Social and situational dynamics surrounding workplace mistreatment: Context matters

• Author: M. Sandy Hershcovis,Sandra L. Robinson,Lilia M. Cortina
• Date: 01 October 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2479
• Published date: 01 October 2020

EDITORIAL

Social and situational dynamics surrounding workplace

mistreatment: Context matters

Summary

In our introduction to this special issue, we explain why

understanding the social and situational context around

workplace mistreatment is important. We then provide

summaries of the six articles in this special issue and con-

clude by identifying three key themes—social interpreta-

tion, recursive nature of mistreatment, and beyond the

dyad—and some important directions for future research.

KEYWORDS

injustice, workplace aggression, workplace context, workplace

incivility, workplace, workplace mistreatment

1|INTRODUCTION

Workplace mistreatment, an overarching term capturing myriad

harmful social interactions in organizations, has been the subject of

scientific study for several decades. Most of this research has

focused on specific manifestations of mistreatment, such as abusive

supervision (Tepper, 2000), incivility (Cortina, Magley, Williams, &

Langhout, 2001), interpersonal conflict (Jehn, 1995), workplace ostra-

cism (Robinson, O'Reilly, & Wang, 2013), sexual harassment

(Fitzgerald et al., 1988), and interpersonal injustice (Bies & Moag,

1986) to name a few (for a review see Hershcovis, 2011).

Despite great strides in our understanding of workplace mistreat-

ment, it continues to be a serious problem for employees and their

organizations. One survey of employees found that 90% reported

experiencing psychological aggression, 76% witnessed acts of aggres-

sion, and 40% experienced some form of physical aggression on the

job in the prior year (Pacheco, Cunha, & Duarte, 2016). These experi-

ences result in millions of dollars in costs due to reduced physical and

psychological health, injury compensation, and lawsuits (Dunlop &

Lee, 2004; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008). Given

that workplace mistreatment is happening across various work

contexts and has substantial negative effects for individuals and

institutions alike (Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006), it is important to

understand when, why, and where workplace mistreatment emerges

in organizational life. Equally important, we must determine how to

mitigate or prevent its detrimental consequences.

To date, we have a plethora of studies on the antecedents

and consequences of workplace mistreatment but relatively limited

research on the role of the work and interpersonal context in

influencing the enactment, experience, and consequences of work-

place mistreatment (for critiques, see Hershcovis & Reich, 2013;

Robinson & Schabram, 2017). This lack of attention to contextualiz-

ing workplace mistreatment is surprising for several reasons. Most

broadly, we already know that context really matters in most areas

of organizational behavior (Johns, 2006; Rousseau & Fried, 2001).

More specifically, context should play a role throughout the process

of workplace mistreatment. First, context can influence the occur-

rence of mistreatment. For example, Salin (2003) proposed a taxon-

omy of contextual factors that allow workplace mistreatment to

thrive, including enabling, motivating, and precipitating processes.

Enabling factors, such as power imbalances, make it possible for mis-

treatment to occur. Motivating factors address the rewards for

engaging in mistreatment, such as competitive work environments

that reward goal achievement irrespective of the costs involved.

Precipitating processes reflect triggers for mistreatment, such as

major organizational changes or threats to the status quo. Similarly,

Hershcovis and Reich (2013) emphasized the importance of the

relational context of workplace mistreatment, arguing that workplace

relationships and social contexts play a large role in the enactment of

workplace mistreatment.

Second, the work context likely influences not only the occur-

rence of mistreatment but also, as importantly, how it is experienced.

People hold normative scripts regarding who interacts with whom and

in what way (Goffman, 1959). This serves as the theoretical underpin-

ning of most workplace mistreatment constructs. Context itself may

determine the recognition and interpretation of the mistreatment,

such as abuse that is already occurring or accepted in the workplace,

and what avenues exist for responses to it. Likewise, the social

environment may provide mechanisms that enable one to cope with

mistreatment. For example, the social context of a work environment

can help meet the fundamental need to belong (Baumeister &

Leary, 1995), and can form an important source of social and

emotional support (e.g., Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Viswesvaran,

Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). Therefore, the reactions of others in the

work context, such as coworkers and managers, to incidents of

workplace mistreatment can influence how victims and perpetrators

experience and interpret the behavior (Hershcovis & Reich, 2013).

Received: 24 July 2020 Accepted: 4 August 2020

DOI: 10.1002/job.2479

J Organ Behav. 2020;41:699–705. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 699