Fear in organizations

Abstract

PurposeThis study examines the relationship between interactional justice, which is a specific type of organizational justice perception that reflects how a person is treated by an authority, and workplace internet deviance (or Cyberloafing) as a category of deviant workplace behavior. The tested model suggests that interactional justice affects cyberloafing by influencing fear of formal punishment –as an intimidation construct– which, in turn, prompts employees to reciprocate with deviant workplace internet behaviors.Design/methodology/approachData were collected from 147 (19.4 percent) of the 758 non‐teaching staff at a Spanish public university. Accessibility of individual e‐mail accounts was similar for all employees. E‐mails asking for collaboration were sent in two phases. A questionnaire was posted on the university Intranet and could be accessed by clicking on a link in the e‐mails.FindingsStructural equation modeling results support that interactional justice is an antecedent of fear of formal punishment that fully mediates the relationship between interactional justice and workplace internet deviance.Research limitations/implicationsThe researched employees have job conditions inherent to the peculiarities of the public sector which may limit the ability to extrapolate the findings in the private sector. The fear construct was assessed by a self‐supplied scale, and thus the presence of shades of other similar emotions could not be discounted. Findings provide a more understandable mechanism of the influence of supervisor disrespect on cyberloafing.Practical implicationsThese findings contribute to an understanding of the ways in which organizations can control cyberloafing and provide reservations about the intimidator strategy efficiency.Originality/valueThe use of fear of punishment as a mediator on this link is unprecedented.

Personal Web Use in the Workplace: Why Does It Persist in a Context of Strict Security and Monitoring?

“…We also highlight that employee and employer definitions and measures of PWU may not necessarily be the same. Current scholarly explanations on what influences PWU appear to rest on the assumption that self-reported and EM-reported PWU frequencies are comparable (e.g., Blanchard & Henle, 2008;Eastin, Glynn & Griffiths, 2007;Lee, Lee & Kim, 2004;Lim, 2002;Mahatanankoon, Anandarajan & Igbaria, 2004;Manrique De Lara, 2006;Shaw & Gant, 2002). We found that the two measures of PWU (self-reported access or try to access and EM-reported blocking of attempted access) are not identical.…”

Personal use of technology at work: a literature review and a theoretical model for understanding how it affects employee job performance

“…In negative PUTW studies, scholars have primarily discussed deterrence-based policies for curbing PUTW, such as internet monitoring and sanctions. Although some of the findings are mixed (Chen et al, 2008;Rahimnia & Mazidi, 2015;Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2006), these studies have generally found that monitoring and sanctions are useful for mitigating PUTW (Glassman et al, 2015;Henle et al, 2009;Shepherd et al, 2014;Ugrin & Pearson, 2013Urbaczewski & Jessup, 2002;Wang et al, 2013), especially when internet monitoring and sanctions are combined together (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara & Olivares-Mesa, 2010). Deterrence-based policies can curb PUTW because monitoring and sanctions can increase employees' perceived risk of engaging in PUTW.…”

“…On the one hand, deterrence-related factors are less salient in explaining PUTW than other factors, such as the perceived benefits of PUTW and personal norms against PUTW (Li Moody & Siponen, 2013). On the other hand, deterrence policies may elicit employees' resistance, such as increased PUTW behaviour (Wang et al, 2013;Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara et al, 2006) and decreased job satisfaction (Jiang et al, 2020;Shepherd & Klein, 2012;Urbaczewski & Jessup, 2002). Accordingly, these studies have discussed PUTW policies that are less coercive (Ivarsson & Larsson, 2011).…”

Personal sense of power, emotion and compliance in the workplace: a moderated mediation approach

“…Research on emotion in conflict situations has repeatedly demonstrated that negotiators experiencing positive emotions are more cooperative and agreeable, whereas those Moderated mediation approach experiencing negative affect tend to be more competitive and aggressive (Allred et al, 1997;Baron, 1990;Forgas, 1998;Laslo-Roth and Schwarzwald, 2016;Pillutla and Murnighan, 1996). To a lesser extent, research has shown that negative emotions (such as fear of punishment) can cause more compliance (Brooks and Schweitzer, 2011;Zoghbi Manrique de Lara, 2006). These contradictory findings may stem from a poor distinction between the different negative emotions expressed (anger vs sadness) or from the existence of a moderating factor such as emotion regulation.…”