Supervisory Level and the Impulse to Harm a Coworker: Advancing a Bourdieusian Perspective

Abstract

Purpose

The malicious impulse is a phenomenon that lies in the theoretical and ontological space between emotion and action. In this chapter, we probe this space. In the empirical part of this work, we evaluate the hypothesis that middle-level supervisors will be more likely than non-supervisory workers and top-level supervisors to report an impulse to “hurt someone you work with” (i.e., maliciousness).

Methodology/approach

Data are from a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of employed Toronto residents in 2004–2005.

Findings

Results from logistic regression analyses show that when job characteristics are controlled, the estimated difference between middle-level supervisors and workers in other hierarchical positions reporting the impulse to harm a coworker is statistically significant. Moreover, the difference between middle-level supervisors and other workers persist after controls for anger about work and job-related stress.

Social Implications

In discussing our results, we focus on factors that might generate the observed associations, and on how Bourdieusian theory may be used to interpret the social patterning of impulses in general, and malicious impulses in particular. We also discuss the implications of our findings for emotional intelligence in the workplace.

Citation

Upenieks, L. and Magee, W. (2016), "Supervisory Level and the Impulse to Harm a Coworker: Advancing a Bourdieusian Perspective", Emotions and Organizational Governance (Research on Emotion in Organizations, Vol. 12), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 279-311. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1746-979120160000012010