![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
Social ostracism can be a form of bullying at the workplace (a process of frequent and repeated acts of hostile communication and humiliation of an employee). Previous findings suggest that experimentally evoked ostracism leads to compliance. The aim of these studies was to examine willingness to comply among bullying targets. It was found that being subjected to bullying is connected with lower proneness to comply with various requests of coworkers (the first study, N = 197). A drop in the self-reported compliance rate occurred among those bullied participants who were presented with a description of various types of social exclusion at the workplace (second study, N = 309). It is argued that long-term rejection and maltreatment diminishes victims' self-regulation and tendency to fortify threatened needs.
Notes
1 Although the NAQ (NAQ-R) results of individual items may be summed and the sum scores may be included in correlation analyses or regression analyses, the behavioral experience approach may also be used to distinguish between different groups of respondents (targets and nontargets). The common method of separating targets from nonvictims is to apply an operational criterion (Nielsen, Notelaers, & Einarsen, 2011). This approach seems to fit most to the theory of the bullying phenomenon which is not a “continuous” experience but a phenomenon of several criteria (e.g., Leymann, Citation1996). It is, therefore, more reasonable to separate victims from nonvictims. On the other hand, the operational criterion has several limitations. Nielsen et al. (2011) recommend latent class cluster analysis as the best method of identifying different groups of respondents (e.g., personal bullying victims, work-related bullying victims, and occasional victims). The purpose of this study was to compare the strategies of workers being bullied (according to the definition) and not bullied.
2 Approximately 40% of the narratives (N = 48) were selected randomly and subjected to a word count. There were no significant differences in the number of words participants wrote between included (M = 22.82, SD = 20.27) and excluded (M = 30.13, SD = 20.26) conditions, t = 1.27, p = .21. The narratives contained mainly descriptions of facts. Single participants who were to remember situations when they were included at work stated the consequences (positive emotions, relationships deepened).