High Performance and Employee

Well-being 7SSMM007
Dr Tara Reich
Week 8: Bullying and harassment
 Plan for today

• Workplace mistreatment

• Sexual harassment

• Addressing bullying and harassment in the workplace

2
 What is workplace mistreatment?

Workplace deviance
Abusive
supervision
Workplace
incivility
Workplace
mistreatment
Bullying
Mobbing

Counterproductive
work behaviour
Workplace (CWB-I) Victimization
aggression

3
 The terms are defined differently

Construct Definition
Workplace “Behavior by which individuals attempt to harm others at work or their
aggression organizations” (Neuman & Baron, 1998, p. 393)
Victimization “Individual’s perception of having been exposed, either momentarily or
repeatedly, to the aggressive acts of one or more other persons.” (Aquino et al. 1999,
p. 260)
Bullying “A situation where one or several individuals persistently over a period of time
perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or
several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in
defending him or herself against these actions.” (Einarsen & Skogstad 1996, p. 191)
Abusive “Extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal
supervision and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact.” (Tepper 2000, p. 178)
Workplace “Low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the
incivility target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect.”
(Andersson & Pearson 1999, p. 457)

4
 But overlap conceptually

Construct Perspective Intent Intensity/ Frequency Power

Severity difference
CWB Perpetrator Yes Moderate Varies Not required
Workplace Perpetrator Yes Varies Varies Not required
aggression
Victimization Target Yes Varies Varies Not required

Bullying Target Unstated Moderate - Persistent over Not required

High time
Abusive Target No Moderate Persistent over Yes
supervision time
Workplace Target Ambiguous Low Persistent over Not required
incivility time

Adapted from Aquino & Thau (2009) and Hershcovis & Barling (2007)
5
 Antisocial behaviour

Deviant behaviour

Workplace violence

Workplace aggression

Workplace incivility

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management
6 Review, 24, 452-471.
 Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina et al., 2001)
Incivility
“During the PAST FIVE YEARS, have you been “Within the past six months, how frequently
in a situation where any of your superiors or have you experienced…”
coworkers”:
Put you down or was condescending to you?
Made demeaning or derogatory remarks about you?
Addressed you in unprofessional terms, either publicly or
privately?
Doubted your judgment on a matter over which you have
responsibility?
Made unwanted attempts to draw you into a discussion of
personal matters?
Paid little attention to your statement or showed
little interest in your opinion?
Ignored or excluded you from professional
7 camaraderie?
Negative Acts Questionnaire-R (Einarsen et al.,
2009)
Bullying
Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes
Persistent criticism of your errors or mistakes
Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm
Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your
person, attitudes or your private life
Spreading of gossip and rumours about you
Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job
Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with
more trivial or unpleasant tasks
Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work
Practical jokes carried out by people you don’t get along with
Having allegations made against you
Being ignored or excluded
Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you
approach
 Similarity of measurement may explain lack of differences in effects

Abusive Interpersonal
Incivility supervision Bullying conflict
Job satisfaction -.40 -.35 -.39 -.29
(-.44 to -.35) (-.46 to -.23) (-.45 to -.32) (-.32 to -.25)
Turnover intent .36 n/a .35 .33
(.33 to .40) (.24 to .33) (.21 to .33)
Affective -.31 -.26 n/a -.21
commitment (-.40 to -.22) (-.31 to -.21) (-.41 to -.01)
Psychological well- -.33 -.31 -.40 -.35
being (-.42 to -.24) (-.36 to -.24) (-.43 to -.36) (-.38 to -.31)
Physical well- -.17 n/a -.32 -.16
being (-.27 to -.06) (-.35 to -.29) (-.21 to -.10)

Note: Average weighted correlation (variable confidence interval); overlapping confidence intervals suggest that there is no significant difference between the
constructs with respect to a given outcome.

Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying… oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression
8 research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 499-519.
 Workplace mistreatment is bad for targets and organisations

• Employee well-being • Employee performance

• Increased anxiety, depression,
burnout, and emotional exhaustion
• Physical symptoms including
musculoskeletal complaints and sleep
problems
• Relational issues including family
undermining and family
dissatisfaction (cross-over effects)
• Lower task performance, OCB, and
creativity
• More CWB and absences due to
sickness
• Estimated cost of $14,000 USD per
employee in lost performance

Hershcovis et al. (2015) – see reading list

9
 Stressor-strain model
Stressor Stress Strain
A characteristic of the Properties of the environment An individual’s physiological and
environment that imposes upon as they are experienced by psychological response to stress
the perceptual and cognitive individuals and represented in
processes of individuals their consciousness
Psychological
• Depression

Negative mood
Psychological
experience of
Cognitive Psychosomatic
workplace
distraction • Sleep problems
mistreatment
(violence)
Fear

Organisational
• Intent to quit
• Low performance

Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence. In G. R. VandenBos, & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.),
10 Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 29-49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
 Negative effects of incivility due to embarrassment and lack of belonging
Stressor Stress Strain

-.15*
Somatic health
Belongingness
-.52** complaints
-.20**
Incivility
.32**

.76**
Embarrassment Job insecurity
.15**

Power
Hershcovis et al., M. S., Ogunfowora, B., Reich, T. C., & Christie, A. M. (2017). Targeted workplace incivility: The roles of belongingness,
11 embarrassment, and power. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 1057-1075.
 Why do people mistreat others at work?
Situational characteristics
• Stressful work environment
• Overly permissive or overly
controlling leadership style
• Organisational (especially
Perpetrator interpersonal) injustice Target characteristics
characteristics • High negative affect,
• High narcissism, trait trait anger and anxiety
anger and anxiety • High performance and
• Previous experience of conscientiousness
being mistreated

Hershcovis et al. (2015) – see reading list

12
 Employees may be caught in a cycle (or spiral) of mistreatment

Desire for Coercive

ETC
revenge behaviour

Anger
Perceived Coercive Desire for
Loss of face coercive action behaviour revenge
Anger
TIPPING POINT
Desire for
Incivility Perceived Loss of face
Negative revenge coercive action
affect
Perceived norm Desire for
Perceived Incivility
violation/ revenge
incivility Negative
injustice
affect
STARTING POINT Perceived norm
Ambiguous Perceived
violation/
behaviour incivility
injustice

Person A (instigator) Person B (target)

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management
13 Review, 24, 452-471.
 Key issues in workplace mistreatment research

• Perpetrator-target confusion
• Lack of appreciation for the social context
• 57% of interpersonal mistreatment at work occurs in the presence of others (Glomb, 2002)
• 96% of employees report having witnessed mistreatment at work (Porath & Pearson, 2010)

• Measurement issues
• Retrospective
• Formative
• Frequency anchors
• Referent is “someone at work”
• Targets experience more embarrassment when the perpetrator has high power (Hershcovis et al., 2017)
• Targets are more likely to retaliate when the perpetrator has high power and the target does not rely on
them for task completion (Hershcovis, Reich, Parker, & Bozeman, 2012)

Hershcovis, M. S., & Reich, T. C. (2013). Integrating workplace aggression research: Relational, contextual, and method considerations.
14 Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S26-S42.
 Plan for today

• Workplace mistreatment

• Sexual harassment

• Addressing bullying and harassment in the workplace

15
 What is sexual harassment?

• “Unwanted sex-related behaviour at work that is appraised by the recipient as

offensive, exceeding her resources, or threatening her well-being” (Fitzgerald et al., 1997,
p 15)

• A form of workplace mistreatment

• Explicit sexual dimension
• May be excused as welcome attention (Samuels, 2003)

McDonald, P. (2012). Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management
16 Reviews, 14, 1-17
 Sexual harassment has three subcomponents

• Gender harassment: verbal and nonverbal behaviours that convey insulting,

hostile, or degrading attitudes toward women
• Treated you “differently” because of your sex (sexist hostility)
• Repeatedly told sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to you (sexual hostility)
• Unwanted sexual attention: offensive, unwanted, and unreciprocated sexual
behaviours
• Displayed, used, or distributed sexist or suggestive material
• Touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable
• Sexual coercion/Quid pro quo: extortion of sexual cooperation in return for
job-related considerations
• Treated you badly for refusing to have sex
• Implied faster promotions or better treatment if you were sexually cooperative

Fitzgerald, L. F. Magley, V. J., Drasgow, F., & Waldo, C. R. (1999). Measuring Sexual Harassment in the Military: The Sexual Experiences
17 Questionnaire (SEQ—DoD). Military Psychology, 11, 243-263.
 Equality Act 2010 (UK)

1. A person (A) harasses another (B) if:

a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of:
i. violating B's dignity, or
ii. creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
2. A also harasses B if
a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b).
3. A also harasses B if:
a) A or another person engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or that is related to
gender reassignment or sex,
b) the conduct has the purpose or effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), and
c) because of B's rejection of or submission to the conduct, A treats B less favourably than A
would treat B if B had not rejected or submitted to the conduct.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26
18
 Most research focuses on female victim and male perpetrator

• Compared to women, men report less anxiety (i.e., stress) in response to the same
behaviours

4
Mean
expected 3
anxiety

1
Gender harassment Unwanted sexual attention Sexual coercion
Women Men

Berdahl, J. L., Magley, V. J., & Waldo, C. R. (1996). The sexual harassment of men?: Exploring the concept with theory and data.
19 Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 527-547.
 Sexual harassment of men

• Men identify distinct forms of gender harassment

• General lewd language and personal comments
• Negative stereotyping of men
• Harassment for deviating from the male gender role

• Negotiations of gender perspective:

• Men feel harassed by behaviour that challenges current constructions of
masculinity as a domain of characteristics reserved for men
• e.g., dominance, privilege, and success in the workplace
• Women feel harassed by behaviour that reinforces constructions of femininity
as subordinance
Berdahl, J. L., Magley, V. J., & Waldo, C. R. (1996). The sexual harassment of men?: Exploring the concept with theory and data.
20 Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 527-547.
 Sexual harassment in the era of #metoo

21
 Selective incivility as modern discrimination

• Overt forms of harassment and discrimination are prohibited by law, but

evidence suggests that incivility is selectively targeted toward women and
minorities
“A court clerk apparently did not believe that I was
an attorney even though I had been sitting at
21 counsel table for two weeks of the trial. He treated
me rudely and kept me from getting exhibits in
20
order in a document-intensive case. I believe this
19 occurred because I am a young-looking female”
Incivility
18

17
“The person in charge of the settlement program…
refused to speak to me in that conference, and
16 would only address my male co-counsel, even
Men Women
though I had identified myself as lead counsel”
White African American

Cortina et al. (2013) – see reading list

22
 Which is “worse”: Workplace mistreatment or sexual harassment?

Workplace Sexual
aggression harassment z
Job satisfaction -.46 -.29 23.63**
Coworker satisfaction -.37 -.35 1.04
Supervisor satisfaction -.49 -.34 12.53**
Affective commitment -.40 -.29 11.68**
Psychological well-being -.40 -.28 15.31**
Intent to turnover .39 .21 21.99**
Job stress .32 .21 6.56**
Work withdrawal .19 .29 -5.18**
Note: **p < .01

Hershcovis & Barling (2010) – see reading list

23
 Plan for today

• Workplace mistreatment

• Sexual harassment

• Addressing bullying and harassment in the workplace

24
 Interventions in workplace mistreatment

• Primary interventions: preventing the occurrence of mistreatment

• CREW (Civility, Respect, Engagement in the Workplace)
• Developed by US Department of Veteran Affairs (2005)
• Address situational characteristics (i.e., job stress, leadership, injustice)
• Secondary intervention: developing coping skills
• Reappraisal vs emotional suppression or rumination (Niven, Sprigg, & Armitage, 2013; Niven, Sprigg,
Armitage, & Satchwell, 2013)
• Expressive writing (Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009)
• Tertiary interventions: addressing the outcomes
• Punishing the perpetrator
• Supporting the target
• Mediation

Hershcovis et al. (2015) – see reading list

25
 Third-party interventions
Does situation require
action?
Yes No
Is it my personal
No
responsibility to act?
Yes Intervention
unlikely
No
Should I take action No Should I take action
now? later?
Yes Yes
What are the net costs What are the net costs
of involvement? of involvement?
Low High Low High
High Low High Low
involvement- involvement- involvement- involvement-
high immediacy high immediacy low immediacy low immediacy
intervention intervention intervention intervention
Bowes-Sperry, L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. Academy of
26 Management Review, 30, 288-306.
 Third-party interventions

• Based on the deontic model of justice (Folger, 2001)

• Third-parties have an evolutionary-based negative reaction to the unfair treatment of others
which can motivate them to intervene to restore justice even at a personal cost (e.g., Hershcovis &
Bhatnagar, 2017; Turillo, Folger, Lavelle, Umphress, & Gee, 2002)

O’Reilly, J., & Aquino, K. (2011). A model of third-parties’ morally motivated responses to mistreatment in organizations. Academy of
27 Management Review, 36, 526-543.
 When all else is equal, third-parties negatively evaluate the instigator

Study 1 Study 2
5 5
*** **
Work-related evaluation

4 4

3 3 Civil
Uncivil

2 2

1 1
Instigator Target Instigator Target

Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2015). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 203-215.
28
 And give them more unpleasant work to do

Study 1 Study 2
8 40
Number of undesirable work tasks

*
7 35

Amount of spicy sauce

6 30
5 25
4 20 Civil
Uncivil
3 15
2 10
1 5
0 0
Instigator Target Instigator Target

Reich, T. C., & Hershcovis, M. S. (2015). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 203-215.
29
 The relationship between the third-party and the perpetrator/target influences their
reactions
• Third-parties experience contentment in response to mistreatment of a targets
outside their “scope of justice” (Mitchell, Vogel, & Folger, 2015)

• Powerful third-parties tend to confront the perpetrator whereas low power third-
parties tend to avoid the perpetrator and support the target (Hershcovis, Neville, Reich,
Christie, Cortina, & Shan, 2017)
• Consistent with power approach theory (Keltner et al., 2003)

30
 But is third-party intervention “effective”?

• Although “punishing” the perpetrator is conceptualised as a morally-motivated

third-party response (Folger, 2001; O’Reilly & Aquino, 2011), perpetrators likely experience this
as threatening (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981; de Wit, Jehn, & Scheepers, 2013)

Hershcovis, Neville, Vranjes, & Reich (in development)

31
 Informal approaches to addressing interpersonal conflict

• Separate the people from the problem

• Focus on interests, not positions

• Generate a variety of possible actions before deciding what to do

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.
32
 Separate the people from the problem

Perception Problem: Perceive other as enemy

Problem: Emotions (anger, fear, etc.)

Emotion block progress of negotiation

Problem: Not talking, not hearing, not

Communication understanding

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.
33
 It is best to deal with people problems directly

• Use perspective-taking to change perceptions

• The effort alone leads to positive interpersonal consequences (Parker et al., 2008)

• Address emotions directly

• Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate
• Use symbolic gestures to bring parties together

• Encourage (and engage in) communication via active listening

• Paraphrase in a positive way
• Disputants should speak about themselves, not about the other party
• People are less creative when they feel under threat (Staw et al., 1981)

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.
34
 Focus on interests, not positions

• A disputant’s position is something he or she has decided on

• e.g., I won’t work with Brenda

• A disputant’s interest(s) is what caused him or her to take that position

• e.g., I don’t feel that Brenda gives me credit for the work I do, and that is
important to me

• For every interest, there are usually many positions that could meet it

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.
35
 Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do

• Invent options for mutual gain

• Add and unbundle issues to increase resources available
• working arrangements
• recognition, trusting Brenda, etc.

• Brainstorm as many options as you can think of, no matter how good or bad,
realistic or unrealistic
• Brainstorm without judgment (impedes creativity)
• e.g., change reporting structure, change type of collaborative tasks, build trust
with Brenda

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.
36
 Critical behaviours for addressing interpersonal conflict

• Utilise questioning to gather information

Questioning • Open-ended, information seeking
• Closed-ended, lightly focused questions

• Demonstrated by lack of interruptions

Active listening • Critical in bringing the underlying needs and interests
to the table

• Paraphrasing in a positive way

Checking for • Reassures the other side that you understand their
Understanding point of view, thus making it possible for them to hear
another
Focusing on
• Limit the amount of verbal wandering
the Problem

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.
37
 Key takeaways
• Workplace mistreatment is an umbrella term for negative interpersonal behaviour
the target is motivated to avoid
• Includes low (i.e., incivility) and high (i.e., bullying) intensity behaviours
• Associated with decreased employee well-being and performance

• Sexual harassment is a form of workplace mistreatment with an explicit sexual

dimension
• Men experience sexually harassing behaviours differently than women
• Sexual harassment is ultimately about power (Berdahl et al., 1996)

• There is limited empirical research on interventions in workplace mistreatment

• Third-party intervention seems promising, but implications not fully understood
• Addressing interpersonal conflict informally is generally preferred

38