IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v142y2017icp45-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Witnessing wrongdoing: The effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace

Author

Listed:
  • Hershcovis, M. Sandy
  • Neville, Lukas
  • Reich, Tara C.
  • Christie, Amy M.
  • Cortina, Lilia M.
  • Shan, J. Valerie

Abstract

Research often paints a dark portrait of power. Previous work underscores the links between power and self-interested, antisocial behavior. In this paper, we identify a potential bright side to power—namely, that the powerful are more likely to intervene when they witness workplace incivility. In experimental (Studies 1 and 3) and field (Study 2) settings, we find evidence suggesting that power can shape how, why, and when the powerful respond to observed incivility against others. We begin by drawing on research linking power and action orientation. In Study 1, we demonstrate that the powerful respond with agency to witnessed incivility. They are more likely to directly confront perpetrators, and less likely to avoid the perpetrator and offer social support to targets. We explain the motivation that leads the powerful to act by integrating theory on responsibility construals of power and hierarchy maintenance. Study 2 shows that felt responsibility mediates the effect of power on increased confrontation and decreased avoidance. Study 3 demonstrates that incivility leads the powerful to perceive a status challenge, which then triggers feelings of responsibility. In Studies 2 and 3, we also reveal an interesting nuance to the effect of power on supporting the target. While the powerful support targets less as a direct effect, we reveal countervailing indirect effects: To the extent that incivility is seen as a status challenge and triggers felt responsibility, power indirectly increases support toward the target. Together, these results enrich the literature on third-party intervention and incivility, showing how power may free bystanders to intervene in response to observed incivility.

Suggested Citation

  • Hershcovis, M. Sandy & Neville, Lukas & Reich, Tara C. & Christie, Amy M. & Cortina, Lilia M. & Shan, J. Valerie, 2017. "Witnessing wrongdoing: The effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 45-57.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:142:y:2017:i:c:p:45-57
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597815302648
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Turillo, Carmelo Joseph & Folger, Robert & Lavelle, James J. & Umphress, Elizabeth E. & Gee, Julie O., 2002. "Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 839-865, September.
    2. Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau, 2013. "Masters of the universe: How power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard," Post-Print hal-00814565, HAL.
    3. Fast, Nathanael J. & Sivanathan, Niro & Mayer, Nicole D. & Galinsky, Adam D., 2012. "Power and overconfident decision-making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 249-260.
    4. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette & Andrew M. Carton & Lynn Bowes-Sperry & Patricia Faison Hewlin, 2013. "Why Do Racial Slurs Remain Prevalent in the Workplace? Integrating Theory on Intergroup Behavior," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1402-1421, October.
    5. Davis, Keith, 1967. "Understanding the social responsibility puzzle," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 45-50.
    6. Tjosvold, Dean, 1985. "Power and social context in superior-subordinate interaction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 281-293, June.
    7. DeMarree, Kenneth G. & Briñol, Pablo & Petty, Richard E., 2014. "The effects of power on prosocial outcomes: A self-validation analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 20-30.
    8. Reich, Tara C. & Hershcovis, M. Sandy, 2015. "Observing workplace incivility," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57943, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau, 2013. "Masters of the universe: How power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00814565, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ju Guo & Yanjun Qiu & Yongtao Gan, 2022. "Workplace incivility and work engagement: The mediating role of job insecurity and the moderating role of self‐perceived employability," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(1), pages 192-205, January.
    2. Xing Zhou & Lele Fan & Cong Cheng & Yancheng Fan, 2021. "When and Why Do Good People Not Do Good Deeds? Third-Party Observers’ Unfavorable Reactions to Negative Workplace Gossip," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 599-617, July.
    3. Kelly Z. Peng & Zhijun Chen & Iris D. Zhang & Jinsong Li, 2021. "Unwilling to leave the good Samaritans: How peer interpersonal-oriented citizenship behaviors retains “me”," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 669-685, June.
    4. Declan Fahie & Gerry Dunne, 2021. "Standing by or Standing Up? —How Philosophy Can (In)form Our Understanding of Bystander Behaviours in Workplace Bullying Dynamics," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-10, March.
    5. Isabel Carmona-Cobo & Eva Garrosa & Esther Lopez-Zafra, 2021. "Workers’ Observation of Uncivil Leadership: Is Tolerance for Workplace Incivility a Gendered Issue?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, May.
    6. Shalini Sarin Jain & Joon Sung Lee, 2022. "Allegations of Sexual Misconduct: A View from the Observation Deck of Power Distance Belief," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(2), pages 391-410, January.
    7. Williams, Melissa J. & Lopiano, Gabrielle & Heller, Daniel, 2022. "When the boss steps up: Workplace power, task responsibility, and engagement with unpleasant tasks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yu Zhou & Hongzhang Zhu & Jun Yang & Yunqing Zou, 2021. "Does CEO Power Backfire? The Impact of CEO Power on Corporate Strategic Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Williams, Melissa J. & Lopiano, Gabrielle & Heller, Daniel, 2022. "When the boss steps up: Workplace power, task responsibility, and engagement with unpleasant tasks," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    3. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    4. Welton Chang & Pavel Atanasov & Shefali Patil & Barbara A. Mellers & Philip E. Tetlock, 2017. "Accountability and adaptive performance under uncertainty: A long-term view," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 610-626, November.
    5. Melanie de Waal & Floor Rink & Janka Stoker, 2015. "How internal and external supervisors influence employees' self-serving decisions," DNB Working Papers 464, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.
    6. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    7. Yu, Andrew & Hays, Nicholas A. & Zhao, Emma Y., 2019. "Development of a bipartite measure of social hierarchy: The perceived power and perceived status scales," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 84-104.
    8. William T Self & Gregory Mitchell & Barbara A Mellers & Philip E Tetlock & J Angus D Hildreth, 2015. "Balancing Fairness and Efficiency: The Impact of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Accountability on Applicant Screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Greg Fisher & Emily Neubert, 2023. "Evaluating Ventures Fast and Slow: Sensemaking, Intuition, and Deliberation in Entrepreneurial Resource Provision Decisions," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(4), pages 1298-1326, July.
    10. Bixter, Michael T. & Luhmann, Christian C., 2014. "Shared losses reduce sensitivity to risk: A laboratory study of moral hazard," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 63-73.
    11. Zhu, Luke (Lei) & Aquino, Karl & You, Huan & Yang, Chunjiang, 2021. "Identity affirmation as a response to justice failure," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 189-205.
    12. Muel Kaptein, 2017. "The Battle for Business Ethics: A Struggle Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 343-361, August.
    13. Matthew J. Quade & Rebecca L. Greenbaum & Mary B. Mawritz, 2019. "“If Only My Coworker Was More Ethical”: When Ethical and Performance Comparisons Lead to Negative Emotions, Social Undermining, and Ostracism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(2), pages 567-586, October.
    14. Schaerer, Michael & Kern, Mary & Berger, Gail & Medvec, Victoria & Swaab, Roderick I., 2018. "The illusion of transparency in performance appraisals: When and why accuracy motivation explains unintentional feedback inflation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 171-186.
    15. Schaerer, Michael & du Plessis, Christilene & Yap, Andy J. & Thau, Stefan, 2018. "Low power individuals in social power research: A quantitative review, theoretical framework, and empirical test," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 73-96.
    16. Desai, Sreedhari D. & Kouchaki, Maryam, 2015. "Work-report formats and overbilling: How unit-reporting vs. cost-reporting increases accountability and decreases overbilling," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 79-88.
    17. Ajit Nayak, 2016. "Wisdom and the Tragic Question: Moral Learning and Emotional Perception in Leadership and Organisations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 1-13, August.
    18. Virginia R. Stewart & Deirdre G. Snyder & Chia-Yu Kou, 2023. "We Hold Ourselves Accountable: A Relational View of Team Accountability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 691-712, March.
    19. Lanaj, Klodiana & Johnson, Russell E. & Barnes, Christopher M., 2014. "Beginning the workday yet already depleted? Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 11-23.
    20. Melanie de Waal & Floor Rink & Janka Stoker & Dennis Veltrop, 2018. "How internal and external supervision impact the dynamics between boards and Top Management Teams and TMT reflexivity," DNB Working Papers 604, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Workplace incivility; Observers; Power; Status threat; Witnesses;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General
    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:142:y:2017:i:c:p:45-57. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.