Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T18:41:11.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mistreatment in Organizations: Toward a Perpetrator-Focused Research Agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2018

Reeshad S. Dalal  and
Zitong Sheng
Reeshad S. Dalal*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, George Mason University
Zitong Sheng
Affiliation:
School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Reeshad S. Dalal, PhD, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MSN 3F5, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: rdalal@gmu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cortina, Rabelo, and Holland (2018) have cogently suggested that workplace mistreatment should be viewed through a “lens” that squarely implicates the perpetrator (i.e., the perpetrator predation framework) rather than through a lens that at least partially absolves the perpetrator while blaming the victim for inviting, or not actively resisting, the mistreatment (i.e., the victim precipitation framework). We agree that the perpetrator predation framework provides a better basis for policy, practice, and law. Furthermore, however, the perpetrator predation framework provides a better basis for science. Whereas Cortina et al. allude briefly to the scientific benefits of a perpetrator-focused framework, the current commentary fleshes out these benefits and outlines an agenda for future perpetrator-focused research on workplace mistreatment.

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 101 - 106
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

Axelrod, R. M. (2006). The evolution of cooperation (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424.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: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11 (1), 81–100.Google Scholar
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255.Google ScholarPubMed
Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A dynamic approach to organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior: Behavioral co-occurrence and switching, and dynamic relationships with mood and overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 1051–1066.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578–589.Google Scholar
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348–362.Google Scholar
Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17, 269–290.Google Scholar
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 5–11.Google Scholar
Tomassetti, A. J., Dalal, R. S., & Kaplan, S. (2016). Is policy capturing really more resistant than traditional self-report techniques to socially desirable responding? Organizational Research Methods, 19, 255–285.Google Scholar
Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. S. (2007). Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 952–966.Google Scholar
Winter, D. G., John, O. P., Stewart, A. J., Klohnen, E. C., & Duncan, L. E. (1998). Traits and motives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review, 105, 230–250.Google Scholar