The effect of competition and passive avoidant leadership style on the occurrence of workplace bullying

Sischka, Philipp; Schmidt, Alexander F.; Steffgen, Georges

doi:10.1108/pr-09-2019-0469

Cited by 19 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This practice is problematic, especially when survey topics tap into personally sensitive domains, for example, such as sexual behavior (e.g., Dombert et al, 2016), relationship abuse (e.g., Taylor & Mumford, 2016), substance use (e.g., Soussan & Kjellgren, 2016), suicidal behavior (e.g., Stickley & Koyanagi, 2016), delinquent and criminal behavior (e.g., Grant et al, 2016), attitudes and prejudice toward immigrants (e.g., Ceobanu & Escandell, 2010), discrimination on the labor market (e.g., Mergener & Maier, 2019), political extremism (e.g., Pauwels & Hardyns, 2018), questionable research practice (e.g., Fiedler & Schwarz, 2016), or workplace bullying perpetration (e.g., Sischka et al, 2019) to name just a few. Sensitive questions cover “not only questions that trigger social desirability concerns but also those that are seen as intrusive by the respondents or that raise concerns about the possible repercussions of disclosing the information” (Tourangeau & Yan, 2007, p. 859).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Forced Answering and Reactance on Answering Behavior in Online Surveys

Sischka

Décieux

Mergener

et al. 2020

Social Science Computer Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forced answering (FA) is a frequent answer format in online surveys that forces respondents to answer each question in order to proceed through the questionnaire. The underlying rationale is to decrease the amount of missing data. Despite its popularity, empirical research on the impact of FA on respondents’ answering behavior is scarce and has generated mixed findings. In fact, some quasi-experimental studies showed that FA has detrimental consequences such as increased survey dropout rates and faking behavior. Notably, a theoretical psychological process driving these effects has hitherto not been identified. Therefore, the aim of the present study was twofold: First, we sought to experimentally replicate detrimental effects of FA on online questionnaire data quality. Second, we tried to uncover an explanatory psychological mechanism. Specifically, we hypothesized that FA effects are mediated through reactance. Zero-order effects showed that FA increased state reactance and questionnaire dropout as well as reduced answer length in open-ended questions. Results of survival and mediation analyses corroborate negative FA effects on data quality and the proposed psychological process.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Forced Answering and Reactance on Answering Behavior in Online Surveys

Sischka

Décieux

Mergener

et al. 2020

Social Science Computer Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Respondents indicated how frequently they have been exposed to each of these negative acts (e.g., “Someone withholding information which affects your performance”) on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). We did not include a time frame as some studies questioned the frequently applied 6-month criterion (see the discussion in Sischka, 2018 ). Especially it has been criticized that there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding the 6-month criterion (Vranjes et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The survey was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki (i.e., voluntary participation, participants were free to withdraw their consent at any time throughout the interviews without negative consequences for them). 3 The survey also contained some measures of workplace conditions (see Sischka et al, 2020c).…”

Section: Participants and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychological Contract Violation or Basic Need Frustration? Psychological Mechanisms Behind the Effects of Workplace Bullying

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workplace bullying is a phenomenon that can have serious detrimental effects on health, work-related attitudes, and the behavior of the target. Particularly, workplace bullying exposure has been linked to lower level of general well-being, job satisfaction, vigor, and performance and higher level of burnout, workplace deviance, and turnover intentions. However, the psychological mechanisms behind these relations are still not well-understood. Drawing on psychological contract and self-determination theory (SDT), we hypothesized that perceptions of contract violation and the frustration of basic needs mediate the relationship between workplace bullying exposure and well-being, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes. Self-reported data were collected among employees with different working backgrounds (N = 1,257) via Amazon's Mechanical Turk in an online survey. Results showed that feelings of contract violation and frustration of basic needs accounted for unique variation in well-being, work satisfaction, burnout, vigor, and turnover intentions, pointing to individual contributions of both psychological mechanisms. However, when controlled for frustration of basic needs, feelings of psychological contract violation were no longer a mediator between workplace bullying exposure and work performance. Helping employees to deal effectively with workplace bullying exposure might buffer its negative effects and reduce their experienced frustration of basic needs, preserving their well-being, vigor, and work performance and, eventually, prevent burnout. The present study is the first to concurrently elucidate the proposed psychological mechanisms and unique contributions of psychological contract violation and frustration of basic needs in the context of workplace bullying.

show abstract

“…Leader reward omission can lead to employees experiencing role stress and ambiguity (Skogstad et al. , 2007), reducing their trust in their leaders, or even causing workplace bullying behaviors (Sischka et al. , 2020).…”

Section: Theoretical and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leader reward omission and employee knowledge sharing: the moderating role of proactive personality and perceived organizational unfairness

Zhong

Peng

Wang

2022

BJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeBased on social dilemma theory, the authors analyze the impact of leader reward omission on employee knowledge sharing and the boundary conditions in their relationship.Design/methodology/approachThis study tested the theoretical hypotheses based on empirical data obtained from 264 employees using a two-wave survey method.FindingsThe results indicate that leader reward omission significantly negatively affects employee knowledge sharing. An employee's proactive personality weakens the negative relationship between them; the weakening effects of an employee's proactive personality would decrease along with the perceived increase in organizational unfairness.Originality/valueThis study provides the first insight that leader reward omission can inhibit employee knowledge-sharing behavior. In addition, this study shows that an individual proactive personality and perceived organizational unfairness moderate the relationship between leader reward omission and employee knowledge behavior. Thus, this study provides a more comprehensive understanding of whether and when leader reward omission affects employee knowledge sharing.

show abstract

The effect of competition and passive avoidant leadership style on the occurrence of workplace bullying

Cited by 19 publications

References 81 publications

The Impact of Forced Answering and Reactance on Answering Behavior in Online Surveys

The Impact of Forced Answering and Reactance on Answering Behavior in Online Surveys

Psychological Contract Violation or Basic Need Frustration? Psychological Mechanisms Behind the Effects of Workplace Bullying

Leader reward omission and employee knowledge sharing: the moderating role of proactive personality and perceived organizational unfairness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About