دانلود مقاله ترجمه شده از بین بردن اعتقادات منفی و عصبانیت در محیط کار با خود کنترلی – مجله الزویر

فهرست مطالب:

 چکیده
۱مقدمه
۲ روش ها
۲ ۱شرکت کننده ها و روش
۲ ۲ معیار های اندازه گیری
۳ نتایج
۴ بحث

بخشی از ترجمه:

در تحقیق گزارش شده در اینجا، ما به بررسی از سوابق انحراف محل کارپرداختیم.صفت خشم
انتخاب به عنوان عامل پیش بینی انحراف محل کارانتخاب شد.رابطه بین خشم و تجاوز از لحاظ نظری به عنوان فرضیه سرخوردگی تجاوز Dollard تعریف شده است .به طور مشابه، روابط متقابل منفی به عنوان باور ها انتخاب شدو مشخص شده است که نقش مهمی را در هر دو تجاوز و تصویب اقدامات تهاجمی ایفا می کند ( بندورا ، ۱۹۷۷؛ هیوزمن وگوئرا ، ۱۹۹۷(.در نهایت، ما خویش تن داری را به عنوان عامل انتخاب بین صفت خشم ، روابط متقابل منفی و انحراف محل کاردر نظر گرفتیم .نشان داده است که افراد با سطح بالاتری از خویش تن داری قادر به مقاومت در برابر احساسات و انگیزه های که منجر به جرم و انحراف می شود هستند.
به طور کلی، نتایج نشان یافته مهم را نشان داد.نخست، حمایت ازکار قبلی (داگلاس و Martinko، ۲۰۰۱؛ گارسیا و همکاران، ۲۰۱۰٫)، )هر دوصفت خشم و روابط متقابل منفی به اعمال انحراف فرد در محل کار و رابطه مثبت با کارکنان که تمایل بالا به تجربه خشم در رفتارهای انحرافی است دارندبه همین ترتیب، کارکنان با اعتقادات علاقه عذاب نیز درگیردر اعمال انحرافی است. دوم، و مهمتر، نتایجهمچنین نشان داد که خود شاهد هر دو مستقیم و تعدیلاثر بر انحراف در محل کار. مطابق با این دیدگاه که خود تنظیم یک منبع مهم است که می تواند مهار تهاجمی استعمل (DeWall و همکاران، ۲۰۰۷؛ گاتفردسون و Hirschi، ۱۹۹۰)، خود کنترل، نه تنها منفی مربوط به انحراف محل کار بود آن را نیزبافر عوارض جانبی از خشم صفت و روابط متقابل منفیدارد.

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Introduction Deviant workplace behaviors are becoming a cause for considerable concern in organizations across the globe. For instance, a report by the US Chamber of Commerce estimates that 75% of all employees steal at least once (Shulman, 2005). In Australia, a national poll reported that 31% of workers had been verbally abused by their immediate supervisor and 35% by a co-worker (Mayhew & Chappell, 2001). The prevalence of deviant behaviors in the workplace highlights the increasing importance to understand the antecedents of such behaviors. However, despite evidence suggesting that individual differences account for a significant amount of variance in the occurrence of hostile acts in the workplace (Douglas & Martinko, 2001; Hershcovis et al., 2007), less research has focused on the direct relationship between dispositional factors and workplace deviance (Bordia, Restubog, & Tang, 2008; Folger & Skarlicki, 1998). Rather, recent empirical work has treated individual differences primarily as moderators between perceptions of injustice and workplace deviance (Aquino, Galperin, & Bennett, 2004; Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2007). In this brief report, we focus on the role of trait anger, negative reciprocity and self-control in predicting workplace deviance as well as the moderating role of self-control in influencing these relationships. In addition, while previous research on workplace deviance has predominantly used self-report methodology (Robinson & Greenberg, 1998), this paper contributes to research on workplace deviance by utilizing archival data on workplace deviance. Compared to self-report measures, archival data are less vulnerable to biases because they capture ‘‘observable, countable and discrete outcomes” (Viswesvaran, 2001, p. 111). We define workplace deviance as ‘‘voluntary behaviors that violate significant organizational norms and threaten the well-being of the organization, its members, or both” (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, p. 556; see Robinson & Greenberg, 1998 for a thorough discussion). Several authors have classified workplace deviance as a form of workplace aggression (Fox, Spector, Goh, & Bruursema, 2007; Neuman & Baron, 2005). For example, Neuman and Baron (2005) noted that there is much conceptual overlap between workplace deviance and workplace aggression as both involve hostile intent and motive. Despite many similarities, several critical components distinguish deviant behaviors from other constructs. For example, workplace deviant behaviors: (1) are not accidental, but instead voluntary and motivated; (2) violate norms established by leaders of the organization; and (3) can be targeted at organizational members or at the organization itself (Robinson & Bennett, 1997). To explicate how individual differences serve as powerful predictors of workplace deviance, we draw upon the general aggression model (GAM; Anderson & Bushman, 2002) which recognizes the role of aggressive personality in the occurrence of deviant behaviors. The GAM proposes that once aggressive knowledge structures (e.g., aggressive scripts, schemata, and desensitization to aggression) are strengthened and automatized, this leads to a predisposition to think and feel in a hostile manner. This in turn increases the individual’s propensity to engage in deviant acts. Due to the consistent use of aggressive knowledge structures, these result in stable individual differences across time, situations, or both. In the next section, we delineate the constructs in our model and discuss the expected relationships among them. The norm of reciprocity in its simplified form states that giving something generates an obligation to return the same gesture (Gouldner, 1960). Although extant research has identified the benefits associated with positive reciprocity (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), individuals may also endorse negative reciprocity beliefs which refer to a unitary set of beliefs favoring retribution as a response to mistreatment (Gouldner, 1960). It is trait-like in that it is normbased influenced by acculturation and learning (Eisenberger, Lynch, Aselage, & Rohdieck, 2004). Those who highly endorse the negative reciprocity norm believes that when someone mistreats them, it is acceptable to retaliate in return (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Differences in negative reciprocity beliefs have also been found to influence aggressive behavior in both work and non-work contexts (Eisenberger et al., 2004; Garcia, Restubog, & Denson, 2010; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). For this reason, we predict that negative reciprocity will be positively related to workplace deviance (Hypothesis 1a).