Beyond Blaming the Victim: Toward a More Progressive Understanding of Workplace Mistreatment

Abstract

Theories of human aggression can inform research, policy, and practice in organizations. One such theory, victim precipitation, originated in the field of criminology. According to this perspective, some victims invite abuse through their personalities, styles of speech or dress, actions, and even their inactions. That is, they are partly at fault for the wrongdoing of others. This notion is gaining purchase in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology as an explanation for workplace mistreatment. The first half of our article provides an overview and critique of the victim precipitation hypothesis. After tracing its history, we review the flaws of victim precipitation as catalogued by scientists and practitioners over several decades. We also consider real-world implications of victim precipitation thinking, such as the exoneration of violent criminals. Confident that I-O can do better, the second half of this article highlights alternative frameworks for researching and redressing hostile work behavior. In addition, we discuss a broad analytic paradigm—perpetrator predation—as a way to understand workplace abuse without blaming the abused. We take the position that these alternative perspectives offer stronger, more practical, and more progressive explanations for workplace mistreatment. Victim precipitation, we conclude, is an archaic ideology. Criminologists have long since abandoned it, and so should we.

Do you only have yourself to blame? A meta‐analytic test of the victim precipitation model

“…Originating within the field of criminology, this model explains the occurrence of criminal behavior by arguing that victim traits and behaviors can precipitate a victim's own experiences of crime and maltreatment. Though this model was initially popular among criminologists, scholars began criticizing the implications of the victim precipitation ideology as early as the 1970s (Cortina, Rabelo, & Holland, 2018). According to these critics, victim precipitation thinking encourages victim blaming, offers inadequate logical and empirical evidence, and provides little practical insight into predicting and combating crime (e.g., Timmer & Norman, 1984).…”

Social Dominance Orientation and Emotion Regulation: A Parallel Multiple Mediator Model of Instigated Incivility Moderated By Workgroup Civility Climate

“…The proposed model of instigated incivility tested in this research suggested that employees with strong social dominance traits are more likely to instigate uncivil workplace behavior Hu & Liu, 2017;Shao et al, 2011). The model also explored how or why instigated incivility unfolds within organizations and suggested that uncivil behavior may be explained by the emotion regulation strategies of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression (Grandey, 2000;Grandey & Gabriel, 2015;Van Hiel et al, 2006), and that norms of workgroup civility climate may specify when instigated incivility occurs (Cortina et al, 2018;Walsh et al, 2012;2018).…”

“…Employee emotions are identified as leverage points for HRD practitioners to reduce instigated incivility within organizations (Reio & Ghosh, 2009). Workgroup civility climate norms (Cortina, Rabelo, & Holland, 2018;Walsh et al, 2012Walsh et al, , 2018 and emotion regulation strategies may explain the trajectory of workplace behaviors (Grandey, 2000;Grandey & Gabriel, 2015). Instigated incivility research might yield new insights into the implementation of policies and practices to reduce its likelihood in the workplace (Cortina et al, 2018).…”

“…Workplace incivility research is important for the field of HRD as the primary role of the field is to create and support heathy and productive work environments (Callahan, 2011;Estes & Wang, 2008;Githens, 2011;Reio & Sanders-Reio, 2011;Trudel & Reio, 2011). There is a need to identify patterns that inform the process of instigated incivility to reduce its incidence and impact (Cortina, et al, 2018;Jex et al, 2010;Meier & Semmer, 2012;Schilpzand et al, 2016). The current study was the first to examine the relationship between the emotion regulation strategies of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression on two types of socially dominant employees (SDO-D and SDO-E), to evaluate how these emotion regulation strategies impact uncivil workplace behavior instigated by socially dominant employees, and to test these relationships in uncivil and civil workgroup civility climates.…”

“…In response to the need to create productive, healthy, respectful, and socially responsible workplace environments, there is an urgent call for HRD researchers and practitioners to develop and support strategies that reduce the incidence and impact of uncivil workplace behavior Byrd, 2018;Callahan, 2011;Estes & Wang, 2008;Githens, 2011;Mizzi & Rocco, 2013;Reio & Sanders-Reio, 2011;Trudel & Reio, 2011). However, there is a significant shortage of research on instigators of incivility and on variables that may address how, why, or when workplace incivility occurs (Cortina et al, 2018;Schilpzand et al, 2016). The proposed model of instigated incivility tested in this research suggested that employees with strong social dominance traits are more likely to instigate uncivil workplace behavior Hu & Liu, 2017;Shao et al, 2011).…”