Vicarious shame and psychological distancing following organizational misbehavior

Steve, Shu‐Cheng; Friedman, Ray; Lo, Hsin-Hsin

doi:10.1007/s11031-015-9483-0

Cited by 24 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, if observers perceive the group as the source of shame, they may attempt to distance themselves from the entire group or collective (in addition to the specific members involved in the transgression) (Iyer, Schmader, & Lickel, 2007;Lickel et al, 2011). For example , Chi et al (2015) found that workers who felt vicarious shame for their organization's transgressions (e.g., fraud) were more likely to psychologically withdraw from the organization. Similarly, we argue that workers who experience shame in response to observing an incident of incivility will be motivated to distance themselves from the actors involved in the incident, as well as the entire collective.…”

Section: Shame and Avoidance-focused Responses To Observed Incivilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeling shame and guilt when observing workplace incivility: Elicitors and behavioral responses

Miranda

Welbourne

Sariol

2020

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research investigates the elicitors and behavioral responses associated with feeling guilt and shame in response to observed workplace incivility. We draw from the appraisal model of self-conscious emotions to hypothesize that perceiving personal responsibility for acts of incivility conducted by others in the organization is associated with feelings of guilt and shame, and that these relationships are differentially moderated by perceived controllability over the incident. We further propose that shame is associated with avoidance and withdrawal behaviors, whereas guilt is associated with retaliatory and supportive behaviors in response to the observed incivility. We tested these hypotheses with a sample of 309 full-time working adults who completed an online survey through Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform. Our results support the claim that perceived responsibility is associated with feeling shame and guilt for observed incivility. The relationship between perceived responsibility and guilt was stronger when respondents perceived greater control over the incident; however, controllability did not moderate between responsibility and shame. As expected, shame was associated with avoiding the target and instigator and withdrawing from work, while guilt was associated with both retaliation toward the instigator and supporting the target.

show abstract

Section: Shame and Avoidance-focused Responses To Observed Incivilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeling shame and guilt when observing workplace incivility: Elicitors and behavioral responses

Miranda

Welbourne

Sariol

2020

Human Resource Dev Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, using qualitative, in‐depth interviews with 36 BP executives, Petriglieri () reported that highly identified executives found the Gulf oil disaster to be a threat to what they considered core pieces of the organization, and this was associated with negative emotions, such as guilt and anger, and identity destabilization. Third, Chi, Friedman, and Lo () reported that OI had a moderating effect on the relationship between perceived organizational responsibility and shame following organizational scandal (i.e., an identity threatening event). Across two samples, the positive relationship between perceptions of organization responsibility for the incident and the experience of vicarious shame was stronger when OI was high.…”

Section: Dark Side Effects Of Organizational Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where there is light, there is dark: A review of the detrimental outcomes of high organizational identification

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extensive body of research on organizational identification has developed over the last 25 years. This work has typically taken the view that organizational identification is good for individuals and organizations. However, the underlying social identity processes of organizational identification do not suggest that only positive outcomes should be expected. We review the work addressing organizational identification's dark side. Our review suggests that organizational identification can lead to unethical behaviors, resistance to organizational change, lower performance, interpersonal conflict, negative emotions, and reduced well-being. Conditions facilitating these undesirable outcomes include situation factors (e.g., identity threats, work characteristics) and person factors (e.g., morality, other identifications). By providing a counterpoint to the generally positive approach to organizational identification, we attempt to move the literature toward a more balanced view.

show abstract

“…That is, voice behavior is more vulnerable to personal differences in attribution for those who are most similar. Similarly, Chi et al (2015) found that employees who highly identified with their company experienced more shame if they viewed the company as misbehaving, and that shame was associated with employee withdrawal. Thus, greater identification turned out to be counterproductive during times of disaster.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…That is, people tend to be especially critical of, and unsympathetic to, members of their own group who act badly. In organizational settings, employees who are more identified with their company experience more shame after their company is caught misbehaving, a phenomenon known as CORFing (Chi, Friedman, & Lo, 2015).…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sympathy Toward a Company Facing Disaster: Examining the Interaction Effect Between Internal Attribution and Role Similarity

Steve

Friedman

Chen

et al. 2019

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we propose that bystanders who make a higher (as compared with lower) level of internal attributions for a disaster at another company (i.e., when they blame company management more for the disaster) become less likely to sympathize with that company’s management and also less likely to use voice to try to improve their own organization. We propose that this relationship is particularly true for bystanders whose work roles are highly similar to those of employees who experienced the disaster firsthand. We collected samples from companies in industries that experienced two real-world crises: (a) travel agencies in Taiwan responding to a landslide that killed a group of tourists being served by another travel agency and (b) supervisor/subordinates from a Taiwanese power company responding to the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The results support our hypotheses.

show abstract

Vicarious shame and psychological distancing following organizational misbehavior

Cited by 24 publications

References 55 publications

Feeling shame and guilt when observing workplace incivility: Elicitors and behavioral responses

Feeling shame and guilt when observing workplace incivility: Elicitors and behavioral responses

Where there is light, there is dark: A review of the detrimental outcomes of high organizational identification

Sympathy Toward a Company Facing Disaster: Examining the Interaction Effect Between Internal Attribution and Role Similarity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About