Ugly Employees Are Targets of Abuse at Work

Posted on 2013/09/302014/01/16 by Jason Hensel

Looks shouldn’t matter, but they do, especially in the workplace. That’s the conclusion two researchers came to in a study about counterproductive work behavior (CWB), defined as “behavior intended to hurt the organization or other members of the organization.” They wanted to know why particular employees are targets of abuse.

“Over the years, much attention has been devoted to understanding CWB and its related concepts,” wrote Brent A. Scott and Timothy A. Judge in “Beauty, Personality, and Affect as Antecedents of Counterproductive Work Behavior Receipt.” “We tested a model that positioned CWB receipt as a function of employees’ personality (neuroticism, agreeableness), their appearance (physical attractiveness) and the negative emotions felt toward those employees by their coworkers.”

Two studies showed that disagreeable and physically unattractive employees received more abuse from their coworkers, coworker negative emotion felt toward employees was associated with CWB receipt, and the relationship between employee agreeableness and CWB receipt was due, in part, to coworker negative emotion, the authors write.

“For managers, knowing who the targets of harmful behaviors such as CWB are likely to be may help them to monitor susceptible employees to prevent them from becoming victims or to provide counseling and social support if prevention attempts fail,” Scott and Judge wrote. “For employees, although it is difficult to alter one’s physical attractiveness and, presumably, one’s level of agreeableness, employees should realize that, whether fair or unfair, appearances and personality matter in the workplace.”

(Image via Flickr: Lin Pernille Kristensen/Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Mediocre Managers Damage Staff Engagement

Posted on 2013/02/152013/02/16 by Jason Hensel

Imagine a Michael Scott (or if you like, David Brent) type of boss. Some of you may prefer him. Others may feel he’s a bit much. But would you rather work under his personality or a boss whose personality is mediocre?

According to new research from Kingston University in London, England, mediocre managers are just as bad as the Michael Scotts of the world.

A survey of 500 employees and 120 managers found that not owning up to mistakes, relaying stress, and telling rather than consulting with staff were some of the most harmful actions of mediocre managers. The researchers found that these types of behaviors eroded staff motivation and well-being.

“Many people will at some time in their working lives have been managed by someone whose over-the-top behavior [such as] telling offensive jokes and cultivating ‘teachers’ pets’ highlighted a lack of self-awareness and a major inability to manage people,” said Dr. Rachel Lewis, a lecturer at Kingston Business School. “However, our findings demonstrate that it’s actually the less obvious, mediocre managers who too often ‘fly under the radar’ in organizations, that may inadvertently cause stress and could actually be just as damaging to staff engagement over time.”

The research shows that, in order to get the best out of employees, managers should

Handle pressure with calmness
Take responsibility when things go wrong
Get to know staff as individuals
Be invested in an employee’s career development
Ask employees if they are OK

“The aim of this research is to support human resources departments, employers and managers by providing a behavioral framework that identifies what managers need to do in order to create long-lasting employee effectiveness,” Lewis said. “The framework can be used to support managers in developing the core people management skills to enable them to get their teams motivated and working at a consistently high level.”

(Story materials from Kingston University.)

Send to Kindle

Being in Service to Others

Posted on 2012/10/092012/10/12 by Jason Hensel

Why? by Bart Everson

There’s been a lot of talk at this conference I’m attending about being in service to others. That helping others is the path to happiness and contentment.

I agree with that, and I do try to be of service as much as possible. Lately, though, I feel like I’m being in service just to make others look good. I have a problem with that, because it’s selfish.

Maybe it’s because I’m getting older and gaining experience, but I’ve been noticing this selfish behavior a lot more. It’s especially prevalent in the workplace. I know a lot of folks are trying to get ahead, get that big promotion, cash that big paycheck. I don’t care about any of that, so when I’m asked to do things for someone so he or she can get all those things, I feel disgusted. At the person and with myself for helping.

In the future, I’m going to start asking why a lot more. That way, I can figure out the real reason something is asked of me. Will that be annoying? Yes, but maybe in the end, the person doing the asking may realize how selfish some requests are and stop the behavior.

(Image via Flickr: Bart Everson / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

The Dark Side of the Mobile Phone

Posted on 2012/02/27 by Jason Hensel

For every good aspect of mobile phones, there’s a dark side attributed to them. Most prominently, it’s been the debate about if they’re contributing to brain cancer. There’s been no decision on that one yet. However, there are two new studies about other dark sides to mobile phone use that you may find interesting.

The first is a study from researchers at University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business that shows mobile phones make users less socially minded.

The researchers found that after a short period of cellphone use the subjects were less inclined to volunteer for a community service activity when asked, compared to the control-group counterparts. The cell phone users were also less persistent in solving word problems–even though they knew their answers would translate to a monetary donation to charity.

College students, men and women in their early 20s, took part in the study. The researchers say, though, that they expect similar findings in people in other age groups due to the ubiquitous nature of mobile phones.

The authors cited previous research in explaining a root cause of their findings: “The cellphone directly evokes feelings of connectivity to others, thereby fulfilling the basic human need to belong.” This results in reducing one’s desire to connect with others or to engage in empathic and prosocial behavior.

In a second study, it appears that mobile phones also contribute negatively on users’ linguistic abilities. According to research from the University of Calgary, people who text more are less accepting of new words.

The study, conducted by Joan Lee for her master’s thesis in linguistics, revealed … those who read more traditional print media such as books, magazines, and newspapers were more accepting of the same words.

Lee says that we assume that text messaging encourages unconstrained language. However, this is not true.

“The people who accepted more words did so because they were better able to interpret the meaning of the word, or tolerate the word, even if they didn’t recognize the word. Students who reported texting more rejected more words instead of acknowledging them as possible words.”

People who read traditional print media expose themselves to variety and creativity in language, Lee says. These traits aren’t normally found in colloquial text messaging among young people.

“In contrast, texting is associated with rigid linguistic constraints which caused students to reject many of the words in the study,” says Lee. “This was surprising because there are many unusual spellings or ‘textisms’ such as ‘LOL’ in text messaging language.”

Lee suggests that frequency plays a large part in the acceptance of words by people who text a lot.

“Textisms represent real words which are commonly known among people who text,” she says. “Many of the words presented in the study are not commonly known and were not acceptable to the participants in the study who texted more or read less traditional print media.”

It’s beginning to look like if people really want to be anti-social and dumb, they should choose to use their mobile phones more.

(Photo via Flickr: Anders Adermark / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Sweet Tooth Equals a Sweet Deal

Posted on 2011/10/182011/10/19 by Jason Hensel

Your sweet tooth is more than a preference for desserts. It’s also an indicator of your personality and behavior, according to a study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Let’s read the study’s abstract together:

It is striking that prosocial people are considered “sweet” (e.g., “she’s a sweetie”) because they are unlikely to differentially taste this way. These metaphors aid communication, but theories of conceptual metaphor and embodiment led us to hypothesize that they can be used to derive novel insights about personality processes. Five studies converged on this idea. Study 1 revealed that people believed strangers who liked sweet foods (e.g., candy) were also higher in agreeableness. Studies 2 and 3 showed that individual differences in the preference for sweet foods predicted prosocial personalities, prosocial intentions, and prosocial behaviors. Studies 4 and 5 used experimental designs and showed that momentarily savoring a sweet food (vs. a nonsweet food or no food) increased participants’ self-reports of agreeableness and helping behavior. The results reveal that an embodied metaphor approach provides a complementary but unique perspective to traditional trait views of personality.

The part about increased agreeableness through sweets fascinates me. Do this mean you should bring sweets with you before every meeting? What does it say about someone who doesn’t like sweets? Does a preference for chocolate over hard candy indicate a different type of sweet and agreeable personality? So many questions.

(Photo credit via Flickr: Keith Macke / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle