coworker a “silent treatment”.
	13. Failed to give coworker required information.
	14. Tried to look busy while wasting time.
	15. Took an extended coffee or lunch break.
	16. Intentionally worked slower.
	17. Spent time on personal matters while at work.

> shows the reliability analysis results.

4.3. Descriptive Statistical and Correlation Analysis

<

Table 3. The Results of Descriptive Statistical and Correlation Analysis.

Variables	Mean	SD	Abusive Supervision	Psychological Distress	Negative Emotions	Workplace Incivility	Retaliation Behavior
Abusive Supervision	3.122	1.616	-
Psychological Distress	3.845	1.453	0.592 ***	-
Negative Emotions	3.637	1.467	0.523 ***	0.656 ***	-
Workplace Incivility	3.214	1.594	0.811 ***	0.601 ***	0.525 ***	-
Retaliation Behavior	2.796	1.398	0.620 ***	0.481 ***	0.504 ***	0.688 ***	-

***: p < 0.001.

> shows the descriptive statistical and correlation analysis. The descriptive statistical analysis included the mean and standard deviation (SD). The means for abusive supervision, psychological distress, negative emotions, workplace incivility, and retaliation behavior were 3.122, 3.845, 3.637, 3.214, and 2.796, respectively. In addition, the SDs of abusive supervision, psychological distress, negative emotions, workplace incivility, and retaliation behavior were 1.616, 1.453, 1.467, 1.594, and 1.398, respectively.

To verify the correlation among variables, this study conducted a correlation analysis. The results were as follows: Abusive supervision was positively associated with psychological distress (r = 0.592, p < 0.001), negative emotions (r = 0.523, p < 0.001), workplace incivility (r = 0.811, p < 0.001), and retaliation behavior (r = 0.620, p < 0.001). Psychological distress was positively associated with negative emotions (r = 0.656, p < 0.001), workplace incivility (r = 0.601, p < 0.001), and retaliation behavior (r = 0.481, p < 0.001). Negative emotions was positively associated with a fear of workplace incivility (r = 0.525, p < 0.001) and retaliation behavior (r = 0.504, p < 0.001). Moreover, workplace incivility was positively related to retaliation behavior (r = 0.688, p < 0.001).

4.4. Hypothesis Test

This study established a total of eleven hypotheses in this work. We first analyzed the first nine hypotheses related to the serial multiple mediation, especially focusing on whether psychological distress and negative emotions could have a serial multiple mediation effect in the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior. This study tested the nine hypotheses in the way of bootstrapping through Spss Process Macro 3.4.1 model six. The analysis results are shown in <

Table 4. The Results of Serial Multiple Mediation (Abusive Supervision → Psychological Distress → Negative Emotions → Retaliation Behavior).

Direct Effect	Effect	S.E.	t	p	LLCI		ULCI
Abusive Supervision → Psychological Distress	0.532	0.0417	12.753	0.000	0.450		0.614
Abusive Supervision → Negative Emotions	0.188	0.0479	3.943	0.001	0.094		0.283
Abusive Supervision → Retaliation Behavior	0.407	0.0481	8.477	0.000	0.312		0.502
Psychological Distress → Negative Emotions	0.537	0.0533	10.096	0.000	0.432		0.642
Psychological Distress → Retaliation Behavior	0.056	0.0603	0.939	0.348	−0.062		0.175
Negative Emotions → Retaliation Behavior	0.208	0.0565	3.682	0.000	0.096		0.319
Indirect Effect		Effect	Boot S.E.	Boot LLCI		Boot ULCI
Total Indirect Effect (X→M1→Y, X→M2→Y, X→M1→M2→Y)		0.1290	0.0437	0.0460		0.2180
Abusive Supervision → Psychological Distress → Retaliation Behavior (X→M1→Y)		0.0302	0.0382	−0.0523		0.1007
Abusive Supervision → Negative Emotions → Retaliation Behavior (X→M2→Y)		0.0393	0.0187	0.0099		0.0814
Abusive Supervision → Psychological Distress → Negative Emotions → Retaliation Behavior (X→M1→M2→Y)		0.0596	0.0245	0.0198		0.1164

>.

Hypothesis 1 established that abusive supervision positively influenced employees’ psychological distress. Abusive supervision had a significant positive influence on employees’ psychological distress (t = 12.753, p < 0.01). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported, and this result suggests that abusive supervision improves employees’ psychological distress.

Hypothesis 2 established that abusive supervision positively influenced employees’ negative emotions. Abusive supervision had a significant positive influence on employees’ negative emotions (t = 3.943, p < 0.1). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported, and this result explains why abusive supervision increases employees’ negative emotions.

Hypothesis 3 established that abusive supervision positively influenced employees’ retaliation behavior. Abusive supervision had a significant positive influence on employees’ retaliation behavior (t = 8.477, p < 0.001). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported, and this result suggests that abusive supervision increases employees’ retaliation behavior.

Hypothesis 4 established that psychological distress positively influenced employees’ negative emotions. Psychological distress had a significant positive influence on employees’ negative emotions (t = 10.096, p < 0.01). Thus, Hypothesis 4 is supported, and this result explains why psychological distress increases employees’ negative emotions.

Hypothesis 5 established that psychological distress did not positively influence employees’ retaliation behavior. Psychological distress had no significant positive influence on employees’ retaliation behavior (t = 0.939, p > 0.1). Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was rejected, and this result suggests that psychological distress does not increases employees’ retaliation behavior.

Hypothesis 6 established that negative emotions positively influenced employees’ retaliation behavior. Negative emotions had a significant positive influence on employees’ retaliation behavior (t = 3.682, p < 0.01). Thus, Hypothesis 6 is supported, and this result explains why negative emotions increases employees’ retaliation behavior.

Hypothesis 7 tested the mediating effect of employees’ psychological distress on the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior. The indirect effect of psychological distress in the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior is 0.0302, LLCI = −0.0523, and ULCI = 0.1007. Therefore, since it is found that there is zero between Boot LLCI and Boot ULCI, the mediation effect can be regarded as not significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 7 was rejected.

Hypothesis 8 tested the mediating effect of employees’ negative emotions on the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior. The indirect effect of negative emotions in the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior is 0.0393, LLCI = 0.0099, and ULCI = 0.0814. Therefore, since it is found that there is no zero between Boot LLCI and Boot ULCI, the mediation effect can be regarded as significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 was supported.

Hypothesis 9 tested the serial multiple mediation effects of psychological distress and negative emotions on the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior. For the serial multiple mediation effects of psychological distress and negative emotions in the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior, the indirect effect is 0.0596, LLCI = 0.0198, and ULCI = 0.1164. Therefore, since it is found that there is no zero between Boot LLCI and Boot ULCI, the serial multiple mediation effect can be regarded as significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 9 was supported.

Hypothesis 10 tested the moderating role of workplace incivility on the relationship between negative emotions and retaliation behavior. A multiple regression analysis was conducted using SPSS ver. 26.0 to verify the hypothesis. Hypothesis 10 established that workplace incivility moderated the effect of negative emotions on retaliation behavior. The results showed that workplace incivility significantly moderated the effect of negative emotions on retaliation behavior (β = 0.581, p < 0.01). Therefore, Hypothesis 10 was supported. Consequently, this result explains that the interaction between negative emotions and workplace incivility leads to a higher degree of retaliation behavior. <

Table 5. The result of the moderating effect of workplace incivility.

Dependent Variable: Retaliation Behavior
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	β	t	β	t	β	t	VIF
Negative Emotions (A)	0.504 ***	10.111	0.197 ***	4.102	−0.060	−0.770	1.384
Workplace Incivility (B)			0.584 ***	12.190	0.206 *	2.001	1.478
Interaction (A × B)					0.581 ***	4.122	1.081
R2(Adjusted R2)	0.254(0.251)		0.501(0.497)		0.528(0.523)
ΔR2(ΔAdjusted R2)	-		0.247(0.246)		0.027(0.026)
F	102.227 ***		150.481 ***		111.331 ***

***: p < 0.001, *: p < 0.05.

> shows the results of the moderating effect of workplace incivility. <Figure 2> shows the graph related to the moderating effect of workplace incivility, and it explains why employees with high levels of negative emotions reported greater retaliation behavior when their perception of workplace incivility was high.

Hypothesis 11 tested the moderating role of workplace incivility on the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior. Hypothesis 11 established that workplace incivility did not moderate the effect of abusive supervision on retaliation behavior. The results showed that workplace incivility did not significantly moderate the effect of abusive supervision on retaliation behavior (β = −0.007, p > 0.1). Therefore, Hypothesis 11 was rejected. Consequently, this result explains that the interaction between abusive supervision and workplace incivility does not lead to a higher degree of retaliation behavior. <

Table 6. The result of the moderating effect of workplace incivility.

Dependent Variable: Retaliation Behavior
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	β	t	β	t	β	t	VIF
Abusive Supervision (A)	0.620 ***	13.751	0.183 *	2.575	0.187	1.674	3.040
Workplace Incivility (B)			0.540 ***	7.612	0.543 ***	5.450	2.923
Interaction (A × B)					−0.007	−0.047	1.134
R2(Adjusted R2)	0.385(0.383)		0.484(0.481)		0.484(0.479)
ΔR2(ΔAdjusted R2)	-		0.099(0.098)		0.000(−0.002)
F	188.107 ***		140.813 ***		93.564 ***

***: p < 0.001, *: p < 0.05.

> shows the results of the moderating effect of workplace incivility.

5. Discussion

The main contribution of the research findings is the validation of the role of abusive supervision in triggering retaliation behavior among employees. It goes beyond the limitations of previous studies that used simple models and instead employs serial multiple mediating models to elucidate the process that leads to retaliation behavior, and the study investigates whether workplace incivility, as a moderating variable, exacerbates the impact of negative emotions/abusive supervision on retaliation behavior. Therefore, this study contributes to the expansion of the relevant research areas. Overall, by providing a new research perspective that focuses on how abusive supervision triggers retaliation behavior, this study has significant research value.

5.1. Conclusions

This study integrated research findings on the linkage between abusive supervision, psychological distress, negative emotions, workplace incivility, and retaliation behavior based on relatively limited existing research and explored the role of abusive supervision in employee retaliation behavior. This study aimed to investigate the pathway between abusive supervision and retaliative behavior by exploring psychological distress and negative emotions as serial multiple mediating effects. Furthermore, it extended the research field of abusive supervision and employee retaliation by measuring the effects of serial multiple mediating models and the moderating effect of workplace incivility. By validating the moderating effect of workplace incivility, it was found that it can regulate the impact of negative emotions on retaliation behavior, thereby identifying the role of retaliation behavior in organizations. By reducing the harm caused to the organization, it enhances organizational sustainability and competitiveness. Finally, this study acknowledges the need for future research to provide more theoretical perspectives on employee retaliation in organizations. Based on the empirical results, the following theoretical and practical implications are proposed:

5.2. Theoretical Implications

This study validates the impact of abusive supervision on retaliation behavior among Chinese SMEs. Regarding the influence of abusive supervision on retaliation behavior, the serial multiple mediating effects of psychological distress and negative emotions as well as the moderating effect of workplace incivility were confirmed. The following theoretical implications can be summarized based on the results of this study.

First, abusive supervision positively impacts employees’ psychological distress. This indicates that the higher the level of abusive supervision by leaders, the higher the psychological distress experienced by employees. Abusive supervision increases employees’ negative cognitions (such as unfair treatment and humiliation), which can ultimately lead to negative attitudes and behaviors. According to the conservation of resources theory, employees who experience abusive supervision perceive the need to invest more time and energy in dealing with the abusive behavior of their leaders, resulting in greater pain and distress at work [52]. Furthermore, employees rely on the resources provided by their leaders to carry out their work. Abused employees face dilemmas because they must tolerate abusive supervision for the sake of their jobs [17]. Therefore, a high level of abusive supervision in SME workplaces implies negative consequences for both SMEs and their employees, leading to further increases in employees’ psychological distress.

Additionally, abusive supervision positively impacts employees’ negative emotions. This implies that as the level of abusive supervision increases, employees’ negative emotions also increase. When leaders experience more “pleasure” through abusive supervision and do not have to be held accountable for their abusive supervision, they are more likely to engage in frequent abusive supervision, and such a work environment and atmosphere contribute to higher levels of negative emotions among employees [57]. Furthermore, employees working alongside leaders who enjoy abusive supervision tend to experience disrespect, unfair treatment, and prolonged humiliation, leading to feelings of anger, resentment, fear, and sadness [56]. Therefore, when leaders manage an organization through abusive supervision, employees may initially choose silence to avoid conflict with their leaders, but the more employees refrain from resistance, the higher the level of abusive supervision by leaders. Eventually, when employees can no longer tolerate abusive supervision, their negative emotions reach higher levels.

Third, abusive supervision has a positive impact on employees’ retaliation. This implies that employee retaliation increases as the level of abusive supervision increases. When employees perceive abusive supervision by leaders as unfair, they may feel threatened in their work environment, leading to retaliation behavior [61]. Furthermore, employees who have experienced abusive supervision may harbor anger and other emotions due to mistreatment, which motivates them to seek retaliation against their leaders [64]. Therefore, when leaders engage in high levels of abusive supervision or when employees face humiliation from their leaders, they often find themselves in a negative psychological state characterized by dissatisfaction and anger because they lack the ability to cope with a negative work atmosphere. Ultimately, when this psychological state becomes uncontrollable, employees may subconsciously choose retaliation behavior to vent frustration and anger toward their work environment. Not only does this help alleviate employees’ negative emotions, but it also reduces the overall negative work atmosphere caused by abusive supervision from leaders.

Fourth, psychological distress positively impacts employees’ negative emotions. This means that organizational members with higher levels of psychological distress can experience elevated levels of negative emotions and may exhibit lower job performance. Long-term psychological distress resulting from failed emotional regulation can lead to higher levels of negative emotions over time, including feelings of hopelessness and depression regarding one’s ability to control emotions [65]. Moreover, when faced with adverse living and work environments, most individuals experience significant psychological distress. Maintaining a healthy lifestyle and social connections can help alleviate the negative emotions associated with psychological distress [66]. Therefore, when organizational members experience high levels of psychological distress, they are likely to experience heightened negative emotions, such as anger or irritability, in their day-to-day work and life. In addition, if organizational members perceive themselves as being treated unfairly, they may develop psychological states of aversion towards their work. This suggests that the negative emotions or psychological states of organizational members in the workplace can further amplify their level of retaliation.

Fifth, by validating Process Model 6, this study confirmed the serial multiple mediating effects of psychological distress and negative emotions on retaliation behavior. Abusive leadership disrupts employee productivity because employees invest time and energy in maintaining relationships with their leaders and gradually become victims of psychological distress [50]. Anxiety and depression within psychological distress can lead individuals to experience low-quality states in their daily lives or at work, triggering negative emotions [69]. Furthermore, negative emotions in the workplace can persist for a long time, sometimes throughout an individual’s career, providing employees with sufficient time to plan retaliation behaviors against their leaders, which can reduce their dissatisfaction with leaders and the organization and alleviate the internal strain caused by negative emotions [78]. Therefore, abusive leadership, which neglects employees’ feelings toward their work and management styles in day-to-day operations, creates an environment of disorder and disrespect that easily triggers psychological distress among employees, which can lead to negative emotions, such as anger, eventually resulting in retaliation. This study provides valuable insights into the process of exploring the effects of abusive leadership and retaliative behavior, broadening the research perspective in this field.

Finally, workplace incivility moderated the relationship between negative emotions and retaliation behavior. In the correlation analysis, negative emotions were positively (+) correlated with workplace incivility, negative emotions were positively (+) correlated with retaliation, and workplace incivility was positively (+) correlated with retaliation. Furthermore, based on the results shown in <Table 4> and <Figure 2>, the interaction effect between negative emotions and workplace incivility was significant. When employees experience negative emotions in the workplace, any form of workplace incivility exacerbates the depletion of their internal resources, leading to deeper negative perceptions of the organization [95]. Moreover, employees with high levels of negative emotions are likely to become the “greatest enemies” of the organization because they perceive management practices and unfair work environments within the organization as making them vulnerable in the workplace, which triggers feelings of resentment and leads to retaliation behavior [79]. Therefore, regardless of whether the moderating effect of workplace incivility is high or low, the interaction effect with negative emotions enhances employees’ retaliation behavior; when workplace incivility is high, it has a stronger influence on retaliation behavior than when it is low.

Seventh, workplace incivility did not have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior. Although in the correlation analysis abusive supervision was positively (+) correlated with workplace incivility, abusive supervision was positively (+) correlated with retaliation behavior, and workplace incivility was also positively (+) correlated with retaliation behavior, the interaction effect between abusive supervision and workplace incivility was not significant (<Table 5>). Although abusive supervision can trigger retaliation among employees, workplace incivility has a broad range of sources, often originating from colleagues or clients. Therefore, workplace incivility may not necessarily exacerbate the impact of abusive supervision on employees’ retaliation behavior; in fact, due to uncivil behaviors from colleagues or clients, employees may redirect their retaliation behaviors away from supervisors towards them. Hence, workplace incivility does not have a moderating effect between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior, and regardless of whether workplace incivility is at a higher or lower level, its interaction with abusive supervision does not influence retaliation behavior.

In addition to the theoretical insights mentioned above, the present study’s findings regarding the positive effect of abusive supervision on psychological distress are consistent with Tepper et al. ’s (2007) [50] research on employees in American organizations. Furthermore, the results of the study validating that abusive supervision increases negative emotions are aligned with the conclusions of Shen et al. (2023) [57]. This study also confirms Guan and Hsu’s (2018) [61] finding that abusive supervision leads to increased employee retaliation. Moreover, this study provides evidence for the moderating effect of workplace incivility on the relationship between negative emotions and employee retaliation. Finally, the study confirms the feasibility of a serial multiple mediation model in which psychological distress and negative emotions serve as mediators between abusive supervision and retaliation.

5.3. Practical Implication

First, leaders should strive to reduce employee retaliation and provide the necessary resources for their day-to-day work. Additionally, it is important to change the work atmosphere and improve the work environment to minimize retaliation. Employee retaliation can negatively impact organizational performance and sustainable development, and by reducing abusive supervision, organizations can effectively decrease employee retaliation behavior [47]. Therefore, Chinese small- and medium-sized enterprises must recognize the harmful effects of abusive supervision, reduce such practices, and foster a positive work atmosphere to mitigate employee retaliation.

Moreover, high levels of psychological distress increase negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, and depression, among organizational members. Employees who habitually suppress their emotional expressions tend to experience greater psychological distress; the more they suppress their emotions, the higher their level of distress. Eventually, when they can no longer suppress their emotions, they find themselves lacking external psychological support, leading to elevated levels of negative emotions [67]. Therefore, organizations need to manage their employees’ psychological changes. When employees experience psychological distress, timely communication between management and employees is necessary, along with an examination of internal management issues and the organizational climate. Furthermore, reducing employees’ psychological distress can help mitigate the likelihood of developing negative emotions.

Third, leaders must become “role models” in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) because when leaders set an example, they can reduce employees’ negative emotions related to work. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between negative emotions and employee retaliation. When individuals are unable to express negative emotions, their likelihood of engaging in retaliation as a form of self-defense increases. Therefore, employee retaliation can be reduced by reducing negative emotions.

Fourth, the research on abusive supervision in this study indicates the importance of psychological distress and negative emotions in triggering retaliation. In Chinese SMEs, abusive supervision has a significant role in fostering psychological distress and negative emotions. This pathway suggests that it heightens employees’ negative psychological states and cognition, leading to retaliation.

Fifth, workplace incivility poses a threat to organizations. Workplace incivility amplifies employees’ perceptions of negative emotions, making them feel undervalued and unsupported by the organization, thereby restricting their engagement in work. Employees prefer to work in organizations where they are respected and provide sufficient support and resources. When workplace incivility is properly addressed and managed, employees experience a more relaxed atmosphere, enhancing their work performance and reducing the likelihood of retaliation.

5.4. Limitations and Future Research

While this study makes valuable contributions in examining the influence of psychological distress and negative emotions on the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliative behavior as well as in exploring the moderating effects of workplace incivility, it is not without limitations. The limitations of this study are as follows.

First, it is necessary to consider the issue of common method bias. In future research, it will be important to address common method bias and multicollinearity and to employ more appropriate research methods. Specifically, surveys regarding leadership should be conducted from employees’ perspectives, while leaders should provide insights into employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance [106]. This resulted in more reliable and valuable data.

Second, this study only examined the role of abusive supervision within the cultural context of Chinese organizations. It is worth considering whether similar results would emerge when conducting empirical research on organizational members from different countries and cultures. Therefore, future research should examine employees in SMEs from other countries and compare their findings with those of the current study to explore potential differences between them.

Third, this study focused only on abusive supervision as an independent variable. Other forms of destructive leadership, such as exploitative, toxic, and laissez-faire leadership, are equally worthy of investigation. Future research should explore whether different forms of destructive leadership exhibit different results within the same model and study populations.

Fourth, although this study examined the moderating effect of workplace incivility, the moderating effect between abusive supervision and retaliation behavior was not significant. However, this study actually places more emphasis on the moderating effect of workplace incivility between abusive supervision and retaliative behavior, as it has greater implications for expanding the research domain of abusive supervision. Therefore, further investigation is required to determine the reasons for this lack of significance.

Fifth, the results of this study did not support psychological distress as a mediating variable in the relationship between abusive supervision and retaliation. Moreover, according to the findings in <Table 2>, the impact of psychological distress on retaliative behavior was not significant. Therefore, in future research, more detailed and in-depth investigations should be conducted specifically on employees of Chinese SMEs to ensure that the data support the hypotheses under consideration.

Finally, we verified the process of inducing retaliation behavior via a negative organizational system. The organizational system is directly related to overall organizational performance. Accordingly, there is a need to explore positive and negative outcomes through organizational systems in future research. For example, positive variables include innovation performance [107], an ethical climate [108], trust [109], psychological safety, and job performance [110]. On the contrary, negative variables include psychological distress [111], organizational political behavior, and abusive supervision [112].