The Communicative Cycle Of Employee Emotional Abuse

By Pamela Lutgen-Sandvik. 2003

188 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/87e195f40151d5a73747a57ea582438ee5117c17

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Active and Passive Accomplices: The Communal Character of Workplace Bullying (2010, background): “Upper managers then must weigh accounts from the involved parties, a process that often favors hierarchical position: The bullying boss has a voice, whereas the bullied target’s voice is minimized or muted (Lutgen–Sandvik, 2003).”
Answering Five Key Questions About Workplace Bullying (2012, background): “singled out, bullied, and driven from the workplace and regenerates when another target is singled out, bullied, driven from the workplace, and so on (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003).”
The Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion and Job Satisfaction on the Relationship Between Job Demands and Instigated Workplace Incivility (2018, background): “Researchers have defined workplace incivility in various ways since the late 1990s (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Zauderer, 2002) but the underlying common definition shared by these researchers is that workplace incivility is a “low-intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous…”
Workplace bullying and employee silence (2017, background): “The extant literature on interpersonal mistreatment suggests that those who speak up are at the risk of being labeled as troublemakers (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003) and may lose desirable personal resources or professional opportunities (Harvey et al.”
Workplace Bullying: Causes, Consequences, and Corrections (2010, unknown): “Bullying intensifies over time if left unchecked (Leymann, 1990; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003).”
Workplace bullying, the development of job insecurity and the role of laissez-faire leadership: A two-wave moderated mediation study (2018, background): “This claim has since been reiterated by other scholars (e.g. Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007), and researchers have repeatedly reported outcomes of bullying related to expulsion, including sickness absence (Niedhammer, Chastang, Sultan-Taïeb, Vermeylen, & Parent-Thirion, 2013;…”
Workplace bullying as an antecedent to job insecurity and intention to leave: a 6‐month prospective study (2014, background): “To the best of our knowledge, it has not previously been demonstrated that workplace bullying is associated with increased job insecurity over time, even though many have acknowledged that targets of bullying are at risk of workplace exclusion (e.g. Leymann, 1996; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Berthelsen et”
Self-efficacy to spur job performance (2018, result): “By proposing an invigorating effect of perceived workplace incivility, we extend previous studies on its direct negative effect (e.g. Cho et al., 2016; Lim et al., 2008; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Pearson and Porath, 2005).”
Perceived severity of various bullying behaviours at work and the relevance of exposure to bullying (2009, result): “The fact that emotional abuse was evaluated as the most severe type of bullying is in accordance with several studies that emphasize emotional aspects as most representative of the phenomenon (Einarsen, 1999; Keashly, 2001; Keashly & Harvey, 2005; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002; Ni”
Take This Job and … : Quitting and Other Forms of Resistance to Workplace Bullying (2006, background): “Although bullying is usually targeted at more than one person in a workgroup (Hoel & Cooper, 2001; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003a; Rayner, 1997; Rayner et al., 2002), this choice resulted in a specific sample type.”
Nightmares, Demons, and Slaves (2006, background): “However, scholars in the United States have begun entering the dialogue from the fields of organizational communication (Alberts, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Tracy, 2005; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2005; Meares, Oetzel, Derkacs, & Ginossar, 2004), law (Yamada, 2000, 2005), management (Keashl”