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

Authors:
Publisher website
Google Scholar
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.

This publication has 96 references indexed in Scilit: