Schadenfreude: Your pain is my gain
April 24, 2019
Science Daily/University of Zurich
If someone in the workplace is mistreated, their colleagues may respond with empathy -- or with schadenfreude. The latter emotion, according to a new study by the University of Zurich, occurs primarily in highly competitive working environments, when one person's misfortune facilitates another's goals. Even worse, schadenfreude can be contagious. For this reason, it is worth establishing an inclusive working climate and team-based incentives.
Most employees have heard of or witnessed a colleague being mistreated, talked over, or bullied. To date, most research on this subject argues that observers feel empathy toward victims and anger toward perpetrators. However, Jamie Gloor, business economist at UZH, believes that this view oversimplifies the complex nature of social dynamics. Together with colleagues from Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the National University of Singapore, she devoted her latest publication to the emergence, development, and behavioral consequences of schadenfreude -- an emotion long discussed by philosophers as early as Aristotle but which modern organizational research has largely overlooked.
Competitive workplaces create perfect conditions
As well as providing positive social experiences such as comradery and support, modern organizations are also ripe for competition, envy, and intergroup tension. These negative dynamics increase the likelihood that some people may benefit from the mistreatment of others, and it is under such conditions that schadenfreude is able to arise and thrive. "In complex and progressively busy environments, like workplaces, we focus on what is most relevant to us and our goals," says Gloor. This means that schadenfreude is more likely to be directed toward employees who particularly stand out and are envied. "The mistreatment can level the playing field, potentially increasing one's own chances for coveted rewards such as bonuses and promotions."
Schadenfreude's vicious circle
As the authors explain, observers may be particularly bold in showing their schadenfreude if the victim is deemed to have deserved the mistreatment and is somehow responsible -- because of past misdeeds, for example. The researchers make a distinction between this righteous schadenfreude and ambivalent schadenfreude, which is when the pleasure in someone else's misfortune is clouded by feelings of guilt and shame.
The problem with schadenfreude, particularly that which is considered to be justified, is that it can set off more cycles of mistreatment. So observers may also start treating the target of their schadenfreude unfairly, for example, by refusing to help them or actively excluding them. In this way, pleasure in another person's pain can create vicious circles of mistreatment. "If schadenfreude becomes pervasive among employees, mistreatment could also become the norm," concludes Gloor.
Counteracting competitive dynamics
Consequently, the authors couple their conclusions with a series of recommendations. They advise leaders to develop shared visions and promote team-based rather than individual incentives. Creating an inclusive climate may also help reduce feelings of "otherness," which can also promote feelings of schadenfreude. In addition, the authors stress the importance of maintaining fair policies and procedures to reduce potential envy and resentment toward star performers. Finally, it may also be worth paying close attention to opinion leaders within social groups to avert spirals of mistreatment.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190424102242.htm
Good grief: Victimized employees don't get a break
March 8, 2019
Science Daily/University of Central Florida
As if being picked on wasn't bad enough, victims of workplace mistreatment may also be seen as bullies themselves, even if they've never engaged in such behavior. Adding insult to injury, victims may even be seen by supervisors as worse employees, despite exemplary performance. Bullies, on the other hand, may be given a pass if they are liked by their supervisor.
Adding insult to injury, victims may even be seen by supervisors as worse employees, despite exemplary performance. Bullies, on the other hand, may be given a pass if they are liked by their supervisor.
A study about this bias toward victim blaming was recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The peer-reviewed article was co-authored by Shannon Taylor, an associate professor of management in the University of Central Florida's College of Business.
"The results are eye-opening," Taylor says. "I think they are useful because, given all of these accounts in the media of bad behavior happening, people are often left wondering how can we blame victims, and why do we let these perpetrators off the hook, why do they go unpunished?"
Taylor attributes the flawed decision making to cognitive biases, such as the halo effect, in which positive attributes mask negative traits, or the horns effect, in which one negative attribute casts a person in a completely negative light.
He recommends that supervisors receive bias training.
"The first step is really awareness of these biases," Taylor says. "We hope this study will at least bring awareness to people's potential for bias."
The researchers performed their work over the course of four studies. The first two studies showed through surveys of employees and supervisors that supervisors tend to view victims of bullying as being bullies themselves.
Studies three and four were experiments where participants evaluated employees based on descriptions of their work performance, as well as how they treated others and how they were treated.
They found that even when evaluators were clearly informed that a victim did not mistreat others, victims were still seen as bullies. In the fourth study, they found that not only are victims seen as bullies despite evidence to the contrary, but also that they receive lower job performance evaluations as a result of being victimized.
The researchers found support in all four studies that bullies were less likely to be seen as deviant when their supervisor considered them to be good performers.
"What I think is really interesting about this is, when you hear stories of high-profile people engaging in bad behavior at work, a lot of these people have gone unpunished for long periods of time," Taylor says. "And we have examples of victims of this bad behavior being called out and attacked on social media and by the media. Our studies show this is actually pretty common. We're all susceptible to these biases."
An example -- the victim blaming that occurred during Christine Blasey Ford's testimony during and after Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Taylor says.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190308154831.htm