Relationship between Dominating Interpersonal Behavior and Perceived Victimization in Groups - Assignment Example

Introduction: In this paper I evaluate the article by Aquino and Byron (2002) on the curvilinear relationship between dominating interpersonal behavior and perceived victimization in groups. In this study evaluated, the authors used a victim precipitation model to predict that members of workgroups who were perceived by others as showing either high or low levels of dominating behavior also reported as being more frequent targets of personally injurious behaviors than those who were mild to moderately dominating. The paper emphasized the importance of gender in this context and data was obtained from 131 MBA students who were randomly assigned to workgroups. The study supported a curvilinear relationship between dominating interpersonal behavior and victimization in groups and also suggested moderating effects of gender and gender variations in victimization. I will provide a methodological evaluation of the article examining the methods used, the importance of the research question, the advantages and disadvantages of the research design, and I also provide a philosophical exposition of the views of the authors and relate my philosophical viewpoint with a critical analysis of the paper content. Thus following an evaluation of the methods, I will state the research questions that have been analyzed and give my analysis of the questions and research design. Any alternative research designs that could have been used are also discussed and the similarities and differences of the philosophical viewpoint of the authors with that of mine are also taken up in detail.   Methodological Evaluation - Aquino and Byron In this section the research methods used in the study are analyzed from the perspective of qualitative research methods in the social sciences in general. Morgan (1980) argue that the dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative methods are oversimplified and too rough. He states that contemporary social science research is based both on quantitative and qualitative research methods. Qualitative research has been considered as an approach rather than any particular set of techniques and its appropriateness is dependent on the social phenomena that is explored and also derived from it (Nachmias et al, 2000). The trend in the 1960s and 1970s, when organizational research was dominated by quantitative analysis has now given way to qualitative research methods and the focus is on in depth qualitative analysis rather than a quantitative or statistical appraisal (Morgan et al , 1980). In fact even in the research design described here in the paper evaluated, the paper by Aquino and Byron (2002) gives some qualitative analysis in the initial phase of their study and this is well documented by the fact that the forms of maltreatment discussed here are qualitatively analyzed. the authors write that the extreme forms of maltreatment as examined in the study can be homicide or assault and these are captured by the media and general public, yet certain forms of maltreatment such as injurious behaviors directed by one employee against another can be verbal rather than physical, passive rather than active, indirect rather than direct, subtle rather than overt (Aquino and Byron 2002 cite Baron & Neuman, 1996). The analysis of verbal, passive, indirect or subtle forms of organizational mistreatment provides qualitative descriptions of behavior rather than quantities or numerical values of emotions. Considering the complexity of human behavior and the general hierarchical structure of organizations, a qualitative analysis of human behavior seems to be more appropriate than any quantitative evaluation. According to the authors, past studies on organizational behavior has dealt not with the nature of assaults and humiliation in organizations but with situational factors that provoke such acts or motives or characteristics of perpetrators in order to argue for solutions. In fact, Aquino et al. (1999) suggested that the characteristics of potential targets of harmful action should also be considered. The researchers analyzed the question whether certain persons exhibit characteristics that make them particularly vulnerable to or deserving mistreatment and in the study they explored this by testing whether certain behavioral tendencies could predict perceived victimization in workgroups and make a person prone to assault and humiliation in the workplace. Quoting Hackman, 19831, workgroup has been defined as an intact, bounded system, with interdependent members and differentiated member roles that pursue shared, measurable goals. The study by Aquino and Byron addresses two fundamental and related questions - (1) Will group members who are perceived by others as being high or low in dominating behavior become more frequent targets of mistreatment than those who are perceived as moderately dominating? and (2) Is this relation moderated by the target’s gender?   Thus there are two research questions here and whether certain behavioral natures/tendencies and personality patterns such as being domineering contribute to being ill-treated or assaulted by coworkers and if so, does being a male or female have special implications that shape the interpersonal relationships within the workplace and even modify interaction patterns and responses? The authors provide a theoretical background of victimization and give the following hypotheses for their study - Hypothesis 1: Persons who are perceived by others as exhibiting either high or low levels of dominating behavior will report being victimized more than those who are perceived by others to exhibit moderate levels of this behavior.2 Hypothesis 2: Gender moderates the curvilinear relation between dominating behavior and perceived victimization such that men who are high and low in dominating behavior will report being victimized more than men who are moderately dominating, whereas there will be no significant difference in reported victimization for women who exhibit varying levels of dominating behavior. Thus the two factors identified here are dominating behavior which seems to have a variable effect in case of men than in case of women. For the methodology part, the researchers distributed questionnaires to Master’s level Students randomly assigned to different workgroups and assessed their personality characteristics, perceptions of other members in the groups and general group experiences and treatment by other members. 131 students completed all the surveys given to them and the measures were perceived victimization, dominance, and gender. Several variable such neuroticism and groups size were controlled to reduce influence of extraneous factors (Aquino and Byron, 2002). The results indicated means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables. The study was analyzed quantitatively and statistically and for hypotheses testing the curvilinear relationship between dominance and victimization and hierarchical regression analysis for men and women was performed. The purpose was to draw out a theoretical relationship between victimization, gender and dominance. The study definitely establishes a relationship between dominance, victimization and gender using the hypothesis testing method to construct a theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). However a through evaluation of the study can suggest that there are many flaws and the research could have been performed differently. We give our arguments below. 1. The first point of evaluation is the sample and the groups. The 131 students who completed the survey were assigned to different workgroups and their personal characteristics and organizational dynamics were evaluated using questionnaires. We suggest that for analysis of organizational behavior, sample from already established workgroups could have been considered. this means that the study began with a description of organizational behavior within an industrial or corporate context but the study was based on an academic or educational context and the workgroups were not pre-established or already existing but had to be 'created' for the purposes of the design. This seems to have been a diversion from what the study aimed to establish and whether dominance can lead to victimization within workgroups as in the workplace. Created or formed workgroups don't seem to have the same dynamics or relationships as in already formed workgroups at the workplace. So the sample here can definitely be criticized as not completely suited for the purposes of the analysis. The study results could be extrapolated to organizational behavior and corporate relationships analysis but again this would be a generalization rather than a direct result from business organization study. 2. The second point is the method of analysis which has focused too much on quantitative and statistical interpretations although the study was entirely based on understanding the qualitative aspects of behavior. The behaviors that were studied involved dominance, and perceived victimization and certain subtle relationship questions which seem to have rich qualitative dimension that was not analyzed. The study again began with the differences in the qualitative dimension of behavioral analysis but surprisingly discussed only statistical interpretations of the data obtained. Individual questions on group behavior and answers or responses on personality patterns were not analyzed and thus the nature or behavioral patterns of the person could be known completely. Without a qualitative analysis for variables such as behavior, personality and emotions, the study seems to have lost a major dimension and seems to have reduced the complexities of organizational behavior into a set of numbers. Probably a good balance of quantitative and qualitative analysis could have produced better results and given more credibility and relevance to the findings. 3. The third point of our criticism of the study includes the nature of data. The data was obtained through surveys and questionnaires in which the subjects were asked to give self reports on organizational behavior and their perception of behaviors of other colleagues. The data was thus completely based on self perception or self reports and people are likely to exaggerate their claims of being mistreated. Thus the validity of the data is questionable. The authors have themselves refuted this point suggesting that data produced by observation of others' behavior rather than self reports may have the same problems and self reports are completely valid and reliable. Despite these claims, the data obtained seem to have remained questionable as subjective perceptions of personality characteristics and behavior is bound to be considerably flawed or not consistent or even quantifiable.   Methodology in Social Sciences - Perspectives and Evaluation Considering the approach taken in the study above, I make a general analysis of the research questions in consideration, the theoretical constructs and find out the implications of this in scientific research. The methodology is examined and I provide my approach to the research question and the research design that I could or would have used for the same research question. Considering the research questions - 1. Whether dominating behavior and dominance as a personality characteristic increases vulnerability of being ill-treated by coworkers and victimization in the workplace 2. Whether gender has any effect in determining the extent to which people get mistreated in the workplace The study above indicated that women tend to be less bullied or victimized on the basis of their personality patterns or dominance but dominant men are more victimized and mistreated than moderately dominating or mildly dominating men. Considering the hypothesis and the aims of the research study, my research design would have considerably different. A brief synopsis of the design that could have been used in this case is given here: 1. Sample - the sample I would choose is existing workgroups of any business or corporate scenario. A sample of 100 participants already within select groups of a workplace or business organization would be taken for the study. 2. Methods - the methodology would include surveys, questionnaires administered to already existing groups rather than randomly constructed groups to determine the existing or true dynamics of the groups and the member relationships within the organization. The data obtained would also be through interviews and observation of interpersonal relationships and group behavior. 3. Data - This would involve data from five interrelated sources namely surveys & questionnaires, self reports, interviews, observation and interpersonal groups analysis. Along with self reports, to avoid subjective bias and other pitfalls of individual perceptions, we use perceptions about others and relate these to a general perception by the groups. I also conduct interviews for qualitative data and perform observations to determine group dynamics and group behavior in general. 4. Analysis (Validity/Reliability) - The data can be analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative analysis and this is done by using the data from surveys and questionnaires for a statistical analysis and quantitative interpretations and using the individuals’ interview or questionnaire responses as well as observation data for more in depth qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis would be done to draw out personality patterns of the respondents as well as behavioral variables that seem to form the bases organizational dynamics. This qualitative analysis definitely makes the study more analytical, descriptive and informative adding to its reliability and validity.   The philosophical viewpoint of the authors seems to be focused on an understanding of organizational behavior in a very general context given by the fact that the sample is derived from an academic setting. We suggest that creating or forming groups for the purposes of research may bring in several extraneous variables as the groups formed do not have the opportunity for sufficient interaction as compared with already existing workgroups as in workplaces with business organizations. My focus is also on qualitative rather than quantitative analysis of group behavior as I consider that behavioral variables, emotions and feelings of dissatisfaction or dislike for other members in a groups cannot be completely understood quantitatively as these are not consistent variables, tend to change and vary and issues that are subjective may not be completely quantifiable. Considering this basic difference in philosophy in which the authors reduce behavioral analysis into a set of numbers and an analysis in which I seek to understand the qualitative dimensions and variations of behavior, it is only expected that my investigative approach to the same research questions would be completely different. Conclusion From the perspective of social sciences, scientists have claimed that science through research methods aims for pursuit and discovery of phenomena through objective methods. Scientific method is thus the only objective method of pursuing knowledge (Chalmers, 1999). In this vein quantitative research methods may tend to have more objectivity and can be claimed as more scientific than qualitative methods which are subjective interpretations of the researcher. The importance of theory-based research has been emphasized by Whetten (1989). But as we see here the very nature of behavior is such that even self reports are subjective and there is a considerable amount of subjective perceptions of other behaviors. Any quantitative or objective evaluation of behavior for theory construction seems to include a subjective component so this is unavoidable. Thus any qualitative as well as quantitative analysis both seem to be have the same component in them and I would propose that for a scientific exposition of behavioral methods, only both quantitative and qualitative methods used together can give an understanding of the phenomena under consideration. Bibliography Aquino, Karl and Kristin Byron (2002). Dominating Interpersonal Behavior and Perceived Victimization in Groups: Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship. Journal of Management 28(1) 69-87. Aquino, K., Grover, S., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D. G. 1999. The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 260–272. Eisenhardt K.M, 1989 Building Theories from Case Study Research Academy of Management Review, Vol 14. No. 4., 532-550. Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and D. Nachmias (2000). Research methods in the social sciences. 6th ed., Worth Publishers, New York. Chalmers, A.F. (1999). What is this thing called science? 3rd ed. Buckingham :Open University Press. Chapter 1-9. Sutton, R. I. And B. M. Staw (1995) What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3) 371-384. Morgan G and Smircich, L, 1980 The Case for Qualitative Research Academy of Management Review, Vol 5. No. 4., 491-500. Whetten, David, A. (1989). What Constitute a Theoretical Contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4) 490-495. Read More