Interpersonal and Systemic Aspects of Emotional Abuse at Work: The Target’s Perspective

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.

Workers' perception of workplace bullying: A cross-cultural study

“…Nevertheless, the fact that the direct negative acts were far more considered when defining workplace bullying is explained by Keashly (1998), who pointed out that the preponderance of certain acts may be because targets and witnesses can identify the action and its harmfulness. And conversely, Keashly (2001) pointed out as well that certain subtle acts are more difficult to describe being more complex to discern for targets and witnesses. To sum up, this is one of the first studies that has tried to analyse how workplace bullying can vary across cultures, reflecting not only the differences but also the existing similarities.…”

The moderating role of perceived organisational support in the relationship between workplace bullying and turnover intention across sectors in South Africa

“…The aforementioned information clearly demonstrates that without a supportive culture in the organisation, workplace bullying will lead, directly or indirectly, to targets in the organisation to have an increased intention to resign (Djurkovic et al, 2004;Keashly, 2001;Quine, 2001).…”

Young workers' experiences of abusive leadership

“…Further, in order to access rich and exhaustive descriptions of abusive leaders we argue that there is a need for more qualitative research. Keashly (2001) adopted a qualitative research approach to explore emotional abuse at work. Relative power differential and the organization's response to individual concerns of feeling abused emerged as significant themes for the participants in her study.…”

“…Research design differences may explain these mixed findings about intent and abusive leadership. For example, Baron and Neuman (1998) asked participants to consider intent as a key dimension of workplace aggression, while Keashly (2001) simply asked individuals to talk about their experiences of "feeling abused". These differences in research design and findings highlight the need for additional research that allows individuals to talk about experiences of abusive leadership in their own words, rather than imposing a priori conceptions on participants.…”