DETERMINING NEGATIVITY TRIGGERS AT THE WORKPLACE: A STUDY OF WORKING PROFESSIONALS IN CAPITAL REGION OF INDIA

Prof. Anu Singh Lather Dean, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi 110 413 anusinghlather@gmail.com Dr. Shilpa Jain Assistant Professor, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi 110 413 shilpajain.usms@gmail.com Ms. Anju Dwivedi Shukla Research Associate, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere Gate, Delhi 110 413 anjudwivedi@yahoo.com ABSTRACT This paper attempts to find out the major factors which contribute to workplace negativity and thereby leading to a negative work environment in the long run. The negativity is reflected in the form of increased customer complaints, high turnover ratio, lack of creativity and innovation amongst the workers, loss of motivation and morale, increased absenteeism and ultimately loss of loyalty to the organisation. An attempt has been made by the authors through this paper, to identify the key reasons for negative behaviour amongst employees working in various sectors like Academics, Corporate and Government Employees of capital region of India. It was found that communication, equitable treatment, ethical robustness and work life balance are the major workplace negativity triggers in all the groups. Among academicians equitable treatment was found to be the most significant factor leading to negativity, whereas among corporate none of the factors showed major inclination towards negativity. On the contrary among government employees all the factors led to negativity if they were not handled properly.
1

Key Words: Workplace Negativity, Communication, Equitable treatment, Ethical robustness, Work life balance.

1. Introduction
Do you face a feeling of anger, fear, nervousness, depression, anxiety, complaining attitude, pessimism, selfishness, arrogance, jealousy, vindictiveness at times......YES....then you are facing negativity.. But, nothing to bother about as writer Christopher says, Just like there is a place for pain as a reminder to our body something is wrong. Negativity is a brain reminder to let us know something is wrong fix it fast. Just as there can be no light without dark there can be no positivity without negativity. But yes this should be short lived and temporary, if not it becomes a problem for oneself, for our team and ultimately for our organisation.

2.

Definition of Negativity

A commonly agreed definition of Negativity is difficult to pen down, but a number of definitions exist of negativity like - it is believed to be a trance, often accompanied by a state of agitation or depression a predictable reaction to adversity or change.....in the workplace, as in life. It can also be called a habitual attitude of scepticism or resistance to the suggestion, orders or instructions of others. It can also be defined as a behaviour defined by persistent refusal, without apparent or logical reasons, to act or carry out suggestions, or orders or instructions of others. And ultimately the definition of Negative behavior which was the outcome of much

consideration of the literature review and the research findings is any behaviour that is disrespectful and undermines or violates the value and/or dignity of an individual. It is behaviour that harms individuals and organizations The negativity has become so prevalent in our environment that a lot of new terms and conception related to negativity has come up like:
Clique Negativity Effect (coined by Dale King) which

is the tendency of a small

exclusive group of friends or associates, whom when evaluating the causes of the behaviors of a person or persons they dislike, attribute positive behaviors to the situations surrounding the behaviors and negative behaviors to the person's inherent disposition.
Negative Thinking spin (Debbie "Takara" Shelor) -

which begins with a simple

thought. But soon there are more thoughts. And then you find other people talking about
3

the same thing - the same fear, the same circumstance, that "wrong thing" that is going on in the world. Suddenly its like a tornado and you are being sucked down inside the cone. The walls are so steep and the energy pouring in is so powerful that you have no way of climbing back out. You are stuck at the bottom of a negative energy vortex - that you created by your own thoughts. 3. Sources of negativity According to Change Dynamics ,there are certain basic needs that can lead to negative behaviour, and these are :Control, Boundaries, Abandonment, Denial, Independence/ Dependence, Responsibility/Irresponsibility, Need to Be Liked, Authority, Need for Excitement and Chaos and Loyalties. Apart from this there are few distorted thinking styles that can lead to negativity , such as a) Magnifying: Turns the consequences of an event into a catastrophe such as, Im going to be fired.
b) Destructive Labeling: Form of over-generalization, making someone or a particular

situation totally negative.

c)

Imperative Thinking: Inflexible rules about how you and others should act usually based on negative past experiences.

d) Mind Reading:

Attributes motives that explain other peoples actions toward a

person or event.
e) Divide and Conquer: Over-magnification and wanting others to support a particular

position. Tend to get support creating division within groups.

3.1 Communication of Negativity

Negativity is communicated by three ways :
a) Verbally :By saying things such as This is the worst company to work for, I am

working with useless people

b) Vocally : We can scream, , howl, be ironic, or speak indistinctly. c) Visually : mode. We can scowl, keep away from people, or use unsuitable signals.

The above mentioned modes are the common ones, but there are many other variety of negative people, such as :
a) The Steamrollers: When they become negative, they get angry and hostile, taking out

their frustrations on others. They come across as being tyrannical, autocratic, and dictatorial.
b) The Ice People: These are the resisters of change. They like things the way they are or

were and become negative when you try to get them to do something differently. They usually do not openly express their resistance. They may even say the change is good and then not implement it or, worse, sabotage the change.
c) The Rumourmongers: They take out their negativity toward work or other people by

spreading rumours. They sense a loss of control regarding their environments, and passing along or creating rumours helps them regain a sense of control.
d) The Scapegoaters: They cannot take responsibility for their own mistakes or for the

negative situations that they find themselves in. They shift the blame to others.
e) The Eggshells: They are our very sensitive people. The slightest thing said to them, if

misconstrued, causes them to crack. Once they crack, they become negative.
f) The Micros: When they are in their negative moods, they focus on the smallest, most

unimportant details. If they are managers, they drive their people crazy.
g) The Pessimists: When they are negative, they believe the world is an unpleasant place,

and they do everything possible to make it so for themselves and for others.

3.2 How to spot negative thinking

The negative behaviour can be spotted by the following signs of negativity :

A lack of trust is keeping morale low. Employees make preventable mistakes because they dont seem to care. No one seems to have fun at work anymore. Employees spend too much time complaining and griping. The rumour mill is out of control. Employees talk badly about management, other departments, customers, or each other. Department negativity is causing employees to request transfers, or even quit. Workplace absenteeism is increasing. Back-stabbing and back-biting are creating an adversarial environment. People stop talking when the manager comes in. Employees just don't seem to care about doing a good job.

4. LITERATURE REVIEW
4.1 A quantitative and qualitative study of negative behaviour was undertaken in 2005 within two Primary Care Trusts. The results showed that 63% and 52.8% of the random group had experienced and/or witnessed negative behaviours in the previous 12 months. The most commonly indicated negative effect was decreased job satisfaction followed by decreased motivation. There was also evidence of physical avoidance, avoidance of communication, decreased cooperation, commitment and a negative stressful effect. Some people retaliated and some people had changed jobs within the organisation (17.2% and 10.7% respectively). Managers/team leaders were affected at higher prevalence (70.6%) and witnesses were affected, but to a lesser degree. The conclusion was that negative behaviours, irrespective of the individual perception regarding bullying and irrespective of frequency, is of great detriment and cost to the individual and the organisation. To focus on 'bullying' alone is to be sidetracked and organisations need to take steps to prevent all negative behaviour. To ignore any negative behaviour is to pay the cost.

4.2 A study from the University of Washington Business School published in Research in

Organizational Behavior in 2007 examined how negative behavior by one person in an organization can impact on teams and groups. The study concluded that negative behavior has a greater impact than positive behavior.
4.3 Seligman (1998) found a highly significant linkage between measured optimism and

performance in the insurance industry. In this extensive study at Metropolitan Life, Seligman found that high optimism insurance agents sold 37 percent more insurance their first two years on the job and had less turnover. The linkage between optimism and employee performance has also been demonstrated in the health care and banking industries (Luthans et al., 2007b).
4.4 Considerable theory and research by Snyder (2000, 2002) posits that individuals with

high hope not only have the willpower to accomplish a goal, but also consider multiple pathways to reach it if one is blocked. High hopers have an uncanny ability to forecast obstacles to challenges. Emerging research has also indicated that firms with higher hope employees are more profitable, and managers with higher hope levels have correspondingly higher performing work units (Peterson and Luthans, 2003). 4.5 Cynicism and intention to quit may be considered components of employee negativity. Initial research of cynicism in organizational behavior considered it as a generalized trait ( Kanter and Mirvis, 1989), but more recent work has considered cynicism as a specific construct (Andersson and Bateman, 1997). The definition of state cynicism, or cynicism about organizational change (CAOC), as used in this study, is defined as pessimistic viewpoint about change efforts being unsuccessful because those responsible for making change are blamed for being unmotivated, incompetent, or both (Wanous et al., 2000, p. 133). Wanous and colleagues found no support for CAOC as dispositional to negative affect. They also found that cynicism is spawned in an environment of ineffective leadership and lack of involvement or participation in decision making. 4.6 HR publisher B21 conducted a poll of the effect of negativity on 150 employers. Nearly half called it a significant problem. And 1 in 20 called it downright poisonous. 4.7 A survey by the Employment Law Alliance found that 5 per cent of American workers maintain a blog - and 16 per cent of bloggers admitted to having posted something
7

negative about an employer, supervisor or colleague. The Employment Law Alliance calculated that in a company with 120 employees, there is likely to be at least one employee making negative blog comments about the organization or its employees.
4.8

Barsade says research suggests that positive people tend to do better in the workplace,

and it isn't just because people like them more than naysayers. "Positive people cognitively process more efficiently and more appropriately. If you're in a negative mood, a fair amount of processing is going to that mood. When you're in a positive mood, you're more open to taking in information and handling it effectively. Barsade's research has taken her into a variety of workplaces, most recently long-term care facilities. Her research found that in facilities where the employees report having a positive workplace culture -- she calls it a "culture of love" -- the residents end up faring better than residents in facilities with a less compassionate and caring work culture. The residents reported experiencing less pain, made fewer trips to the emergency room, and were more likely to report being satisfied and in a positive mood. 4.9 John Cacioppo, Ph.D. conducted studies at Ohio State University in which he showed people pictures of subjects that were known to evoke positive, negative, or neutral feelings. As the participants viewed the pictures, he recorded electrical activity in the brains cerebral cortex that reflects the magnitude of information processing taking place. Cacioppo found that the brain reacts more strongly to stimuli it finds negative. He concluded that our attitudes are influenced more by gloomy news than good news. 4.10 In his article Our Brains Negative Bias that appeared in the June 20, 2003 issue of Psychology Today, Hara Marano wrote, Our capacity to weigh negative input so heavily most likely evolved for a good reasonto keep us out of harms way. From the dawn of human history, our very survival depended on our skill at dodging danger. The brain developed systems that would make it unavoidable for us not to notice danger and thus, hopefully, respond to it. 4.11 It Has been found that elements of change can have significant negative effect on

performance and can cause long-term damage to work relations, if little thought is given to the ways such changes may be viewed by the employees, and the consequences of such changes (Mazumdar, 1992).
8

4.12 The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that US companies lose $3 billion a year to the effects of negative attitudes and behaviours (Topchik, 2001). 4.13 Studies show a direct correlation between optimistic managers and improved

productivity in those that work for them , and optimism is an essential trait for us to be a good leader . If we're in any type of manager or supervisor role, it's essential that we be optimists because others will get their cues for acceptable behavior by watching us. 4.14 Negativity also stems from organizational factors. A 2002 study of 1,400 employees and human resource executives found workplace negativity to be caused by five major situations : Excessive workload Lack of recognition Lack of challenging opportunities Anxiety over financial security Concern over the company's future

5. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The main objective of the study is to find out the major factors contributing to workplace negativity and thereby leading to a negative work environment in the long run amongst the working professional in Capital Region of India. An attempt has been made to identify the key reasons for negative behaviour amongst employees working in various sectors like Academics, Corporates and Government sector of capital region of India. The paper also aims to identify whether the negativity causing elements are same for different sectors or there exist some differences in the negativity elements for employees in both the sectors. The paper also briefs the measures to deal with the negativity at the workplace.

6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The total sample consisted of 200 employees, out of which 70 were from Public Sector, working in Armed Forces and Government Departments,65 were from Corporates and 70 were from academics located in Capital Region of India .This sample was selected through convenience sampling. Out of 200, a total of 105 usable responses were obtained, with return rate of 52.5%.
9

6.1 The Research Design is given below: Sectors

Ac (36)

Co (34)

Go (35)

Here, Ac = Academics Co = Corporates Go = Government Tools - Negativity Triggers and Negativity Scoring Scale and (Costructed by Autors)
a) Negativity Trigger scale was designed to measure the negativity triggers at the

6.2

workplace. The scale consisted of 12 items measuring various dimensions like communication, equitable treatment, ethical robustness, work life balance etc.
b) Negativity Scoring Scale was designed to measure the negativity caused by the negativity

triggers at the workplace. The scale consists of 13 items. In addition to the above instruments, study participants were asked to respond to a number of items related to their personal characteristics (age, gender,occupation etc.) and work experiences. Once collected, the data were subjected to a thorough statistical analysis using correlation and regression analysis to find out the negativity triggers at workplace causing negativity amongst the employees of academics, corporate and government sectors.

6.3 CONDUCTING RESEARCH

10

Participation in the study was voluntary. The purpose of the study was clearly communicated to all the subjects and they were assured that all data would be treated as confidential and only the researchers would have access to the data collected. The instructions to complete the questionnaires were provided one to one and the completed forms were then collected.

7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The mean values for employees in different sectors i.e. Academicians, Corporates and Government employees was calculated (Table 1), this shows that the working professional in India (Capital Region) was around average on negativity in the workplace. No mean significant difference was found between and within the three groups under study (Table 2).This means all the three experience fell same on negativity.
Table 1: Showing the Mean Values for Different Sector of Professionals

Negativity score

N Academicians Corporates Government Employees Total 36 34 35 105

Mean 2.7133 2.9785 2.9766 2.8870

Std. Deviation .51096 .52788 .61578 .56225

Table 2: Showing the Mean Significant Difference Amongst Academicians, Corporates and Government Employees

11

ANOVA Negativity Score Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 1.651 31.226 32.877 df 2 102 104 Mean Square .826 .306 F 2.697 Sig. .072

Pearson Correlation was employed to see the interrelationship between negativity triggers and negativity scores (Table 3) for all the three groups and the scores were average (Table 4). Regression was applied to find the effect of Negativity triggers on Negativity Scores (Table 5). Significant positive correlation was found between Negativity triggers and Insufficient recognition, lack of challenge, understaffing, lack of empowerment, skill improvement, Communication, lack of direction from management, equitable treatment, career advancement opportunities, individual- organisational match up, ethical robustness and work life balance. Significant negative correlation was found between Negativity triggers and skilled workforce, performance appraisal, creativity and innovation, performance feedback, participation in decision making, grievance handling, transparency, positive work environment, competent top management, social security benefits, welfare activities and workplace maintenance (Table 3). It means that if the factors like Insufficient recognition, lack of challenge, understaffing, lack of empowerment, skill improvement, Communication, lack of direction from management, equitable treatment, career advancement opportunities, individual- organisational match up, ethical robustness and work life balance are not taken care of they can lead to significant negativity at workplace. And factors like skilled workforce, performance appraisal, creativity and innovation, performance feedback, participation in decision making, grievance handling, transparency, positive work environment, competent top management, social security benefits, welfare activities and workplace maintenance help in reducing the workplace negativity.

12

The result show that the 77.5 % of the variance created in the negativity score is due to the workplace negativity triggers. This means that the 77.5% of the variation in the negativity score can be explained by workplace negativity triggers. Table 5 shows that the communication, equitable treatment, ethical robustness and work life balance are the major workplace negativity triggers in all the groups and if these factors are not in place, the workplace is bound to face negativity amongst its employees. It becomes clear from the result that irrespective of three different groups understudy, the main factors causing negativity are communication, equitable treatment, ethical robustness and work life balance, and if these are not taken care of they can lead to major workplace negativity.
Table 3: Showing the Correlations of Negativity Triggers with Negativity Score.

Negativity Score Insufficient Recognition Lack of Challenge Understaffing Skilled Workforce Performance Appraisal Lack of Empowerment Skill Improvement Creativity and Innovation Performance Feedback Participation in Decision Making Communication Lack of Direction from Management .547** .367** .193* -.371** -.435** .424** .400** -.530** -.442** -.362** .519** .480**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .049 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

13

Negativity Score Grievance Handling Transparency Positive Work Environment Competent Top Management Social Security Benefits Equitable Treatment Welfare Activities Workplace Maintainance Career Advancement Opportunities Individual-Organizational Values Match up Ethical Robustness Work life Balance -.481** -.553** -.483** -.577** -.469** .569** -.410** -.316** .427**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000

.527**

.527** .550**

.000 .000

Table 4 : Showing Variance created by Workplace Negativity Triggers in Negativity Score for all the Sectors.

Model Summary Std. Error of Model 1 R .881a R Square .775 Adjusted R Square .704 the Estimate .30573

Table 5: Showing Regression of the Workplace Negativity Triggers on Negativity Score

14

Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Model (Constant) Communication Equitable Treatment Ethical Robustness Work life Balance B 2.068 .117 .183 .105 .096 Std. Error .545 .041 .047 .053 .046 .213 .400 .176 .188 Coefficients Beta t 3.793 2.862 3.893 1.979 2.087 Sig. .000 .005 .000 .05 .040

Note: Only Significant Regressions are reported.

Fig 1 : Model showing Negativity triggers that can lead to signs of negativity .

Negativity triggers Lack of Communication, lack of equitable treatment, Ethical robustness and Work life imbalance

Signs of Negativity Lack of enthusiasm and enjoyment in work, back stabbing, rumour mongering, nepotism, favouritism, attrition, questioning agendas and distrust.

Negativity among Academicians : Significant positive correlation was found between Negativity triggers and Insufficient recognition, lack of challenge, lack of empowerment, Communication, lack of direction from management, equitable treatment, career advancement opportunities, individual organisational value match up , ethical robustness and work life balance among academicians. Significant negative correlation was found between negativity
15

triggers and performance appraisal, creativity and innovation, participation in decision making, grievance handling, transparency, positive work environment, competent top management, social security benefit and welfare activities (Table 6). It means that if the factors like Insufficient recognition, lack of challenge, lack of empowerment, Communication, lack of direction from management, equitable treatment, career advancement opportunities, individual organisational value match up , ethical robustness and work life balance are not taken care of they can lead to negativity among academicians. And factors like performance appraisal, creativity and innovation, participation in decision making, grievance handling, transparency, positive work environment, competent top management, social security benefit and welfare activities needs to be encouraged so as to reduce negativity.The results shows that 93.8% of the variance created in the negativity score is due to the workplace negativity triggers. This means that the 93.8% of the variation in the negativity score can be explained by workplace negativity triggers (Table 7 ). It was found that one single dimension was considered to be the most important amongst academicians and that was equitable treatment and if this is not taken care of it can lead to significant negativity at the workplace (table 8).
Table : 6 N= 36 Insufficient Recognition Lack of Challenge Performance Appraisal Lack of Empoewerment creativity and innovation participation in Decision Making Communication Lack of Direction from Management Negativityscore .576** .480** -.384* .490** -.608** -.361* .432** .441** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .003 .021 .002 .000 .031 .009 .007

16

N= 36 grievance handling transparency positive Work Environment competent top management social security benefits equitable treatment Welfare Activities career adavncement opportunities Individual-Organizational Values matchup Ethical Robustness Worklife Balance

Negativityscore -.556** -.608** -.594** -.553** -.477** .523** -.406* .342* .501** .620** .553**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .003 .001 .014 .041 .002 .000 .000

Table 7: Showing Variance created by Workplace Negativity Triggers in Negativity Score for Academicians.

Adjusted R Model 1 R .968a R Square .938 Square .782

Std. Error of the Estimate .23835

Table : 8

17

Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Model equitable treatment B .256 Std. Error .113 Coefficients Beta .583 t 2.273 Sig. .046

Fig 2 : Model showing Negativity triggers that can lead to signs of negativity among Academicians.

Negativity triggers Lack of equitable treatment

Signs of Negativity Lack of enthusiasm and enjoyment in work, back stabbing, rumour mongering, nepotism, favouritism, attrition, questioning agendas and distrust.

Negativity amongst Corporates : Significant positive correlation was found between Negativity triggers and Insufficient recognition, lack of empowerment, skill improvement, Communication, lack of direction from management, equitable treatment, ethical robustness and work life balance. Significant negative correlation was found between Negativity triggers and creativity and innovation, performance feedback, grievance handling, transparency, competent top management and social security benefits (table 9). It means that factors like Insufficient recognition, lack of empowerment, skill improvement, Communication, lack of direction from management, equitable treatment, ethical robustness and work life balance can lead to negativity if they are not taken care of. And factors like and creativity and innovation, performance feedback, grievance handling, transparency, competent top management and social security benefits should be encouraged to reduce negativity. The result shows no variance is created in
18

the negativity score due to negativity triggers. This means that none of the variations in the negativity score can be explained by workplace negativity triggers .Hence, none of the factors significantly lead to negativity at the workplace among corporate.
Table 9: Correlations N= 34 Insufficient Recognition Lack of Empowerment skill improvement creativity and innovation Performance feedback Communication Lack of Direction from Management grievance handling transparency competent top management social security benefits equitable treatment Ethical Robustness Work life Balance Negativityscore .378* .560** .445** -.354* -.358* .706** Sig. (2-tailed) .028 .001 .008 .040 .038 .000 .000

.652**

-.470** -.479** -.610** -.381* .454** .361* .585**

.005 .004 .000 .026 .007 .036 .000

Negativity amongst Government Employees: Significant positive correlation was found between Negativity triggers and Insufficient recognition, Communication, lack of direction from
19

management, equitable treatment, career advancement opportunities, individual- organisational match up, ethical robustness and work life balance. Significant negative correlation was found between Negativity triggers and skilled workforce, performance appraisal, creativity and innovation, performance feedback, grievance handling, transparency, positive work environment, competent top management, social security benefits and welfare activities (Table 10).It means that factors like Insufficient recognition, Communication, lack of direction from management, equitable treatment, career advancement opportunities, individual- organisational match up, ethical robustness and work life balance should be taken care of to avoid negativity at workplace. And the factors like skilled workforce, performance appraisal, creativity and innovation, performance feedback, grievance handling, transparency, positive work environment, competent top management, social security benefits and welfare activities should be encourage to avoid negativity at workplace. The result shows that 100% of the variation created in the negativity score is due to workplace negativity triggers. This means that the 100% of the variation in the negativity score can be explained by workplace negativity triggers (table 11). The result makes it clear that so as to avoid negativity at the workplace all the factors i.e. excessive workload, lack of challenge, understaffing, skilled workforce, empowerment, skill improvement, performance feedback, participation in decision making, direction from management, competent top management, social security benefits, welfare activities, workplace maintenance, career advancement, ethical robustness, work life balance have to be taken care of (Table 12).
Table 10: Correlations Negativity score Insufficient Recognition Skilled Workforce Performance Appraisal creativity and innovation Performace feedback .741** -.702** -.716** -.636** -.646** Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .002 .001 .006 .005

20

Negativity score Communication Lack of Direction from Management grievance handling transparency positive Work Environment competent top management social security benefits equitable treatment Welfare Activities career advancement opportunities Individual-Organizational Values matchup Ethical Robustness Work life Balance .518* .554* -.640** -.741** -.710** -.731** -.635** .694** -.621** .745** .768** .745** .599*

Sig. (2-tailed) .033 .021 .006 .001 .001 .001 .006 .002 .008 .001 .000 .001 .011

Table 11: Model R 1 1.000a R Square 1.000

Adjusted R Square .

Std. Error of the Estimate .

Table 12:

21

Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Excessive Workload Lack of Challenge Understaffing Skilled Workforce Lack of Empoewerment skill improvement Performace feedback participation in Decision Making Lack of Direction from Management competent top management social security benefits Welfare Activities Workplace maintainance career adavncement opportunities Ethical Robustness Worklife Balance B 9.998 -.241 -.432 .008 -.849 -.243 -.565 -.273 .155 -.357 .279 -.940 -.211 1.280 .494 .023 -.601 Std. Error .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Standardized Coefficients Beta t 2.601E7 -.358 -.795 .018 -1.873 -.368 -1.007 -.499 .258 -.533 .278 -1.403 -.260 1.211 .956 .025 -.856 -1.467E7 -1.686E7 6.294E5 -1.656E7 -6.084E6 -1.780E7 -2.159E7 4.119E6 -1.301E7 9.290E6 -1.640E7 -9.680E6 1.745E7 2.993E7 9.972E5 -2.094E7 Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Fig 3 : Model showing Negativity triggers that can lead to signs of negativity amongst Government employees.

22

Negativity triggers Insufficient recognition, Lack of performance appraisal and feedback, Lack of skilled workforce, transparency, positive work environment, competent top management social security benefits ,Communication, equitable treatment, career advancement ,Ethical robustness and Work life imbalance

Signs of Negativity Lack of enthusiasm and enjoyment in work, back stabbing, rumour mongering, nepotism, favouritism, attrition, questioning agendas and distrust.

8. SUMMARY
It becomes clear that overall there exist four negativity triggers - communication, equitable treatment, ethical robustness and work life balance in the three areas of study which has to be taken care of , if the negativity of the workplace has to be avoided. In particular it was found that for Academicians equitable treatment emerged as the single most important factor which if not taken care of can prove as a major source of negativity at workplace. This can be attributed to the fact that academicians value the respectable and equal position among their workgroups and for them inequality cannot be taken positively at any cost. Hence, academicians value this factor the most so as to enjoy the positive work environment. For Corporate sector employees none of the factor emerged as the key to reduce negativity, hence it is believed that the Human Resource personnal value their employees and know that they are the key to success in this competitive world and hence the employer is taking good care of all the factors that can trigger the negativity at the workplace. As far as the government sector is concerned it becomes quite clear that the sector need to take care of all the negativity triggers so as to avoid the negativity to get inculcated amongst their employees. It is clear for the study that the government sector is yet to learn the lesson of keeping the employees and hence the workplace free of negativity, it has to
23

move forward and learn the lessons from their corporate sector so as to how they can best help the employees to move in the positive direction and hence deliver efficiency and effectiveness.

9. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

1. Because of time constraint and lack of support from employees. So the researchers had to confine to the voluntary participation within the limits of the study. 2. 3. The size of sample was a constraint as it could have been bigger if support was received from employees. Loss of sample also took place because of the incomplete questionnaires.

10.CONCLUSION
Combating negativity is very important from the point of view of employee and the organization. There should be a step wise methodology to doing the same negativity should be eliminated first at the one selves level, then at the level of coworker , then at the level of a ones team and ultimately at the level of organization as a whole. Negativity should be eliminated at our own level first and the importance of it is highlighted in the saying of , Author Chuck Gallozzi: The negative world of our imagination creates a negative world that is real and one that we are forced to live in. The popular methods which can be followed at the individual level are first of all becoming self aware of our negative behavior and then reducing negative phasing and eliminating negative self talk. We need to change our input of information if they give negative vibes. We should start appreciating everything around ous , starting from people their views and stop being judgmental about them. After this we can look at our negative coworker and try and address his negativity but care should be taken that, it is his negativity you are addressing and should not get personally involved with his issues. The best way to fight with the negative behavior of your co-worker is to
24

fight with the root cause and try and eliminate it, which will lead to his ultimate satisfaction. At the organizational front, a lot of measures can be taken to eliminate the negativity which may include a) If a change is to be implemented- communicate it in advance, train the target employees in the requisitive skill, try and make them a part of the change process from the beginning. b) The organization needs to take care of the fact that the performing employees should not be overburdened with more work. The phase the reward for good work is more work, should be restrained. c) Employees individual needs should be recognized and they should be motivated accordingly. d) A learning environment should be developed. e) The employees should feel secure as far as their jobs are concerned. f) The employees should be motivated to have positive, creative and energetic attitude and should enjoy their work as play.

25

11.REFERENCES
Avey, B.J., Hughes, W.L., Norman, M.S. & Luthans, (2008). Using positivity,

transformational leadership and empowerment to combat employee negativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 Iss: 2, pp.110 126. Barsade and Gibson (2007) Managing Emotions in the Workplace: Do Positive and Negative Attitudes Drive Performance? Retrieved from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/mobile/article.cfm?articleid=1708 Burnes B. & Pope R. (2007) Negative behaviours in the workplace: A study of two Primary Care Trusts in the NHS. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol.20,No. 4,2007,pp.285-303.
Davis,P.(2007) Negativity in the Workplace . At KASFAA Conference,October 25, 2007.

Greenberg, Margaret H. and Arakawa, Dana. (2006). Optimistic Managers & Their Influence on Productivity & Employee Engagement in a Technology Organization. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/mapp_capstone/3. Mazumdar, S. (1992), "Sir please do not take away my cubicle: the phenomenon of environmental deprivation", Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 24 No.6, pp.691-722. Popper, Micha, Amit, Karin, Gal, Reuvan, Mishkal-Sinai, Moran, & Lisak, Alton. (2004). The Capacity to Lead: Major Psychological Differences Between Leaders and Nonleaders. Military Psychology, October 2004, (16)4, pps 245 263. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785378355&db=all. Raynor, C (2002) 'Round Two: Redefining Bullying at Work, paper as part of a joint session - Workplace Abuse, Aggression, Bullying and Incivility: Conceptual Integration and Empirical Insights - American Academy of Management Meeting, Denver, August 2002.
Topchik, G.S. (2001), Managing Workplace Negativity, AMACOM, New York, NY, .

26

 Towers Perrin and Gang & Gang. (2003). Working Today: Exploring Employees' Emotional Connections to Their Jobs. Towers Perrin/Gang & Gang Research, 2003
Topchik,

S.G.

Confronting

Negativity

in

the

Workplace.

Retrieved

from

http://www.ccfbest.org/worklife/confrontingnegative.htm.

27