CHAPTER NINE Organisation violations
Implications for leadership
INTRODUCTION
While organisations are created for a diverse range of purposes, they are recognised as having a ‘dark side’. This dark side is often identified as behaviours that are unacceptable to management because they disturb the goals of the organisation (generally profit-seeking) and may significantly disrupt its functioning. The range of descriptors given to such ‘unacceptable behaviours’ include ‘oppositional practices’ (Collinson 1994), ‘organisational retaliatory’ or ‘anti-citizenship’ behaviours, including those labelled ‘deviant’, ‘dysfunctional’ and ‘antisocial’ (Folger & Cropanzano 1998); and ‘recalcitrant’, demonstrated by sabotage, absenteeism, disobedience and decreased productivity (Ackroyd & Thompson 1999; Robinson & Bennett 1995). Other researchers have used the term ‘counterproductive work behaviours’ to include aggression, violence and theft (Liu & Perrene 2002); sexual harassment (Sinclair 1998), and incivility (Andersson & Pearson 1999); and horizontal violence, which has specifically been used in the nursing context (Bent 1993; David 2000). Hearn and Parkin (2001) conceptualise the above types of behaviour as ‘organisation violations’ in order to provide an inclusive framework that takes into account the structure of the organisation, its culture, its enactment of authority and its organisational processes; in other words, the context in which such behaviours occur. They state that the ‘ordinary and extraordinary tactics perpetuating oppressions—bullying, isolation, exclusion, harassment, physical violence, emotional assault, demeaning actions, along with cultural ideological and symbolic violences—need to be named as violations’ (p.87).
CONTEXTS OF ORGANISATION VIOLATIONS
Organisation violations occur in any organisation. Health care organisations are no exception. In fact, there may be more potential for abuse of workers due to the unique characteristics of health care organisations. While all organisations seek efficiencies, productivity and cost containment in order to maximise profits, health care organisations have complexities of function and structures that are not generally characteristic of profit-making organisations. Their goals are often more abstract, authority is more diffuse and there are fewer performance indicators than ‘for profit’ organisations. Because of their mandate to meet socially recognised public health needs, health care organisations emphasise health rather than organisational issues, making them accountable in a range of ways that do not apply to private sector organisations. Typically, health care organisations are funded by the ‘public purse’, although increasingly there is a private funding imperative at work.
‘Unacceptable behaviours’ of employees in the workplace, or ‘organisation violations’ are identified and interpreted by those who have power over those whose behaviour is being judged. Sometimes such behaviours have been labelled ‘dysfunctional’ or ‘pathological’. This label is provided from the perspective of those who are in a position to sanction such behaviours, as their supervisory roles are being made more difficult. Ackroyd and Thompson (1999) insightfully analyse ‘organisational misbehaviour’, suggesting that the ‘sociology of opposing interests’ (p.9) would be a useful lens with which to examine organisations. Rather than viewing persistent ‘troublemakers’ as having a personal pathology, they suggest that many misbehaviours are underpinned by informal workgroup norms, and that the organisation has a degree of dependency on them. ‘[D]esignating misbehaviour is a matter of perspective and definition, and … the identification and prosecution of misbehaviour is to be understood in terms of continuing structural imbalances of power’ (Ackroyd & Thompson 1999, p.164).
Misbehaviour in this case is defined very broadly to be anything done at work that one is not supposed to do. Ashforth and Mael (1998) also view ‘acts of resistance’ as attempts to assert power over those who have legitimate authoritative and organisational power. They suggest that the power of resistance is ‘partly in its potential to contest meaning’ (p.92), because employees negotiate their ‘work selves’ with the organisation.
Romme (1998) asserts that structural explanations of antisocial behaviour in organisations have been neglected in past research, noting that from whose perspective dysfunctionality is assessed is vital, because it can determine whether the behaviour is described as constructive or destructive. What is adaptive and functional for an individual (or a workgroup) may not be adaptive and functional for the organisation, such as whistle-blowing behaviour, which may be negative from a management perspective, but positive from the public’s perspective. There are many examples of behaviours that are counterproductive to management, but which assist individuals in adapting to situations that become intolerable (Liu & Perrene 2002). For example, employee theft or aggression may be a response to perceptions of gross injustice, such as being passed over for promotion.
Fox et al. (2001), in reviewing the literature, note that counterproductive work behaviours have been portrayed as ‘an emotion-based response to stressful organizational conditions’ (p.291), and as a response to organisational injustice. This raises the issue of workplace abuse as a stress agent, to be examined later in this chapter. Folger and Cropanzano (1998) point out that some employees are treated unfairly and may seek justice through the use of retaliatory behaviours, which is not an individually neurotic event.* There may be considerable justification for what has been labelled ‘dysfunctional, deviant and antisocial’ behaviour (p.221).
This chapter takes the focus of employees’ organisation violations, rather than violations more likely to be committed by senior management, including, for example, fraud and corporate crime. Management will be examined in so far as they define, interpret and sanction organisation violations of their workforce, and are, in fact, complicit in their management of ‘misbehaviour’ (Hearn & Parkin 2001; McMillan 1995). This is particularly the case for sexual harassment and bullying, but has also been identified in ‘the ordinary enactment of managerial “policy”’ (Hearn & Parkin 2001, p.149). Management can, for example, be actively involved in violations, ignore them, or collude with practices that lead to ‘cultures of intimidation’ (p.150). Additionally, managers may be rewarded for bullying behaviours and thus continue to behave in this way. Observers are likely to emulate such abuses if they are viewed as acceptable in the work setting. Specifically, therefore, they may be the sexual harasser, or treat the harassed individual as ‘imagining’ the event, or allow the creation of opportunities within the organisation for violation to occur.
CULTURE
The culture of an organisation is significant when examining organisation violations. Graetz et al. (2002) define organisational culture as ‘a pattern of beliefs, and expectations that are common to members of a social unit and subsequently set the behavioural standards and norms for all new employees’ (p.262).
Liu and Perrene (2002) note that certain organisational values and integrity influence the extent to which employees engage in organisation violations because of the socialisation they receive when they enter it. Other research demonstrates that highly ethical cultural environments encourage and facilitate organisational behaviours that are ethical and honest (Fulop & Linstead 1999). In an organisational culture that is focused on self-interest, employees may lie in order to achieve rewards; conversely, if the lying is to protect a workmate, it may be viewed as justifiable if the culture values relationships (Elangovan & Shapiro 1998).
Senior managements have been known to manipulate the culture of an organisation in order to create a ‘strong culture’ that will acquire the commitment and dedication of employees. Fulop and Linstead (1999) quote a study in which characteristics were developed for ‘good employees’, including submissiveness, punctuality, seriousness, malleability and ambition. The formal evaluative criteria for such employees included production per line, per machine, per job, and the number of breakdowns and conflicts they had. However, the danger of strong cultures is that they may have intense attraction, but also the potential for intense resistance (Ashforth & Mael 1998). This can lay the foundation for organisational conflict.
Cultural values reflect the work group’s shared understanding and subsequent behaviour, and depending on those values, a trusting or distrusting environment can be created. Whitener et al. (1998) suggest that culture and the structure of organisations may directly influence managerial trustworthy behaviours. Their research proposed that highly centralised, formalised and hierarchical organisations, whose focus is on efficiency, will not generate managerial trustworthiness. Conversely, organisations can encourage trustworthy managerial behaviours when interpersonal values of inclusiveness, open, honest communication, concern and valuing of colleagues are the norm. Managers who engender trust are more likely themselves to be trusting, inviting and to expect reciprocity of trust.
Jordan (2002) also believes that organisational cultures contribute to violations; that bullying, aggressive and coercive behaviours are perpetrated on employees by managers. He notes that cultures that emphasise ends rather than means are more likely to be abusive, and that if short-term gains are valued over means, then the environment is ripe for work abuse. Conflict cannot be managed due to the interpersonal shortcomings of managers, resulting in increased stress levels for those around them. When nursing leaders are appointed on the strength of their clinical knowledge rather than their leadership skills it is conceivable that a contributory factor to organisation violation is that negative managerial practices may be legitimised and rewarded, as previously noted.
Managerial subcultures within organisations are also significant to organisation violations. Sinclair (1998) documents a study suggesting that managerial subcultures are built around masculinities, expressed in a variety of ways. These include traditional authoritarianism, advanced through bullying and fear; protective paternalism (otherwise known as ‘the gentleman’s club’); entrepreneurialism, expressed as task-focused, excessive commitment to work; and informalism, demonstrated by a boyish, larrikin-like culture. Collinson and Hearn (1994) add ‘careerism’, which involves valuing expertise and bureaucratic advancement above all else. Such subcultures, Sinclair (1998) asserts, require organisational women to exhibit a higher level of personal sacrifice and greater emotional toughness, and leaves them vulnerable to sexual harassment, aggression and bullying.
THE ROLE OF PERCEPTION AND INTERPRETATION
Individual perception and interpretation of the work situation impacts on whether or not workplace abuse is recognised or acknowledged. Typically, the ‘psychological effect of a situation depends on how a person interprets the situation and that such differences in interpretation can vary as a function of significant individual differences’ (Skarlicki et al. 1999, p.102).
The work setting
Lui and Perrene (2002), while acknowledging the role played by situational factors in producing counterproductive work behaviours, do suggest that locus of control and emotional stability are additional individual variables that need to be considered in abusive work settings. Similar findings were reported by Fox and Spector (1999); they explicitly state that employees’ perceptions of situational constraints and job characteristics are of greater importance than ‘objective constraints and job characteristics’ (p.928). They also hypothesised that individual characteristics, such as high trait anxiety (the tendency to perceive stressful situations as threatening), trait anger (perceiving a wide range of situations as anger-provoking), and negative affectivity (the tendency to perceive negative emotions across time and situations in the absence of aversive environmental events) will predetermine an individual’s tendency to react more readily to perceived work abuse practices. These reactions will be negative, or ‘…counterproductive, anti-role, antisocial, maladaptive or deviant behaviors’ (p.917). Fox et al. (2001) cite a range of studies that indicate perception of unjust practices in the workplace results in a range of negative emotions, including anger, outrage, resentment, theft, vandalism, sabotage, resistance and other general retaliatory behaviours.
Personal perceptions
Ashforth and Mael (1998) reinforce the importance of individual perceptions, asserting that threat is ‘in the eye of the beholder’ (p.98), and that legitimate resistance can be rationalised ‘through the prism of member self-interests’ (p.108). They note how versatile people can be in excusing and justifying acts that are ‘patently self-serving’ (p.108). Nurse leaders can readily think of examples of how their (or nursing’s) self-interest can be rationalised against oppressive forces within the organisation. For example, nurses who subject others to horizontal violence may justify such behaviours as being necessary to point out the ‘shortcomings’ of the target victim. The target victim, on the other hand, may try to resist this by behaving in unprofessional ways (that can be justified) with patients—a psychological mechanism known as displacement.
Morgan (1986) notes the role that individual attributes and emotions can play in organisational behaviour. He suggests, for example, that aggression, greed, hate, fear and sexual desire, while having no official status, often break through, and may be rapidly punished or rationalised. However, any retaliation does not necessarily ‘rid the organization of these repressed forces lurking in the shadow of rationality’ (p.229). Irrationality is banished, as it is feared as ‘dangerous’ and needs controlling. Rationality, on the other hand, is designed to enhance our security. However, it will not necessarily result in understanding ‘the hidden meaning and significance of the actions that shape organization’ (p.229); hence the metaphor Morgan uses to describe the organisation as a ‘psychic prison’, in which all are imprisoned. This does highlight the importance of recognising the role that emotions and emotionality play in organisational life.
Psychological factors
There is extensive literature taking the perspective that misbehaviour is due to psychological and biological causes. At the individual level, personality has been related to organisational sabotage (Giacalone & Knouse 1990; Kets de Vries & Miller 1984). Psychological causes of misbehaviour have been framed as individuals having ‘dark-side traits’, which include argumentativeness, interpersonal insensitivity, narcissism, perfectionism, inpulsivity and fear of failure (Hughes et al. 1999). Kets de Vries and Miller (1984) take the view that individuals use their defences to protect themselves against stressful work events, and that in most circumstances such defences are not pathological. Defences become pathological when they are overused or overdeveloped. However, psychological defenses do tend to restrict the individual’s perceptions, range and appropriateness of behavioural responses, ‘particularly in emotion-laden situations involving long-standing interpersonal relationships’ (p.134).
Thus, organisation violations are complicated by the construction of our own meanings and realities, and the distortions of perceptions that occur. This is particularly so when there are personal threats to our identity. However, there are a range of additional approaches required to understand organisation violations, not the least of which requires an understanding of the role of culture and structure of organisations. This is emphasised by Hearn and Parkin (2001), whose critical approach is sociological and political, but who also warn that ‘perceptions and experiences of individuals also need emphasis’ (p.48).
Causes of organisation violation
Behaviours that have a direct and visible negative effect on the organisation or members of the organisation can be caused by a range of factors and will, if unchecked, have a corruptive influence on organisational climate (Liu & Perrene 2002). Counter-productive work behaviours are described by Liu and Perrene as
As noted above, organisational cultures, structures and processes play a determining role in deeming what is unacceptable workplace behaviour. It is also clear that particular circumstances can be instrumental in encouraging ‘misbehaviour’. Ackroyd and Thompson (1999) suggest that ‘misbehaviour’ can take four directions (pp.25–7). The first direction is disagreement over the appropriation of work, with conflict taking the possible form of destructiveness or sabotage. The second is the appropriation of materials used in work, and in this case, conflict can result in pilferage, sometimes referred to as ‘stock shrinkage’ or ‘unplanned overheads’, also known as ‘fiddling’ (Fulop & Linstead 1999). The third direction is the amount of time spent on the work, and where conflict occurs, employees may engage in a range of behaviours, including time-wasting (often known as ‘being absent at work’, where toilets are often the place of refuge), or simply leaving the organisation altogether. The final direction is the extent to which employees identify with their work and their employer (known as the appropriation of identity), and where this does not occur, the behaviours can range from joking rituals based on horseplay and banter, to subjecting each other to existing subcultural rituals, which may involve initiations that are humiliating to newcomers.
ABUSIVE LEADERS AND ABUSIVE WORK SETTINGS
Wyatt and Hare (1997) perceive that employees who suffer ‘work stress’ are often operating under abusive work climates that organisations either refuse to acknowledge or take responsibility for. These individuals may then be labelled as ‘disgruntled’ or ‘troublemakers’, therefore denying the role that organisations can play in creating an unnecessarily conflictual or unsupportive environment. In nursing, this may take the form of universities poorly preparing the nurse for practice in order to meet the ‘realities’ of the nursing workplace, including the abuses that lie therein. This is another ‘blame the victim’ strategy that does not account for the often sanctioned violence that occurs. For example, Bostock (2000) cites the increasing managerialism in universities that has unintended consequences such as restriction of academic autonomy, disempowerment, reduction in intellectual freedom, increased stress for academics and increased psychological violence (and sometimes physical violence when frustration levels are exceeded). He deplores the increase in administrative force which promotes behaviours that are dangerous, citing the case of an academic who was encouraged to commit suicide because he was creating administrative difficulties.
Inequality, oppression and the abuse of power are fundamental to organisation violations (Hearn & Parkin 2001; Itzen & Newman, 1995). Hearn and Parkin (2001) consider that ‘gendered, sexualed power provides the material and ideological backcloth’ (p.85) to these violations, while Itzen and Newman (1995) view abuse of power as ‘damaging and diminishing in humane terms for those who are dominant and those who are subordinate’ (p.268). Such oppressiveness effectively silences or excludes employees, resulting in increased denial of violations, since these are not acknowledged. Hearn and Parkin (2001) also note that management takes an explicit and complicit role in violations, particularly those of sexual harassment and bullying, but point out that the ordinary enactment of managerial policy can have the same effect (p.149).
Managers have been found to be sarcastic, verbally abusive, dishonest, intimidatory, harassing and cruel (Sheehan 1996). This unacceptable behaviour is explained in a number of ways. For example, it is hypothesised that the insecure coercive manager abuses the authority relationship because of poor interpersonal skill development, low self-esteem, and inadequate competencies (Sheehan 1996). Wyatt and Hare (1997) suggest that managers who lack personal power may misuse their legitimate role power by becoming abusive. Similarly, Jacques (1995) suggests that a mismatch between organisational roles and the capabilities of those who are assigned to those roles can lead to a manipulative abuse of personal power, ‘resulting in an unpleasant environment that resembles a paranoiagenic zoo’ (p.343).
Hughes et al. (1999) assert that leaders who have ‘dark-side traits’, including argumentativeness, interpersonal insensitivity, narcissism, impulsivity, perfectionism and fear of failure, leave a long trail of bruised people in their wake. This emphasis occurs also in the work of Kets de Vries and Balazs (1997), who examine abusive leadership in the context of downsizing, noting its dysfunctionality. They believe that such abusive behaviour derives from severe anxiety and an expectation that they need to ‘strike first’ before they are attacked. Citing ‘lex talionis’, the law of retaliation, commonly described as ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’, they identify five types of executives who play executioner. These types include: the compulsive/ritualistic; the abrasive; the dissociative; the alexithymic/anhedonic; and the depressive executive. Table 9.1 summarises this theoretical supposition. Adams and Bray (1992) also suggest that abusive people have a past history of aggressively protecting themselves from threat because of their experiences of being attacked for wrongdoing in childhood. In this case, abuse breeds abuse and dysfunctional behaviour patterns are demonstrated.
Table 9.1 Personality characteristics of leaders
| Category | Characteristics |
|---|---|
| Compulsive/ritualistic | Detail-oriented, aloof, emotionally restrained, inflexible, self-controlled, devoted to work/productivity, deferent to authority |
| Abrasive | Aggressive, hostile, intelligent, impatient, arrogant, quick-witted, poor interpersonal skills, intensely rivalrous |
| Dissociative | Emotionally detached, lacking sense of reality, anxious, depressive |
| Alexithymic/Anhedonic | Reality-based cognitive style, lack of emotional connection to others, lack of interest in pleasure activities, frequent somatic complaints, diminished ability to feel |
| Depressive | Depressed mood, frequent feelings of guilt, gloomy, lacking energy and drive, poor sleeping patterns, lack of interest in food and sexual activities |
Source: Adapted from Kets de Vries & Balazs 1997.
The abusive boss has also been identified by researchers as a petty tyrant (Ashforth 1994; Bies & Tripp 1998; Jordon 2002). Variously described as the ‘intolerable boss’, the ‘psycho boss from hell’ or the ‘brutal boss’, the abusive boss primarily seeks to control others, and for various reasons, either personal or organisational, can only do so by creating fear, confusion and intimidation. Bies and Trip (1998) provide a profile of the abusive boss as one who
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
