Workplace Hazing: Toward an Organizational Science of a Cryptic Group Practice

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to establish a foundation for studying and managing new employee hazing in workgroups. Available empirical evidence indicates 25–75% of American employees encounter workplace hazing, but very little empirical research exists on this phenomenon. Workers are changing jobs more frequently than ever, which increases the cumulative impact and importance of new employee experiences, including hazing, a complex group-based phenomenon. Because hazing is a relatively universal social practice without a strongly established literature in the organizational sciences, we draw from multiple disciplines in reviewing and modeling the practice. The current research offers three major contributions: (a) a relatively exhaustive review of relevant empirical and theoretical work on hazing, (b) an initial, testable model for understanding workplace hazing as a multi-level phenomenon, including individual and group-level antecedents and outcomes, and (c) an outline of the need and support for considering both the dysfunctional and functional consequences of hazing, given the variety of forms it takes and reactions it evokes. Finally, we present actionable guidance for researchers seeking to study workplace hazing and discuss the organizational implications of our work for practitioners.

Expanding the Dimensionality of Team Deviance: An Organizing Framework and Review

“…Our review also shows the importance of being aware of what kind of deviance one is trying to reduce, as certain interventions may backfire. For instance, while fostering tight-knit team relationships may be good for reducing some types of deviance (e.g., independent, internally-targeted; Rispens et al, 2011), it may unleash other forms (e.g., coordinated, externally-targeted; Pearsall & Ellis, 2011; independent, externally-targeted; Schwieren & Glunk, 2008; coordinated, internally-targeted; Thomas et al, 2021). Further, teams with high team identification may be especially likely to appraise their coordinated deviance positively (Trzebiatowski, 2011).…”

“…This type of deviance is treated as more strategic in nature and stemming out of a motivation to influence non-conforming members—as noted by Varella et al (2012, p. 584), it can be motivated by an “attempt to secure compliance with rules and procedures.” Workplace hazing is also traditionally considered a form of coordinated, internally-directed deviance. In their conceptual model, Thomas et al (2021) proposed that hazing—while stressful and negative for the member experiencing the hazing—can ultimately increase group homogeneity and cohesion by influencing newcomers to adjust their values to match the group. Such deviance is coordinated insofar as the actions cannot be done alone by one person without coordination from at least another team member and stems out of a shared motivation.…”

Quizzing – a hazing ritual in workgroups

“…To explore this research question, we draw on literature from the relatively new academic field of workplace hazing (Thomas and Meglich, 2019; Mawritz et al , 2020; Thomas et al , 2021) to illustrate and understand the hazing ritual “quizzing.” Moreover, we draw on Hartmut (2019, 2020) Rosa’s resonance theory to explore how hazing affects newcomers’ relationship to the workgroup and their attitude toward it.…”

“…Hazing can be described as an informal and unofficial socialization process associated with being admitted as a member of a workgroup (Østvik and Rudmin, 2001; Moreland and Levine, 2006; Thomas and Meglich, 2019; Mawritz et al , 2020; Thomas et al , 2021). Hazing can be categorized as a ritual associated with newcomers’ rite of passage, transforming from outsider to in-group member.…”

“…These initiation rituals are often hidden in work organizations (Josefowitz and Gadon, 1989). Tests appear unplanned, exaggerated or irrelevant as a basis for assessment or preparation for in-group membership, and the criteria for obtaining membership are often unclear (Cimino, 2011; Thomas et al , 2021).…”