Sexual orientation harassment in the workplace: When do observers intervene?

Abstract

In Ryan and Wessel (2011), we presented the ordinary least square regression analyses in Tables 4, 5, 8, and 9 rather than the logistic regression analyses. Reanalysis of the data using logistic regression results in no changes in the conclusions regarding any of the hypotheses or any of the conclusions regarding significant relations for any of the variables. We presented herein parallel tables for comparison.

Bystander Responses to Bullying at Work: The Role of Mode, Type and Relationship to Target

“…They suggest this may be due to the subtlety of relational bullying, as opposed to physical where it is clear that bullying is occurring and there are clear operating guidelines against physical violence. At work, there is considerable scope for subtle and covert tactics of leadership that can lead to ambiguity in terms of the attributions of the witnesses (Leymann 1990), and specific scenarios that are perceived to warrant intervention may not be as easily identifiable as in other bystander studies (Ryan and Wessel 2012). Consequently, many incidents of work-related bullying can be misinterpreted as strong or negative management (Simpson and Cohen 2004).…”

“…Bollmer et al 2005;Tajfel 1982). Research suggests relationship to target, and in-group membership promotes positive bystander intervention in physical violence (Slater et al 2013), street violence (Levine et al 2002), and sexual orientation harassment (Ryan and Wessel 2012). However, while studies identify the role of friendship in adopting certain bystander behaviours and roles in bullying (e.g.…”

Neo-Activism: Engaging Allies in Modern Workplace Discrimination Reduction

“…These fears stem from feeling they do not have enough knowledge or experience in dealing with issues relating to the stigmatized group and that they may accidentally appear prejudiced or naïve when trying to engage in intended supportive ally behaviors (Ji, ). Even when supportive coworkers witness discrimination and want to intervene on behalf of their stigmatized peers, the fear of not knowing which intervention strategies are most effective and most appreciated may cause these individuals to stay silent (Ryan & Wessel, ).…”

The shifting landscape of LGBT organizational research

“…Still others suggest that a more complex explanation is necessary to account for these divergent findings, one that takes into account such factors as feared reprisals and workplace climate (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007). Subsequent research extended these findings by showing that certain workplace policies-mediated by coworkers' attitudes and reactions-were effective in promoting disclosure and related favorable outcomes for LGBT employees (Button, 2001;Griffith & Hebl, 2002;Ryan & Wessel, 2012). As the research on concealment and disclosure indicates, the theme of visibility led naturally to investigation into its correlates: once a previously invisible, stigmatized minority group becomes visible, it opens itself to retaliation on the part of the majority.…”