Abuzul psihologic şi leadershipul organizaţional

Nicoleta-Mihaela Cramaruc

Rezumat: Un număr crescând de studii explorează formele de ostilitate nonfizică precum abuzul psihologic exercitat de către lideri/ manageri împotriva propriilor angajaţi. Leadershipul este, fără îndoială, unul dintre principalii potenţiali stresori din mediul organizaţional, întrucât liderii pot fi abuzivi, agresivi, duri sau le lipsesc, pur şi simplu, abilităţile specifice leadershipului eficient, creând astfel un mediu disfuncţional. În consecinţă, liderii sunt consideraţi frecvent drept autori ai actelor negative şi, astfel, angajaţii ţintă raportează nemulţumire faţă de leadershipul organizaţional, prezenţa managerilor cu o toleranţă scăzută faţă de ambiguitate sau un management autoritar, informaţii insuficiente furnizate de către manageri ceea ce periclitează rezolvarea mutuală a conflictelor sau un nivel scăzut de conştiinciozitate şi agreabilitate al managerilor. Atunci când adoptă decizii, liderii nu urmăresc neapărat interesele organizaţiei şi, astfel, devin distructivi, iau decizii pentru binele personal, leadershipul lor putând fi tiranic, deraiat sau suportiv-neloial. Comportamentele specifice leadershipului distructiv nu sunt doar cele active şi manifeste, ci şi cele pasive şi indirecte precum incapacitatea liderului de a asigura siguranţa angajaţilor săi sau de a le oferi feedback-ul necesar, din cauză că nu posedă abilităţile specifice leadershipului transformaţional. Prin urmare, conduitele tipice pentru abuzul psihologic nu depind de lipsa unui leadership pozitiv, ci de caracterul negativ al comportamentului în sine cât şi de prezenţa unui leadership deficitar. Nu doar un leadership autoritar poate stimula abuzul psihologic, ci şi stilul de conducere laissez-faire, caracterizat prin lipsa implicării liderilor în procesul de luare a deciziilor, prin absenţa totală a leadershipului sau prin neglijarea responsabilităţilor ce derivă din statutul ierarhic superior. Asocierea dintre abuzul psihologic şi lipsa implicării şi intervenţiei liderilor creează impresia unui mediu organizaţional tolerant şi a faptului că autorii abuzului au permisiunea de a hărţui. De asemenea, pot fi explorate implicaţiile şi eventualele consecinţe ale conduitelor abuzive strategice ale liderului, având potenţialul de a produce efecte pozitive. Astfel, abuzul psihologic poate fi privit şi ca un mecanism de de influenţare justificat, pe de o parte, de ideea că supravieţuieşte cel mai puternic şi, pe de altă parte, de nevoia liderilor de a atinge obiective personale sau organizaţionale, de a-şi păstra reputaţia pozitivă sau de a stimula performanţa organizaţională.
Cuvinte cheie: mobbing, workplace bullying, lideri abuzivi, leadership deficitar, conflict

Abstract: A growing literature explores nonphysical forms of hostility as mobbing or indirect bullying perpetrated by leaders/ managers against their employees. Leadership is undoubtedly one of the most potential stressors in the workplace because leaders may be abusive, aggressive, punitive or may simply lack appropriate leadership skills which creates a dysfunctional environment. As a consequence, leaders are frequently seen as perpetrators and so the mobbed employees are reporting either dissatisfaction towards the organizational leadership, the presence of managers with low tolerance of ambiguity or an authoritarian management, insufficient information provided by the managers which endangers the mutual solving of conflicts or a low level of managers’ conscientiousness and agreeableness. Leaders do not necessarily have the best interests of the organization in mind when they make decisions and, thus, they become destructive, make decisions for their own good and their leadership behavior could be tyrannical, derailed or supportive-disloyal. Specific destructive leadership behaviors are not only the active and displayed ones, but also the passive and indirect as the leaders’ incapacity to make the employees feel save or to give them the needed feedback because they don’t have the skills of a transformational leadership. So tipical behaviors for mobbing do not depend on the lack of a positive leadership but on the negative character of the behavior itself and on the presence of a poor leadership. Not only an authoritarian leadership may stimulate the mobbing behavior but also the laissez-faire style that is characterized by the lack of leaders’ involvment in the decision-making process, by the total absence of the leadership or the neglect of responsabilities deriving from his hierarchical position. The association between mobbing and the lack of leaders’ involvment and intervention creates the impresion of a tolerant organizational environment and that perpetrators are allowed to harass. It can also be explored the implications and potential consequences of strategic leader mobbing behavior, potentially producing positive outcomes. So mobbing leadership could be also seen as a strategic mechanism of influence justified, on one hand, by the idea that survives only the strongest one and, on the other hand, by the leaders’ need to achieve his personal or organizational goals, to keep his positive reputation and to stimulate organizational performance.
Key words: mobbing, workplace bullying, bully leaders, poor leadership, conflict

Resumé: Une littérature de plus en plus élevée explore les formes non physiques d’ hostilité comme le mobbing ou le harcèlement moral perpétrés par les leaders/ managers envers leurs salariés. Le leadership est incontestablement l’un des facteurs potentiels de stress dans le lieu de travail parce que les leaders peuvent etre abusifs, agressifs, punitifs ou ils manquent tout simplement de compétence de leadership approprié ce qui créent un milieu dysfunctionnel. En conséquence, les leaders sont souvent considerés comme les auteurs d’actes negatifs ainsi que les employés harcelés soit déclarent l’insatisfaction envers le leadership organisationnele, la présence des managers ayant une faible tolérance à l’ambiguïté ou d’un management autoritaire, l’insuffisance des informations fournies par les managers ce qui met en danger la résolution mutuelle des conflits soit un niveau bas de sériuex et de l’agrément des leaders. Les leaders ne poursuivent nécessairement les intérêts de l’organisation lorsqu’ils prennent des décisions et, par conséquent, ils deviennent destructifs, ils prennent des décisions pour leur propre bien et leur comportament peut être tyrannique, déraillé ou supportive-déloyale. Les comportements spécifiques d’un leadership destructif ne sont pas seulement les actifs et les affichés, mais aussi lesquels passifs et indirects comme l’incapacité des leaders d’assurer la sécurité des employés ou de leur donner le feedback nécessaire, parce qu’ ils manquent de compétence d’un leadership transformationnel. Donc, les comportements tipiques de mobbing ne dépendent pas de l’absence d’un leadership positif mais du caractère negatif du comportement et de la presence d’un leadership médiocre. Pas seulemet un management autoritaire peut stimuler le comportement de harcèlement moral mais aussi le style laissez-faire qui se caractérise par le manque d’implication des leaders dans le processus de décision, par l’absence totale de leadership ou par la négligence des responsabilités découlant de la position hiérarchique. L’ association entre le harcèlement moral et le manque d’implication et d’intervention des leaders crée l’impresion d’un environnement tolérant et que les harceleurs soit autorisés à harceler. Il peut aussi être exploré les implications et les conséquences potentielles de mobbing stratégique des leaders ayant le potentiel de produire des effets positifs. Donc, le leadership abusif peut être également consideré comme un mécanisme stratégique d’influence justifié, d’une part, par l’idée que seulement survit le plus fort et, d’autre part, par le besoin des leaders pour atteindre des objectifs personnels ou organisationnels, de garder leur bonne réputation ou de stimuler la performance organisationnelle.
Mots clé: mobbing, harcèlement moral, leaders abusifs, leadership médiocre, conflit