GOOD EMPLOYEES AT BAD ORGANIZATIONS.pdf

Why do good employees stay in bad
organizations?
Aaron A. Buchko *, Caleb Buscher, Kathleen J. Buchko
Bradley University, Peoria, IL 61625, U.S.A.
1. Good organizations, bad
organizations
Conventional wisdom tells us, as managers, that the
most effective way to run an organization is to be
friendly and approachable in the eyes of our sub-
ordinates. We are encouraged to develop a climate
of trust and loyalty based on mutual respect and
concern for employees. Companies like Southwest
Airlines (an organization based on love, not fear)
and Google are touted as paragons of employee-
centered organizations. Annual lists of the best
companies to work for from Fortune or Forbes stress
compensation and benefits, employee attitudes,
leadership, and work-life balance as hallmarks
of great workplaces. Everyone, it seems, wants to
work for a ‘good’ or ‘great’ organization.
Yet we all have heard of companies that
achieved success using a different approach to
management. In these organizations we see a
leadership-by-fear mentality, workplace bullying,
constant pressure to perform, and autocratic gov-
ernance techniques. These working conditions can
lead to negative effects for employees, both pro-
fessionally and personally, and can even cause
Business Horizons (2017) 60, 729—739
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
KEYWORDS
Abusive organization
relationships;
Unhealthy work
environment;
Workplace abuse;
Corporate culture;
Employee-abusive
organization
Abstract Family and work are two of society's most important institutions. It is
understandable, then, that some similarities would exist between the two. One
unfortunate aspect of such relationships is that families and organizations may be
abusive to members. When this occurs in familial relationships, research has identi-
fied dynamics that keep people in the abusive situation. We consider here how those
same dynamics can occur in abusive organizations to identify factors that keep
employees in unhealthy work environments. We then examine intervention techni-
ques and concepts that can be used to enable people to recognize an abusive
organization, the long-term damage such organizations can inflict on employees,
and ways to assist individuals in exiting an abusive organization setting. Our intention
is to create awareness of the harm that can be caused by abusive organizations and
provide a framework that will enable people caught in a pattern of organizational
abuse to understand their choices and behaviors.
# 2017 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.
* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: aab@bradley.edu (A.A. Buchko),
cbuscher@mail.bradley.edu (C. Buscher), kjb@bradley.edu
(K.J. Buchko)
0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2017 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.06.001
Copyright 2017 by Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. For reprints, call HBS Publishing at (800) 545-7685. BH850
D
o
N
o
t
C
o
p
y
o
r
P
o
s
t
This document is authorized for educator review use only by ALEJANDRA APIQUIAN, Universidad Anahuac until Apr 2019. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or 617.783.7860

serious health issues.Forinstance,arecentarticlein
The New York Times described the high-pressure
organizational environment at Amazon (Kantor &
Streitfield, 2015):
Workers are encouraged to tear apart one an-
other's ideas in meetings, toil long and late
(emails arrive past midnight, followed by text
messages asking why they were not answered),
and held to standards that the company boasts
are ‘unreasonably high.’
Although this received national news, Amazon is
hardly the first company to cultivate a harsh work-
place environment. In 1913, turnover at Ford Motor
Company was so high due to the harsh working
conditions that the company had to hire 5,300
people a year to keep 14,000 jobs filled (The Henry
Ford, 2013). This type of workplace environment is
not limited to physical, blue-collar work, either.
Microsoft Corporation spent the first decade of the
21st
century watching the value of the company
decrease due in part to the firm's internal culture.
An article for Vanity Fair (Eichenwald, 2012, p. 111)
noted that “staffers were rewarded not just for
doing well but for making sure their colleagues
failed. As a result, the company was consumed by
an endless series of internal knife fights.”
Business history is replete with examples of com-
paniesrunbytyrant-likeCEOsandmanagers–—people
more focused on their own interests than working
for the good of the company or their employees. This
mentality can grow and eventually take over the
entire culture of an organization. Employees are
pushed to their limits physically and mentally,
causing negative effects in their personal and
professional lives. The most obvious solution for
these employees would be to quit their jobs and
find employment in another organization that is
more suited to them, one that demonstrates the
qualities of a positive workplace. Yet many employ-
ees choose to stay in an abusive organizational
relationship–—why?
In this article, we consider the psychological
research involving abusive relationships and how
that psychology translates into the business and
organization environment. As managers, under-
standing the psychological reasoning behind
employee behavior can help us better anticipate
how employees will react in various situations and
how they affect individual and organizational
performance. This also provides a framework with
which we can view our own situations and ensure
that we are not in an unhealthy workplace situation
or position. Fundamentally, we are asking a seem-
ingly simple question: Why do employees stay in
abusive organizations?
2. Abusive organizations
The abusive organization has been defined as
one that “operates with callous disregard for its
employees, not even displaying what might be
considered a minimum amount of concern for their
human needs” (Powell, 1998, p. 95). Also known as
employee-abusive organizations (EAOs), these are
organizations “in which employees experience per-
sistent harassment and fear at work because of the
offensive, intimidating, or oppressive atmosphere”
(Lutgen-Sandvik & McDermott, 2008, p. 305). These
are organizations that care little for the needs,
attitudes, or feelings of employees. People are
viewed almost as non-human entities. This dehu-
manization of employees is manifested in numerous
ways, including requiring employees to work long
hours off the clock and endure substandard working
conditions, high levels of stress, and unreasonable
performance demands.
For purposes of our discussion, we distinguish
abusive organizations from abusive supervisors.
There is a well-developed literature and body of
research on abusive supervisors (e.g., Mackey,
Frieder, Brees, & Martinko, 2015; Tepper, 2007) that
has identified (1) causes of abusive supervision,
such as supervisors’ perceptions of mistreatment,
perceived injustice, and perceptions of subordi-
nates as weak, vulnerable, or hard to get along
with; and (2) the results of such behaviors, such
as negative attitudes of subordinates toward the
job and organization, deviant work behavior, lower
performance contributions, and diminished psycho-
logical well-being. While abusive supervision is cer-
tainly unacceptable, we view abusive supervision as
distinct from an abusive organization. Supervisors
engage in abusive behaviors either because they
view these acts as acceptable or they are encour-
aged to do so by the organization for which they
work. Abusive organizations, on the other hand,
have climates or cultures in which abusive behavior
is seen as the norm and abuse is manifested in
the policies, practices, and institutional character-
istics of these organizations apart from individual
supervisors’ behaviors.
This distinction is not insignificant. There are
certainly abusive supervisors in non-abusive orga-
nizations. If one were to look hard enough, it might
be possible to find abusive supervisors in organiza-
tions on the great-places-to-work lists. The presence
of abusive supervisors does not necessarily make an
abusive organization. Likewise, there are undoubt-
edly some very competent, employee-centric super-
visors in abusive organizations–—supervisors who do
not buy into the organization climate of abuse and
who treat employees in a fair, just, and equitable
730 A.A. Buchko et al.
D
o
N
o
t
C
o
p
y
o
r
P
o
s
t

manner. We want to separate out the abuse that
occurs within the individual relationship between an
employee and his/her supervisor from an abusive
organization. We do not doubt that abusive orga-
nizations likely breed more than their share of abu-
sive supervisors; individuals with a tendency toward
abusive behavior are likely to feel comfortable in an
environment that not only tolerates but actively
supports employee abuse. But the abusive organiza-
tion has developed norms and values such that abuse
is seen as standard practice for the enterprise.
Among the many characteristics of abusive orga-
nizations are managing through fear, coercion, and
intimidation; lack of concern for basic human
needs; stress that results from gaining control of
employees; impossible expectations; and overwork
and job overload. Because these are primarily psy-
chological and emotional in nature, organizational
workplace abuse may be much more difﬁcult to
challenge legally than discrimination or safety
issues (Ebeid, Kaul, Neumann, & Shane, 2003).
Employees who work in such organizations may have
their health and well-being placed at risk. Non-work
and family relationships can be impacted by the
fact that the employee does not have adequate
time to devote to these relationships. Stress can
create negative impacts on employee health and
physical well-being. The toll on individuals from
abusive organizations can be substantial. There
is increasing evidence that abusive organizations
are damaging and harmful to their employees
(Tepper, 2007).
There is also the simple fact that most of us
cannot imagine ourselves working in such an envi-
ronment. Organization abuse just seems wrong–—
almost morally indefensible. How can one argue
that it is right to dehumanize employees? To make
people work beyond a reasonable expectation? To
manage through fear and intimidation? Most man-
agers cannot justify such practices and treatment
of employees. Yet, if we are to believe the data,
there is plenty of evidence that abusive organiza-
tions not only exist but also are growing in number
(Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013).
There are numerous articles and research studies
that examine the causes and effects of abusive
organization environments, and it is not our inten-
tion to add to the existing body of literature. Instead,
we ask a different question: If abusive organizations
are so bad, why do so many employees stay? Basic
human logic says that people are not willingly going
to stay in a situation that has negative consequences
or may be harmful to their well-being. Yet the large
number of research studies suggests that there are
an awful lot of employees who make a decision to
remain with abusive organizations, and there are in
fact many people who actively seek employment in
organizations where the work environment is known
to be abusive (as the Amazon or Microsoft cases
cited earlier). When what is known about abusive
organizations suggests that people should exit such
environments, why do so many choose to stay?
3. The psychology of abusive
relationships
To try and provide some initial insights into our
question, we turned to a related question that has
been researched extensively in the ﬁeld of psychol-
ogy and relationship behavior: Why do people who
have been physically battered or abused in their
interpersonal relationships choose to stay with
their abusive partners? A lot of the collected data
contradicts what may seem like a relatively easy, no-
brainer decision for most people. Estimates suggest
that over 40% of battered or abused women who seek
aid at shelters return to live with their partners
(Rusbult & Martz, 1995). Researchers have outlined
many different reasons to explain why women
choose to stay in abusive relationships, but for the
purposes of our article we will focus on three prima-
ry concepts: economic dependence, psychological
commitment, and interdependent commitment.
3.1. Economic dependence
It has long been held that a lack of economic
resources is a major factor in a woman's tolerance
of abuse. A majority of the research on spousal abuse
occurs after 1950, when the traditional gender role
for women was childcare. This role prevented women
from earning a living wage or gaining the skills and
education required to join the workforce, as most of
their time was spent on the care and raising of
children (Strube & Barbour, 1983).
Economic dependence is a factor when women
feel they have access to fewer economic resources.
When this occurs, tolerance for abuse rises. If a
woman is in an abusive relationship but has very few
resources available, she has fewer alternatives.
With fewer alternatives, some women may feel a
higher level of entrapment. Thus, unemployed
women with low education and who have limited
alternative resources available are more tolerant of
abuse (Gelles, 1976).
3.2. Psychological commitment
A second factor that has been shown to cause
individuals to remain in an abusive relationship is
psychological commitment. Women may feel that
Why do good employees stay in bad organizations? 731
D
o
N
o
t
C
o
p
y
o
r
P
o
s
t

they have been confined to a specific gender role. In
such circumstances, “traditional values suggest that
being a wife and mother are the most important
roles for a woman. . .and that one cannot be a full
woman unless one is married” (Strube and Barbour,
1983, p. 786). As a result, women may develop
identities related to the traditional status of being
a woman. The tolerance for abuse may rise in women
because they would rather be in a relationship than
be stigmatized for not being in a relationship.
In addition, pressure can be placed on women by
society to keep marriages intact. When entering into
a committed relationship, a woman's personal iden-
tity can begin to blend with that of her partner. This
can cause her to internalize the view of her partner
that she is a worthless human being without him or
her. This psychosocial factor can lead a woman to
place significant social value on her relationship
with her partner and have feelings of worthlessness
without that connection. This combination of self-
worth and identity comprise the individual's self-
esteem, which is enhanced when the individual
defies her identity in terms that reflect the norms
and values of society (Landenburger, 1998). Not only
do societal values affect the self-worth and identity
of the woman, but also can lead the woman to
remain in the abusive relationship and even not
report the abuse for fear of being stigmatized.
3.3. Interdependent commitment
Economic dependence and psychological commit-
ment are often effective in explaining why women
stay in abusive relationships, but these fail to cap-
ture the whole picture. Economic dependence and
psychological commitment tend to focus on one's
personal disposition. In order to capture the con-
textual or nonvoluntary aspect of dependence, we
need to consider the Investment Model of Commit-
ment (Rusbult & Martz, 1995). This model, based on
interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibault, 1978),
involves the concept of nonvoluntary dependence,
how and why people sometimes remain involved in
relationships that are deeply unsatisfying (Thibault
& Kelley, 1959, p. 169):
Nonvoluntary relationships. . .are those in
which the person is forced to stay even though
she or he would prefer not to. . .the person
remains in a relationship of this sort because
heavy costs are in some manner associated with
being in better ones.
The Investment Model of Commitment has three
components: satisfaction level, quality of alterna-
tives, and investment size. This approach puts all
personal dispositions aside and focuses instead
on the structural features of relationships. This
enables us to focus on larger factors that can influ-
ence the decision to leave or stay rather than
unique individual dispositions.
Satisfaction level refers to “the degree to which
the individual favorably evaluates a relationship”
(Rusbult & Martz, 1995, p. 559). The popular belief
suggests that the satisfaction level present in a
relationship is the primary factor in determining
whether a partner will stay or leave. However, if this
were the case, then women in abusive relationships
would not stay with their partners. Furthermore,
satisfaction can ebb and flow even in the most well-
adjusted relationships. While satisfaction level
plays a role in the level of commitment in a rela-
tionship, it is not the only factor. For further expla-
nation, we need to look to the two other factors
outlined in the investment model of commitment:
quality of alternatives and investment size.
A second element that comes up fairly frequently
in research on abusive relationships and the
woman's decision to stay is the quality of alterna-
tives that are available to her. Quality of alterna-
tives refers to “the attractiveness and availability
of alternatives to a relationship” (Rusbult & Martz,
1995, p. 560). In a study of 485 women at a domestic
violence shelter in Dayton, Ohio over a 12 month
period, 28.5% cited lack of a place to go as a reason
for tolerating the abuse (Anderson et al., 2003). In
some cases, while women may have preferred to
leave the abusive relationship, the alternative was
homelessness, which was less attractive than
abuse. Note that there are two aspects to the
quality of alternatives: attractiveness and availabil-
ity of alternatives. We will examine these shortly in
the context of the decision to remain in an abusive
organization.
The third and final component of the Investment
Model of Commitment is the investment size that is
present in a relationship. Investment size refers to
“the number and magnitude of resources that are
tied to a relationship” (Rusbult & Martz, 1995,
p. 559). The two kinds of resources that can be
invested in a relationship are direct and indirect.
Direct resources are those that a partner puts into
a relationship, such as time, self-disclosure, and
emotional energy. Indirect resources are those that
are a product of the relationship, like mutual
friends, children, and shared possessions. For
example, women who have been with partners
longer, are married, or have children with their
partners tend to stay in abusive relationships
longer (Strube & Barbour, 1983). This suggests that
the more resources a person has invested in a
relationship, the stronger the commitment level
to the relationship.
D
o
N
o
t
C
o
p
y
o
r
P
o
s
t

4. Why do employees stay in abusive
organizations?
Popular business news outlets have covered stories
of large, well-known companies and the sometimes
questionable approaches these firms take to remain
competitive in the market. Abusive organizational
behaviors can be traced to the sweatshops of the
industrial revolution and were present in the Gilded
Age. In more modern history, we see a climate of
abuse and low worker morale with Steve Jobs and
Apple in the 1990s, Steve Ballmer and Microsoft in
the early 2000s, Walmart in the last decade, and,
more currently, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Roger Ailes at
Fox News Corp., and Donald Trump. Yet employees
continue to stay and work for these organizations.
To help understand why employees make such de-
cisions, we will examine this issue through the lens
of abusive relationship psychology and identify
overlapping factors that may contribute to this
behavior.
4.1. Economic dependence
The first factor that might explain why employees
stay in abusive organizations is perhaps the most
obvious: financial compensation. The decision to
remain in an abusive organization is based on eco-
nomics: the individual believes that it would not be
possible to find alternative employment that would
offer the same kind of economic benefit. The em-
ployee is so well compensated that the employee
has become dependent on the organization for her
or his livelihood. The total economic gain from
working in the organization provides the employee
with a standard of living that would be difficult to
find elsewhere.
Often, this is associated with employees who are
in lower-paying jobs with relatively unskilled labor.
Because the alternative to the job is unemploy-
ment, and since the employee believes that they
need the paycheck in order to survive (as well as
provide for others), economic dependence is in-
creased. In periods of recession when unemploy-
ment is high, economic dependence increases
further, as employers have alternatives when it
comes to finding employees for relatively low-
skilled positions and employees may feel there
are fewer options for employment. Employees thus
feel that they have little alternative but to tolerate
the abuse in order to maintain their economic
status.
The level of economic resources available to the
employee can therefore be an indicator of the
willingness to tolerate abuse and remain with the
organization. Research on spousal abuse indicates
that women who lack economic resources like edu-
cation and skill are more likely to stay in an abusive
relationship (Strube & Barbour, 1983). Lower-skilled
workers by definition lack the education and skills
to readily find employment elsewhere or for greater
economic benefits; the lower the economic resour-
ces an employee has, the harder it becomes to
obtain employment. When he or she is employed,
leaving the job can be difficult, particularly if
the chances of finding emlpoyment elsewhere are
minimal. The employee has few options except to
tolerate the abuse.
However, economic dependence is not limited to
lower skilled employees; higher-level managers in
organizations and highly skilled employees may also
be subject to the same type of dependence. For
senior-level individuals, dependence may not be
about survival and meeting basic needs, but may
instead be based upon a standard of living. When an
individual grows accustomed to a certain lifestyle,
the idea of giving up that way of life can sometimes
cause employees to stay in unfavorable work envi-
ronments. Similarly, highly skilled employees may
receive compensation and benefit packages that
make it economically difficult to leave an organiza-
tion and will thus stay and tolerate abuse. We see
this in stories of high-tech startup companies that
provide highly talented employees with shares of
stock or stock options to be given at such time as
the company goes public or is acquired. The promise
of such an economic windfall can cause employees to
tolerate high levels of organizational abuse–—working
long hours, sacrificing a personal life, and tolerating
being managed through fear and coercion.
4.2. Psychological commitment
The second factor that might lead employees to stay
in abusive organizations is psychological commit-
ment. In abusive relationships involving partners,
this comes primarily from gender roles and the
societal values placed on women. Applying this to
the business context, societal values can be related
to job titles of employees, positions within the
organization, and even the company itself.
Psychologists have studied the idea of social
status and the importance it plays in people's lives
for years (Hollingshead, 2011). There is a social
hierarchy that employees are always trying to
climb, both within the company and within society.
Some of these companies are highly regarded by
society despite a reputation for being abusive to-
ward employees. When employees are working at
these organizations, there is a social value placed
on their employment–—“Wow, you work for Amazon?
That's so cool!” As the research shows, a large
D
o
N
o
t
C
o
p
y
o
r
P
o
s
t

portion of our self-identity as human beings is based
on our careers or what we do for a living. When
others see what we do for a living or the company
for which we work, they place a social value on us
and we join the social hierarchy, possibly at a high
level. It is this social status that may cause some
employees to stay with companies that are abusive.
The social status of working for an organization that
others perceive as a high-status organization may
lead employees to tolerate abuse to maintain their
position in the social hierarchy.
Some of the companies that are known to have
harsh and unfair working environments are well
known, such as Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple. Such
organizations are often well regarded for the quali-
ty of the products and services produced, for acts
of corporate philanthropy, or for perceived success
(e.g., a Fortune 500 company, one of the most
valuable companies in the S&P 500), among other
characteristics. An employee can develop a level of
identification with the organization such that the
employee's sense of self-identify is intertwined with
that of the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In
fact, individuals can define themselves in terms of
the company they work for, and yet their personal
values and goals do not need to be congruent
with the organization (Mintzberg, 1984). In such
instances, an employee may put up with an abusive
environment to preserve her or his sense of self-
identity and self-worth. Leaving the organization
would be so damaging to the employee's self-
identity and social status that the employee would
rather tolerate the abuse.
4.3. Interdependent commitment
The third factor from research on abusive relation-
ships that might cause employees to remain in an
abusive organization is interdependent commit-
ment. There are three elements to this factor.
The first, satisfaction level, is most likely not rele-
vant to the decision to stay. Similar to the issue of
domestic violence, this is the contradictory ele-
ment. If someone is dissatisfied with the workplace,
it is easier to leave. Decades of research on job
satisfaction, organization commitment, and turn-
over bear this out (e.g., Tett & Meyer, 1993). In
abusive organizations, employees are often dissat-
isfied with compensation, career opportunities,
supervisors, the work itself, and several other fac-
tors. Yet, despite the high level of dissatisfaction
often found in abusive organizations, employees
still choose to remain with the company. The ques-
tion then remains: If employees are dissatisfied
with the relationship, why do they stay? To address
this question we turn to the other two factors
that determine commitment in the interdependent
investment model: quality of alternatives and
investment size.
Quality of alternatives suggests that commitment
is influenced by “the attractivness and availability of
alternatives to a relationship” (Rusbult & Martz,
1995, p. 559). Of the three components of organiza-
tion commitment–—affective commitment, one's at-
tachment to a firm; normative commitment, the
perceived obligation to remain with an organization;
and continuous commitment, the perceived cost of
leaving an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991)–—
quality of alternatives most impacts continuous
commitment, which is the perceived cost of leaving
the organization (and therefore the willingness to
remain in an abusive organization). In times of high
unemployment, when alternative work is hard to
come by, individuals have few alternatives to their
current work situation, and those that are available
may be of similar or poorer quality. Employees who
lack education and/or are relatively unskilled may
have very few attractive alternatives to their current
work situation. In such conditions, we would expect
employees to remain in an abusive organization.
There is an element of affective commitment
present as well. Skilled or highly educated workers
may have the knowledge and skills necessary to
obtain employment elsewhere but may have a fear
of doing so. The natural aversion among most people
to risk may increase attachment to the current firm
because the alternative is unknown; in effect, “better
the abuser I know than a situation I don’t know.”
Even if an employee possesses all of the necessary
qualifications, when leaving a known organization
situation the individual is in a volatile environment.
The attractiveness of this alternative to some em-
ployees is so low that they would rather stay in an
abusive organization environment than place them-
selves in a turbulent, uncertain situation. Thus, the
quality of alternatives can override the low level of
satisfaction with the organization. In some cases,
having a job is better than not having a job; in other
cases, being viewed as important by society or by
one's social group is better than enjoying one's job.
The final element of the interdependent com-
mitment model is the investment size involved.
Recall that evidence indicates that factors such
as the length of time a woman has been involved
with her partner, whether they were married or
dating, and other personal investment factors in-
crese the level of commitment to the relationship
(Strube & Barbour, 1983). Similarly, the level of
investment an employee has in his or her relation-
ship with an organization will likewise increase the
commitment to remain in the relationship despite
the low levels of satisfaction.
D
o
N
o
t
C
o
p
y
o
r
P
o
s
t

Our earlier discussion noted that there are two
types of investment, direct and indirect. Direct
investments would be resources intrinsically in-
vested in the organization relationship, such as
time, effort, and emotional energy. Similar to wom-
en in abusive relationships, employees will feel a
higher level of commitment the longer they stay at a
company or the more effort they feel they have
expended toward achieving the organization's
goals.1
Indirect investments are those that arise
as a result of the association the employee has with
the organization, such as friendships, shared mem-
ories, and various activities, objects, and events.
Leaving the organization would require the employ-
ee to abandon existing investments. Both types of
investments enhance commitment by increasing
the perceived cost of ending the relationship.
When ending a relationship requires abandoning
numerous and/or important resources, feelings of
commitment are likely to be quite strong (Rusbult &
Martz, 1995).
5. What can be done?
In addressing domestic abuse, three strategies have
emerged in the field (Wolfe & Jaffe, 1999). These
can be analogous to helping those in abusive orga-
nizations. The first, primary prevention, seeks to
reduce the incidence of abuse before it occurs.
Programs aimed at increasing managerial effective-
ness through positive management practices and
those aimed at improving organization work envi-
ronments fall into this strategy category. Secondary
prevention tries to decrease the prevalence of
abuse after early signs of the problem. This might
involve organization culture change programs,
executive coaching, or employee engagement
programs. As noted, though, such efforts often
run afoul of economic conditions (e.g., downturns,
recessions, unemployment) or can be difficult to
implement successfully because the organization
perceives abusive practices to be functional in
driving performance.
Such efforts are all worthwhile and should be
utilized when possible. However, we also recognize
the inherent difficulty in altering patterns of orga-
nization abuse. We are more interested in address-
ing the issue through the most common form of
abuse intervention: tertiary intervention, in which
one seeks to intervene once the problem is already
clearly evident and causing harm. When individuals
are employed in an abusive organization, what can
be done for them? Again, we are going to use
evidence-based practices to inform our recommen-
dations.
One of the most researched and successful inter-
ventions is the use of cognitive behavior therapy
(CBT). Most of the techniques used in CBT are de-
signed to help individuals change their thinking
about their self and their situation. When the
thoughts about the self and/or situation change,
oftentimes the behavior will follow. In helping some-
one to leave an abusive work environment, one can
utilize the techniques of reframing, refocusing, and
challenging catastrophic thinking. Over time, indi-
viduals can learn to recognize their negative and
irrational thoughts and learn to replace them with
more accurate and realistic thoughts, which may
spur them to action. We will provide examples in the
four perspectives of decision-making.
It is important, first, to stress that anyone using
an intervention intended to enable an employee to
leave an abusive organization must recognize that
ultimately the decision to remain in or to exit an
abusive organization is the employee's decision. It is
therefore essential that any approach to assist an
employee in leaving an abusive organization must
work through the employee's decision process.
Research has identified four perspectives that
are useful in understanding the decision to leave
an abusive relationship (Strube, 1988). These have
implications for the types of interventions that are
necessary to assist a person to leave an abusive
organization. We will consider each of these in turn,
and discuss implications for facilitating the process
and providing interventions to assist employees to
leave abusive organizations.
5.1. Psychological entrapment
The terminological choice of psychological entrap-
ment is somewhat unfortunate, as few individuals
are actually trapped in an abusive organization;
employment is a mutually agreed upon decision
by the employer and employee, an unwritten con-
tract that can be broken at any time. Psychological
entrapment, though, refers specifically to a process
whereby individuals escalate the commitment to a
previously chosen course of action in order to justify
prior investments (Brockner & Rubin, 1985). Psy-
chological entrapment is rooted in the concept that
people feel the need to justify the time, effort,
money, or other resources spent in pursuit of some
goal and will continue to pursue that goal because
1
Paradoxically, abusive organizations that require employees
to spend long hours at work or expend extraordinary levels of
effort may thus make it more difficult for employees to leave the
abusive organization, since the employee has to psychologically
justify the direct investment being made in the organization,
creating a vicious cycle of abuse.
D
o
N
o
t
C
o
p
y
o
r
P
o
s
t

giving up would mean admitting that all those
investments had been wasted.
Employees face a clear threat of psychological
entrapment when working in an abusive organiza-
tion; paradoxically, the longer the employment, the
greater the sense of entrapment. The decision to
remain is an attempt at justification arising from
commitment. Initially, the employee may exert
effort to make the relationship work, but inevitably
these efforts fail and the abuse continues. Feeling
compelled to justify these efforts (the long hours,
the extra effort, etc.), the employee continues and
may even escalate efforts in the belief that if the
employeejusttrieshardenough,theeffortwillprove
successful. This may be particularly problematic
when others in the organization do not apparently
share the employee's perception of abuse; the em-
ployee can come to feel that the fault lies with the
employee (for not trying hard enough) and not with
the organization. It is important to note that entrap-
ment is an exercise in justification, and as commit-
ment increases, the decision process turns from
rational to rationalizing (Brockner & Rubin, 1985).
The cycle of organization abuse can be difficult to
overcome when the employee's decision processes
are no longer rational but instead are driven by a
desire to justify remaining in an abusive situation.
Given that rational use of information in deci-
sions is difficult in such circumstances, several
tactics have been suggested for reducing entrap-
ment (Strube, 1988). Focusing the employee's at-
tention on the long-term implications of continued
investment of time and effort might disrupt the
escalation process (“Do you realize what this is
doing to your health? Your family?”). Setting limits
may counter the urge to keep investing (“If the
company doesn’t reduce your workload in 2 months,
you need to start looking for another job.” “Give it
another 3 months, but if nothing's changed in that
time, you need to find another line of work”). A
third tactic is to make individuals aware of the
entrapment process to enable them to make better
decisions (“You’ve been putting in more hours and
all that's happened is that you’re being asked to do
even more.” “You keep working harder, but the
company doesn’t seem to recognize that”). Finally,
individuals can be encouraged to learn from past
experiences to reduce their susceptibility to future
entrapment scenarios (“This happened before when
your worked for XYZ Company, and all you got was
stress”).
5.2. Learned helplessness
Learned helplessness arises as a result of a per-
ception that there is little relationship between
behaviors and outcomes, with the resulting expec-
tation that future behaviors and outcomes will also
be independent. Typically, learned helplessness
involves three deficits: (1) a motivational deficit,
which is an inability to take actions that would
remove the individual from the position of helpless-
ness; (2) a cognitive deficit, which is an inability to
learn that, should the situation change, behaviors
and outcomes can become contingent; and (3) an
affective deficit, which is characterized by depres-
sion (Strube, 1988). Together these create a self-
perpetuating cycle of helplessness. The employee
comes to believe that behaviors will have no impact
on the abusive outcomes, thereby reducing the
likelihood that new behaviors will be attempted.
Employees in abusive organizations are suscepti-
ble to the learned helplessness model, particulary
if the abusive nature of the organization is rooted
in the culture, systems, and processes of the
enterprise. Since these institutional arrangements
are very slow to change, employees’ continual
attempts to try new behaviors–—only to have the
abuse continue–—reinforces the perception that “no
matter what I do, it's the same thing.” Employees
may try to assert themselves and oppose abusive
practices, but if such efforts prove futile because
such practices are deeply embedded in the practi-
ces of the organization, the employee may become
less inclined to act. This may also reinforce the
organizational norms of abuse, since the systems
and practices may be perceived as powerful enough
to overcome employee resistance.
However, it is apparent that there are employees
who do come out of abusive organizations. This
suggests that there may be other factors present
that, if properly addressed, might help others to
likewise exit an abusive relationship. One factor
that has been shown to be beneficial in understand-
ing the learned helplessness model is an attribu-
tional perspective. While learned helplessness
arises out of a perceived lack of a relationship
between behaviors and outcomes, understanding
how and why there is a noncontingent relationship
between the behavior and the outcome can affect
the interpretation of the situation (Abramson,
Seligman,&Teasdale,1978).Theprimarydimensions
for such attributions are internal versus external,
stable versus unstable, and global versus specific.
If an employee attributes the lack of relationship to
internalcauses(“Imustnotbedoingthingsright”),to
be chronic or permanent (“No matter what I do, the
end result is always the same”), and to be global in
nature (“No matter what anyone does, people
are always treated the same way”), then learned
helplessness is highly likely to be manifested. In such
situations,employeesblamethemselvesfornegative
D
o
N
o
t
C
o
p
y
o
r
P
o
s
t

outcomes, expect these outcomes to continue, and
may even expect the outcomes to affect other
areas of their lives.
Conversely, helplessness is not accompanied by
self-blame if the attribution is external (“That's how
this company treats everyone”), unstable (“You
never can tell how you’re going to be treated around
here”), and specific (“That was just a one-off situa-
tion that probably won’t occur ever again”). What
this suggests is that an individual's attributional
style might need to be viewed as a potential risk
factor for learned helplessness. The attributional
perspective might explain why some, but not all,
employees remain in abusive organizations. This
suggests that techniques such as attributional
retraining (Försterling, 1985) might be beneficial in
helping employees as an intervention when working
for an abusive organization. Training employees to
recognize the underlying nature of organizational
abuse might enable individuals to recognize the na-
ture of their work situation and to exit the abusive
organization.
5.3. Relative costs and benefits
The third model, relative costs and benefits, is
derived from exchange theory (Thibault & Kelley,
1959), which is based on the idea that relationship
decisions follow from an analysis of the costs and
benefits of current relationships compared to those
of alternative relationships. This is viewed as a two-
stage process. In the first stage, the employee ana-
lyzes whether the total benefits from the relation-
ship exceed the total costs, arriving at a subjective
estimation of satisfaction. In the second stage, the
satisfaction with the current relationship is com-
pared to the estimated satisfaction from alterna-
tives to the relationship (assuming the employee is
willing to leave the current organization). This leads
to four possible situations and coping strategies, all
of which are applicable to the employee's decision
to remain or leave an abusive organization.
In the first situation, the economic, social, and
psychological costs are greater than the rewards in
both the current and alternative organization rela-
tionship. In this situation, the employee blames
himself/herself for being trapped in an abusive or-
ganzation in which the employee cannot change the
current organization situation nor find nonviolent
alternatives, and the employee is likely to remain
in the abusive organization (“I don’t like the way
I’m treated here, but I can’t afford to leave”). In the
second situation, also likely to keep an employee
in an abusive organization, the rewards exceed
the costs in the current relationship but the per-
ceived costs exceed the rewards in the alternative
relationship (“I don’t enjoy working here, but it
would be too difficult to move or start over again
at this stage of my life”). Of concern is the observa-
tion that in such situations an aggressive response
is likely, where the employee responds to the orga-
nizational abuse by becoming abusive as well, or
more often becomes abusive toward others in the
individual's sphere of relationships, such as a spouse
or children.
By contrast, when the rewards of the alternative
relationship exceed the costs, the employee is
likely to leave the abusive organization. This will
be influenced by the employee's analysis of the
payoffs in the current situation. In the third situa-
tion, when costs exceed rewards in the current
situation, early separation is likely; the employee
will take action to leave the current organization
(“I can’t believe the way they treat me here; there
has to be a better situation working elsewhere.”
“For the sake of my health/family, I’ve got to get
out of here”). On the other hand, the fourth situa-
tion–—in which rewards exceed costs in the current
abusive relationship–—there is a disengagement re-
sponse in which the employee reluctantly concludes
that, due to the many years spent working in the
abusive organization, the employee moves to an
alternative organization relationship only when
convinced that the abuse in the current organiza-
tion is too high a price for the employee to bear
(“After all of the hours I’ve put in, all the years I’ve
spent, I don’t deserve to be treated like this. I need
to find a better situation”).
5.4. Reasoned action
The fourth and final model found in the research on
domestic abuse that can be applied to abusive orga-
nization relationships is the theory of reasoned action
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This theory suggests that
actions and decisions (such as leaving an abusive
organization) are tied directly to individual behavior-
al intentions. Behavioral intentions are determined
by the individual's attitude toward the behavior and
subjective norms regarding the behavior.
The individual's attitude toward the behavior is
defined by the person's belief that behaviors will in
fact lead to desired outcomes, and the desirablility
of those outcomes. If a person believes that a
behavior will have a high probability of producing
desired outcomes (and/or avoiding undesirable
outcomes), then behavioral intention will be high.
For example, an employee perceives that leaving
the abusive organization will result in positive out-
comes (such as ending the abuse, reduced stress,
more positive non-work relationships, etc.) as well
as negative consequences (starting over in a new
D
o
N
o
t
C
o
p
y
o
r
P
o
s
t

position/loss of seniority, career disruption, etc.).
The intention to leave the abusive organization–—
and the ultimate act of exiting–—will depend ulti-
mately on the relative perceived value of the
outcomes in combination with the perceived likeli-
hood of those outcomes (“I think that ultimately
I’m going to be better off with a new job in a new
company”). Some approaches to the theory of rea-
soned action have included the notion of perceived
antecedents to the behavior in determining an in-
dividual's attitude toward that behavior. Antece-
dents are behaviors that must be performed, or
conditions that must exist, before the behavior
can be performed. For employees in abusive orga-
nizations, antecedents may include the availability
of alternative employment (which might explain
why organization abuse is likely to increase during
periods of recession and high unemployment),
The second major element of the theory of rea-
soned action, subjective norms, incorporates the
influence of significant others in the decision to
leave the relationship, an element of the decision
process not accounted for by other models. Similar
to the individual's attitude toward the behavior,
subjective norms have two components: the indi-
vidual's belief about what significant others (e.g.,
spouse, parents, friends, children) expect with re-
spect to the behavior under consideration, and the
individual's motivation to comply with the expecta-
tions of others. If the employee believes that others
think the employee should leave the abusive orga-
nization and the employee is motivated to comply
with those expectations, behavioral intention will
be high. It may be important, therefore, in decisions
regarding leaving abusive organizations, that an
employee has a perceived supportive network of
social relationships, and that these individuals
manifest support for the desire to leave the abusive
relationship (“Look at what your job is doing to
you, to our family, to our relationship. You need
to find a better work situation”).
6. Summary
We see, then, that employees who find themselves
in abusive organizations are similar to individuals in
abusive relationships. The mechanisms that cause
people to remain in situations of domestic abuse
may be the same ones that cause employees to stay
in abusive organizations. Yet we also believe that
such situations are inherently unacceptable and
that abusing human beings is fundamentally wrong
and ought not be tolerated. We also recognize,
however, that abusive organizations–—like many
domestic abusers–—do so because it is in the
organization's perceived self-interest to do so.
Requiring employees to work extraordinarily long
hours for low pay, driving behavior through fear,
coercion, or intimidation, and showing little regard
for the needs of employees may increase profit
margins by lowering labor costs, increasing produc-
tivity, and enhancing profit margins.
Like domestic abuse, abusive organizations may
result from experience and learning. Just as domes-
tic abuse runs in families (as children perceive the
abuse in the home and view this as “normal”
behavior), so too, abusive organizations may devel-
op a ‘family tree’ as managers, experiencing success
in the form of promotions, performance bonuses,
and similar reward mechanisms, transfer the
environment of abuse from one organization to
the next. In fact, some abusive leaders become
temporary folk heroes, as in the case of the infamous
Chainsaw Al Dunlap (Byrne, 1999), and achieve
social recognition and status as a result of abusive
behavior. To break the social cycle of abusive orga-
nizations, it may be necessary to increase the social
stigma associated with abusive organizations. For
example, various web sites now provide lists of the
worst companies to work for. To the extent that
such knowledge can embarrass managers at these
organizations and cause them to seek to change the
abusive practices, it may be possible to begin to
address the worst offenders and alert others to
abusive organization practices.
Ultimately, though, the decision to remain with
or to exit an abusive organization is the employee's
decision. An abusive organization, almost by defini-
tion, will not be able to assist an employee in
recognizing the patterns of abuse; after all, the
reason for the abuse is often because it is in the
organization's best interest to continue such prac-
tices. While it is helpful to call out the abusers,
such efforts will do little to help those caught in
a pattern of abusive organization behaviors.
Employees must be encouraged to develop sound
reasoning and decision-making approaches that
enable employees to recognize patterns of abuse.
Alerting employees to abusive organization practi-
ces and providing employees with alternative
relationships can increase the likelihood that an
employee will leave an abusive organization.
In addition, social networks are extremely im-
portant. Employees need to have the input from
spouses, friends, associates, clergy, physicians, and
professional counselors to enable them to make the
best possible decision concerning their work lives
and organizational relationships. As has been
noted, enabling individuals to leave abusive circum-
stances often requires intervention from those
who have the ability to perceive the situation in
D
o
N
o
t
C
o
p
y
o
r
P
o
s
t

a fundamentally different manner than the em-
ployee. A well developed social network or networks
can provide the emotional and cognitive support
that may be necessary for an employee to make the
decision to exit an abusive organization.
While abusive organization practices cannot be
considered acceptable in a normative sense, it
would be naive to think that such practices and
organizations do not exist. The effect of such orga-
nizations on individuals’ lives can be substantial; for
many people, work is one of their primary social
activities. When such relationships become abusive
and threaten the well being of the employee, action
is necessary to secure a healthy outcome. By exam-
ining the underlying nature of abusive organization
relationships and discussing possible methods for
assisting individuals to exit such relationships, we
have tried to develop a framework that will assist
employees (and those who are close to them) in
taking action to get out of abusive organizations and
assume a measure of control over their well-being.
References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned
helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49—74.
Anderson, M. A., Gillig, P. M., Sitaker, M., McCloskey, K., Malloy,
K., & Grigsby, N. (2003). “Why doesn’t she just leave?”: A
descriptive study of victim reported impediments to her
safety. Journal of Family Violence, 18(3), 151—155.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and
the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1),
20—39.
Brockner, J., & Rubin, J. Z. (1985). Entrapment in escalating
conflict: A social psychological analysis. New York: Spring-
Verlag.
Byrne, J. A. (1999). Chainsaw: The notorious career of Al Dunlap
in the era of profit-at-any-price. New York: HarperBusiness.
Ebeid, F., Kaul, T., Neumann, K., & Shane, H. (2003). Workplace
abuse: Problems and consequences. International Business
and Economics Research Journal, 2(6), 1—12.
Eichenwald, K. (2012 August). Microsoft's lost decade. Vanity
Fair, 624, 108—117.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, L. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and
behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Boston:
Addison-Wesley.
Försterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 98(3), 495—512.
Gelles, R. J. (1976). Abused wives: Why do they stay? Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 38(4), 659—668.
Hollingshead, A. B. (2011). Four factor index of social status. Yale
Journal of Sociology, 8, 11—20.
Kantor, J., & Streitfield, D. (2015 August 15). Inside Amazon:
Wrestling big ideas in a bruising workplace. The New York
Times Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/
technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-
workplace.html?_r=0
Kelley, H. H., & Thibault, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A
theory of interdependence. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Landenburger, K. M. (1998). The dynamics of leaving and recov-
ering from an abusive relationship. Journal of Obstetric,
Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 27(6), 700—706.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & McDermott, V. (2008). The constitution
of employee-abusive organizations: A communication flows
theory. Communication Theory, 18(2), 304—333.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J.
(2015). Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical
review. Journal of Management, 41(1), 1—26.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A
review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 34(S1), S120—S135.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component concep-
tualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource
Management Review, 1(1), 61—89.
Mintzberg, H. (1984). Power and organization life cycles. Academy
of Management Review, 9(2), 207—224.
Powell, G. N. (1998). The abusive organization. Academy of
Management Executive, 12(2), 95—96.
Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive
relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary
dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
21(6), 558—571.
Strube, M. J. (1988). The decision to leave an abusive relation-
ship: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological
Bulletin, 104(2), 236—250.
Strube, M. J., & Barbour, L. S. (1983). The decision to leave an
abusive relationship: Economic dependence and psychologi-
cal commitment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(4),
785—793.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations:
Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Manage-
ment, 33(3), 261—289.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analy-
ses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology,
46(2), 259—293.
The Henry Ford (2013). The innovator and Ford Motor Company.
Available at https://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/hf/
The_Innovator_and_Ford_Motor_Company.asp
Thibault, J., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of
groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wolfe, D. A., & Jaffe, P. G. (1999). Emerging strategies in
the prevention of domestic violence. Domestic Vilence and
Children, 9(3), 133—144.
D
o
N
o
t
C
o
p
y
o
r
P
o
s
t

GOOD EMPLOYEES AT BAD ORGANIZATIONS.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to GOOD EMPLOYEES AT BAD ORGANIZATIONS.pdf

Similar to GOOD EMPLOYEES AT BAD ORGANIZATIONS.pdf (12)

More from AlejandraApiquianGui

More from AlejandraApiquianGui (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

GOOD EMPLOYEES AT BAD ORGANIZATIONS.pdf