Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-t6st2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T15:33:13.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who Is the Wolf and Who Is the Sheep? Toward a More Nuanced Understanding of Workplace Incivility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2018

Tine Köhler ,
M. Gloria González-Morales ,
Victor E. Sojo  and
Jesse E. Olsen
Tine Köhler*
Affiliation:
Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business & Economics, The University of Melbourne
M. Gloria González-Morales
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The University of Guelph
Victor E. Sojo
Affiliation:
Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business & Economics, The University of Melbourne
Jesse E. Olsen
Affiliation:
Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business & Economics, The University of Melbourne
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tine Köhler, Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business & Economics, The University of Melbourne, 198 Berkeley Street, Level 10, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia. E-mail: tkoehler@unimelb.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland's (2018) perspective on studying victimization in organizations is a welcome contribution to workplace aggression research. We share their believe that considering a perpetrator predation paradigm may advance and proliferate research on issues related to gender harassment, bullying, mobbing, and other explicitly overt forms of victimization where the intent to harm is supposedly clear. However, we propose that, if blindly adopted, neither the dominant victim precipitation paradigm nor the suggested perpetrator predation paradigm will improve research on incivility or other more covert and indirect forms of victimization. In fact, we suggest in our commentary that both models may be counterproductive for understanding and remedying incivility in organizations.

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 122 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aguinis, H. (2009). Performance management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 452–471.Google Scholar
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29 (2), 203–221.Google Scholar
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim's perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, E., Wesson, M., Porter, C., & Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.Google Scholar
Cortina, L. M., Rabelo, V. C., & Holland, K. J. (2018). Beyond blaming the victim: Toward a more progressive understanding of workplace mistreatment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspective on Science and Practice, 11 (1), 81–100.Google Scholar
James, L. R., McIntyre, M. D., Glisson, C. A., Green, P. D., Patton, T. W., LeBreton, J. M., . . . Williams, L. J. (2005). A conditional reasoning measure for aggression. Organizational Research Methods, 8 (1), 69–99.Google Scholar
Köhler, T., & Gӧlz, M. (2015). Meetings across cultures: Cultural differences in meeting expectations and processes. In Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G. (Eds.), The handbook of the science of meetings at work (pp. 119–152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2011). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33 (2), 216–234.Google Scholar
Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2012). Understanding organizational diversity management programs: A theoretical framework and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1168–1187.Google Scholar
Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new research directions. In Dunnette, M. D. & Howe, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 399–444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13 (1), 18–35.Google Scholar
Sojo, V., Wood, R., & Genat, A. (2016). Harmful workplace experiences and women's occupational well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40 (1), 10–40.Google Scholar
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In Staw, B. M. (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar