Emotional Labor Under Abusive Supervision: Evidence from Nonstandard Employees in Public Organizations

Qing Miao & Xingkui Zhu

Review of Public Personnel Administration2026https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x261419130article
AJG 2ABDC B
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Nonstandard employees typically receive less favorable treatment than their standard counterparts, yet little is known about how supervisors manage and interact with them. Drawing on three-wave, time-lagged survey data from 650 nonstandard employees in Chinese public organizations, this study reveals that abusive supervision increases employees’ use of surface acting while reducing their use of deep acting, thereby intensifying emotional exhaustion. Unexpectedly, the likelihood of standard employment, which is often regarded as a positive expectation, intensifies rather than mitigates the negative effects of abusive supervision. This study enhances our understanding of emotional labor under abusive supervision and provides practical insights for public organizations to better motivate and support nonstandard employees.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x261419130

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{qing2026,
  title        = {{Emotional Labor Under Abusive Supervision: Evidence from Nonstandard Employees in Public Organizations}},
  author       = {Qing Miao & Xingkui Zhu},
  journal      = {Review of Public Personnel Administration},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x261419130},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Emotional Labor Under Abusive Supervision: Evidence from Nonstandard Employees in Public Organizations

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.