Organizational Psychology Article Review

Organizational Psychology Review 2016, Vol. 6(3) 273–302 Viewing the interpersonal ª The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav mistreatment literature DOI: 10.1177/2041386615607095 through a temporal lens opr.sagepub.com

Michael S. Cole Texas Christian University, USA

Abbie J. Shipp Texas Christian University, USA

Shannon G. Taylor University of Central Florida, USA

Abstract Given increasing awareness of time’s critical role, we assess the current position of time in the workplace mistreatment literature. Focusing on four mistreatment constructs (viz., abusive supervision, workplace bullying, workplace incivility, and social undermining) found in the orga- nizational psychology literature, our search revealed 266 studies that have empirically examined the consequences of these forms of interpersonal mistreatment. We examine and critique these studies, finding that with a few exceptions, most have failed to design and test theoretical rela- tionships in a manner consistent with construct definitions. As interpersonal mistreatment research has neglected the role of time, we conclude that the substantial number of existing studies offer limited insight into the true nature of mistreatment’s consequences over time. We go on to elaborate on the types of theoretical insights that might emerge when a temporal lens (objective time and/or subjective time) is adopted by mistreatment researchers.

Keywords Abusive supervision, bullying, incivility, interpersonal mistreatment, longitudinal, objective time, subjective time, temporal lens, time, undermining

Paper received 5 January 2015; revised version accepted 19 August 2015.

Corresponding author: Michael S. Cole, Department of Management, Entrepreneurship, and Leadership, Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 274 Organizational Psychology Review 6(3)

Over the past two decades, research on the of temporality (e.g., treating a dynamic phe- topic of interpersonal mistreatment at work has nomenon as static), the most likely conse- increased exponentially. In doing so, researchers quences are weak hypotheses and ambiguous—if interested in studying workplace mistreatment not erroneous—results (Ployhart & Vandenberg, have proposed several concepts designed to tap 2010). Clearly, questionable inferences have the different aspects of this harmful work behavior, potential to denigrate the accumulated knowledge including abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), in this important area of research. By the same bullying (Einarsen, 1999), incivility (Anders- token, the explicit consideration of time-related son & Pearson, 1999), and social undermining issues will result in better theory building and a (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). Abusive richer understanding of the phenomena of supervision, for example, refers to hostile interest (Mitchell & James, 2001). According verbal and nonverbal supervisory behaviors to George and Jones (2000), this is because (Tepper, 2000) and is estimated to cost U.S. constructs ‘‘exist in and through time; time is businesses (in terms of absenteeism, health intimately bound up with the content of human care costs, and lost productivity) more than experience [and thus] ... cannot be separated $20 billion annually (Tepper, 2007). Tracking from it’’ (p. 666). the adverse consequences of abusive super- With hundreds of published articles on vision, workplace incivility focuses on a per- interpersonal mistreatment at work, our main petrator’s behavior with an ambiguous intent purpose is to take stock of this literature’s to harm another (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) knowledge base by evaluating existing research and is believed to touch 98% of U.S. employees, studies through a temporal lens (Ancona, with an associated annual cost in the millions Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001). We (Porath & Pearson, 2013). To be sure, the therefore provide a temporal review of the frequency with which individuals are being mistreatment literature. We begin with a brief mistreated at work, whether by supervisors or review of the conceptual definitions and theircoworkers,suggestsitisaserioussocial empirical findings associated with the four problem warranting continued scholarly atten- exemplar mistreatment constructs (viz., abu- tion (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Tepper, sive supervision, bullying, incivility, and social 2007). undermining).1 Next, we offer a short primer Given the importance of this research, we on time to delineate the important aspects of sought to appraise the current state of affairs a temporal lens that shape our review and by determining the extent to which the inter- critique of the mistreatment literature. Here, personal mistreatment literature has generated we address the question of ‘‘what is time,’’ theoretically substantive findings. Toward observing that time can be viewed in terms of this end, we consider that, despite meaningful objective (clock) time or subjective (psy- conceptual differences among the mistreat- chological) time. As we detail later in our ment constructs (Tepper & Henle, 2011), they review, this particular issue has salient impli- all share a key feature—namely, the mistreat- cations for how mistreatment researchers con- ment constructs are inherently dynamic and ceive, design, and conduct their studies. We thus change over time. As such, an empirical then summarize empirical studies that focus studyonabusivesupervisionorcoworker on interpersonal mistreatment’s downstream bullying that treats its focal construct as a consequences, with special consideration toward static input would not be testing theoretical the temporal issues raised in this review. As relationships in a manner prescribed by the a result of our findings, we articulate how construct’s definition. This is potentially pro- the addition of objective and subjective time blematic because when a study sidesteps issues can change the way mistreatment is studied,

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 Cole et al. 275 offering interesting new research questions. acts’’ (Hershcovis, 2011, p. 501). The sys- Finally, we discuss how incorporating time tematic and gradually evolving nature of bul- into one’s study requires careful attention lying is a notable hallmark of this mistreatment to research design, and in doing so, allows phenomenon. For example, according to Einar- for tests of new and interesting research sen (1999), one or two negative experiences questions. cannot be construed as bullying but, rather, repeated exposure on a weekly basis (for several months) is indicative of experienced bullying Overview of interpersonal (p. 16). A recent meta-analysis by Nielsen and mistreatment constructs Einarsen (2012) provides supportive evidence for the detrimental effects of workplace bullying. Abusive supervision It found that employees exposed to bullying are Tepper (2000) first introduced the concept more likely to experience adverse psychological of abusive supervision, which he defined as and job-related consequences, including mental ‘‘subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to and physical health problems, increased inten- which supervisors engage in the sustained tions to quit, reduced job satisfaction and com- display [emphasis added] of hostile verbal mitment, and more frequent absenteeism. and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact’’ (p. 178). According to Tepper’s con- Workplace incivility ceptualization, then, a supervisor’s abusive acts must be recurrently experienced by subordinates. Concerns about civility can be traced as far This particular aspect of abusive supervision is back as the founding of the United States of noteworthy because it implies that supervisory America (Washington, 1888/1971). Despite its mistreatment must occur over time. Reviews of extensive history in social norms, the notion the literature have found that abusive supervision of incivility at work was first introduced by has been consistently linked to undesirable levels Andersson and Pearson (1999). They char- of subordinate job satisfaction, commitment, acterized workplace incivility as ‘‘low-intensity and psychological distress (Martinko, Harvey, deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm Brees, & Mackey, 2013; Tepper, 2007). They the target, in violation of workplace norms for also find that subordinates of abusive super- mutual respect’’ (p. 457). In contrast to the visors are more likely to respond with deviant other mistreatment constructs which explicitly retaliatory acts, fewer citizenship behaviors, incorporate time into their definitions, work- and less effort directed at job tasks (Martinko place incivility’s definition does not account for et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007). its temporal nature. And yet workplace incivi- lity does indeed consider the role of time and its implications. This stems in large part from Workplace bullying Andersson and Pearson’s theorizing, in which It proved difficult to determine who first they describe uncivil behavior as unfolding in a introduced the concept of bullying to the series of ‘‘tit-for-tat’’ exchanges that ‘‘spiral’’ organizational psychology literature, although or escalate over time. Andersson and Pearson some of the earliest research began appearing go on to explicitly assert that workplace inci- in the early 1990s (e.g., Einarsen, Raknes, & vility has the potential to substantively impact Matthiesen, 1994). When placed in the work targets’ attitudes towards work because the context, bullying is defined as ‘‘instances where effects associated with incivility’s low-intensity an employee is repeatedly and over a period of behaviors are likely to accumulate over time. In time [emphasis added] exposed to negative such a scenario, initial instances of incivility

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 276 Organizational Psychology Review 6(3) have little to no discernable effect on a target, connection, Duffy and her colleagues (2002; but eventually a subsequent incivility episode Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon, could create significant harm by constituting 2006) have found that social undermining is the proverbial straw that ‘‘breaks the camel’s associated with lower levels of job satisfaction back’’ (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 462). A and commitment, and greater intentions to quit. number of studies have demonstrated that the Studies have also found that targets of social experience of incivility is associated with undermining experience increased levels of psy- diminished levels of job satisfaction and com- chological distress (e.g., Nahum-Shani, Hen- mitment (e.g., Cortina, Magley, Williams, & derson, Lim, & Vinokur, 2014), and are likely to Langhout, 2001; Taylor, Bedeian, & Kluemper, engage in retaliation (e.g., Duffy et al., 2002) as 2012), increased physiological and psycholo- well as poor job performance (e.g., Ng & Feld- gical forms of stress and withdrawal (e.g., Bunk man, 2012). & Magley, 2013; Salomon & Jagusztyn, 2008), and more frequent retaliatory acts (e.g., Penney & Spector, 2005; Taylor & Kluemper, 2012). A Issues related to time and use few studies have examined performance-related of a temporal lens in outcomes, with incivility experiences correlat- ing with fewer acts of citizenship (e.g., Taylor mistreatment research et al., 2012), decreased task performance Illustrated by the brief previous overview, it is (Porath & Erez, 2007), and increased absen- quite clear (to us) that temporal issues are an teeism (Sliter, Sliter, & Jex, 2011). integral aspect of all four mistreatment con- cepts. Such an observation mirrors the organi- zational psychology literature as a whole. It is Social undermining widely acknowledged, for example, that time is The social undermining construct was brought a critical component of most any topic dis- into the work domain by Duffy et al. (2002), cussed in organizational psychology and related though they acknowledge that the term ‘‘social management disciplines (e.g., Ancona et al., undermining’’ was first introduced by Vinokur 2001; Bluedorn, 2002; George & Jones, 2000; and van Ryn (1993). According to Duffy et al. McGrath & Kelly, 1986; Shipp & Fried, 2014; (2002), social undermining is best characterized Sonnentag, 2012). This is because we—as as ‘‘behavior intended to hinder, over time, organizational scientists—cannot fully under- [emphasis added] the ability to establish and stand why individuals behave as they do with- maintain positive interpersonal relationships, out considering the temporal context in which work-related success, and favorable reputa- they are embedded (Lewin, 1943; Murray, tion’’ (p. 332). Once again, the passage of time 1938). Seeing value in the adoption of this plays a pivotal role in delineating this phe- perspective, Ancona et al. (2001) were among nomenon’s episodic qualities. For example, the first to call for the use of a ‘‘temporal lens’’ undermining behaviors are assumed to ‘‘weaken when studying human behavior in the work its target gradually or by degrees’’ (Duffy, domain. According to these scholars, time ‘‘has Scott, Shaw, Tepper, & Aquino, 2012, p. 643) always been at the foundation of organization but only to the extent one’s efforts are under- theory’’ but it has only recently moved ‘‘from the mined on a recurring basis (Duffy et al., 2002). background to the foreground’’ (p. 512). Moreover, the consequences associated with We therefore draw from the work of Ancona successive undermining episodes are believed et al. (2001), among others (e.g., Fried & to be subtle but insidious because their effects Slowik, 2004; Roe, 2008; Shipp & Fried, 2014), on targets can add up over time. In this to frame our discussion of time-relevant issues

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 Cole et al. 277

Table 1. Temporal review of interpersonal mistreatment research.

k A-temporal Objective time Subjective time

Abusive supervision 124 120 (97%) 3 (2%) 1 (1%) Bullying 79 78 (99%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) Incivility 50 42 (84%) 5 (10%) 3 (6%) Undermining 13 13 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Total 266 253 (95%) 9 (3%) 4 (2%)

Note. k ¼ number of studies. as they pertain to mistreatment research. In sense of the present situation. Perhaps more doing so, we begin by introducing the two interestingly, the target’s present-day response predominant conceptualizations of time. The is shaped not only by remembered past experi- first refers to objective time, most commonly ences (as contrasted to current levels), but also represented by the passage of ‘‘clock time.’’ by his or her anticipated interactions with the Triggered from the physical universe (e.g., the alleged perpetrator. daily rising and setting of the sun), objective time implies that workplace events flow in an irreversible sequence from past to present to Current state of the existing literature future. Objective time is measured as linear, quantifiable units (e.g., each passing minute is Using these temporal conceptualizations as a the same as any other minute in time), which backdrop, we examined existing studies and leads to the passage of time as an absolute determined the extent to which prior research across all individuals and situations (Ancona on abusive supervision, bullying, incivility, and et al., 2001; Shipp & Fried, 2014). When undermining has accounted for time when incorporated into a study on interpersonal mis- testing theoretical predictions.2 For instance, a treatment, the ‘‘passage of time’’ is typically not study exploring the relationship between abusive the study’s primary focus but rather provides the supervision and subordinate job performance context needed to capture the inherent dyna- might use an experience sampling method to mism in a mistreatment construct or its effects. repeatedly assess both variables for an extended The second conceptualization refers to time period of time (e.g., over a period of days or as a subjective experience based on psy- weeks). Such a study would be considered as chological and sociological constructions (e.g., having adopted a temporal lens because it uses Rousseau & Fried, 2001; Shipp & Jansen, 2011). the objective passage of clock time as the That is, individuals are assumed to interpret medium through which dynamic relationships workplace events based on normative experi- are explored. In a similar vein, a study also ence (Fried & Slowik, 2004). Individuals’ ret- could be classified as temporal to the extent that rospections and anticipations provide a context it considers a target’s current mistreatment for their current experience, meaning that sub- perceptions as well as recollected past mis- jective time is not necessarily linear or quanti- treatment experiences or anticipations regard- fiable, but instead interpretive and malleable ing future incidents (i.e., a subjective time lens). (Shipp & Fried, 2014). When placed into the Our search of the four mistreatment constructs context of the mistreatment literature, a sub- yielded 545 samples (heretofore referred to as jective view of time assumes that a target of ‘‘studies’’) from 465 articles. Of these, 266 mistreatment will mentally ‘‘time travel’’ to studies met our inclusion criteria.3 Table 1 recall his or her past experiences when making summarizes our classification results.

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 278 Organizational Psychology Review 6(3)

Our review indicates that the mistreatment somewhat addressed subjective time. In three of literature has yet to adopt a temporal lens, with these studies (i.e., Cortina & Magley, 2009, 253 of the 266 studies (95%) neglecting both Studies 1, 2, and 3), the employee participants objective and subjective elements of time. We were asked to recall a particular mistreatment also noted that 190 of the 253 studies tested incident (i.e., retrospective mistreatment) to their hypotheses using a cross-sectional research assist them in narrowinginonpastreactionsto design whereas 63 studies employed a time-lagged a specific situation. Only Greenbaum, Hill, research design, in which the mistreatment Mawritz, and Quade (2014, Study 3) examined construct and outcome variable(s) were assessed how the recollection of past mistreatment at different times. Although a time-lagged design influenced current reactions. Finally, we may help to alleviate common-method variance observed that these four studies focused only concerns, it is only capable of capturing between- on retrospected mistreatment and neglected the unit differences (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). potential impact of anticipatory mistreatment In other words, a time-lagged design is similar to a when asking employee participants to make cross-sectional design in that both place the mis- sense of their current situation. treatment variables and their outcomes in static In summary, a majority of the identified form (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010; Ployhart & studies on abusive supervision, bullying, work- Ward, 2011). place incivility, and social undermining employed Another interesting finding was that in over astaticresearchdesign.Consequently,itappears half (54%) of these studies (136 out of 253), the that these streams of research have largely authors were seemingly aware of the limitations failed to design and test conceptual schemes associated with their static research design in a manner consistent with the mistreatment given the repeated calls for future research to use constructs’ core definitions and assumptions. a truly longitudinal design. By ‘‘truly long- This finding was somewhat surprising to us itudinal,’’ we mean that the focal mistreatment given that these well-known and widely used construct and study outcomes are both measured mistreatment constructs are innately relational repeatedly for three or more time periods (Chan, and dynamic (e.g., Hershcovis & Reich, 2013). 1998; Ployhart & Ward, 2011). Further, 22% of The lack of empirical evidence for the dynamics the time-lagged studies (14 out of 63) incorrectly of mistreatment over time is not just surpris- stated that they had used a ‘‘longitudinal’’ ing, it also carries with it severe implications. design. With very few exceptions, then, when Within the broader organizational psychology researchers have examined the consequences of literature, scholars have strongly criticized interpersonal mistreatment at work, they primarily static research because most (if not all) orga- have done so in a manner that can be classified as nizational theories and the constructs used to a-temporal. test them are fundamentally dynamic (e.g., Of the remaining 13 studies that did account Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). Consequences for temporal factors, nine studies (3% of 266) associated with putting dynamic phenomena examined dynamic longitudinal relationships and their associations in static form include (Beattie & Griffin, 2014a, 2014b; Meier & ambiguous tests of theory, biased parameter Spector, 2013; Taylor, Bedeian, Cole, & Zhang, estimates, and quite possibly erroneous infer- 2014; Thau & Mitchell, 2010, Study 3; Tuckey ences made by the researchers (George & & Neall, 2014; A. R. Wheeler, Halbesleben, & Jones, 2000; Maxwell & Cole, 2007; Pitariu Whitman, 2013; Whitman, Halbesleben, & & Ployhart, 2010). For example, it has been Holmes, 2014; Zhou, Yan, Che, & Meier, 2014) shown that findings from a static study can through an objective time lens. We also iden- reverse in sign or disappear altogether when tified four studies (2% of 266) that we felt tested in a dynamic manner that is consistent with

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 Cole et al. 279 underlying theory (see, e.g., Vancouver, Tama- that nearly one quarter of these time-lagged nini, & Yoder, 2010; Vancouver, Thompson, & studies wrongly stated that they had used a Williams, 2001). Given the real possibility of longitudinal design. The top half of Table 2 inaccurate conclusions when mistreatment shows a few descriptive statistics for the vari- variables and their outcomes are relegated to a ous time lags used by mistreatment researchers. static form, the all-too-common practice of An inspection of this information suggests recommending a longitudinal research design considerable differences within and across the as ‘‘the next researcher’s responsibility’’ should mistreatment constructs (e.g., time lags ranged come to an end. Mistreatment scholars must from 10 days to 14 months), and we noted that begin to account for the role of time (e.g., the identified studies rarely justified their time George & Jones, 2000; Mitchell & James, lag choices. As will be discussed in a later 2001) and incorporate longitudinal research section, different time lags can yield sub- designs (e.g., Chan, 2014; McArdle, 2009) stantively different effect sizes even when the into their work. The need for longitudinal same mistreatment–outcome relationships are mistreatment research has been consistently under study. acknowledged (e.g., Hershcovis, 2011; Mar- We also observed that a-temporal studies, as tinko et al., 2013; Tepper, 2007), but it appears part of their research design, oftentimes asked that very few scholars have heeded these calls. individual respondents to summarize their This observation begs the question of why exposure to the negative acts over some specific more mistreatment researchers have not wel- period of time (e.g., ‘‘think back over the past comed a temporal lens with open arms. year, how often have you experienced ...’’) and correlate these summary judgments with Methodological challenges focal outcome variables. As shown in the bot- tom half of Table 2, there is considerable var- and misunderstandings iation in the use of recall instructions within and We attribute the current state of affairs (at least across the mistreatment constructs. For exam- partly) to methodological challenges and the ple, researchers interested in studying incivility fact that the term ‘‘longitudinal’’ is frequently typically (79% of the studies) asked participants misunderstood. According to Ployhart and to report on experienced incivility over a spe- Ward (2011), for example, the term long- cific period of time; the most frequently used itudinal ‘‘gets tossed about so much that it is recall timeframe was 1 year, although six confusing to know what is a longitudinal study’’ studies requested participants to summarize (p. 14). Following Chan (1998) and Ployhart their incivility experiences over a period of and his colleagues (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 5 years (M ¼ 540 days; SD ¼ 613 days). About 2010; Ployhart & Ward, 2011), we submit that a one quarter of bullying and social undermining study is considered longitudinal when it (a) studies explicitly reported use of a temporal emphasizes construct change and (b) contains a scale (i.e., timeframe under consideration), with minimum of three repeated observations. This bullying scholars occasionally asking partici- means that a study measuring the mistreatment pants to think back as far as 5 years into the past variable at Time 1 and the criterion variable at and social undermining scholars using recall Time 2 does not constitute a longitudinal study. instructions ranging from 1 week to 1 month. In We identified a number of time-lagged studies contrast, there was simply not enough infor- that separated the timing of such measurements. mation reported in most of the abusive super- Although the use of time lags is better than a vision studies (97%) to determine if recall cross-sectional design (i.e., it helps deal with instructions were used and what the temporal common method concerns), our analysis found scale for asking about past experiences might

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 Table 2. Research design issues of a-temporal studies by interpersonal mistreatment construct. Downloaded from Study characteristic Abusive supervision Bullying Incivility Social undermining

Time lag: opr.sagepub.com No lag used 68% (81 of 120 studies) 90% (70 of 78 studies) 76% (32 of 42 studies) 54% (7 of 13 studies) Yes, lag used 32% (39 of 120 studies) 10% (8 of 78 studies) 24% (10 of 42 studies) 46% (6 of 13 studies) M 3 months 342 days 88 days 246 days SD 3 months 158 days 67 days 165 days atTEXASCHRISTIAN UNIVonJuly15, 2016 280 Min 10 days 6 months 14 days 1 month Max 1 year 2 years 6 months 14 months

Temporal scale of recall instructions: Not reported 97% (17 of 20 studies) 77% (60 of 78 studies) 21% (9 of 42 studies) 77% (10 of 13 studies) Yes, recall instructions were reported 3% (3 of 120 studies) 23% (18 of 78 studies) 79% (33 of 42 studies) 23% (3 of 13 studies) M 250 days 244 days 540 days 22 days SD 191 days 218 days 613 days 13 days Min 1 month 1 month 14 days 7 days Max 1 year 5 years 5 years 1 month Cole et al. 281 have been. We also observed (though not pre- Finally, we identified very few studies that sented in our tables) considerable variation in attempted to understand the mistreatment phe- the design choices (e.g., temporal scale, overall nomena through a subjective account of time. study span) made by mistreatment researchers Although this finding is consistent with Shipp when developing longitudinal studies (details and Cole’s (2015) review of the micro literature available from the authors). To illustrate, con- as a whole, we took note of a few important sider two recent objective time studies on issues that pertain to the mistreatment literature workplace incivility (i.e., Meier & Spector, specifically. For instance, while coding the 2013; Zhou et al., 2014). We find it interesting mistreatment studies, we noticed that a study’s that both of these repeated-measures studies instructions quite often requested participants focused on the consequences associated with to ‘‘think back’’ or recollect past instances of incivility change and even used the same inci- mistreatment. Yet, these studies were not vility instrument, and yet they differ in the slice focusing on retrospected mistreatment as a the- of time under consideration: a day versus a oretically meaningful construct. Instead, when month. Such differences are important because, researchers asked participants to recollect past although the two research teams were interested mistreatment experiences for a specific period of in understanding the same phenomenon, the time, they did so as a means to capture sufficient experience of (and responses to) such behavior instances of transient mistreatment (i.e., a form will certainly have a different meaning when of summary evaluation). It seems that the use of considered daily for 10 days versus monthly for this type of retrospective recall blurs the lines 5 months (interested readers should consult between current and retrospected mistreatment. Zaheer, Albert, & Zaheer, 1999, for a detailed For this reason, we did not code these studies as discussion on time scales). adopting a subjective lens. We maintain that these relatively subtle design differences can have important theoretical and practical implications, including confused read- Accounting for time when ers and the potential for different conclusions exploring interpersonal based on study results. When deciding what temporal scale is most appropriate, we encourage workplace mistreatment researchers to do their homework. One’s theore- From our review of the literature, it is safe to tical justification for a specific temporal scale say that a vast majority of theory testing in the could, for example, be supplemented with mistreatment literature (i.e., abusive super- empirical evidence from prior longitudinal stud- vision, bullying, incivility, and social under- ies that employed the same mistreatment mea- mining) still uses a cross-sectional design, sure. Moreover, when discussing how a study’s wherein a researcher’s inferences are based on results connect with the existing literature, associations between two or more static vari- researchers may wish to incorporate a discussion ables. In this section, we discuss how incor- on how their design decisions could have porating one or more temporal lenses promises impacted the generalizability of findings. For to open new doors for empirical research on example, Taylor et al. (2014) clarified how their workplace mistreatment. We begin by elabor- dynamic mediation model—although receiving ating on the types of theoretical insights that empirical support when based on repeated mea- might emerge when an objective temporal lens sures data assessed weekly—may not be con- is adopted. We then explore areas in which a ceptually fitting for a study focusing on how subjective temporal lens is likely to have the targets react to incivility incidents as they happen largest impact on mistreatment research. In moment by moment. doing so, we integrate several perspectives on

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 Table 3. How to apply a temporal lens to mistreatment research.

Checklist item Reasons for importance Key considerations for implementation References

1. So, I am interested in conducting a longitudinal field study on one of the mistreatment constructs covered in this review and I plan to adopt an objective temporal lens. Now what? Identify the study’s A longitudinal research design does not, by Value added: Are you most interested in Chan (1998); Ployhart & core purpose default, make for a novel theoretical descriptive longitudinal research (i.e., Vandenberg (2010) contribution. What is it that you want to fundamental dynamics of the mistreatment accomplish? construct) or explanatory longitudinal Downloaded from How will your study on mistreatment research (i.e., investigating dynamic contribute to the literature and/or change the relationships between a mistreatment conversation? construct and outcomes)? 2a. I want to conduct a descriptive longitudinal study to explore when and how the mistreatment construct changes opr.sagepub.com over objective time. What’s next?

Conceptualize (and Hypothesizing the form of change (e.g., linear Onset, duration, offset: When does Monge (1990); Pitariu &

atTEXASCHRISTIAN UNIVonJuly15, 2016 graph) the predicted vs. nonlinear) is essential for making mistreatment begin, how long does it last, and Ployhart (2010); 282 form of change predictions that are falsifiable. when does it end? Ployhart & Vandenberg Providing a figure to illustrate the Trajectory: What is the shape and trend of (2010); Roe (2008) hypothesized form of change will help by mistreatment over time? Will there be no graphically depicting the predicted change change, or will the change increase (upwardly trend. positive) or decrease (downwardly negative)? Developing a theory for mistreatment change Could mistreatment change exponentially? will also inform research design issues; for Should it plateau with time, or exhibit multiple example, if interest is in the growth of abusive upturns or downturns over time? supervision perceptions, a researcher may Cycles and rhythms: Could mistreatment wish to sample only recently hired employees reoccur over time in a predictable way? Is as opposed to employees with varying levels there a reason to expect mistreatment to of tenure with a supervisor. spiral in an increasing or decreasing manner over time? Decide on a data The number of repeated measurements and Incident reporting: Is the exposure to Fisher & To (2012); Ployhart collection schedule the spacing between measurements (i.e., time mistreatment triggered by a specific event or & Vandenberg (2010); interval) will impact the study’s ability to does it routinely reoccur? Zaheer et al. (1999) detect and model meaningful forms of change. How often and for how long: Include a sufficient number of measurements to appropriately (continued) Table 3. (continued)

Checklist item Reasons for importance Key considerations for implementation References

model the hypothesized form of change (e.g., nonlinear change requires more measurements). Practicality: Given pros and cons of the various sampling approaches, which alternative is most likely to produce valid inferences Downloaded from without overburdening participants? 2b. Although the descriptive approach sounds interesting, I’m more interested in developing an explanatory longitudinal study to explore dynamic relationships between mistreatment experiences and targets’ responses over objective time. What’s next? opr.sagepub.com

Examine the functional Predict whether there should be change over Disclaimer: Just because data are collected Grimm et al. (2012) form of each time in each focal variable. repeatedly over time does not guarantee that

atTEXASCHRISTIAN UNIVonJuly15, 2016 dynamic construct variables will exhibit variability over time.

283 Types of change: Change in each variable can be constant or proportional (i.e., relative to its previous level). Conceptualize the Focus on theorizing why a change in Time: When will the relationship exist (e.g., Grimm et al. (2012); dynamic mistreatment will lead to a change in another within a day, from yesterday to today, week to Monge (1990); Pitariu & relationship(s) substantive variable. week, and so on)? Ployhart (2010) Duration: How long should the dynamic relationship exist? Shape: Will the dynamic relationship steadily increase (or decrease) over time? Or perhaps it will accelerate, decelerate, or even plateau? Hypotheses: Do the formal hypotheses precisely describe the dynamic relationship? Level of analysis Longitudinal data are hierarchical, with Single-level model: A within-person approach Singer & Willett (2003) repeated measures nested within participants. acknowledges that individuals may perceive Therefore, the level of change of interest they are mistreated more on some occasions needs to be clearly specified. and less on others, and that their attitudes and behaviors may change accordingly. (continued) Table 3. (continued)

Checklist item Reasons for importance Key considerations for implementation References

Multilevel model: A multilevel approach examines the extent to which between- person differences (e.g., in personality or other characteristics) affect within-person changes in mistreatment and/or its dynamic effects.

Downloaded from Decide on a data Number and spacing of repeated measures How often and for how long: The measurement Bolger, Stadler, & collection schedule must be given careful consideration. occasions should occur with enough Laurenceau (2012); The number of repeated measurements and frequency to be capable of detecting the form Monge (1990); Ployhart the spacing between measurements (i.e., time of change expected, and the overall study span & Ward (2011); Roe opr.sagepub.com interval) has implications for detecting within- needs to cover a reasonable duration of time. (2008); Zaheer et al. construct change, and the spacing between These decisions should be informed by (1999) measurements of the different variables (i.e., theoretical and practical considerations. time lag) has implications for the dynamic Justify decisions: Describe why you measured atTEXASCHRISTIAN UNIVonJuly15, 2016 284 relationships between the mistreatment the variables at the selected intervals, and how construct and dynamic outcomes. this decision provides a good test of the theory and hypotheses. Statistical power: Consider power at all relevant levels. Participants need to report a sufficient number of repeated mistreatment incidents to provide the power to test hypotheses at the analysis level of interest. For a multilevel model, also plan for the number of participants needed. Practicality: Given pros and cons of the various sampling approaches, which alternative is the most likely to produce valid inferences without overburdening participants (e.g., attrition not at random)? (continued) Table 3. (continued)

Checklist item Reasons for importance Key considerations for implementation References

Introduce time lags The repeated measurement of multiple Cause and effect: The time lag needs to fit the Chan (2014); Mitchell & constructs over time may produce common theory believed to underlie the dynamic James (2001); Zaheer source bias within a measurement occasion. relationship. After mistreatment occurs, how et al. (1999) Incorporating an appropriate time lag long until the target is most likely to respond? addresses many issues regarding causality. 2c. Actually, the notion of subjective time strikes me as very interesting. How should I go about designing a study of Downloaded from one of the mistreatment constructs covered in this review with a subjective temporal lens? Where do I start? What are the key issues I need to consider?

Consider retrospected Subjective time is cyclical and interpretive. Temporal influence: Retrospected Albert (1977); Markman & opr.sagepub.com and/or anticipated People mentally ‘‘time travel’’ among the past, mistreatment and/or anticipated McMullen (2003); Shipp mistreatment present, and future, so considering mistreatment could directly impact & Jansen (2011) mistreatment in the current moment isn’t individuals’ responses to mistreatment (above

atTEXASCHRISTIAN UNIVonJuly15, 2016 enough to understand current reactions. and beyond current incidents) or alter the

285 relationships between current mistreatment and current outcomes. Temporal comparison: The evaluation of current mistreatment in the context of retrospected or anticipated mistreatment could influence an individual’s current reactions. Determine if time Subjective time is heterogeneous so Temporal perception: The interpretation of the McGrath & Rotchford perception is individuals interpret and psychologically perceived passage of time during (1983) relevant experience it in different ways. mistreatment (e.g., quickly, slowly) could Perception of time duration varies depending affect what individuals do as a result. upon what is happening (e.g., 1 day of mistreatment may ‘‘feel’’ longer than 1 day of being treated well, and people may act accordingly). Incorporate temporal Individuals have different ways of thinking Temporal focus: The degree to which a person Bluedorn (2002); Shipp & individual about time. thinks about or focuses on the past, present, Cole (2015); Shipp et al. differences (2009) (continued) Table 3. (continued)

Checklist item Reasons for importance Key considerations for implementation References

The same current situation may be or future likely impacts reactions to current interpreted differently by different people, mistreatment. suggesting that how one characteristically Temporal depth: How far into the past or thinks about time may affect their reactions to future a person typically thinks, and how long mistreatment. they hold onto past or future mistreatment perceptions, likely influence their reactions to

Downloaded from retrospected, current, and anticipated mistreatment. 3. What if I want to do it all and take a completely temporal view? Beyond the issues noted before, what else will I need to consider? opr.sagepub.com Grasp the complexity Neither objective nor subjective time exists in Relative importance: Objective time and Shipp & Cole (2015) of adopting two a vacuum; both operate concurrently. subjective time may exert different influences temporal lenses A completely temporal view is the most rich on the way current mistreatment is perceived atTEXASCHRISTIAN UNIVonJuly15, 2016 286 and realistic. and impacts outcomes. For instance, some past incidents may linger in an individual’s mind and continue to influence the way he or she reacts to present mistreatment. Nested lenses: Mistreatment experienced over objective time may shape an individual’s conceptions of subjective time. For example, a longer duration or more frequent cycle of mistreatment could trigger an individual to reflect on past mistreatment or to forecast about the potential for future mistreatment. Develop expertise: Conceiving, designing, and successfully publishing a completely temporal mistreatment study will involve an array of theoretical and methodological challenges, including the task of integrating two already complex frameworks. (continued) Table 3. (continued)

Checklist item Reasons for importance Key considerations for implementation References

4. Are there additional issues that I need to be aware of?

Longitudinal research Incorporating a temporal lens can be Resource expenditures: In addition to the time Bolger et al. (2003); Shipp is risky and takes challenging; doing so will require a researcher and effort required to conceive and design a & Cole (2015) time to account for temporal factors in theory longitudinal study, these studies can be costly development, research design, and data in terms of human resources expended to Downloaded from analysis. complete surveys repeatedly or the cost of purchasing data from online data panels (e.g., mTurk, Qualtrics). Risk tolerance: Have a realistic understanding of opr.sagepub.com the challenges associated with longitudinal field research. Be patient: Don’t rush temporal studies of

atTEXASCHRISTIAN UNIVonJuly15, 2016 mistreatment either in conceptual

287 development or in study design. Data analysis There are many different ways to analyze Theory drives the approach: Make sure you Aguinis & Vandenberg longitudinal data. understand what your theoretical research (2014); Chan (2014) Decisions about statistical approaches should question is, and how your study design and occur BEFORE data collection. ‘‘An ounce of data analysis will answer this question. prevention is worth a pound of cure.’’ Recruitment and It can be difficult to find participants willing to Orientation: When possible, hold an initial Bolger et al. (2003); Fisher training of complete surveys multiple times per day (or orientation meeting to explain study & To (2012) participants week) and over extended periods of time procedures, and answer participants’ (months, years). questions. Incentives: Consider offering monetary incentives and linking them to each individual’s participation rate. Nonfinancial incentives like personalized feedback reports are also helpful. Reminders: Remind participants to respond throughout the study period. Notifications (emails, text messages, etc.) and feedback on response rates can boost responding. (continued) Downloaded from

Table 3. (continued)

opr.sagepub.com Checklist item Reasons for importance Key considerations for implementation References

Participant attrition Attrition will happen; it is not uncommon for Systematic nonresponse: It is important to try Graham, Hofer, & the response rate to drop by 50% or more and ascertain why attrition is occurring, as the MacKinnon (1996);

atTEXASCHRISTIAN UNIVonJuly15, 2016 between the first and last measurement existence of systemic missingness (i.e., missing Goodman & Blum 288 occurrence. not at random) may indicate bias in the results. (1996); Ployhart & Sample size and statistical power: Determine Ward (2011) the necessary sample size at the final measurement point, and then work backwards to determine the sample size needed at the first measurement occasion. Plan for missing data: Consider using a sampling design that incorporates planned missingness into the longitudinal design. Cole et al. 289 time (e.g., Mitchell & James, 2001; Monge, existing work from which researchers can draw 1990; Pitariu & Ployhart, 2010; Ployhart & when describing why and under what circum- Vandenberg, 2010; Roe, 2008) and highlight stances their mistreatment construct is expected key issues that should assist mistreatment to change (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999; researchers wishing to design a truly temporal Aquino & Lamertz, 2004; Chan & McAllister, research study. Table 3 summarizes these issues. 2014; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2008; Pear- son, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). New conceptual insights To illustrate the potential value in a descriptive approach, we take a closer look at with an objective time lens Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision construct. When applying an objective time lens to a study Recall that abusive supervision refers to the on workplace mistreatment, the notion of time sustained display of hostile verbal and non- reflects a convenient and meaningful metric for verbal behaviors as perceived by subordinates. representing and investigating how a mistreat- One should thus expect that the experience of ment construct changes over time (e.g., Singer & supervisory abuse will continue for an extended Willett, 2003). Put another way, the mistreatment period without interruption (i.e., remain rela- construct does not change, evolve, or develop tively stable over time). Nevertheless, this because of time but, rather, it does so over the formative assumption is in reality an empiri- passage of clock-time (Chan, 2014; Ployhart & cal question that has, to our knowledge, yet to Vandenberg, 2010). With this temporal perspec- be evaluated or tested. Through a descriptive tive in mind, it follows that there are two long- longitudinal study, an abusive supervision itudinal approaches available to researchers. scholar could easily examine the underlying pattern of abusive supervision to determine Descriptive longitudinal research. In descriptive when it starts and stops; whether it is stable longitudinal research (Chan, 1998; Ployhart & over time (i.e., a relatively flat horizontal line) Vandenberg, 2010), the researcher is funda- or exhibiting a trend that is either increasing mentally interested in the basic dynamics of or decreasing (i.e., linear change); whether the the focal mistreatment construct; that is, the abuse is increasing or decreasing relative to a form of within-construct change (e.g., linear prior level (i.e., nonlinear change); as well as vs. nonlinear) over time. Thus, a descriptive whether it is a cyclical pattern (e.g., in terms perspective shifts from viewing mistreatment of days, weeks, or months). For example, as static and fixed to a more dynamic view of Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert (2006) ‘‘mistreating’’ that could start, stop, change in suggest employees’ experience of abusive magnitude, or repeatedly recur as an episodic supervision might be cyclical if their boss is event (Chan, 1998; George & Jones, 2000; particularly abusive after receiving an unsa- Monge, 1990; Roe, 2008). When developing a tisfying annual performance appraisal, a pro- rationale to explain the change in mistreat- cess often perceived as unfair (Greenberg, ment, key considerations include the onset, 1986). Moreover, if the observed change is duration, and offset of the focal phenomenon, nonlinear, it would be of theoretical interest to the trajectory of mistreatment (i.e., shape, know if there is a plateauing effect or a trend, rate of change such as acceleration or breaking point at which the within-construct deceleration), and whether cycles or rhythms change suddenly changes direction (cf. Lang might be expected over time. Indeed, we & Bliese, 2009; Ployhart & Vandenberg, acknowledge that conceptualizing the antici- 2010), such as when the abusive supervisor is pated change trend can be difficult. But we also given coaching with the threat of losing his or note that the mistreatment literature has some her job if behavioral changes are not made.

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 290 Organizational Psychology Review 6(3)

As this discussion illustrates, understanding constructs. These time lags are important for the underlying pattern or form of mistreatment causality, but care must be taken to ensure that change is critical because in longitudinal the lags are neither too short nor too long research, within-construct change is the focal (Zaheer et al., 1999). For instance, sometimes a variable of interest. Thus, we maintain that target’s reaction to mistreatment may occur mistreatment researchers need to understand almost instantaneously (e.g., when experien- the typical pattern of mistreatment before cing momentary feelings of anger), whereas examining its dynamic relationships with other other responses may only occur after an substantive constructs. extended period of time has passed (e.g., which might occur when minor experiences of inci- Explanatory longitudinal research. Recall that our vility accumulate and build up over time). review yielded nine mistreatment studies in Hence, the effect size of a dynamic relationship which all variables were measured repeatedly will vary as a function of the span of time that (at a minimum, for three observations) over passes between the dynamic predictor and time. This type of work is referred to as dynamic outcome (Gollob & Reichardt, 1987). ‘‘explanatory’’ longitudinal research (Chan, We take Taylor et al. (2014) as an example 1998; Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). Expla- that deals with these issues. In this article, the natory longitudinal research focuses on study- authors were interested in testing a dynamic ing ‘‘dynamic relationships’’ (Monge, 1990), model of incivility change, using six repeated that is, the effect of a dynamic input on a measurements for each construct in their med- dynamic outcome. By collecting three or more iation model. In doing so, they first needed to repeated measurements from the same indi- develop a theoretical argument to explain why viduals on all variables (e.g., predictor and and when incivility perceptions may change criterion), these studies were capable of inves- over time. Then they theorized why changes in tigating how a change in mistreatment predicts incivility would be related to changes in burn- other substantive variables (e.g., changes in job out the following week and, in turn, why attitudes or helping behavior). Moreover, changes in burnout would be related to subse- because these explanatory studies focused on quent turnover intention change the following testing dynamic relationships as prescribed by week. The authors then presented competing theory, they offer the mistreatment literature a arguments for the functional form of the more rigorous and informative test of theory dynamic mediated relationships, thus addres- (Mitchell & James, 2001). sing the question of whether the effects should According to temporal scholars, when exhibit a linear relationship over time or are hypothesizing and testing dynamic relation- subject to change (i.e., nonlinear change) over ships, there are a number of issues to consider time. As recommended by Ployhart and Van- including: time, duration, and shape (e.g., denberg (2010), they explicitly addressed the Chan, 1998; George & Jones, 2000; Monge, appropriate level of change. Finally, they studied 1990; Pitariu & Ployhart, 2010). These tem- how a number of previously identified metho- poral characteristics need to be articulated dological challenges unique to longitudinal when hypothesizing the nature of a dynamic research may have impacted the ability to detect relationship. This is because the more precise and model within-person construct change over the hypothesis, the more informative the sub- time, attempting to either tackle these issues sequent empirical test, thereby leading to a when designing their longitudinal field study or more advanced refinement of theory (Pitariu & providing a logical justification for decisions Ployhart, 2010). Other important issues involve within the article. Overall, they found that, the spacing of measurement between the beyond past and present levels of experienced

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 Cole et al. 291 incivility, the direction and magnitude of inci- because two individuals can experience the vility change can generate substantive changes same levels of mistreatment over the passage in burnout and, in turn, quit intentions. This of objective time but construe them differently, result implies that even when an employee’s prompting unique recollections of ‘‘past’’ current level of experienced incivility is rela- incidents as well as idiosyncratic forecasts tively low, he or she may still experience an about the possibility of future mistreatment. upward change in quit intentions (through an As we describe in more detail in what fol- upward change in burnout) if the current level of lows, these characteristics of subjective time mistreatment is judged to be more frequent than raise fundamental questions about how individ- that experienced in the time period just prior. uals shape their views of mistreatment. The fact In summary, pursuing both descriptive long- that subjective time is interpretive is particularly itudinal research and explanatory longitudinal relevant because mistreatment is commonly research reflects what we believe to be an characterized not as objective acts performed by important evolution for research on inter- a supervisor or a coworker, but as the victims’ personal workplace mistreatment. As other perceptions of these behaviors (e.g., Martinko streams of organizational psychology are et al., 2013; Pearson & Porath, 2005; Tepper, more frequently pursuing both descriptive 2000). As such, we believe new theoretical and explanatory research (Beal, 2012), we insights will be gained by using a subjective time presume that the mistreatment literature would lens. The various research questions that could do well by following suit. Nevertheless, though be asked fall into three categories: temporal both are important to consider, an objective influence and temporal comparison, time per- time lens is only one of the ways to extend ception, and temporal individual differences. mistreatment scholarship. Temporal influence and temporal comparison. New conceptual insights with a subjective Temporal influence and temporal comparison are mechanisms that describe the ways in which time lens retrospected and/or anticipated mistreatment Beyond new insights from considering mistreat- will influence a mistreatment study’s focal out- ment in objective time, mistreatment researchers comes. Temporal influence suggests that recol- can also use a subjective temporal lens. As lected past mistreatment and anticipated future noted earlier, unlike objective time, which is mistreatment can both have a direct impact on linear and quantifiable, subjective time is more the current outcome (cf. Shipp & Jansen, 2011). idiosyncratic. As such, subjective time can be This could occur when a recollected mistreat- characterized as cyclical, heterogeneous, and ment experience (e.g., past bullying) continues interpretive (Shipp & Fried, 2014). Subjective to negatively impact one’s current state of well- time is cyclical because individuals can ‘‘time being, even though the situation may have travel’’ (M. A. Wheeler, Stuss, & Tulving, changed for the better. As another example, if a 1997) to relive a mistreatment incident from noted abusive supervisor is being moved into an the past or to ‘‘prelive’’ mistreatment that is employee’s unit, the employee may foresee anticipated to occur in the future. It is het- mistreatment and contemplate quitting, or ask erogeneous in that an individual’s current for a transfer before the abusive supervisor even circumstances can cause time to be perceived arrives. As these examples demonstrate, given as passing by quickly or slowly, such as when that recollected and anticipatory mistreatment repeated exposure to a cantankerous coworker are distinct from mistreatment experienced in the seems to cause the workday to drag on and present, all three mistreatment perceptions could on. Finally, subjective time is interpretive, differentially impact a target’s job attitudes, quit

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 292 Organizational Psychology Review 6(3) intentions, and retaliation behaviors in the pres- Individual temporal differences. Although there ent moment. are a number of individual differences related to Whereas temporal influence suggests that time (see Shipp & Cole, 2015, for a review), we retrospected and anticipated mistreatment can believe two constructs specifically relate to directly influence outcomes in the present (i.e., subjective time as discussed herein. Temporal main effects), temporal comparison implies focus describes individuals’ characteristic ten- moderating effects in which the relationship dency to think about the past, present, and/or between current perceived mistreatment and the future periods of their lives (Shipp, Edwards, & focal outcome are contingent on retrospected Lambert, 2009). For example, individuals who or anticipated levels of mistreatment. That is, are past focused are more likely to relive when an individual engages in temporal com- memories as compared to individuals low in parison, he or she will compare current mis- past focus, who may think little about previous treatment perceptions to those in the past or experiences. This implies that past or future future. This means that the current level of focused individuals may be presently impacted perceived mistreatment is only understood in to a greater extent by retrospected or antici- the context of past mistreatment and/or antici- pated mistreatment, with these additional time pated future mistreatment. Thus, a mistreatment periods impacting current outcomes (cf. Shipp incident experienced in the present could be et al., 2009). The second individual difference interpreted quite differently depending upon what is temporal depth, defined as the typical dis- mistreatment the individual has experienced in the tance to the past or future that an individual past or expects to experience in the future. For considers relevant (Bluedorn, 2002). Given that example, an individual whose prior workplace a greater temporal distance makes events more was characterized by high levels of incivility may abstract as opposed to concrete, individuals be more tolerant of low to moderate levels of tend to find more distant events less relevant for incivility in his current workplace, reacting less the current moment (Trope & Liberman, 2003). strongly than others because the current situation On the other hand, individuals with long tem- is not as bad by comparison. poral depths may be more likely to consider mistreatment incidents in the distant future and, thus, make decisions in the present that indi- Time perception. Because a subjective lens viduals with shorter temporal depths have yet to assumes that the experience of clock time is even consider. bound by an individual’s interpretation of it, To illustrate how temporal individual dif- individuals may perceive that time is passing ferences could be incorporated into a mistreat- slowly or quickly depending upon their current ment study, we use an example from social experience. For example, when an individual undermining (e.g., Duffy et al., 2002). feels pain or lack of stimulation, time may seem According to Duffy et al. (2002), undermining to drag on; yet the experience of pleasure, flow, behaviors occur in a recurrent fashion over or lots of activity causes time to pass rather time. This means that the effect of undermining quickly (e.g., Ariely, 1998; Conti, 2001; Csiks- behaviors will possibly accumulate (i.e., linger) zentmihalyi, 1990; Janssen, Naka, & Friedman, and remain relevant to an individual’s current 2013; McGrath & Rotchford, 1983). In terms of reactions. On this basis, it seems reasonable to mistreatment, this implies that the ‘‘pain’’ of predict that individuals with a strong past being mistreated may cause an individual’s temporal focus will not only dwell on previous workday or work week to pass by more slowly, incidents, but also become increasingly reactive perhaps increasing the individual’s desire to find to each subsequent undermining episode. Alter- a job elsewhere. natively, individuals with a strong future

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 Cole et al. 293 temporal focus are prone to anticipating under- focus on just objective time or just subjective mining experiences that have yet to occur and time to enthusiastically take on the challenge of this tendency may prompt them to be more a ‘‘completely temporal’’ perspective (Shipp & sensitive to such behaviors in the present. Cole, 2015). A completely temporal study Moreover, to the extent an individual is pre- would, for example, examine change in mis- disposed to anticipating future undermining treatment over the course of both objective time occurrences (e.g., workplace paranoid cogni- and subjective time—that is, change that is tions; Chan & McAllister, 2014), he or she happening in clock time and in the minds of might actually behave in ways that incite individuals. Doing so has a number of theore- mistreatment in the present (i.e., a self- tical and methodological challenges (see, e.g., fulfilling prophecy). Though each proposition Shipp & Cole, 2015), including the task of seems equally plausible, we are not aware of integrating two already complex frameworks. any undermining research that has considered Nonetheless, the adoption of a completely the role of temporal individual differences (viz., temporal lens will unquestionably inform temporal focus or temporal depth) when explor- understanding of how and why workplace mis- ing undermining effects.4 treatment has such devastating consequences for To conclude, we believe that a subjective those experiencing it (as well as for their time lens offers the mistreatment literature an employing organizations). To further emphasize untapped perspective from which to develop the complexity of adopting a completely tem- new and unique research questions. In fact, we poral approach, we present the following incivi- contend that mistreatment perceptions assessed lity example. in the present may not be fully understood Consider two individuals who belong to the without accounting for the relative importance same work group (see Figure 1). As depicted, of an individual’s retrospections and projec- the sloping lines in Figure 1 represent contrasting tions of future mistreatment. At present, the hypothetical patterns of real-time measurements absence of such temporal predictors suggests of experienced incivility over five time peri- the possibility that meaningful effects are unac- ods (i.e., T2, T1, T0, Tþ1, Tþ2 along the counted unaccounted for. That is, at best, certain horizontal axis) for Individual 1 (I1) and Indi- effects are relegated to the error term when vidual 2 (I2), respectively. The point at which the predicting an individual’s current reactions to two lines intersect represents experienced inci- mistreatment, but at worst, the assumed effect of vility at the present moment in time (T0). In current undermining may actually be attributable addition, the shading around the two sloping lines to one or more incidents occurring in other depicts retrospected and anticipated incivility as periods of time. To paraphrase an anonymous presently perceived by these two individuals. The reviewer of this paper, it would seem that the shading further indicates that retrospections and mistreatment literature has missed an opportu- anticipations of incivility may be somewhat nity to explore how subjective conceptions of imperfectly linked to the actual past or the (soon- time might influence the way individuals react to to-be) actual future and are likely to become mistreatment both psychologically and fuzzier as temporal distance increases (cf. behaviorally. Shipp & Jansen, 2011). A key assumption of the subjective approach towards time is that New conceptual insights with a completely some mistreatment incidents are going to be more memorable than others and may even temporal perspective be exaggerated in the memories of those Ultimately, it is our hope that interpersonal affected, thereby allowing for the possibility mistreatment research will move beyond a of a single incident to have real implications

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 294 Organizational Psychology Review 6(3)

Upward incivility trajectory Downward incivility trajectory

5 I1 (High turnover intentions)

4

3

Workplace Incivility 2

1 I2 (Low turnover intentions)

T T T T T−2 −1 0 +1 +2

Recollected past Anticipated future

Figure 1. Completely temporal incivility example for two hypothetical individuals. Note. Following Shipp and Jansen (2011), shading indicates that retrospections and anticipations of incivility may be somewhat imperfectly linked to the actual past or the (soon-to-be) actual future and are likely to become fuzzier as temporal distance increases. that ripple into the future. Hence, a subjective moving backwards in time from the present, lens acknowledges that, irrespective of the Figure 1 indicates that I1 and I2 reported accuracy or validity of individuals’ perceptions experiencing different levels of mistreatment on which interpersonal mistreatment is based, and thus are likely to recall substantively dif- recollections of past mistreatment and expec- ferent experiences as well. At T2,for tations regarding future mistreatment can both instance, I1 experienced fewer incidents of be very real in their consequences. incivility as compared to I2. Now taking the At the present moment in time (T0), I1 and passage of time into account (i.e., moving I2 report identical levels of incivility (i.e., a from T2 to T1), Figure 1 suggests that I1 has rating of 3 on a 5-point scale running along the experienced an upward change in incivility; vertical axis). Note that a researcher focusing that is, relative to incivility levels reported at only on the present (a static perspective) would T2, the frequency of incivility experienced at view these individuals’ experiences as equiv- T1 has increased. In contrast, I2 has experi- alent and may expect each individual to be enced a downward change in incivility (i.e., equally inclined to consider quitting. Yet moving from T2 to T1). By the third time

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 Cole et al. 295

period (i.e., T2 to T0), I1’s experienced inci- which to examine interpersonal mistreatment. It vility has increased from 1 to 3, whereas I2’s seems reasonable to assume that individuals’ level of experienced incivility has decreased reactions to present-day mistreatment are likely from5to3. to be informed by their past histories of mis- Beyond the consideration of how these two treatment as well as their expectations regarding trajectories map onto objective time, a sub- the likelihood of being mistreated in the future. jective approach towards time suggests these To be sure, a completely temporal view best two individuals may also interpret their trajec- represents the reality of individuals’ mistreat- tories differently, perhaps even recrafting their ment experiences as they unfold over time. memories. For example, I1 may look back at past incidents she previously ignored (T2) but now understands that they were early signals of Additional relevant research issues an increasing level of incivility. As such, the historically low levels of incivility may become Whereas our purpose was to highlight various exaggerated in her mind as she presently makes types of temporal research questions that mis- sense of the upward changes in incivility she is treatment scholars could ask, we suspect that experiencing. In fact, moving forward into the interested researchers will confront additional future, I1 and I2 may likewise anticipate sub- issues when attempting to account for the role stantively different workplace experiences. As of time in their work. We identify what we I1 considers the anticipated future, she is likely believe are a few of the more salient issues or to forecast a progressively worsening situation, challenges, though we acknowledge that we with additional episodes of incivility looming have not exhausted the full range of possibilities. ahead. In contrast, I2’s downward incivility trajectory signals that his anticipated future will Time lags. Echoing Mitchell and James (2001), become increasingly better. Consequently, at we believe that when designing a longitudinal the present moment, I1 is not only more likely study, researchers will need to pay particular than I2 to be experiencing psychological dis- attention to the question of ‘‘when things hap- comfort, but also a greater desire to seek pen’’ (p. 530). In part, this is because a dynamic alternative employment opportunities. construct may refer to qualitatively different Though hypothetical, this final example phenomena when using a ‘‘short’’ versus a illustrates how two individuals’ turnover inten- ‘‘long’’ time lag between repeated measure- tions may vary even when their present levels of ments (Zaheer et al., 1999). It follows that dif- reported mistreatment are identical. This can be ferent time lags can yield substantively different explained by the fact that individuals’ mis- effect sizes even though the same dynamic treatment experiences (a) will objectively vary relationships are under study (Gollob & Reich- as they go about their daily lives at work but (b) ardt, 1987). Such issues pose real challenges not are also based on idiosyncratic experiences only for the design of longitudinal research but such that two individuals could differ in their also for theory development. To the extent pos- perceptions of the same experienced mistreat- sible, the time lag needs to fit the theory believed ment. For this within-person variation to be to underlie the focal phenomena. In this sense, accurately captured, real-time measurements mistreatment scholars may want to collectively collected repeatedly over (objective) time are identify some reasonable time lags so that they assumed necessary (e.g., Hershcovis & Reich, can have confidence that different studies are 2013). And yet, this illustration also demonstrates ‘‘comparing apples to apples.’’ Readers inter- how a subjective temporal lens is capable of ested to learn more about the implications of time providing a complementary perspective from lags may wish to consult Ancona et al. (2001),

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 296 Organizational Psychology Review 6(3)

Chan (2014), Mitchell and James (2001), Spector well-being outcomes. Although a small per- and Meier (2014), and Zaheer et al. (1999). centage of the entire body of work, these publi- cations are all very recent, with seven being Statistical approaches. Longitudinal (repeated published within the last 4 years and two others measures) data provide rich information for ‘‘in press.’’ We view this as a positive step exploring the effects of interpersonal workplace toward more fully incorporating temporal factors mistreatment. Fortunately, researchers have a into mistreatment research. number of statistical modeling approaches at Nevertheless, interval-contingent sampling their disposal. These statistical tools are capable produces repeated measures composed of of testing rather complex models involving mistreatment experiences aggregated over a change within persons, including lagged effects defined period of time (e.g., a day, week, or (e.g., last week’s abuse predicting this week’s month), yielding limited insight into how indi- stress), spillover effects from one context to viduals react to an incident ‘‘in the moment.’’ another (e.g., undermining at work predicting As additional objective time studies emerge, we conflict at home), and accumulated effects believe an event-contingent approach (i.e., (exposure to recurring incivility events on job participants initiate a survey each time a mis- burnout). These bivariate models can be easily treatment event occurs) may provide additional extended to multivariate longitudinal models insights into mistreatment phenomena insofar examining dynamic mediated (and frequently as it can examine the consequences of specific multilevel) relationships over time (Pitariu & events as they naturally unfold over time (e.g., Ployhart, 2010; Selig & Preacher, 2009). Hershcovis & Reich, 2013). For a detailed Because the statistical approaches used to test discussion on data collection schedules, includ- these sophisticated models have been exten- ing interval-contingent versus event-contingent sively reviewed elsewhere, we simply note that sampling, readers can consult Beal and Weiss some options are better suited for certain (2003); Bolger, Davis, and Rafaeli (2003); and research questions than others (see Ployhart & L. Wheeler and Reis (1991). Vandenberg, 2010, for a review). For a more advanced discussion of longitudinal data anal- ysis, including the logic and practice of mod- Conclusion eling within-construct variation and change, we Prompted by the inherently dynamic nature of refer interested readers to Ferrer and McArdle interpersonal workplace mistreatment, we set (2010); Grimm, An, McArdle, Zonderman, and out to determine the extent to which existing Resnick (2012); Little (2013); McArdle (2009); research on abusive supervision, bullying, and Singer and Willett (2003). incivility, and social undermining has accoun- ted for time. Taking each construct’s opera- Interval-contingent versus event-contingent sampling. tional definition as our starting point, we In coding studies for our review, we observed reviewed the body of empirical work associated that the nine longitudinal studies with an with each construct, examining whether the objective approach to time all employed an relationships between these four types of mis- interval-contingent sampling approach. This treatment and their consequences have been approach schedules the repeated measures by tested in ways that could shed light on the the clock at fixed time intervals. Of these, five temporal characteristics of mistreatment experi- were focused on the dynamic effects of incivi- ences. We found that all four mistreatment lity, three were focused on the dynamic effects constructs (and their proposed consequences) of abusive supervision, and one examined the have largely been cast as between-person phe- dynamic relationships between bullying and nomena (i.e., inherently stable) rather than the

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 Cole et al. 297 more accurate portrayal as within-person phe- narrative reviews on any of the four mistreatment nomena (i.e., inherently dynamic). Integrating constructs. Following previous reviews and meta- the mistreatment literature with prior work on analyses (e.g., Hershcovis, 2011; Hershcovis & Bar- temporal dynamics (e.g., Mitchell & James, ling, 2010), we used several variations of the follow- 2001; Shipp & Jansen, 2011), we conclude that ing keywords: abusive supervision, bullying, the adoption of a purely static or ‘‘snapshot’’ incivility, mistreatment, and undermining. approach toward interpersonal mistreatment 3. Because we focused on the downstream conse- masks considerable and meaningful fluctuations quences of interpersonal mistreatment at work, in the experience of, responses to, and conse- we excluded research in which the mistreatment quences of such behavior. All in all, our analysis construct was positioned as the study’s dependent intimates that contemporary mistreatment variable. We also excluded studies that were not research may be too simplistic and, thereby, work-related (e.g., school bullying) or were una- inadequate for understanding the dynamic vailable in English. Meta-analyses, experimental relationships between these negative acts and designs, qualitative studies, and narrative reviews important workplace outcomes. We hope our were likewise excluded. work encourages future mistreatment research to 4. Although we selected undermining as our exam- adopt a temporal lens and, thus, further advances ple here given its explicit description of accumu- our understanding of these unique, dynamic, and lated and recurring behavior, we believe our logic important workplace experiences. equally applies to the other forms of mistreatment covered in this review. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of inter- References est with respect to the research, authorship, and/or *A full list of all papers included in our review, as publication of this article. well as those which were ultimately excluded from analysis, is available from the authors upon Funding request. The author(s) received no financial support for Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014). An ounce the research, authorship, and/or publication of this of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving article. research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Orga- Notes nizational Behavior, 1, 569–595. 1. Although these example constructs have received Albert, S. (1977). Temporal comparison theory. Psy- a great deal of scholarly attention, we note that chological Review, 84, 485–503. there are other forms of mistreatment that fall Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & under the broad umbrella of interpersonal work- Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A new research lens. place mistreatment, including workplace aggres- Academy of Management Review, 26, 645–663. sion and victimization (e.g., Aquino & Thau, Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? 2009), workplace harassment (e.g., Bowling & The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Beehr, 2006), interpersonal deviance (Berry, Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471. Ones, & Sackett, 2007), and workplace ostracism Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model (Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008). of workplace victimization: Social roles and pat- 2. We used PsycInfo for our search. We also manually terns of victimization in dyadic relationships. reviewed abstracts of recent Academy of Manage- Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1023–1034. ment and Society for Industrial and Organizational Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimi- Psychology conferences (2013–2014) and examined zation: Aggression from the target’s perspective. the reference sections of existing meta-analyses and Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741.

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 298 Organizational Psychology Review 6(3)

Ariely, D. (1998). Combining experiences over time: Chan, D. (1998). The conceptualization and analysis The effects of duration, intensity changes and on- of change over time: An integrative approach line measurements on retrospective pain evalua- incorporating longitudinal means and covariance tions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, structures analysis (LMACS) and multiple indi- 11, 19–45. cator latent growth modeling (MLGM). Organi- Beal, D. J. (2012). Industrial/organizational psychol- zational Research Methods, 1, 421–483. ogy. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Hand- Chan, D. (2014). Time and methodological choices. book of research methods for studying daily life In A. J. Shipp & Y. Fried (Eds.), Time and work: (pp. 601–619). New York, NY: Guilford. How time impacts groups, organizations and Beal, D. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2003). Methods of eco- methodological choices (Vol. 2, pp. 146–176). logical momentary assessment in organizational London, UK: Psychology Press. research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, Chan, M. E., & McAllister, D. J. (2014). Abusive super- 440–464. vision through the lens of employee state paranoia. Beattie, L., & Griffin, B. (2014a). Accounting Academy of Management Review, 39, 44–66. for within-person differences in how people Conti, R. (2001). Time flies: Investigating the connec- respond to daily incivility at work. Journal of tion between intrinsic motivation and the experi- Occupational and Organizational Psychology, ence of time. Journal of Personality, 69,1–26. 87,625–644. Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and Beattie, L., & Griffin, B. (2014b). Day-level fluctua- profiles of response to incivility in the workplace. tions in stress and engagement in response to Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, workplace incivility: A diary study. Work & 272–288. Stress, 28, 124–142. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the work- Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, place: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupa- and their common correlates: A review and tional Health Psychology, 6, 64–80. meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology 92, 410–424. of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of Row. time: Temporal realities and experience. Stan- Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). ford, CA: Stanford University Press. Social undermining in the workplace. Academy Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. Review of Psychology, 54, 579–616. L., & Pagon, M. (2006). The social context of Bolger, N., Stadler, G., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2012). undermining behavior at work. Organizational Power analysis for intensive longitudinal studies. Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook 105–126. of research methods for studying daily life (pp. Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shaw, J. D., Tepper, B. J., 285–301). New York, NY: Guilford. & Aquino, K. (2012). A social context model of Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace envy and social undermining. Academy of Man- harassment from the victim’s perspective: A the- agement Journal, 55, 643–666. oretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bully- Applied Psychology, 91, 998–1012. ing at work. International Journal of Manpower, Bunk, J. A., & Magley, V. J. (2013). The role of 20, 16–27. appraisals and emotions in understanding experi- Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B. ences of workplace incivility. Journal of Occupa- (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and tional Health Psychology, 18, 87–105. their relationship to work environment quality:

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 Cole et al. 299

An exploratory study. European Work and Orga- multivariate latent difference score models. nizational Psychologist, 4, 381–401. Structural Equation Modeling, 19, 268–292. Ferrer, E., & McArdle, J. J. (2010). Longitudinal mod- Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). ‘‘Incivility, social under- eling of developmental changes in psychological mining, bullying ... oh my!’’: A call to reconcile research. Current Directions in Psychological Sci- constructs within workplace aggression research. ence, 19, 149–154. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J. W., & Lian, H. 499–519. (2008). The development and validation of the Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A Psychology, 93, 1348–1366. meta-analytic review of outcomes from different Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, sampling methodology in organizational beha- 31, 24–44. vior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, Hershcovis, M. S., & Reich, T. A. (2013). Integrating 865–877. workplace aggression research: Relational, con- Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. (2004). Enriching goal- textual, and method considerations. Journal of setting theory with time: An integrated approach. Organizational Behavior, 34, S26–S42. Academy of Management Review, 29, 404–422. Janssen, S. J., Naka, M., & Friedman, W. J. (2013). George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of Why does life appear to speed up as people get time in theory and theory building. Journal of older? Time & Society, 22, 274–290. Management, 26, 657–684. Lang, J. W., & Bliese, P. D. (2009). General mental Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking ability and two types of adaptation to unforeseen account of time lags in causal models. Child change: Applying discontinuous growth models Development, 58, 80–92. to the task-change paradigm. Journal of Applied Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. (1996). Assessing the Psychology, 94, 411–428. non-random sampling effects of subject attrition Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the ‘‘field at a given in longitudinal research. Journal of Management, time.’’ Psychological Review, 50, 292–310. 22, 627–652. Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation Graham, J. W., Hofer, S. M., & MacKinnon, D. P. modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press. (1996). Maximizing the usefulness of data Markman, K. D., & McMullen, M. N. (2003). A obtained with planned missing value patterns: reflection and evaluation model of comparative An application of maximum likelihood proce- thinking. Personality and Social Psychology dures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31, Review, 7, 244–267. 197–218. Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, Greenbaum, R. L., Hill, A., Mawritz, M. B., & J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision Quade, M. J. (2014). Employee Machiavellian- research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, ism to unethical behavior: The role of abusive 34, S120–S137. supervision as a trait activator. Journal of Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross- Management. Advance online publication. doi: sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psy- 10.1177/0149206314535434. chological Methods, 12, 23–44. Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fair- McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of ness of performance evaluations. Journal of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605. Grimm, K. J., An, Y., McArdle, J. J., Zonderman, A. McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. (1986). Time and B., & Resnick, S. M. (2012). Recent changes human interaction: Toward a social psychology leading to subsequent changes: Extensions of of time. New York, NY: Guilford.

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 300 Organizational Psychology Review 6(3)

McGrath, J. E., & Rotchford, N. L. (1983). Time and (CWB):The moderating role of negative affectivity. behavior in organizations. Research in Organiza- Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 777–796. tional Behavior, 5, 57–101. Pitariu, A. H., & Ployhart, R. E. (2010). Explaining Meier, L. L., & Spector, P. E. (2013). Reciprocal change: Theorizing and testing dynamic mediated effects of work stressors and counterproduc- longitudinal relationships. Journal of Manage- tive work behavior: A five-wave longitudinal ment, 36, 405–429. study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longi- 529–539. tudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building bet- of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94–120. ter theory: Time and the specification of when Ployhart, R. E., & Ward, A.-K. (2011). The ‘‘quick things happen. Academy of Management Review, start guide’’ for conducting and publishing long- 26, 530–547. itudinal research. Journal of Business and Psy- Monge, P. R. (1990). Theoretical and analytical issues chology, 26, 413–422. in studying organizational processes. Organization Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness Science, 1, 406–430. really matter? The effects of rudeness on task per- Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A formance and helpfulness. Academy of Manage- clinical and experimental study of fifty men of ment Journal, 50, 1181–1197. college age. New York, NY: Oxford University Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivi- Press. lity. Harvard Business Review, 91(1–2), 114–121. Nahum-Shani, I., Henderson, M. M., Lim, S., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Time in applied psychology: Vinokur, A. D. (2014). Supervisor support: Does Studying what happens rather than what is. Eur- supervisor support buffer or exacerbate the opean Psychologist, 13, 37–52. adverse effects of supervisor undermining? Jour- Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, nal of Applied Psychology, 99, 484–503. location: Contextualizing organizational research. Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Age and Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1–13. innovation-related behavior: The joint moderat- Salomon, K., & Jagusztyn, N. E. (2008). Resting car- ing effects of supervisor undermining and proac- diovascular levels and reactivity to interpersonal tive personality. Journal of Organizational incivility among Black, Latina/o, and White indi- Behavior, 34, 583–606. viduals: The moderating role of ethnic discrimi- Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of nation. Health Psychology, 27, 473–481. exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Mediation review. Work & Stress, 26, 309–332. models for longitudinal data in developmental Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2008). An research. Research in Human Development, 6, integrative model of experiencing and responding 144–164. to mistreatment at work. Academy of Manage- Shipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. (2015). Time in ment Review, 33, 76–96. individual-level organizational studies: What is Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. it, how is it used, and why isn’t it exploited more (2000). Assessing and attacking workplace often? Annual Review of Organizational Psychol- incivility. Organizational Dynamics, 29, ogy and Organizational Behavior, 2, 237–260. 123–137. Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the Conceptualization and measurement of temporal nature, consequences and remedies of workplace focus: The subjective experience of past, present, incivility: No time for ‘‘nice’’? Think again. and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Academy of Management Executive, 19, 7–18. Decision Processes, 110, 1–22. Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, inci- Shipp, A. J., & Fried, Y. (2014). Time research in vility, and counterproductive work behavior management: Using temporal ambassadors to

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 Cole et al. 301

translate ideas into reality. In A. J. Shipp & Y. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Henle, C. A., & Lambert, Fried (Eds.), Time and work: How time impacts L. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipi- individuals (Vol. 1 in the Current Issues in Work tation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psy- and Organizational Psychology series). London, chology, 59, 101–123. UK: Psychology Press. Tepper, B. J., & Henle, C. A. (2011). A case for Shipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. J. (2011). Reinterpreting recognizing distinctions among constructs that time in fit theory: Crafting and recrafting narra- capture interpersonal mistreatment in work orga- tives of fit in medias res. Academy of Manage- nizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, ment Review, 36, 76–101. 32, 487–498. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longi- Thau,S.,&Mitchell,M.S.(2010).Self-gainor tudinal data analysis. New York, NY: Oxford self-regulation impairment? Tests of competing University Press. explanations of the supervisor abuse and Sliter, M., Sliter, K., & Jex, S. (2011). The employee employee deviance relationship through percep- as a punching bag: The effect of multiple sources tions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied of incivility on employee withdrawal behavior Psychology, 95, 1009–1031. and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal Behavior, 33, 121–139. construal. Psychological Review, 110, Sonnentag, S. (2012). Time in organizational 403–421. research: Catching up on a long neglected topic Tuckey, M. R., & Neall, A. M. (2014). Workplace in order to improve theory. Organizational Psy- bullying erodes job and personal resources: chology Review, 2, 361–368. Between- and within-person perspectives. Jour- Spector, P. E., & Meier, L. L. (2014). Methodologies nal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, for the study of organizational behavior pro- 413–424. cesses: How to find your keys in the dark. Journal Vancouver, J. B., Tamanini, K. B., & Yoder, R. J. of Organizational Behavior, 35, 1109–1119. (2010). Using dynamic computational models to Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., Cole, M. S., & Zhang, reconnect theory and research: Socialization by Z. (2014). Developing and testing a dynamic the proactive newcomer as example. Journal of model of workplace incivility change. Journal Management, 36, 764–793. of Management. Advance online publication. Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. doi:10.1177/0149206314535432 A. (2001). The changing signs in the relationships Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., & Kluemper, D. H. among self-efficacy, personal goals, and perfor- (2012). Linking workplace incivility to citizen- mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, ship performance: The combined effects of affec- 605–620. tive commitment and conscientiousness. Journal Vinokur, A. D., & van Ryn, M. (1993). Social sup- of Organizational Behavior, 33, 878–893. port and undermining in close relationships: Taylor, S. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking per- Their independent effect on mental health in ceptions of role stress and incivility to workplace unemployed persons. Journal of Personality and aggression: The moderating role of personality. Social Psychology, 65, 350–359. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, Washington, G. (1971). Rules of civility & decent 316–329. behaviour in company and conversation: A book Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive super- of etiquette. Williamsburg, VA: Beaver Press. vision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, (Original work published 1888) 178–190. Wheeler, A. R., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Whitman, Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work M. V. (2013). The interactive effects of abusive organizations: Review, synthesis, and research supervision and entitlement on emotional agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289. exhaustion and co-worker abuse. Journal of

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016 302 Organizational Psychology Review 6(3)

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Author biographies 86,477–496. Wheeler, L., & Reis, H. T. (1991). Self-recording of Michael S. Cole is an Associate Professor of everyday life events: Origins, types, and uses. Management at Texas Christian University. His Journal of Personality, 59, 339–354. research interests focus on multilevel theories, Wheeler, M. A., Stuss, D. T., & Tulving, E. (1997). research, and methodologies as they relate to Toward a theory of episodic memory: The frontal behavior in organizations. lobes and autonoetic consciousness. Psychologi- cal Bulletin, 121, 331–354. Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Holmes, Abbie J. Shipp is an Associate Professor of O., IV. (2014). Abusive supervision and feedback Management at Texas Christian University. Her avoidance: The mediating role of emotional research focuses on the psychological experi- exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, ence of time at work including: the trajectory 35, 38–53. of work experiences over time, how individuals Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Time react to change, how time is spent on work scales and organizational theory. Academy of tasks, and how individuals think about the Management Review, 24, 725–741. past/present/future. Zhou,Z.E.,Yan,Y.,Che,X.X.,&Meier,L.L. (2014). Effect of workplace incivility on end- of-work negative affect: Examining individual Shannon G. Taylor is an Assistant Professor of and organizational moderators in a daily diary Management at University of Central Florida. study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol- His research focuses on abusive, uncivil, and ogy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/ unethical behavior in the workplace and changes a0038167 in work behavior over time.

Downloaded from opr.sagepub.com at TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV on July 15, 2016