A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations

Abstract

SummaryLeading organizational behavior scholars have argued that construct proliferation threatens the interpretability of interpersonal mistreatment research and have argued that researchers should employ the same terminology to refer to constructs that have been studied under distinct labels (e.g., bullying, deviance, retaliation, abuse, undermining). We argue that most of the construct labels researchers regularly employ capture meaningful theoretical differences, although the corresponding measures often fail to capture the distinctive features of mistreatment constructs. We further argue that a more immediate threat to the interpretability of research in this area is that scholars have overlooked the distinctions among the individual forms of mistreatment that comprise extant operational definitions. We offer recommendations for addressing what we perceive to be the major limitations of current interpersonal mistreatment research.

The Interpersonal Pollution and its Effect on Group Members’ Well-Being, and on Culture of Unity in Organizational Context

“…Although millions of employees are subjected to unethical behaviours perpetrated by their supervisors (Andersson, Pearson, 1999;Tepper et al, 2006;Tepper, Henle, 2011;ECR, 2014), the research in this area has traditionally focused on its counterpart: ethical supervisory behavior and ethical leadership. Only recently researchers have started to pay attention to so-called dark supervision and in leaders' behaviours per se (see Ünal et al, 2012;Hershcovis, 2011;Tepper, Henle, 2011;Brown, Mitchell, 2010;Tepper, 2007), i.e.…”

“…Only recently researchers have started to pay attention to so-called dark supervision and in leaders' behaviours per se (see Ünal et al, 2012;Hershcovis, 2011;Tepper, Henle, 2011;Brown, Mitchell, 2010;Tepper, 2007), i.e. when exploring the causes and effects of these supervisory and leadership behaviours.…”

Testing and Expanding an Emotion-Centered Model of Workplace Aggression: The Moderating Effects of Perceived Intensity and Social Support in the Workplace

“…Currently, much of the research in the workplace aggression subtypes has been concerned with distinguishing one subtype from another (Tepper & Henle, 2011). However, recently there has been a call to unify workplace aggression research and identify similarities among the various subtypes instead of pointing out the differences (Hershcovis, 2011;Raver & Barling, 2008).…”

Don't Get Mad, Get Even: How Employees Abused by Their Supervisor Retaliate Against the Organization and Undermine Their Spouses

“…Moral courage is especially necessary for individuals to act within moral norms when there is threat of personal risk (Putman, 2010;Trevino, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006). For example, when followers are abused by their supervisors certain forms of retaliation can present important risks.…”

“…According to Tepper and Henle (2011) abusive supervision is represented by specific supervisory behaviors that may not reflect an ongoing relationship; LMX, however, represents the overall quality of a supervisor-subordinate relationship that is developed over a long period of time. So, although an individual may have a generally positive attitude towards his or her supervisor, it is possible that this supervisor occasionally engages in hostile behaviors.…”