ABUSIVE SUPERVISION: HOW DO SUBORDINATES RESPOND?

1

ABUSIVE SUPERVISION: HOW DO SUBORDINATES RESPOND?

Master thesis, M.Sc., specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

February 28, 2016

ANNE DE KLEINE Studentnumber: 2844664

Heymanslaan 31a 9714 GG Groningen tel: +31(0)649967337

e-mail: a.m.de.kleine.1@student.rug.nl

Supervisor S. Täuber

University of Groningen

2 ABSTRACT

This research discusses what the main influence of both abusive supervision and distrust-triggering behaviors is on distrust. A new relation is researched because I expect distrust to be an antecedent of value incongruence and I expect distrust to result in diminished organizational citizenship behavior. This research is mainly based on a recent study written by Bijlsma-Frankema, Sitkin and Weibel (2015), who indicated once distrust is triggered it results in a self-amplifying cycle. I want to research whether abusive supervision puts this self-amplifying cycle into motion. Furthermore, the overall model is based on the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960), the need for revenge and avoidance of harm because of an increase in vulnerability.

The method consists of qualitative data by conducting eight interviews to retrieve a more in depth view of three hypotheses and several in-depth questions concerning the formation of and responses towards distrust.

The overall conclusion is that abusive supervisory behaviors and distrust-inducing behaviors lead to distrust and distrust leads to an increase in value incongruence. It appears that diminished organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is not that negative as expected and I concluded a reason for that might be detachment.

Keywords: Distrust, values, abusive supervision, organizational citizenship behavior,

vulnerability

3

INTRODUCTION

Today’s dynamic market consists of competition regarding innovation, price and performance. According to scholars, leadership is the key to improving organizational performance (Zhu, Chew & Spangler, 2005) which makes researching leadership important for an organization. Hence, a crucial aspect of a successful organization is an effective leader.

Unfortunately, having an effective leader is not a matter of fact for all organizations. My research focuses on one of the aspects of negative leadership, namely abusive supervision.

Multiple scholars found negative consequences of abusive supervision, such as negative attitudes, turnover intention, lower job and life satisfaction and lower performance (Martinko, Harvey Brees & Mackey, 2013, Tepper, 2007). Tepper (2000:p178) defines abusive

supervision as “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact”.

Tepper (2000) argued that the harm abusive supervision can do to subordinates should be a warning to organizations. Tepper and his co-authors calculated the cost of abusive supervision for U.S. organizations (e.g. health care costs, lost production and absence) to be 23.8 billion US dollars per year (Tepper, Duffy, Henle & Lambert, 2006), to support their argument that abusive supervision is a significant present-day problem in need of further scholarly exploration. Therefore, it is an organizational issue which should be addressed.

Furthermore, scholars have pointed out consequences of distrust for organizational relations. Research indicates that people who distrust, in this particular matter subordinates, tend to disbelieve (Kramer, 1994) those distrusted others, in this case supervisors, avoid interaction (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015; March & Olsen, 1975) and are less willing to cooperate (Cho, 2006). In addition, those subordinates have a tendency to express hostility towards, (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006) and get in conflict (Fiol, Pratt, & O’Connor, 2009) with the supervisors. Given the negative consequences of both abusive supervision and distrust in supervisors, exploring the relationship between these two previously unconnected phenomena appears to be worthwhile.

Little research has been done concerning distrust. A reason for this is that there was no model available concerning a distrust cycle. Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2015) proposed such a distrust cycle and I will research how this distrust cycle was set into motion. Therefore, I will partly address this gap in distrust literature.

I aim to investigate three matters related to abusive supervision and distrust. Firstly,

my research aims to investigate whether abusive supervisor behavior promotes distrust, and

with that, as Bijlsma-Frankema, Sitkin and Weibel (2015) argue, sets into motion a self-

4

amplifying cycle of distrust of which distrust, negative behavioral reciprocity, negative attributions and perceived value incongruence are the elements. In my study I want to focus on how distrust is engendered by testing whether distrust is promoted by abusive supervision.

Distrust can be defined in this context as subordinates’ unwillingness to accept vulnerability based on prevalent negative perceptions of the other person’s motives, intentions or behaviors (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015). Unfortunately, there has been little research concerning which specific behaviors lead to distrust. Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2015) indicate that distrust emerges when actors’ feelings of vulnerability are so high that they become unacceptable to the actor. Their study did not elaborate on the behaviors that may stir these feelings of unacceptable vulnerability. Abusive supervision, defined as the supervisor continuously showing adverse verbal and nonverbal behavior towards the subordinates (Tepper, 2000), may stir feelings of vulnerability that surpass the level an actor may be willing to accept, thus provoke distrust of the supervisor.

A further exploration of the relation between abusive supervision and distrust of the supervisor is relevant for organizations. Answering the question ‘Which of the aspects of abusive supervision is strongly related to distrust?’ will give a more concrete answer to how to prevent distrust, distrust development and its negative consequences, to arise.

A second matter regards the role of value incongruence perceptions (of subordinates regarding their values and those of the supervisor) about and its relation to distrust of the supervisor within the self-amplifying cycle of distrust development. So far, value

incongruence has been proposed in the distrust literature as antecedent of distrust (Sitkin and colleagues), but the cyclical model of Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2015) suggests that value incongruence is also a consequence of distrust. In my study, I will go into depth concerning the matter whether value incongruence perceptions of subordinates are indeed a consequence of distrust. In accordance with the notion that negative cognitions, such as distrust, will be justified by subordinates by negative perceptions of or attributions to the supervisor,

including the notion that the supervisor acts from a quite different sets of values. I expect that if subordinates distrust their supervisor, they will put more emphasis on the difference in values between themselves and the supervisor.

Thirdly, I am going to research an expected consequence of distrust, namely

diminished organizational citizenship behavior, a consequence proposed based on the social exchange theory. The social exchange theory argues that when people are treated well by others, they feel a certain obligation towards that person to return the favor (Blau, 1964;

Gouldner, 1960). However, when treated in a bad way, they will react with bad behavior

5

(Gouldner, 1960). Hence, as a response to abusive supervision, increased defiant behavior towards the supervisor is expected (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Tepper et al. (2002), based on the social exchange theory, tested and found that subordinates will react to abusive supervision in a negative situation by a decrease in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), thus withholding behavior that benefits the supervisor and the organization. The social exchange theory proposes trust as a base of positive exchanges. In my study I will therefore propose distrust, if triggered by abusive supervision, will act as a mediator of the abusive supervision OCB relation. Hence, I research the direct relation between distrust and OCB.

My research model, in sum, proposes that abusive supervision increases subordinates’

distrust towards the supervisor and distrust leads to both diminished OCB towards the supervisor and more perceived value incongruence from the subordinates’ perspective (see Figure 1a for the full conceptual model). The overall research question is: What is the

influence of abusive supervision on subordinates’ distrust and how is distrust related to both value incongruence and OCB?

FIGURE 1a: Conceptual model

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In the following sections, the constructs abusive supervision, distrust, value incongruence, and OCB will be discussed in detail and the hypotheses to be tested will be introduced and substantiated with relevant literature.

Abusive Supervision

This research focuses on abusive supervision and its consequences. Prior research mainly focused on how constructive leaders behave despite the common notion that

destructive leaders can have a negative impact by abusing their subordinates (Aryee, Chen, Abusive

Supervision

Distrust

Value Incongruence

OCB

6

Sun, & Debrah, 2007; Tepper, 2000, 2007; Tepper et al., 2006; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001; Zellars, Tepper & Duffy, 2002). Abusive supervision is described as an active way of leading, it consists of e.g. yelling, ridiculing someone and letting the subordinates feel small (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007).

A definition of abusive supervision which I am going to use in my research is the definition given by Tepper (2000:p178), namely the “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal

behaviors, excluding physical contact”. In other words, I will focus on the subordinates’ point of view concerning the amount of adverse verbal and nonverbal supervisor behavior. Tepper (2000) defined and measured abusive supervision by using fifteen items. Example items refer to subordinates’ perception of supervisors telling them that ‘their thoughts and feelings are stupid’, ‘give them the silent treatment’ or ‘invades their privacy’ (Tepper, 2000: p189).

These items are partially used to operationalize abusive supervision in this research and to analyze how abusive supervision and distrust relate.

Distrust

In my research, I expect abusive supervision to be an antecedent of distrust.

Therefore, distrust is discussed in this paragraph. For a long time, distrust was seen as equal to low trust (Hardin, 2004, Luhmann 1979, Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995, Robinson 1996, Rotter 1980). I am going to distinguish trust and distrust as two separate entities similar to the research of Sitkin and Roth (1993). Recent research distinguished trust and distrust as two separate dimensions (Benamati, Serva, Fuller, 2006, Chang & Fang 2013, Cho 2006, Dimoka 2010, Komiak & Benbasat 2008, Lewicki, McAllister & Bies, 1998, Ou & Sia 2010, Sitkin & Roth 1993, Sitkin & Stickel 1996, Tomlinson & Lewicki, 2006).

An article by Sitkin and Roth (1993) was the first article to speak of trust and distrust as two separate dimensions, which led to more articles concerning distrust as a separate construct. Distrust can be defined as a subordinate’s unwillingness to accept vulnerability based on pervasive negative perceptions of the other person’s motives, intentions or behaviors (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015). In the context of the subordinate – supervisor relation distrust of the supervisor may lead to doubt by the subordinates about whether their beliefs and values and those of their supervisor can co-exist. The following paragraph will discuss consequences of distrust.

Distrust has already been linked to several consequences. Bijlsma-Frankema et al.

(2015:p1) mention for instance lacking cooperation (Cho, 2006), unwillingness to share their

7

views and preferences (Bijlsma-Frankema, 2004, March & Olsen, 1975), avoiding influence (Sheppard & Tuchinsky, 1996) and/or interaction (Bies & Tripp, 1996), stigmatization (Sitkin

& Roth, 1993), paranoid behavior (Kramer, 2006), hostility towards others who are distrusted (Chambers & Melnyk, 2006), distortion and disbelief (Kramer, 1994), uncontrollable

intergroup conflicts (Fiol, Pratt & Connor, 2009; Tomlinson & Lewicki, 2006) and trying to avoid interaction (Bies & Tripp, 1996). In the following section I am going to discuss subordinates’ perceived value incongruence, as I expect it to be a consequence of subordinates’ distrust towards supervisors.

Value incongruence

Values guide behavioral choices (Jehn, Chadwick & Thatcher, 1997). They can be described as core beliefs of individuals regarding behavioral choices (Enz, 1988; Rokeach, 1973). According to Jehn (1994) and Pelled (1996), the degree to which a group has similar values within an organization influences the amount of conflict within that group. My

research focuses on the perceived difference in values between subordinates and supervisors, namely value incongruence. In its strongest form, it may concern the disbelief that values of the organization or the supervisor and values of the employees can co-exist (Kristof, 1996).

Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2015) describe value incongruence as the belief that other individuals do not accept the individuals’ core values and stick to values that are seen as opposing these core values. Examples of value incongruence are that persons have different ideas concerning for example achievement, honesty, and helping others (Naus, Iterson &

Roe, 2007). According to Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2015). Organization studies indicates that value incongruence can provoke conflict (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015) between for

example professionals and organizations (Sorensen & Sorensen, 1974).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

I expect subordinates’ to respond to distrust with diminished OCB. In this paragraph I will discuss OCB. OCB can be defined as ‘individual behavior that is discretionary not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization’ (Organ, Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 2005: p 3). Hence, the subordinate adds something extra to the organization on top of the fundamental job description.

There are two subcategories of OCB which are important for this research, namely

OCBI (Organizational citizenship behavior – individual) and OCBO (organizational

8

citizenship behavior- organization). OCBI refers to the helping behaviors of the subordinate directed towards supervisors and OCBO are behaviors by which the subordinate helps the organization, though according to Wech (2002) both behaviors can, in the end, benefit the supervisor. Therefore, I expect OCB in both forms to decrease when abusive supervisory behaviors occur since this could be the subordinates’ way to take revenge towards both the organization and supervisor. In the following sections, I will substantiate why I am expecting a relation between the previously discussed concepts.

FIGURE 1b: Research model

The expectation that abusive supervision results into distrust and distrust results in diminished OCB is based on the social exchange theory. The social exchange theory explains that when people are treated in a good way by someone else, they will feel an obligation towards that person to return that favor (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). Hence, the social exchange theory substantiates that when a subordinate is not treated well, it is expected that the subordinate will not favor a supervisor and might treat the supervisor in a bad manner. I expect distrust to be an explanatory factor because both fairness and trust are critical aspects of the social exchange theory (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). Therefore, two direct relations of this research are drawn from the social exchange theory, namely the relation between abusive supervision and distrust and, the relation between distrust and OCB.

Abusive supervision in relation to distrust

In this section, I will discuss the direct relation between abusive supervision and distrust. I want to examine how abusive supervision and distrust are related, and which abusive supervisory behaviors trigger distrust. Abusive supervision is often experienced as harmful, which possibly increases the subordinates’ feeling of vulnerability. According to Tomlinson and Lewicki (2006), distrust arises when the expectation of harm is higher than

Abusive Supervision

Distrust

Value Incongruence

OCB

9

the level of vulnerability acceptable to the subordinate. When this is the case, the subordinate will no longer accept the harmful behavior. It is proven that abusive supervision leads to harmful effects such as lower performance, psychological distress, aggression and deviance (Martinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007).

As discussed in the introduction, I will look at the specific negative behaviors that seem to trigger distrust and examine which abusive behaviors are most promising in the prediction of distrust. Distrust is said to develop in a self-amplifying cycle (Fox, 1974; Harvey, White, Hood & Sherif, 1961; Sitkin and Stickel, 1996; Zand, 1972) and I want to know which behaviors set this cycle into motion.

The abusive behaviors are measured by a scale designed by Tepper (2000) that covers multiple negative behaviors to see which behavior invokes distrust. I expect that abusive supervision will cause fear amongst subordinates and, as a reaction, those subordinates will distrust their supervisor. Hence, this research will examine which abusive supervisory behaviors trigger distrust. Therefore, the first hypothesis is:

Hypothesis 1: Abusive supervision by supervisors is positively related to subordinates’

distrust of supervisor.

In the following section I will discuss distrust in relation to OCB.

Distrust in relation to OCB

A response to distrust is that the subordinate can try to avoid interaction and in that way try to prevent greater vulnerability resulting from the supervisor’s actions and avoid unpleasant meetings (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015). The social interactionist approach as described by Bijlsma-Frankema et al. (2015) indicates that when one group distrusts the other, they interpret their actions negatively, which justifies negative actions towards the other group. Hence, distrust developing negative reciprocal behaviors becomes more harmful.

In this context it would mean that when the supervisor is distrusted by the subordinate, it justifies the negative future actions the subordinate will carry out towards his supervisor, which results in negative reciprocity. Negative reciprocity between subordinate and

supervisor can be described as perceptions which become increasingly negative amongst one another. This results in accumulating negative actions and counteractions (Bijlsma-Frankema et al., 2015). In this case I expect it to lead to subordinates’ diminished OCB as a response to subordinates’ distrust of the supervisor.

Furthermore, according to the self-amplifying circle by Bijlsma-Frankema et al.

(2015) distrust causes diminished cooperation. Motowidlo (2000) and Organ (1997) provide a

10

modern definition of OCB and indicate that OCB might be redefined as being cooperative and helpful in and organization. Therefore, I believe that distrust leads to diminished OCB as well.

Hypothesis 2: subordinates’ distrust of supervisor is negatively related to subordinates’

OCB

Distrust in relation to value incongruence

Literature concerning distrust suggests (Sitkin & Roth 1993, Sitkin & Stickel 1996, Tomlinson & Lewicki 2006) and shows (Chambers & Melnyk 2006) that when there is perceived value incongruence, distrust arises. Furthermore, the article written by Bijlsma- Frankema et al. (2015) researches value incongruence as an antecedent of distrust. But as the model designed by Bijlsma-Frankema et al (2015) is a cyclical model, it suggests that value incongruence is also a consequence of distrust. As mentioned in the introduction, I will investigate the latter relation because I expect that when distrust occurs, the subordinates will have a negative idea concerning the supervisors’ intentions, motives and behaviors (Bijlsma- Frankema et al., 2015) and as a result I expect them to become more aware of the difference in values between them and the supervisor. Hence, I believe the subordinates’ perception of value incongruence will increase as a consequence of increasing distrust and therefore my research will focus on distrust as an antecedent of value incongruence.

Hypothesis 3: subordinates’ distrust of supervisor is positively related to perceived value incongruence by subordinates.

In the following section, I will discuss what I have done to research these hypotheses and what resulted from the interviews.

METHODOLOGY Method

The purpose of this study was to look at constructs of the overall research model in depth and test the hypotheses. Because there has not been a lot of research concerning distrust, I wanted to find new ideas which could contribute to future research. I used the following questions to create new ideas for future research.

The questions which I aimed to answer were:

- To what extent do respondents agree with the definition of distrust?

- How does distrust emerge?

- How do people respond to distrust?

11

- What are consequences of distrust? To further analyze the consequences, I asked whether the respondents experienced a difference between certain constructs before and after experiencing distrust.

Furthermore, the hypotheses tested were:

Hypothesis 1: Abusive supervision by supervisors is positively related to subordinates distrust of the supervisor.

Hypothesis 2: Subordinates’ distrust of supervisor is negatively related to subordinates organizational citizenship behavior.

Hypothesis 3: Subordinates’ distrust of supervisor is positively related to perceived value incongruence by subordinates.

Participants and Procedure

The research question was further explored by conducting eight interviews on distrust.

The interview questions can be found in Appendix B. The first part of the interviews was non-directive and open. I asked open questions and let the interviewees tell their story. The second part was semi-structured as I gave the interviewees a scheme which they had to fill out and then I asked questions afterwards (See Appendix C). The interviewees were told beforehand that the interview would be anonymous and names would be deleted from the transcripts. The interviewees were asked questions concerning their job (See Appendix B) and they were given a list of items on which they should indicate whether or not they

experienced these items (See Appendix C). The interviews were conducted with persons who all indicated that they experienced distrust towards their supervisor. The duration of each interview was about one hour to one and a half hour. Afterwards, the data was transcribed and coded into tables in order to select the main information from the story told by the

respondents. This was done because this way the answers could be structurally reported in the results section and answers could be compared.

Measures

Abusive supervision. I measured abusive supervision with items based on the scale

Tepper (2000) developed (See Appendix A) and with the items uncovered in a pilot study

which I conducted. Based on findings of the pilot study I conducted, I discovered that the

Tepper (2000) items were less useful than expected because they not meant for conceptual

purposes. Therefore I found items designed by Bies and Tripp (1996) which were meant as a

category system which is more appropriate for this research. The categories by Bies and

12

Tripp (1996) were described as ‘violation of trust/triggers of distrust’. Hence, the abusive behaviors designed by Tepper (2000) and the additional items found in the pilot study fit this category because those items also trigger distrust. Using these items made it easier to

structure the distrust-inducing items as found in the pilot study while, simultaneously, a relation between abusive supervision and distrust could be seen. The relation can be explained by linking the distrust-triggering items found in the pilot study to the categories designed by Bies and Tripp (1996). Those items of abusive supervision and additional items together form distrust-triggering items. When those distrust-triggering items fitted in the items of Bies and Tripp (1996), became triggers of distrust which therefore substantiates the relation between abusive supervision and distrust.

All of the categories of Bies and Tripp (1996) can be found in Appendix G. Not all categories were used to subdivide the items designed by Tepper (2000). The categories relevant for my research were:

- Broken Promises

- Disclosure of confidences and secrets - Abusive Authority – Intolerable Boss - Stealing of ideas or credit from others - Lying

- Insult to self or collective - Shirking of job responsibilities

- A damaged “identity” - Public criticism

A category which was added so the categories would cover all ‘Tepper (2000) items’ and the additions made in the pilot study was: ‘Unfair/unjust treatment of respondents or

respondent’s colleagues’ which was seen as a trigger of distrust. The respondents were asked to fill out a table in which they could indicate whether they experienced the distrust triggering items as found in the pilot study or not. When they indicated that they did, they were asked to explain or give examples.

Distrust. I measured distrust with eight items (See Appendix C) that were also put in a

table for the interviewees. What should be mentioned is something which was striking in the

beginning of the analysis, namely that the interviewees told almost similar stories when

answering questions about abusive supervision and distrust. It turned out that the

interviewees told the stories which resulted in distrust when answering questions about

distrust. Distrust is the fear that something happens in the future and the situations they

13

described were the reason they distrusted their supervisor. Hence, there was overlap between those stories which was adapted but should still be noted.

Value Incongruence. Furthermore, the variable value incongruence was measured by presenting the respondents a figure in which two circles were shown with a various distances between the circles (See Figure 3a). I asked the respondents how distanced their own values and their supervisor’s values were before and after they experienced distrust. The first row indicates the amount of value incongruence before distrust, where the circles are far apart it indicates value incongruence and where the circles are closest it indicates value congruence.

The second row refers to the period after they started experiencing distrust towards their supervisor.

OCB. In order to analyze OCB, I asked the respondents an open question. I asked them whether they did anything extra for the organization or the supervisor, on top of performing their usual tasks. Their answers were subdivided in two categories, OCBO (Organizational citizenship behavior – organization) and OCBI (Organizational citizenship behavior – individual).

FIGURE 3a: Value incongruence

RESULTS

In the following section the answers and the examples of respondents are discussed. In

order to write the results in a logical order, the sequence as indicated in the research model

(Figure 1b) was used.

14 Abusive Supervision

In this section, I will discuss the respondents’ descriptions of distrust-triggering behaviors.

Broken Promises

Six out of eight respondents indicated that the supervisor broke his/her ¹ promises, referring to different specific situations, such as failing to keep a promise, for instance a respondent ending up with an extra workload despite the promise of the supervisor to hire extra personnel in order to prevent that, or recurrently failing to show up at appointments with the subordinate, refusing to ratify a promise of the owner of the firm to the respondent.

Besides breaking a promise, several supervisors tried to avoid taking responsibility for their behavior by saying they did not remember, by indicating that he was confronted with circumstances beyond his control (in case of hiring personnel), or by flatly denying the promise was made. One respondent, confronted with repeated denial of promises by her supervisor, suggested her supervisor probably tried to avoid the blame for broken promises:

“He keeps on denying because then you cannot be held accountable”. (Respondent 5, page 22).

Disclosure of confidences and secrets

For this category, six interviewees responded affirmatively. Several respondents indicated that they expected their supervisor to tell confidential information to others because the supervisor told the respondents confidential information about others as well. Therefore, they indicated that they knew they could not tell their supervisor confidential information about themselves. One respondent indicated that she doubted whether he would talk about her as well. Furthermore, one respondent mentioned he noticed that his colleague knew

something which the respondent told the supervisor privately. Therefore, the respondent was aware he could not tell his supervisor confidential information. Another respondent indicated that she thinks her supervisor does not tell personal things about her. However, she does not like what the supervisor tells her about others. Therefore, she sometimes wonders whether he tells something about her when she is not present. She said:

1

Since the majority of the supervisors discussed are male, I will in general use the term his when meaning his or

her

15

“My first hunch would be ‘no’ but on the other hand, sometimes when I see how he talks about others to me I think well…” (Respondent 5, page 15)

Another respondent did not know whether her supervisor would do that, but because she was not sure he would not, she did not tell her supervisor personal information.

Abusive Authority – Intolerable Boss

Six out of eight respondents indicated they experienced their supervisor as an intolerable boss. They mentioned several supervisory behaviors they experienced as intolerable. First, some supervisors accuse respondents of negative behaviors toward him, which in the eyes of the respondent is not justified. For instance, one of the respondents indicated that when they had an email conversation with both colleagues and supervisors, the supervisor said it should stop because according to him the respondents were too emotional and fierce. The respondent says that this same supervisor repeatedly cannot handle criticism:

“When I utter a critical remark towards my supervisor (…) he says I am negative, stubborn or not cooperative” (Respondent 1, page 7).

Two respondents explain this accusing behavior and the anger with which these are expressed, is a result of the supervisor’s inability to take criticism. Yet another respondent mentioned to her supervisor that she had the idea he favored a colleague, but he became angry when she suggested this. She says:

“For example, we observed that an account manager was favored in comparison to others because they have known each other for a long time, but when I told him that, he became really angry and said it was not true” (Respondent 5, page 12).

Two other respondents also perceive their supervisor as a person with a low ability to receive criticism. They indicated that their supervisor asked during an appraisal:

“Do you have anything to complain about? Great, neither do I” (Respondent 5, page 7, respondent 6, page 2)

A second behavior is making jokes at the expense of the subordinate. One supervisor joked that the weight of the respondent, when walking around, would make the lights of the camera flicker.

“X (name respondent) is too heavy, that is why the light flickers when he walks back and forth”. (Respondent 1, page 12)

The respondent reacted with a joke that he would then leave the office to solve the problem, and then the supervisor suddenly became very angry because of this reaction.

A third intolerable behavior was issuing an agreement, and then not complying to the

16

agreement themselves. One of the respondents mentioned that her supervisor, contrary to their agreement, sometimes does not answer her phone calls or emails, but when something had gone wrong, the supervisor did not follow the agreement because he did send her negative e-mails instead of phoning the respondent, as agreed.

“We made an agreement, when there is something wrong, we do not email but we call (…) He still sends rude emails or just does not answer”. (Respondent 8, page 10).

A fourth behavior of supervisors, which is intolerable to two respondents, is blaming the subordinate for things that went wrong, without inquiring properly about the cause of the problem, or without using his own observation. One of the respondents indicated that his supervisor had received information from colleagues concerning a mistake he made and his supervisor used that, half a year after he made that mistake, during an appraisal instead of using his own observation. Another respondent told that her supervisor could become angry with someone while the problem was not the person’s fault. When this supervisor becomes angry with a subordinate, he wants to be surrounded by a lot of people and he sometimes shouts “You did that wrong and that costs that much money” (Respondent 5, page 8) or discusses private things across the whole department. Another respondent mentions that when he had an idea and it did not work out, his supervisor kept reminding him of that, rubbing in the failure, and another respondent said he was afraid to be criticized by his supervisor, because he had taken on a project in which things went wrong. A respondent indicated that sometimes, when one of the supervisors feels attacked, he tries to attack in return by mentioning things which the respondent did wrong in the past.

Being rude to a subordinate is a fifth behavior discussed as leading to distrust of the supervisor because of its intolerableness in the eyes of subordinates. One of the respondents nuanced rudeness by saying that though she experienced some situations or things her supervisor says as being rude, ‘being rude’ is a matter of perspective. She mentions:

“When I am busy with something else, that he suddenly, he says something in a rude way or what I experienced lately that I get an email on an evening in my weekend” (Respondent 8, page 10). This supervisor once became very angry at her as well, which she thought was rude because she was right in that case.

A sixth behavior of supervisors mentioned as intolerable was not acting according to the moral standards supervisors should comply with. A peculiar situation which was

described by one of the respondents was one of a colleague who felt put aside at the office

and ran, almost crying, to his car and the people who gossiped about that colleague were not

silenced by the supervisor. The supervisor was also said to join colleagues in gossiping about

17

other team members. This supervisor, he explains, always wants to know he is better, faster, funnier and nicer than others which indicates that he wants to be popular.

Stealing of ideas or credit from others

One of the respondents indicated that her supervisor likes to use credits of someone else, even if he did not do anything to bring about the credit-worthy positive outcome:

“He won’t mention that a particular person did a good job in figuring something out but instead he will say “we did that very well” so he won’t give the other person credits which is convenient for him. For example, when someone offered to arrange something for the

company like a new customer or so, the supervisor can indicate that he arranged that or that he did that while actually it was offered to him and he did not do anything for this

arrangement. It is only possible to notice this when you know what actually happened, so who actually arranged it”. (Respondent 5, page 15, 16).

Unfair/unjust treatment of respondents or respondent’s colleagues

Here, five of the respondents indicated that they had experienced unfair or unjust treatment. Two of the respondents indicated that they do not get paid for all their working hours. One respondent mentioned he did not get paid overtime. Another respondent

mentioned that, although they did not ‘get their hours back’, she could stay home when she had to work to compensate for the extra hours worked in contrast to her colleagues.

Another respondent said he had the idea he was treated unfairly because his supervisor did not take into account the differences per region when stating goals for the subordinates, so the respondent would be disadvantaged in comparison to his colleagues. In this case, the nature of the differences per region were that the respondent covering the northern part of the Netherlands had less chance of selling health insurances because a lot of people had an insurance at a health insurance company specifically for the north. The

colleagues covering the southern part of the Netherlands just needed a signature and the costumers would still be at the same health insurance but would receive discount.

The respondent also mentioned that he thinks his supervisor has personal favorites,

which feels unfair. Furthermore, two of the respondents said that their supervisor treats

colleagues unequally. However, he treats those colleagues unfair in comparison to the

respondents, so it does not have a negative influence on the respondents themselves. Lastly,

what feels unfair for one of the respondents is that when she hands in a list of extra hours she

worked, her supervisors say not to believe her.

18

“I worked in a year approximately eight or nine weeks extra, we do not get paid for working extra and I said yes I worked for you and earned money for you and that was questioned.

Whether I did actually work those hours or that it was unjust, I think that is very, for me that is very unjust.” (Respondent 8, page 22).

That same respondent mentions that she still had valid free days left, after she had a burn-out, but her supervisor became angry because of that. She and her colleagues are

expected to work fifty percent of the general hours in their own time, which she says is unfair because they do work those hours for the company but only get paid half the wage.

Furthermore, several of the respondents indicate that the work they do is taken for granted.

Working harder or having a larger task than average is not really observed. One respondent refers to this as being ‘self-evident’.

“Work is seen as self-evident, whatever you do. Even if you work longer hours three days a week, it is still self-evident.”(Respondent 5, page 1)

Lying

Four out of eight respondents mentioned that their supervisor had lied to them or they had the feeling he lied. One of the respondents indicated that her supervisor lied to a

colleague about something she had said according to him, which in fact, she had not said that.

She suspects that the supervisor tries lay the blame on her because he is actually too scared to say himself. Two other respondents indicate that their supervisor actually denies having said or agreed with particular matters, of which others say he did agree or say those things. One of the respondent remarks: “Yes I mean you cannot forget that much haha” (Respondent 5, page 22).

Insult to self or collective

Three of the respondents responded affirmatively to this item. One of the respondents mentioned that his supervisor likes to be critical towards others, always tries to be the center of attention, makes sexist jokes and tries to ridicule everyone but cannot handle someone ridiculing him. “He tries to ridicule everyone a bit, he likes that, and well okay that is allowed, but then we do it as well of course and we ridicule him as well, but he cannot cope with that.” (Respondent 1, page 8).

One of the respondents felt insulted because her supervisor makes inappropriate jokes:

“My supervisor says: “you are just a part timer”, he says it with a smile but he does say it”.

(Respondent 6, page 5).

19

Apparently, this supervisor makes that kind of jokes more often and according to the respondent it sounds funny in the beginning. However, if you listen more carefully, you notice that it is actually not that kind.

Shirking of job responsibilities

Several respondents indicated that their supervisor did shirk his job responsibilities.

Ways in which this was done was giving the respondent certain chores, which were part of the supervisor’s job, while the supervisor had time enough to perform the tasks himself.

Another respondent’s supervisor did not take over responsibility from him when necessary, while the respondent believed it was the supervisor’s responsibility at that moment.

Two of the interviewees indicated here that their supervisor never says something directly.

Instead, he always refers to “the interviewee says….”. The respondent thinks his/her supervisor does this so he cannot be held accountable. In addition, another interviewee mentions that her supervisor did this when she was guiding a new employee. She mentions:

“He asked me: “How is it going?” I said: “well... I do not know”, I indicated that very early on and at a certain moment they saw that it was a real mess and then my supervisor

approached me to ask whether I could make a list of what was not going well. And then I think he should not try doing that with me, I am not going to do that”. (Respondent 6, page 10).

Here again, the supervisor does not want to be held responsible.

A respondent mentioned that his supervisor is supposed to be a coach, but he only blames his subordinates when something goes wrong and does not take responsibility.

Another respondent indicated that he expects his supervisor to blame him to save himself from embarrassment when the respondent made a mistake during an assignment. He suspects his supervisor says he does not have any knowledge concerning the work, but in the end, he can give the respondent all responsibility by saying in a funny way “yes, he thought of this”.

A damaged “identity” - Public criticism

One of the respondents indicated he experienced public criticism while working as an account manager and regularly representing the firm on fairs. What this respondent

experienced was that he knew his supervisor made negative comments about him to

accountants, namely that he did not like fairs, because later on, when the respondent had to

work with the accountants, they ridiculed him about not liking fairs. Other respondents did

20

not experience public criticism themselves, but indicate that their colleagues were publicly criticized.

Distrust

The following section discusses how distrust was described by the respondents. First, some of the respondents were asked whether they agreed with the definition of distrust. These answers are evaluated. Additionally, I asked the respondents whether they experienced

distrust to arise in small steps, as an accumulation or as one specific situation that resulted in distrust. In order to evaluate the answers of the interviewees, the items from the distrust scale were used as a preliminary guideline to analyze distrust (See Appendix E). In addition to those dimensions, several other possibilities which were indicated to cause distrust came to force in the interviews.

Definition of distrust

First, the definition of distrust was presented to the interviewees, and they were asked whether this definition reflects their feelings of distrust in their supervisor. The provided definition was: “a subordinate is unwilling to accept vulnerability based on prevalent negative perceptions of the other person’s motives, intentions and behaviors.” What was striking was that just one interviewee indicated that the intentions or motives of his or her supervisor were wrong, the others all pointed to the supervisor’s behavior.

A respondent explained why she hoped that her supervisor’s intentions were not wrong. She mentioned that perhaps her supervisor’s intentions were wrong, but she just did not want to believe that. She preferred not to think that way and expressed hope that she was right, though she hesitated at the end. She refers to two supervisors because they are both owners of the organization and she has meetings with both.

“I just don’t want to believe that this is my supervisor’s conscious intention, if that would be the case, it would be even harder for me to deal with their behavior” (…) “I keep convincing myself that they are just not capable of the social aspects of running an organization and that they are not doing this consciously only it happens very often so I start doubting my hope.”

(Respondent 8, page 14)

The statement of this respondent could be an explanation why the interviewees point at negative behaviors of their supervisor, but refrain from statements about their intentions.

They may shield themselves from more harmful interpretations.

Respondent 1 explicitly states that the intentions of his supervisor are good:

21

“I don’t believe that his intentions are wrong, no I don’t believe that (…) I think his intentions are good but he just does not notice it”. (Respondent 1, page 10)

The respondent means that the problem is the supervisor’s behavior but that he does not know he behaves in a way that causes distrust, therefore the respondent’s negative perception is only about the behavior of his supervisor.

Emergence of distrust

After I asked them general questions and tried to gain as much information as possible without asking directed questions, I asked the respondents how they experienced the

emergence of distrust. I asked them whether it was an accumulation or whether it was something which suddenly arose and therefore the start of distrust could be ascribed to one particular situation. Most of the interviewees indicated, when they were asked the question directly, that they experienced an accumulation.

One of the respondents gave a clear description why he thought it was accumulation.

He indicated that when his supervisor did something which was not acceptable, at first he always got angry. After a while he tried to approach his supervisor in a positive way because he wanted to have a good relationship. However, he got a negative response from his

supervisor and that resulted in distrust and the respondent now feels indifferent towards his supervisor. This example shows certain stages of both response and distrust towards the supervisor. The respondent said:

“First I became very angry, after that I tried to find a good way to deal with it and when someone plays with that, than a lot of distrust arises. Because then you tried really hard, really from a positive perspective, and when someone plays with that in a negative way, then distrust really arises.” (Respondent 1, page 11)

The respondent indicates that now he is in a state of indifference. What could be noticed was that more respondents expressed indifference in a later stage of distrust

development. For example, a respondent mentioned that in the beginning of her career at that organization she really wanted to achieve things but when she did not get a response

(multiple times) it led to a feeling of indifference and a decrease in motivation. Some

respondents did mention a specific situation. For example, it seemed like a teacher did

experience this, although she indicated accumulation. Her answer suggested a sudden rise of

distrust because one of her team leaders tried to get her to teach another class, which she said

he did in a disrespectful way.

22

“I met my team leader in the schoolyard and he asked very quickly “could you perhaps teach that class?” I was super busy then, I had just taken over a mentor class so I said “I am not sure if I can take that” so I said “If you let me know when it is needed and what kind of class it is about I can think about it”, I kept it very distant but then I received an email which suddenly said that ‘respondent 4’ will teach this and this class. So I was not very charmed by him, let’s say it that way, I thought the team leaders had done this in a very sneaky way.”

(Respondent 4, page 9, 10) (…) Well that was the moment that I started to be more careful with what I said and started to think more like what are they saying and what are they really meaning”. (Respondent 4, page 10)

Items of distrust

Based on characteristics of distrust found in the literature, I used the distrust items to explore which of these characteristics were present among the interviewees. I presented the items in a table in which they could indicate whether they experienced the items by

answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’. After that, I discussed the items to which they reacted affirmatively and in the following paragraphs I am going to explain their feelings and perspectives.

My superior appears mainly interested in her/his own well-being

Five of the respondents gave an affirmative answer and two of the respondents doubted whether they agreed or not. One respondent mentioned that it is not per se the supervisor his own well-being, but it is very important for his supervisor how people think about him and how popular he is. Therefore, approval is important. A respondent indicates that she thinks it is kind of pathetic when her supervisor steals credits from others.

Apparently he wants to show he can arrange things. Another respondent indicated that she had the idea that the supervisor tried to get their ideas in the same direction as the

supervisor’s ideas. Even though these are likely to be good intentions, it is his opinion that those are good intentions and it is not necessarily the truth. Furthermore, the respondent believes the supervisor tries to save his own skin and therefore does not confront people.

Other things which were mentioned were that one respondent wonders how good her supervisor actually listens because he is only concerned with his own story. Another

respondent mentions that he expects his supervisor to do something whatever the costs,

because he needs to achieve things.

23

I suspect that my superior will drop me like a brick if that suits his/her purpose Four respondents responded affirmatively towards this item and one of the respondents was in doubt. When the respondents reacted affirmatively, the respondents indicated that with their supervisors, there should be an emphasis on “suits his/her purpose”

because the organization is most important. The supervisors will not drop the respondent like a brick because now it is convenient but when it is convenient for the supervisors, the

respondent expects they will. Another response to this item which was mentioned was indifference. The respondent is used to it now, though in the beginning the respondent became angry when this item occurred.

One respondent had the impression that her supervisor would drop her like a brick, as a third party had told her that this was not uncommon. Furthermore, respondents mentioned a lack of support or back-up when needed. A supervisor trying to implement his own ideas instead of helping the respondent and when a supervisor had to achieve things it was expected that his supervisor would do this behind one of the respondent’s back when necessary. Lastly, one respondent referred to a case when one of his colleagues became seriously ill. The management attempted to fire this colleague. Therefore, the respondent expects the management/supervisor might do something similar if this were to happen to him.

I suspect that my supervisor does not always have my best interest in mind

Three respondents answered ‘yes’ when asked whether they experienced this item and one of them was in doubt. Explanations for answering affirmatively to this item were that although the respondent’s supervisor does what is best for her, she expects that when

something is better for them, this will be priority. Furthermore, popularity is most important and it might disadvantage the respondent and acting in favor of, in this case, the school instead of the respondent is expected.

I am afraid that my superior will behave in a way that will be to my disadvantage

Three respondents mentioned that they were afraid of this. Indications were that one respondent was not only afraid but also sure her supervisor would behave in a way that will be to her disadvantage. Another respondent mentioned that his supervisor does not take his side. He says that he expects his supervisor to be his trainer and coach and to share

responsibility when they do not reach their goals but that probably will not happen. When he

does this, in the beginning the respondent became very angry but now he does not see the

point and just think ‘never mind’.

24

If I am not alert, my superior will take advantage of me

Here, three respondents mentioned that they expected this item to happen. One of those respondents mentioned that her supervisors are always trying to convince her to accept new clients, even when she does not have time for that. Lately, she has been more firm in saying no. Since then, her supervisors tend to listen sooner, however, they are still trying to convince her. Therefore, the respondent feels she has to put in too much effort in order to get her supervisors to listen to her. Furthermore, one of the respondents mentioned that if she would not have been assertive enough, they would have taken advantage of her. Another respondent mentioned that if something were to go wrong, the respondent expects his supervisor to say that he does not have knowledge concerning that aspect. The supervisor then points at the respondent and therefore he will blame the subordinate and does not take responsibility.

I fear that my superior will treat me unfairly

Two of the respondents gave an affirmative answer and one of the respondents was not sure in the beginning but when she started explaining, it became clear that she did expect her supervisor to treat her unfairly. Another respondent was not afraid her supervisor would treat her unfairly, but she does not expect she will always be treated fairly. She does mention that it is always a question what unfair treatment actually is. She says:

“I do take it into account that it might happen but that is because of the breach in trust, let me put it that way” (Respondent 8, page 19).

My supervisor will lie if that suits his/her purpose

To the question whether their supervisor would lie or not, two respondents gave an affirmative answer, one respondent doubted and one indicated that her supervisor might do that. One of the respondents indicates that there is a chance her supervisors will lie, that they would purposefully change the truth. She said:

“Lying is a bit of a strong word, but I believe the intentions are not sincere” (Respondent 8, page 19)

What was mentioned as well, is that one of the respondents’ supervisor pretends like he does not remember something he said. However, the respondent indicated that the

supervisor probably remembers but he often tries to deny what he said so he does not have to

stick to agreements. She then becomes angry because they did have an agreement. She

indicated that: “I think it is a pity it has to go this way”. Lastly, a respondent mentioned that

25

when his supervisor needs to achieve something and if that means he has to lie: “I expect him to do that”.

My supervisor puts up a noble front, to cover his/her less noble intentions.

Two out of eight respondents mentioned that they experienced this. One of these respondents mentioned that she thinks that the supervisor tries to do minimize his job responsibilities as much as possible. She said:

“He does pretend he is very busy while we sometimes wonder what he does all day. He does not have that many tasks. (Respondent 6)”

That same supervisor always pretends that he does a lot for the account managers. However, it is likely that he is trying to make himself more approachable than their own supervisor.

What was curious after analyzing these items, is that although the respondents indicated they did not believe the intentions of their supervisor were wrong, the item which concerns intentions namely “my superior appears mainly interested in her/his own well- being” is confirmed by seven out of eight respondents. This means that it seems they do doubt the intentions of their supervisor while in the beginning they mentioned they did not believe the intentions were wrong.

Additions

A few things which engender distrust were repeatedly mentioned among several interviews, namely disrespect and keeping agreements. Therefore, I think these might be significant and therefore worth discussing.

Disrespect

Disrespect is mainly focused on the idea that the supervisor gives the respondent the feeling that he does not take the respondent seriously. Four respondents indicated that the supervisor did not take them seriously. For example, one of the respondents indicated that during a meeting her supervisor sometimes did not show up without letting her know or was answering emails or doing something else when they had a conversation. This shows

disrespect.

“The first thing is whether they will be there, at the appointment, sometimes it is cancelled or they are not there, then something else was more important. Then you don’t get informed.”

(Respondent 8, page 8, 9)

26

Furthermore, when a colleague of this respondent resigned, no new employee was hired and she had to take on extra work, so she did not feel like she was taken seriously because she had to do too much extra work. Furthermore, there was mentioned:

“When I mention something about a colleague of mine, which is very hard for me to do, I do think that it should be seriously considered to do something about it. Last year I had the feeling they did not take me seriously”. (Respondent 4, page 11)

One respondent mentioned that during an appraisal, her supervisor asked her whether she wanted to complain about something. However, she indicated that she was aware that her supervisor would not do anything with the given information. Therefore, she rather refrained from saying anything. Finally, a respondent indicated that the supervisor based his appraisal only on other’s observations or mentioned things that were general mistakes. Therefore, this was not something that the respondent could particularly work on which he thought was ridiculous. The respondent believes that since it was his appraisal, his supervisor should, based on his own observations, give his opinion concerning the respondent’s work.

Agreements not kept

What was mentioned here was that the respondents’ supervisor did not stick to agreements which were made. I think this is significant when it occurs several times that a supervisor does not show up at an appointment, I expect this might cause distrust. Next time, there might be confusion as to whether or not the supervisor will be present.

How do the respondents respond to distrust?

Shielding through perceptual adaptions

Two respondents indicated that they changed their perceptions and that they started acting indifferent towards their supervisor, which I believe is a way of shielding and protecting themselves from harm. There were two respondents who indicated a feeling of indifference after they experienced distrust. One of the respondents mentioned experiencing a feeling of indifference after experiencing distrust in a specific situation.

“First I was angry, then I thought let’s have a good conversation and figure things out and now I think, it does not matter, never mind...” (Respondent 1, page 16).

Another respondent indicated that she came up with a lot of ideas and her supervisors never used or even thought about those ideas.

The respondent says:

27

“Well they don’t do anything anyway so never mind” (Respondent 6, page 1) which also expresses indifference. Furthermore, both indicated a decrease in motivation concerning their work and helping their supervisor as a result of distrust.

Shielding through behaviors

Shielding seemed to be a way of protecting themselves. Two respondents referred to shielding. One of the respondents mentioned:

“I won’t come up with new ideas if it is not appreciated. Because if you come up with certain ideas that for example do not work out that good then you are held accountable for that and next time you think, never mind..”(Respondent 1, page 19)

Furthermore, after one of the respondents had a burn-out she expected awareness not to overload her. Yet, her supervisors still gave her too much work. Therefore, the respondent tried to shield herself in order to protect her vulnerability. She says:

“Now I know that when I have a conversation I am careful about what we agree on, I write that down and that costs quite some negative energy, I don’t think that is actually necessary.

It also ensures that before a conversation I prepare very consciously and think about what they can mention, that I should be prepared”. (Respondent 8, page 7).

Furthermore, as mentioned previously, this respondent is shielding herself by hoping that the intentions of her supervisors are not bad, just their behavior. However, she hoped that they do not have the intention to approach her like that because then she might not be able to work there.

In general, it seems like more respondents are shielding. The respondents are looking for a way to protect themselves from the influence of distrust and abusive supervision or a protection so they will not be disappointed again.

Value incongruence

In this section I will discuss what the respondents filled out for value incongruence between them and their supervisor (Figure 3b). The table which can be found in Appendix F shows what the respondents answered to this question. As can be seen in the table in

Appendix F almost all respondents, except for respondent 7, indicate that after they

experienced distrust the difference in values became larger.

28 FIGURE 3b

The respondents were asked to explain this difference in value congruence, how they experienced this before and after they experienced distrust. Two respondents mentioned they first had a positive image of his supervisor but that he was disappointed. Furthermore, there was mentioned a big difference in personality, a different vision concerning work related projects and the supervisor his ideas seem to overlap with the interviewee’s ideas but in carrying out that vision they differ.

One respondent described that for her it is very important that people are sincere and honest towards each other and meet obligations, which are according to her basic norms and working norms. She indicates that at her work she experienced that what she thinks is important does not mean it is important for everyone, it is not similar for everyone. Her supervisor does not stick to appointments which is important for her. Hence, it is an aspect of the difference in norms and values. She says:

“They don’t think it is an issue, they think don’t worry about it but I don’t like it, I don’t want to work like this, that is very important for me.” (Respondent 8, page 5)

In the following section, I discussed OCB with the interviewees. OCB was discussed as a consequence of distrust. I asked the respondents whether OCB was different before and after they experienced distrust.

Organizational citizenship behavior

The answers to the general OCB question, whether the respondent did something

extra on top of their standard function, and where the respondents referred to OCB in the

overall interview is described in the following paragraphs. The answers of the respondents

29

are subdivided in whether they described OCBI (individual and supervisor) or OCBO (organization).

OCBI

Organizational citizenship behaviors which three respondents indicated they still performed are that one respondent mentioned he is interested in his colleagues, another mentioned that he sometimes made an overview for his supervisor and take over a supervisor’s task.

What a respondent mentioned as a consequence of distrust was that the respondent was more impulsive with helping behaviors when he just started working at the organization and did not distrust his supervisor, but now he is more on guard and is more careful that helping is not at his own expense. Another respondent indicated that she did not really have any motivation anymore to do something extra but that she used to do extra things. Reasons for this are that it is not supported or appreciated. For one of the respondents, the turning point, where she stopped helping a lot, was her burnout.

“I did have supervisors for whom I wanted to go the extra mile, (…) but I don’t have that concerning these supervisors “(Respondent 8, page 27).

Another reason, apart from distrust, for not doing anything extra, was that several respondents mentioned they were often too busy with their own tasks.

OCBO

Two respondents mentioned that they do not do a lot extra for the organization. One mentioned being busy enough as a reason and the other indicated that she has task hours already. Four respondents did mention to do something extra for the organization, namely, giving extra lessons to children, working longer, being part of a group that tries to reduce stress on a body during the production process and joining staff excursions organized by the organization:

“I am one of the only persons who joins for staff excursions and that kind of stuff, not that I

always feel like it but it is for the organization and you need mutual commitment, which is

important to me”. (Respondent 1, page 28).