SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış / 2018 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4

Revenge or Forgiveness? An Equation With Multiple Variables in Organizational Setting

İntikam mı Affetme mi? Örgütsel Yaşamda Çok Bilinmeyenli Bir Denklem

Burcu Güneri Çangarlı
Ceren Deniz TATARLAR
Pages
591–603
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The research contributes to a better understanding of the antecedents and consequences of revenge, how different positions make difference in revenge strategies and motives, and in what kind of situations and intentions lead people to forgive instead of focusing on revenge.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Human development measures the level of proThis exploratory study focuses on the concept of revenge in workplace.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It attempts to understand how revenge is conceptualized by managers and employees, their revenge motives and strategies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The research contributes to a better understanding of the antecedents and consequences of revenge, how different positions make difference in revenge strategies and motives, and in what kind of situations and intentions lead people to forgive instead of focusing on revenge.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Human development measures the level of proThis exploratory study focuses on the concept of revenge in workplace. It attempts to understand how revenge is conceptualized by managers and employees, their revenge motives and strategies. Given the sensitivity of the subject, in-depth interview was chosen as the data collection method. Interviews were conducted with 10 people working in various positions in public and private sectors. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with the help of discourse analysis. Findings are discussed around the emerging themes (perceptions of revenge, revenge motives, revenge strategies and forgiving). The research contributes to a better understanding of the antecedents and consequences of revenge, how different positions make difference in revenge strategies and motives, and in what kind of situations and intentions lead people to forgive instead of focusing on revenge.

Özet

Çalışmada iş yaşamında intikam kavramınaodaklanılmış, bireyler tarafından intikamolgusunun nasıl kavramsallaştırıldığı, hangidavranışlarla kendini gösterdiği anlaşılmayaçalışılmıştır. Konunun hassasiyeti göz önünealınarak, derinlemesine görüşme veri toplamayöntemi olarak seçilmiş, kamu ve özelsektörde çeşitli pozisyonlarda çalışan 10 kişiylegörüşmeler yapılmıştır. Yapılan görüşmelerbire bir transkriptlere aktarılmış ve söylemanalizinden yararlanılarak değerlendirilmiştir.Bulgular; oluşan temalar (intikam kavramınınnasıl algılandığı, intikamı güdüleyen durumlar,intikam alma şekilleri ve affetme niyeti)çerçevesinde tartışılmıştır. Araştırma işyaşamında pek çok olumsuz davranışın temeliolarak görülen intikam kavramının öncüllerininve sonuçlarının, çeşitli pozisyonların hemintikam alma şekillerinde hem de güdülenmedeyarattığı farklılıkların, affetme niyetinin hangidurumlarda ve hangi sebeplerle ortaya çıktığınındaha iyi anlaşılmasına katkı vermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çangarlı, B. G., TATARLAR, C. D. (2022). Revenge or Forgiveness? An Equation With Multiple Variables in Organizational Setting. Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4, 591–603. https://ajindex.com/articles/495186

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Adugit, Y. (2008). İntikam: Adaletin Estetiği. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 1(1), 11-32.
  2. Akın, M., Özdevecioğlu, M., & Ünlü, O. (2012). Örgütlerde intikam niyeti ve affetme eğiliminin çalışanların ruh sağlıkları ile ilişkisi. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 45(1), 77-97.
  3. Allred, K. G. (1999). Anger and Retaliation: Toward an Understanding of Impassioned Conflict in Organizations. In R.J. Bies, R.J. Lewicki, & B.H. Sheppard (Eds.) Research on negotiations in organizations. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  4. Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M., Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), Feb 2001, 52-59.
  5. Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653–668.
  6. Aycan, Z. (2001). Paternalistic leadership. Wiley encyclopedia of management. Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism. Indigenous and cultural psychology, 445-466.
  7. Ayten, A. (2009). Affedicilik ve din: affetme eğilimi ve dindarlıkla ilişkisi üzerine ampirik bir araştırma. Bacon, F. (1902). Of revenge. The Essays of Francis Bacon. Baker, K. A. (2002). Organizational communication. Retrieved June, 7, 2009.
  8. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization studies, 18(1), 93-117.
  9. Berkman, Ü., & Özen, Ş. (2008). Culture and management in Turkey: State-dependency and paternalism in transition. Gestion en contexte interculturel: Approches, problématiques, pratiques et plongées. Québec, Presse de l’Université Laval et Télé-université (UQAM). Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1995). The use and abuse of power: Justice as social control. Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing social climate at work, 131-145.
  10. Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations. 246–260.
  11. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M. (2005). The Study of Revenge in the Workplace: Conceptual, Ideological and Empirical Issues. Fox, Suzy (Ed); Spector, Paul E. (Ed). Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets. 65-81.
  12. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. vii. Bie