Antisocial behavior at work - office madness

Description

Antisociality

differs from
asociality
in that in the second case the individual treats social norms with indifference and misunderstanding, and does not seek to counteract them [4].

A. L. Wenger o[4].

Razumovskaya, and also that “antisocial behavior manifests itself not only in the external behavioral side, but also in changes in value orientations and ideas, that is, in the deformation of the system of internal regulation of individual behavior”[3].

Violence at work

As Bies et al. note, one form of response to perceived violations of organizational justice is physical violence. Recently, physical violence at work has become an epidemic. Until the 1980s terms such as “workplace violence” and “industrial relations murder” did not exist at all. The US Department of Justice (1998) provides data according to which 150 thousand incidents related to violence at work are recorded annually. More than 1,000 people were killed at work. Over the past decade, the number of workers who have killed their managers has doubled. Bulatao & VandenBos report that homicide is the leading cause of death in manufacturing, commerce, services, management and office occupations. The crime statistics presented make these reports somewhat dry and impersonal. Below are specific cases of workplace violence (Mantell.

– Tampa, Florida: A man returned to his old job and shot and killed three of his former bosses during their lunch break. He wounded two others before shooting himself.

– Sunnyvale, California: An employee of a military contractor shot and killed seven people in his office after one of his colleagues did not accept his advances.

– Corona, California: A woman opened fire with a .38-caliber weapon at a hospital in the city, wounding one nurse and shooting into the children's ward.

– Woodland, Maryland: A fired auto mechanic returned to a garage and opened fire on a group of workers, killing two and wounding one.

There is a temptation to present these episodes as isolated cases, somewhat artificially turned into sensations. But it appears that the frequency and severity of workplace violence is increasing both in the United States and in other countries. Kelleher puts the scale of the problem this way: “If you are a gas station worker, government official, or salesman, you have a higher risk of being killed on the job than your neighborhood police officer. If you are a secretary or an office clerk, you have a higher risk of being killed on the job than a coal miner in West Virginia in a coal mine accident.” In addition, Barling notes that victims of violence at work can be primary and secondary - family members of the main victims, their colleagues who were not themselves victims, but, putting themselves in the place of the main victim, changed their ideas, experiences and expectations.

The starting point for considering the psychology of violence at work is the problem of aggression. Cox & Leather (Cox & Leather) o. Thus, aggressive actions often turn out to be a retaliatory measure, a reaction to a previous action or previous actions of the aggressor. Therefore, a violent act is considered as one of the stages in the sequence of social acts. Retaliatory aggressive action can be viewed in part through concepts of organizational justice.

Perpetrators of workplace violence often consider themselves victims of injustice that occurred at work. They are especially likely to perceive the organization as guilty of violating the principles of procedural fairness. Johnson & Indvik argue that psychological contract violation is one of the main causes of workplace violence. The word “disgruntled” is often used to describe perpetrators of workplace violence. Mantell notes that acts of physical violence are invariably preceded by visible signs of anger, such as verbal threats or an angry appearance. Actual violence is often preceded by verbal attacks and/or stalking of the victim. However, in most cases, verbal attacks and harassment do not escalate into murder. That is, there is a continuum of workplace violence, with murder (or attempted murder) at the extreme end (Neuman & Baron). Bullies appear to want more from the organization in terms of personal identity and goals than the organization can provide, and therefore they personalize feelings of rejection when their needs are not met. They tend to believe that their connection (contract) with the organization has been broken, and they take little or no responsibility for their behavior. In addition, perpetrators of violence at work are often maladaptive and have conflictual interpersonal relationships in other areas of their lives.

In an attempt to identify systematic patterns among perpetrators of workplace violence, a consistent pattern of individual characteristics was found. The disadvantage of this "profile" approach is that although it describes the offenders, the characteristics identified may also describe many other people. This means that many workers may fit the profile without actually committing violent acts on the job. For example, most laid-off workers experience feelings of rejection and injustice, but nevertheless do not commit violent acts. Reasoning after the fact may create the impression that the aggressors were obvious candidates for committing a crime and therefore should have been identified and their actions prevented. Folger & Baron refer to the process of identifying those most likely to engage in workplace violence as the “popcorn model.” They claim: “An employee losing his temper and shooting his boss is like the first kernel of corn to “explode.” Obviously, the observer can try to explain why this particular seed burst before others. Although all popped grains look the same, microscopic examination or chemical analysis could help determine the measure of each grain's uniqueness. Likewise, careful study of individuals in a particular work setting may reveal important differences in various personality characteristics that have previously been found to be associated with aggression.” Despite the prevalence of violence at work, it is still quite rare in the general population of professionally employed people. Therefore, accurately predicting such events is much more difficult than finding their causes in fact.

Aggression is the result of both individual and situational factors. Situational factors identified included population density, noise, heat and alcohol consumption. Both laboratory and field studies (eg, Geen) indicate that it is more likely to occur under perceived conditions of crowding, uncontrolled noise, and high ambient temperatures. But the most revealing studies of the relationship between alcohol consumption and aggression (Greenberg & Barling). Pernanen argues that drinking alcohol completely changes a person's ability to understand social situations. Alcohol consumption leads to a narrowing of the situation and a decrease in intellectual and verbal abilities; to reassess one’s own capabilities, power and influence on the world around us. Aggression by a person who is intoxicated can be caused by misinterpretation of the situation and increased confidence in one's ability to cope with the problem by using physical force (Cox & Leather). Many perpetrators of workplace violence were found to have consumed alcohol prior to the incident.

Some researchers believe that workplace violence is just one part of a broader category of psychosocial hazards to which organizations must respond. Leather identifies three types of strategies that organizations should use when faced with complex psychosocial hazards such as workplace violence:

– Preventive strategies (e.g. worker training) eliminate the hazard or reduce its impact on workers or the likelihood of its occurrence.

– Reactive strategies (eg, formal organizational emergency response plans) improve the organization's ability to recognize and respond to emerging problems.

– Rehabilitative strategies (such as counseling) help workers cope with or recover from existing problems.

Niciletti & Spooner advocate for organizations to have threat/violence assessment teams that train managers to recognize and respond to violent behavior and implement organized processes for communicating and responding to threats. Root & Ziska believe that the need for such activities is especially acute during organizational downsizing.

Companies are reluctant to participate in research on violence at work because it is a sensitive and explosive topic. Fox & Spector describe a study of workplace violence that many companies refused to participate in. The authors report: “The main reason given by companies for not participating in the study was that they did not want to “unsettle” their employees. Workers at these companies would likely be able to provide the most complete information about counterproductive behavioral responses to unfavorable working conditions.” Antisocial behavior at work is a complex phenomenon. Baron, Hoffman & Merrill draw a parallel between violence at work and violence in non-work areas.

Qualities of antisocial behavior

Ts. P. Korolenko, N. V. Dmitrieva, according to DSM-IV, identify the following negative qualities of persons with antisocial behavior [5]:

1. frequent leaving home and not returning at night;
2. tendency to physical violence, pugnacity with weaker peers;
3. cruelty to others and cruelty to animals;
4. knowingly damaging property belonging to others;
5. targeted arson;
6. frequent lies caused by various reasons;
7. tendency to theft and robbery
8. the desire to involve people of the opposite sex in violent sexual activity.

After the age of 15, carriers of antisocial disorders exhibit the following symptoms[5]:

1. difficulties in learning associated with failure to prepare homework;
2. difficulties in production activities due to the fact that such persons often do not work even in cases where work is available to them;
3. frequent, unjustified absences from school and work;
4. frequent leaving work without real plans related to further employment;
5. non-compliance with social norms, antisocial actions of a criminal nature;
6. irritability, aggressiveness, manifested both in relation to family members (beating one’s own children) and in relation to others;
7. failure to fulfill their financial obligations (they do not repay debts, do not provide financial assistance to needy relatives);
8. lack of planning of your life;
9. impulsiveness, expressed in moving from place to place without a clear goal;
10. deceit;
11. lack of loyalty to others with the desire to “shift” the blame onto others, to put others at risk, for example, by leaving open electrical wiring that is dangerous to life. Failure to comply with safety regulations when working at risk to life. The desire to engage in risky driving that puts others at risk.
12. lack of activities related to caring for one’s own children. Frequent divorces.
13. lack of remorse for harm caused to others.
14. Anxiety and fear are not present, so they are not afraid of the consequences of their actions.

Ts. P. Korolenko, N. V. Dmitrieva note that the desire of adults to punish persons with antisocial behavior “is accompanied by unfulfilled promises not to repeat such behavior”[5].

The concept of preventing antisocial behavior

Definition 1
Prevention refers to scientifically sound, timely activities aimed at preventing antisocial behavior.

Prevention of antisocial behavior consists of the following areas:

• identifying and suppressing incidents of abuse of a person, especially if it concerns a child or adolescent;
• providing assistance to a person who finds himself in a difficult life situation;
• in ensuring and protecting the constitutional rights of citizens;
• in preventive work with families and a person’s immediate environment.

Prevention can be:

• preventive, that is, warning, aimed at avoiding opportunities or leveling existing ones for committing an illegal or antisocial act;
• interventional, that is, occurring immediately at the moment or immediately after the commission of such an act; such prevention is associated with preventing repeated cases of antisocial behavior and working on a person’s self-awareness;
• postventive, that is, occurring after the commission of any social act or related to a person’s work, directing him to a socially approved course of behavior.

Finished works on a similar topic

• Course work Prevention of antisocial behavior 400 rub.
• Abstract Prevention of antisocial behavior 230 rub.
• Test work Prevention of antisocial behavior 210 rub.

Receive completed work or specialist advice on your educational project Find out the cost

Literature

• Wenger A.L.
  Glossary of terms // Psychological counseling and diagnostics. Practical guide. Part 1.. - M.: Genesis, 2001. - 160 p. — ISBN 5-85297-031-X. (unavailable link).
• Wenger A.L.
  Glossary of terms // Psychological drawing tests: Illustrated manual. - M.: Publishing house VLADOS-PRESS, 2003. - 160 p..
• Korolenko T.P., Dmitrieva N.V.
  Qualities of antisocial behavior // Sociodynamic psychiatry.. - M., Ekaterinburg: Academic project, Business book, 2000. - 460 p. — ISBN 5-8291-0015-0. (unavailable link)
• Razumovskaya P. E.
  Peculiarities of life-meaning orientations of teenage girls with antisocial behavior / N. L. Nagibina. — Abstract of a dissertation for the degree of candidate of psychological sciences. - M.: Moscow State University, 2009. - 26 p. — 100 copies.