Barnyard democracy in the workplace

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to illustrate the interesting parallels that exist between the social behavior of farm animals and work-teams as a means of offering a novel point of view from which to understand teams. Design/methodology/approach -The empirical literature on the social behavior of farm animals is used as a starting-point to identify the key factors that generate instability in social relationships and, as a result, demonstrate the existence of a dominance hierarchy. These factors are then analyzed in the context of the equivalent workplace literature in the areas of teamwork, bullying, and democracy. Findings -There may be more of a connection between democracy in a barn and in a workplace than most people think. Both farm animals and humans have a tendency to form fairly stable social structures characterized by a dominance hierarchy in which there is: an established pecking order, differential access to resources; hazing of new members; penalties for non-conformance; and a lack of personal space. Practical implications -These factors contribute to instability in social relationships in the workplace and serve as potential explanations for the extent of aggression and incivility seen in today's organizations. Team leaders should pay attention to the markers of a dominance hierarchy and attempt to involve employees in democratic, participative work processes. Originality/value -Team leaders will find this paper an unusual but effective way of considering how their teams are functioning.

Sex and position status differences in workplace aggression

“…Along the same line of reasoning, Einarsen et al (2003) posited that an imbalance of power between the parties reflecting the formal status hierarchy would predict who is likely to be victimized. The more that a victim is dependent on one for valued resources, the more susceptible the former is to negative acts from the latter (Aquino and Lamertz, 2004; Brotheridge and Keup, 2005; Simpson and Cohen, 2004). Hoel and Salin (2003, p. 204) observed that “The power imbalance may reflect formal power relationships, or may refer to perceptions of powerlessness resulting from the bullying process itself”.…”

A human resource management perspective of workplace bullying

“…shifting goals without informing the employee, withholding information, and work interference), or belittlement (e.g. criticisms, undervaluing work, and excluding individuals; Brotheridge and Keup, 2005). Meglich et al (2012) grouped workplace bullying behaviors into intentionally malicious verbal behaviors, such as crude remarks and threats, and intentionally malicious nonverbal behaviors such as sabotaging or stealing work output, which increase in cruelty over a six-month or longer duration.…”