Yoon et al. (2023) took a polynomial regression approach to confront and challenge the extant knowledge on abusive supervision. Their theorization of the effect of abusive supervision inconsistency and their examination of two sampling studies lead to several conclusions. First, when it comes to abusive supervision, consistency matters: even a drop in the present may create anxiety. Second, when it comes to examining temporal phenomena, proper time lags may not matter: different time lags (i.e., 1 month in Study 1 vs. 1 week in Study 2) may generate converging effects. Third, managers should realize that to deal with abusive supervision, consistent and low is the only path to go. These conclusions, however, are based on the theorization of one aspect of congruence effects (i.e., focusing on a comparison between consistency and inconsistency) and the examination of one type of testing option (i.e., focusing on the principal axes to test lateral shift). In this commentary, we bring in a more complete theorization of congruence effects and different testing options. Our aim is to apply the polynomial regression approach in a more holistic manner to integrate Yoon et al.’s idea of abusive supervision consistency and the existing literature on abusive supervision, shedding new light on the key conclusions they made.
