Creating maximum performance: Eliminating victimization within work teams.

(1)

victimization within work teams.

Master Thesis

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June, 2014

(2)

Victimization is a pervasive phenomenon which could occur in work teams and across a range of organizations. Evidence suggests that victimization can have serious negative impact on the overall effectiveness of an organization and their team performance. For both work teams and the individuals being victimized. A great deal is still left unexplored in research on victimization. The proportion of women is relevant for this research, because women are more cooperative in female dominated teams. Teams with a large proportion of females can intercept victimization, because of their cooperativeness and still achieve high team performance. As men are more competitive and vulnerable for retaliation in response to provocative behavior, this moderation will not be the case in large male proportion teams. This study addresses the impact of gender on the relationship between victimization at the team level and team performance. Analysis of 65 teams have shown no significant results between victimization and team performance. Remarkably, a direct negative relation was found between the moderator: female proportion and team performance.

Key words: Victimization; teams; team performance; gender; organizational effectiveness;

(4)

1. INTRODUCTION

Within organizations there are many social interactions between employees who are working within teams. While a great deal of research has focused on the positive aspects of social interactions (Heaphy & Dutton, 2008; Lai, Lam, & Lam, 2013), these social interactions can however, also be very negative and result in interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace (Adams & Webster, 2012). Workplace victimization is an important example of these negative social interactions. Although not much research has been done on victimization, it can have very negative effects on the individual (Aquino & Byron, 2002). Current research has found that victimization in the workplace can be very contagious, lead to high levels of fear or anxiety and affect work performance of the employee (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998; Tayler, Wood, & Lichtman 1983; Bennis, 1989). The fact that victimization has direct negative effects on both workers, the efficiency and overall success of

organization has led to the increasing relevance of studying workplace victimization (Escartin,

Rodriquez-Carballeira, Zapf, Porrua, & Martin-Pena, 2009). It is surprising to note, however that while most research has addressed the consequences of victimization for individual performance (Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007), research addressing the team level consequences of victimization is virtually non-existent (Aubé & Rousseau, 2011). It is important to take team performance into account because, the performance of a team is an important outcome for determining the overall effectiveness and efficiency of an organization (Devonish, 2013).

The effects of victimization can have consequences for team performance. As such, it is relevant for HR managers to take this negative employee behaviour into account, in order to create maximum performance. Because, most of the victimization on team level is mostly left unexplored, it is important to demonstrate why and when victimization may also negatively affect team performance in addition to negatively affecting performance of individual working within teams. This study will therefore examine the consequences of victimization on performance of the team as a whole.

Furthermore, as more women are participating in the workforce than ever, they will participate in more levels of the organization (Myaskovsky, Unikel, & Dew, 2005). As such, women will participate more in teams as well and the need to examine the implications of the proportion of women in teams becomes more important. When examining the effect of victimization on team performance, the composition of the team can be expected to play a crucial role for the relationship between victimization and team performance. It is important to realize that gender composition generally plays an important role for interpersonal aspects within teams and team performance (Pelled, 1996). Research has found that women in homogenous groups are more cooperative (Bailliet, 2011). This study will examine if high proportion female teams will intercept victimization and their team performance, because of the cooperativeness of women.

(5)

within a team?

2. THEORY 2.1: The conceptual model

Figure 1 displays the conceptual model of this study. FIGURE 1:

Conceptual model

Proportion of females within a team

Victimization Team performance at the team level

2.2 The concept of victimization

Victimization of individuals is defined as: “The individual’s self-perception of having been the

target, either momentarily or over time, to harmful actions emanating from one or more other persons” (Aquino & Byron, 2002).

Victimization can occur in many different forms. Victimization captures forms of mistreatment that range in intensity from low (e.g., cursing, obscene gestures) to very high (e.g.

sabotage of work or physical assault) (Tepper & Henle, 2010). These forms of intensity of

victimization can occur both in a verbal or a physical form. Verbal victimization is used more frequently within teams, than physical victimization (Aubé & Rousseau, 2011). Since employers are legally required to minimize the most extreme forms of physical victimization (Fenton, Kelley, Ruud, & Bulloch, 1997), physical victimization does not occur often within organizations. As a result of the legal focus on the physical victimization, less attention has been paid to the verbal victimization, which is much more subtle and less visible to intercept. Therefore, the verbal forms of victimization will be examined further.

(6)

Research at the individual level has found numerous characteristics of both the perpetrator and the victim and what the effects are of victimization on the victims well-being (Aquino & Bommer,2003; Aquino & Byron, 2002; Devonish, 2013), while the impact on the team level is not very well understood.

Although victimization is caused by individual behaviors, victimization has to be considered at the group level as well (Brown & Trevino, 2006). Because, not much research has been done on the group level, additional insights on team functioning might be acquired if these negative individual behaviors were examined within the social context of workgroups (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Nowadays employees have to work more and more together than before (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004). Therefore, more study is necessary on team dynamics. What are for instance the effects of intensively working together instead of working alone? The team cooperation and team dynamic determines the joint outcomes and how the team as a whole performs. When there is a high level of cooperation, victims within a team are also more dependent on their peers (they are forced to work together) and this may increase unresolved conflicts of which victimization is the result (Zapf, Knorz, & Kullu, 1996). By approaching victimization behaviors as individual matters, the social and workgroup factors that could influence these individual behaviors are ignored (Glomb & Liao, 2003).

2.3 Team performance

Team performance has been defined in the team literature as a: “Generalized framework that

includes inputs (i.e. resources), processes (i.e. collective effort) and outcomes (i.e. specific performance indicators)” (Dionne et al., 2004).

The reliance on teams have increased tremendously since the early 1980’s and research surrounding team development where not able to keep up with the growing need for understanding how teams can be more effective in performance (Dionne et al., 2004). Work teams are all about working together to fulfil tasks given by the organization to reach a certain team performance. As defined above, team performance include inputs. These inputs are at best when joint contribution takes place, this requires teamwork and participation of team members (Edmondson, 1999). When victimization occurs, teamwork will not be optimal and victimized members could be afraid to participate.

(7)

(Larson, Cristensen, Abott,& Franz, 1996). Therefore, this study expects that victimization negatively affects team performance. The following hypotheses is used in this study:

HYPOTHESIS 1:

The experience of workplace victimization within teams is negatively related to team performance.

2.4 Moderator of victimization

In studying the relationship between victimization and team performance it is important to realize that team composition could be considered as an important contingency. Many differences exist between men and women. These differences will influence the way in which team members will interact within teams and how the team as a whole will perform under certain circumstances such as victimization. The reasons why this study suggest a moderation of female proportion, which will be discussed further below.

First of all, research by Aquino and Byron (2002) examined the relation between victimization of people with high or low dominating behavior and people with moderate dominating behavior. This relation was moderated by the target’s gender. In which men are more vulnerable for retaliation in response to provocative behaviors (Aquino & Byron, 2002). The study of Baumeister and colleagues (1996) found that retaliation occurs as a reaction towards a negative statement from another team member, in which the statement questions someone’s competence or ability. This leads to an aggressive counter attack towards the person who made the negative statement (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). Teams with a low proportion of females will strengthen the negative effects of victimization, because of the retaliation among men. This retaliation can take the focus off of the team performance and therefore the effects of team performance will be lower in low proportion female teams.

Secondly, different studies have concluded that men are more aggressive than are women (Archer, 2000; Hershcovis, Turner, Barling, Arnold, Dupré, & Sivanathan, 2007). According to the Social Role Theory, males learn among other things that aggressive behaviors are socially acceptable (Gonzalez-Mulé, de Geest, Kiersch, & Mount, 2013). The Social Role Theory states that differences between male and women are the result of historical gender-based divisions of labour (Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2013). This division creates strong gender roles which will lead to expectations about behaviors (Eagly 1997). Men tend to use aggression to maintain their current status or for the pursuit of status (Archer, 2004). Because, men want to maintain or pursuit their status, they are more competitive. The study of Cassirer and Reskin (2000) have support that men are more competitive than are women.

(8)

goals as a team. And the competition among men will strengthen the negative effects of victimization. This could mean for teams with low proportion females that the effects of victimization will be strengthened, because of the competition in the team. This competitive environment takes the focus off of common goals and the effects for team performance will be influenced as well.

Finally, where men are more competitive, women in same-sex teams are more cooperative (Bailliet, 2011; Chatman & O’Reilly-Kelly, 2004). They are more cooperative, because they are the most comfortable in homogeneous groups and less competitive (Chatman & O’Reilly-Kelly, 2004). Behaviors of cooperation create perceptions of shared fate and supportive behaviour. In which every team member looks out for the interest of the other members (Beersma et al., 2003). The cooperativeness of women can be explained in the way they perceive their environment different from men. Women see themselves as a part of a group and feel obliged to contribute to the welfare of the group. Whereas men emphasize the right of the individual over those of the group and perceive their environment as a system of hierarchical relationships (Ortmann & Tichy, 1999). Because, research on gender stereotypes are quite consistent over time and across cultures (Aquino & Bommer, 2002), there is a certain reliability in the cooperativeness of women in high proportion female teams. Teams with a high proportion of females will intercept victimization, because of their cooperativeness. This means that even though victimizations occurs within a team, a large female proportion will cooperate together to still achieve high team performance.

To summarize, on the one hand, low proportion female teams will strengthen the negative effects of victimization, because of retaliation of men in response to provocative behavior and the competition among men. On the other hand, high proportion female teams will interfere the relationship, because of their cooperativeness. Cooperativeness will intercept victimization and enables them to achieve high team performance.

HYPOTHESES 2:

(9)

3. METHOD

3.1 Sample

This study is conducted among 74 teams from different organizations. The data in this study was collected with the use of three different anonymous questionnaires. These questionnaires measured if teams perceive workplace victimization within their team, female proportions of teams and team performance of the team as a whole. The team members had to fill in two questionnaires and the team leader one. The team members questionnaire measured victimization with a round-robin design and the gender composition of the team. The questionnaire of the team leader measured the team performance.

The study approached 516 team members with a responding rate of 88,2%. The sample of team members contained 245 women and 210 men between the age of 17 years and 64 years. Their median age was 42,1 years (SD= 12.41). For selection the teams needed a minimum of 5 team members and a maximum of 12 team members. The most teams consist of 7 people (M=7.17 ,

SD=2.90).

This study approached 72 team leaders with a responding rate of 98,6%. The sampled contained 21 women and 48 men between the age of 22 years and 61 years (M= 45.15 , SD= 9.21).

3.2 Research design and measures

The questionnaires only made use of behavioural terms without referring to specific workplace victimization. For both men and women, the same questionnaires were used. This to determine whether the outcomes where moderated by female proportion within teams. The team members had to fill in two questionnaires from each 15-20 minutes. The team leader received a different questionnaire.

Victimization. This study used an one-item round-robin design, to examine interpersonal victimization

(Tepper, 2000). In this design the team members had to rate each other. They were given the following statement: “How often does this person negative comments about you to team members?”. The participants had to rate all other team members on a scale from one to seven how often this happened. In which one was ‘never’ and seven was ‘very often’. By doing this victimization in a team was detected.

At the beginning of the round-robin design instructions where given that people often think differently about different people. And therefore the following questions where made about how you think about every team member individually. The participants were told as well that the names of the team members will be replaced by numbers when the answers are processed. So individual answers can’t be traced back to individual persons. To examine if the scores provided by the participants are interchangeable or equivalent in terms of their absolute value (LeBreton & Senter, 2007), the interrater

(10)

Demarree, and Wolf (1984) was calculated. The rwg was measured for an uniformal distribution and for a heavily skewed distribution. The heavily skewed distribution was chosen, because participants tend to respond socially desirable on unsocial subjects, which leads to heavily distributed answers towards the socially desirable answers. Compared with a uniform distribution, the median rwg for victimization was .80 (Mean = 0.92). And compared with a heavily skewed distribution, the median

rwg was 0.77 (Mean = 0.59). The agreement among the team members can considered to be adequate.

Team performance. The study used a 27-item scale to measure team performance. The sample

comprised rather diverse work teams with different tasks and responsibilities. Therefore a broad measure of team performance was used (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992).

The team leader had to answer questions about the dependent variable: team performance. To measure this dependent variable different questions were asked related to the productivity, efficiency, creativeness of the team et cetera, in relation to other teams. Team leaders could answers this on a seven-point scale, ranging from below average, to above average. The reliability analysis showed a Cronbach’s Alpha of α=0,93(N=27)

Proportion of females. To examine whether the proportion of females played a moderating role

between perceived victimization and team performance, the team members gender was asked. The percentage of women was calculated within each team. The mean was computed to determine the proportion of women in each team. After which the results were compared to see if the relationship was moderated. The results of teams with and without victimization where compared as well.

Control variables. This study used different control variables. The first control variable was the mean

age per team. To determine if “older” teams are more or less susceptible for victimization than are “younger” teams. The second control variable was the average team tenure per team. And finally this study used leader manage as a control variable. This control variable measures how many employees the team leader has to manage (1= I don’t lead, 2= 1-5 employees, 3= 6-10 employees, 4= 11-15 employees, 5= 16-20 employees and 7= more than 20 employees) This is determined, because in larger teams, participating in victimization may be easier to get away with, since team leaders have more employees to manage and less supervision.

3.3 Procedures

(11)

Instead other behavioural terms were used to determine how the team members felt treated within their teams.

The questionnaire took about 15-20 minutes to complete. The respondents were not compensated to fill in these questionnaires, and did not take the test because it was mandatory.

Before the questionnaire was taken, the teams were not informed about the specific content of the research, to prevent them from answering biased. The only thing the participants did know, was that there would be a few questions about team functioning. The questionnaire started with: “The participation in this study is completely anonymous. The outcomes of this questionnaire are confidential and will not be shared with your team members or supervisor. Within these questionnaires the participants of each team had to rate each other on a scale from one to seven, too measure victimization.

3.4 Data analysis

This study will measure the linear dependence between the independent and the dependent variable. To analyse the data, a regression analysis was used to determine the relative strength of workplace victimization within teams and team performance of the team as a whole.

(12)

4. RESULTS

4.1 Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables included in the analyses are summarized in Table 1. The results are inconsistent with the prediction in the theory. The table does not give any significant results between the predictor variable (e.g. victimization) and criterion variable (e.g. team performance). Remarkably, the results show a negative and significant correlations between team performance and the proportion of females (r = -0.26, p < 0.05)

Furthermore, the results of table 1 show reciprocal significant results among the control variables. Leader manage shows a positive and highly significant correlation for both age mean (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) and team tenure (r = 0.35, p < 0.01). Team tenure and age mean are highly significant as well (r = 0.46, p < 0.01).

TABLE 1

Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables

Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 1. Age Mean 41.98 9.11 2. Team Tenure 69.41 52.90 0,46** 3. Leader Manage 3.71 1.49 0.37** -0.35** 4. Proportion of Females 0.50 0.38 -0.23 -0.06 -0.05 5. Victimization 1.59 0.56 -0.01 -0.03 -0.03 -0.11 6. Team Performance 5.12 0.68 -0.14 -0.11 -0.21 -0.26* 0.07 Note. N=65

* p < 0.05 level; **p < 0.01 (two-tailed significance)

4.2 Regression- & moderation analysis

A regression analysis and a moderator analysis are used to test hypothesis 1 and 2. Hypothesis 1 predicts that the experience of workplace victimization within teams is negatively related to team performance. The results of the regression analysis are presented in table 2. In Model 1 of Table 2, the relationship is controlled for age mean, team tenure and leader manage. The results of this analysis show no significant results for the control variables.

The results of Model 2 of Table 2, show no significant relation between the victimization and team performance variable (r =0.03, p = n.s.) Therefore hypothesis 1 is rejected. Interesting is the direct negative relationship between the proportion of females and team performance (r =-0.3, p < 0.05).

(13)

Finally, interaction with the moderator (e.g. proportion females) is included in Model 3 of Table 2. The results show no significant relation between the moderator (e.g. proportion females) and the dependent variable (e.g. team performance) (r= -0.06, p= n.s.). Hypothesis 2 is therefore rejected as well.

TABLE 2

Results of the regression analysis

Table 2 Regression Results

Team performance

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Controls Team Age -0.07 -0.15 -0.15 Team Tenure -0.02 0.00 0.01 Leader Manage -0.17 -0.16 -0.15 Main effects Victimization 0.03 0.01 Proportions females -0.30* -0.29* Interaction Victimization x -0.06 Proportions females R² 0.05 0.13 0.14 Δ R² 0.05 0.09 0.00

(14)

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Overview of the findings

This study extends the research of Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly (1998) and Glomb & Liao (2003) at the team level. Where Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly (1998) and Glomb & Liao (2003) focused on the predictors of victimization at the team level, this study examined the consequences of victimization – team performance – and the moderating effect of the proportion of females within a team. Based on the literature a negative relationship was expected between victimization and team performance, as stated in hypothesis 1. It was also expected that this relationship would be moderated by the proportion of females within a team, as stated in hypothesis 2. However, the results of this study showed no significant results for both hypotheses. The reason why there is no relationship between team performance and victimization can partially be found in the amount of victimization perceived within teams. One a perceived victimization scale ranging from one to seven (1 = never, 7= very often), this results show that individuals are very hesitant to provide information on victimization (M=1.59, SD= 0.56). The participants could have a socially desirability bias to underreport socially undesirable characteristics (Arnold, Feldman, & Purbhoo,1985). On the other hand, it may be the case that victimization does not have a negative effect on team performance after all. The victimization within teams may not be severe enough to have any impact on the team performance. Or when victimization occurs within a team, it will not affect every team member and therefore team performance will be intercepted by the team members not involved.

(15)

5.2 Strengths & Limitations

One of the strengths of this study was the large amount of participating teams. Through which the results of this study became more accurate and reliable when significant results were visible. Another key strength is the collection of data from the independent variable by the use of different members of the same group. However, the data from the dependent variable was collected from one source, which may have influenced the outcomes because of bias. Furthermore, the participating teams came from different sectors and work fields in the Netherlands, which resulted in a very diverse data set. This diverse data made it possible to generalize the results to the Netherlands. However, because, this study is conducted in Dutch countries, the results cannot be generalized to other

countries. Finally, the fact that this study was a field study is a strength as well, because this provides data from very close to the source and gives a realistic view. The field study can also be a limitation, because external factors are not controlled and can influence the outcomes of the study.

Despite of all the strengths, this study has some additional limitations as well. First, the length of the questionnaires is a limitation because, the questionnaires where combined with four other Master Thesis students. Most complaints of participant were about the time-consuming nature of these questionnaires. The data is also limited, because it only shows a correlation relationship between the variables instead of the suggested causal interaction in the literature. Furthermore this study did not use different constructs to measure victimization. Women use more indirect expressions of anti-social behavior (gossip etc.) and men mostly use direct expressions of anger (Björkqvist, 1994). This study could therefore missed the very subtle versions of victimization of which the participants were not aware that this happened to them.

5.3 Future directions

Most studies have been conducted at the individual level of analysis and the focus has been on the predictors of victimization rather than the consequences. Even though both hypotheses are rejected, further research is necessary regarding the subject of victimization at the team level of analysis and the consequences in the work environment. Furthermore, for the results to become more reliable, future research should use a multisource approach for measuring team performance as well to overcome bias from a single source. Researchers should also be aware of the length of the questionnaires.

Because, this study did not measure much victimization with the use of a round-robin design, multiple constructs have to be developed to measure the more subtle and different versions of verbal victimization and questions that could lead to social desirable answers should be minimized as much as possible.

(16)

closely and consequences may become more visible. Finally, other team composition characteristics can be used to examine whether they moderate the relationship between victimization and team performance (i.e. race, individual behaviors, age).

5.4 Practical implications

Although the results did not show negative consequences of victimization on team performance, it is important to prevent or reduce victimization within teams. As mentioned in the literature, victimization does have a strong influence on the psychological state of employees (Tayler et al., 1983). The welfare of employees should always be important to employers. To reduce victimization it is necessary that organizations recognize, understand and know how to deal with victimization.

(17)

REFERENCES

Adams, G.A., & Webster, J.R. 2012. Emotional regulation as a mediator between interpersonal mistreatment and distress. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(6): 697-710.

Ancona, D.G.,& Caldwell, D.F. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4): 634-665

Archer, J. 2000. Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5): 651-680.

Archer, J. 2004. Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: a meta-analytic review.

Review of General Psychology, 8(4): 291-322.

Arnold, H.J., Feldman, D.C., & Purbhoo, M. 1985. The role of social-desirability response bias in turnover research. Academy of Management Journal, 28(4): 955-966.

Aubé, C., & Rousseau, V. 2011. Interpersonal aggression and team effectiveness: the mediating role of goal commitment. Journal of occupational & Organizational Psychology, 84(3): 565-580.

Aquino, K., Allen, D.G., Grover, S.L., & Bradfield, M. 1999. The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Management

Journal, 42(3): 260-272.

Aquino, K., & Bommer, W.H. 2003. Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and workplace victimization.

Organization Science, 14(4): 374-385.

Aquino, K., & Byron, K. 2002. Dominating interpersonal behaviour and perceived victimization in groups: evidence for a curvilinear relationships. Journal of management. 28(1): 69-87.

(18)

Barling, J., Dekker, I., Loughlin, C., Kelloway, E., Fullagar, C., & Johnson, D. 1996. Prediction and replication of the organizational and personal consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 11(5): 4-25.

Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L., & Boden, J.M. 1996. Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103: 5-33.

Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J.R., Moon, H., Conlon, D.E. ,& Ilgen, D.R. 2003. Cooperation, competition, and team performance: towards a contingency approach. Academy of Management

Journal, 46(5): 572-590

Bennis, W. 1989. On becoming a leader. New York: Addison Wesley.

Björkqvist, K.. 1994. Sex differences in physical, verbal and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30: 177-188

Brown, M. E, .& Treviño, L. K. 2006. Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, and deviance in work group. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4): 954–962.

Cassirer, N., & Reskin, B. 2000. High hopes: organizational position, employment experiences, and women’s and men’s promotion aspirations. Work & Occupations, 27(4): 438-463.

Chatman, J.A., & O’Reilly, C.A. 2004. Asymmetric reaction to work group sex diversity among men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 193-208.

Cronin, M.A., & Weingart, L.R. 2007. Representational gaps, information processing and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32: 761- 773.

Devonish, D. 2013. Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviours. The mediating role of psychological well-being. Employee relations, 36(6): 630-647.

Dionne, Sh. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. 2004. Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2): 177–193.

(19)

Escartin, J., Rodriquez-Carballeira, A., Zapf, D., Porrua, C.,& Martin-Pena, J. 2009. Perceived severity of various bullying behaviours at work and the relevance of exposure to bullying. Work &

Stress, 23(3): 191-205.

Fenton, J. W., Kelley, D. E., Ruud, W. N.,& Bulloch, J. A. 1997. Employer legal liability for employee workplace violence. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 62(4): 44–47.

Gardner, H., Gino, F., & Staats, B. 2012. Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams: A resource-based view of team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 998–1022.

Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. 2003. Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4): 486–496

Gonzalez-Mulé, E., De Geest, D.S., Kiersch, C.E., & Mount, M.K. 2013. Gender differences in personality predictors of counterproductive behavior. Journal of managerial Psychology. 28(4): 333-353

Hauge, L.J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. 2013. Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: results of a large representative study. Work & Stress, 21(3): 220-242.

Heaphy, E.D., & Dutton, J.E. 2008. Positive social interactions and the human body at work: linking organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33(1): 137-162.

Hershcovis, M.S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K.A., Dupre´, K.E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M.M., & Sivanathan, N. 2007. Predicting workplace aggression: a meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92(1): 228-238.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98.

Lai, J.Y.M., Lam, L.W., & Lam, S.S.K. 2013. Organizational citizenship behaviour in work groups: a team cultural perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7): 1039-1056.

(20)

LeBreton, J.M, & Senter, J.L. 2008. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4): 815-852.

Myaskovsky, L., Unikel, E., & Dew, M.A. 2005. Effects of gender diversity on performance and interpersonal behavior in small workgroups. Sex Roles, 52(9/10): 645-657.

Ortmann, A., & Tichy, L.A. 1999. Gender differences in the laboratory: evidence from the prisoners dilemma game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39: 327-339.

Pearson, C.M., & Porath, C.L. 2005, “On the nature, consequences, and remedies of workplace incivility: no time for ‘nice?’ Think again”. Academy of Management Executive, 19: 7-18.

Pelled, L. 1996. Demographic diversity, conflict and work group outcomes: an intervening process theory. Organ. Sci., 7(6): 615-631.

Robinson, S.L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. 1998. Monkey see, Monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6): 658-672.

Sackett, P.R., DuBois, C.L.Z., & Noe, A.W. 1991. Tokenism is performance evaluation: The effects of workgroup representation on male-female and white-black differences in performance ratings. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 76(2): 263-267

Simpson, R., & Cohen, C. 2004. Dangerous work: The gendered nature of bullying in the context of higher education. Gender, work and organization, 11(2).

Tayler, S.E., Wood J.V., & Lichtman R.R. 1983. It could be worse: selective evaluation as a response to victimization. Journal of Social Issues, 39: 19-40.

Tepper, B. J. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178–190.

Zapf, D.,& Knorz, C.,& Kullu, M. 1996. On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job

Content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and

Creating maximum performance: Eliminating victimization within work teams.

victimization within work teams.

Master Thesis

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS