Deviant Behavior at Work: A Target and a Bystander Perspective on Workplace Ostracism and Bullying

Workplace deviance, i.e., harmful behaviors initiated by organizational members that are conflicting with predominant organizational norms (Bennett & Robinson, 2003), may disrupt organizations’ internal functioning and raise serious ethical concerns for organizations. Researchers have sought to examine the antecedents and outcomes of workplace deviant behaviors (e.g., Berry et al., 2007). In this symposium we focus on the consequences, mediators and moderators of two such deviant behaviors: workplace ostracism and workplace bullying. Workplace ostracism, a stressor most employees have encountered (Ferris et al., 2008), can be defined as being overlooked by others, which leads to reduced social interactions (Sommer et al., 2021). Although workplace ostracism has been identified as a phenomenon distinct from other forms of workplace mistreatment (Ferris et al., 2008; Howard et al., 2020) excluding and rejecting are present in workplace bullying as the core activities of bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Leymann, 1996), i.e., a process in which an employee is repeatedly and systematically exposed to negative behaviors that he or she is unable to defend against (Einarsen et al., 2011). Much of the prior work on ostracism and bullying has focused primarily on the perspective of the victim (Howard et al., 2020; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2018). In this symposium, we put together five empirical papers to examine the mechanism and outcomes of both workplace ostracism and workplace bullying from the target and the bystander perspective as well. We have gathered research using longitudinal and experimental studies providing knowledge on both triggering and buffering factors of workplace ostracism and bullying development. This symposium represents our effort to understand and provide knowledge on preventing workplace deviance such as ostracism and bullying. Presentations The first three papers focus on aversive consequences of workplace ostracism. In the first paper, Glambek and colleagues concentrate on within-person longitudinal consequences of experiencing workplace ostracism. The results of two three-wave studies (N = 804, N = 870) indicate that the fluctuations in workplace ostracism experienced by individuals were associated with decreased levels of perceived psychological safety observed at the same time over a period of 12 weeks. The higher-than-usual within- person losses of psychological safety (experienced by employees exposed to higher-than-usual levels of workplace ostracism) predicted lower levels of affective well-being and work-engagement (Study 1) and higher levels of employee silence (Study 2). Moreover, within-person (but not between-person) group-self prototypicality, i.e., a feeling of fit, similarity and belongingness in the work environment, moderated the relationship between ostracism and psychological safety. These studies deepen our knowledge of the mechanism underlying the impact of workplace ostracism on individual employees. Torzewska and Gamian-Wilk present findings of a three-wave study (N = 472) and an experimental vignette-based study (N = 232) on the mediating role of evaluating ostracism as unfair in the relationship between experiencing ostracism and antisocial responses. Based on the Williams’ Temporal Need-Threat Model (2001, 2009), Smart Richman and Leary’s Multimotive Model (2009) and literature reviews on ostracism (Gerber & Wheeler, 2009; Leary et al., 2006) and workplace ostracism (Sharma & Dhar, 2022; Zhou et al., 2021), they hypothesized and showed that ostracized employees responded with greater levels of counterproductive work behavior than included employees. In addition, they found that feelings of unfairness mediated the relation between experienced ostracism and displayed counterproductive work behavior. These findings indicate the deleterious consequences of excluding and rejecting co-workers and call for increasing efforts to create inclusive relations and communication at work. The next two papers indicate the importance of basing workplace mistreatment interventions on shaping bystanders’ responses. Idziak and Gamian-Wilk examine how observers judge excluded employees with obesity. It was assumed that observers would be more likely to exclude and blame obese employees (compared with those of regular weight), especially when they were presented as either low in competence or low in warmth. In two experimental studies using vignette scenarios (Study 1, N = 417) and the video of CyberMail interaction (Study 2, N = 370) it was shown that ostracism observers blamed only employees presented as low in competence or low in warmth. However, observers were more favourable to ostracised than to included employees, as well as to employees with obesity compared to those of regular weight. These findings contribute to understanding bystanders’ reactions to mistreatment. Drawing on the social identity theory, Kari Einarsen and colleagues examined the role of bystanders’ responses to observing negative others’ activities in the development of the workplace bullying process. The results of two pre-registered experimental vignette-based studies (N = 1119, N = 1162) indicate that shared identity with the victim consistently increased constructive bystander actions, i.e., intentions to intervene, especially when the perpetrator is from an out-group. However, destructive bystander behavior was the highest when both victim and perpetrator were out-group members, highlighting the vulnerability of out-group victims. These findings stress the crucial role of team-level social identification within groups, shared identity with the victim and indicate the need for inclusive practices towards out-group members. Finally, the last paper by Kristoffer Holm and colleagues focuses directly on the possibility of implementing civility interventions. The intervention consisted of five workshop sessions held monthly over a period of six months and was implemented in 10 workplaces. Social work environment, work-related health, and civility level were measured before, after, and six months after the end of the intervention. The study design enabled with-in-group and between-group comparisons because of control condition. The findings highlight the possibility of implementing civility interventions as a preventive measure against workplace bullying. Taken together, the five studies included in this symposium contribute to increased knowledge that may lead to the development of interventions that may effectively reduce deviant behaviour at work, i.e., workplace ostracism and workplace bullying. Workplace ostracism and psychological safety at the within-person level Author: Mats Glambek; BI Norwegian Business School Author: Øystein Løvik Hoprekstad; BI Norwegian Business School Author: Kari Einarsen; BI Norwegian Business School Author: Jane O’Reilly; Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa That’s unfair! The way workplace ostracism is perceived impacts antisocial work behavior Author: Marta Torzewska; SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities Author: Malgorzata Gamian-Wilk; Observing your co-workers being ostracized: Are obese colleagues stigmatized? Author: Paulina Idziak; SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities Author: Malgorzata Gamian-Wilk; Social identification as an explanatory framework for bystanders’ perceptions in workplace bullying Author: Kari Einarsen; BI Norwegian Business School Author: Kari Wik Ågotnes; BI Norwegian Business School Author: Mats Glambek; BI Norwegian Business School Author: Øystein Løvik Hoprekstad; BI Norwegian Business School Author: Lena Aadnevik Zahlquist; BI Norwegian Business School Author: Fergus Gilmour Neville; University of St Andrews Implementing a workplace civility intervention in three organizational contexts Author: Kristoffer Holm; Author: Rebecka Forssell; Malmö University Author: Sandra Jönsson; Lund University

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.