Dealing with hostile interpersonal relationships at work has been the topic of many popular books and workshops. Yet, with the exception of sexual harassment, there is surprisingly little mention in the organizational research literature on the nature, extent, and costs of abusive work interactions. These more frequent, more tolerated, and, thus, more damaging interpersonal interactions involve hostile verbal and nonverbal nonphysical behaviors directed by one or more persons towards another. The primary aim is to undermine the other to ensure compliance. In this study, we examined the extent to which students experienced nonsexual nonphysical abusive behavior on their jobs, the impact of this experience on job satisfaction, the characteristics of the actor and target, and responses to these behaviors, particularly turnover. The results indicate that although most of the students had very positive interactions at work, exposure to abusive behavior was familiar, was relatively frequent, and had a negative impact on the targets. The actors tended to be bosses and older than the targets. The quality of the interpersonal relationships at work was related to job satisfaction and intention to leave. The implications of these results are discussed with respect to individual, situational, and organizational factors that may be related to the presence and impact of abusive interpersonal interactions. Avenues for research on the nature, extent, and impact of these behaviors at both the individual and organizational levels are identified.

Although much research has been done on workplace aggression and bullying over the past two decades, academics have paid relatively little attention to bullying in their own institutions. In this article, we discuss what is currently known about bullying in academia, with a particular focus on faculty behavior, and apply empirical and conceptual findings from research on aggression and bullying in other work settings and the significant literature on conflict management in higher education. We begin by describing the nature and prevalence of aggression and bullying in higher education. Drawing on well-established findings from interpersonal aggression research, we discuss several important social, situational, and contextual antecedents to aggression (including academic culture, climate, values, and work practices) and demonstrate how these may serve as causes and consequences of bullying. Embedded in this discussion, we offer a number of specific propositions for future research. We conclude with a discussion of possible actions for prevention and management of bullying in higher educational settings.In the 1990s, researchers began to discuss, and explore, bullying among adults in work settings (Leymann, 1990). For the better part of the past two decades, a growing number of researchers (ourselves included) have been conducting research on this and related phenomena (e.g., workplace aggression and violence, mobbing, emotional abuse, etc.). Surprisingly, university-

No abstract

The most frequent form of workplace aggression is not physical, it is emotional and psychological in nature. Known by many names, emotional abuse at work is rapidly becoming recognized as pervasive and costly both in individual and organizational terms. Most of the research to date on emotional abuse at work has utilized survey and other quantitative methodologies in an effort to document the presence, prevalence, and impact of these behaviors. However, these methodologies are based on researchers’ definitions and theories of what constitutes emotional abuse rather than on the meaning given to these experiences by the targets of these behaviors. A thorough understanding of this phenomenon requires a scholarly appreciation of the target’s experience. Taking “feeling abused” as the criterion variable, this study examined target’s experiences based on interviews with people who self-identifed as having experienced difficulties with a boss, coworker, or subordinate. The interpersonal aspects of emotional abuse focused on the nature of behaviors exhibited and the respondents’ labeling of their experience. Consistent with elements of researchers’ definitions, behaviors were defined as abusive when they were repetitive, resulted in injury or harm to target, and were experienced as a lack of recognition of the individual’s integrity. Judgments of violation of standards of conduct and unsolicited nature of the behaviors were also related to respondents’ experiences. Relative power differential was also an important element. However, contrary to researchers’ definitions, actor intent was not central in defining the experience as abusive. The systemic aspect of emotional abuse was illustrated in the nature of organizational responding to concerns raised by respondents. These responses were of critical importance in respondents’ labeling of their experiences as abusive. The focus on the meaning of the behaviors for the respondents provides an enriched picture of key definitional elements. Implications of the findings for future research are discussed.

No abstract