Policy on Refunds Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Strategy on Refunds - Research Paper Example This ought to be offset anyway with business logic so the quantity of discounts won't negatively affect the business main concern. Before discounting the client, the business should endeavor to supplant or fix the unit to keep the deal. On the off chance that this is unavoidable, the accompanying measures ought to be met as an approach; 1. The unit separated inside the manufacturer’s guarantee period. It ought to be set up that the breakdown was because of typical use. A short request with regards to the situation why the unit separated ought to be directed by the frontliners. 2. In situations where customers’ simply had a difference in heart with respect to the buy, there will no discount. On the off chance that the items are defective, we will meet our commitments under the Consumer Guarantees Act to give a cure. To spare the deal, a supplanting with a maintenance agreement can be offered to the client. 3. The business ought not tolerate the expense for the defective unit as we are negligible vendors. All expense with units that has been discounted due to manufacturer’s imperfection and inside guarantee ought to be given to the provider for discount. B. On the off chance that the business is in the administration division, set up an arrangement on how you will charge your customers. Guarantee that the strategy conforms to all pertinent enactment and accommodates an away from of the administration being advertised. Incorporate the terms and conditions that will apply to evaluations and statements and make arrangement for some arrangement of mediation if there should be an occurrence of a contest. To keep customer’s generosity and build up a â€Å"service leader† picture among our clients, units which are defective that are inside the manufacturer’s guarantee ought to be supplanted without cost and bother to the clients. The business anyway should be cautious that the manufacturer’s rules for substitution are carefully met with the goal that we can pass the expense to them. For units that broke down past the manufacturer’s guarantee period, could be fixed by our administration specialty unit at a markdown to energize client maintenance and develop client altruism. This will likewise expand our primary concern as the organization can in any case make business for an after deals bolster that isn't secured by the maker. However much as could be expected, we will abstain from retaining the expenses because of discounts as this will trouble our consumptions and sabotage our intensity. It must be comprehended that right now, the business is still in its early on stage and it will be impulsive to lift costs to factor in costs related with discounts. The business is still during the time spent entering the market and it has direct contenders with a similar item and accordingly, estimating ought to be kept to be serious to stay reasonable in the business. C. A breakdown of the considerable number of costs that you will bring about in obtaining or assembling your items or building up your administrations up to the retail location (you may, on the off chance that you wish, center aroun d one item or administration). The expenses ought to be comprehensive, including all materials, work, organization, protections, rental, power, advancement and different costs. The idea of the business is retail so the assembling overheads won't reflect in our budget summaries. Cargo and conveyance ought to be carried by the provider moreover. Our overhead will for the most part center around the activity of the item circulation and upkeep of the outlet

First Chapter of The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Essay exampl

First Chapter of The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ is a novella, short novel, which was distributed in the Victorian time. It has a gothic riddle story classification and has a baffling, genuine tone. The general novella is set in London. This paper will dissect how the writer catches the reader’s intrigue what's more, presents the key thoughts in section 1 of ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.’ This article will assess how the writer, Robert Louis Stevenson, utilizes distinctive language, how RL Stevenson employments symbolism, structure and structure, and the settings to catch the reader’s intrigue. The key thoughts in section 1 of ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ are: duality of human instinct, mammoth in man and notoriety. When ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ was composed it was accepted that individuals had two distinct characters, or otherwise called ones Doppelgã ¤nger. This falls under the area of duality of human nature. Notoriety was imperative to individuals supposing that somebody lost it they would think that its difficult to get it back. RL Stevenson was conceived in Edinburgh, Scotland, and had a wiped out youth. He was a lone youngster and his folks were trusting large things from him. Stevenson voyaged a great deal in his life and was regularly sick. In 1885 Stevenson composed ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde,’ however it wasn’t distributed until January of 1886. This exposition will initially cover how RL Stevenson caught the reader’s enthusiasm utilizing the scholarly gadgets, language, symbolism, structure and structure, and setting. The language area will investigate the environment, sentence structure, allegories, analogies and representation. The symbolism segment covers theme, images and Victoria... ...own and frequently printed,† and as you discover toward the end in the novella this was Jekyll’s name on the check. This would make the peruser need to peruse, to perceive how Hyde got this check with another keeps an eye on name on it. This article title was replied by first covering the artistic gadgets utilized in part 1 of, ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde,’ these scholarly gadgets were language, symbolism, settings and structure also, structure. The second piece of this article shrouded the key thoughts in presented in section 1; the key thoughts utilized were duality of human nature, notoriety and mammoth in man. this is an incredible novella with a phenomenal bend toward the end, yet the issue for the advanced peruser is that as this novella is so well referred to, they can't peruse it as a secret, as they definitely know Jekyll what's more, Hyde are a similar individual. It is a riddle story that is no more a riddle.

Sometimes we have fun

Sometimes we have fun Winter break is finally over and Im back at MIT. As much as most people complain about MIT, you really miss it when youre gone. Of course, maybe I just miss the freedom that comes with being away from home, but I miss being here just the same. There was so much I wanted to tell you about last semester, but I didnt have the time. I think it would be kinda silly to go back and try to write posts about that stuff now, so this post is dedicated to my favorite memories from Fall 2007. Navy/Marine Corps Birthday Ball Each year Boston NROTC hosts a formal celebrating the founding of the US Navy (on 13 OCT 1775) and US Marine Corps (10 NOV 1775). This year we went to the Park Plaza Hotel. It was a lot of fun: live music, good friends, and all the cake you can eat. Greg 08, Me, Jackie 08. 3/4ths of MITs graduating NROTC class Kristen 09 and Vanessa 09 My girlfriend Kristen 09 and me. Who says you cant find a girl at MIT whos beautiful, smart, and can cook? Boos Cruise The senior class cruise on Halloween. Hence the name Boos Cruise, though Ive always wondered if it had another meaning though. Like a good senior I went, and various debauchery ensued. Some pictures are omitted to protect the innocent (and guilty). Katy 08 as Goldilocks. I dont know whats up with that face I was superman, Julianna 08 was a border patrol agent A-Entry Thanksgiving Dinner A new tradition we started in A-entry this year. Each person was asked to bring a dish and we all got together to eat. A-entry is pretty diverse, so there was a good selection of food there. Everything from meat lasagna (which I made) to trail mix and donuts (which our Jamaican residents provided. Theyd never had thanksgiving). Drew 10, Jenny 11, Kristen 09, Kristina 08, Kevin 10, and a bunch of other crazy people waiting for food Kevin didnt seem to trust the food Me with my lovely A-Entry co-chair, Leslie 10 Lynn 11 surprised that theres ham on her plate. Lynn cannot multitask at all. In fact, if you try to talk to her while shes watching TV, it seems like shes ignoring you. But shes not. Shes like your computer when you try to play Elder Scrolls IV with maxed out settings and try to burn the entire second season of Battlestar Galactica to DVD. She needs time to process A Phi Holiday Mixer Each fall Alpha Phi hosts a party celebrating the holidays. Sorority events are dry, so its a nice break from the ridiculous antics you might see at a frat party. Normally theres hot chocolate and cookies. The logs (my favorite acapella group) performed too. Meeting Paul in person! Its not everday you get to meet a blogger My favorite A Phi lady Leslie 10, and one of the coolest people to ever major in Course 10, Mariah 08 The logs performing. Absolutely incredible So we do have fun sometimes. Even the cranky seniors =)

Penn State Altoona Admissions SAT Scores, Costs More

The Ethical Principles Of Ethics Essay - 1244 Words

First and foremost it is important to understand the meaning of ethics. I define ethics to be the decision between what I believe to be morally right and wrong. Many different factors influence my opinions on ethics such as my values, culture I grew up in, my family, religious beliefs, and many others. While I have my own beliefs on what I deem to be right and wrong, there are also rules, views, and models to help when making ethical decisions. Each rule is not perfect, but the advantages help individuals to better understand all the factors that go into making ethical decisions. The first ethical model is the Utilitarian or Consequential Rule. Utilitarian is defined as the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. What this rule focuses on is the consequential aspect of making decisions, hence the alternate name. To be able to make a decision, you must be able to recognize who will be affected and what the outcome will be in terms of who benefits and who suffers. A disadvantage to this model is although there are a large amount of people who are benefiting from your decision; there are still some who are not as lucky. Therefore another decision must be made to decide on whether or not the good outways the bad. The next ethical model is the Moral Right Rule. This model focuses on people’s fundamental rights. When using this model the focus is on deciding what the people s fundamental rights are and how to protect those rights. This specific approach hasShow MoreRelatedThe Ethical Principles Of Ethics852 Words   |  4 PagesEthics is a crucial principle in human lives. It is necessary here to clarify exactly what is meant by Ethics. The term ethics may be defined as â€Å"a set of principles and concepts that guide people to determine what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures† (Paul Elder, 2006). Generally, in all nations and cultures, parents always teach their children the importance of truthfulness, forgiveness and honesty and all of that consider as parts of morality. Thus, in individual level, morality is significantRead MoreEthical And Ethical Principles Of Business Ethics Essay1163 Words   |  5 Pagesdefinition and discussion of the meaning of business ethics ; (1 point) â€Å"Business ethics is the application of moral and ethical principles in a business context.† – In the business society it is not just about what the law says, there are instances that a situation is in accordance with the rule of law, but somehow there are gray areas that violates the common principles of the society. That is the reason why nowadays, moral and business ethics are being observed widely. 3. A discussion of how youRead MoreEthical Principles Of Ethics And Corporate Ethics3491 Words   |  14 Pages(b)Write out the one page (up to 500 words) definition of what is Ethics and what is Morality on the first page. You will need to include in your definition also Sacred Texts, Sacred People, the Ethic itself and Human Reasoning. (We will refer to this in class). Ethics Definition: Ethics are the set of moral principles that guide a person s behavior. These morals are shaped by social norms, cultural practices, and religious influences. Ethics reflect beliefs about what is right, what is wrong, what isRead MoreEthical Principles Of The Word Ethics1464 Words   |  6 PagesThe Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word ethics is commonly used interchangeably with morality ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual (Deigh, 1995). Since we were kids and we began to realize what was around us, our parents and grandparents have taught us the basic knowledge of what is good and what is bad. It is indeed an inherent characteristic of all human being and grows from our desires toRead MoreEthical Theories And Principles Of The Ethics1576 Words   |  7 Pages Ethical theories and principles are the backbone of decision making, as they are the table from which one generates guidance in order to make the most ethically correct decision. Each of the different ethical theories discussed has sought to provide the best answer to the question: â€Å"Why should we adopt or reject particular ethical values and principles to guide our actions† (Hutchings, 14). I believe that the deontological theory provides the best answer to the preceding question; the theory doesRead MoreEthical Theories And Principles Of Ethics930 Words   |  4 Pagesal., 2009). Ethics means weighing carefully the actions to be undertaken throug h the compliance prism of a set of values and standards defined at the level of society, for its own good. Ethical leadership is ‘‘the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making’’ (Brown, Trevino, Harrison, 2005, p. 120). Ethical leaders areRead MoreEthical Principles Of Business Ethics1995 Words   |  8 PagesBUSINESS ETHICS Ethics is the branch of philosophy that focuses on morality and the way in which moral principles are applied to everyday life. It involves an active process of applying values, which may range from religious principles to customs and traditions. Business ethics focuses on the good or wrong behavior in the world of business, all companies have a responsibility to apply moral and ethical principles to the marketplace and workplace. Also business people have a responsibility to theRead MorePersonal Ethical Principles Of Personal Ethics Essay1131 Words   |  5 PagesPersonal ethics are continuous developed throughout an individuals life, adapting to new knowledge, and refining as you age. To me, personal ethics are defined as a set of governing principles based on what one thinks is morally correct. They are presented through the person’s behaviors, actions, and beliefs. My personal ethics have been and still are developing due to my family, friends, environment, and intrinsi c thought. Each individual has their own set of ethical beliefs that, thought out theRead MoreEthical Principles : Ethics, And My General Ethical Philosophy1295 Words   |  6 PagesWhen people think of ethics, they think of norms or standards that help them distinguish their moral instincts in an atmosphere, but ethics is much more than that. The best way to interpret ethics, and my general ethical philosophy, is to look at your beliefs and think about your reaction if those beliefs were challenged. My ethics are the norms that I follow which allow me to carry out all of my decisions and the way I live my life. We are not born with ethical principles; they are thrown togetherRead MoreEthical Concepts And Principles Of Business Ethics1673 Words   |  7 Pagesbusinessmen and women have their own private consciences to guide them. So do we really need to study business ethics? Is it necessary for businesspeople to be familiar with abstract ethical concepts and principles, and to engage in ethical reasoning? Why / why not? (7 points) I believe it is most certainly necessary for business people to be familiar with ethical concepts and principles. The increasing complexity of today s economy has heightened businesses responsibilities to protect consumers

Why U Should Not Disrespect a Non Commissioned Officer Free Essays

You should not disrespect a Non Commissioned Officer, because it can cause you problems. You can get counseled, corrective action, or united states code of military justice action. Disrespecting a Non Commissioned Officer can show the lack of respect you have for the rank and the person behind the rank. We will write a custom essay sample on Why U Should Not Disrespect a Non Commissioned Officer or any similar topic only for you Order Now You should always treat Non Commissioned Officers with the respect that they deserve. As a private you should do as you are told and when you are told to in a timely manner.Disrespect towards a Non Commissioned Officer should not be tolerated. It can lead to an article fifteen or possibley being chaptered out of the United States Army. You can also lose money and rank. If you want the respect of a Non Commissioned Officer, you have to show them the proper respect at all times. you should always follow orders and do the right thing when they are not around and when they are around. Even if you do not agree with what you were told to do, you should do it anyway. Because it was a direct order.Following orders are important. If you do as you are told, it will keep you out of trouble and possibly help with promotions later on. Disrespect should not be tolerated. If you show a Non Commissioned Officer the proper respect, they will show you the proper respect. Non Commissioned Officers deserve the proper respect. As a E-4 or below you should know your place in the chain of command. Article ninety-two of the united states code of military justice is failure to obey a order or regulation.Any person subject to this chapter, violates or fails to obey any lawful or general order or regulation. If you have knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his or her duty to obey. Fails to obey the order. It reflects in the performance of his or her duties. that soldier shall be punished. It can lead to an article fifteen, discharge or court martial. I should not have disrespected a non commissioned officer and i should have followed orders. I understand that disrespect will not be tolerated. How to cite Why U Should Not Disrespect a Non Commissioned Officer, Papers

El Corazn free essay sample

Steve Earle isn’t exactly a Spanishname, so don’t start thinking that you will need a translator forthis CD. Raised in Texas, he rocks. Of course, it’s not exactlytoday’s mainstream kind of rock, which is mostly emo or punk. Hiswork may seem like country, but it is more of a mix of the two, countryrock. Steve Earle often leans more toward the rock side of things, buthe is never fully on one side. Released in 1997, â€Å"ElCorazon† marked the return of Steve Earle with strong sales.Following the formula of his previous â€Å"I Feel Alright,†Ã¢â‚¬Å"El Corazon† blends folk, country and rock. Earle also playsa number of songs with other artists including Emmylou Harris onâ€Å"Taneytown† and The Fairfield Four on â€Å"TelephoneRoad.† The CD uses guitar, harmonica, fiddle, tambourine,organ and saxophone in combinations that create an incredible soundenjoyable for both country and rock fans. â€Å"I Still CarryYou Around† and â€Å"Other Side of Town† are two of themost country songs on the CD. We will write a custom essay sample on El Corazn or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page In fact, I believe that, from a rockfan’s standpoint, Steve Earle performs the most enjoyable countrymusic around. I also believe he plays some of the best rock out there.It is unfortunate that his music is not played on mainstreamradio. I recommend â€Å"El Corazon† to any country orroot rock fan out there. I also encourage diehard mainstream rock fansto give this CD a spin. I have a CD case full of Metallica, Pearl Jam,Smashing Pumpkins and Green Day, so I am right there with you, but SteveEarle is a great artist, and â€Å"El Corazon† is a great CD.You’ll see.

Assignments writing tips for students

Assignments writing tips for students Assignments writing tips Every student, studying at high school, college or university, is often assigned to write an academic paper. The assignment can mean writing an essay, a research paper, a term paper, a report, a review or any other kind of paper. Professors all over the world have a common opinion that it helps to evaluate both students writing skills and talent, their capacity to express thoughts in a clear form, build solid argumentation, and use the available information. For sure, writing different kinds of assignments is a skill that requires constant development. Therefore, most students want to improve their skills and make the writing process more efficient and less boring. In some cases, achieving this objective is quite demanding. One needs to develop certain techniques and to use different tools. Academic writing requires excellent grammar and spelling. If you have any problems with it, you can start a personal journal of your mistakes. It is very profitable to write down the rules you often forget about, and misspelled or misused words, etc. In addition, it would be wrong to avoid using online resources for improving English. The Internet is full of resources with great amount of helpful information on writing. You can learn numerous tips on avoiding common mistakes with the help of clear and understandable techniques, and then write the assignment given by your professor perfectly. Certainly, enrichment of your vocabulary is a very important part of writing skills. The more words you hold the better papers you can produce. The obvious advice for this would be reading various books and articles, but there are also some other interesting options you might want to explore. For example, Visuwords is a superb online dictionary where you can construct visual words associations and get an explanation of their meanings. This service is very profitable and helpful when you have to find proper terms and build complex sentences. Also, you can use Merriam-Webster Visual Dictionary if you have any doubts about using the right terms when writing assignments. Many students find it quite difficult to start writing and feel anxious looking at the blank page. If you find writing an outline for the homework assignment a real challenge, follow these easy tips. It does not matter, what kind of paper you are assigned to complete, taking some time to write down an outline for it will help you in gathering information and starting your work.You will get a better result if you ask someone to check your academic essay draft and help you rewrite it correctly. It is a better case than to receive a constructive feedback from your professor on the completed paper that cannot be revised. If someone proofreads your paper, you get an opportunity to work on it and improve it. You can ask the professor to set a deadline for completing the draft a few days before the final due date to assist you with correcting the mistakes in the school assignment. Alternatively, you may just ask him to check your draft and comment on it individually. One more essential advice for students, who want to succeed in writing assignment, is to write more frequently. Remember, the more you write the better. Every completed paper is a great opportunity to improve writing skills. Use your free time for creative writing and you will be impressed how much your skills have been polished. If you still have any difficulties with homework assignments, you may look through somes of customized essays and other academic papers at the websites of custom writing companies. Such examples may serve as benchmarks for your future assignments. Feel free to turn to the assignment writing service and ask for professional assistance from highly skilled writers.

Average Salary Guide How Much Do Pharmacists Make

Average Salary Guide How Much Do Pharmacists Make SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips Thinking about becoming a pharmacist? Or maybe you’re just wondering how much the person filling your prescriptions is making? How much does a pharmacist make? We have all answer all of your questions about pharmacist pay! In this guide, we go over average pharmacist salary overall and in each of the 50 states.To help put these numbers into context, we also explain what factors affect pharmacist salary, why pharmacists make so much, what work they do, and how you can become a pharmacist yourself. What Is the Average Pharmacist Salary? How much does a pharmacist make each year? According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average pharmacist in the US earned an annual salary of $120,270 in 2016, or about $57.82 an hour. The chart below (from the US Dept of Labor) shows the percentile wage estimates for pharmacists in 2016 so you can get a better idea of the range of pharmacist salaries. Percentile 10% 25% 50% (Median) 75% 90% Annual Wage $87,120 $109,400 $122,230 $138,920 $157,950 There are several factors that determine how much a specific pharmacist makes. Experience: Pharmacists who have worked in the profession longer make more money than pharmacists just starting out, since more experienced pharmacists typically have more responsibilities and expertise. Geographic Location: Some parts of the country have a higher average pharmacist salary than others. We discuss this more in the next section. Employer Type: The type of pharmacy job you have will also affect your pay. Pharmacists at mail-order pharmacies had the lowest annual salary (average salary $7,000) while clinical pharmacists were, on average the highest paid ($128,000). Retail pharmacists generally earn less than pharmacists working in hospitals or other clinical settings. How Much Do Pharmacists Make a Year in Each State? Depending on which part of the country you live in, you might be making more or less than the national pharmacist salary. Below is a chart showing the average annual salary for pharmacists in each of the 50 states, as well as Washington D.C. This data comes from the United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Employment Statistics for 2016. You can use this chart to get a better idea of what the average pharmacist salary is in the state where you live or would like to live. State Average Annual Salary in 2016 Alabama $120,000 Alaska $138,000 Arizona $9,000 Arkansas $7,000 California $136,000 Colorado $8,000 Connecticut $121,000 Delaware $8,000 Florida $8,000 Georgia $6,000 Hawaii $5,000 Idaho $6,000 Illinois $7,000 Indiana $7,000 Iowa $0,000 Kansas $9,000 Kentucky $122,000 Louisiana $3,000 Maine $123,000 Maryland $120,000 Massachusetts $131,000 Michigan $5,000 Minnesota $123,000 Mississippi $121,000 Missouri $121,000 Montana $2,000 Nebraska $109,000 Nevada $123,000 New Hampshire $129,000 New Jersey $7,000 New Mexico $120,000 New York $9,000 North Carolina $121,000 North Dakota $3,000 Ohio $5,000 Oklahoma $121,000 Oregon $123,000 Pennsylvania $4,000 Rhode Island $2,000 South Carolina $123,000 South Dakota $2,000 Tennessee $120,000 Texas $124,000 Utah $3,000 Vermont $128,000 Virginia $9,000 Washington $124,000 Washington D.C. $121,000 West Virginia $8,000 Wisconsin $124,000 Wyoming $6,000 As you can see from the chart, the average annual salary for pharmacists ranges from $109,000 (Nebraska) to $138,000 (Alaska). Differences among states in average pharmacist salaries can be due to multiple factors, including cost of living, demand for pharmacists, and where the pharmacists are employed. Why Are Pharmacist Salaries So High? Now you know that most pharmacists are bringing in six figures a year. Why is pharmacist pay so high? There are three main reasons: Lots of Schooling Required As you’ll see in the next section, you can’t wake up one day and decide to start applying to pharmacist jobs. You’ll need a bachelor’s degree as well as a PharmD degree. For most people, this means eight years of university and graduate-level schooling, and the high level of education required for pharmacists contributes to the high salary. Requires Specialized Knowledge and Attention to Detail To be a pharmacist, you must have a lot of knowledge specific to the field, and you must also have a high attention to detail. Pharmacists spend much of their time preparing and dispensing medication, and if they make a mistake, it can literally affect other people’s lives. Therefore, they must always be careful when they are working. Additionally, many pharmacists are balancing multiple duties and many clients/customers which can cause a hectic work schedule. Because the work pharmacists do is so important, and because they are the only ones who can do it, they have a high average salary. High Demand for Pharmacists Another reason pharmacists make so much is that there is a high demand for pharmacists in many parts of the country. As the population gets older and healthcare expands, more people need the services pharmacists provide, which drives up demand. The number of pharmacists in the country is fairly small, so some employers will often offer higher salaries in order to entice pharmacists to work for them. What Do Pharmacists Do? So, what exactly do pharmacists do? It’s far more than just dispensing pills. A pharmacist’s work depends a lot on the specific field they’re in, although all pharmacist jobs involve understanding the impacts and potential risks of different medications. There are three main types of pharmacists: Retail pharmacists spend a majority of their time processing and filling prescriptions, interacting with customers, and watching for potential side effects and interactions of the drugs they prescribe. Clinical pharmacists typically work in hospitals or other medical settings, and a lot of their duties involve working directly with medical professionals and patients, either by choosing which medications to prescribe for a patient, monitoring patients, and other additional duties. Research pharmacists usually work for drug companies, although they can also work for government agencies or universities. They spend the majority of their time developing new medications and conducting drug studies. How Can You Become a Pharmacist? In order to become a pharmacist and start making the big bucks, it’ll take several years of schooling and hard work. Below are the four main steps you need to complete to become a pharmacist. #1: Take the PCAT To begin your applications and get the ball rolling, you’ll need to take the PCAT (Pharmacy College Admission Test), a standardized test for pharmacy school admissions, and submit your scores as part of your application. Not every pharmacy school requires PCAT scores, but most of them do. #2: Get Admitted to a PharmD Program The next step to becoming a pharmacist is being accepted into a Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) program. You’ll need a Bachelor's degree to apply. Most of the time, your degree doesn’t need to be in a specific field, but you’ll need to have certain prerequisite classes (usually two years worth) completed before you’ll be admitted, and you have a better chance of already having taken them if you majored in a science as an undergrad. The prerequisites required vary by program, but often include chemistry, biology, physics, and statistics. It’s also possible to get accepted into an accelerated PharmD program while you’re in high school. In this case, you’ll complete your undergraduate degree and PharmD degree in a total of six years. It’s worth noting though, that these programs are not very common, and they’re very competitive to get into. #3: Complete the PharmD Program It typically takes four years to complete PharmD school, which means most people are in school for eight years to become a pharmacist (four years of undergraduate + four years of PharmD school). A few pharmacy schools do have accelerated programs that allow you to complete PharmD school in three years. Even if you already have a graduate degree, even one in the sciences it’ll likely still take you four years to complete PharmD school since the course requirements are very specific to the program. At PharmD school, you’ll take courses that will teach you everything you need to know about becoming a pharmacist. Many programs also allow you to specialize in a specific area of pharmaceutical sciences such as clinical pharmacology or rural pharmacy services. You’ll also get hands-on experience through internships, rotations, and/or work placements during your time in PharmD school. #4: Get Licensed as a Pharmacist After you’ve completed PharmD school, you still need to get licensed before you can work as a pharmacist. Licenses are issued by individual states, so each state has its own requirements. However, most of them are follow the same basic set of guidelines. In every state, you’ll need to pass the NAPLEX (North American Pharmacist Licensure Examination), and most states require you to pass the Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Exam (MPJE) as well. Your state may also have additional requirements, such as other tests you must pass, a certain number of practical hours you need to complete and/or consenting to a criminal background check. Once you’ve completed all of your state’s requirements, you’re able to begin working as a pharmacist! Review: How Much Do Pharmacists Make, Really? So, how much does a pharmacist make? The average pharmacist salary in the US is $120,270. A pharmacist’s salary depends on multiple factors, such as where they live, the type of pharmacy work they do, and how many years of experience they have. Pharmacists living in different parts of the country have different average salaries. Pharmacist pay is so high because pharmacists must attend fours years of PharmD school in addition to undergrad coursework, the profession requires specific expertise and a variety of skills, and because demand for pharmacists is growing. In order to become a pharmacist, you’ll need to: Have a Bachelor degree Complete the necessary prereqs for the program(s) you’re applying to Take the PCAT Complete (typically four years of) PharmD school Become certified (usually by passing the NAPLEX and MPJE exams)

Management and leadership styles Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Management and leadership styles - Essay Example They act as a catalyst in guiding and inspiring the human resources or the employees of an organization so as to enhance their level of performance and dedication towards work. Side by side, the leaders and managers also motivate them towards work so as to improve the productivity and efficiency of the organization thereby amplifying its image and profit margin in the market among others. Along with this, it also helps in enhancing the popularity and equity of the organization thereby amplifying its level of sustainability to a certain extent in the future era among others. Therefore, it might be sated that leaders and managers are the guiding forces that might improve the efficiency and competence of the employees as well as the organization so as to cope up with varied types of challenges. This essay is divided into five phases and it mainly highlights the importance of management and leadership within an organization. Along with this, it also clearly depicts the relationship among the two different terms. ... Leadership is described as the procedure of social influence with the help of which, an individual supports and assists others to accomplish the objective or goal. Moreover, leaders are those individual, who inspire the employees to improve their level of devotion in order to enhance the productivity of the organization. Along with this, the leaders also help to guide and direct the human resources or the employees in such a way so that, it might enhance their efficiency to a significant extent as compared to others in the organization. Other than this, the term leadership is also described as a process to enhance the trust and faith of the employees, customers or the stakeholders thereby improving their relationship with the management. Side by side, the leaders also attempt to enhance the level of coordination among the employees and management of the organization so as to accomplish the future targets in an effective way. Along with this, it also helps in improving the interperson al relationship among the employees thereby reducing the range of conflicts, lockouts and attritions. Thus, it might be portrayed that leadership skills, attitudes and values help to present proper direction to the employees or the organization to become successful in future. Similarly managerial style or management is often described as the individual liable for controlling and supervising a group of members or staffs within an organization. It is done so as to attain the objectives or targets of the organization in an effective way. In order to do so, management always tries to plan, organize and schedule the ideas and information of the group members so as to accomplish the objective in an efficient way. So that, the objective of the organization might be attained in a

The Second Law of Thermodynamics Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

The Second Law of Thermodynamics - Term Paper Example For example, human beings undergo the continuous change of aging. This does not make them any better rather their energy, strength and productivity either remains constant or reduce as they age. This means that the arrow of time points to decreasing the order of a product and not increasing. This principle is very much applicable in the fashion design industry and as a fashion designer it is always important to have this in mind. This is a critical review of the second law of thermodynamics and how the arrow of time is applicable to the fashion and design industry. Literature from relevant articles and websites were used to come up with the paper and relevant information recorded. As scientist argues, time is the fourth dimension of the universe. A clock may seem to be the main symbol of time but when one clock stops working, time does not wait for it rather it continuous. Time cannot go backward and so when time passes, it never goes back and we have to move with it. Time is also kn own to have one direction and so it will never go back to where it came from. When we use the Newton’s laws of motion, we can be able to calculate where something came from, however with time this is different. We are not able to calculate the exact position where the arrow of time came from. To understand the arrow of time, we have to look at the theory of entropy. Entropy in physics describes how things are arranged in an orderly manner. The theory of entropy is that if things are arranged in a certain order, then after some time it will become disarranged and disorganized (Kestin 119). Thus if you arrange your books neatly in an office, then you won’t be surprised if the next time you walk in the papers will be a bit disorganized. If you find the papers more organized than you left them then you have to ask yourself a lot of question since it is impossible. This theory of entropy is very important to a fashion designer. The designer has to know that however perfect things might be, they will be disorganized in some way and that they will need to be organized again. The second law of thermodynamics does not focus much on time rather it focuses on the arrangement of particles of matter. The arrow of time assumes that the universe started off in very low entropy meaning that the entire universe was in an organized state. This can also be the same to the products that fashion designers create such as shirts. When we create a shirt today, then the value of the shirt tend to either remain constant over time or decrease in value over some period of time if not sold. This is only on unsold products. Now let’s take an example of a shirt that is sold out. With time, the shirt begins to lose its value and as it gets old, the owner will obviously need another shirt. This is with respect to the second law of thermodynamics and the arrow of time. As a fashion designer, how is this theory important? First of all, this theory is important to the indust ry because as goods lose their value, new ones are needed and so the industry moves on. However before we produce new goods, the industry has to be sure of the amount of time that it takes the goods to totally lose their value in the, market. This will prevent situations where several goods are produced when the previous ones have not yet lost their value. As a result, both goods will end up losing their value at the same time and hence produce loses to the industry. Perfect timing is the key to providing the best goods over time. To know the perfect time for production. We have to study the market and understand the way that goods lose their value. This will ensure that we know exactly when to come up with new products and hence reduce chances of huge

Pressure Groups Necessarily Harm Democracy

Pressure Groups Necessarily Harm Democracy Pressure groups are voluntary organisations formed to advance or defend a common cause or interest. They do not strive to take office or to govern; they simply seek to express their ideas in an organised manner. There are several ways in which they try to raise awareness: from passing information to passing letters of protest, from having informal consultations to staging popular demonstrations.  [2]  Pressure groups are very diverse in terms of their agenda, what type of agenda do they actually have? Who do they seek to influence? Do they have a broad agenda? Also, their size membership is another factor which sets them apart, this portrays how successful they actually are, the bigger the pressure group the more influence they will have. Finance is another aspect which shows the mixture of pressure groups. How do they get their money? This helps determine whether a pressure group is politicised or not. Moreover, there are different types of pressure groups which completely set them apart from one another. First of all, you have sectional pressure groups; they represent a particular section of the society. They have leverage with trade unions or political parties. They go more along the corporate lever as they are considerably politicised. Cause or promotional pressure groups are ones that seek to promote the beliefs, ideas and values in which their supporters believe, but these are not ideas which are of benefit to their membership, other than in a most general sense.  [3]  They tend to put forward ideological causes to support, theyre less entrenched. You also have oppositional pressure groups that tend to oppose government policy, such as the student protests or any other protest groups. Oppositional pressure groups are likely to be more permanent. Informative pressure groups are ones that provide and gather information to make people informed about particular issued. Lastly, you have the commentator pressure groups; respected and authoritative commentators on particular areas of policy.  [4]  Theyre formed by people who have knowledge, tend to affect the government a lot as theyre institutions and academies. Similarly, youve got social movements. Pressure groups can become or be a part of a social movement; however a social movement is much broader. For example, the Greek strikes; at first it was just a protest, but once it was broadly accepted, so broadly that it then became a movement. Another distinctive example is the labour movement in the 70s. Social movements do not seek office in theory, however their goal is to influence policy, influence economic agendas or to strongly campaign or lobby for an issue. Furthermore, pressure groups can be an advantage to democracy as it introduces a form of toleration which enables us to achieve reciprocity. It exposes us to ideas that we do not necessarily agree with. Pressure groups bring forth ideas and changes which is not the norm, this enhances the idea of pluralism; it allows them to express their ideas and allow diversity, it secures independence from the community. Also, pressure groups allow power to be dispersed. For example, in the UK you have got two very powerful parties; pressure groups help to disperse their powers. Lastly, pressure groups boost participation within the democratic system. They increase participation in the democratic process on a variety of different levels. However, pressure groups can also be a bad thing for democracy. Politicization is the main argument against groups fostering democracy. Is it really okay to put forward democratic policies through an undemocratic way? It seems as if theyre sort of cartels of inte rest, a bunch of privileged groups that just benefit. Also, it burns the bridges because pressure groups seem to undermine the mandate of elections. People do not vote for a group but for a party. Elections should be clear cut. Additionally, too much division creates instability. Society has a collective goal, so if you have got individual members creating different groups, this then undermines the collective goal. Too many decision makers make it difficult to come to an overall agreement. Going back to the rational choice theory, people will act in a way to maximise their profit. They seek to promote their own self-interest. So, even though your best option is to share, you are not going to because you might lose it all. The resource mobilization model theory suggests that the entrepreneurial-organizational variant of this approach even allows for the possibility that grievances and discontent may be defined created and manipulated by political entrepreneurs and organizations.  [5]   As Mancur Olsen explains, Collective action is individually irrational. Individuals promote self-interest, not the groups interest. It is all about self-interest for the organisations, as explained by the game theory and prisoners dilemma. This suggests that collective action problems mean that pressure groups can harm democracy. As they only have their own interest, if they benefit from it, that is all what matters even if it puts others at a disadvantage. For example, $4 million lobbying campaign a football team put together seeking taxpayer spending for a football stadium to a mere $20,000 that opponents of the spending were able to raise.  [6]  ,The few who will benefit from the transfer have an easy time organizing to lobby for it, while a group as diverse and dispersed as taxpayers face what Mancur Olson called a collective action problem.  [7]  This creates instability and unfairness within the democratic process because it leads to a group being more powerful than the other because of the unequal distribution of money and resources. So the minority, a certain part of the population can have an unequal influence against the majority which creates unfairness and undermines democracy this is considered to be a collective action problems because powerful insider groups can use their insider status and power to go and pursue their own personal cause. For example, There is a danger that ministers may be prepared to accept too uncritically the advice of powerful interest groups. They may accede to the requests of those groups that can afford to present their case most effectively, even if there are substantial objections to what they propose.  [8]   On the other hand, collective action problems dont necessarily mean that pressure groups can harm democracy. As there are a variety of cases where pressure groups have actually enhanced democracy and have not resulted into any collective action problems. For example, it allows individuals to associate with one another and proclaim their views, essential rights in any democracy.  [9]  Pressure groups provide a safety valve enabling any person with a grievance to feel that he or she is able to vent their disenchantment.  [10]  This allows minorities who feel ignored to speak out and be heard. Such as, Fathers for Justice which is a pressure group that seeks for fathers rights. Another reason why pressure groups enhance democracy and do not harm it is because they limit government, groups check government power and, in the process, defend rights and freedom.  [11]  These functions are just a few of many that show pressure groups do actually enhance democracy rather than harm it. However, it is not only collective action problems that mean pressure groups harm democracy. Pressure groups have other issues which directly affect democracy. For instance, it creates political inequality. Pressure groups tend to empower the already powerful. They therefore increase rather than reduce, political inequality. This has a negative effect on democracy itself as it contradicts the whole concept of democracy and it allows those who have access to resources to impact decisions. Even though there are many factors which lead to the fact that collective action problems do mean that pressure groups harm democracy. It is not always the case, as there are also various other reasons which lead to pressure groups affecting democracy in a bad way, such as the ones I mentioned before. Nonetheless, there are also a variety of cases that suggests pressure groups enhance democracy on countless levels. It really depends on the pressure group itself and its aims, what audience its trying to reach and what it is actually trying to achieve. If theyre politicised and have a huge influence on decision making or if they just seek to promote ideological beliefs and are less entrenched. Therefore, collective action problems are just a part of a wider range of factors which result from self-interested pressure groups that are in it for their own benefits, which results into the destruction of democracy. Nevertheless, this is not necessarily always the case as pressure groups do t end to bring about positivity to democracy. In conclusion, it all depends on a pressure groups agenda, and what their intentions are.

Abusive Supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict

The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Leadership Quarterly j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship con? ict Kenneth J. Harris a,? , Paul Harvey b, K. Michele Kacmar cIndiana University Southeast, School of Business, 4201 Grant Line Road, New Albany, IN 47150, USA Management Department, Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, USA Department of Management and Marketing, Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, 143 Alston Hall, Box 870225, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0225, USA b c a a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t This study extends research on abusive supervision by exploring how supervisor reports of conflict with their coworkers are related to abusive behaviors and resulting outcomes.We utilize research on displaced aggression, conflict, a nd leader–member exchange (LMX) theory to formulate our hypotheses. Results from two samples of 121 and 134 matched supervisor– subordinate dyads support the idea that supervisors experiencing coworker relationship conflict are likely to engage in abusive behaviors directed toward their subordinates and that LMX quality moderates this relationship. Additionally, abusive supervision was associated with decreased work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB).Results also indicate that in both samples abusive supervision mediates the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship conflict and OCB, and in one sample mediates the association between supervisor-reported coworker relationship conflict and work effort.  © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Available online 10 August 2011 Keywords: Abusive supervision Coworker relationship con? ict Multi-level 1. Introduction Abusive supervision, or the prolonged hostile treatment of subor dinates, has been recognized as a signi? ant threat to employee well being and productivity in both the popular press (e. g. , Elmer, 2006) and in organizational research (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007; Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, & Kacmar, 2007; Hoobler & Brass, 2006; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000, 2007; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). Behaviors that fall under the umbrella of abusive supervision, such as sabotaging, yelling at, or ignoring subordinates, have been linked to an array of negative consequences (see Tepper, 2007 for an overview).Research also suggests that these forms of abuse are alarmingly common in modern organizations (Namie & Namie, 2000; Tepper, 2007). The purpose of this study is to develop and test a conceptual model that expands our knowledge of antecedents, moderators, and consequences of abusive supervision. We also build on past research showing that supervisors' relationship c on? icts can â€Å"trickle down† to subordinates in the form of abusive behaviors (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007). Speci? cally, we test the notion that supervisors who experience relationship con? ct, de? ned as interpersonal â€Å"tension, animosity, and annoyance† (Jehn, 1995, p. 258), with their coworkers respond by abusing subordinates. The proposed relationship between supervisor-level coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision is rooted in the notion of displaced aggression, which occurs when the reaction to an unpleasant outcome or behavior from one source is redirected to a second source (Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine, & Pollock, 2003; Tedeschi & Norman, 1985).Consistent with Tepper (2007), we argue that the relatively weak retaliatory power of subordinates, as compared to coworkers, increases the likelihood that relationship con? ict-driven frustration will be vented at subordinates. We qualify this assumption, however, by arguing that supervisor s who experience coworker relationship con? ict will not behave abusively toward all of their subordinates. We explore ? Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email  protected] edu (K. J. Harris), Paul. [email  protected] edu (P. Harvey), [email  protected] ua. edu (K. M. Kacmar). 1048-9843/$ – see front matter  © 2011 Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. doi:10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2011. 07. 020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1011 this idea by examining leader–member relationship (LMX) quality as a moderator of the relationship between supervisors' levels of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision. Finally, we advance the extant research by investigating two supervisorrated employee outcomes (work effort, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB)), one of which has not previously been examined in the context of abusive supervision.These outcomes were chosen as they extend the literature and we were int erested in actual behaviors directed toward the job/task (work effort and task-focused OCB). We examine these relationships, shown in Fig. 1, in two separate samples of matched supervisor–subordinate dyads. Thus, the current study makes several contributions to the literature. First, we examine the in? uence of con? ict between supervisors on subordinate reports of abusive supervision. Examining this relationship is important because although coworker relationship con? cts have negative outcomes, studies have yet to investigate how supervisors experiencing these con? icts treat their subordinates. Second, we investigate LMX quality as a relationship variable that changes how supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are related. Third, we extend the nomological network of abusive supervision by examining the outcomes of work effort and OCB. Finally, we investigate the potential for abusive supervision to mediate the associations between supe rvisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and distal consequences.Thus, this study takes a ? rst step toward explaining how (through the intermediary mechanism of abusive supervision) supervisors' experiences of coworker relationship con? ict ultimately impact important job outcomes. 2. Abuse as a displaced response to coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision is de? ned as prolonged hostile treatment toward subordinates, excluding physical violence (Tepper, 2000). Research indicates that supervisors who perceive that they are victims of interactional or procedural injustice, both of which may be associated with coworker relationship con? ct (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001), are relatively more likely than others to abuse their subordinates (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006). Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert (2006) argued that this trickle-down effect, in which supervisors' frustrations are channeled into abusive behaviors targete d at subordinates, may occur because subordinates are a relatively safe target toward which supervisors can vent their frustrations (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006).This argument suggests abusive supervision may be a response to frustrating workplace events such as coworker relationship con? ict. Coworker con? ict has been linked to undesirable emotional states and can negatively impact interpersonal relationships (e. g. , Bergmann & Volkema, 1994; Deutch, 1969). Emotion research suggests that the anger and frustration associated with interpersonal con? ict can promote verbal (e. g. , shouting) and behavioral (e. g. , theft, sabotage, violence) aggression toward those who stimulate the con? ct (e. g. , Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; Fox & Spector, 1999; Greenberg, 1990; Spector, 1975). Many of these behaviors, with the exception of physical violence, would fall under Tepper's (2000) de? nition of abusive supervision if aime d at subordinates. Drawing on ? ndings from research on displaced aggression we argue that, due to the relative power of supervisors' coworkers, these relationship con? ict-driven behaviors might, in fact, be targeted at subordinates.Displaced aggression occurs when individuals experience mistreatment from one party and respond by mistreating a second party (Hoobler & Brass, 2006, Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine & Pollock, 2003, Twenge & Campbell, 2003). Several triggers of displaced aggression have been identi? ed, including social rejection (Twenge & Campbell, 2003) and negative feedback (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Hoobler and Brass (2006) also showed that abusive supervision at work can promote displaced aggression toward family members at home. We examine abusive supervision as a form of displaced aggression ather than a predictor, although both conceptualizations are logical. Displaced aggression is often triggered by unpleasant workplace events (e. g. , Miller, Pedersen, Earlywi ne & Pollock, 2003) and abusive supervision ? ts this criteria. We argue that abusive supervision also can ? t the criteria of displaced aggression if it is triggered by events beyond the control of subordinates, such as the abusers' coworker relationship con? ict. Thus, abusive supervision can likely be both a cause of displaced aggression and a type of displaced aggression.Note: Dashed lines represent hypothesized mediated linkages Supervisor-Rated Subordinate Work Effort Supervisor-Rated Coworker Conflict Abusive Supervision Supervisor-Rated Subordinate TaskFocused OCB Moderator: Leader-Member Exchange Fig. 1. Hypothesized model. 1012 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 As Tepper, Duffy, Henle and Lambert (2006) argued, abusive supervision can be used as a means for venting frustration because subordinates have relatively low levels of retaliatory power and, therefore, serve as a lower-risk target for venting behaviors than do employees in po sitions of greater hierarchical power.Victim precipitation research also supports this logic, indicating that displaced aggression is often targeted at those who are unable or unwilling to defend themselves, as is likely the case among subordinates who can be disciplined and terminated by their supervisors (e. g. , Aquino, 2000). This desire to vent frustration at individuals who are unassociated with the initial con? ict, similar to the anecdotal notion of â€Å"kicking the dog† after a bad day at work, can be understood in the context of displaced aggression. Coworker relationship con? ct is a potent source of stress and frustration (Thomas, 1976, 1992) and, because these are unpleasant, individuals are motivated to engage in coping behaviors that will diminish their presence (Kemper, 1966). These emotion-driven coping behaviors can often take the form of hostile behaviors such as sabotage (Ambrose, Seabright & Schminke, 2002) and verbal assaults (Douglas & Martinko, 2001). Thus, coworker relationship con? ict may trigger aggressive behaviors (e. g. , yelling at others) that serve a coping function. Thomas (1976) noted, however, that the relative power of the parties to a con? ct in? uences the manner in which both parties will respond. When legitimate power levels are equal, as in the case of coworkers, hostile responses are likely to be met with retaliation although it is possible that the target of retaliation will respond with additional hostility, creating an escalating cycle of con? ict. Subordinates, on the other hand, are often reluctant to respond in kind to hostile supervisor behaviors for fear of losing their jobs. The fact that subordinates are not the cause of the supervisor's frustration, that is, the frustration is caused by supervisors' con? ct with their coworkers, may have little impact on the behavioral response if the behavior is largely motivated by emotion as opposed to logic. That is, the desire to vent anger over coworker relat ionship con? ict using a safe target may override concerns that subordinates are not the logical targets for retaliation, given that they are not the cause of the con? ict. Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 1. Supervisors' reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, as rated by subordinates. 2. 1. The moderating in? ence of LMX relationship quality Thomas (1976, 1992) argued that a conceptualization process occurs between the con? ict experience and the behavioral outcome in which information is processed and behavioral options are evaluated. Although this cognitive process is likely to incorporate a wide range of information, we argue that an evaluation of relationships with subordinates is particularly relevant when behaviors toward these individuals are concerned. LMX theory suggests that the quality of leader–member relationships varies from high to low (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 19 95).Subordinates in high quality exchanges are seen more favorably and receive advantages from their supervisors that their low quality LMX counterparts do not (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997). As such, members in high quality exchanges receive preferential treatment from supervisors who are motivated to maintain these productive relationships. We expect that supervisors who experience high levels of coworker relationship con? ict may become abusive toward subordinates, but will be selective in choosing which subordinates to target. Abusive supervisory behaviors generally have a negative effect on ictims' levels of motivation and attitudes toward their jobs (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002; Schat, Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2006). Although it can be argued that effective managers would not want to risk these consequences with any employees, LMX theory would suggest that supervisors are especially motivated to maintain effective relationships with their high quality LMX subo rdinates. We argue, therefore, that supervisors who are frustrated by coworker relationship con? ict and who choose to react in an abusive manner will generally choose low quality LMX subordinates as their targets.Put differently, we expect that when con? ict-driven abuse occurs, members in low quality exchanges will experience it more strongly and frequently than members in high quality exchanges. Justice and victim precipitation theories provide additional support for this argument (e. g. , Aquino, 2000; Bies & Moag, 1986). From a justice perspective, instead of perceiving members of low quality LMX relationships as less risky targets for abuse, it can also be argued that supervisors ? nd it easier to justify abuse toward these employees. Members of low quality exchanges are often characterized by relatively low performance levels (e. . , Deluga & Perry, 1994; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993), and it might be argued that supervisors who use abusive behaviors to cope with relationsh ip con? ict-driven frustration will feel most justi? ed in focusing on these employees. That is, supervisors might rationalize the abuse by convincing themselves that relatively lowperforming subordinates in low quality LMX relationships deserve the abusive behavior. Victim precipitation research also suggests that several characteristics common among low quality LMX subordinates make them likely targets of abuse.Although provocative and threatening behaviors have been linked to retaliatory aggression (e. g. , Aquino & Byron, 2002; Tepper, 2007), more salient to our focus on leader–member relationships is the precipitation research indicating that abusive individuals often target those who are seen as weak or defenseless. Individuals who are hesitant to defend themselves or view themselves or their situations negatively appear to draw the attention of aggressive individuals (Aquino, 2000; Olweus, 1978; Rahim, 1983; Tepper, 2007).As discussed above, the hierarchical nature of their relationship likely promotes the former tendency among subordinates, making them relatively safe targets for abuse. Members in low quality exchanges, in particular, might be unwilling to further jeopardize their relationship with their supervisors by retaliating against abuse and might also internalize their undesirable status, promoting the negative perceptions of their workplace competence and situation (e. g. , Ferris, Brown, & Heller, 2009) that can provoke victimization.Similar to our arguments concerning displaced abuse of subordinates, victim precipitation research suggests that these aggressors might wish to engage in abusive behavior as a means to K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1013 preserve their social standing and bolster perceptions of their control over a situation (e. g. , Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Felson, 1978). As such, this line of research reinforces the notion that subordinates might be targeted for displac ed abuse and suggests that low quality LMX subordinates are especially likely to be viewed as vulnerable, and therefore relatively safe, targets.Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 2. The relationship between supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict and member-reported abusive supervision is moderated by LMX, such that the positive relationship is stronger when LMX relationship quality is lower. 2. 2. Outcomes of abusive supervision The outcome portion of our conceptual model, shown in Fig. 1, examines the effects of abusive supervisory responses to coworker relationship con? ict on work effort and OCB. While we do not posit that abusive supervision is the only factor mediating the relationships between supervisors' coworker relationship con? ct and these outcomes, we argue that abuse can serve as an explanatory mechanism and explain a relevant amount of variance in each consequence. Abusive supervision is a negative workplace event that, like con? ict, can ha ve negative attitudinal and behavioral consequences (Tepper, 2007; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007). It has been argued that these outcomes are caused by the stress and emotional strain associated with abuse from individuals in a position of power (e. g. Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002; Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter & Kacmar, 2007; Tepper, 2000). Further, Duffy, Ganster and Pagon (2002) found evidence suggesting that abuse promotes diminished self-ef? cacy. As we discuss in the following sections, each of these consequences of abusive supervision can be logically linked to the outcomes depicted in Fig. 1. 2. 2. 1. Work effort Because abusive supervision can diminish victims' con? dence in their abilities (Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002), it follows that motivation to exert high levels of effort at work will likely decrease in response to abuse.Abusive supervisors, who by de? nition are consistent in their abuse (Tepper, 2000), might eve ntually wear employees down with a steady onslaught of aggressive behavior (e. g. , yelling, criticizing), reducing their con? dence and motivation. Similarly, it may be that over time abusive supervision promotes emotional exhaustion (Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter & Kacmar, 2007; Tepper, 2000), a condition characterized by diminished emotional and physical coping abilities and closely associated with job burnout (Brewer & Shapard, 2004; Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003).Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter and Kacmar (2007) argued that this relationship was likely due to the persistent assault on employees' feelings and ef? cacy perceptions (Savicki & Cooley, 1983) associated with abusive supervision. When emotional exhaustion occurs, individuals demonstrate diminished motivation and a reduced ability to handle stressful work events, promoting a reduction in work effort (Brewer & Shapard, 2004; Kahill, 1988; Leiter & Maslach, 1988).Using a different lens to view the abuse–work effort asso ciation, employees might also view abusive supervision as a form of psychological contract breach, as subordinates generally do not expect to be abused by those given the authority to supervise them (Tepper, 2000). When employees perceive that a breach has taken place, they often feel less compelled to ful? ll their obligation to exert high levels of work effort (Harris, Kacmar & Zivnuska, 2007). 2. 2. 2. Citizenship behaviors The ? nal outcome depicted in Fig. 1 concerns the negative in? ence of coworker relationship con? ict-driven abuse and subordinates' propensity to engage in OCB. This predicted relationship is based on research indicating that abusive supervision is associated with factors, including decreased organizational commitment, poor work-related attitudes, and injustice perceptions (Aryee, Chen, Sun & Debrah, 2007; Duffy, Ganster & Pagon, 2002; Schat, Desmarais, & Kelloway, 2006; Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002), that can inhibit citizenship behaviors (Ambrose, Seabrigh t & Schminke, 2002; Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002).Victims of abusive supervision often feel that they have been treated unjustly (Tepper, 2000), a perception that is associated with reduced levels of OCB (Moorman, 1991). As Judge, Scott, and Ilies (2006) argued, unjust treatment is likely to qualify as a negative affective event and can therefore provoke a retaliatory behavioral response. One such response could logically be the withholding of citizenship behaviors, which are not a requirement of the job and could run counter to the goal of retaliation by making the supervisor's job easier (e. g. , Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002).In support of this reasoning, additional research indicates that abusive supervision motivates retaliatory behaviors such as workplace deviance and aggression that run contrary to the notion of citizenship behavior (Dupre, Inness, Connelly, Barling, & Hoption, 2006; Schaubhut, Adams, & Jex, 2004). Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 3. Abusive supervision is negatively related to supervisor reports of subordinate work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 2. 3. The mediating role of abusive supervision We have argued that relationship con? ct between supervisors and their coworkers is associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, and that such behaviors have negative implications for victims' levels of work effort and OCB. Implicit in this line of reasoning is the notion that coworker relationship con? ict at the supervisor level is ultimately associated with decreased levels of 1014 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 effort and OCB at the subordinate level, and that abusive supervision acts a mediator between these variables. More speci? ally, the negative effects of supervisors' relationship con? ict with their coworkers are predicted to manifest themselves in the form of abusive behaviors that negatively affect employees' attitudes and behaviors, promoting negative sub ordinate outcomes. Thus, while a relationship between a supervisor's level of coworker relationship con? ict and subordinates' levels of effort and OCB may seem somewhat abstract, we suggest that coworker relationship con? ict-driven abusive supervision provides an intermediary link between these variables.Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 4. Abusive supervision mediates the negative relationships between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 3. Method 3. 1. Samples and procedures The samples utilized in this study were from two different divisions of a state government. The division in Sample 1 was responsible for handling disease related issues (e. g. , STDs, immunizations, tuberculosis), whereas the division in Sample 2 handled environmental health related issues (e. g. , radiation, clean water).To begin the data collection efforts, the director of each division sent an email to all employees in th eir branch. The email informed the potential respondents of the study's purpose, that participation was voluntary, and that the results would be con? dential. After this email, the researchers sent a personalized message again explaining the goal of the survey, the con? dentiality of responses, and a web link to the survey. Respondents were asked to complete the survey during the next month. Respondents were required to provide their supervisor's name to match supervisor–subordinate responses.At the same time, supervisors were asked to provide ratings on each of their direct reports. In Sample 1, eliminating responses with missing data or those that were unable to be matched (i. e. , we received a subordinate response, but not a matching supervisor response) resulted in a sample size of 121 (58% response rate). Subordinates were 68% female, the average age was 41. 68 years, the average job tenure was 3. 38 years, and their average organizational tenure was 5. 22 years. In tot al, 28 supervisors provided ratings, resulting in an average of 4. 32 ratings per supervisor.For the supervisors, the demographic breakdown was 57% female, the average age was 47. 91 years, the average job tenure was 4. 79 years, and their average organizational tenure was 7. 73 years. After the elimination of unusable responses in Sample 2, our usable sample size was 134 (64% response rate). Participants in Sample 2 were 60% male, had an average age of 46. 04 years, average job tenure of 7. 04 years, and average organizational tenure of 11. 51 years. Forty-four supervisors provided ratings, which resulted in an average of 3. 05 ratings per supervisor.The demographic breakdown for the supervisors was 75% male, an average age of 49. 29 years, average job tenure of 9. 64 years, and average organizational tenure of 16. 26 years. 3. 2. Measures Unless otherwise noted, a 5-point Likert scale (anchors: â€Å"strongly disagree† (1) to â€Å"strongly agree† (5)) was used for a ll survey items. Scales were coded with high values representing high levels of the constructs. 3. 3. Subordinate measures 3. 3. 1. Abusive supervision In both samples abusive supervision was measured with six items from Tepper's (2000) measure.We were unable to use the full 15-item measure due to management concerns about the survey's overall length. Thus, we had experts in the area look at the content of each of the items, and we chose 6 items that best captured the full range of abusive supervisory behaviors. The items we chose were â€Å"My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others,† â€Å"My supervisor gives me the silent treatment,† â€Å"My supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason,† â€Å"My supervisor is rude to me,† â€Å"My supervisor breaks promises he/she makes,† and â€Å"My supervisor puts me down in front of others. In an effort to establish the validity of our shortened scale, we compared o ur reduced scale to the full measure using the data from the Tepper (2000) article. 1 We found that the full 15-item scale was correlated with our 6-item scale at . 96. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 90 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 3. 3. 2. Leader–member exchange We used Liden and Maslyn's (1998) 12-item leader–member exchange multidimensional scale to measure exchange quality in both samples. A sample item included â€Å"My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 94 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 1 We thank Ben Tepper for allowing us to use his original data for this correlation. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1015 3. 4. Supervisor measures 3. 4. 1. Coworker relationship con? ict In both samples supervisors rated their relationship con? icts with their coworkers using the 4-item Jehn (1995) scale. A sample item included à ¢â‚¬Å"Is there tension among your coworkers? † These questions were included in a section of the survey here the supervisors were answering questions about their attitudes, behaviors, and relationships with their coworkers. This section was separate from the section where supervisors commented on their subordinates, thus making it clear that these relationship con? ict questions were focused on coworkers at their level in the organization (e. g. , managers' relationship con? icts with other managers). The response scale for this construct was â€Å"Not at all (1)† to â€Å"To a very great extent (5)†. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 95 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 2.Work effort In both samples supervisors rated subordinates' work effort using Brown and Leigh's (1996) 5-item scale. A sample item was â€Å"When there's a job to be done, this subordinate devotes all his/her energy to getting it done. † The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 93 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 3. Organizational citizenship behaviors Supervisors responded to Settoon and Mossholder's (2002) 6-item scale to measure subordinate task-focused OCB in both samples. A sample item was â€Å"This subordinate assists coworkers with heavy work loads even though it is not part of the job. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 84 for Sample 1 and . 81 for Sample 2. 3. 5. Control variables We controlled for four variables, all measured from the subordinate, in an effort to minimize potentially spurious relationships. The variables we controlled for were age (measured in years), job tenure (measured in months), organizational tenure (measured in months), and supervisor–subordinate relationship tenure (measured in months). 3. 6. Analytical approach In both samples in this study, supervisors' coworker relationship con? ict responses were used as predictors of subordinate outcomes (i. . , cross-level main effect). Thus, a single supervi sor coworker relationship con? ict rating was used as the predictor variable for multiple subordinates. As a result, for these variables there was no within-supervisor variance and all of the variance was between supervisors (i. e. , ICCs were 1. 00). Additionally, supervisors provided ratings on certain scales (e. g. , work effort and OCB) for multiple subordinates, thus resulting in a supervisor effect (e. g. , ICC1s for OCB of . 11 in sample 1 and . 13 and sample 2, and ICC2s of . 48 in sample 1 and . 51 in sample 2).To account for the supervisor-level effect in our data, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM: Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004) with grand-mean centering was used to carry out our analyses. In the HLM analyses involving supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, this variable was included as a Level 2 variable (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong & Congdon, 2004). To test Hypotheses 1–2, there were four steps. In the ? rst step, we entered the four control va riables. In the second step we entered the Level 2 variable of supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, and it was here that we tested Hypothesis 1.In the third step, we entered the Level 1 moderator variable, LMX. In the fourth step, we entered the cross-level interaction term formed between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and LMX. It was in this step that we tested Hypothesis 2. To test the abusive supervision-outcome and mediation hypotheses (3 and 4), we conducted Baron and Kenny's (1986) threestep procedure. The HLM equations are available from the ? rst author request. 4. Results The means, standard deviations, and correlation matrix for the variables in this study are provided in Table 1 for Sample 1 and Table 2 for Sample 2.In both samples abusive supervision was signi? cantly correlated with supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, as well as our dependent variables. Given that a few of the correlations between our focal variables were h igh, we elected to run a series of con? rmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the scales used in our study to ensure that they were independent and that the items produced the expected factor structures. These analyses were run on both samples separately. To conduct our CFAs, we used LISREL 8. 80, a covariance matrix as input, and a maximum-likelihood estimation.We elected to conduct our CFA analyses using composite indicators rather than items due to the large number of items and our moderate sample sizes. To create our composite indicators, we assigned items based on factor loadings from an exploratory factor analysis (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994; Eddleston, Viega, & Powell, 2006). Speci? cally, for our four-item scales we combined the two items with the highest and lowest factor loadings to the ? rst indicator and the remaining two items to the second indicator. For the ? ve-item scales we created the ? st indicator as described above and included the remaining three items on the secon d indicator. For our six-item scale we paired the highest and lowest loading item to create the ? rst indicator and then repeated this process for the remaining two indicators. Finally, for the LMX scale we used the four subscales (loyalty, contribution, professional respect, and affect) as composite indicators. Our approach resulted in 15 indicators for our 6 scales. 1016 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 1.Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. Leader–member exchange (LMX) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9. LMX professional respect 10. Age 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 31 3. 03 3. 92 4. 03 3. 87 3. 86 4. 10 3. 69 4. 03 41. 68 3. 38 5. 22 1. 99 SD . 57 1. 02 . 77 . 79 . 72 . 97 . 68 . 84 1. 09 11. 1 3. 88 5. 23 2. 02 1 . 77 . 21? ? . 67 ? . 27 ? . 29 .60 .36 .69 .62 .10 . 10 . 05 . 25 2 . 95 ? .11 ? .20? ? . 18? ? . 05 . 04 . 19? ? . 14 . 01 . 23? .01 . 17 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .76 . 3 .35 .91 .77 .83 .90 ? . 00 . 05 . 08 ? .00 .86 . 40 .28 .22? .35 .28 .03 ? .00 . 10 . 00 .65 . 27 .22? .33 .35 .01 ? .03 . 05 . 12 .92 . 62 .68 .79 ? . 02 . 11 . 11 . 04 .75 . 56 .58 .11 . 05 . 11 . 04 .74 . 64 ? . 04 ? .01 . 05 ? .11 .94 ? .03 . 02 . 01 . 02 – . 35 .39 .26 – . 69 .48 – . 49 Note: Values in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which must be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. We began by estimating a six-factor solution, with each factor representing a scale in our study. Fit indices, shown in Table 3, indicate that the six-factor model ? t the data. To verify that the six-factor structure was the best representation of our data, we estimated three alternative models and compared them to our baseline model via chi-square difference tests. The alternative models estimated included two ? ve-factor models and a unidimensional model. The alternative models were created by combining scales that had strong correlations to form a larger factor.The ? rst alternative model combined abusive supervision and LMX into one factor while the second combined OCB and work effort. A description of each alternative model and the CFA results are offered in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the chi-square difference test results support the six-factor structure as originally designed. To further explore the discriminant validity of our scales we followed the procedure outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and calculated the square root of the average variance explained for each of the scales in our study.This value, which we present on the diagonal in Tables 1 and 2, represents the variance accounted for by the items that com pose the scale. To demonstrate discriminant validity, this value must exceed the corresponding latent variable correlations in the same row and column. If this condition is met, then we have evidence that the variance shared between any two constructs is less than the average variance explained by the items that compose the scale (i. e. , discriminant validity). As shown in Tables 1 and 2, this condition is met for all of the scales used in our study.The HLM results predicting abusive supervision are shown in Tables 4 (for Sample 1) and 5 (for Sample 2) and the HLM results investigating abusive supervision as a mediator and/or predictor are provided in Tables 6 and 7. First describing our interaction results in Table 4, step 1 reveals that relationship tenure (? = . 08, p b . 05) was the only control variable signi? cantly associated with abusive supervision. Step 2 shows that supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively and signi? cantly related to abusive su pervision (? = . 09, p b . 05).This result provides support for Hypothesis 1 in Sample 1. Step 3 in this analysis shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 48, p b . 01). Finally, step 4 shows that the interaction term between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and LMX was negatively and signi? cantly related to abusive Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 2. Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. LMX12 (overall) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9.LMX professional respect 10. Age 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 32 2. 42 4. 04 4. 31 4. 31 4. 04 4. 15 3. 78 4. 19 45. 86 6. 55 11. 16 6. 08 SD . 58 . 76 . 60 . 73 . 67 . 78 . 56 . 78 . 95 6. 89 2. 66 4. 37 2. 12 1 . 92 . 15? ? . 55 ? . 26 ? . 21? ? . 53 .05 ? .52 ? . 57 .04 . 02 . 01 ? .01 2 . 94 ? .04 ? .03 ? .19? ? . 03 ? .06 ? .02 ? . 02 ? .15 ? .09 ? .07 . 00 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .92 . 09 . 05 . 84 .53 .83 .86 ? . 07 . 08 . 05 . 07 .87 . 72 ? . 01 ? .03 . 18? .11 ? .03 ? .00 . 03 ? .02 .85 . 01 ? .13 . 09 . 13 ? .13 . 1 ? .05 . 07 .88 . 28 .56 .69 ? . 10 . 05 ? .03 . 00 .71 . 38 .22? .08 . 16* . 18? .15 .84 . 59 ? . 08 . 03 . 03 . 01 .95 ? .06 . 04 . 01 . 08 – . 14 . 23 .18? – . 61 .27 – . 26 Note: Values in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which must be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 3 Alternative model test results.Model Sample 1 (N = 121) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor Sample 2 (N = 134) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5- factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor X2 102 196 127 706 df 75 80 80 90 X2diff dfdiff CFI . 98 . 95 . 97 . 59 NFI . 95 . 91 . 94 . 57 1017 RMSEA . 048 . 093 . 059 . 200 94 25 604 5 5 15 112 276 224 1177 75 80 80 90 164 112 1065 5 5 15 .98 . 93 . 93 . 47 .94 . 89 . 89 . 46 .056 . 125 . 107 . 280 Note: Abuse = abusive supervision, LMX = leader–member exchange, OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. p b . 001. supervision (? = ?. 12, p b . 01). Overall, the results in Table 5 (Sample 2) are similar. In step 1 none of the control variables were signi? cantly associated with the outcome, but in step 2, supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict were positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 11, p b . 05), again supporting Hypothesis 1. Step 3 in Table 5 shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 54, p b . 01). In the ? nal step, the supervisor reported coworker relationship con? ict ? LMX interaction t erm was negatively and signi? antly related to abusive supervision (? = ? .29, p b . 05). To determine support for our interaction hypothesis, we graphed the two signi? cant moderating effects. We did so by plotting two slopes, one at one standard deviation below and one at one standard deviation above the mean (Stone & Hollenbeck, 1989). Figs. 2 (for Sample 1) and 3 (for Sample 2) illustrate the signi? cant interactions and show that the positive relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision were stronger when LMX relationship quality was lower.Additionally, we calculated simple slopes for each of our interactions. In sample 1, we found that the slope of the low LMX line was signi? cant (t = 2. 00, p b . 05), whereas the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. Similar to sample 1, in sample 2 the slope of the low LMX was signi? cant (t = 2. 11, p b . 05), but the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. In total, t hese results provide support for Hypothesis 2 in both samples. Tables 6 and 7 provide the results of our mediation analyses. First discussing the results from Sample 1 shown in Table 6, supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ct was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05) (which ful? lls one of Baron and Kenny's (1986) mediation requirements) and to OCB (? = ? .08, p b . 10) and work effort (? = ?. 14, p b . 05) (ful? lling another mediation requirement). Steps 2c and 3c show that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer signi? cant. In particular, the gammas for supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict predicting OCB dropped from ?. 08 to ?. 6 and for predicting work effort dropped from ?. 14 to ? .11. However, abusive supervision is signi? cantly and positively related to OCB (? = ?. 37, p b . 01) and signi ? cantly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 27, p b . 05). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported in Sample 1. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kenny's (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and OCB and partially mediated the relationship with work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported in Sample 1.Table 4 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 1. Step 1 Control variables: Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator: LMX (B) Interaction term: A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 2 . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 3 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 07? .05? ? . 48 Step 4 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 06? .05 ? .46 ? . 12 .02 .02 .02 .45 Note: Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, LMX = leader–member exchange. N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. 018 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 5 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 2. Step 1 Control variables: Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator: LMX (B) Interaction term: A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 2 . 01 .00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 3 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 09? ? . 54 Step 4 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 13? ? . 55 ? . 29 .05 .01 .01 .35 Note: Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct, LMX = leader–member exchange. N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. Next we turn to the HLM results presented for Sample 2 in Table 7. This table shows that supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision in step 1b (which passes Baron and Kenny's (1986) ? rst step) and OCB (in step 2b), but not work effort (in ste p 3b). These results pass the ? rst two steps for mediation for OCB, but not work effort. Table 7 also reveals that abusive supervision is negatively and signi? cantly related to OCB (? = ?. 26, p b . 05) in step 2c, and signi? antly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 39, p b . 01) in step 3c. Thus, Hypothesis 3, which was supported in Sample 1, is also supported in Sample 2. Step 2c shows that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer a signi? cant predictor of OCB. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kenny's (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct and OCB, but not work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4, which was supported for both dependent variables in Sample 1, was only supported for OCB in Sample 2. 5. Discussion The pu rpose of this study was to further our knowledge of the predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. We pursued this goal by examining supervisor reports of relationship con? ict with their coworkers as a predictor of subordinate-rated abusive supervision, and LMX quality as a situational variable in? uencing this relationship. Additionally, we examined the outcomes of supervisor-rated OCB nd work effort and found that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and OCB in both samples and the outcomes of work effort in one sample. Returning to our theoretical arguments, we found that displaced aggression and LMX theories provide useful lenses for discussing predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. Coworker relationship con? ict at any level is a potent source of stress and frustration as it impedes the achievement of goals and the attainment of desired outcomes (e. g. , Thomas, 1976).Like past abusive s upervision research (Tepper, Duffy, Henle & Lambert, 2006), our results suggest that some supervisors will resort to abusive behaviors against their employees as a means of coping with these consequences. This study advances existing research by explicitly examining situations where subordinates are not the logical target of retaliation (i. e. , they are not the source of the con? ict). Because subordinates are an easy and accessible target, however, having less power and less of an ability to retaliate, they make relatively safe candidates for abuse from frustrated supervisors.Table 6 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 1. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note: OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 1b . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 2a . 00 ? .02 . 00 . 05 DV = OCB DV = work effort Step 2b . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 05 ? .08+ Step 2c . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 07 ? .06 ? .27? Step 3a ? .00 ? .02 . 02 . 00 Step 2b ? .00 ? .01 . 02 . 01 ? .14? Step 3c . 0 ? .01 . 01 . 04 . 11 ? .37 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 7 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 2. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note: OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 1b . 01 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 2a ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 DV = OCB DV = work effort 1019 Step 2b ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 ? .13? Step 2c ? .01 . 0 ? .00 . 00 ? .09 ? .26? Step 3a ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 Step 3b ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .03 Step 3c . 00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 02 ? .39 Additionally, when supervisors experience coworker relationship con? ict, our results indicate that they are most l ikely to abuse subordinates with whom they have low quality LMX relationships. This ? nding appears to support our argument that supervisors will focus their abusive behaviors on those employees in low quality exchanges in order to shield their high quality relationships from the detrimental effects of abusive supervision.In this way, supervisors may reason that abusive behaviors allow them to vent frustration while minimizing the negative in? uence of this coping behavior on their most valued employees. Naturally, there are ? aws in this method of coping, most notably that the performance levels of abused employees will likely suffer, causing added strain and frustration for other employees and the supervisors themselves. Among supervisors who make the problematic choice to cope through abuse, however, it appears that employees in low-quality relationships are the most likely targets.We also extended abusive supervision research with our ? ndings indicating that this variable is re lated to the outcomes of OCB and work effort. These ? ndings are noteworthy as they extend the nomological network of outcomes related to abusive supervision, and because both outcomes were supervisor-rated, which helps to minimize common source bias concerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Additionally, in sample 1 we found that abusive supervision served as an intermediary mechanism explaining the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and both consequences examined, and that there was also mediation on the outcome of OCB in sample 2. These results are important as they begin to answer the questions related to how situational supervisor variables, such as coworker relationship con? ict, ultimately are translated into subordinate outcomes. Surprisingly, we did not ? nd support for the work effort mediation hypothesis in Sample 2. A post hoc explanation for these insigni? cant ? ndings may relate to the demographic composition of th e samples. Sample 2 was different from Sample 1 for both subordinates and supervisors.It was primarily male, the average age was higher, and average job and organizational tenure were both more than double (except for supervisor job tenure) those in the ? rst sample. Although it is possible to deduce explanations as to how these differences might have in? uenced our results, such atheoretical logic would be overly speculative. Thus, as we suggest below, we encourage replicative research in additional samples that would allow for a more systematic assessment of these, or other, sample-speci? c characteristics. 5. 1. Contributions These ? dings make several contributions to the extant research on abusive supervision and LMX relationships. First, they build support for the notion of displaced abusive supervision and undermine a potential alternative explanation. In Tepper's (2007) review of abusive supervision literature, he concluded that supervisors' perceptions of organization-level factors, such as Fig. 2. Moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 1. 1020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023Fig. 3. Moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 2. injustice and contract violation, can trigger abuse toward individual targets (i. e. , subordinates). He argued that this phenomenon might be explained by displaced aggression logic, in that subordinates serve as safe abuse targets even if the abuse is unlikely to resolve the perceptions triggering the desire to be abusive. An alternative, although somewhat tenuous, explanation is that these negative perceptions in? ence animosity toward the overall organization and that supervisors justify the abuse of subordinates who are seen as complicit in the perceived negative aspects of the organization. Our ? ndings suggest that this alternative basis of justi? cation would not adequately explain displaced abusive supervision. Looking beyond generalized organizational perceptions, we found that even frustration stemming from speci? c, identi? able non-subordinate sources (i. e. , supervisors' coworkers) might translate into abuse toward subordinates.This suggests that abusive supervision may serve as a â€Å"self-defeating† coping mechanism (e. g. , Baumeister & Scher, 1988), akin to mechanisms such as problem drinking and procrastination, in that it seeks short-term stress-reduction (e. g. , through emotional venting) in a harmful way that does not address the true source of the underlying problem (e. g. , con? ict with peers). We also expand on Tepper's conclusion, again stemming from his 2007 review of abusive supervision research, that subordinate characteristics in? uence the likelihood that they will experience abuse.As in the present study, Tepper (2007) cited victimization research to argue that subordinates who appear overly provocative or passive put themselves at a heightened risk for abuse. Expanding on the latter idea, we argued and observed that employees in low quality LMX relationships, who we expect demonstrate relatively high levels of passivity and vulnerability, report higher levels of abuse. This suggests that instead of identifying each of the potential subordinate characteristics that can incite abuse, a more parsimonious approach might be to look at broad relationship variables such as LMX that can be viewed as re? cting the aggregate impact of these individual characteristics. This conclusion also adds to LMX research by revealing an additional consequence of low-quality LMX relationships. In addition to the wide body of research showing that low-quality LMX subordinates experience outcomes such as fewer rewards, lower resource levels, and reduced job satisfaction (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne, 1997), this study suggests a more se rious potential consequence in the form of victimization by abusive supervisors.Additionally, our results, and the fact that most were replicated across the two samples, demonstrate the utility of multi-level models for predicting employee consequences of abusive supervision. Abusive supervision is an inherently multi-level phenomenon and this study shows that insights into some causes of abuse, such as con? ict levels between supervisors, exist that cannot be assessed from subordinate self-reports. Similarly, it identi? es supervisor-rated subordinate outcomes of abusive supervision (effort levels and OCB) that are dif? cult to assess with self-reports due to social desirability and common source bias concerns.Further, these supervisor-rated effects provide some indication that abusive supervisors are at least indirectly aware of the selfdefeating consequences of abuse. Our data do not tell us whether supervisors consciously related their abuse to lower levels of employee effort an d citizenship behavior. Their awareness of lower levels among the abused subordinates, however, suggests that a degree of denial would be necessary for the supervisors to overlook these cause–effect relationships. Although existing research has not, to our knowledge, explicitly stated that supervisors are unaware of the consequences of abusive behavior, this ? ding suggests that future research on preventing abuse might bene? t from focusing not on why supervisors view the behavior as acceptable, but why they engage in it despite an apparent awareness of these consequences. 5. 2. Limitations In addition to the aforementioned strengths and contributions, there are limitations that we must acknowledge to properly interpret the study's results. First we acknowledge that the theoretical framework we have developed is not the only logical explanation for the hypothesized and observed relationships.For example, it is plausible that the link between supervisors' coworker relationshi p con? ict and abusive supervision is less cognitive than we have argued. Instead of selectively choosing subordinates as a low-risk target for venting frustration, it might be that some supervisors simply possess traits that predispose K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1021 them toward con? ict and abusive behaviors (with higher levels of abuse directed at low quality members). Examples of such traits might include negative affectivity or hostile attribution styles (Douglas & Martinko, 2001).An investigation of these possibilities would be useful in forming a more comprehensive understanding of the empirical relationships observed in the present study. In terms of methodological limitations, survey length constraints required us to use a reduced version of the abusive supervision scale. Even though we chose items that tapped into the full set of behaviors and found an extremely high correlation between our shortened measure and the full scale , this may still be viewed as a limitation. Another limitation is that we were unable to measure causality.Thus, there is the potential that our relationships actually have reverse causality or that variables predict each other in a recursive manner. This is particularly true regarding the association between LMX perceptions and abusive supervision. Our results suggest that supervisors are more abusive toward some employees than others and that this difference is associated with variations in subordinates' LMX scores. It can be argued, and is indeed very likely, that an abused employee would report lower LMX scores because of the abuse.The ? nding that supervisors are selective in their abuse targets suggests that some criterion is evaluated before targets are chosen and we have argued that preexisting LMX relationship qualities could serve as this criterion. Our design does not allow us to make this claim de? nitively, however. Similarly, it may be that abusive supervision is not t he predictor of work effort, but that insuf? cient effort by subordinates promotes higher levels of abusive supervision or that both variables in? uence each other in a cyclical manner.We are particularly sensitive to the argument that there may be a feedback loop between abusive supervision and the outcome variables, such that abuse reduces subordinates' effort and citizenship levels, and this reduction provokes further abuse, although the design of the study did not allow us to test this possibility. Along a similar line, it could be that abusive supervision toward subordinates is actually the cause of the supervisors' con? ict among peers. We hope that future studies will be designed to better answer these causality questions.There are also limitations associated with the sampling of public, white-collar organizations. Different organizations (e. g. , private, military, blue-collar) have different rules and norms governing behavior and it is likely that the abusive supervisory be haviors studied would be more or less permissible, and therefore more or less common, in different organizational settings. 5. 3. Directions for future research This study's ? ndings suggest a number of directions for future research. First, we hope future researchers will examine our hypotheses in other, more diverse samples.Although we examined two separate organizations, it is necessary to examine additional samples to better establish the generalizability or boundary conditions of our relationships. A second suggestion is to examine the relationships in this study with a longitudinal research design. The extant research on abusive supervision, including this study, has primarily relied on cross-sectional designs. Although telling, these studies leave out situations and behaviors that impact subordinates over time. In the case of both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and abusive supervision, it may be that supervisors and subordinates learn to cope with these s ituations, and become accustomed to them. Conversely, it could be that these situations and behaviors become worse as they accumulate over time (Harris, Kacmar, & Witt, 2005) as argued by Tepper (2000) and as noted in our discussion of cyclical relationships between abuse and behavioral outcomes in the previous section. Another avenue for future research is to conduct additional multi-level investigations to determine how supervisor experiences and situations impact their subordinates.In this study we examined supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, but it also would be interesting to investigate the effect of supervisors' supervisor relationship con? ict, abusive supervision, LMX, team member exchange, and perceived organizational support (Erdogan & Enders, 2007; Tangirala, Green, & Ramanujam, 2007) as these variables are likely to have â€Å"trickle-down† effects on employee outcomes. Additionally, the aforementioned implication that supervisors might be aware of the consequences of abusive supervision suggests that a multilevel, or at least supervisor-level, focus on understanding the justi? ation process might provide insight into interventions for preventing such behavior. It would also be interesting to investigate personality characteristics, such as Machiavellianism, entitlement, and narcissism, of supervisors and subordinates and how these variables are related to abuse (Harvey & Harris, 2010; Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, & Tang, 2010). Finally, we examined LMX from the perspective of the member, but it would be insightful to investigate leader reports of the LMX quality with their subordinates and how this rating interacts with supervisor coworker con? ict. 5. 4. Practical implications Before discussing speci? practical implications from this study, it should be noted that the overarching implication from this and most of the existing body of research on abusive supervision is that abusive supervision is detrimental to a ll parties. It is stressful for victims and hurts organizational performance and a supervisor's effectiveness by negatively affecting desirable outcomes (see Tepper, 2007) such as increased levels of effort and OCB. Employees may feel intimidated and afraid to report the behavior of abusive supervisors, however, making it dif? cult for organizational leaders to identify and eliminate these abusive managers.Because of the dif? culty in reducing existing levels of abuse, preventative techniques for reducing the likelihood of abusive supervision are advisable. The results of this study suggest that one such technique is for organizational leaders to observe and mediate con? icts between supervisory employees, thereby removing an antecedent of abusive behaviors. Additionally, because the supervisors in our study were more likely to abuse employees with whom they shared low-quality relationships, an organization-wide focus on the development of strong leader–member relationships m ight foster a climate where there are few 022 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 desirable targets for abuse. We acknowledge that neither of these suggestions (i. e. , mediating supervisor con? icts and promoting strong leader–member relationships) are simple tasks. We suggest, however, that a continuous focus on these goals would consume far less time and energy than dealing with the consequences of abusive supervision. 6