1.
Introduction
This paper falls within
the scope of a self-challenge contextualised to the
field of Group Processes, Social Cognition and Boredom, representing a
reflection aimed at promoting the exploration and deepening of topics,
approached with scientific rigour. Various topics
will be addressed and explored, and different arguments and evidence will be
confronted, with the objective of grounding a structured, reasoned line of
thought, drawing on reflections and personal perspectives on the explored
themes. The guiding principles are the notions of daily proactivity and
well-being, particularly exploring the extent to which daily proactivity
affects well-being, the moderating role of punitive supervision, and its
relationship with the fields of Group Processes, Social Cognition, and Boredom
Studies. Building upon these concepts, we will engage in an exercise of
reflection and organization of personal arguments, considering the premises of
this relationship, identifying its similarities and differences, in line with Cangiano et al. (2018), with
argumentation corroborated and enriched through supplementary readings and
reflections, culminating in a personal syllogism. Divided into five sections,
the body of the paper begins with this introduction, followed by the
development section, where the reflection prompted by the challenge occurs,
culminating in the third phase: the conclusion. This is followed by a
discussion of future challenges, ending in the reference section.
2. Development
Firstly, it is important
to consider how social cognition is viewed. Within the world of psychology,
there are several ways to understand social cognition. One of the most
important, according to Moscovici (1988),
focuses on the social dimension of knowledge, which, from this perspective, has
a sociocultural origin since it is shared by social groups. Moscovici (1988) asserts that ‘social representations’ are
ideas, thoughts, images, and knowledge that members of a group share, serving a
dual function: understanding reality to plan action and facilitating
communication. Lewin (1977), on the other hand, interprets
social cognition as focusing on the individual and their psychological
processes. According to him, individuals construct their own cognitive
structures from interactions with their physical and social environments. Next
is Adolphs’ perspective (1999), which
states that social cognition is how we manage the vast amount of social
information we receive every day. The stimuli and data we gather through our
five senses are analyzed and integrated into mental schemas, which guide our
thoughts and behaviors in subsequent situations. Social cognition is, in other
words, a study of how we process information, with this processing being how we
encode, store, and retrieve learned information through social situations. Once
formed, these schemas are difficult to change (Adolphs,
1999). Perhaps due to this latter assertion, Albert
Einstein, as cited in Benjamin (2002), said
that it is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom. We continue with Merton’s
perspective (1948), which states that these
structures or schemas influence attention, encoding, and information retrieval,
potentially even leading to a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ (SFP). This is a
prediction that, according to Merton (1948), once
made, becomes the cause of its own realization. The ‘chameleon effect’
(Rosenthal Effect) is directly related to the concept of the self-fulfilling
prophecy, as it involves having a belief about someone that, simply by
existing, shapes and encourages a behavior that ultimately materializes
(Mitchell and Daniels, 2003). Continuing with the
viewpoint of Selman et al. (1977), they argue that social knowledge
is, in part, independent of other types of knowledge; for example, individuals
with greater intellectual capacity in problem-solving do not necessarily have
the same high intellectual capacity for solving social problems. According to
this reasoning, Selman et al. (1977) developed one of the most
pertinent models of social cognition, which focused on taking the social
perspective of others, namely: ‘Putting oneself in someone else’s shoes’, that
is, the ability that confers powers of self-understanding and understanding
other individuals, allowing for the perspective of one’s own behavior from the standpoint
of others. Lastly, Skinner asserts that social cognition is the dominant
model in social psychology, as it arises in opposition to behaviorism, which
denies the involvement of mental processes in explaining behavior (Catania, 1984).
After dissecting the notion of social cognition, we
proceed to define Boredom. Despite being a common emotion, boredom has received
little attention compared with other emotions such as happiness or anger
(Westgate and Steidle, 2020). Although boredom is often seen as an
unpleasant experience, it can have both negative and positive effects on
individuals. On the one hand, boredom can be a source of creativity and
innovation because when bored, the brain is more likely to wander and explore
new ideas or perspectives. Boredom can encourage one to seek novel experiences,
discover new interests, or challenge oneself to learn and grow. For instance,
during the COVID-19 pandemic, boredom as a result of
lockdowns and isolations helped many explore new ideas and discover new
interests (Ndetei et al., 2023).
Boredom can also prompt reflection on values, goals, and aspirations and
motivate people to make changes in their lives. In this sense, boredom can be
seen as an opportunity for self-awareness and self-improvement. Studies have
shown that people who experience moderate levels of boredom are more likely to
engage in creative thinking and problem-solving (Elpidorou,
2018, quoted in Ndetei et
al., 2023; Van Tilburg and Igou, 2019, quoted in Ndetei et
al., 2023). On the other hand, boredom can
also have negative consequences. Hebb and Donderi (1987) considered boredom to elicit active seeking of excitement to prevent
boredom from occurring/persevering (Nett et al., 2010b). Emotional factors are intrinsically related to existential and
psychoanalytic theories of boredom. Motivational factors are closely related to
arousal theories of boredom. Lastly, cognitive factors are explained by
cognitive theories of boredom, which state that the propensity for boredom
stems from the lower capacity for self-regulation of attention (Fisher, 1993; Mercer-Lynn et al., 2013). According to Fisher (1993), boredom is an unpleasant and transient affective state characterized
by a significant lack of interest, as well as difficulty in concentrating on
the task being performed. Some examples include giving up the search for more
satisfying activities (Eastwood et al., 2012;
Gerritsen et al., 2014), difficulty in engaging with the
environment, emotional unawareness (Eastwood et al., 2007; Gerritsen et al., 2014), lack of meaning in life (Fahlman et al., 2009; Gerritsen et al., 2014), and the individual’s inability to
commit to their own goals. Westgate (2020)
highlights two main causes: attention and the meaning attributed to the
activity. In summary, Westgate (2020) states
that attentional difficulties arise when the challenge present in the activity
is either too low or too high for the individual’s capabilities (Westgate, 2020; Westgate et al., 2017). The meaning attributed to tasks relates to
their ability to satisfy personal goals. When an activity fails to do so, it
becomes insignificant and consequently boring. Although many theories
acknowledge boredom as an emotion that serves a purpose, most authors focus on
the negative consequences of boredom. Generally, boredom presents negative
consequences at psychological, social, and physical levels (Eastwood et al., 2012). In addition, boredom has been associated
with deficits in impulse control, resulting in negative consequences such as
compulsive gambling and substance use (Chin et al., 2017), such
as nicotine, alcohol, and drugs (Pekrun et al., 2010). Some consequences presented by certain authors include depression,
anxiety (Chin et al., 2017), stress and health problems (Pekrun et al., 2010),
dissatisfaction, frustration, and anger (Fahlman et al., 2013; Isacescu et al., 2016), difficulties in self-regulation of negative
affect, reflected in physical and verbal aggression, hostility (Fahlman et al.,
2013; Isacescu et al., 2016), juvenile delinquency (Nett
et al., 2010a), and a widespread absence of life
satisfaction and purpose (Chin, 2017; Fahlman et al., 2009).
Now that we have touched on the notions of social
cognition and boredom, we proceed to contextualize the title of the Cangiano et al. (2018)
article: “Does Daily Proactivity Affect Well-being? The Moderating Role of Punitive
Supervision”, with content from the Group Processes, Boredom Studies and Social
Cognition areas, in order to develop an exercise of
reflection on personal arguments, identifying their similarities and
differences, according to Cangiano et al. (2018). These authors aimed to understand how and
when proactivity can influence employees’ daily well-being through two distinct
processes: a motivating aspect, in which proactive behavior at work can
generate a sense of vitality, and a tension/demotivating aspect, in which
proactivity, under particular conditions, can generate
anxiety and interfere with workers’ ability.
According to Cangiano et al. (2018), the motivating aspect leads workers to
perceive their competencies; for example, on days when individuals proactively
take personal initiatives and produce something positive at work, they are more
likely to feel competent. According to Fay and Sonnentag
(2012), as cited in Cangiano
et al. (2018), workers’ desire to feel competent
is not only an important motivator for proactivity but also a consequence of
this behavior.
Strauss and Parker (2014), as
cited in Cangiano et al. (2018), argue that being proactive at work can
provide workers with feelings of accomplishment in work activities,
corroborating that proactivity is an important promoter/encourager of perceived
competence because it is a challenging behavior. Cangiano
et al. (2018) further assert, according to Shirom (2011), that experiencing a sense of
competence is crucial for well-being, as it fosters feelings of vitality and
subsequently a range of positive outcomes, both for employees and organizations.
This syllogism is consistent with the words of Damásio
(1997), who argues that thoughts influence emotions,
but emotions also influence thought.
In line with this motivating process, Cangiano
et al. (2018) suggested that the effects of
proactive work behavior on employee vitality are not affected by the extent to
which their supervisor is seen as punitive. Without further delay, and after
addressing the motivating aspect, we now explore the study of the tension/demotivating
aspect, reinforcing what has already been mentioned, namely, proactive behavior
can have detrimental effects on employee well-being, particularly feelings of
anxiety, which in turn have a negative impact on employees’ after-work disengagement.
Wu and Parker (2014), cited by Cangiano
et al. (2018), obtained results showing that the
extent to which employees perceive their supervisor as punitive is important in
shaping whether proactive behavior on a given day generates anxiety or not, as
participants whose supervisors tend to react negatively and blame employees for
their mistakes reported higher anxiety on days when they engaged in proactive
behavior at work. Conversely, this negative effect did not occur for employees
whose supervisors were more tolerant of errors. These results reinforce the idea
that supervisors play a crucial role in the proactive process and not only in
training at the proactive level but also in determining the well-being
consequences of proactive behavior.
After analyzing the data from this research, Cangiano et al. (2018) found
that, contrary to what they thought, the positive effects of proactive behavior
(motivating aspect) were unconditional, as the perceptions of competence
resulting from proactive behavior at work had a more immediate and almost
automatic outcome.
Regardless of contextual variables and depending on how
workers perceived their supervisor as punitive, the motivating aspect provided
workers with a sense of control and environmental mastery, satisfying an innate
psychological need of human beings (Ryff, 1989, quoted in Cangiano et al., 2018), which enabled the challenging nature of
proactivity to nullify any potential mitigating effects of punitive
supervision.
Specifically, although perceptions of how the supervisor
reacts to errors may alter their sense of competence when being proactive, on
the other hand, this can also increase perceptions of challenge and level any
moderating effect of punitive supervision. Conversely, Cangiano
et al. (2018) found that the
tension/demotivating aspect occurred only for individuals with a punitive
supervisor, where being a proactive worker in this context generated feelings
of anxiety associated with a downward spiral/cycle of negative thoughts about
the job itself, thus conditioning the work engagement process, leading to
long-term disengagement/turnover.
From a practical standpoint, these results indicate that
organizations can benefit from encouraging employees to engage in proactive
activities, not only for performance benefits but also because proactivity
enhances feelings of competence and motivational indices (Cangiano
et al., 2018). Thus, Cangiano
et al. (2018) concluded that understanding the
implications of proactivity on well-being is an important endeavor because
organizations are increasingly dependent on their employees’ proactivity to
survive and thrive in business. However, if proactive behavior at work is
detrimental to employees’ well-being, then encouraging this behavior may have
the opposite effect. Understanding how proactive behavior at work affects daily
well-being will give organizations a better understanding of how to manage
their workers’ proactive behavior.
Therefore, we conclude that, on the one hand, proactive
behavior at work is positive for employees because it provides opportunities to
experience a sense of competence and mastery in the job, which has a motivating
effect on their well-being, even if their supervisor is perceived as punitive;
on the other hand, when supervisors react negatively to their workers’ errors,
they can create feelings of anxiety, to the extent that their capacity for work
engagement becomes weakened (disengagement/turnover).
Overall, this study advances the understanding of the
consequences of proactive behavior at work, integrating and complementing the ‘bright’
(Strauss and Parker, 2014, quoted in Cangiano
et al., 2018) and ‘dark’ sides (Bolino et al., 2010b, quoted
in Cangiano et al., 2018; Fay and
Hüttges, 2016, as cited in Cangiano
et al., 2018) of proactivity.
Thus, in order to consolidate
what has been developed within the scope we propose, to better contextualize,
elucidate, and conclude this study, we will respond to some questions that
bridge various concepts and reasoning.
2.1. Given the Aforementioned, We Ask Ourselves: How Does Well-being
Affect the Dynamics of a Work Group Oriented by the Standards of Normal Social
Condition and Cognition?
Well-being is a product
of work conditions and relationships, which, if positive, tend to have positive
effects on performance and dynamics. That is, based on this, we can infer that
if it is negative, it will tend to have negative effects, depending on the type
of supervision.
Therefore, abusive supervision is, in this context, the
most common expression within psychology. It is always a behavior exhibited by
the supervisor more or less aggressively and/or
disrespectfully towards the supervisee and is distinct from phenomena such as
bullying.
I further assert that there are doubts about what
constitutes abusive supervision in the supervisor’s mind or perception and what
is considered abusive supervision in the supervisee’s mind, noting that any
supervisor who is in a context of stress or pressure tends to exhibit more
abusive supervision behaviors, and also those who are supervised and are under
pressure tend to recognize abusive supervision more easily, thus inevitably having
negative effects on well-being, also negatively affecting the group.
2.2. Continuing the
Previous Line of Thought, Another Question Arises. How Is Well-being Affected
by Proactivity?
Proactivity is an
attribute associated with individuals (however, each
individual has a different level of proactivity) and can have a
collective dimension. If the group has a collective norm of stimulating and
favoring individual and collective proactivity, it will surely tend to
anticipate future problems and even propose solutions to the problems it faces
in advance, thus positively affecting well-being.
We can then infer that in a contrary context, if the
group acts to diminish and discourage proactivity, it will have greater
difficulty in presenting solutions to the problems it faces, thus negatively
affecting its well-being. It is also worth noting that punitive supervision, in
this context, directly affects individual or group proactivity and,
consequently, well-being. Assuming that, although each case is unique,
well-being affects individuals and consequently groups at the level of social
cognition and their dynamics.
2.3. Since Well-being Is
Affected by the Productivity of Individuals, What Is the Role of Abusive
Supervision in the Midst of this Equation?
Affective issues impact
group performance, and it is not certain that only positive affects
or the experience of positive emotional states have effects on well-being or
productivity. The latter is always the final variable that can be considered,
or if it is considered that well-being, having good or bad performances
generates well-being, with known retroactive effects.
Abusive supervision inevitably has effects on well-being
and emotional state, first on the individual who is subject to this type of
supervision and then on the group, if it validates that it is abusive
supervision. In groups, where several people interact, processing all events of
the dynamics differently, it does not mean that there is sharing. Sharing only
exists when the processed information is very high among all members, and only
then is it noticeable if the group considers there to be abusive supervision.
If ten people are being supervised by someone and only one indicates that there
is abusive supervision, it cannot be said that there is abusive supervision of
the group. In some cases, the group may elect that person as the group’s
scapegoat and then ally with the supervisor (black sheep effect, or escape
effect [Marques et al., 1988]), choosing another scapegoat to
justify the group’s failure, which may be inside or outside the group (Marques and
Yzerbyt, 1988; Marques
et al., 1990).
In my statements, I occasionally use the term ‘abusive
supervision’, referring, in this context we have been discussing, to the fact
that within psychology, it is the most commonly used
expression. However, throughout this study, I suggest the concept of ‘punitive
supervision’.
2.4. What Is the
Difference Between the Two Types of Supervision?
Abusive supervision (Detert et al., 2007; Hiller
et al., 2019; Kaluza et al., 2019; Mackey et al., 2017, 2019; Park et
al., 2019; Tepper, 2000; Wang et
al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019; Zhu et
al., 2019) is itself a very diffuse concept, although
there has been some evolution in typifying and even measuring it (there are
even instruments in the literature that measure the phenomenon well) (i.e., Ghayas and Jabeen, 2020).
Abusive supervision is considered a more generic term, while punitive
supervision only concerns the fact that feedback is negative. It is more
accurate to address abusive supervision because it is already punitive enough
and does not need feedback on tasks, as in many cases, the feedback is about
aspects unrelated to the task but rather about the individuals. Punitive
supervision is closely associated with reward mechanisms, whether through
feedback or through punishment for errors (Domjan, 2003; Skinner, 1935, 1938, 1948, 1953; Thorndike, 1905), which may even be part of the contract,
either legally or psychologically.
2.5. Another Question
that Arouses Some Curiosity Is: Can Harassment Be Considered a Form of Abusive
Supervision?
Abusive supervision has
a very narrow definition, defining workplace bullying as a much more generic
phenomenon, which has become, in most countries, at least in the West, a
legally framed issue. Currently, in Portugal, in the context of work,
harassment is what is described in the context of the law (Diário
da República, 2024). Abusive supervision, for example,
is when a direct supervisor consistently and systematically treats a person
uncivilly or gives very different instructions to one subordinate than to
another. Regarding harassment, it is necessary to clarify that it is not enough
for a supervisor, in Portugal, to shout at their subordinate once or twice to
be considered harassment, but it is a behavior, from the perspective of work
psychology, of abusive supervision.
It is also important to note that abusive supervision is
always a dyadic relationship in which someone, due to their hierarchical
position, addresses the other uncivilly, humiliating them, belittling their
abilities, and injuring their self-concept, whereas harassment is a bit more
than that (Tepper, 2000; Tepper et al., 2006, 2008). In harassment, we are dealing
with persistence over time, with consequences in terms of career advancement,
in terms of how one is or is not remunerated, giving examples such as making
dishonest proposals of a sexual nature or otherwise, which have nothing to do
with abusive supervision because, by definition, it is the fact that someone,
in the normal exercise of their hierarchical supervisory activity, exhibits
uncivilized behaviors towards their subordinate. I also exemplify that no one would say there is harassment if a supervisor systematically
ignores the proposals or contributions of a worker, but if a supervisor
systematically ignores the contributions, proposals, ideas, and suggestions of
a subordinate, it is clearly exhibiting abusive supervision because they are
completely disregarding the person and in some way, without saying it directly,
are calling them incompetent or unintelligent.
2.6. Therefore, We Ask:
What Is the Role of Abusive Supervision as a Moderating Variable?
Whenever there is
abusive supervision, we tend to think that it diminishes the proactive capacity
of supervised individuals (Yang, 2008), which is true when the
organizational culture is typically obedience-centered (Bjorkqvist
et al., 1994; Reed, 2004).
However, in a culture that encourages individual assertion, abusive supervision
typically ceases to moderate proactivity, as the culture itself values and
provides security for individuals to express themselves. It is important to
note that each case is unique.
2.7. This Reflection
Also Raises the Question: Does Punitive Supervision Affect Social Cognition?
Firstly, it is important
to define cognition as the set of mental and neurophysiological processes
through which any human being collects, encodes, processes, and stores
information to subsequently decode, translate, and influence a set of
behaviors. When discussing social cognition, there are elements of the social
context that interfere with some of these processes. I also note that the
original idea of social cognition was once associated with an alternative way
for socio-cognitive theories (Bandura et al., 2008) to
occupy and even define what was generally the field of Social Psychology.
In my view, cognitive processes are necessarily involved
in everything, often acting as moderating, mediating, or predictive variables.
In some cases, this explicitly involves the understanding that information
processing capacity varies from individual to individual. For example, when
processing information, we may pay more or less attention
to the available information. Often, the available information is extensive,
and some of us focus only on certain details. This is related to biases,
information distortion schemes, and so forth.
I further assert that there is another dimension to the
discussion of social cognition, which relates to group cognition or the
cognition that emerges within groups. The study of groups initially began with
the concern that group life generated cognitive phenomena that were initially
formulated as group mind. Just as individuals develop their minds, groups also
develop theirs, shaping how people or groups think, act, and so forth.
Therefore, generally speaking, everything related to
stereotypes, attitudes, and mechanisms of social influence is involved in
social cognition.
Given this, in response to the initial question, I affirm
that punitive supervision affects social cognition, as punishment from
supervision negatively impacts the proactivity of both individuals and groups,
and consequently, the well-being of teams.
2.8. And How Do Boredom
and Social Cognition Relate?
I think that the
relation between boredom and social cognition is an intriguing puzzle that
challenges human understanding. At its core, we can say that boredom is a
psychological state characterized by a lack of stimulation or interest in the
activities we are engaged in/on. On the other hand, quickly defining, social
cognition refers to our ability to perceive, interpret, and respond to the
social cues we encounter in the world around us. At first glance, it may seem
that boredom and social cognition are in direct opposition… After all, when we
are bored, we often feel disconnected from the world and less likely to engage
in meaningful social interactions. However, this simplistic view overlooks the
complexity of the human mind. An intriguing theory is that boredom may indeed
trigger an increase in social cognitive activity… When we find ourselves in
states of boredom, our minds may begin to seek out external stimuli to combat
the monotony. This can lead to greater sensitivity to social signals and an
amplification of interpersonal interactions as a way to
fill the emotional void left by boredom. On the other hand, it is also possible
that boredom exerts an inhibitory effect on social cognition… When we feel
bored, we may become more introspective and less likely to engage in active
social interactions. This can result in a decrease in our ability to accurately
interpret social cues and engage meaningfully with others. Furthermore, it is
important to consider the role of emotional states in the interaction between
boredom and social cognition. For example, boredom may be associated with
feelings of loneliness or despondency, which in turn can influence how we
perceive and respond to social interactions. Ultimately, the correlation
between boredom and social cognition is a complex and multifaceted topic that
requires a lot of careful analysis and always an integrative approach (a sistemic approach). By exploring this correlation further,
we can gain valuable insights into the nature of the human mind and how emotional
states influence our perception of the social world around us.
2.9. How Does Boredom
Correlate to Punitive Supervision?
In the
scientific-philosophical realm, the correlation between boredom and punitive
supervision prompts a profound examination of the nuances between emotional
states and systems of control. Boredom, as a psychological state, often arises
when faced with activities lacking stimulation or meaning, resulting in a sense
of emptiness or disinterest. Conversely, punitive supervision represents a form
of authority that employs coercive measures to correct behaviors deemed
inappropriate. Again, one might argue that boredom and punitive supervision are
opposing phenomena. The matching of an individual’s skill level to the
challenges was explored by Csikszentmyhali (1990, 1997), who
suggested that the optimal level of experience is where a person’s skill
matches the level of risk or challenge. The model further suggests that where
the challenges exceed the skills, there may be anxiety, whereas challenges that
are lower than the individual’s skill level may lead to boredom (see Figure 1).
While boredom stems from a lack of engagement or challenge, punitive
supervision is a direct response to deviant or undisciplined behaviors.
Figure 1.
Flow (Dickson and Dolnicar [2004] adapted from Csikszentmihalyi [1990])
However,
this dichotomy fails to fully capture the complexity of their relationship. An
intriguing theory is that boredom may, in a way, fuel the need for punitive
supervision. Individuals experiencing boredom repeatedly may resort to
disruptive behaviors as a means of escaping this monotonous feeling, eliciting
a punitive response from the authority. In this sense, boredom can be
considered an indirect catalyst for punitive supervision, creating a cycle of
behaviors and reactive responses… Conversely, punitive supervision may also
contribute to the emergence or intensification of boredom. The use of
punishments or disciplinary measures can create a demotivating and
uninteresting environment, leading individuals to feel trapped and disengaged.
This lack of stimulation can, in turn, heighten feelings of boredom and
perpetuate a cycle of dissatisfaction and discontent. However, it is crucial to
recognize that the relationship between boredom and punitive supervision is
complex and multifaceted, varying depending on the context and individual
characteristics (such as personality, character and temperament). In some
cases, boredom may lead to the pursuit of constructive forms of engagement,
while punitive supervision may be applied fairly and effectively to correct
harmful behaviors. Ultimately, the interplay between boredom and punitive
supervision is a topic that deserves further examination. By gaining a better
understanding of this relationship, we can develop more effective strategies to
promote healthier and more productive work and social environments, while
acknowledging the inherent challenges in managing boredom and authority.
3. Conclusion
In conclusion, Parker et
al. (2006), as cited in Cangiano
et al. (2018) suggest that organizations can
benefit from redesigning job roles and functions to promote greater autonomy
and control among workers, facilitating proactive behavior in the workplace.
The findings of Cangiano et al. (2018) also support the idea put forth by Grant and
colleagues that it is important for supervisors to “create cultures, climates,
norms, and reward systems that encourage proactive behaviors” (2009, p. 52).
Cangiano et al. (2018) emphasize the importance of training
supervisors to effectively deal with the proactivity of their employees,
including being tolerant of mistakes, as reacting negatively to errors can lead
to adverse effects, creating anxiety, reducing engagement, and ultimately
diminishing proactive behavior. Furthermore, they argue that the results of
this study support the idea that merely encouraging employees to take control
and show personal initiative is not sufficient.
According
to Baer and Frese (2003), as
cited in Cangiano et al. (2018), organizations must also create a
psychologically safe climate in which employees feel comfortable taking risks
without fearing negative consequences for themselves or their careers.
Cangiano
et al. (2018) suggest that the consequences of
employee well-being in terms of proactivity are multifaceted. Essentially,
proactive work behavior has a ‘bright’ side for employees, but it can also have
a ‘dark’ side. Understanding how proactivity influences well-being can shed
light on how we should promote this behavior to make it sustainable in the long
term. Although proactivity is an inherently motivating behavior that can help
employees feel competent in their work, how supervisors react to errors and
failures can impact whether proactive behaviors also generate anxiety.
3.1. How Does this Theme
Fit with Group Processes and Social Cognition?
The exploration of daily
proactivity, well-being, punitive supervision, group processes, social
cognition, and boredom is crucial within organizational theory. These inquiries
prompt a reevaluation of leadership models, challenging notions of ‘friendly’,
charismatic, and transformational leadership, which may inadvertently manifest
as toxic leadership. Even supervisors once idealized for their ability to
inspire and mobilize teams can exhibit toxic behaviors, such as manipulation
and exploitation for personal gain. Despite the emergence of models like
authentic leadership, instances of abusive supervision persist.
Understanding
these phenomena requires consideration of contextual factors, especially the
organizational culture. Toxic behaviors and abusive supervision cannot be
solely attributed to individual shortcomings but are often rooted in systemic
issues within the organizational environment. Boredom, a prevalent experience
in many workplaces, further complicates this dynamic. Proactive behaviors may
serve as coping mechanisms to alleviate boredom, but punitive supervision can
exacerbate feelings of dissatisfaction and disengagement among employees.
Thus,
the intersection of these themes sheds light on the intricate interplay between
individual agency, leadership dynamics, and organizational culture. By
examining how proactive behaviors, punitive supervision, and boredom intersect
within group processes and social cognition, we gain a deeper understanding of
the complexities of organizational behavior. This holistic perspective
underscores the need for interventions that address both individual well-being
and systemic issues within the organizational context, ultimately fostering a
healthier and more supportive work environment for all.
To
summarize, all of these inquiries are of utmost
importance to theory because many of these subjects have reconsidered some
leadership models, such as those seen as ‘friendly’ leadership, charismatic
leadership, and transformational leadership, which have often turned out to be
toxic leadership with metrics of this nature. Even at the supervision level,
supervisors referred to as ideal models, who are believed to have the ability
to mobilize groups and teams for great results, often exhibit toxic behaviors
(manipulating, promoting exploitation for personal gain). This has given rise
to models called authentic leadership, but even authentic leaders sometimes
exhibit abusive supervision. For this reason, we cannot explain these phenomena
strictly in terms of personal issues, but rather in contextual factors,
especially the culture of the organization itself.
3.2. Future Challenges
In order to better
contextualize and strengthen the conclusions in terms of future challenges, we
perceive the title as something observed from both past and future
perspectives, serving in this case to address constraints on the topic covered
in Cangiano et al.’s (2018)
research, “Does Daily Proactivity Affect Well-being? The Moderating Role of Punitive
Supervision” (see Figure 2), and to discuss issues and paths yet to be explored
or worthy of exploration.
Figure 2.
Hypothesized Research Model (Cangiano et al., 2018)
Cangiano
et al. (2018) highlighted questions that require
further investigation. For instance, although they found a significant indirect
effect of proactive work behavior on vitality through perceived competence,
they did not detect any main effects. This implies that other moderators may
affect the relationship between daily work proactivity and vitality. For
example, engaging in proactive work behaviors for extrinsic reasons (impression
management) may deplete resources rather than generate them (Bolino et al., 2010a, as
cited in Cangiano et al., 2018). Thus, research could explore whether
controlled forms of proactivity (‘pressures’ for proactivity) are less likely
to increase vitality than autonomous forms of proactive behaviors (Bolino et al., 2015, quoted
in Cangiano et al., 2018; Bolino et al., 2010b, quoted
in Cangiano et al., 2018). In the
view of Cangiano et al. (2018), someone who feels compelled (coerced) by the
organizational environment to behave proactively may develop a controlled
motivation to be proactive, which is less self-determined and therefore less
likely to be beneficial for well-being (Nix et al., 1999, quoted
in Cangiano et al., 2018).
Regarding
the consequences of proactivity, it is worth noting that not all proactive
behaviors are ‘created equal’, so different forms of proactivity may yield
different results in terms of well-being. For example, changing a work
procedure implemented by the supervisor is arguably more psychologically risky
(as it may be seen as a personal attack to discredit the leader) compared to
proactively helping a colleague without being instructed to do so. One could
argue that the riskier a proactive behavior is, the more likely it is to
generate anxiety in the context of a punitive supervisor. Thus, future research
could explore how different types of proactive work behavior (e.g., proactive
help vs. taking charge) impact employees’ well-being and how different
supervisory styles shape such outcomes.
Other
factors that could be explored in future research include the impact of
successful execution (Cangiano and Parker, 2015, quoted in Cangiano
et al., 2018). Although in this study Cangiano et al. (2018)
considered how employees’ perceptions of punitive supervision moderated the
extent to which daily proactivity causes anxiety, they did not assess whether
successful task completion (or achieving desired outcomes) diminishes the
feeling of anxiety. For example, not achieving the proactive goal may
significantly weaken the effect of proactivity on perceived competence.
Additionally, they focused on supervisors’ negative reactions to errors. It is
plausible to expect that receiving praise and intrinsic incentives for
proactive behavior itself is likely to yield positive outcomes for employee
well-being. For instance, receiving positive feedback and appreciation from
colleagues and supervisors can increase individual self-esteem and
self-efficacy feelings, as well as enhance feelings of competence and mastery.
Another
direction concerns the long-term effects of proactive work behavior on
well-being. Cangiano et al. (2018) focused on the daily effects of proactive
behavior on short-term well-being. In the long run, the affective outcomes
considered in this study may be exacerbated and create more prominent effects.
For example, an individual who feels anxious due to their proactive work
behavior in the context of a punitive supervisor may eventually have to change
their strategy and adopt a more passive/reactive approach at work to reduce
their anxiety. From a darker perspective, the anxiety induced by being
proactive with a punitive supervisor may result in burnout or higher turnover
intentions. Future research could explore how proactive work behavior may
trigger virtuous or vicious cycles for employees’ well-being over time.
3.3. Given the
Aforementioned Notions, What Is the Relevance of Punitive Supervision to the
Field of Theory and Research in the Areas of Group Processes and Social
Cognition?
I argue that this is a
topic that has been studied for a long time, both in the field of
Organizational Behavior and in the areas of Group Processes and Social
Cognition, Social Psychology, People Management, and Human Resources.
Initially, psychology discussed this topic only in terms of personal aspects,
that is, ‘I am an abusive supervisor because in terms of my personality traits,
I probably have high scores of narcissism,
neuroticism, or even some perverse aspects in my way of treating others’. This
was closely associated with toxic leadership, where inevitably a triad of
personal traits emerged, including neuroticism, Machiavellianism, and hubris,
all personality traits that when frequently controlled, in abusive supervision,
show some explanatory power. What has particularly drawn attention is that
there are many organizational context variables, from culture itself to how
those famous indicators called KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are measured
and defined, that is, whether they are profitable; if they have a performance
that allows creating value for the organization and if in the end the team has
positive financial results, (relevant factors for us to be able to explain the
appearance of abusive supervision, even in people who do not have any weight of
those traits, of that black triad [dark side, flee the ship, dark side of
supervision]).
In
view of addressing the topic of abusive supervision so often, it is worth
considering the relevance of conducting research similar to
that of Cangiano et al. (2018), but instead of focusing on punitive
supervision, it should focus on abusive supervision.
Just
as Nikolaievitch Tolstoy (n.d.) stated
that some people go through the forest seeing nothing else but firewood, we too
can fall into the same mistake if we look at the universe of Group Processes,
Boredom Studies, Daily Proactivity, and Social Cognition and think they are
areas without firewood to burn.
References
Adolphs, R. (1999). Social Cognition and
the Human Brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12),
469–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01399-6
Baer, M., and Frese, M. (2003). Innovation Is Not Enough: Climates for Initiative and Psychological
Safety, Process Innovations, and Firm Performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179
Bandura, A., Azzi, R. G., and Polydoro, S.
(2008). Teoria social cognitiva: conceitos básicos. Artmed.
Bearman, P., and Hedström,
P. (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford
University Press.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., and Hjelt-Back, M. (1994).
Aggression among University Employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173–183.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1098-2337
Bolino, M. C., Turnley,
W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., and
Suazo, M. M. (2010a). Citizenship under Pressure: What’s a “Good Soldier” to Do? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 835–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.635
Bolino, M. C., Valcea,
S., and Harvey, J. (2010b).
Employee, Manage Thyself: The Potentially
Negative Implications of Expecting Employees to Behave Proactively. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X493134
Bolino,
M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J., and LePine, J. A. (2015). “Well, I’m Tired of Tryin’!” Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Citizenship
Fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 56–74.
Cangiano, F., and Parker, S. K. (2015). Proactivity for Mental Health and Well-being.
In S. Clarke, T. M. Probst, F. Guldenmund, and J.
Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Occupational
Safety and Workplace Health (pp. 228–250). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cangiano, F., Parker, S. K., and Yeo, G. B.
(2018). Does Daily Proactivity Affect Well‐being? The Moderating Role of Punitive
Supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2321
Catania, A.
C. (1984). The Operant Behaviorism of B. F. Skinner. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 7(4), 473–475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00026728
Chin, A., Markey, A., Bhargava, A., Kassam, K.,
and Loewenstein, G. (2017). Bored in USA: Experience Sampling and Boredom in
Everyday Life. American Psychology Association, 17(2), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000232
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow:
The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life. Basic Books.
Damásio, A. (1997). O Erro de Descartes: emoção, razão e cérebro humano. Publicações Europa América.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Burris,
E. R., and Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial Modes of Influence and Counterproductivity
in Organizations: A Longitudinal Business-unit-level Investigation. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 993–1005. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.993
Diário da República (2024). Lexionário: "Assédio". Diário da República.
Dickson, T., and Dolnicar, S. (2004). No Risk, No Fun: The Role of Perceived Risk in Adventure Tourism.
Faculty of Commerce - Papers. https://www.researchgate.net/
Domjan, M. (2003). The Principles of
Learning and Behavior. Thomson/Wadsworth.
Eastwood, J. D., Cavaliere, C.,
Fahlman, S. A., and Eastwood, A. E. (2007). A Desire for Desires: Boredom and Its
Relation to Alexithymia. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6),
1035–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.027
Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., and Smilek, D. (2012). The Unengaged Mind: Defining Boredom in
Terms of Attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5),
482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612456044
Elpidorou, A. (2018). The Good of Boredom. Philosophical
Psychology, 31, 323–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2017.1346240
Fahlman, S. A., Mercer, K. B., Gaskovski, P., Eastwood, A. E., and Eastwood,
J. D. (2009). Does a Lack of Life Meaning Cause Boredom? Results from
Psychometric, Longitudinal, and Experimental Analyses. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 28(3), 307–340. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.3.307
Fahlman, S. A., Mercer-Lynn, K. B., Flora, D.
B., and Eastwood, J. D. (2013). Development and Validation of the Multidimensional
State Boredom Scale. Assessment, 20(1), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111421303
Fay, D., and Sonnentag,
S. (2012). Within-person Fluctuations of Proactive Behavior: How Affect and Experienced
Competence Regulate Work Behavior. Human Performance, 25(1),
72–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.631647
Fay, D., and Hüttges, A. (2016). Drawbacks of Proactivity: Effects of Daily Proactivity on Daily
Salivary Cortisol and Subjective Well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
22(4), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000042
Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at
Work: A Neglected Concept. Human Relations, 46(3), 395–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600305
Gerritsen, C. J., Toplak, M. E., Sciaraffa,
J., & Eastwood, J. (2014). I Can’t Get No Satisfaction: Potential Causes of
Boredom. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 27–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.10.001
Ghayas, M., and Jabeen, R. (2020). Abusive
Supervision: Dimensions & Scale. New Horizons, 14(1), 107–130.
https://doi.org/10.2.9270/NH.14.1(20).07
Grant, A. M.,
Parker, S. K., and Collins, C. (2009). Getting Credit for Proactive Behavior:
Supervisor Reactions Depend on What You Value and How You Feel. Personnel
Psychology, 62(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01128.x
Hebb, D. O., and Donderi, D. C. (1987). Textbook of
Psychology. Psychology Press.
Hiller, N. J., Sin, H.-P., Ponnapalli, A. R., and Ozgen,
S. (2019). Benevolence and Authority as WEIRDly Unfamiliar:
A Multi-language Meta-analysis of Paternalistic Leadership Behaviors from 152 Studies.
The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 165–184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.003
Isacescu, J., Struk, A. A., and Danckert,
J. (2016). Cognitive and Affective Predictors of Boredom Proneness. Cognition
& Emotion, 31(8), 1741–1748.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1259995
Kaluza, A. J., Boer, D., Buengeler, C., and Van Dick, R. (2019).
Leadership Behaviour and Leader Self-reported Well-being:
A Review, Integration and Meta-analytic Examination. Work Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2019.1617369
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., and Martinko,
M. J. (2017). Abusive Supervision: A Meta-analysis and Empirical Review. Journal
of Management, 43, 1940–1965.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573997
Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., Maher, L. P.,
and Wang, G. (2019). Leaders and Followers Behaving Badly: A Meta-analytic Examination
of Curvilinear Relationships between Destructive Leadership and Followers’ Workplace
Behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 72, 3–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12286
Marques, J. M., and Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The Black Sheep Effect:
Judgmental Extremity towards Ingroup Members in Inter- and Intra-group Situations.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180308
Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., and Leyens,
J. P. (1988). The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of Judgments towards Ingroup Members
as a Function of Group Identification. European Journal of Social Psychology,
18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180102
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.034
Merton, R. K. (1948). The Self-fulfilling Prophecy.
The Antioch Review, 8(2), 193–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4609267
Mitchell, T. R., and Daniels, D.
(2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, and
R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology
(volume 12). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards
a Description of Social Representations. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 18(3), 211–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180303
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., and Daniels, L. M.
(2010a). What to Do When Feeling Bored? Students’ Strategies for Coping with Boredom.
Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.004
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., and Hall, N. C.
(2010b). Coping with Boredom in School: An Experience Sampling Perspective. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 36, 49–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.003
Ndetei, D. M., Nyamai,
P., & Mutiso, V. (2023). Boredom. Understanding
the Emotion and Its Impact on Our Lives: An African Perspective. Frontiers
in Sociology, 8, 1213190. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1213190
https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1382
Park, H., Hoobler, J. M., Wu, J., Liden, R. C., Hu,
J., and Wilson, M. S. (2019). Abusive Supervision and Employee Deviance: A Multifoci Justice Perspective. Journal of Business
Ethics, 158(4), 1113–1131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3749-2
Parker, S. K.,
Williams, H. M., and Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the Antecedents of Proactive Behavior
at Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., and Perry, R. P. (2010). Boredom in Achievement
Settings: Exploring Control-value Antecedents and Performance Outcomes of a Neglected
Emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 531–549.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019243
Reed, G. (2004). Toxic Leadership. Military
Review, 67–71.
Ryff,
C. D. (1989). Happiness Is Everything, or Is It? Explorations on the Meaning of
Psychological Well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57(6), 1069–1081.
Selman, R. L., Jaquette,
D., and Lavin, D. R. (1977). Interpersonal Awareness in Children: Toward an Integration
of Developmental and Clinical Child Psychology. The American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 47(2), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1977.tb00981.x
Shirom,
A. (2011). Vigor as a Positive Affect at Work: Conceptualizing Vigor, Its Relations
with Related Constructs, and Its Antecedents and Consequences. Review of
General Psychology, 15(1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021853
Skinner, B. F. (1935) Two Types of Conditioned Reflex
and a Pseudo Type. Journal of General Psychology, 12, 66–77. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/00221309.1935.9920088
Skinner, B. F. (1948). Superstition’ in the Pigeon.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(2), 168–172. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0055873
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior.
Simon & Schuster.
Skinner, B. F. (2011). About Behaviorism. Knopf
Doubleday Publishing Group.
Strauss, K., and
Parker, S. K. (2014). Effective and Sustained Proactivity in the Workplace: A Self-determination
Theory Perspective. In M. Gagne (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Work
Engagement, Motivation, and Self-determination Theory (pp. 50–71). Oxford
University Press.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of Abusive Supervision. AMJ, 43,
178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x
Tepper,
B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone,
R. A., and Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive Supervision and Subordinates’ Organization
Deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.721
Thorndike,
E. L. (1905) Elements of Psychology. A. G. Seiler.
Tolstoy, L. (n.d.). Nikolaievitch Tolstoy. Pensador.
https://www.pensador.com/frase/MjQyMTY4/
Van Tilburg, W. A.
P., and Igou, E. R. (2019). The Unbearable Lightness of Boredom: A Pragmatic Meaning-regulation
Hypothesis. In J. Ros Velasco (Ed.), Boredom Is in Your Mind. A
Shared Psychological-philosophical Approach (pp. 11–35). Springer.
Wang, G., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Zhang, L., and
Bishoff, J. (2019). Meta-analytic and Primary Investigations
of the Role of Followers in Ratings of Leadership Behavior in Organizations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 70–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000345
Westgate,
E. C. (2020). Why Boredom Is Interesting. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 29(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419884309
https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000278
Westgate, E. C., and Steidle, B. (2020). Lost by Definition: Why
Boredom Matters for Psychology and Society. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 14, 12562. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12562
Wu,
C. H., and Parker, S. K. (2014). The Role of Leader Support in Facilitating Proactive
Work Behavior: A Perspective from Attachment Theory. Journal of Management,
40(6), 1511–1534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314544745
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1348/096317907X203742
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.06.003
Zhang, Y., Liu,
X., Xu, S., Yang, L.-Q., and Bednall,
T. C. (2019). Why Abusive Supervision Impacts Employee OCB and CWB: A Meta-analytic
Review of Competing Mediating Mechanisms. Journal of Management, 45(6),
2474–2497.