Death-spiraling within organizations: how tit-for-tat negative behavior perpetuates itself and how to end it

Key Points:

Individual-specific characteristics, such as an employee’s personality traits and workplace attitudes, are not the only factors that influence whether they choose to engage in negative behaviors in the workplace. Often, negative workplace behavior is part of a behavioral exchange between individuals in which the negative behavior from one individual, Party A, is negatively reciprocated by Party B.

While employees are likely to perpetuate negative behaviors of the same level which they themselves have experienced, escalation is almost as probable.

By inserting a one-sided breakpoint, you may potentially end cyclical counterproductive behavior/prevent incivility spirals from occurring since interventions that stop an instigating party’s negative behaviors are likely to also stop the reciprocating negative behaviors of those with which they work.

If you are a manager or work in HR, then you are undoubtedly familiar with the darker side of human behavior. Negative workplace behavior – that is, behavior which violates social norms and threatens the well-being of an organization and its members (also referred to as workplace deviance and counterproductive behavior) – manifests itself in many forms. Bullying, harassment, and counterproductive behaviors such as not following a manager’s instructions or withholding effort are just a few examples of the intrinsically human, wide-ranging list of negative behaviors in which employees frequently engage. While some of these behaviors may seem relatively minor, workplace deviance is a pervasive issue that is estimated to cost U.S. organizations $50 billion dollars annually (Coffin, 2003).

Incivility in organizations seems to be an especially severe, growing problem and is associated with negative psychological impacts result in lower employee productivity, reduced morale, and increased rates of absenteeism and turnover (Hoel, Einarsen, & Cooper, 2003; Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). In 1998, a quarter of those surveyed indicated they were treated rudely at work at least once a week. This figure nearly doubled when participants were surveyed just seven short years later, with approximately 95 percent of respondents reporting that they believe there is an incivility problem in America (Porath & Pearson, 2012).

In trying to prevent these behaviors from occurring, it may seem tempting to focus on the specific personality traits, attitudes, and workplace experiences that lead individuals to engage in counterproductive behaviors. For example, managers may try to improve employees’ job satisfaction or remove workplace stressors, hoping that this will reduce the potential that an employee will choose to engage in workplace deviance (Mount, Ilies, Johnson, 2006). However, not all negative behaviors are the result of some instigating spark, and through only considering how individual and attitudinal factors relate to workplace deviance, managers run the risk of misdiagnosing the motivation behind them and misunderstanding the context in which they occur. Recent evidence suggests that practitioners should, instead, consider whether these behaviors are links in a larger chain of negative interpersonal reactions between employees. That is, they should consider how negative workplace behavior from one individual, Party A, begets further negative responses from a second individual, Party B, and how this may cascade into a broader problem of organizational incivility.

Through the adaptation of this broader, relational perspective, individuals can better conduct themselves and coach others to discourage workplace deviance with the aim of preventing it from escalating and spreading. Through taking pre-emptive action, people can attempt to stop it before employees respond with more intense retaliatory behaviors, escalating the conflict. In this evidence summary, we review the latest research and consider practical solutions to help limit the consequences of workplace deviance in your organization.

Differentiating between types of negative workplace behaviors

The principle of reciprocation is an old one explored by the science of human behavior and the bible alike. Whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them (Matthew 7:12). What one experiences at the hands of others is likely to be reciprocated and perpetuated (in similar contexts) in return. When we examine typical workplace exchanges of negative workplace behavior between two parties (e.g., Party A and Party B) there are a host of phenomena that seem to echo this principle. A recent meta-analysis conducted by Greco, Whitson, O’Boyle, Wang, & Kim (2019) delved into all this, using the dimensions severity and activity of negative behavior to differentiate between the types of counterproductive behavior.

The severity dimension corresponded with the level of harm the behavior inflicted upon their target, ranging from minor in severity to highly severe. The activity dimension, meanwhile, refers to how active or passive the behavior is. It encompassed both the passive harm that comes from withholding positive behaviors at the low end and the direct harm of actively engaging in negative behaviors at the high end. In this way, it accounts for the bad that may occur from such acts as withholding the truth and telling a lie. At the midpoint of the dimensions are moderately severe behaviors and balanced behaviors (which include both active and passive elements). For example, physical assault was classified as both highly severe and active, bullying was moderate and balanced, and incivility was minor and passive.

The research performed by Greco and colleagues reviewed a wide breadth of all the existing research on the subject of negative workplace behavior. However, because this subject is difficult to perform ethically in an experimental fashion (as it is unethical to randomly assign people to negative work environments) none of the 207 included studies were experimental. Therefore, we cannot draw firm conclusions about whether the nature of reciprocal behavior is causal in nature. The severity and activity level of a perpetrator’s workplace deviance may just be correlated with a receiver’s reciprocation of negative behavior. Nevertheless, we can examine the nature of this relationship of linked behavior.

Tit for tat: Negative workplace behavior is most often reciprocated in-kind, but escalation is likely

People are fairly good at reciprocating in turn. The evidence suggests that employees are most likely to reciprocate negative workplace behaviors of the same severity or activity level which they themselves have experienced (e.g., a moderately severe behavior from Party A results in a moderately severe response from Party B). Furthermore, as the frequency of the perpetrator’s counterproductive behavior increases, the responder is most likely to continue to reciprocate the behavior in-kind at the same level. There is a rational argument to be made from an evolutionary psychology perspective that would suggest that such behavior is defensive, protective, and adaptive in the long term, as you are providing repercussions, a form of accountability, and an example by which you hope others will behave in the broader cultural context.

While these findings support the idea that organization members largely respond to workplace deviance in an “eye for an eye” exchange, they also suggest that negative workplace behavior has the potential to escalate in intensity and spiral over time (i.e., “two eyes for an eye”). In fact, Party B was almost as likely to escalate the severity/activity of the behavior as they were to return Party A’s behavior at the same level. This makes sense on an intuitive level; as lower-intensity negative events become more frequent and interpersonal conflicts intensify, more intense, retaliatory behavior is more likely to occur. Perhaps unsurprisingly then, Party A’s initial workplace deviance was least often associated with a de-escalation in the intensity of Party B’s negative response.

Takeaways for your Practice

Preventing workplace deviance and deterring its consequences is undoubtedly a complex and important issue with which many groups, teams, and organizations struggle. However, perpetually struggling with increasing organizational deviance is a choice and there are actions you can take to mitigate its existence and impact.

Now that you know how negative behavior is exchanged in the workplace and given the likeliness for employees to perpetuate and escalate exchanges of negative workplace behavior, your organization may want to consider the following strategies to sever the chain of negative reactions:

• Discourage initial counterproductive behavior: Managers need to be vigilant, policies and rules need to be acted upon, and people need to be held accountable. Actively discouraging “instigating” behaviors while working to establish strong sociocultural norms to discourage employees from becoming instigators is critically important. It’s much easier to prevent negative outcomes than to deal with them once they’ve escalated.

• Target specific behaviors to end patterns of negativity: If your organization wants to reduce workplace deviance, it may help to focus on a particular, regularly occurring form of it or (as people tend to be quite good at reciprocating at a similar level) instances of a particular severity/activity level. Interventions that target specific behaviors at the same severity/activity level are likely to the most effective. This may help reduce both the targeted behaviors and those that are likely to occur through reciprocation. Ending the chain, regardless of who does the ending, is important.

• Figure out how to break the chain of negativity most effectively: HR departments may be better off focusing on mediating interpersonal conflicts between employees as opposed to assigning individually based disciplinary actions. If you only notice and punish Party B’s reciprocated negative behavior, then this may serve to further amplify conflicts between coworkers.

Trustworthiness score:

We critically evaluated the trustworthiness of the source material we used to inform this Evidence Summary. We can conclude it provides limited but relatively trustworthy findings supporting the nature of these phenomena (70%).

Learn how we critically appraise studies to assign them a Trustworthiness Score.

We aim to provide you only the best available scientific evidence to inform your decisions.

Did you like this evidence summary? Share it with your network by clicking on the buttons below!

Follow us on LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram, and subscribe to our newsletter to receive the most trustworthy scientific research summarized and practical recommendations for work and life in a wide variety of digestible content pieces!

References

Based on: Greco, L. M., Whitson, J. A., O’Boyle, E. H., Wang, C. S., & Kim, J. (2019). An eye for an eye? A meta-analysis of negative reciprocity in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(9), 1117.