China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Victims and survivors
Published in John C. Gunn, Pamela J. Taylor, Forensic Psychiatry, 2014
Pamela J Taylor, Sharif El-Leithy, John Gunn, Felicity Hawksley, Michael Howlett, Gillian Mezey, David Reiss, Jenny Shaw, Jonathan Shepherd, Nicola Swinson, Pamela J Taylor, Jayne Zito, Felicity de Zulueta
Most acts of internal workplace aggression take the form of emotional abuse or bullying (Keashley and Harvey, 2004). Such behaviours may include abusive supervision, social undermining (include threat to the victim’s professional status or personal standing), bullying, mobbing, isolation, overwork or harassment occurring in a continuing relationship between the victim and the perpetrator (Raynor, 2005; Rayner and Hoel, 1997). Although verbal abuse and perhaps micromanagement are the stereotypical behaviours of the bullying manager and most easily identifiable, victims of bullying are actually more likely to be undermined by acts of omission, such as exclusion from regular communications or invitations to meetings (Rayner and Cooper, 2006). Perception is the key to understanding bullying (Painter, 1991). In UK surveys, 10–20% of employees have reported being bullied in the last 6 months, usually by a superior (80%), with the rest being peer bullying (e.g. Hoel et al., 2004; Lewis, 1999; Quine, 1999; Raynor, 2000; UNISON, 1997).
Toxic Triads: Supervisor Characteristics, Subordinate Self-Esteem, and Supervisor Stressors in Relation to Perceptions of Abusive Supervision
Published in Human Performance, 2023
Mary B. Mawritz, Maureen L. Ambrose, Manuela Priesemuth
Third, we proposed a general model conceptualizing abusive supervision as a function of supervisors, subordinates, and situations. However, we chose to examine specific supervisor, subordinate, and situational characteristics. Our choice of variables was made with an attempt to balance breadth and practical concerns (i.e., keep the scope of the research manageable). We focused on characteristics identified in related literatures (i.e., aggression; Anderson & Bushman, 2002) and sought characteristics with consistent theoretical and empirical relationships with aggression and that fit within our broader theoretical model. Yet, we acknowledge that a broad range of supervisor, subordinate, and situational characteristics exist, and the influence of other characteristics on abusive supervision warrant attention in future research.
The Consequence of Unethical Leader Behavior to Employee Well-Being: Does Support from the Organization Mitigate or Exacerbate the Stress Experience?
Published in Human Performance, 2022
Andrea L. Hetrick, Marie S. Mitchell, Margo C. Villarosa-Hurlocker, Taylor S. Sullivan
Therefore, we argue that the negativity experienced from unethical leader behavior will diminish employees’ health. Unethical behavior by leaders prompts employees to stew on the wrongfulness of, potential harm that accompanies, and general distress from the leader’s behavior. The negativity will elicit a sustained release of stress hormones that will adversely impact these employees’ health through several indicators (e.g., cardiovascular pathophysiology, hypertension, poor health habits) that impair physical functioning (Schwartz et al., 2012; Selye, 1956; Tanwar et al., 2018). Studies have demonstrated abusive supervision negatively influences employee health (Lin et al., 2013). Altogether, these arguments suggest: Hypothesis 3.Unethical leader behavior will indirectly and negatively influence health through negative affect.
A Light at the End of the Tunnel: How the Right Workplace Structure Can Help Disrupt the Negative Impact of Abusive Supervision
Published in Human Performance, 2022
Manuela Priesemuth, Marshall Schminke, Bailey Bigelow, Marie Mitchell
A recent Gallup poll of employed U.S. workers revealed that over 1 million reported that a bad boss was the primary reason for their work dissatisfaction, thus supporting the adage that “people leave managers, not companies” (Hyacinth, 2017). Indeed, abusive supervision – defined as the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors toward subordinates, excluding physical contact (e.g., ridiculing employees, telling them their thoughts and feelings are stupid, and putting them down in front of others) – has been found to trigger a broad range of negative personal and organizational responses from victims, including increased turnover, poorer job attitudes, and diminished performance (Tepper, 2000, 2007). Furthermore – and perhaps even more detrimental to organizations – research has revealed that abused employees often engage in aggression themselves in the form of interpersonal deviance, where they direct hostile acts at other members of the organization (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). As such, the relationship between abusive supervision and employee interpersonal deviance might be the most destructive and costliest for companies, as it incites further aggression and the possibility for continuous abuse spirals to emerge (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012). It is even believed that deviance contributes materially to nearly a third of organizational bankruptcies in the U.S. (Marasi, Bennett, & Budden, 2018).