Negativity Paper_dubai Conference

8/3/2019 Negativity Paper_dubai Conference

1/27

DETERMINING NEGATIVITY TRIGGERS AT THE WORKPLACE: A

STUDY OF WORKING PROFESSIONALS IN CAPITAL REGION OF

INDIA

ABSTRACT

This paper attempts to find out the major factors which contribute to workplace negativity and

thereby leading to a negative work environment in the long run. The negativity is reflected in the

form of increased customer complaints, high turnover ratio, lack of creativity and innovation

amongst the workers, loss of motivation and morale, increased absenteeism and ultimately loss

of loyalty to the organisation. An attempt has been made by the authors through this paper, to

identify the key reasons for negative behaviour amongst employees working in various sectors

like Academics, Corporate and Government Employees of capital region of India. It was found

that communication, equitable treatment, ethical robustness and work life balance are the major

workplace negativity triggers in all the groups. Among academicians equitable treatment was

found to be the most significant factor leading to negativity, whereas among corporate none of

the factors showed major inclination towards negativity. On the contrary among government

employees all the factors led to negativity if they were not handled properly.

1

Prof. Anu Singh Lather

Dean, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha

University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi 110 413

[email protected]

Dr. Shilpa Jain

Assistant Professor, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh

Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi 110 413

s [email protected]

Ms. Anju Dwivedi Shukla

Research Associate, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh

Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi 110 413

[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/27

Key Words: Workplace Negativity, Communication, Equitable treatment, Ethical

robustness, Work life balance.

2


3/27

1. Introduction

Do you face a feeling of anger, fear, nervousness, depression, anxiety, complaining attitude,

pessimism, selfishness, arrogance, jealousy, vindictiveness at times......YES....then you are

facing negativity.. But, nothing to bother about as writer Christopher says, Just like there is a

place for pain as a reminder to our body something is wrong. Negativity is a brain reminder to let

us know something is wrong fix it fast. Just as there can be no light without dark there can be no

positivity without negativity. But yes this should be short lived and temporary, if not it becomes

a problem for oneself, for our team and ultimately for our organisation.

2. Definition of Negativity

A commonly agreed definition of Negativity is difficult to pen down, but a number of definitions

exist of negativity like - it is believed to be a trance, often accompanied by a state of agitation or

depression a predictable reaction to adversity or change.....in the workplace, as in life. It can

also be called a habitual attitude of scepticism or resistance to the suggestion, orders or

instructions of others. It can also be defined as a behaviour defined by persistent refusal, without

apparent or logical reasons, to act or carry out suggestions, or orders or instructions of others.

And ultimately the definition of Negative behavior which was the outcome of much

consideration of the literature review and the research findings is any behaviour that is

disrespectful and undermines or violates the value and/or dignity of an individual. It is behaviour

that harms individuals and organizations

The negativity has become so prevalent in our environment that a lot of new terms and

conception related to negativity has come up like:

Clique Negativity Effect (coined by Dale King) which is the tendency of a small

exclusive group of friends or associates, whom when evaluating the causes of thebehaviors of a person or persons they dislike, attribute positive behaviors to the situations

surrounding the behaviors and negative behaviors to the person's inherent disposition.

Negative Thinking spin (Debbie "Takara" Shelor) - which begins with a simple

thought. But soon there are more thoughts. And then you find other people talking about

3


4/27

the same thing - the same fear, the same circumstance, that "wrong thing" that is going on

in the world. Suddenly its like a tornado and you are being sucked down inside the cone.

The walls are so steep and the energy pouring in is so powerful that you have no way of

climbing back out. You are stuck at the bottom of a negative energy vortex - that you

created by your own thoughts.

3. Sources of negativity

According to Change Dynamics ,there are certain basic needs that can lead to negative

behaviour, and these are :Control, Boundaries, Abandonment, Denial, Independence/

Dependence, Responsibility/Irresponsibility, Need to Be Liked, Authority, Need for Excitement

and Chaos and Loyalties.

Apart from this there are few distorted thinking styles that can lead to negativity , such as

a) Magnifying: Turns the consequences of an event into a catastrophe such as, Im

going to be fired.

b) Destructive Labeling: Form of over-generalization, making someone or a particular

situation totally negative.

c) Imperative Thinking: Inflexible rules about how you and others should act usuallybased on negative past experiences.

d) Mind Reading: Attributes motives that explain other peoples actions toward a

person or event.

e) Divide and Conquer: Over-magnification and wanting others to support a particular

position. Tend to get support creating division within groups.

4


5/27

3.1 Communication of Negativity

Negativity is communicated by three ways :

a) Verbally :By saying things such as This is the worst company to work for, I am

working with useless people

b) Vocally : We can scream, , howl, be ironic, or speak indistinctly.

c) Visually : mode. We can scowl, keep away from people, or use unsuitable signals.

The above mentioned modes are the common ones, but there are many other variety of

negative people, such as :

a) The Steamrollers: When they become negative, they get angry and hostile, taking out

their frustrations on others. They come across as being tyrannical, autocratic, and

dictatorial.

b) The Ice People: These are the resisters of change. They like things the way they are or

were and become negative when you try to get them to do something differently. They

usually do not openly express their resistance. They may even say the change is good and

then not implement it or, worse, sabotage the change.

c) The Rumourmongers: They take out their negativity toward work or other people by

spreading rumours. They sense a loss of control regarding their environments, and

passing along or creating rumours helps them regain a sense of control.

d) The Scapegoaters: They cannot take responsibility for their own mistakes or for the

negative situations that they find themselves in. They shift the blame to others.

e) The Eggshells: They are our very sensitive people. The slightest thing said to them, if

misconstrued, causes them to crack. Once they crack, they become negative.

f) The Micros: When they are in their negative moods, they focus on the smallest, most

unimportant details. If they are managers, they drive their people crazy.

g) The Pessimists: When they are negative, they believe the world is an unpleasant place,

and they do everything possible to make it so for themselves and for others.

3.2 How to spot negative thinking5


6/27

The negative behaviour can be spotted by the following signs of negativity :

A lack of trust is keeping morale low.

Employees make preventable mistakes because they dont seem to care.

No one seems to have fun at work anymore.

Employees spend too much time complaining and griping.

The rumour mill is out of control.

Employees talk badly about management, other departments, customers, or each other.

Department negativity is causing employees to request transfers, or even quit.

Workplace absenteeism is increasing.

Back-stabbing and back-biting are creating an adversarial environment.

People stop talking when the manager comes in. Employees just don't seem to care about doing a good job.

4. LITERATURE REVIEW

4.1 A quantitative and qualitative study of negative behaviour was undertaken in 2005

within two Primary Care Trusts. The results showed that 63% and 52.8% of the random

group had experienced and/or witnessed negative behaviours in the previous 12 months. The

most commonly indicated negative effect was decreased job satisfaction followed by

decreased motivation. There was also evidence of physical avoidance, avoidance of

communication, decreased cooperation, commitment and a negative stressful effect. Some

people retaliated and some people had changed jobs within the organisation (17.2% and

10.7% respectively). Managers/team leaders were affected at higher prevalence (70.6%) and

witnesses were affected, but to a lesser degree. The conclusion was that negative behaviours,

irrespective of the individual perception regarding bullying and irrespective of frequency, is

of great detriment and cost to the individual and the organisation. To focus on 'bullying'

alone is to be sidetracked and organisations need to take steps to prevent all negative

behaviour. To ignore any negative behaviour is to pay the cost.

6


7/27

4.2A study from the University of Washington Business School published in Research in

Organizational Behavior in 2007 examined how negative behavior by one person in an

organization can impact on teams and groups. The study concluded that negative

behavior has a greater impact than positive behavior.

4.3Seligman (1998) found a highly significant linkage between measured optimism and

performance in the insurance industry. In this extensive study at Metropolitan Life,

Seligman found that high optimism insurance agents sold 37 percent more insurance their

first two years on the job and had less turnover. The linkage between optimism and

employee performance has also been demonstrated in the health care and banking

industries (Luthans et al., 2007b).

4.4Considerable theory and research by Snyder (2000, 2002) posits that individuals with

high hope not only have the willpower to accomplish a goal, but also consider multiple

pathways to reach it if one is blocked. High hopers have an uncanny ability to forecast

obstacles to challenges. Emerging research has also indicated that firms with higher hope

employees are more profitable, and managers with higher hope levels have

correspondingly higher performing work units (Peterson and Luthans, 2003).

4.5Cynicism and intention to quit may be considered components of employee negativity.

Initial research of cynicism in organizational behavior considered it as a generalized trait

( Kanter and Mirvis, 1989), but more recent work has considered cynicism as a specific

construct (Andersson and Bateman, 1997). The definition of state cynicism, or cynicism

about organizational change (CAOC), as used in this study, is defined as pessimistic

viewpoint about change efforts being unsuccessful because those responsible for making

change are blamed for being unmotivated, incompetent, or both (Wanous et al., 2000, p.

133). Wanous and colleagues found no support for CAOC as dispositional to negative

affect. They also found that cynicism is spawned in an environment of ineffective

leadership and lack of involvement or participation in decision making.4.6 HR publisher B21 conducted a poll of the effect of negativity on 150 employers. Nearly

half called it a significant problem. And 1 in 20 called it downright poisonous.

4.7 A survey by the Employment Law Alliance found that 5 per cent of American workers

maintain a blog - and 16 per cent of bloggers admitted to having posted something

7
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb47http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb36http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb36http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb36http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb50%20b51http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb42http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb24http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb60http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb60http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb60http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb47http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb36http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb50%20b51http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb42http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb24http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0220290201.html#idb60


8/27

negative about an employer, supervisor or colleague. The Employment Law Alliance

calculated that in a company with 120 employees, there is likely to be at least one

employee making negative blog comments about the organization or its employees.

4.8 Barsade says research suggests that positive people tend to do better in the workplace,

and it isn't just because people like them more than naysayers. "Positive people cognitively

process more efficiently and more appropriately. If you're in a negative mood, a fair amount of

processing is going to that mood. When you're in a positive mood, you're more open to taking

in information and handling it effectively. Barsade's research has taken her into a variety of

workplaces, most recently long-term care facilities. Her research found that in facilities where

the employees report having a positive workplace culture -- she calls it a "culture of love" -- the

residents end up faring better than residents in facilities with a less compassionate and caring

work culture. The residents reported experiencing less pain, made fewer trips to the emergency

room, and were more likely to report being satisfied and in a positive mood.

4.9 John Cacioppo, Ph.D. conducted studies at Ohio State University in which he showed

people pictures of subjects that were known to evoke positive, negative, or neutral

feelings. As the participants viewed the pictures, he recorded electrical activity in the

brains cerebral cortex that reflects the magnitude of information processing taking place.

Cacioppo found that the brain reacts more strongly to stimuli it finds negative. He

concluded that our attitudes are influenced more by gloomy news than good news.

4.10 In his article Our Brains Negative Bias that appeared in the June 20, 2003 issue of

Psychology Today, Hara Marano wrote, Our capacity to weigh negative input so heavily

most likely evolved for a good reasonto keep us out of harms way. From the dawn of

human history, our very survival depended on our skill at dodging danger. The brain

developed systems that would make it unavoidable for us not to notice danger and thus,

hopefully, respond to it.

4.11 It Has been found that elements of change can have significant negative effect on

performance and can cause long-term damage to work relations, if little thought is given

to the ways such changes may be viewed by the employees, and the consequences of

such changes (Mazumdar, 1992).

8
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/3120110102.html#b28http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/3120110102.html#b28


9/27

4.12 The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that US companies lose $3 billion a year to the

effects of negative attitudes and behaviours (Topchik, 2001).

4.13 Studies show a direct correlation between optimistic managers and improved

productivity in those that work for them , and optimism is an essential trait for us to be a

good leader . If we're in any type of manager or supervisor role, it's essential that we be

optimists because others will get their cues for acceptable behavior by watching us.

4.14 Negativity also stems from organizational factors. A 2002 study of 1,400 employees and human

resource executives found workplace negativity to be caused by five major situations :

Excessive workload

Lack of recognition

Lack of challenging opportunities

Anxiety over financial security

Concern over the company's future

5. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The main objective of the study is to find out the major factors contributing to workplace

negativity and thereby leading to a negative work environment in the long run amongst the

working professional in Capital Region of India. An attempt has been made to identify the keyreasons for negative behaviour amongst employees working in various sectors like Academics,

Corporates and Government sector of capital region of India. The paper also aims to identify

whether the negativity causing elements are same for different sectors or there exist some

differences in the negativity elements for employees in both the sectors. The paper also briefs the

measures to deal with the negativity at the workplace.

6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The total sample consisted of 200 employees, out of which 70 were from Public Sector, working

in Armed Forces and Government Departments,65 were from Corporates and 70 were from

academics located in Capital Region of India .This sample was selected through convenience

sampling. Out of 200, a total of 105 usable responses were obtained, with return rate of 52.5%.

9
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/3120110102.html#b42http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/3120110102.html#b42


10/27

6.1 The Research Design is given below:

Sectors

Ac (36) Co (34) Go (35)

Here,

Ac = Academics

Co = Corporates

Go = Government

6.2 Tools -Negativity Triggers and Negativity Scoring Scale and (Costructed by Autors)

a) Negativity Trigger scale was designed to measure the negativity triggers at the

workplace. The scale consisted of 12 items measuring various dimensions like

communication, equitable treatment, ethical robustness, work life balance etc.

b)Negativity Scoring Scale was designed to measure the negativity caused by the negativity

triggers at the workplace. The scale consists of 13 items.

In addition to the above instruments, study participants were asked to respond to a number of

items related to their personal characteristics (age, gender,occupation etc.) and work experiences.

Once collected, the data were subjected to a thorough statistical analysis using correlation and

regression analysis to find out the negativity triggers at workplace causing negativity amongst

the employees of academics, corporate and government sectors.

6.3 CONDUCTING RESEARCH

10


11/27

Participation in the study was voluntary. The purpose of the study was clearly communicated to

all the subjects and they were assured that all data would be treated as confidential and only the

researchers would have access to the data collected. The instructions to complete the

questionnaires were provided one to one and the completed forms were then collected.

7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The mean values for employees in different sectors i.e. Academicians, Corporates and

Government employees was calculated (Table 1), this shows that the working professional in

India (Capital Region) was around average on negativity in the workplace. No mean significant

difference was found between and within the three groups under study (Table 2).This means all

the three experience fell same on negativity.

Table 1: Showing the Mean Values for Different Sector of Professionals

Negativity score

N Mean Std. Deviation

Academicians 36 2.7133 .51096

Corporates 34 2.9785 .52788

Government Employees 35 2.9766 .61578

Total 105 2.8870 .56225

Table 2: Showing the Mean Significant Difference Amongst Academicians, Corporates and

Government Employees

11


12/27

ANOVA

Negativity Score

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1.651 2 .826 2.697 .072

Within Groups 31.226 102 .306

Total 32.877 104

Pearson Correlation was employed to see the interrelationship between negativity triggers and

negativity scores (Table 3) for all the three groups and the scores were average (Table 4).

Regression was applied to find the effect of Negativity triggers on Negativity Scores (Table 5).

Significant positive correlation was found between Negativity triggers and Insufficient

recognition, lack of challenge, understaffing, lack of empowerment, skill improvement,

Communication, lack of direction from management, equitable treatment, career advancement

opportunities, individual- organisational match up, ethical robustness and work life balance.

Significant negative correlation was found between Negativity triggers and skilled workforce,

performance appraisal, creativity and innovation, performance feedback, participation in decision

making, grievance handling, transparency, positive work environment, competent top

management, social security benefits, welfare activities and workplace maintenance (Table 3). It

means that if the factors like Insufficient recognition, lack of challenge, understaffing, lack of

empowerment, skill improvement, Communication, lack of direction from management,

equitable treatment, career advancement opportunities, individual- organisational match up,

ethical robustness and work life balance are not taken care of they can lead to significant

negativity at workplace. And factors like skilled workforce, performance appraisal, creativity andinnovation, performance feedback, participation in decision making, grievance handling,

transparency, positive work environment, competent top management, social security benefits,

welfare activities and workplace maintenance help in reducing the workplace negativity.

12


13/27

The result show that the 77.5 % of the variance created in the negativity score is due to the

workplace negativity triggers. This means that the 77.5% of the variation in the negativity score

can be explained by workplace negativity triggers. Table 5 shows that the communication,

equitable treatment, ethical robustness and work life balance are the major workplace negativity

triggers in all the groups and if these factors are not in place, the workplace is bound to face

negativity amongst its employees. It becomes clear from the result that irrespective of three

different groups understudy, the main factors causing negativity are communication, equitable

treatment, ethical robustness and work life balance, and if these are not taken care of they can

lead to major workplace negativity.

Table 3: Showing the Correlations of Negativity Triggers with Negativity Score.

Negativity

Score

Sig. (2-tailed)

Insufficient Recognition .547** .000

Lack of Challenge .367** .000

Understaffing .193* .049

Skilled Workforce -.371** .000

Performance Appraisal -.435** .000

Lack of Empowerment .424** .000

Skill Improvement .400** .000

Creativity and Innovation -.530** .000

Performance Feedback -.442**

.000

Participation in Decision Making -.362** .000

Communication .519** .000

Lack of Direction from Management .480** .000

13


14/27

Negativity

Score

Sig. (2-tailed)

Grievance Handling -.481** .000

Transparency -.553** .000

Positive Work Environment -.483** .000

Competent Top Management -.577** .000

Social Security Benefits -.469** .000

Equitable Treatment .569** .000

Welfare Activities -.410** .000

Workplace Maintainance -.316** .001

Career Advancement Opportunities .427** .000

Individual-Organizational Values

Match up.527**

.000

Ethical Robustness .527** .000

Work life Balance .550** .000

Table 4 : Showing Variance created by Workplace Negativity Triggers in Negativity Score for all

the Sectors.

Table 5: Showing Regression of the Workplace Negativity Triggers on Negativity Score

14

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R SquareStd. Error ofthe Estimate

1 .881a .775 .704 .30573


15/27

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 2.068 .545 3.793 .000

Communication .117 .041 .213 2.862 .005

Equitable Treatment .183 .047 .400 3.893 .000

Ethical Robustness .105 .053 .176 1.979 .05

Work life Balance .096 .046 .188 2.087 .040

Note: Only Significant Regressions are reported.

Fig 1 : Model showing Negativity triggers that can lead to signs of negativity .

Negativity among Academicians : Significant positive correlation was found between

Negativity triggers and Insufficient recognition, lack of challenge, lack of empowerment,

Communication, lack of direction from management, equitable treatment, career advancement

opportunities, individual organisational value match up , ethical robustness and work life

balance among academicians. Significant negative correlation was found between negativity15

Negativity triggers

Lack of Communication, lack of equitable

treatment, Ethical robustness and Work life

Signs of Negativity

Lack of enthusiasm and enjoyment in work, back

stabbing, rumour mongering, nepotism, favouritism,

attrition, questioning agendas and distrust.


16/27

triggers and performance appraisal, creativity and innovation, participation in decision making,

grievance handling, transparency, positive work environment, competent top management, social

security benefit and welfare activities (Table 6). It means that if the factors like Insufficient

recognition, lack of challenge, lack of empowerment, Communication, lack of direction from

management, equitable treatment, career advancement opportunities, individual organisational

value match up , ethical robustness and work life balance are not taken care of they can lead to

negativity among academicians. And factors like performance appraisal, creativity and

innovation, participation in decision making, grievance handling, transparency, positive work

environment, competent top management, social security benefit and welfare activities needs to

be encouraged so as to reduce negativity.The results shows that 93.8% of the variance created in

the negativity score is due to the workplace negativity triggers. This means that the 93.8% of the

variation in the negativity score can be explained by workplace negativity triggers (Table 7 ).

It was found that one single dimension was considered to be the most important amongst

academicians and that was equitable treatment and if this is not taken care of it can lead to

significant negativity at the workplace (table 8).

Table : 6

N= 36 Negativityscore Sig. (2-tailed)


Lack of Challenge .480** .003

Performance Appraisal -.384* .021

Lack of Empoewerment .490** .002

creativity and innovation -.608** .000

participation in Decision Making -.361 * .031


Lack of Direction from Management .441** .007

16


17/27


grievance handling -.556** .000

transparency -.608** .000

positive Work Environment -.594 ** .000

competent top management -.553** .000

social security benefits -.477** .003

equitable treatment .523** .001

Welfare Activities -.406* .014

career adavncement opportunities .342* .041

Individual-Organizational Values matchup .501** .002


Worklife Balance .553** .000

Table 7: Showing Variance created by Workplace Negativity Triggers in Negativity Score for

Academicians.

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .968a .938 .782 .23835

Table : 8

17


18/27

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients


equitable treatment .256 .113 .583 2.273 .046

Fig 2 : Model showing Negativity triggers that can lead to signs of negativity among

Academicians.

Negativity amongst Corporates : Significant positive correlation was found between Negativity

triggers and Insufficient recognition, lack of empowerment, skill improvement, Communication,

lack of direction from management, equitable treatment, ethical robustness and work life

balance. Significant negative correlation was found between Negativity triggers and creativity

and innovation, performance feedback, grievance handling, transparency, competent top

management and social security benefits (table 9). It means that factors like Insufficient

recognition, lack of empowerment, skill improvement, Communication, lack of direction from

management, equitable treatment, ethical robustness and work life balance can lead to negativity

if they are not taken care of. And factors like and creativity and innovation, performance

feedback, grievance handling, transparency, competent top management and social security

benefits should be encouraged to reduce negativity. The result shows no variance is created in

18

Negativity triggers

Lack of equitable treatment

Signs of Negativity


stabbing, rumour mongering, nepotism, favouritism,

attrition, questioning agendas and distrust.


19/27

the negativity score due to negativity triggers. This means that none of the variations in the

negativity score can be explained by workplace negativity triggers .Hence, none of the factors

significantly lead to negativity at the workplace among corporate.

Table 9:

Correlations


Insufficient Recognition .378* .028

Lack of Empowerment .560** .001

skill improvement .445** .008

creativity and innovation -.354* .040

Performance feedback -.358* .038


Lack of Direction from

Management.652**

.000

grievance handling -.470**

.005



social security benefits -.381* .026


Ethical Robustness .361* .036

Work life Balance .585** .000

Negativity amongst Government Employees: Significant positive correlation was found

between Negativity triggers and Insufficient recognition, Communication, lack of direction from

19


20/27

management, equitable treatment, career advancement opportunities, individual- organisational

match up, ethical robustness and work life balance. Significant negative correlation was found

between Negativity triggers and skilled workforce, performance appraisal, creativity and

innovation, performance feedback, grievance handling, transparency, positive work environment,

competent top management, social security benefits and welfare activities (Table 10).It means

that factors like Insufficient recognition, Communication, lack of direction from management,

equitable treatment, career advancement opportunities, individual- organisational match up,

ethical robustness and work life balance should be taken care of to avoid negativity at workplace.

And the factors like skilled workforce, performance appraisal, creativity and innovation,

performance feedback, grievance handling, transparency, positive work environment, competent

top management, social security benefits and welfare activities should be encourage to avoid

negativity at workplace. The result shows that 100% of the variation created in the negativity

score is due to workplace negativity triggers. This means that the 100% of the variation in the

negativity score can be explained by workplace negativity triggers (table 11). The result makes

it clear that so as to avoid negativity at the workplace all the factors i.e. excessive workload, lack

of challenge, understaffing, skilled workforce, empowerment, skill improvement, performance

feedback, participation in decision making, direction from management, competent top

management, social security benefits, welfare activities, workplace maintenance, career

advancement, ethical robustness, work life balance have to be taken care of (Table 12).

Table 10:

Correlations

Negativity score Sig. (2-tailed)


Skilled Workforce -.702** .002

Performance Appraisal -.716** .001

creativity and innovation -.636** .006

Performace feedback -.646** .005

20


21/27

Negativity score Sig. (2-tailed)

Communication .518* .033

Lack of Direction from Management .554* .021

grievance handling -.640** .006


positive Work Environment -.710 ** .001


social security benefits -.635** .006


Welfare Activities -.621** .008

career advancement opportunities .745** .001

Individual-Organizational Values matchup .768** .000


Work life Balance .599* .011

Table 11:

Model

R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 1.000a 1.000 . .

Table 12:

21


22/27

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients


1 (Constant) 9.998 .000 2.601E7 .000

Excessive Workload -.241 .000 -.358 -1.467E7 .000

Lack of Challenge -.432 .000 -.795 -1.686E7 .000

Understaffing .008 .000 .018 6.294E5 .000

Skilled Workforce -.849 .000 -1.873 -1.656E7 .000

Lack of Empoewerment -.243 .000 -.368 -6.084E6 .000

skill improvement -.565 .000 -1.007 -1.780E7 .000

Performace feedback -.273 .000 -.499 -2.159E7 .000

participation in Decision Making .155 .000 .258 4.119E6 .000

Lack of Direction from Management -.357 .000 -.533 -1.301E7 .000

competent top management .279 .000 .278 9.290E6 .000

social security benefits -.940 .000 -1.403 -1.640E7 .000

Welfare Activities -.211 .000 -.260 -9.680E6 .000

Workplace maintainance 1.280 .000 1.211 1.745E7 .000

career adavncement opportunities .494 .000 .956 2.993E7 .000

Ethical Robustness .023 .000 .025 9.972E5 .000

Worklife Balance -.601 .000 -.856 -2.094E7 .000

Fig 3 : Model showing Negativity triggers that can lead to signs of negativity amongst

Government employees.

22


23/27

8. SUMMARY

It becomes clear that overall there exist four negativity triggers - communication, equitable

treatment, ethical robustness and work life balance in the three areas of study which has to be

taken care of , if the negativity of the workplace has to be avoided. In particular it was found that

for Academicians equitable treatment emerged as the single most important factor which if not

taken care of can prove as a major source of negativity at workplace. This can be attributed to the

fact that academicians value the respectable and equal position among their workgroups and for

them inequality cannot be taken positively at any cost. Hence, academicians value this factor the

most so as to enjoy the positive work environment. For Corporate sector employees none of the

factor emerged as the key to reduce negativity, hence it is believed that the Human Resource

personnal value their employees and know that they are the key to success in this competitiveworld and hence the employer is taking good care of all the factors that can trigger the negativity

at the workplace. As far as the government sector is concerned it becomes quite clear that the

sector need to take care of all the negativity triggers so as to avoid the negativity to get

inculcated amongst their employees. It is clear for the study that the government sector is yet to

learn the lesson of keeping the employees and hence the workplace free of negativity, it has to

23

Negativity triggers

Insufficient recognition, Lack of performance

appraisal and feedback, Lack of skilled workforce,

transparency, positive work environment,

competent top management social security

benefits ,Communication, equitable treatment,

career advancement ,Ethical robustness and Work

Signs of Negativity


stabbing, rumour mongering, nepotism, favouritism,attrition, questioning agendas and distrust.


24/27

move forward and learn the lessons from their corporate sector so as to how they can best help

the employees to move in the positive direction and hence deliver efficiency and effectiveness.

9. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

1. Because of time constraint and lack of support from employees. So the researchers had to

confine to the voluntary participation within the limits of the study.

2. The size of sample was a constraint as it could have been bigger if support was received

from employees.

3. Loss of sample also took place because of the incomplete questionnaires.

10.CONCLUSION

Combating negativity is very important from the point of view of employee and the organization.

There should be a step wise methodology to doing the same negativity should be eliminated

first at the one selves level, then at the level of coworker , then at the level of a ones team and

ultimately at the level of organization as a whole.

Negativity should be eliminated at our own level first and the importance of it is highlighted in

the saying of , Author Chuck Gallozzi:

The negative world of our imagination creates a negative world that is real and one that we are

forced to live in.

The popular methods which can be followed at the individual level are first of all becoming self

aware of our negative behavior and then reducing negative phasing and eliminating negative self

talk. We need to change our input of information if they give negative vibes. We should start

appreciating everything around ous , starting from people their views and stop being judgmental

about them.

After this we can look at our negative coworker and try and address his negativity but care

should be taken that, it is his negativity you are addressing and should not get personally

involved with his issues. The best way to fight with the negative behavior of your co-worker is to

24


25/27

fight with the root cause and try and eliminate it, which will lead to his ultimate satisfaction.

At the organizational front, a lot of measures can be taken to eliminate the negativity which may

include

a) If a change is to be implemented- communicate it in advance, train the target

employees in the requisitive skill, try and make them a part of the change process

from the beginning.

b) The organization needs to take care of the fact that the performing employees

should not be overburdened with more work. The phase the reward for good

work is more work, should be restrained.

c) Employees individual needs should be recognized and they should be motivated

accordingly.

d) A learning environment should be developed.

e) The employees should feel secure as far as their jobs are concerned.

f) The employees should be motivated to have positive, creative and energetic

attitude and should enjoy their work as play.

25


26/27

11.REFERENCES

Avey, B.J., Hughes, W.L., Norman, M.S. & Luthans, (2008). Using positivity,

transformational leadership and empowerment to combat employee negativity. Leadership

& Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 Iss: 2, pp.110 126.

Barsade and Gibson (2007) Managing Emotions in the Workplace: Do Positive and Negative

Attitudes Drive Performance? Retrieved from

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/mobile/article.cfm?articleid=1708

Burnes B. & Pope R. (2007) Negative behaviours in the workplace: A study of two Primary

Care Trusts in the NHS.International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol.20,No.

4,2007,pp.285-303.

Davis,P.(2007) Negativity in the Workplace .At KASFAA Conference,October 25, 2007.

Greenberg, Margaret H. and Arakawa, Dana. (2006). Optimistic Managers & Their

Influence on Productivity & Employee Engagement in a Technology Organization.

Retrieved fromhttp://repository.upenn.edu/mapp_capstone/3.

Mazumdar, S. (1992), "Sir please do not take away my cubicle: the phenomenon of

environmental deprivation",Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 24 No.6, pp.691-722.

Popper, Micha, Amit, Karin, Gal, Reuvan, Mishkal-Sinai, Moran, & Lisak, Alton. (2004).

The Capacity to Lead: Major Psychological Differences Between Leaders and Nonleaders.

Military Psychology, October 2004, (16)4, pps 245 263. Retrieved from

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785378355&db=all.

Raynor, C (2002) 'Round Two: Redefining Bullying at Work, paper as part of a joint

session - Workplace Abuse, Aggression, Bullying and Incivility: Conceptual Integration

and Empirical Insights - American Academy of Management Meeting, Denver, August

2002.

Topchik, G.S. (2001), Managing Workplace Negativity, AMACOM, New York, NY, .

26
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/mobile/article.cfm?articleid=1708http://repository.upenn.edu/mapp_capstone/3http://repository.upenn.edu/mapp_capstone/3http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785378355&db=allhttp://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/mobile/article.cfm?articleid=1708http://repository.upenn.edu/mapp_capstone/3http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785378355&db=all


27/27

Towers Perrin and Gang & Gang. (2003). Working Today: Exploring Employees'

Emotional Connections to Their Jobs. Towers Perrin/Gang & Gang Research, 2003

Topchik, S.G. Confronting Negativity in the Workplace. Retrieved from

http://www.ccfbest.org/worklife/confronting neg ative.htm.

27
http://www.ccfbest.org/worklife/confrontingnegative.htmhttp://www.ccfbest.org/worklife/confrontingnegative.htmhttp://www.ccfbest.org/worklife/confrontingnegative.htmhttp://www.ccfbest.org/worklife/confrontingnegative.htm

Negativity Paper_dubai Conference

Documents

Transcript of Negativity Paper_dubai Conference