"First, we provide insights regarding how supervisors respond to their own abusive behaviors, which allows organizations to better address its consequences. By exploring how abusive behavior impacts the supervisor him/herself, we help to identify potential “blind spots” in how abuse can promote (or inhibit) other behaviors. Specifically, we find that symbolized moral identity is a key characteristic that prompts abusive episodes to impact image concerns and subsequent impression management behaviors. Thus, organizations might consider offering ethics trainings to help supervisors monitor their symbolized moral identity when it comes to mistreating subordinates. Such trainings have been shown to impact individuals’ other forms of moral perceptions (Reynolds, 2008). Similarly, other scholars have advocated for employees to develop their self-monitoring and political skills being that they are critical when it comes to favorable impression management tactics (Bolino et al., 2016), suggesting a valuable focus on symbolized moral identity. In this way, these trainings may help supervisors become more aware of the impacts of their behavior for their image which, as indicated by our findings, may lead to some degree of reparatory behavior – albeit inauthentic reparatory behaviors.

Second, our findings have implications for the selection of organizational supervisors. That is, organizations that place greater emphasis on authenticity regarding leadership or organizational climate (George et al., 2007) would benefit from our findings, particularly when it comes to supervisor selection. Specifically, we find that supervisors who endorse less of a symbolized moral identity are less likely to have image concerns and thus less prone to engage in impression management tactics that may be perceived as inauthentic following abusive episodes (Eastman, 1994). Thus, it behooves organizations that want to develop highly authentic supervisors or organizational climates to seek to hire supervisors that are lower (or at least not higher) on symbolized moral identity.

Third, prior research indicates that engaging in daily impression management tactics comes with a personal cost to the actor. Specifically, impression management tactics have been linked to greater subsequent daily cognitive depletion, exhaustion, anxiety, work-family conflict, and sleep (Klotz et al., 2018; Wagner et al., 2014), while potentially being deceptive to the supervisor themselves (Conger, 1990). Supervisors who engage in abusive episodes not only experience greater daily image concerns, but in attempting to resolve those concerns with daily impression management tactics, are likely to generate greater personal exhaustion, anxiety, and work-to-family hardships (Wagner et al., 2014). While it would be most beneficial for organizations to integrate training initiatives that aid supervisors to develop better interpersonal and leadership skills as a means of curtailing abusive episodes in the first place (Tepper, 2000), it would also be advantageous for organizations to provide support for leaders that have engaged in abusive episodes to more effectively cope with the image concerns they experience as a result of mistreating their employees. Further, providing training to supervisors on the implications of their behavior—moral or image— may prove to be a fruitful path forward for practitioners. Recent research has highlighted the value of self-reflection for supervisors (Lanaj et al., 2019) as a means of fostering improved behaviors; encouraging such reflection may help supervisors to more genuinely respond to their past behavior, rather than engage in surface-level, image-focused behaviors.

Finally, Eastman (1994) indicates that impression management tactics are received unfavorably when perceived as insincere or there are ulterior motives for the behaviors (see also Harris et al., 2007; Leary, 1996). Our study shows that prior-day abusive episodes precede next-day ingratiation, exemplification, and self-promotion behaviors. Given the temporal proximity of abusive and impression management behaviors, third-parties (e.g., subordinates, the focal supervisor’s direct supervisor) may view next-day impression management behaviors as insincere or owing to ulterior motives of the supervisor trying to repair his/her damaged image as a result of his/her prior day abusive behaviors. Indeed, our emphasis on within-person variation on such impression management behaviors underscores this point; within-person variation on impression management behaviors, by deviating from the supervisor’s typical impression management behaviors, may warrant additional attributions of insincerity. This lack of attributed sincerity can undermine the effectiveness of the impression management tactics (Eastman, 1994; Leary, 1996) or erode the supervisor’s relationships with others (Kim et al., 2018). Thus, supervisors who engage in any form of abusive episodes would benefit by being cognizant that their impression management approaches intended to repair their image concerns may be interpersonally costly. In other words, impression management behaviors should be employed with caution given the potential downsides of those behaviors (Bolino et al., 2016). Instead, managers may find value in employing more genuine forms of reparative behaviors, rather than impression management behaviors, following episodes of abusive behavior."