At one time or another, almost everyone has witnessed a playground bully taunting a more submissive child. However, victimization is not confined to the schoolyard, and a B&E faculty member is examining issues that arise when such behavior occurs in the workplace.

Karl Aquino, associate professor of business administration, conducts research in organizational behavior and conflict resolution. Fundamental to his work are such questions as: Why do certain people seem to be victimized more than others? Why do some workers engage in apparently provocative behavior? What--if anything--can be done to remedy the situation?

"Victimization in the workplace can be defined broadly as a person's perception that he or she has been harmed by one or more co-workers," Aquino says. "Studies show that, in some cases, people become targets of others' harmful actions because of how they present themselves."

Thus, he says, we have grown-up bullies and victims who are unable or unwilling to protect themselves. But, we also have people who respond to their perceived victimization by adopting threatening and hostile behavior. To understand the issues underlying these various forms of destructive behavior, Aquino says we need to look at both the perpetrators of harmful actions and their targets.

His research shows that while personality traits can make workers more vulnerable to mistreatment, their status within the organization also plays an important role. Status is affected by one's job--a manager versus a line worker, for example--as well as by such factors as gender or race.

"A basic finding is that people of higher status within an organization are less likely to be victimized, even if they engage in submissive or provocative behaviors," Aquino says. "Having power, whether actual power or social power that comes from being a member of a higher status group, protects against victimization."

To see whether a particular behavioral change benefited potential victims, Aquino looked at whether employees who engaged in friendly workplace behavior were less likely to feel themselves the targets of abuse. The results differed by racial identification. Black employees did not find this tactic to be effective, while white employees reported greater benefit.

"My research thus far considers only the perceptions of workers who report that they have been victimized," Aquino notes. "I haven't yet extended the findings to address how co-workers view the situation." Nevertheless, he says, status appears to affect a worker's sense of being able to mitigate how he is being treated.

Aquino also studied the behavior of perpetrators who engage in deviant or potentially harmful acts. Perpetrators may target the organization through sabotage or theft, for example, or they may target co-workers with threats, insults or racial or ethnic slurs. Once again, status is a recurring theme, with workers in lower positions more inclined to feel victimized and also more willing to engage in unacceptable behavior.

"My explanation follows that of other researchers," Aquino says. "People at the bottom are fighting for respect and are sensitive to injustice. Lacking positive affirmation, they may retaliate or even seek revenge. The impulse for revenge is certainly a common human trait, but it is very destructive in the workplace, so we need to find other ways to resolve conflicts. We all feel offended or harmed at one time or another, but if we all try to even the score, then we all are in trouble."

Currently, Aquino is examining alternative responses to workplace victimization. "Individuals can choose to be passive or to seek revenge, but they can also offer forgiveness," he says. "I am looking at what it is that enables some people to forgive those who have harmed them and perhaps to reconcile and rebuild the damaged relationship."

For application to management, Aquino's new research is on the cutting edge. His preliminary findings indicate that those who can forgive are less likely to assign blame. Therefore, whether explicitly discussing revenge and forgiveness in the classroom or introducing the topic as part of a business workshop on conflict reduction, Aquino addresses the issue of how people assign blame for behavior--often in ways that reflect their personal biases.

His research, published in a number of scholarly journals in the fields of management and psychology, is an outgrowth of his lifelong interest in justice. "As an immigrant who moved to the United States as a child, I experienced racial epithets and treatment that made me sensitive to injustice," he says. "As an adult, I want to find an effective response. If we look at current and historical events in the world, we can see that revenge never really solves any problem, even though it might bring temporary satisfaction to people. I want to understand the dynamics of an alternative solution."

In a related undertaking, Aquino is working with Americus Reed at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School on a program to study the notion of moral self-identity and how it relates to a person's behavior. Initial research using data collected from high school and UD students found a correlation between those for whom certain moral traits were very important and their willingness to volunteer for community activities or to donate food to the needy.

Aquino and Reed are extending their research in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks to examine the distinctions between a moral self-identity and an American self-identity. They want to discover how these distinctions are shaping Americans' attitudes and behaviors toward others.

-Mary Jane Pahls