RESUMO
Research and the media demonstrate the profound impact hostile work environments have on organizations and their members. Often, the term "toxic work climate" is used to describe patterns of aggressive behaviors that harm individuals and manifest in the broader workplace. However, despite these common references, scholars still know relatively little about what a toxic work climate actually entails, the processes by which they emerge, and their influence on organizational outcomes. The research domain is complex. Within the organizational literature alone, toxic work climates have been described as those that harbor abusive bosses, aggressive employees, and those that show signs of bullying or incivility. Our aim in this integrative conceptual review is to add precision and focus to this multidisciplinary and fragmented literature. Grounding our efforts in multilevel theories, we first introduce an overarching definition of the toxic work climate construct and review research on existing hostile climate types that can appropriately be consolidated under this new heading. We then develop a new theoretical model that outlines the dominant causes and mechanisms by which toxic work climates form, and the main pathways by which they influence employees, teams, and organizations. Finally, we provide a unified path forward for advancing theory, research, and practice, including advice on how toxic climates might be combated in years to come. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
RESUMO
Although most work on abusive supervision has focused on consequences for the victim, this paper extends a small yet growing stream of research that aims to understand transgressors' reactions to their own wrongdoing. Specifically, we seek to explain behavioral responses of abusive supervisors, including whether they adjust their performance behaviors, as well as whether they halt any future abuse toward subordinates. Building on theories and research on social worth, we propose that perpetrated abuse impacts these supervisor outcomes via a diminished sense of social worth that results from harming others. We further suggest that these indirect effects are stronger for managers who possess lower levels of psychopathy, whereas supervisors with higher levels of the trait are said to be shielded from social repercussions and therefore less responsive in this process. Results from two field studies largely support our assertions, indicating that abusive bosses generally experience a reduced sense of social worth and corresponding poorer performance outcomes. These effects are stronger for less psychopathic supervisors. Findings also indicate that supervisors who are low on psychopathy might stop enacting abuse entirely, while those high on psychopathy might be more likely to continue the abusive behavior. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
