Workplace Reprisals: A Model of Retaliation Following Unprofessional GenderRelated Behavior

1
Workplace Reprisals A Model of Retaliation
Following Unprofessional Gender-Related Behavior

• Alayne J. Ormerod
• Caroline Vaile Wright
• University of Illinois

2
This research was supported in part by the
Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) through the
Consortium of Universities of the Washington
Metropolitan Area, Contract. M67004-03-C-0006 and
by NIMH grant MH50791-08. The opinions in
this paper are those of the authors and are not
to be construed as an official DMDC or Department
of Defense position unless so designated by other
authorized documents.
3
A Word About TerminologySexual Harassment

• Survey measurement of sexual harassment is
  defined by the U.S. DoD as
• Crude/Offensive Behavior
• Unwanted Sexual Attention
• Sexual Coercion
• And the labeling of those behaviors as sexual
  harassment
• (Survey Method for Counting Incidents of Sexual
  Harassment, 2002)

4
Unprofessional Gender-Related Behavior (UGRB)

• Unprofessional, gender-related behavior (UGRB)
• Crude/Offensive Behavior
• Sexual Coercion
• Unwanted Sexual Attention
• Sexist Behavior
• Sexual Assault

5
Retaliation Whistle-Blowing
Literature(Miceli Near, 1992 Miceli, Rehg,
Near, Ryan, 1999 Near Miceli, 1986)

• Occurs in the context of some type of
  organizational wrong-doing
• Employee discloses wrong-doing to someone who can
  take action
• Experienced/threatened reprisals

6
RetaliationSexual Harassment Literature(Cortina
Magley, in press)

• Employee victimized
• Institutes an active coping response
• seek support, confront, report
• Employee retaliated against
• Employee suffers negative consequences

7
Types of Retaliation

• Two types
• Personal/Social Retaliation
• (isolating and targeting victims of
  harassment with hostile interpersonal behaviors)
• Professional/Work Retaliation
• (behaviors that interfere with career
  advancement and retention)
• Legally actionable

8
How Often Does It Occur?

• Whistle blowers lt 25
• (Miceli Near, 1989 Near Miceli, 1986)
• Military personnel 16 male, 19 female
• (Magley Cortina, 2002)
• Reporters of sexual harassment/discrimination
  40 - 60
• (Coles, 1986 Loy Stewart, 1984 Parmerlee et
  al., 1982)
• Federal court respondents 66
• 30 Personal Retaliation
• 36 Personal Professional
• (Cortina Magley, in press)

9
How Often Does It Occur?

• No reliable general estimate of retaliation
• May depend on
• Type of organization
• Nature of wrong-doing
• Targets response
• Gender of target

10
Antecedents of RetaliationWhat does the
research say?

• Organizational Climate
• Climate that tolerates harassment related to
  harassment and negative outcomes
• Multiple forms of wrong-doing
• Implementation of policies prohibiting harassment
  related to less retaliation

11
Antecedents What does the research say?

• Harassment
• Higher frequency associated with retaliation
• (Bergman et al., 2002 Cortina Magley, in
  press Magley Cortina, 2002)

12
AntecedentsA Cognitive Stress Framework

• Primary appraisal
• UGRB ? evaluation of stress ? coping response
• Secondary appraisal (coping response)
• Active Resistance
• Reporting
• Confronting
• Seeking Support
• Indirect Response
• Cognitive avoidance (pretend not to notice)
• Behavioral avoidance (avoid the person)

13
Additional Antecedents

• Organizational power of target
• Status of perpetrator
• Masculinized job context

14
Work OutcomesWhat does the research say?

• ? Retaliation - ? Supervisor Satisfaction
• ? Coworker Satisfaction
• ? Promotion Satisfaction
• ? Procedural satisfaction
  
• with reporting
• ? Retaliation - ? Job Withdrawal
• ? Job Stress
• ? Organizational
  withdrawal

15
Mental and Physical HealthWhat does the
research say?

• ? Retaliation - ? Psychological Distress
• ? PTSD
• ? Retaliation - ? Health Satisfaction

16
Purpose of our Study

• Examine a model of the correlates of retaliation
  that follow from a critical incident of
  unprofessional, gender-related behavior (UGRB) in
  a sample of military personnel

17
Retaliation

• The frequency with which a target perceives
  either personal or professional reprisals
  following an active or indirect response to an
  incident of unprofessional, gender-related
  behavior

18
Theoretical Framework

• Retaliation Whistle-Blowing Literature
• Near, Miceli, colleagues Cortina Magley
• UGRB Sexual Harassment Literature
• Fitzgerald colleagues model of predictors and
  outcomes of harassment
• Cognitive Stress Framework Appraisal
• Lazarus Folkman Fitzgerald, Swan, colleagues

19
SUP SAT COW SAT WORK SAT MIL SAT
CLIMATE
ORG COM
LEADER
POWER
RETALIATION
PSYCH
CONTEXT
UGRB
HEALTH
APPRAISE
REPORT
COPING
Conceptual Model of Retaliation
20
Participants and Procedure

• The 2002 Status of the Armed Forces Surveys
  Workplace and Gender Relations
• Random sample of the five uniformed services,
  stratified by gender, race/ethnicity, Service,
  Paygrade
• N 19,960 active duty personnel
• Subsample
• 4,387 women
• 1,408 men

21
Measures Retaliation

• Must have experienced a critical incident
  involving unprofessional, gender-related
  behavior, and/or response to that behavior (e.g.,
  reporting the behavior)
• 3 questions personal retaliation
• 8 questions professional retaliation
• Unidimensional scale
• ? .88 for women
• ? .89 for men

22
Retaliation Items - Personal

• You were ignored by others at work
• You were blamed for the situation
• People gossiped about you in an unkind or
  negative way

23
Retaliation Items - Professional

• You lost perks/privileges that you had before
• You were given less favorable job duties
• You were denied an opportunity for training
• You were given an unfair performance evaluation
• You were unfairly disciplined
• You were denied a promotion
• You were transferred to a less desirable job
• You were unfairly demoted

24
Measures Antecedents of Retaliation

• Climate
• Climate Tolerant of Harassment
• Leadership Efforts to Stop Harassment
• Organizational Power
• Paygrade, Years of Service
• UGRB frequency, SEQ-DoD-s

25
Antecedents

• Subjective Appraisal
• Distressing, Threatening
• Coping Responses
• Composite measure of coping - cognitive
  avoidance, behavioral avoidance, seeking social
  support, confronting
• Reporting
• Masculinized Job Context
• Antecedent of UGRB

26
Outcomes

• Job-Related Attitudes
• Job Satisfaction
• Satisfaction with the Military
• Organizational Commitment
• Psychological Well-being
• Physical Health Status

27
Analytic Strategy

• Path Analyses
• Men and Women tested separately
• Derivation and cross-validation samples
• Derivation Samples (after listwise deletion)
• Women 1659, Men 545
• Cross-Validation Samples (after listwise
  deletion)
• Women 1702, Men 568
• Two Stages
• Exploratory model modifications
• Cross-Validation model

28

• Fit Statistics

29
-.06 -.14
COW SAT
-.05 ns
SUP SAT
CLIMATE
ORG COM
-.05 ns
WORK SAT
.21 .22
LEADER
-.10 ns
MIL SAT
POWER
-.21 -.23
-.07 -.13
-.09 -.14
RETALIATION
PSYCH
.30 .20
CONTEXT
.22 .10
-.17 ns
.34 .27
.15 ns
-.05 -.18
HEALTH
UGRB
-.11 -.10
.13 .21
.16 ns
.53 .46
.41 .24
APPRAISE
REPORT
.93 .87
COPING
Model of retaliation for the cross-validation
samples for women and men. Path coefficients for
women are on top. Path coefficients from
antecedent variables to outcomes and from
outcomes to outcomes are available from the first
author.
30
Conclusions

• Retaliation is damaging to personnel
• It occurs more often when UGRB is severe and when
  the climate is tolerant
• Leadership efforts associated with less
  retaliation

31
Conclusions

• Same determinants of retaliation for men and
  women, some different determinants for UGRB
• Cognitive appraisal plays a role
• Model received support

32
Questions and Caveats

• Are personal and professional retaliation
  different?
• Costs to the organization?
• Reporting had no effect for men

33
Caveats and Questions

• Retaliation had smaller effects on job
  satisfaction/satisfaction with the military than
  expected

34
Paths to Job and Military Satisfaction
35
Limitations

• Respondents queried about retaliation based on
  UGRB and/or Coping/Reporting responses
• Data cross-sectional
• Data self-report, single source

36
Prevention

• Leadership efforts to stop harassment exerted a
  negative effect on retaliation, suggesting that
  such efforts also contribute to curbing
  retaliation
• Organizational climate of paramount importance
  for reducing retaliation

37
(No Transcript)
38
Paths to Organizational Commitment and
Psychological Well-Being
39
COW SAT
-.06 -.14
CLIMATE
SUP SAT
ORG COM
WORK SAT
.21 .22
LEADER
-.05 ns
MIL SAT
-.05 ns
POWER
-.21 -.23
-.07 -.13
-.10 ns
-.09 -.14
.30 .20
RETALIATION
PSYCH
CONTEXT
.22 .10
-.17 ns
.34 .27
.15 ns
-.05 -.18
HEALTH
UGRB
-.11 -.10
.13 .21
.16 ns
.53 .46
.41 .24
APPRAISE
REPORT
.93 .87
COPING RESPONSE
Model of retaliation for the cross-validation
samples for women and men. Path coefficients for
women are on top. Path coefficients for from
antecedents to outcomes and outcomes to outcomes
are available from the first author.