Your boss stomps and yells, criticizes you, and then proceeds to take the credit for your work – even it is an isolated incident? This can take a profound toll on employee well-being and performance. But despite the many years of research, the precise mechanisms through which bad leadership impacts employees’ performance remain a subject of interest.

In a new study, first published in Group & Organization Management, an international group of researchers, led by Stevens Institute of Technology and University of Illinois Chicago, offer a novel explanation of the cognitive factors through which abusive leadership degrades employee performance — and helps explain why some employees are more vulnerable than others to the negative impact of abusive bosses.

“Thankfully, abusive supervision isn’t too common, but when it happens it leaves employees far less likely to take the initiative and work to improve business practices,” said Howie Xu, an author of the study and an assistant professor of management at Stevens. “We wanted to understand the cognitive factors behind that effect — and ask how companies can shield their employees from the negative impact of bad bosses.” 

Xu’s team surveyed employees and supervisors from 42 different South Korean companies, along with hundreds of US students, to explore the ways in which abusive supervision impacts “taking-charge” behavior by employees. Subjects were then ranked according to whether they actively seek positive opportunities for promotion and advancement or take a more preventative approach that prioritizes safety and job security.

“We theorized that both the drive to obtain rewards (promotion, bonuses) and the drive to avoid punishments (maintain job security) would shape the way employees respond to abusive bosses,” Xu explained. 

But that’s not what Xu and his team found. Rather, they found that employees who prioritize career advancement are strongly affected by abusive leadership while employees who prioritized job security remained just as likely to take charge after experiencing abusive supervision. Employees who prioritize advancement tend to hunker down and reduce taking-charge behavior after experiencing abusive supervision.”

“That’s a very surprising finding,” Xu said. “We found clear evidence that the signal from abusive leadership is much more salient to employees who care about advancement than it is to employees who care about security.”

One possible explanation, Xu explained, is that ambitious employees may perceive an abusive boss as having direct control over whether they will receive bonuses or opportunities for promotion. By contrast, bad bosses may be seen as having less direct control over firing decisions, which often require ratification by HR teams or more senior managers. 

That’s an important finding, because it suggests that organizations seeking to mitigate the impact of bad leadership should focus on empowering employees and making them feel valued and appreciated, rather than simply reassuring them their jobs are safe. “If a leader slips into abusive behavior, our research suggests that they should not only apologize, but also work to reassure employees of their value to the organization,” Xu said.

Unexpectedly, the variation in employee response to abusive supervision was broadly constant across both the Korean and US populations. “We think of these countries as culturally distinct, but there was no real difference in how employees responded to abusive bosses,” Xu said. “That might reflect the effect of globalization — or might be a sign that this is a universal trait that exists across many different cultures.” 

Researchers from Texas Tech University, Hunan University and Seoul National University also contributed to the paper.

Why would someone decide to give their money to help a stranger bring a creative project to life?

Recent research has found that backers of crowdfunding projects participate, in part, because of a sense of indirect success and the feeling that they are contributing to something bigger.

Crowdfunding — raising money for a new venture by collecting small amounts from many people — is most often done online, and messaging on the most popular sites reinforces the perception of a more democratic market.

But the reality is a bit more complicated, the researchers said, because backers tend to come from similar groups of people and give to certain categories of projects.

“They tend to give money to projects they find cool,” said Andre Maciel, assistant professor of marketing at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. “That limits the democratizing potential of crowdfunding… In the aggregate, there’s this effect that specific project categories tend to be more funded than others.”

Maciel and his co-author, Michelle Weinberger of Northwestern University, wanted to examine why ordinary people would give interest-free money to businesses and to understand the culture of crowdfunding.

Unlike traditional investing, people giving to crowdfunding campaigns do not have any legal guarantee that the money — usually less than $50 — will be used as promised. And they usually get no return on their investment beyond something like a mug or T-shirt.

“People could essentially run with their money, and nothing would happen to them,” Maciel said. “Maybe their reputation would get bruised, but there’s no legal contract there. So we started wondering: What’s the social contract that binds all those different parties together?”

The researchers made a distinction between reward-based crowdfunding and charity donation, with their study looking at projects such as a music album, cookbook or toy, rather than the type that would help pay for medical bills. Maciel said it’s an important phenomenon to understand because it’s a relatively new funding model for businesses, and one that is rapidly growing in scale.

“In 15 years, we’re talking about 200,000 new innovations coming to the market only through Kickstarter,” he said. “If you look at all the platforms together, it might be more than half a million.”

Maciel and his Weinberger interviewed a sample of all involved stakeholders: platform representatives, producers and consumers. They then analyzed the platforms’ websites and their messaging on what crowdfunding is. The duo also visited the offices of a leading crowdfunding platform. Finally, they became backers themselves, giving to eight campaigns from a variety of categories on two platforms.

The researchers found that crowdfunding platforms create a narrative of a more democratic process, enabling people to decide which products enter the market. Platform websites do this in part through language, such as referring to a “project” instead of a “business” or to a “pledge” instead of a “payment.” The websites also employ idealistic messaging about a higher purpose and collective action.

The study concluded that people who give to campaigns get a vicarious sense of success. When a campaign succeeds, contributors feel they are part of something bigger than themselves and gain a sense of ownership of the product, the researchers said.

“You’re not going through the pains of developing an idea, the emotional costs,” Maciel said. “And yet, even though they give, usually, small amounts of money, many consumers feel thrilled when a project comes to life.”

Backers also reported they liked getting behind-the-scenes information and some insider knowledge about the process, including explanations about delays in the project and information about how producers are tackling hurdles.

The study additionally found that a negative experience with a crowdfunding campaign doesn’t necessarily deter people from backing others in the future. Consumers view projects individually and don’t assume that a delayed or unsuccessful campaign will translate to others. If this happens repeatedly, however, they might be more likely to stop giving.

The team also determined that the campaigns attract a certain kind of consumer, meaning the model often falls short of its promise of a more democratic market. The researchers discovered that backers tend to be people who work in creative fields, such as web designers, fashion designers and writers, and that they give to projects that match individual interests rather than ones that address collective societal needs. The result is that campaigns in areas such as music, film, publishing and gaming are more likely to succeed.

“Crowdfunding does expand access to the market, but it’s just not as democratic as it seems,” Maciel said. “It is democratic because people get to choose, but it’s not egalitarian.”

Having focused on the relationship between platform and consumers, the team intends to shift next to the relationship between platforms and producers. Maciel and Weinberger will look at what keeps producers from misusing funds and the benefits of choosing crowdfunding over a loan or other source of funds.

Most consumers would choose brand-name beverages over generic or store-brand beverages, according to the 2023 Consumer Food Insights Report. The report further indicates that consumers make this choice even when presented with a sizable price discount on generic or store brand names. 

The survey-based report out of Purdue University’s Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainabilityassesses food spending, consumer satisfaction and values, support of agricultural and food policies, and trust in information sources. Purdue experts conducted and evaluated the survey, which included 1,200 consumers across the U.S.

In contrast to beverage choices, most survey respondents said they were unwilling to pay a premium for brand-name meat or fruits and vegetables. The findings in the report’s “Brand Beliefs” section were based on new questions that yielded some interesting results, said the report’s lead author Joseph Balagtas, professor of agricultural economics and director of CFDAS at Purdue.

“When it comes to snack foods, consumer choice of brand is price-sensitive,” Balagtas said. “A majority of consumers tell us that brand-name products taste better. And when generics are 15% cheaper, a majority choose the brand-name product. But if generics are 30% cheaper, a majority choose the generic brand.”

To dig deeper into why consumers might or might not choose brand-name food, the survey included follow-up questions that gathered consumer beliefs about brand-name versus generic or store-brand foods.

“We find that taste is positively correlated with the decision to choose brand-name foods over cheaper substitutes,” Balagtas said. Consumers perceive brand-name beverages to taste better than generics and thus are more likely to purchase branded products even at a premium. But fewer consumers believe that brands are associated with better taste in the meat and fruit and vegetable aisles, and thus fewer are willing to pay a premium for those products. 

“Across all food categories, most consumers do not believe that brand-name foods are more nutritious or made from better ingredients or safer than store brands,” Balagtas said. “Our finding that taste is the main driver of consumers’ valuation of brand names is consistent with results from our food values survey questions, where respondents consistently rank taste as the most important attribute when shopping for food.”

Additional key results from the September report include: 

• Households making less than $50,000 were more price sensitive when presented with two generic or store-brand discounts.
• The consumer food inflation estimate (6.3%) continues to diverge from the government consumer price index of food inflation (4.3%).

“We see that brand choices differ slightly when disaggregated by income,” said Elijah Bryant, a survey research analyst at the center and co-author of the report. “Those who make less than $50,000 are more responsive to changes in the price of their food options.” 

While consumers with the lowest income already tend to choose generic brands over brand names, this disparity grows when the discount on generic or store-brand foods is doubled from 15% to 30%.

In the food expenditures category, Bryant noted a slight decrease in average food-away-from-home (FAFH) spending, which has gone down since June. “This could be a result of FAFH inflation cooling at a slower rate than food-at-home inflation, meaning a dollar goes further for consumers at the grocery store than it does at restaurants,” he said. 

Total weekly food spending has increased by 1.6% since last September, which is below the government’s food inflation estimate of 4.3%. This suggests that consumers might either be buying slightly less food or more affordable food options relative to last year, Bryant said.

Food security remained under the 2022 average of 15% this month (13%), dropping slightly from last month (14%). “Consumers continue to be happy with their diets and lives as a whole, though lower-income households tend to be less happy with their diets and lives than those in higher-income households,” Bryant said.