Let's talk about the workplace

Researchers have found a growing national trend in employees experiencing some form of negative behavior in the work environment. Schat, Frone & Kelloway reported in 2006 in a prominent study of U.S. workers that 41.4% or approximately 47 million American workers reported being involved at their workplace with psychological antagonism over the past 12 months (Schat et al., 2006). In a survey conducted by the U.S. government of federal employees, out of forty-two thousand or 58% of those participating in the survey, 13% or 1 in 8 witnessed some kind of form of negative behavior in the workplace (Federal Government, 2012).
Studies into negative work behaviors and their environments have researchers looking at the relationship of work-related psychosocial hazards and relationship to psychological illness. Negative behaviors aimed at an individual or a group of co-workers have various labels such as manipulation and exploitation, bullying, degrading and humiliation, and harassment (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003).
Most recent research has linked negative behaviors to the health of the employee. In a study by Bowling and Beehr (2006), found that various behaviors such as depression, anxiety and physical symptoms had a significant relationship. Other researchers found bullying or negative behavior in the workplace and that employee intention to leave the organization has an indirect link to ill health (Djurkovic et al., 2004).
These studies confirm that when employees experience the negative effects of psychological workplace hazards and the above-mentioned behaviors are prominently displayed amongst the individual or group, it results in high absenteeism and huge turnover rates in the organization.
In a recent study done by the University of Copenhagen psychology department, 2,154 healthcare workers were followed for three years to investigate the risk of turnover when exposed to a negative environment at the workplace. In the first year, the study found that 9.2% of the workers responded to a negative environment on a frequent basis. In years two and three, they saw a strong correlation between frequent exposure to a negative work environment and high turnover rates. This study also pointed out the correlation between the health of the worker and work Conditions (Hogh A, Hoel H, Caneiro IG, 2011b).
Three factors stood out in this study regarding why these workers wanted to quit: poor leadership, constant exposure to negative behavior, and health problems, which can affect the worker in the long term (Hogh A, Hoel H, Caneiro IG, 2011b).
As a result, organizations experience high absenteeism, and high turnover that ultimately end up with low productivity, poor creativity and a decline in work quality (Hogh A, Hoel H,
Caneiro IG, 2011b).
All of this hampers an organization’s ability to compete in a competitive environment, their ability to hire and retain talented individuals, and the fostering of a healthy work environment. Negative behaviors should not be tolerated in the workplace. It is too costly for the organization and the individual. Additionally, it undermines the goals, vision and ultimately the success of the organization.
Whenever this negative behavior is exposed in an organization, a zero tolerance policy should be implemented throughout the organization. Managers and leaders should monitor the work environment on a constant basis. Managers need to keep an open door policy for all employees to talk about problems they may be experiencing in the organization. Seniors managers should conduct town hall meetings with all employees to understand the work climate. Senior managers should be approachable without being judgmental at all times.
In conclusion, a negative workplace environment affects all employees in both the private and government sector. Mitigating and eliminating a negative work environment may save the organization costly medical bills and decrease absenteeism. Negative behaviors can arise in every workplace environment and needs to be dealt with swiftly by upper management and leadership.
Further research is needed to understand the nature, causes, and consequences of negative workplace behaviors, such as aggression, and perhaps most importantly, policies and interventions to reduce such behaviors.
References:
Bowling N.A. & Beehr T.A. (2006) Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: a theoretical model and meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (5), 998–1012
Djurkovic N., McCormack D. & Casimir G. (2004). The physical and psychological effects of workplace bullying and their relationship to intention to leave: a test of the psychosomatic and disability hypotheses. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 7 (4), 469–497.
Federal government (2012). One in eight feds have witnessed workplace violence in past two years. Federal Government Publication, Baltimore, MD.
Hogh A, Hoel H, Caneiro IG (2011b) Bullying and employee turnover among health-care workers. A three-wave prospective study. Journal of Nursing Management, 19,742-751.
Schat, A.C.H., Frone, M.R., & Kelloway, E.K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace aggression in the U.S workforce: Findings from a national study. In E.K. Kelloway, J. Barling, and J. Hurrell (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.
Zapf D., Einarsen S., Hoel H. & Vartia M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the workplace. In Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace. International Perspectives in Research and Practice, 1st edn., Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 44, 103- 126.

     Is it detrimental to praise a child for their intelligence or abilities? As a society we tend to praise and show admiration of our young for their intelligence or abilities. The problem with praising a child is not the act, but how it’s conveyed and how it’s delineated to the individual child. Praising a child for their intelligence and not for their effort or hard work will harm them emotionally in the future.  By praising a child for their ability you are opening them up to not only potential failure, but disappointment should they not be as successful the next time around.  Praising a child for their ability draws attention to them and makes a big deal of the accomplishment, regardless of whether it is from effort or intelligence and ability.

    There is research that supports this thinking about the effects of praise. In 1998, Dr. Carol C. Dweck, a psychologist from Columbia University, published some startling findings.  She administered a simple test to over 700 school-age children in New York City. Afterwards, researchers praised half the group for their intelligence and ability with phrases such as “you are so smart” or “you really used your brains on that test.” For the other group, she praised them for their effort and the hard work in getting the grade that they received.  Later, she offered the group a choice of an easy and a harder test. One test was the same level as the previous and the other was slightly harder. Surprisingly, the majority of the students praised for their intelligence picked the same test level as before and those that were praised for their effort and hard work chose the harder test. Dr. Dweck (1998) found that children praised for effort increased their test score by 30% and those praised for their intelligence scored 20% lower. 

     Dr. Dweck explains that when a child is praised for their intelligence, this puts that child in a fixed mindset that then leads to avoidance of new challenges in the future because of a fear of looking less intelligent. Dr. Dweck’s research suggests to all parents, teachers and leaders that praise of a child should be for hard work, perseverance and resiliency; she called this a growth mindset (Dweck, 1998).     

     In 2006, Dr. Dweck expanded the study to adults and those in leadership positions, and again the results were remarkable. She found that those with growth mindsets were willing to embrace challenges, learn from criticism and adapt by applying themselves with more effort in order to overcome tough assignments in the workplace. The opposite was true for those who were of a fixed mindset, and they instead tended to run away from challenges, had no resilience, made no effort to finish the job, and avoided unfavorable criticism. Furthermore, those from a fixed mindset perspective must continue to validate their expectations and abilities on the job. Those with a mindset opposite to that of a fixed mindset embraced new challenges, didn’t rely on others to validate them, and were open to potential for getting the job done.   

    Therefore, the bottom line is that praise and motivation of your child with an emphasis on their innate intelligence will be detrimental to their future in society. Instead one should praise children for hard work and perseverance. In this way, they will surely succeed as a child and in future work. To reemphasize, praise for effort, rather than intelligence, fosters a growth mindset that highlights the notion that taking risks and putting forth effort can bring with it rewards, even if the risk of getting there is uncertain.  These findings are the same for both children and adults.

Derrick Darden, PhD