The Effects of Mistreating Management Variability on Work Attitudes and Behaviors

The Effects of Mistreating Management Variability on Work Attitudes and Behaviors

Fakhraddin Maroofi (University of Kurdistan Sanandaj, Iran) and Fatemeh Kahrarian (Islamic Azad University Kermanshah, Iran)
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9850-5.ch003
OnDemand PDF Download:
$37.50

Abstract

The finding of this research indicates that individuals in a work unit are likely to develop negative attitudes and engage in deviate behaviors in response to a manager who is more mistreating toward some unit members but not toward others. These effects were found to be strong after explaining for each individual's personal experience of misuse from the manager. The findings are significant because they highlight the importance of mistreating management variability as a distinct unit-level construct. In sum, the findings highlight the importance of examining mistreating management at both the individual and unit levels of analyzes. This research shows that, in a work unit, non-targeted members are caused some of these negative outcomes because they are the unfair interpersonal treatment of others. Organizations should educate managers on how contradictory interpersonal treatment of subordinates impacts the fairness of the work unit and the negative implication on both targeted and non-targeted subordinates.
Chapter Preview
Top

Introduction

Organizational researchers have important attention to harmful behaviors performed by individuals who hold positions of authority within organizations (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, & Lambert, 2006). Research on mistreating management (Tepper, 2000) has grown rapidly over the years. Mistreating management refers to “subordinates’ which managers engage in the sustained display of unfriendly verbal and nonverbal behaviors” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178). Research shows that mistreating management can be harmful to an organization and its employees which decreased employee obligation, job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and depression, (Harris, et al, 2011; Tepper, 2000, 2007). To date, the majority of research on mistreating management has been referred to the individual level (Harris et al., 2011; Tepper et al., 2006). Tepper’s (2000) imply that behaviors that employees believe mistreating may be perceived differently by another employee. Martinko, et al, (2011) expanded this outlook by suggesting that mistreating management may be implied as a function of both a subordinate’s characteristic of perceptions and clear mistreating behaviors on the part of the manager. Mistreating management conceived as a common phenomenon to the extent that individuals experience and observe the manager engaging in mistreating behaviors toward members of the unit. Bamberger and Bacharach (2006) found that unit-level mistreating management measured by collecting other unit members’ ratings of mistreating management was negatively related to individual problems. This shows that there is an observable constituent of mistreating management that is commonly perceived by others. Researchers have linked unit-level mistreating management to outcomes (Mawritz, et al, 2012) such as unit-level counter productivity and workgroup abnormality. Despite these findings, however, there has been limited growth in the development on mistreating management. The purpose of this research shows this gap in the literature. This study tests the outcomes of a scattering regarding the model of unit-level mistreating management on employee attitudes and behaviors. Also, this research tests the incremental effects of unit-level mistreating management on employee attitudes. The main hypotheses are summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model (Babatunde, 2013)

Key Terms in this Chapter

Satisfaction: Customer level of approval when comparing product's a perceived performance with his or her expectations. Also could refer to discharge, extinguishment, or retirement of an obligation to the acceptance of the obligor, or fulfillment of a claim. While satisfaction is sometimes equated with performance, it implies compensation or substitution whereas performance denotes doing what was actually promised.

Perception: 1. The process of perceiving something with the senses: the perception of a faint sound 2. An instance of this: sense perceptions. a. The process or state of being aware of something: the perception of time. b. The capacity for such insight or knowledge: theories of how to enhance human perception. c. An insight or point of knowledge: The article is full of astute perceptions. 3. An interpretation or impression; an opinion or belief: doctors working to change the public perception of certain diseases.

Mistreating Management: Is defined as subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact? ( Tepper, 2000 , p. 178). Examples include a supervisor telling a subordinate that his or her thoughts or feelings are stupid or putting the subordinate down in front of others. 1. The action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow) a. something (as a formal contract, a promise, or the demands of conscience or custom) that obligates one to a course of action b. a debt security (as a mortgage or corporate bond).

Variability: Refers to the extent to which these data points differ from each other. There are four commonly used measures of variability: range, mean, variance and standard deviation. The risk perception of an asset class is directly proportional to the variability of its returns.

Obligation: The action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow) An act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment: [WITH INFINITIVE]: I have an obligation to look after he Examples of OBLIGATION She believes that all people have a moral obligation to defend human rights. He argues that people in a community have certain obligations to each other.

Harmful Behavior: What counts as harmful behavior? In general, harmful behavior constitutes any action which causes pain or harm in someone else. As you can imagine, there is an infinite number of actions which have the potential to cause pain or harm, and many of those actions are not necessarily intentional. At Emerge, we look at both intentional and unintentional actions which may become a harmful pattern of behavior.

Complete Chapter List

Search this Book:
Reset