Good Against Evil Good Man is Hard to Find - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 943 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2019/06/24 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: A Good Man is Hard to Find Essay Did you like this example? The definition of the word good is something that is morally right. The story of a family on a road trip to Florida, begins with an unnamed grandmother, whose hesitant demeanor, goes unnoticed as they move forward with the getaway. Ironically, a misfit on the loose around their destination, crosses paths with them, ending their trip in tragedy. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Good Against Evil Good Man is Hard to Find" essay for you Create order During her final living moments, the grandmother pleads to the misfit that he is a good man. However, her efforts dont save her from the misfitrs malicious actions, killing her without uncertainty. In OConnorrs, A Good Man is Hard to Find, the theme of good vs. evil is explored between the characters of the misfit and the grandmother. The grandmother figure in the short story has a rather aggressive beginning in the first paragraphs. The road trip the family is about to embark on isnt ideal for her, especially with the misfit around the area. However, her character is beginning to show throughout the trip. When the children were commenting on how Tennessee appears to be a dumping ground her response demonstrates how much she values respect when arguing back, In my time, children were more respectful of their native states and their parents and everything else (243). Further along their trip, she seems to correct the childrenrs behavior constantly, as they spew out insulting comments in the car, and at their next stop at a barbecue joint owned by Red Sammy. However, she engages in conversation with the owner, and expresses her idea of what a good man means to her. To her, the definition of a good man, is virtually someone who has a moral and respectful mindset, in response to Red Sammyrs actions, Two fellers come in here last week, driving a Chrysler right to me. It was a old beat-up car but it was a good one and these boys looked right to me. Saif they worked at the mill and you know I let them fellers charge the gas they bought? Now, why did I do that? (OConnor 245). His generosity and kindness falls into the description of a morally good man. However, she does judge his character rather fast, not knowing if hers done anything morally wrong in his life. It doesnt seem like she gets to know whoever she calls good well enough before describing them this way. Once meeting the misfit, the word is thrown to characterize him quickly from grandmother as well. The first mentioning of the misfit didnt give any specific details, only that he escaped prison and was heading towards Florida. Obviously, the grandmother was concerned about heading in that direction with the family, yet they didnt believe there was a slight chance of crossing paths. The misfit carried along their trip, as conversion with Red Sammy progressed on the state of the world. Crimes that he committed in the past, werent discussed between the grandmother, and his mentioning was just used to make conversation. The indication of his history is given when speaking to grandmother. He describes his parental figures, saying Daddy was a card himself. You couldnt put anything over on him. He never got in trouble with the Authorities though. Just had a knack of handling them (OConnor 250). There is an evidently history of crime in his family, having followed in his fatherrs footsteps. An assumption can be made that the misfit grew up morally corrupt in knowing his fatherrs criminal actions. A close relationship between the two is clear since the misfit also is described by his father as a different breed of dog, predicting his son would eventually follow his path. The misfit is lead into a life of evil, hateful crime which is especially shown in the climax of the story. The confrontation between the two characters reveals a complexing analysis of their ideals and beliefs. The misfit has ironically crossed paths with the family, and the interaction with the grandmother was bound to end terribly. Suddenly, since the grandmother senses her fate, her definition of a good man appears to apply to the misfit now. Once she realizes his identity, she reasons with him, crying out, I know youre a good man. You dont look a bit like you have common blood. I know you must come from nice people! (OConnor 249). The misfit is the polar opposite of her previous definition, representing the pure evil due to his criminal actions in his life. Her use of wording when expressing he doesnt have common blood is indication of how shers trying to reason with his actions. Now, a good man comes essentially comes from a person with a lifeline of goodness in their genes. The heavy use of religion shows how evil the misfit actually is. The grandmotherrs religious background presents itself, as she tries to convince the misfit, prayer is the answer to his troubles. Yet, the misfit doesnt believe prayer will get him anywhere or fix his past criminal record. His revelation of why he doesnt want to be saved by God points out the true evil his character represents. The reasoning behind his lack of religious belief is announced when he argues, I found out the crime dont matter. You can do one thing or you can do another, kill a man or take a tire off his car, because sooner or later youre going to forget what it was you done and just be punished for it (251). At this point, the misfit has no sense on whatrs right and wrong. He acts on his evil actions of killing, not having enough motive to stop his criminal acts. There is no guilty feeling when pulling the trigger,

3.03b - 765 Words

Hannah Mackenzie 3.02B AP Language and Composition 1. According to the opening statement, what does every person realize at some moment in his/her education? Eventually every person will have to realize that being envious of one another makes you ignorant, and that everyone has imperfections and no one is perfect but everyone at one point must stop comparing themselves to everyone and accept themselves for who they are. 2. In the second paragraph, what does Emerson say is every persons destiny? In the second paragraph Emerson said that people’s destiny was to accept that the divine creator is within us, also that the universe is full of decency and it’s all powerful. There can also be a power found within that we†¦show more content†¦In a paragraph, write your idea of self-reliance. Do you agree or disagree with Emerson? Why? My idea of self-reliance is relying on one’s self to perform a task. Also to be an individual, not to have to worry about relying on anyone else. Emerson made some great points that being self-reliant is important. This is important because you don’t want to have to ever rely on someone else. Sometimes the only person you can rely on is yourself which is important because no one should have to rely on anyone else. 9. Describe Emersons style of writing. Find one sentence that is an example of this style. In your description, focus on his tone and purpose - see the following hint for assistance. Hint: When you discuss a writers style of writing, you look at his purpose for writing, word choice to convey a tone or attitude, the structure of sentences (for example, question or statement), and sentence and paragraph length, for starters. Emerson has a great style of writing that opens the eyes on readers to new perspectives. Emerson wanted the future societies to change their ways and heShow MoreRelated3.03b Charles Dickens665 Words   |  3 PagesCharles Dickens Questions 1. From the biography, what incident changed Dickens life and helped to shape him as a writer?  · His father was imprisoned and he was forced to work at Warren’s Blacking Factory 2. How old do you think Pip is?  · Seven 3. Quote the specific language in the selection that leads you to this conclusion.  · â€Å"As I never saw my father or my mother, and never saw any likeness of either of them (for their days were long before the days of photographs), my first fancies regardingRead MoreStarbucks Marketing Audit3536 Words   |  15 Pages93B 16.68 Yum! Brands Inc. YUM 49.97 0.00% 13.59B 18.83 Darden Restaurants Inc. DRI 35.12 0.00% 5.21B 16.93 Starbucks Corp. SBUX 35.87 0.00% 27.53B 51.99 Autogrill S.p.A. Private - View Profile Brinker International Inc. EAT 35.69 0.00% 3.03B 16.68 Wendy s International Inc. WEN 58.44 0.00% 6.82B 30.58 KFC Corporation Private - View Profile Whitbread PLC Private - View Profile OSI Restaurant Partners, Inc. OSI 35.39 0.00% 2.65B 20.56 Bargaining power of buyers When we lookRead MoreCanon Marketing Plan10220 Words   |  41 PagesExpenses | | | | | | |Other Current Assets |2.15B |2.84B |2.57B |3.03B |2.98B | |Total Current Assets |20.84B |25.04B |23.48B |22.69B |21.93B | |Gross Property, Plant Equipment | Read MoreCanon Marketing Plan10211 Words   |  41 PagesExpenses | | | | | | |Other Current Assets |2.15B |2.84B |2.57B |3.03B |2.98B | |Total Current Assets |20.84B |25.04B |23.48B |22.69B |21.93B | |Gross Property, Plant Equipment |

Abusive Supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict Free Essays

The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect The Leadership Quarterly j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a Abusive supervisory reactions to coworker relationship con? ict Kenneth J. We will write a custom essay sample on Abusive Supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict or any similar topic only for you Order Now Harris a,? , Paul Harvey b, K. Michele Kacmar c Indiana University Southeast, School of Business, 4201 Grant Line Road, New Albany, IN 47150, USA Management Department, Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, USA Department of Management and Marketing, Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, 143 Alston Hall, Box 870225, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0225, USA b c a a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t This study extends research on abusive supervision by exploring how supervisor reports of conflict with their coworkers are related to abusive behaviors and resulting outcomes. We utilize research on displaced aggression, conflict, and leader–member exchange (LMX) theory to formulate our hypotheses. Results from two samples of 121 and 134 matched supervisor– subordinate dyads support the idea that supervisors experiencing coworker relationship conflict are likely to engage in abusive behaviors directed toward their subordinates and that LMX quality moderates this relationship. Additionally, abusive supervision was associated with decreased work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). Results also indicate that in both samples abusive supervision mediates the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship conflict and OCB, and in one sample mediates the association between supervisor-reported coworker relationship conflict and work effort.  © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Available online 10 August 2011 Keywords: Abusive supervision Coworker relationship con? ict Multi-level 1. Introduction Abusive supervision, or the prolonged hostile treatment of subordinates, has been recognized as a signi? ant threat to employee well being and productivity in both the popular press (e. g. , Elmer, 2006) and in organizational research (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster, Pagon, 2002; Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, 2007; Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter, Kacmar, 2007; Hoobler Brass, 2006; Mitchell Ambrose, 2007; Tepper, 2000, 2007; Tepper, Duffy, Shaw, 2001; Zellars, Tepper, Duffy, 2002). Behaviors that fall under the umbrella of abusive supervision, such as sabot aging, yelling at, or ignoring subordinates, have been linked to an array of negative consequences (see Tepper, 2007 for an overview). Research also suggests that these forms of abuse are alarmingly common in modern organizations (Namie Namie, 2000; Tepper, 2007). The purpose of this study is to develop and test a conceptual model that expands our knowledge of antecedents, moderators, and consequences of abusive supervision. We also build on past research showing that supervisors’ relationship con? icts can â€Å"trickle down† to subordinates in the form of abusive behaviors (Aryee, Chen, Sun, Debrah, 2007). Speci? cally, we test the notion that supervisors who experience relationship con? ct, de? ned as interpersonal â€Å"tension, animosity, and annoyance† (Jehn, 1995, p. 258), with their coworkers respond by abusing subordinates. The proposed relationship between supervisor-level coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision is rooted in the notion of displaced aggression, which occurs when the reaction to an unpleasant outcome or behavior from one source is redirected to a second source (Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine, Pollock, 2003; Tedeschi Norman, 1985). Consistent with Tepper (2007), we argue that the relatively weak retaliatory power of subordinates, as compared to coworkers, increases the likelihood that relationship con? ict-driven frustration will be vented at subordinates. We qualify this assumption, however, by arguing that supervisors who experience coworker relationship con? ict will not behave abusively toward all of their subordinates. We explore ? Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: harriskj@ius. edu (K. J. Harris), Paul. Harvey@unh. edu (P. Harvey), mkacmar@cba. ua. edu (K. M. Kacmar). 1048-9843/$ – see front matter  © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10. 1016/j. leaqua. 2011. 07. 020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1011 this idea by examining leader–member relationship (LMX) quality as a moderator of the relationship between supervisors’ levels of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision. Finally, we advance the extant research by investigating two supervisorrated employee outcomes (work effort, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB)), one of which has not previously been examined in the context of abusive supervision. These outcomes were chosen as they extend the literature and we were interested in actual behaviors directed toward the job/task (work effort and task-focused OCB). We examine these relationships, shown in Fig. 1, in two separate samples of matched supervisor–subordinate dyads. Thus, the current study makes several contributions to the literature. First, we examine the in? uence of con? ict between supervisors on subordinate reports of abusive supervision. Examining this relationship is important because although coworker relationship con? cts have negative outcomes, studies have yet to investigate how supervisors experiencing these con? icts treat their subordinates. Second, we investigate LMX quality as a relationship variable that changes how supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are related. Third, we extend the nomological network of abusive supervision by examining the outcomes of work effort and OCB. Finally, we investigate the pot ential for abusive supervision to mediate the associations between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and distal consequences. Thus, this study takes a ? rst step toward explaining how (through the intermediary mechanism of abusive supervision) supervisors’ experiences of coworker relationship con? ict ultimately impact important job outcomes. 2. Abuse as a displaced response to coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision is de? ned as prolonged hostile treatment toward subordinates, excluding physical violence (Tepper, 2000). Research indicates that supervisors who perceive that they are victims of interactional or procedural injustice, both of which may be associated with coworker relationship con? ct (Fox, Spector, Miles, 2001), are relatively more likely than others to abuse their subordinates (Aryee, Chen, Sun, Debrah, 2007; Tepper, Duffy, Henle, Lambert, 2006). Tepper, Duffy, Henle, and Lambert (2006) argued that this trickle-down effect, in which supervisors’ frustrations are channeled into abusive behaviors targeted at subordinates, may occur because subordinates are a relativ ely safe target toward which supervisors can vent their frustrations (Tepper, Duffy, Henle, Lambert, 2006). This argument suggests abusive supervision may be a response to frustrating workplace events such as coworker relationship con? ict. Coworker con? ict has been linked to undesirable emotional states and can negatively impact interpersonal relationships (e. g. , Bergmann Volkema, 1994; Deutch, 1969). Emotion research suggests that the anger and frustration associated with interpersonal con? ict can promote verbal (e. g. , shouting) and behavioral (e. g. , theft, sabotage, violence) aggression toward those who stimulate the con? ct (e. g. , Ambrose, Seabright, Schminke, 2002; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, Sears, 1939; Fox Spector, 1999; Greenberg, 1990; Spector, 1975). Many of these behaviors, with the exception of physical violence, would fall under Tepper’s (2000) de? nition of abusive supervision if aimed at subordinates. Drawing on ? ndings from research on displaced aggression we argue that, due to the relative power of supervisors’ coworkers, these relationship con? ict-driven behaviors might, in fact, be targeted at subordinates. Displaced aggression occurs when individuals experience mistreatment from one party and respond by mistreating a second party (Hoobler Brass, 2006, Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine Pollock, 2003, Twenge Campbell, 2003). Several triggers of displaced aggression have been identi? ed, including social rejection (Twenge Campbell, 2003) and negative feedback (Bushman Baumeister, 1998). Hoobler and Brass (2006) also showed that abusive supervision at work can promote displaced aggression toward family members at home. We examine abusive supervision as a form of displaced aggression ather than a predictor, although both conceptualizations are logical. Displaced aggression is often triggered by unpleasant workplace events (e. g. , Miller, Pedersen, Earlywine Pollock, 2003) and abusive supervision ? ts this criteria. We argue that abusive supervision also can ? t the criteria of displaced aggression if it is triggered by events beyond the control of subordinates, such as the abusers’ coworker relationship con? ict. Thus, abusive supervision can likely be both a cause of displaced aggression and a type of displaced aggression. Note: Dashed lines represent hypothesized mediated linkages Supervisor-Rated Subordinate Work Effort Supervisor-Rated Coworker Conflict Abusive Supervision Supervisor-Rated Subordinate TaskFocused OCB Moderator: Leader-Member Exchange Fig. 1. Hypothesized model. 1012 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 As Tepper, Duffy, Henle and Lambert (2006) argued, abusive supervision can be used as a means for venting frustration because subordinates have relatively low levels of retaliatory power and, therefore, serve as a lower-risk target for venting behaviors than do employees in positions of greater hierarchical power. Victim precipitation research also supports this logic, indicating that displaced aggression is often targeted at those who are unable or unwilling to defend themselves, as is likely the case among subordinates who can be disciplined and terminated by their supervisors (e. g. , Aquino, 2000). This desire to vent frustration at individuals who are unassociated with the initial con? ict, similar to the anecdotal notion of â€Å"kicking the dog† after a bad day at work, can be understood in the context of displaced aggression. Coworker relationship con? ct is a potent source of stress and frustration (Thomas, 1976, 1992) and, because these are unpleasant, individuals are motivated to engage in coping behaviors that will diminish their presence (Kemper, 1966). These emotion-driven coping behaviors can often take the form of hostile behaviors such as sabotage (Ambrose, Seabright Schminke, 2002) and verbal assaults (Douglas Martinko, 2001). Thus, coworker relationship con? ict may trigger aggressive behaviors (e. g. , yelling at others) that serve a coping function. Thomas (1976) noted, however, that the relative power of the parties to a con? ct in? uences the manner in which both parties will respond. When legitimate power levels are equal, as in the case of coworkers, hostile responses are likely to be met with retaliation although it is possible that the target of retaliation will respond with additional hostility, creating an escalating cycle of con? ict. Subordinates, on the other hand, are often reluctant to respond in kind to hostile supervisor behaviors for fear of losing their jobs. The fact that subordinates are not the cause of the supervisor’s frustration, that is, the frustration is caused by supervisors’ con? ct with their coworkers, may have little impact on the behavioral response if the behavior is largely motivated by emotion as opposed to logic. That is, the desire to vent anger over coworker relationship con? ict using a sa fe target may override concerns that subordinates are not the logical targets for retaliation, given that they are not the cause of the con? ict. Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 1. Supervisors’ reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, as rated by subordinates. 2. 1. The moderating in? ence of LMX relationship quality Thomas (1976, 1992) argued that a conceptualization process occurs between the con? ict experience and the behavioral outcome in which information is processed and behavioral options are evaluated. Although this cognitive process is likely to incorporate a wide range of information, we argue that an evaluation of relationships with subordinates is particularly relevant when behaviors toward these individuals are concerned. LMX theory suggests that the quality of leader–member relationships varies from high to low (Dienesch Liden, 1986; Graen Uhl-Bien, 1995). Subordinates in high quality exchanges are seen more favorably and receive advantages from their supervisors that their low quality LMX counterparts do not (e. g. , Liden, Sparrowe, Wayne, 1997). As such, members in high quality exchanges receive preferential treatment from supervisors who are motivated to maintain these productive relationships. We expect that supervisors who experience high levels of coworker relationship con? ict may become abusive toward subordinates, but will be selective in choosing which subordinates to target. Abusive supervisory behaviors generally have a negative effect on ictims’ levels of motivation and attitudes toward their jobs (e. g. , Duffy, Ganster Pagon, 2002; Schat, Desmarais, Kelloway, 2006). Although it can be argued that effective managers would not want to risk these consequences with any employees, LMX theory would suggest that supervisors are especially motivated to maintain effective relationships with their high quality LMX subor dinates. We argue, therefore, that supervisors who are frustrated by coworker relationship con? ict and who choose to react in an abusive manner will generally choose low quality LMX subordinates as their targets. Put differently, we expect that when con? ict-driven abuse occurs, members in low quality exchanges will experience it more strongly and frequently than members in high quality exchanges. Justice and victim precipitation theories provide additional support for this argument (e. g. , Aquino, 2000; Bies Moag, 1986). From a justice perspective, instead of perceiving members of low quality LMX relationships as less risky targets for abuse, it can also be argued that supervisors ? nd it easier to justify abuse toward these employees. Members of low quality exchanges are often characterized by relatively low performance levels (e. . , Deluga Perry, 1994; Liden, Wayne, Stilwell, 1993), and it might be argued that supervisors who use abusive behaviors to cope with relationship con? ict-driven frustration will feel most justi? ed in focusing on these employees. That is, supervisors might rationalize the abuse by convincing themselves that relatively lowperforming subordinates in low qualit y LMX relationships deserve the abusive behavior. Victim precipitation research also suggests that several characteristics common among low quality LMX subordinates make them likely targets of abuse. Although provocative and threatening behaviors have been linked to retaliatory aggression (e. g. , Aquino Byron, 2002; Tepper, 2007), more salient to our focus on leader–member relationships is the precipitation research indicating that abusive individuals often target those who are seen as weak or defenseless. Individuals who are hesitant to defend themselves or view themselves or their situations negatively appear to draw the attention of aggressive individuals (Aquino, 2000; Olweus, 1978; Rahim, 1983; Tepper, 2007). As discussed above, the hierarchical nature of their relationship likely promotes the former tendency among subordinates, making them relatively safe targets for abuse. Members in low quality exchanges, in particular, might be unwilling to further jeopardize their relationship with their supervisors by retaliating against abuse and might also internalize their undesirable status, promoting the negative perceptions of their workplace competence and situation (e. g. , Ferris, Brown, Heller, 2009) that can provoke victimization. Similar to our arguments concerning displaced abuse of subordinates, victim precipitation research suggests that these aggressors might wish to engage in abusive behavior as a means to K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1013 preserve their social standing and bolster perceptions of their control over a situation (e. g. , Baumeister, Smart, Boden, 1996; Felson, 1978). As such, this line of research reinforces the notion that subordinates might be targeted for displaced abuse and suggests that low quality LMX subordinates are especially likely to be viewed as vulnerable, and therefore relatively safe, targets. Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 2. The relationship between supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict and member-reported abusive supervision is moderated by LMX, such that the positive relationship is stronger when LMX relationship quality is lower. 2. 2. Outcomes of abusive supervision The outcome portion of our conceptual model, shown in Fig. 1, examines the effects of abusive supervisory responses to coworker relationship con? ict on work effort and OCB. While we do not posit that abusive supervision is the only factor mediating the relationships between supervisors’ coworker relationship con? ct and these outcomes, we argue that abuse can serve as an explanatory mechanism and explain a relevant amount of variance in each consequence. Abusive supervision is a negative workplace event that, like con? ict, can have negative attitudinal and behavioral consequences (Tepper, 2007; Tepper, Henle, Lambert, Giacalone, Duffy, 2008; Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, Carr, 2007). It has been argued that these outcomes are caused by the stress and emotional strain associated with abuse from individuals in a position of power (e. g. Duffy, Ganster Pagon, 2002; Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter Kacmar, 2007; Tepper, 2000). Further, Duffy, Ganster and Pagon (2002) found evidence suggesting that abuse promotes diminished self-ef? cacy. As we discuss in the following sections, each of these consequences of abusive supervision can be logically linked to the outcomes depicted in Fig. 1. 2. 2. 1. Work effort Because abusive supervision can diminish victims’ con? dence in their abilities (Duffy, Ganster Pagon, 2002), it follows that motivation to exert high levels of effort at work will likely decrease in response to abuse. Abusive supervisors, who by de? nition are consistent in their abuse (Tepper, 2000), might eventually wear employees down with a steady onslaught of aggressive behavior (e. g. , yelling, criticizing), reducing their con? dence and motivation. Similarly, it may be that over time abusive supervision promotes emotional exhaustion (Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter Kacmar, 2007; Tepper, 2000), a condition characterized by diminished emotional and physical coping abilities and closely associated with job burnout (Brewer Shapard, 2004; Cropanzano, Rupp, Byrne, 2003). Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter and Kacmar (2007) argued that this relationship was likely due to the persistent assault on employees’ feelings and ef? cacy perceptions (Savicki Cooley, 1983) associated with abusive supervision. When emotional exhaustion occurs, individuals demonstrate diminished motivation and a reduced ability to handle stressful work events, promoting a reduction in work effort (Brewer Shapard, 2004; Kahill, 1988; Leiter Maslach, 1988). Using a different lens to view the abuse–work effort association, employees might also view abusive supervision as a form of psychological contract breach, as subordinates generally do not expect to be abused by those given the authority to supervise them (Tepper, 2000). When employees perceive that a breach has taken place, they often feel less compelled to ful? ll their obligation to exert high levels of work effort (Harris, Kacmar Zivnuska, 2007). 2. 2. 2. Citizenship behaviors The ? nal outcome depicted in Fig. 1 concerns the negative in? ence of coworker relationship con? ict-driven abuse and subordinates’ propensity to engage in OCB. This predicted relationship is based on research indicating that abusive supervision is associated with factors, including decreased organizational commitment, poor work-related attitudes, and injustice perceptions (Aryee, Chen, Sun Debrah, 2007; Duffy, Ganster Pagon, 2002; Schat, Desmarais, Kelloway, 2006; Zellars, Tepper Duffy, 2002), that can inhibit citizenship behaviors (Ambrose, Seabright Schminke, 2002; Zellars, Tepper Duffy, 2002). Victims of abusive supervision often feel that they have been treated unjustly (Tepper, 2000), a perception that is associated with reduced levels of OCB (Moorman, 1991). As Judge, Scott, and Ilies (2006) argued, unjust treatment is likely to qualify as a negative affective event and can therefore provoke a retaliatory behavioral response. One such response could logically be the withholding of citizenship behaviors, which are not a requirement of the job and could run counter to the goal of retaliation by making the supervisor’s job easier (e. g. , Zellars, Tepper Duffy, 2002). In support of this reasoning, additional research indicates that abusive supervision motivates retaliatory behaviors such as workplace deviance and aggression that run contrary to the notion of citizenship behavior (Dupre, Inness, Connelly, Barling, Hoption, 2006; Schaubhut, Adams, Jex, 2004). Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 3. Abusive supervision is negatively related to supervisor reports of subordinate work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 2. 3. The mediating role of abusive supervision We have argued that relationship con? ct between supervisors and their coworkers is associated with abusive supervisory behaviors, and that such behaviors have negative implications for victims’ levels of work effort and OCB. Implicit in this line of reasoning is the notion that coworker relationship con? ict at the supervisor level is ultimately associated with decreased levels of 1014 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–10 23 effort and OCB at the subordinate level, and that abusive supervision acts a mediator between these variables. More speci? ally, the negative effects of supervisors’ relationship con? ict with their coworkers are predicted to manifest themselves in the form of abusive behaviors that negatively affect employees’ attitudes and behaviors, promoting negative subordinate outcomes. Thus, while a relationship between a supervisor’s level of coworker relationship con? ict and subordinates’ levels of effort and OCB may seem somewhat abstract, we suggest that coworker relationship con? ict-driven abusive supervision provides an intermediary link between these variables. Based on these arguments, we predict: Hypothesis 4. Abusive supervision mediates the negative relationships between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and work effort and organizational citizenship behaviors. 3. Method 3. 1. Samples and procedures The samples utilized in this study were from two different divisions of a state government. The division in Sample 1 was responsible for handling disease related issues (e. g. , STDs, immunizations, tuberculosis), whereas the division in Sample 2 handled environmental health related issues (e. g. , radiation, clean water). To begin the data collection efforts, the director of each division sent an email to all employees in their branch. The email informed the potential respondents of the study’s purpose, that participation was voluntary, and that the results would be con? dential. After this email, the researchers sent a personalized message again explaining the goal of the survey, the con? dentiality of responses, and a web link to the survey. Respondents were asked to complete the survey during the next month. Respondents were required to provide their supervisor’s name to match supervisor–subordinate responses. At the same time, supervisors were asked to provide ratings on each of their direct reports. In Sample 1, eliminating responses with missing data or those that were unable to be matched (i. e. , we received a subordinate response, but not a matching supervisor response) resulted in a sample size of 121 (58% response rate). Subordinates were 68% female, the average age was 41. 68 years, the average job tenure was 3. 38 years, and their average organizational tenure was 5. 22 years. In total, 28 supervisors provided ratings, resulting in an average of 4. 32 ratings per supervisor. For the supervisors, the demographic breakdown was 57% female, the average age was 47. 91 years, the average job tenure was 4. 79 years, and their average organizational tenure was 7. 73 years. After the elimination of unusable responses in Sample 2, our usable sample size was 134 (64% response rate). Participants in Sample 2 were 60% male, had an average age of 46. 04 years, average job tenure of 7. 04 years, and average organizational tenure of 11. 51 years. Forty-four supervisors provided ratings, which resulted in an average of 3. 05 ratings per supervisor. The demographic breakdown for the supervisors was 75% male, an average age of 49. 29 years, average job tenure of 9. 64 years, and average organizational tenure of 16. 26 years. 3. 2. Measures Unless otherwise noted, a 5-point Likert scale (anchors: â€Å"strongly disagree† (1) to â€Å"strongly agree† (5)) was used for all survey items. Scales were coded with high values representing high levels of the constructs. 3. 3. Subordinate measures 3. 3. 1. Abusive supervision In both samples abusive supervision was measured with six items from Tepper’s (2000) measure. We were unable to use the full 15-item measure due to management concerns about the survey’s overall length. Thus, we had experts in the area look at the content of each of the items, and we chose 6 items that best captured the full range of abusive supervisory behaviors. The items we chose were â€Å"My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others,† â€Å"My supervisor gives me the silent treatment,† â€Å"My supervisor expresses anger at me when he/she is mad for another reason,† â€Å"My supervisor is rude to me,† â€Å"My supervisor breaks promises he/she makes,† and â€Å"My supervisor puts me down in front of others. In an effort to establish the validity of our shortened scale, we compared our reduced scale to the full measure using the data from the Tepper (2000) article. 1 We found that the full 15-item scale was correlated with our 6-item scale at . 96. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 90 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sa mple 2. 3. 3. 2. Leader–member exchange We used Liden and Maslyn’s (1998) 12-item leader–member exchange multidimensional scale to measure exchange quality in both samples. A sample item included â€Å"My supervisor would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 94 for Sample 1 and . 92 for Sample 2. 1 We thank Ben Tepper for allowing us to use his original data for this correlation. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1015 3. 4. Supervisor measures 3. 4. 1. Coworker relationship con? ict In both samples supervisors rated their relationship con? icts with their coworkers using the 4-item Jehn (1995) scale. A sample item included â€Å"Is there tension among your coworkers? † These questions were included in a section of the survey here the supervisors were answering questions about their attitudes, behaviors, and relationships with their coworkers. Th is section was separate from the section where supervisors commented on their subordinates, thus making it clear that these relationship con? ict questions were focused on coworkers at their level in the organization (e. g. , managers’ relationship con? icts with other managers). The response scale for this construct was â€Å"Not at all (1)† to â€Å"To a very great extent (5)†. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 95 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 2. Work effort In both samples supervisors rated subordinates’ work effort using Brown and Leigh’s (1996) 5-item scale. A sample item was â€Å"When there’s a job to be done, this subordinate devotes all his/her energy to getting it done. † The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 93 for Sample 1 and . 94 for Sample 2. 3. 4. 3. Organizational citizenship behaviors Supervisors responded to Settoon and Mossholder’s (2002) 6-item scale to measure subordinate task-focused OCB in both samples. A sample item was â€Å"This subordinate assists coworkers with heavy work loads even though it is not part of the job. The Cronbach alpha for the scale was . 84 for Sample 1 and . 81 for Sample 2. 3. 5. Control variables We controlled for four variables, all measured from the subordinate, in an effort to minimize potentially spurious relationships. The variables we controlled for were age (measured in years), job tenure (measured in months), organizational tenure (mea sured in months), and supervisor–subordinate relationship tenure (measured in months). 3. 6. Analytical approach In both samples in this study, supervisors’ coworker relationship con? ict responses were used as predictors of subordinate outcomes (i. . , cross-level main effect). Thus, a single supervisor coworker relationship con? ict rating was used as the predictor variable for multiple subordinates. As a result, for these variables there was no within-supervisor variance and all of the variance was between supervisors (i. e. , ICCs were 1. 00). Additionally, supervisors provided ratings on certain scales (e. g. , work effort and OCB) for multiple subordinates, thus resulting in a supervisor effect (e. g. , ICC1s for OCB of . 11 in sample 1 and . 13 and sample 2, and ICC2s of . 48 in sample 1 and . 51 in sample 2). To account for the supervisor-level effect in our data, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM: Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, 2004) with grand-mean centering was used to carry out our analyses. In the HLM analyses involving supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, this variable was included as a Level 2 variable (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong Congdon, 2004). To test Hypotheses 1–2, there were four steps. In the ? rst step, we entered the four control variables. In the second step we entered the Level 2 variable of supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, and it was here that we tested Hypothesis 1. In the third step, we entered the Level 1 moderator variable, LMX. In the fourth step, we entered the cross-level interaction term formed between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and LMX. It was in this step that we tested Hypothesis 2. To test the abusive supervision-outcome and mediation hypotheses (3 and 4), we conducted Baron and Kenny’s (1986) threestep procedure. The HLM equations are available from the ? rst author request. 4. Results The means, standard deviations, and correlation matrix for the variables in this study are provided in Table 1 for Sample 1 and Table 2 for Sample 2. In both samples abusive supervision was signi? cantly correlated with supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, as well as our dependent variables. Given that a few of the correlations between our focal variables were high, we elected to run a series of con? rmatory factor analyses (CFA) on the scales used in our study to ensure that they were independent and that the items produced the expected factor structures. These analyses were run on both samples separately. To conduct our CFAs, we used LISREL 8. 80, a covariance matrix as input, and a maximum-likelihood estimation. We elected to conduct our CFA analyses using composite indicators rather than items due to the large number of items and our moderate sample sizes. To create our composite indicators, we assigned items based on factor loadings from an exploratory factor analysis (Bagozzi Heatherton, 1994; Eddleston, Viega, Powell, 2006). Speci? cally, for our four-item scales we combined the two items with the highest and lowest factor loadings to the ? rst indicator and the remaining two items to the second indicator. For the ? ve-item scales we created the ? st indicator as described above and included the remaining three items on the second indicator. For our six-item scale we paired the highest and lowest loading item to create the ? rst indicator and then repeated this process for the remaining two indicators. Finally, for the LMX scale we used the four subscales (loyalty, contribution, professional respect, and affect) as composite indicators. Our approach resulted in 15 indicators for our 6 scales. 1016 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 1. Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. Leader–member exchange (LMX) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9. LMX professional respect 10. Age 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 31 3. 03 3. 92 4. 03 3. 87 3. 86 4. 10 3. 69 4. 03 41. 68 3. 38 5. 22 1. 99 SD . 57 1. 02 . 77 . 79 . 72 . 97 . 68 . 84 1. 09 11. 1 3. 88 5. 23 2. 02 1 . 77 . 21? ? . 67 ? . 27 ? . 29 .60 .36 .69 .62 .10 . 10 . 05 . 25 2 . 95 ? .11 ? .20? ? . 18? ? . 05 . 04 . 19? ? . 14 . 01 . 23? .01 . 17 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .76 . 3 .35 .91 .77 .83 .90 ? . 00 . 05 . 08 ? .00 .86 . 40 .28 .22? .35 .28 .03 ? .00 . 10 . 00 .65 . 27 .22? .33 .35 .01 ? .03 . 05 . 12 .92 . 62 .68 .79 ? . 02 . 11 . 11 . 04 .75 . 56 .58 .11 . 05 . 11 . 04 .74 . 64 ? . 04 ? .01 . 05 ? .11 .94 ? .03 . 02 . 01 . 02 – . 35 .39 .26 – . 69 .48 – . 49 Note: Values in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which must be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell Larcker, 1981). N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. We began by estimating a six-factor solution, with each factor representing a scale in our study. Fit indices, shown in Table 3, indicate that the six-factor model ? t the data. To verify that the six-factor structure was the best representation of our data, we estimated three alternative models and compared them to our baseline model via chi-square difference tests. The alternative models estimated included two ? ve-factor models and a unidimensional model. The alternative models were created by combining scales that had strong correlations to form a larger factor. The ? rst alternative model combined abusive supervision and LMX into one factor while the second combined OCB and work effort. A description of each alternative model and the CFA results are offered in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the chi-square difference test results support the six-factor structure as originally designed. To further explore the discriminant validity of our scales we followed the procedure outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and calculated the square root of the average variance explained for each of the scales in our study. This value, which we present on the diagonal in Tables 1 and 2, represents the variance accounted for by the items that compose the scale. To demonstrate discriminant validity, this value must exceed the corresponding latent variable correlations in the same row and column. If this condition is met, then we have evidence that the variance shared between any two constructs is less than the average variance explained by the items that compose the scale (i. e. , discriminant validity). As shown in Tables 1 and 2, this condition is met for all of the scales used in our study. The HLM results predicting abusive supervision are shown in Tables 4 (for Sample 1) and 5 (for Sample 2) and the HLM results investigating abusive supervision as a mediator and/or predictor are provided in Tables 6 and 7. First describing our interaction results in Table 4, step 1 reveals that relationship tenure (? = . 08, p b . 05) was the only control variable signi? cantly associated with abusive supervision. Step 2 shows that supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict are positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05). This result provides support for Hypothesis 1 in Sample 1. Step 3 in this analysis shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 48, p b . 01). Finally, step 4 shows that the interaction term between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and LMX was negatively and signi? cantly related to abusive Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables in Sample 2. Variable 1. Abusive supervision 2. Sup. coworker con? ict 3. LMX12 (overall) 4. Work effort 5. OCB 6. LMX affect 7. LMX contribution 8. LMX loyalty 9. LMX professional respect 10. Age 11. Job tenure 12. Organizational tenure 13. Relationship tenure Mean 1. 32 2. 42 4. 04 4. 31 4. 31 4. 04 4. 15 3. 78 4. 19 45. 86 6. 55 11. 16 6. 08 SD . 58 . 76 . 60 . 73 . 67 . 78 . 56 . 78 . 95 6. 89 2. 66 4. 37 2. 12 1 . 92 . 15? ? . 55 ? . 26 ? . 21? ? . 53 .05 ? .52 ? . 57 .04 . 02 . 01 ? .01 2 . 94 ? .04 ? .03 ? .19? ? . 03 ? .06 ? .02 ? .02 ? .15 ? .09 ? .07 . 00 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .92 . 09 . 05 . 84 .53 .83 .86 ? . 07 . 08 . 05 . 07 .87 . 72 ? . 01 ? .03 . 18? .11 ? .03 ? .00 . 03 ? .02 .85 . 01 ? .13 . 09 . 13 ? .13 . 1 ? .05 . 07 .88 . 28 .56 .69 ? . 10 . 05 ? .03 . 00 .71 . 38 .22? .08 . 16* . 18? .15 .84 . 59 ? . 08 . 03 . 03 . 01 .95 ? .06 . 04 . 01 . 08 – . 14 . 23 .18? – . 61 .27 – . 26 Note: Values in italics on the diagonal are the square root of the average variance explained which must be larger than all zero-order correlations in the row and column in which they appear to demonstrate discriminant validity (Fornell Larcker, 1981). N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 3 Alternative model test results. Model Sample 1 (N = 121) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor Sample 2 (N = 134) Baseline 6-factor model 5-factor combining abuse and LMX 5-factor combining work effort and OCB 1-factor X2 102 196 127 706 df 75 80 80 90 X2diff dfdiff CFI . 98 . 95 . 97 . 59 NFI . 95 . 91 . 94 . 57 1017 RMSEA . 048 . 093 . 059 . 200 94 25 604 5 5 15 112 276 224 1177 75 80 80 90 164 112 1065 5 5 15 .98 . 93 . 93 . 47 .94 . 89 . 89 . 46 .056 . 125 . 107 . 280 Note: Abuse = abusive supervision, LMX = leader–member exchange, OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. p b . 001. supervision (? = ?. 12, p b . 01). Overall, the results in Table 5 (Sample 2) are similar. In step 1 none of the control variables were signi? cantly associated with the outcome, but in step 2, supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict were positively and signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 11, p b . 05), again supporting Hypothe sis 1. Step 3 in Table 5 shows that LMX was negatively associated with abusive supervision (? = ?. 54, p b . 01). In the ? nal step, the supervisor reported coworker relationship con? ict ? LMX interaction term was negatively and signi? antly related to abusive supervision (? = ? .29, p b . 05). To determine support for our interaction hypothesis, we graphed the two signi? cant moderating effects. We did so by plotting two slopes, one at one standard deviation below and one at one standard deviation above the mean (Stone Hollenbeck, 1989). Figs. 2 (for Sample 1) and 3 (for Sample 2) illustrate the signi? cant interactions and show that the positive relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision were stronger when LMX relationship quality was lower. Additionally, we calculated simple slopes for each of our interactions. In sample 1, we found that the slope of the low LMX line was signi? cant (t = 2. 00, p b . 05), whereas the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. Similar to sample 1, in sample 2 the slope of the low LMX was signi? cant (t = 2. 11, p b . 05), but the slope of the high LMX line was not signi? cant. In total, these results provide support for Hypothesis 2 in both samples. Tables 6 and 7 provide the results of our mediation analyses. First discussing the results from Sample 1 shown in Table 6, supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ct was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision (? = . 09, p b . 05) (which ful? lls one of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation requirements) and to OCB (? = ? .08, p b . 10) and work effort (? = ?. 14, p b . 05) (ful? lling another mediation requirement). Steps 2c and 3c show that when both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive super vision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer signi? cant. In particular, the gammas for supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict predicting OCB dropped from ?. 08 to ?. 6 and for predicting work effort dropped from ?. 14 to ? .11. However, abusive supervision is signi? cantly and positively related to OCB (? = ?. 37, p b . 01) and signi? cantly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 27, p b . 05). Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported in Sample 1. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision fully mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and OCB and partially mediated the relationship with work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported in Sample 1. Table 4 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 1. Step 1 Control variables: Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator: LMX (B) Interaction term: A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 2 . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 3 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 07? .05? ? . 48 Step 4 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 06? .05 ? .46 ? . 12 .02 .02 .02 .45 Note: Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict, LMX = leader–member exchange. N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. 018 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 5 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting abusive supervision in Sample 2. Step 1 Control variables: Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Independent variable Sup-rated coworker con? ict (A) Moderator: LMX (B) Interaction term: A? B ? R2 . 00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 2 . 01 .00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 3 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 09? ? . 54 Step 4 . 00 . 00 ? .00 . 00 . 13? ? . 55 ? . 29 .05 .01 .01 .35 Note: Sup-rated coworker con? ict = supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct, LMX = leader–member exchange. N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. Next we turn to the HLM results presented for Sample 2 in Table 7. This table shows that supervisor-reported coworker relationship con? ict was signi? cantly related to abusive supervision in step 1b (which passes Baron and Kenny’s (1986) ? rst step) and OCB (in step 2b), but not work effort (in step 3b). These results pass the ? rst two steps for mediation for OCB, but not work effort. Table 7 also reveals that abusive supervision is negatively and signi? cantly related to OCB (? = ?. 26, p b . 05) in step 2c, and signi? antly and negatively related to work effort (? = ?. 39, p b . 01) in step 3c. Thus, Hypothesis 3, which was supported in Sample 1, is also supported in Sample 2. Step 2c shows that when both supervisor report s of coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision are entered into the equation, the coworker relationship con? ict variable is no longer a signi? cant predictor of OCB. In terms of the mediation results, the results from Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step procedure show that abusive supervision mediated the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ct and OCB, but not work effort. Thus, Hypothesis 4, which was supported for both dependent variables in Sample 1, was only supported for OCB in Sample 2. 5. Discussion The purpose of this study was to further our knowledge of the predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. We pursued this goal by examining supervisor reports of relationship con? ict with their coworkers as a predictor of subordinate-rated abusive supervision, and LMX quality as a situational variable in? uencing this relationship. Additionally, we examined the outcomes of supervisor-rated OCB nd work effort and found that abu sive supervision fully mediated the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict and OCB in both samples and the outcomes of work effort in one sample. Returning to our theoretical arguments, we found that displaced aggression and LMX theories provide useful lenses for discussing predictors and outcomes of abusive supervision. Coworker relationship con? ict at any level is a potent source of stress and frustration as it impedes the achievement of goals and the attainment of desired outcomes (e. g. , Thomas, 1976). Like past abusive supervision research (Tepper, Duffy, Henle Lambert, 2006), our results suggest that some supervisors will resort to abusive behaviors against their employees as a means of coping with these consequences. This study advances existing research by explicitly examining situations where subordinates are not the logical target of retaliation (i. e. , they are not the source of the con? ict). Because subordinates are an easy and accessible target, however, having less power and less of an ability to retaliate, they make relatively safe candidates for abuse from frustrated supervisors. Table 6 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 1. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note: OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 121. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .01 . 08? Step 1b . 00 ? .00 ? .01 . 07 . 09? Step 2a . 00 ? .02 . 00 . 05 DV = OCB DV = work effort Step 2b . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 05 ? .08+ Step 2c . 00 ? .01 ? .00 . 07 ? .06 ? .27? Step 3a ? .00 ? .02 . 02 . 00 Step 2b ? .00 ? .01 . 02 . 01 ? .14? Step 3c . 0 ? .01 . 01 . 04 . 11 ? .37 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Table 7 Hierarchical linear modeling mediation results in Sample 2. DV = abusive supervision Step 1a Age Job tenure Organizational tenure Relationship tenure Supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict Abusive supervision Note: OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors. N = 134. ? p b . 05. p b . 01. .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 Step 1b . 01 . 00 ? .00 ? .00 . 11? Step 2a ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 DV = OCB DV = work effort 1019 Step 2b ? .01 ? .00 . 00 . 00 ? .13? Step 2c ? .01 . 0 ? .00 . 00 ? .09 ? .26? Step 3a ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 Step 3b ? .00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 ? .03 Step 3c . 00 ? .00 . 00 ? .00 . 02 ? .39 Additionally, when supervisors experience coworker relationship con? ict, our results indicate that they are most likely to abuse subordinates with whom they have low quality LMX relationships. This ? nding appears to support our argument that supervisors will focus their abusive behaviors on those employees in low quality exchanges in order to shield their high quality relationships from the detrimental effects of abusive supervision. In this way, supervisors may reason that abusive behaviors allow them to vent frustration while minimizing the negative in? uence of this coping behavior on their most valued employees. Naturally, there are ? aws in this method of coping, most notably that the performance levels of abused employees will likely suffer, causing added strain and frustration for other employees and the supervisors themselves. Among supervisors who make the problematic choice to cope through abuse, however, it appears that employees in low-quality relationships are the most likely targets. We also extended abusive supervision research with our ? ndings indicating that this variable is related to the outcomes of OCB and work effort. These ? ndings are noteworthy as they extend the nomological network of outcomes related to abusive supervision, and because both outcomes were supervisor-rated, which helps to minimize common source bias concerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, Podsakoff, 2003). Additionally, in sample 1 we found that abusive supervision served as an intermediary mechanism explaining the relationships between supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and both consequences examined, and that there was also mediation on the outcome of OCB in sample 2. These results are important as they begin to answer the questions related to how situational supervisor variables, such as coworker relationship con? ict, ultimately are translated into subordinate outcomes. Surprisingly, we did not ? nd support for the work effort mediation hypothesis in Sample 2. A post hoc explanation for these insigni? cant ? ndings may relate to the demographic composition of the samples. Sample 2 was different from Sample 1 for both subordinates and supervisors. It was primarily male, the average age was higher, and average job and organizational tenure were both more than double (except for supervisor job tenure) those in the ? rst sample. Although it is possible to deduce explanations as to how these differences might have in? uenced our results, such atheoretical logic would be overly speculative. Thus, as we suggest below, we encourage replicative research in additional samples that would allow for a more systematic assessment of these, or other, sample-speci? c characteristics. 5. 1. Contributions These ? dings make several contributions to the extant research on abusive supervision and LMX relationships. First, they build support for the notion of displaced abusive supervision and undermine a potential alternative explanation. In Tepper’s (2007) review of abusive supervision literature, he concluded that supervisors’ perceptions of organization-level factors, such as Fig. 2. Moderating effect of LMX on the relationship be tween supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 1. 1020 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 Fig. 3. Moderating effect of LMX on the relationship between supervisor-rated coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision in Sample 2. injustice and contract violation, can trigger abuse toward individual targets (i. e. , subordinates). He argued that this phenomenon might be explained by displaced aggression logic, in that subordinates serve as safe abuse targets even if the abuse is unlikely to resolve the perceptions triggering the desire to be abusive. An alternative, although somewhat tenuous, explanation is that these negative perceptions in? ence animosity toward the overall organization and that supervisors justify the abuse of subordinates who are seen as complicit in the perceived negative aspects of the organization. Our ? ndings suggest that this alternative basis of justi? cation would not adequately explain displaced abusive supervision. Looking beyond generalized organizational perceptions, we found that even frustration stemming from speci? c, identi? able non-subordinate sources (i. e. , supervisors’ coworkers) might translate into abuse toward subordinates. This suggests that abusive supervision may serve as a â€Å"self-defeating† coping mechanism (e. g. , Baumeister Scher, 1988), akin to mechanisms such as problem drinking and procrastination, in that it seeks short-term stress-reduction (e. g. , through emotional venting) in a harmful way that does not address the true source of the underlying problem (e. g. , con? ict with peers). We also expand on Tepper’s conclusion, again stemming from his 2007 review of abusive supervision research, that subordinate characteristics in? uence the likelihood that they will experience abuse. As in the present study, Tepper (2007) cited victimization research to argue that subordinates who appear overly provocative or passive put themselves at a heightened risk for abuse. Expanding on the latter idea, we argued and observed that employees in low quality LMX relationships, who we expect demonstrate relatively high levels of passivity and vulnerability, report higher levels of abuse. This suggests that instead of identifying each of the potential subordinate characteristics that can incite abuse, a more parsimonious approach might be to look at broad relationship variables such as LMX that can be viewed as re? cting the aggregate impact of these individual characteristics. This conclusion also adds to LMX research by revealing an additional consequence of low-quality LMX relationships. In addition to the wide body of research showing that low-quality LMX subordinates experience outcomes such as fewer rewards, lower resource levels, and reduced job satisfaction (e. g. , Lide n, Sparrowe Wayne, 1997), this study suggests a more serious potential consequence in the form of victimization by abusive supervisors. Additionally, our results, and the fact that most were replicated across the two samples, demonstrate the utility of multi-level models for predicting employee consequences of abusive supervision. Abusive supervision is an inherently multi-level phenomenon and this study shows that insights into some causes of abuse, such as con? ict levels between supervisors, exist that cannot be assessed from subordinate self-reports. Similarly, it identi? es supervisor-rated subordinate outcomes of abusive supervision (effort levels and OCB) that are dif? cult to assess with self-reports due to social desirability and common source bias concerns. Further, these supervisor-rated effects provide some indication that abusive supervisors are at least indirectly aware of the selfdefeating consequences of abuse. Our data do not tell us whether supervisors consciously related their abuse to lower levels of employee effort and citizenship behavior. Their awareness of lower levels among the abused subordinates, however, suggests that a degree of denial would be necessary for the supervisors to overlook these cause–effect relationships. Although existing research has not, to our knowledge, explicitly stated that supervisors are unaware of the consequences of abusive behavior, this ? ding suggests that future research on preventing abuse might bene? t from focusing not on why supervisors view the behavior as acceptable, but why they engage in it despite an apparent awareness of these consequences. 5. 2. Limitations In addition to the aforementioned strengths and contributions, there are limitations that we must acknowledge to pro perly interpret the study’s results. First we acknowledge that the theoretical framework we have developed is not the only logical explanation for the hypothesized and observed relationships. For example, it is plausible that the link between supervisors’ coworker relationship con? ict and abusive supervision is less cognitive than we have argued. Instead of selectively choosing subordinates as a low-risk target for venting frustration, it might be that some supervisors simply possess traits that predispose K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 1021 them toward con? ict and abusive behaviors (with higher levels of abuse directed at low quality members). Examples of such traits might include negative affectivity or hostile attribution styles (Douglas Martinko, 2001). An investigation of these possibilities would be useful in forming a more comprehensive understanding of the empirical relationships observed in the present study. In terms of methodological limitations, survey length constraints required us to use a reduced version of the abusive supervision scale. Even though we chose items that tapped into the full set of behaviors and found an extremely high correlation between our shortened measure and the full scale, this may still be viewed as a limitation. Another limitation is that we were unable to measure causality. Thus, there is the potential that our relationships actually have reverse causality or that variables predict each other in a recursive manner. This is particularly true regarding the association between LMX perceptions and abusive supervision. Our results suggest that supervisors are more abusive toward some employees than others and that this difference is associated with variations in subordinates’ LMX scores. It can be argued, and is indeed very likely, that an abused employee would report lower LMX scores because of the abuse. The ? nding that supervisors are selective in their abuse targets suggests that some criterion is evaluated before targets are chosen and we have argued that preexisting LMX relationship qualities could serve as this criterion. Our design does not allow us to make this claim de? nitively, however. Similarly, it may be that abusive supervision is not the predictor of work effort, but that insuf? cient effort by subordinates promotes higher levels of abusive supervision or that both variables in? uence each other in a cyclical manner. We are particularly sensitive to the argument that there may be a feedback loop between abusive supervision and the outcome variables, such that abuse reduces subordinates’ effort and citizenship levels, and this reduction provokes further abuse, although the design of the study did not allow us to test this possibility. Along a similar line, it could be that abusive supervision toward subordinates is actually the cause of the supervisors’ con? ict among peers. We hope that future studies will be designed to better answer these causality questions. There are also limitations associated with the sampling of public, white-collar organizations. Different organizations (e. g. , private, military, blue-collar) have different rules and norms governing behavior and it is likely that the abusive supervisory behaviors studied would be more or less permissible, and therefore more or less common, in different organizational settings. 5. 3. Directions for future research This study’s ? ndings suggest a number of directions for future research. First, we hope future researchers will examine our hypotheses in other, more diverse samples. Although we examined two separate organizations, it is necessary to examine additional samples to better establish the generalizability or boundary conditions of our relationships. A second suggestion is to examine the relationships in this study with a longitudinal research design. The extant research on abusive supervision, including this study, has primarily relied on cross-sectional designs. Although telling, these studies leave out situations and behaviors that impact subordinates over time. In the case of both supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ct and abusive supervision, it may be that supervisors and subordinates learn to cope with these situations, and become accustomed to them. Conversely, it could be that these situations and behaviors become worse as they accumulate over time (Harris, Kacmar, Witt, 2005) as argued by Tepper (2000) and as noted in our discussion of cyclical relationships between abuse and behavioral outcomes in the previous section. Another avenue for future research is to conduct additional multi-level investigations to determine how supervisor experiences and situations impact their subordinates. In this study we examined supervisor reports of coworker relationship con? ict, but it also would be interesting to investigate the effect of supervisors’ supervisor relationship con? ict, abusive supervision, LMX, team member exchange, and perceived organizational support (Erdogan Enders, 2007; Tangirala, Green, Ramanujam, 2007) as these variables are likely to have â€Å"trickle-down† effects on employee outcomes. Additionally, the aforementioned implication that supervisors might be aware of the consequences of abusive supervision suggests that a multilevel, or at least supervisor-level, focus on understanding the justi? ation process might provide insight into interventions for preventing such behavior. It would also be interesting to investigate personality characteristics, such as Machiavellianism, entitlement, and narcissism, of supervisors and subordinates and how these variables are related to abuse (Harvey Harris, 2010; Kiazad, Restubog, Zagenczyk, Kiewitz, Tang, 2010). Finally, we examined LMX from the perspective of the member, but it would be insightful to investigate leader reports of the LMX quality with their subordinates and how this rating interacts with supervisor coworker con? ict. 5. 4. Practical implications Before discussing speci? practical implications from this study, it should be noted that the overarching implication from this and most of the existing body of research on abusive supervision is that abusive supervision is detrimental to all parties. It is stressful for victims and hurts organizational performance and a supervisor’s effectiveness by negatively affecting desirable outcomes (see Tepper, 2007) such as increased levels of effort and OCB. Employees may feel intimidated and afraid to report the behavior of abusive supervisors, however, making it dif? cult for organizational leaders to identify and eliminate these abusive managers. Because of the dif? culty in reducing existing levels of abuse, preventative techniques for reducing the likelihood of abusive supervision are advisable. The results of this study suggest that one such technique is for organizational leaders to observe and mediate con? icts between supervisory employees, thereby removing an antecedent of abusive behaviors. Additionally, because the supervisors in our study were more likely to abuse employees with whom they shared low-quality relationships, an organization-wide focus on the development of strong leader–member relationships might foster a climate where there are few 022 K. J. Harris et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1010–1023 desirable targets for abuse. We acknowledge that neither of these suggestions (i. e. , mediating supervisor con? icts and promoting strong leader–member relationships) are simple tasks. We suggest, however, that a continuous focus on these goals would consume far less time and energy than dealing with the consequences of abusive supervision. 6 How to cite Abusive Supervisory Reactions to Coworker Relationship Conflict, Essay examples

Child abuse, international use of physical force o Essay Example For Students

Child abuse, international use of physical force o Essay r international omission of care by a parent or caretaker that causes a child to be hurt, or killed. Child abuse can be stopped by killing people that commit offenses like beating or sexually molesting a child. What causes child abuse? Child abuse is mostly caused by mistreatment of a child by a parent or any other adult. The other ways that child abuse is caused, is by neglection of a child. Sometimes drugs and alcohol cause child abuse, but only eighty percent is caused by drinking. Children can bring adults a point of rage, but there is a difference between anger, or mistreatment, and actually repeating accidents that involve severe hitting, and screaming. Many children that are being mistreated or neglected today, would most likely grow up to abuse their own children. There are five different types of abuse. There is physical abuse, Sexual abuse, Nutritional deprivation, Emotional deprivation, and Parental neglect abuse. This is the main reasons that cause child abuse. Who would do such a thing as abusing physically or sexually molesting a child? There are many male molesters and abusers, but there are more female abusers. Children have the right to keep their bodys to themselves, and keep them private. They dont have to take the abuse or molesting, and they have the right to not want to take it. How can you stop sexual abuse? By being sexually abused can not make you become a homosexual. When you talk about sexual abuse to a counselor or another caring adult, you become brave, and you will be able to stand up for your right to stop the sexual abuse. It is not right to hurt a child, and anyone that hurts a child deeply needs serious help. Some solutions to sexual abuse, and physical abuse are that you should prevent family members from becoming stressed or isolated. You could also report the accidents that have been repeated. These are some of the many solutions to some of the problems. People that commit these offenses like beating, or sexually molesting a child can be stopped by killing those people. There are many ways that cause child abuse, and they can all be stopped. All of the male and female abusers should not be able to be in contact with a child, they should be killed. All of the causes have solutions to them, so use the solutions if you know someone who abuses a child, or a child that is being abused. To conclude, child abuse is an extremely harmful act that needs to be stopped. .

Disasters Management in US

Disasters Disasters are random acts of nature or human activities which are symbolized by extremes in life and they cause stress to human beings. Hurricane Katrina remains one of the deadliest storms ever to hit the United States.Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Disasters Management in US specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More There are various methods applied in efforts to combat disasters and their aftermath. Some of the attempts made have met stiff resistance from civilians, while others have been overtaken by time. There are three main approaches that have been used over time producing different results. Introduction Human ecology has several parts which involve the study of individual groups in the aspect of biology, nutrition, sociology, economic, age, environmental and such akin factors. These are some of the aspects that play an important role in analyzing and determining the situation and conditions of the population after a disaster, they also determine how different groups feel the effects of a disaster. Civil Defence Civil defence is a strategy undertaken by the United States government to equip civilians with knowledge on how to minimise damage caused by enemy attack this entails, rescue efforts, Medicare and evacuation. The citizens were taught how to handle post attack situations in such a way that further damage is avoided. This concept encountered serious hitches mostly due to resistance it met from citizens. There was little acceptance on this program by citizens, and some times the resistance even cumulated to civil disobedience and street demonstrations like it happened in New York between 1955 and 1961. The same scenarios of resistance were experienced in the late 70s. Heightened nuclear activity worldwide created general disinterest in the whole program amongst citizens. The argument that was posed was that, there was little the people could do in the event of an attack but with the bombing of World trade Centre in September, 11 2001, Civilians realised that other forms of attacks apart from nuclear could be launched on them and they embraced this program. There should be harmonisation of all the activities of the civil defence; this will facilitate coordinated response and communication in times of disaster.Advertising Looking for critical writing on public administration? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More It is inevitable that disasters will strike; it is therefore important to include the subject in school curriculum since this will ease the burden of recruiting citizens as volunteers as well as bring down the cost of the whole process, at the same time equipping all citizens with the necessary knowhow on disaster management. (Oakes 1994). Home Land security The department of homeland security has created FEMA, a sub department bestowed with the responsibility of assisting victims in case of a disaster. There is also a program that trains emergency responders on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as well as explosives. Disasters will for ever happen, their nature is unpredictable this calls for comprehensive precautionary measures to be taken in order to effectively control disasters. There are situations when the government may suspend some functions executed by some government agencies or arms depending on the nature of the calamity. Freedoms and some rights are also curtailed and this happens when the disaster poses a threat to national security or poses danger to human beings. The United States constitution does not provide acts or special powers to be used during emergencies, the assumption is that this may kindle the emergency and therefore compromising the real situation on the ground. The constitution provides that national government should let individual state handle their emergencies according to respective state laws and policies. The police in these states are bestowed with the responsibility of protecting property, lives and the general citizen’s welfare. (Banks2011). Disaster Approach Pundits in disaster affairs have attempted to explain some approaches that can be used to explain the course taken by a disaster, and different effects it has on people of different social economic backgrounds. Technocratic Approach Technocratic Disaster approach employs geographic information systems approach which is a scientific method that employs the use of mapping and geological knowledge to predict ,prepare and respond when natural disasters like Earthquakes, Tsunamis and any other disaster that emanates from natural causes strikes.Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Disasters Management in US specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More This method applies testing of real time emergency equipment, disaster communication channels and management assembled to be on the look out when disaster strikes (Waal 2006). Pundits view this as a weak and in effective way of handling disaster due to the scope they take. One definite thing about a disaster is that it can strike any time and in any way. With the employment of GIS, a wide loophole is left since disasters take many forms and this approach is not comprehensive since it does not cover other disaster avenues apart from the natural causes. This model has been tried but the reality is it that whatever transpired was just like a drill where data was collected but actual implementation was not effected. Hewitt’s (1983). There is also another takes at disasters which views them as socio economic problems, rather than a culmination of natural happenings. The model seeks to venture beyond what would be called natural causes. In the yester years disasters were viewed as one off happenings which were to be handled by the government. This model failed to take into consideration the social eco nomic factors, a situation that left the victims more isolated largely due to their poor economic status. The concept of poverty eradication was mooted as a way of disaster management, since the vulnerable mostly are the poor. This brought about the on set of disaster programs that are planned for and financed, how ever they fell short of addressing the poverty question. (Yodmani1999) argues that the biggest short coming of this program is that the poor, the elderly who are the most vulnerable are left out n plannning. Instead the wells to do citizens are enlightened so as to accept any eventuality. Some of the practices include like stockpiling relief food an activity undertaken by the well to do citizens and yet their risks are lower. Poverty and vulnerability. It has been a common conception that the poor are most susceptible to disasters, this does not mean that this is the only group that warrants all the attention. There has been an argument that the poor in times of disasters have little or nothing to loose, even when data is being collected on the economic effects of a disaster, most of what is captured is on those victims with economic might, the informal economies are largely ignored since they are deemed as inconsequential (Terry 1994)Advertising Looking for critical writing on public administration? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More First it is important to reduce poverty since this way part of the battle would have been accomplished, how ever it is important to note that other aspects like ethnicity, race, community structure and class amongst others play a major role in determining ones vulnerability. A community might be economically disadvantaged but in times of disasters there are other strong factors emanating from race, culture, and such factors that are employed and they help the community withstand the calamity. (Maskrey 1999).it is therefore imperative for planners to take into consideration all factors and incorporate the victim group’s methods, since they help in times of disasters. Human Ecology Approach This is a model that seeks to look at disasters from human environmental aspect, some factors that come into play include geographical, political, sociological and psychological. This model takes a broader look in to matters of disasters at the same time offering a comprehensive approach sin ce core matters of human life are tackled. There need more that surveys and studies since there are naturally given divisions on all aspects of life like age, culture, that play a role in shaping the course of a disaster.(AG 2005) This method suggests that tackling of a disaster should approach different avenues since this is the only way to reach to every body. It is important to note that when a disaster strikes, human beings tend to retreat to their respective divisions and they are best accesses as par the groupings. Each of these groups presents a unique set of challenges that are best handled separately. Solutions Disaster response calls for all inclusive plan formulation including the poor, since some groups will have other avenues other than the conventional ways of overcoming calamities. This are alternatives that are used internally, and if they get the backing of the relevant authorities they speed up the process of post disaster recovery. There should be a comprehensive plan well understood and accepted by all citizens irrespective of their social economic status. Economic Economic situation of any given group is a factor that has effects on a disaster. New Orleans is predominantly a black race county while Mississippi is a white dominated county. In many sections of New Orleans there was no electricity for a period of over four weeks while power was restored in Mississippi within three days. There were high death rates in New Orleans since there were many elderly people living alone these ones were hard hit by the disaster compared to Mississippi. In the latter county the standards of living were higher and hence people had many options when the tragedy struck. They were able to arrange for quick evacuation and the injured and the sick were swiftly taken care of this was facilitated by high economic levels in Mississippi. In the New Orleans they depended almost entirely on government and aid organisations for food shelter and medication. Environme ntal The environmental aspect of human ecology played a major role in determining the out come of the hurricane. In comparing the urban setting of the two counties, in New Orleans there was congestion in structures coupled with dense populations. Many structures in New Orleans were old and of lower quality in workmanship, in comparison to those in Mississippi. This made them susceptible to disasters and hurricane Katrina did a lot of devastation. Some parts of what is New Orleans today were reclaimed from low lands and levees constructed to prevent high sea water from getting to the land. All this was done to create space for town expansion, and this made people settle on low grounds which contributed to high damage on property and high mortality rates. (LCA 2006). Psychological Hurricane Katrina brought about untold suffering t of the victims due to the nature of households in New Orleans, there were high cases of depression and anxiety disorders as compared to Mississippi. The mai n reason being that there were many elderly people suffering in loneliness and when they were exposed to the tragedy they were very likely to get psychological disorders. The damage on the infrastructure as well as the levels and durations of being submerged was higher in New Orleans as compared to Mississippi and this increased the prevalence of mental illnesses. About 80% of New Orleans was submerged for weeks. Family There are domestic or personal issues that come into play on this field. The family system is a determining factor on how to cope with a tragedy. There is usually a heavier impact on single parents, as compared to complete family units since there are more places to seek refuge from and to offer assistance. Well knit family units are better placed to handle disasters. New Orleans is ranked as the third unhappiest city in the United States; divorce rates are high since it is ranked 26th in the US. While in depression it was ranked 25th. There are also high unemploymen t rates hitting as 27 %. The unemployment rates in Mississippi were then in all time high of 22% which also impacted negatively since with low financial power, families were bound to disintegrate. There was a huge population in poverty which could not afford to resettle and cater for their families else where, and this led to men deserting their wives and children. Most of these had to rely on the government and humanitarian organisations for food and shelter. Medicare Medicare of one of the worst hit sectors in New Orleans, the hurricane come and submerged hospitals affecting thousands who needed medical attention. These come at that time when it was badly needed as there were many injuries. The largest hospital, the Big Charity in New Orleans was closed down and this brought about untold suffering to patients who had to do without the required care for as much as three weeks. The injured had also to endure lots of suffering due to lack of proper medical attention. The situation wa s different in Mississippi since the hospitals suffered minimal damaged and they were operating almost to capacity, this brought a big influx of patients stretching facilities. Other in patients bore the burnt of Katina as they had to be airlifted to other facilities. Disaster Myths There are several myths that circulate around trying to demystify the aftermath of a tragedy and they contribute to misconceptions and spread of wrong facts about disasters. Myth 1 There goes a myth that disasters happen at random in a democratic way and that hurricanes chemical spill kills all in discriminatory. The reality of the matter is that disasters will happen but the impact felt, differs depending on some factors like social class age and economic muscle amongst others. A heat weave occurred in Chicago in 1995 and with the temperatures soaring to between 100-120 degrees; it killed more than 700 people. 75% of the victims were elderly people above 65 years and most of them happened to live in iso lation. Some of their dwelling units were neglected by service providers as well as owners and some systems like air conditioning were not functioning. Most deaths were not caused by the heat alone, but by lack of any form of help even to those confined in their houses. (Spana2005). This is a clear indication that those in lower social classes and senior citizen are at a greater risk in times of disasters. Myth 2 A myth says that it times of disaster people will act selfishly and only save them selves. This is not true since in times of calamities people behave responsibly and take care of their neighbours. There are usually combined efforts to save and rescue the affected. Instances like fire tragedies have proved that there are heroes who even risk their lives in order to save others. The undue attention given by the media to those engaging in negative vices or selfish acts like looting at the expense of those engaging in positive rescue work is responsible for the wrong impressio n created amongst the masses. Journalists tend to give more air time to side shows to spice their stories, and this leaves a much distorted impression of the real situation on rescue efforts and human behaviour. Myth 3 There is a belief that if people get too much information on the disaster they are bound to behave erratically, over react or panic. The truth is that this happens if the information provided is vague, or it was communicated by someone who is not abreast with crisis communication or the disaster details, this can give rise to a situation where there is confusion or disillusionment. Majority of disaster victims will very much comply with the rescue operations and adhere to set rescue and safety guidelines. People will also behave in an orderly manner but this has to be preceded by good communication that will assure all is in control. To facilitate total compliance, the communication should be done by qualified personnel so that the information disseminated would be ju st enough mo make people understand what is happening, and it assists the people in behaving and acting rationally. Myth 4 Children feel little or no effect caused by disaster, this myth banks on the fact that in the initial stages after a disaster, children might not show any sign of disturbance like nightmares or restlessness. They seem like they are coping with the tragedy without any change in behaviour. The reality of the matter is that children get affected by disasters just like adults but they postpone their reactions until when they feel it is safe for them to express their feelings which manifests it self in their behaviours. In many situations such children develop erratic behaviours and counselling is required to assist the child regain the normal mental status. Usually the delay lasts until a time when they feel that their parents will be able to cope with them and they explode. In many situations the reactions would be inform of bad behaviours and that way it would be easy to help a child overcome. (A.G2005) Conclusion Some of the existing laws should be changed to allow for a more comprehensive emergency response program. There should be a proper definition of what can be termed as a national disaster. As things stand today, the president was granted the powers to declare an incident a national disaster by the 1976 National Emergencies Act; however the only parameter to quantify this is the discretion of the president. One change I recommend is that, the national government should have direct control on how disasters situations are handled, instead of waiting for the president; this would enhance swiftness a measure that can save lots of lives. This would enhance response programs since the national government has the capacity to pull a major disaster response irrespective of the disaster’s magnitude. The programs should be tailored in a way that they are able to uphold the constitutional right to life, protection of property and security . This can be effectively achieved by addressing the root causes of the disaster and equipping the citizens with knowledge so that that they are able to cope with maximum resilience. The whole issues of disaster should be managed in a way that all the three levels of government should have a department to handle any happenings, this would facilitate coordination since the set guidelines will be the same and hence irrespective of a disasters magnitude all rescuers and other humanitarian aid providers will be reading from the same script. References Australian Government. (2005). Myths of Human response in a Disaster. Retrieved from http://www.anbg.gov.au/disact/human-response.html Banks, W (2011). The legal landscape for emergency Management in the United states. Retrieved from http://insct.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/insct/publications/faculty/Banks_Legal_Landscape.pdf Hewitt, K. (1983). The idea of calamity in a technocratic age: Interpretations of calamity. Retrieved from www.ilankelman .org/miscellany/DisasterLexicon.rtf Linking Climate Adaptation.(2006). Reducing disaster Risk while Adapting to Climate.  Retrieved from http://www.linkingclimateadaptation.org/lcadiscuss/ Maskrey, A (1999). Reducing Global Disasters. Natural Disaster Management, Tudor Rose, Leicester, U Oakes, G (1994). Imaginary war: Civil Defence and American Cold War Culture. Retrieved from http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-defense Spana, M. (2005)Top 5 Disaster myths. University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved from http://www.rff.org/rff/events/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfmpageid=20180 Terry, C (1994), Vulnerability Analysis and Natural Disasters. Varley Disasters, Development and Environment, Wiley, West Sussex, UK Waal, A.2006.An Imperfect Storm: Narratives of Calamity in a Liberal-Technocratic Age  Retrieved from http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/deWaal/ Yodmani, S.1999. Disaster risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction: Protecting the poor. Retrieved from http://www.ad pc.net/infores/adpc-documents/PovertyPaper.pdf This critical writing on Disasters Management in US was written and submitted by user Reece Wooten to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

6 Steps for Self-Discipline When You Study

6 Steps for Self-Discipline When You Study Have you ever heard the quote, Self-discipline is the difference between choosing what you want now and choosing what you want most? Its a quote that tons of people in the business world follow religiously in order to get exactly what they most desire from their companies. Its a theory that many people use to get themselves out of bed to get to the gym before going to work. Its a mantra that athletes use to do that last set of squats, even though their legs are burning and they want nothing more than to quit. But its message of endurance and self-denial is perfect for those students looking to gain an edge on their competition by acing the ACT in order to get into the college or university of their dreams or those students who simply want to score their highest on their midterm or final exams.   Why Self-Discipline Is Important According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of self-discipline is the  correction or regulation of oneself for the sake of improvement. This definition implies that certain regulation or stopping of ourselves from certain behaviors is important if we are going to improve in some way. If we are relating this to studying, it means that we need to stop doing certain things or start doing certain things while studying in order to get the positive results we crave. Regulating ourselves in this way is incredibly important because it can build self-esteem. When we achieve the goals we set for ourselves, we get a boost of confidence which can improve many aspects of our lives. How to Have Self-Discipline When You Study Step 1: Remove Temptations Self-discipline is the easiest when things that distract you from your studies are out of sight, out of earshot, and out the window, if necessary. If you find yourself tempted by external distractions like your cell phone, then by all means, turn the thing completely off. Nothing is going to happen in the 45 minutes that you are going to sit down to study (more on that in a minute) that cannot wait until you have a scheduled break. Also, take the time to remove the clutter from your study area if clutter makes you crazy. Unpaid bills, notes to yourself of things you need to accomplish, letters or even pictures can pull your focus off your studies and into places it does not belong when you are trying to learn how to write a stellar essay for the Enhanced ACT test. Step 2: Eat Brain Food Before You Begin Studies have shown that when we are  exercising willpower (another word for self-discipline), our  mental energy tanks slowly get  emptied. Forcing ourselves to give up what we want in the now for what we want later physically zaps our reserves of glucose, which is the brains favorite fuel. This is why  when we are sitting diligently ignoring our cell phones and pushing back our need  to check Instagram, we are more likely to head to the pantry for a chocolate chip cookie than we would be if we were not practicing self-discipline at all. So, before we ever sit down to study, we need to be sure to indulge in some brain foods like scrambled eggs, a little bit of dark chocolate, maybe even a jolt of caffeine to make sure that our glucose is steady enough to NOT drive us away from the learning were trying to do. Step 3: Do Away With Perfect Timing There is never a perfect time to begin studying for your test. The more time you give yourself the better off you will be, but if you sit around and wait for the  perfect  moment to start studying, you will be waiting for the rest of your  life. There will  always  be something more important than reviewing the SAT Mathematics test questions. Your friends will beg you to go out to the movies to see the final showing of the seasons top film. Your family members will need to be driven on errands or your parents will need you to finish cleaning your room. If you wait until everything is just right- when everything else is accomplished and you feel  great  - you will never find the time to study. Step 4: Ask Yourself If I Had to, Could I? Imagine that you are sitting at your desk. Behind you is an intruder with a weapon pointed at your head. If the only thing between life and saying goodbye to the world as you know it was studying for the next several hours (with scheduled breaks), could you do it? Of course, you could!  Nothing in the world would mean more than your life at that moment. So, if you could do it then- drop everything and give studying everything you have in you- then you can do it in the safety of your own bedroom or library when the stakes arent quite that high. Its all about mental strength. Give yourself a pep-talk. Tell yourself, I have to do this. Everything depends on it. Sometimes, imagining a real life-death scenario works when youre staring at 37 pages of differential equations. Step 4: Give Yourself a Break And by giving yourself a break, we definitely dont mean abandoning all self-discipline and settling down in front of the TV. Schedule mini-breaks into your study session strategically. Set a watch or timer (not the phone - thats turned off) for 45 minutes. Then, force yourself to study for those 45 minutes, making sure that nothing interferes with your work. Then, at 45 minutes, take a scheduled 5- to 7-minute break. Use the bathroom, stretch your legs, grab some brain food, reorganize, and get back at it when the break is over. Step 5: Give Yourself Rewards Sometimes the answer to being self-disciplined lies in the quality of the reward you give yourself for exercising willpower. For many people, the practice of self-discipline is a reward in and of itself. For others, especially those who are just trying to learn to have some willpower when studying, you will need something a little more tangible. So, set up a reward system. Set your timer. Practice studying for that final  for 20 minutes with no interruptions. If youve made it that far, then give yourself a point. Then, after a short break, do it again. If you make it another 20 minutes, give yourself another point. Once youve accumulated three points- you have managed to study for a full hour without surrendering to distractions- you get your reward. Perhaps its a Starbucks latte, one episode of Seinfeld, or even just the luxury of getting onto social media for a few minutes. Make the reward worth it and withhold the reward until youve met your goal! Step 6: Start Small Self-discipline is not a natural thing. Sure. Some people are more self-disciplined than others. They have the rare ability to say no to themselves when they want to say yes. What you need to remember, however, is that self-discipline is a learned skill. Just like the ability to make a perfect free-throw with a high percentage of accuracy  only comes after hours and hours on the court, self-discipline comes from the repeated exercise of willpower. Dr. Anders Ericsson, a Florida State University psychologist says that it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert at something, but â€Å"You don’t get benefits from mechanical repetition, but by adjusting your execution over and over to get closer to your goal. You have to tweak the system by pushing,† he adds, â€Å"allowing for more errors at first as you increase your limits.† So, if you truly want to become an expert at having self-discipline while studying, you not only have to practice the skill, you have to start small, especially if you repeatedly give in to what you want now instead of waiting for what you want most. Start by forcing yourself to study (I have to style) for just 10 straight minutes with 5-minute breaks in between. Then, once that becomes relatively easy, shoot for fifteen minutes. Keep increasing the time you manage self-discipline until you are able to focus for the full 45 minutes. Then, reward yourself with something and get back at it.