Unfair Treatment in the Workplace and Worker Well-Being

The Influence of Others in the Workplace

Interactions with others in the workplace greatly influence worker well-being (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Frone 2000; Spector & Jex, 1998). The significant impact of interpersonal relations is highlighted in recent research that identifies interpersonal conflict in the workplace as a characteristic of “toxic” work environments (Chamberlain & Hodson, 2010). Severe cases of negative workplace interactions may take the form of workplace bullying, abuse, or harassment, and consequences of such poor treatment range from psychological distress to physical illness (Hodson, Roscigno, & Lopez, 2006; Martin et al., 2003; Pavalko et al., 2003). The growing body of literature on incivility, abuse, and bullying in the workplace suggests that unfair treatment by others is a real problem for workers (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001; Hodson et al., 2006; Johnson, & Indvik, 2001; Martin et al., 2003). ² Such experiences are very stressful and negatively affect worker well-being (Cortina et al., 2001; Frone, 2000; Menaghan & Merves, 1984; Pavalko et al., 2003; Spector & Jex, 1998). In addition, the effects of interpersonal conflict in the workplace often spill over into a worker’s personal life, straining relationships with family and friends (Bolger et al., 1989; Menaghan, 1991).

The nature of service work may heighten the risk of experiencing mistreatment. Service workers often need to negotiate interactions between customers or clients, their supervisor(s), and other coworkers (Bolton & Houlihan, 2010; Leidner, 1993; Troyer et al., 2000). The multiple interactions service workers often have with others exposes the workers to various sources of potential mistreatment. Furthermore, workers holding little power in the workplace, which is the case for many lower-end service workers, may be particularly vulnerable to poor treatment (Hodson et al., 2006; Lively, 2002; Sloan, 2004; Tuckey, Dollard, Hosking, & Winefield, 2009; except see Schieman & Reid, 2008). Indeed, much of the research on mistreatment in the workplace highlights negative behavior on the part of supervisors or customers and clients (e.g., Guerrier & Adib, 2000; Hodson, 2001; Hochschild 1983; Lively, 2000; Puglisei & Shook, 1997). ³ Unfair treatment by more powerful persons in the workplace may be damaging for lower status workers or workers in service roles because they are often unable to retaliate and may have to hide any negative feelings (Hochschild 1983; Lively, 2002; Lively & Powell, 2006).

The Role of Coworker Support

One way to cope with stress experienced from mistreatment is to turn to coworkers for help (Chamberlain & Hodson, 2010; Korczynski, 2003; Lively 2000; McGuire, 2007). Although the treatment of workers in service roles by customers and supervisors has been given much attention in the literature, the role that coworkers play within a context of poor treatment by others in the service triangle remains unclear (also see Lopez, 2010). Because similar others provide the most effective social support in stressful circumstances, support provided by coworkers has the potential to be particularly beneficial (La Rocco, House, & French, 1980; Lively, 2008; Thoits, 1986, 1990). Indeed, a recent investigation suggests that coworkers readily provide each other various types of support including the simple sharing of personal information and more emotionally intense forms of support such as providing counseling in response to a coworker’s personal troubles (McGuire, 2007). Furthermore, there is evidence for a direct, positive effect of coworker support on worker well-being. In general, perceived coworker support is associated with increased job satisfaction and psychological well-being (Ducharme & Martin, 2000; Hulbert, 1991; Hodson, 1997; Loscocco & Spitze, 1990; McCann, Russo, & Benjamin, 1997; Pugliesi, 1995; Turner & Marino, 1994).

Although coworker support appears to be generally beneficial for workers, it is less clear whether support can protect workers from the consequences of being mistreated by others at work. The stress-buffering hypothesis suggests that, compared to persons with poor social support systems, persons who feel socially supported can cope more effectively in response to stressful situations. In other words, social support should moderate the negative effects of stress on well-being (Cassel, 1976; Cobb, 1976; Cohen & Wills 1985; House, 1981; Thoits, 1982; Turner, 1983). Thus, the experience of stress from being treated badly by others may be less consequential for workers who have supportive coworkers compared to those who feel unsupported. ⁴ Although the stress- buffering hypothesis has received support in the mental health literature (e.g., Cohen, 2004; House, 1981; House, Umberson, & Landis, 1988; Turner, 1983, 1999; Thoits, 1995), investigations of the buffering capabilities of coworker support have produced mixed results. For instance, Ducharme and Martin (2000) found a main effect of coworker support on job satisfaction but did not find a buffering effect of support on the relationship between negative job characteristics (e.g., demanding work, low income, low autonomy) and job satisfaction (also see Loscocco & Spitze, 1990), and Chamberlain and Hodson (2010) found that coworker solidarity may actually exacerbate negative job conditions. However, other researchers have found evidence of buffering in the relationships among stress, coworker support, and psychological well-being (Haines, Hurlbert, & Zimmer, 1991; House, 1981; La Rocco et al., 1980; Roxburgh, 2004). Still others have identified buffering effects of coworker support on the relationships between job strain and job satisfaction (Schmeider & Smith 1996) and emotional dissonance and job satisfaction (Abraham, 1998).

One message from the previous research on coworker support is that its effects vary depending on the type of support offered and the type of stress measured (Deelstra, Peeters, Schaufeli, Strobe, Zijlstra, & van Doornen, 2003; Ganster, Fusilier, & Mayes, 1986; Haines et al., 1991; House, 1981; Thoits, 1995). In much of the literature on the stress-buffering properties of coworker support, the stressors examined were related to undesirable job characteristics (e.g., low autonomy) rather than due to negative interpersonal relations (Ducharme & Martin, 2001; Haines et al., 1991; Loscocco & Spitze, 1990). To my knowledge, the relationships among mistreatment in the workplace, coworker support, and psychological outcomes have yet to be examined. Due to the importance of dealing with other people in their work, mistreatment is particularly relevant for interactive service workers.

Coworker Support and Unfair Treatment in Service Work

The psychological effects of working with others have been a major concern of service work researchers. Extensive interaction with others on the job has been linked to consequences such as psychological distress, emotional burnout, and turnover intensions (Bakker, vanEmmerik, & Euwema, 2006; Ducharme, Knudesn & Roman, 2008; Erickson & Ritter, 2001; Hochschild, 1983); however, researchers have also illustrated ways in which workers benefit from positive service interactions (Bolton & Boyd, 2003; Bolton & Houlihan, 2005; Brown & Korczynski, 2010; Erickson & Wharton 1997). The literature highlights the complexity associated with work that involves relations among groups of varying power—customers, managers, and workers (e.g., Bolton & Houlihan, 2010; Leidner, 1993; McCammon & Griffin, 2000; Troyer, Mueller, & Osinsky, 2000). Although the main effect of coworker support on worker well-being has been fairly well established in the literature (e.g., Bakker et al., 2006; Ducharme & Martin 2000; McCann et al., 1997; Turner & Marino, 1994), it is uncertain whether support from coworkers can benefit workers in the context of negative experiences with others in service work. Examining the buffering effects of coworker support may allow us to specify when support from coworkers is most helpful and may contribute our understanding of workers’ positive experiences in interactive service work.

This research specifically examines whether coworker support serves a moderating function in the relationship between the experience of unfair treatment in the workplace by supervisors, customers, and coworkers and the outcomes of job satisfaction and psychological distress. Based on the previous research discussed above, the analyses are guided by three main hypotheses. First, given the great impact that working conditions can have on individuals and the centrality of interpersonal relations to service work, I expect that perceptions of unfair treatment from others—supervisors, customers, and coworkers—will negatively affect workers. Although there are multiple ways to assess worker well-being, job satisfaction and psychological distress have been the outcomes most commonly examined in studies of coworker support; as such, they are the key dependent variables examined in this study. In addition, because the main effect of coworker support on worker well-being and job attitudes has been well-documented, I expect that having supportive coworkers will be linked to lower psychological distress and greater job satisfaction. Finally, in accordance with the stress-buffering hypothesis, I expect that perceived support from coworkers will lessen the negative effects of being treated unfairly by others at work.

Pervious research has not examined coworker support in the context of unfair interactions with others of varying power in the workplace (except, see Chamberlain & Hodson, 2010 on supervisory conflict), thus my general hypotheses do not vary by source of the stress. However, social support may be particularly helpful to workers who experience unfair treatment by their supervisors because the worker’s lower status relative to that of the supervisor may make it difficult for workers to address their feelings by confronting the supervisor directly (e.g., Lively & Powell, 2006; Sloan, 2004). Furthermore, turning to others for emotional support as a means of coping may be a likely recourse for workers when they perceive their source of stress as uncontrollable, which may be the case for workers subject to unfair treatment from their supervisor (Thoits, 1991, 1995; Folkman, 1984). Because interpersonal relations with multiple groups of others of varying power in the workplace are central to service work, this research examines whether the effect of coworker support varies by the source of mistreatment.

Data

In 2004, I distributed a 10-page anonymous mail survey to a simple random sample of 2,500 state employees from one state in the southern United States. I followed Dillman’s (2000) Tailored Design Method for the survey implementation and made up to three follow-up contacts with potential respondents in an effort to maximize participation. ⁵ The response rate for the survey was 62% (n = 1,550). Fifty nine percent of the sample is women, 26% reported a non-White race or ethnicity, and the average age of the respondents is 47 years. On average, respondents had attended some college and were earning between US$20,000 and 30,000 annually. The analyses presented here include 1,395 respondents with full data on all measures. ⁶

The population sampled included over 37,000 individuals working in more than 1,400 positions for the state. All employees were “career service” workers and had worked in their position with the state for at least 6 months. Career service jobs are all positions within the state in which the workers do not serve the governor directly. This classification includes positions ranging from those requiring no formal education and no experience to jobs requiring graduate or professional training. I selected the sample for the opportunity to survey workers in a broad range of occupations, with many different working experiences. (Please see appendix for a list of occupational areas included in the career service classification.) However, it should be noted that the analyses presented in this article are limited to the experiences of public service workers. Research suggests that public service workers experience many of the same interpersonal demands and conflicts as private sector service workers including expectations of performing emotional labor to provide quality customer or client service (Houston, 2000; Jin & Guy, 2009; Mastracci, Newman, & Guy, 2006). In addition, a recent study revealed that although rates of severe unfair treatment in the form of discrimination may be similar across sectors, public sector workers may experience higher levels of promotion-related discrimination due to biased evaluations of “soft skills” required for job performance whereas private sector workers are more frequently subject to firing discrimination (Byron, 2010). Although the reasons behind the experience of unfair treatment may influence the impact of coworker support, the current data do not allow for specific comparisons. Future research should consider the influence of coworker support in samples of workers in both public and private sector service occupations.

Measures

Coworker support

Social support may take different forms, and researchers have measured support in various ways ranging from the density of social networks and the strength of kinship ties to the perceived availability of support to the actual usage of social support (e.g., Cohen & Wills, 1985; Ducharme & Martin, 2000; Hulbert, 1991; Lepore, Silver, Wortman, & Wayment, 1996; Pearlin, 1989; Song & Lin, 2009). Although there are many types of social support, one distinction common in the literature on coworker support is between expressive (e.g., providing the individual with emotional reassurance) and instrumental (e.g., providing the individual with material assistance) support (Deelstra, et al., 2003; Ducharme & Martin, 2001; House, 1981; McGuire, 2007). The greatest amount of evidence for the stress-buffering properties of social support comes from research on expressive, emotional forms of support—support aimed to make the individual feel validated and comforted (Kessler, Price, & Wortman, 1985; Thoits, 1995). Therefore, the measure utilized in the analysis below assesses perceived expressive or emotional support.

Perceived coworker support is measured by the sum of responses to the following three statements: “I feel that I can talk to my coworkers about personal difficulties,” “My coworkers do not take a personal interest in me” (reversed), and “When things get tough, there are people at work that I can turn to for help.” Each item was rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), such that a higher score on the measure indicates greater perceptions of coworker support (Cronbach’s alpha = .80). ⁷ This measure is similar to measures of perceived expressive support utilized in previous research (e.g., Ducharme & Martin 2000; Ganster et al., 1986; Turner & Marino, 1994). Furthermore, Thoits (1995, p. 64) noted that “the simplest and most powerful measure of social support appears to be whether a person has an intimate, confiding relationship or not . . .,” and the measure utilized here assesses the extent to which workers believe this to be true in the workplace. The coworker support measure does not capture the actual usage of support or whether workers seek support for work-related problems; however, as noted above, the perception that support is available is what matters most for individual well-being (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kessler et al., 1985; Thoits, 1995).

Unfair treatment

Respondents were asked how often they feel they are treated unfairly at work by supervisors, customers or clients, and coworkers, each rated separately. Responses ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Higher scores on each item indicate greater perceived mistreatment from the source in question. Respondents were given an option to indicate that they did not work with supervisors, customers, or coworkers. Fifteen respondents who indicated that they did not have a supervisor were excluded from the analyses of supervisor treatment whereas 188 respondents who did not work with customers were excluded from the customer treatment analyses.

Job satisfaction

The measure of job satisfaction is composed of the sum of answers to the following four statements: “Given the chance, I would change my present type of work for something different (reversed),” “I am proud of the type of work I do,” “My work gives me a chance to do the things I enjoy,” and “In general, I am satisfied with my job” (alpha = .84). Responses to each statement ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) such that a high score on this measure indicates a high level of job satisfaction.

Psychological distress

Psychological distress is measured with the mean of respondents’ scores on a series of questions about emotions. Respondents were asked to indicate on how many days in the past week they experienced each of the following symptoms of anxiety and depression: felt that she or he couldn’t shake the blues, sad, lonely, happy (reversed), calm (reversed), fearful, worried, anxious, and restless symptoms (Mirowsky & Ross, 2003; Thoits, 2002). Answers to each item range from 0 days to 7 days, with a higher score representing greater psychological distress (alpha = .77).

Control variables

Several variables that have been associated with coworker support, job satisfaction, and psychological distress are included in all models as control variables. Job characteristics were measured with a series of items that asked respondents to indicate how much they agree or disagree with statements about the work they do. Participants responded to each statement using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The substantive complexity of work is assessed by the sum of responses to the following three items: “There is a lot of variety in the kinds of things I do at work,” “My job requires that I do the same things over and over” (reversed), and “I keep learning new things in my job” (alpha = .66). Worker autonomy, or the amount of control a worker has over her work, is measured by the sum of ratings on three statements: “My job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own,” “My supervisor decides how my work tasks should be done” (reversed), and “I have flexibility in my work to decide when to do different tasks” (alpha = .63). Job demands are assessed with responses to the statement, “My job involves too much work to do everything well.” In addition, the pay grade of the respondent’s job was included as a control. The pay-grade scale, which was obtained from the state’s job classification database and coded onto each respondent’s self-reported job title, ranges from 4 to 41, with a higher pay grade indicating greater income. ⁸ Each of the above job characteristics, with the exception of job demands, has been positively associated with coworker support and job satisfaction and is negatively related to psychological distress (Ducharme & Martin, 2000; Kohn & Schooler, 1973; Miller, 1980; Roxburgh, 2004; Schieman, 2006; Yoon & Thye, 2002). Job demands have been shown to decrease worker well-being (e.g., Ducharme & Martin, 2001). Also, because workers may receive support in more formal ways through employee organizations, and union status may be related to workers’ experiences of mistreatment in the workplace (Balser, 2002; House, 1981), a control for whether or not a respondent is a member of the state’s employee association (0 = no, 1 = yes) is included. Thirty eight percent of respondents are members of the employee association. Finally, all models include demographic controls that have been shown to influence perceptions of social support and worker well-being: gender (0 = women, 1 = men), race (0 = non-White, 1 = White), age (in years), and education (measured ordinally; Bolger et al., 1989; Dickerson, Schur, Kruse, & Blasi, 2010; Kalleberg & Loscocco, 1983; Kessler, 1979; Mottaz, 1987; Pugliesi, 1995; Roxburgh, 2004; Wright & Hamilton, 1979). ⁹ A summary of the demographic composition of the sample and a description of the key variables are presented in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics and Description of Key Variables

Variable	% of Sample	M	SD	Range
Gender
Women	58.8
Men	41.2
Race
White	74.4
Non-White	25.6
African American	20.9
Other	4.7
Education
Less than high school	1.9
High school degree or equivalent	20.4
Some college	22.6
Associate degree/junior college	8.5
4-yr college degree	24.8
Some graduate school	9.5
Graduate/professional degree	12
Age		47.33	11.01	20-80
Pay grade		20.76	6.72	4-41
Autonomy		10.91	2.37	3-15
Complexity		10.24	2.42	3-15
Demands		2.86	1.21	1-5
Unfair treatment by supervisors		2.39	1.08	1-5
Unfair treatment by customers		2.11	0.95	1-5
Unfair treatment by coworkers		2.13	0.91	1-5
Coworker support		10.31	2.36	3-15
Employee association member	38.2
Job satisfaction		14.35	3.53	4-20
Psychological distress		1.54	1.42	0-7

Note: n = 1,395.

Because the data utilized in this study are cross-sectional, the causal direction of the relationships examined cannot be confirmed. Although it is likely that decreased worker well-being would result from unfair treatment, and increased worker well-being would result from having supportive coworkers, panel data are necessary to verify the directionality of these relationships (see Thoits, 1982, 2006). However, there is some longitudinal evidence for the negative effects of mistreatment in the workplace on worker health and for the impact of job characteristics on psychological well-being (Kohn & Schooler, 1973; Pavalko et al., 2003). The interpretation of the analyses presented below is based on the assumption that unfair treatment and perceptions of coworker support precede the outcomes of job satisfaction and psychological distress. The stress-buffering hypothesis is tested using a series of ordinary least squares regression models.

Results

First, as shown in Table 2, many of the expected bivariate associations are statistically significant. Perceptions of unfair treatment at work, by supervisors, customers, and coworkers are negatively correlated with job satisfaction and positively associated with psychological distress. Consistent with previous research, coworker support is associated with greater worker well-being. Also, the job characteristic variables—autonomy, complexity, and demands—are correlated with job satisfaction and psychological distress in the expected directions. Worker autonomy and task complexity were also positively associated with coworker support, similar to findings of previous research (Scheiman, 2006).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations between Key Variables

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1	Job satisfaction	—
2	Psychological distress	−.346*
3	Unfair treatment by supervisors	−.364*	.289*
4	Unfair treatment by customers	−.149*	.152*	.180*
5	Unfair treatment by coworkers	−.236*	.257*	.453*	.238*
6	Coworker support	.330*	−.203*	−.255*	.028	−.290*
7	Age	.154*	−.101*	−.025	−.034	.014	−.052
8	Education	−.016	−.012	−.007	.058	−.067	.021	−.086*
9	Pay grade
10	Autonomy	.418*	−.184*	−.254*	−.011	−.193*	.223*	.047	.154*	.156*
11	Complexity	.509*	−.182*	−.214*	−.031	−.147*	.235*	.095*	.031	.042	.307*
12	Demands	−.265*	.226*	.186*	.194*	.107	−.032	−.032	.211*	.119*	−.099*	−.061

*

p < .01.

Job Satisfaction

The OLS regressions of job satisfaction on unfair treatment by a supervisor, by customers, or by coworkers, ¹⁰ coworker support, and control variables are presented in Table 3. The demographic and job characteristic variables are first included in Model 1, then perceived unfair treatment by supervisors, customers, and coworkers are added in Models 2, 3, and 4, respectively. As shown, each measure of unfair treatment is negatively associated with job satisfaction. Net of the demographic controls and job characteristics, the greater the level of perceived unfair treatment, the less satisfied the worker is with his or her job (b = −.643 for supervisors, b = −.329 for customers, and b = −.400 for coworkers). In Models 5, 6, and 7, the support measures, employee association membership, and coworker support are included. Although being a member of the employee association is unrelated to job satisfaction, coworker support is a significant predictor of job satisfaction. ¹¹ Models 5 through 7 show positive main effects of support on job satisfaction.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Unstandardized Coefficients for the Regression of Job Satisfaction on Worker Characteristics, Job Characteristics, Unfair Treatment, and Coworker Support

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Demographic characteristics
Gender (1 = men)	−.206 (.161)	−.196 (.157)	−.170 (.167)	−.195 (.160)	.057(.157)	.145 (.166)	.084 (.160)	.038 (.157)	.143 (.166)	.073 (.160)
Race (1 = White)	.747*** (.186)	.744*** (.181)	.712*** (.193)	.758*** (.183)	.586*** (.180)	.504** (.192)	.567** (.184)	.602*** (.180)	.507** (.191)	.570** (.183)
Age	.019* (.007)	.019** (.007)	.021** (.008)	.020** (.007)	.021** (.007)	.024** (.007)	.023** (.007)	.022** (.007)	.024** (.007)	.022** (.007)
Education	−.058 (.065)	−.069 (.055)	−.041 (.059)	−.056 (.056)	−.068 (.054)	−.040 (.057)	−.054 (.055)	−.064 (.054)	−.039 (.057)	−.054 (.054)
Job characteristics
Pay grade	.020 (.038)	.024 (.014)	.021 (.015)	.018 (.015)	.024 (.014)	.024 (.015)	.020 (.014)	.023 (.014)	.023 (.015)	.018 (.014)
Autonomy	.343*** (.229)	.293*** (.036)	.333*** (.037)	.322*** (.036)	.262*** (.035)	.281*** (.037)	.292*** (.036)	.264*** (.035)	.281*** (.037)	.292*** .035)
Complexity	.613*** (.034)	.573*** (.034)	.593*** (.036)	.599*** (.034)	.542*** (.033)	.553*** (.035)	.566*** (.033)	.540*** (.033)	.555*** (.035)	.565*** (.033)
Demands	−.674*** (.067)	−.582*** (.074)	−.691*** (.070)	−.659*** (.067)	−.588*** (.065)	−.666*** (.068)	−.661*** (.065)	−.593*** (.065)	−.668*** (.068)	−.653*** (.065)
Unfair treatment
By supervisor		−.634*** (.074)			−.543*** (.074)			−1.11*** (.269)
By customers			−.329*** (.087)			−.364*** (.084)			.162 (.333)
By coworkers				−.400*** (.087)			−.222* (.089)			−.719* (.304)
Employee association member (1 = yes)					−.255 (.155)	−.217 (.162)	−.192 (.157)	−.263 (.155)	−.234 (.162)	−.193 (.157)
Coworker support					.253*** (.034)	.305*** (.036)	.270*** (.035)	.105 (.076)	.412*** (.075)	.151 (.078)
Interaction terms
Unfair treatment by supervisors × Support								.057* (.026)
Unfair treatment by customers × Support									−.052 (.032)
Unfair treatment by coworkers × Support										.052 (.031)
Adjusted R2	.395	.432	.397	.407	.452	.433	.434	.455	.434	.435

Note: Values are unstandardized regression coefficients. Standard errors are shown in parentheses.

F tests indicated that all R² increases are significant at p < .01 for models including unfair treatment by supervisors.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

To test the buffering hypothesis, the multiplicative interactions between perceived unfair treatment and coworker support are added in Models 8, 9, and 10 (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Jaccard & Turrisi, 2003). As predicted by the hypothesis, Model 8 shows a significant and positive interaction coefficient and significant R² change from the main effects model. Furthermore, Model 8 explains almost 46% of the variance in job satisfaction. Social support is particularly beneficial for workers who are treated unfairly by their supervisors. The moderating effect of social support on the relationship between perceived unfair treatment by supervisors and job satisfaction is depicted in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, workers who report a great amount of unfair treatment from their supervisors and who have limited support from coworkers report low levels of job satisfaction. By comparison, workers treated unfairly by supervisors and who perceive extensive support from coworkers report job satisfaction levels closer to those of workers who are not mistreated. Furthermore, among workers with low levels of coworker support, the difference in job satisfaction at low levels of unfair treatment and at high levels of unfair treatment is 2.75 points on the job satisfaction scale. In comparison, among workers high in perceived coworker support, the difference in job satisfaction between workers at low levels of unfair treatment and high levels of unfair treatment is 1.4 points. Thus, as suggested by the buffering hypothesis, the relationship between unfair treatment and job satisfaction depends on a worker’s level of perceived coworker support. However, coworker support does not have the same effect on the experience of unfair treatment from customers or coworkers—the interaction terms in Models 9 and 10 are not statistically significant.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Relationship between unfair treatment by a supervisor and job satisfaction by level of coworker support

Among the job characteristic variables, as expected, job complexity and worker autonomy predict greater job satisfaction, and job demands are negatively associated with satisfaction. These effects remain relatively consistent across all models. Of the control variables, neither gender nor level of education significantly affects job satisfaction. However, White workers report higher satisfaction than non-White workers and older workers tend to be more satisfied than younger workers. The effect of age is consistent with previous research (Kalleberg & Loscocco, 1983).

Psychological Distress

The effects of the job characteristics are similar in the regression of psychological distress (Table 4). Greater autonomy and greater complexity correspond to lower levels of psychological distress whereas job demands predict higher levels of distress. As in the regression of job satisfaction, net of job characteristics and demographic controls, perceptions of unfair treatment by others predict increased psychological distress (b = .288 for supervisors, b = .163 for customers, and b = 331 for coworkers). Likewise, there is a significant main effect of coworker support on psychological distress. In Models 8, 9, and 10, the multiplicative interaction terms are added, and again, the interaction between coworker support and unfair treatment by a supervisor is statistically significant. ¹² The negative coefficient indicates that coworker support moderates the relationship between perceived unfair treatment by a supervisor and psychological distress, such that workers high in perceived coworker support experience some protection from the negative effects of unfair treatment (see Figure 2). Model 8 explains approximately 17% of the variance in psychological distress. ¹³ In Models 9 and 10, the interaction terms are not statistically significant.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Unstandardized Coefficients for the Regression of Psychological Distress on Worker Characteristics, Job Characteristics, Unfair Treatment, and Coworker Support

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Demographic characteristics
Gender (1 = men)	−.690 (.787)	−.076 (.078)	−.036 (.082)	−.050 (.078)	−.173* (.079)	−.156 (.082)	−.143 (.079)	−.159* (.078)	−.156 (.082)	−.141 (.079)
Race (1 = White)	.235* (.091)	.235** (.089)	.215* (.094)	.222* (.089)	.313** (.090)	.320** (094)	.297** (.090)	.299** (.090)	.320** (.094)	.296** (.090)
Age	−.007* (.004)	−.007* (.003)	−.009* (.004)	−.008* (.003)	−.009* (.003)	−.010** (.004)	−.010** (.003)	−.009* (.003)	−.011** (.004)	−.010** (.003)
Education	−.032 (.028)	−.026 (.027)	−.034 (.029)	−.030 (.027)	−.026 (.037)	−.034 (.028)	−.030 (.027)	−.029 (.027)	−.033 (.028)	−.031 (.027)
Job characteristics
Pay grade	−.008 (.007)	−.010 (.007)	−.006 (.004)	−.005 (.007)	−.010 (.007)	−.007 (.007)	−.006 (.007)	−.009 (.007)	−.007 (.007)	−.031 (.007)
Autonomy	−.066*** (.018)	−.041* (.018)	−.069*** (.018)	−.046** (.018)	−.029 (.018)	−.049** (.018)	−.036* (.017)	−.030 (.017)	−.049** (.018)	−.036* (.017)
Complexity	−.079*** (.017)	−.062*** (.017)	−.068*** (.017)	−.068*** (.016)	−.049** (.016)	−.053** (.017)	−.056** (.016)	−.047** (.016)	−.052** (.017)	−.056** (.016)
Demands	.252*** (.033)	.209*** (.033)	.253*** (.034)	.230*** (.032)	.208*** (.032)	.236*** (.034)	.227*** (.032)	.212*** (.032)	.235*** (.034)	.226*** (.032)
Unfair treatment
By supervisor		.288*** (.037)			.248*** (.037)			.686*** (.133)
By customers			.163*** (.042)			.177*** (.042)			.393* (.166)
By coworkers				.331*** (.042)			.268*** (.044)			.378* (.149)
Employee association member (1 = yes)					.005 (.077)	−.044 (.080)	.002 (.077)	.010 (.077)	−.051 (.080)	.002 (.077)
Coworker support					−.101*** (.017)	−.122*** (.018)	−.093*** (.017)	.013 (.038)	−.079* (.037)	−.066 (.038)
Interaction terms
Unfair treatment by supervisors × Support								−.044*** (.013)
Unfair treatment by customers × Support									−.021 (.016)
Unfair treatment by coworkers × Support										−.012 (.015)
Adjusted R2	.098	.140	.117	.140	.162	.151	.158	.169	.152	.158

Note: Values are unstandardized regression coefficients. Standard errors are shown in parentheses.

F tests indicated that all R² increases are significant at p < .01 for models including unfair treatment by supervisors.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Relationship between unfair treatment by a supervisor and psychological distress by level of coworker support

Discussion

The analyses reported above examined the impact of unfair treatment and coworker support on worker well-being and tested the ability of coworker support to protect workers from the negative effects of being treated badly at work. The perception of being treated unfairly from each source examined—supervisors, customers, and coworkers—predicted lowered job satisfaction and increased psychological distress. Consistent with the stress-buffering hypothesis, coworker support significantly moderated the negative relationship between unfair treatment by a supervisor and job satisfaction and the positive relationship between unfair treatment by a supervisor and psychological distress. In each model, although perceptions of unfair treatment by a supervisor decreased worker well-being, workers with supportive coworkers were much less affected than workers who believed their coworkers were unsupportive. Furthermore, these relationships exist net of job characteristics and demographic factors. This finding suggests that workers who feel subjected to unfair treatment by their supervisors substantially benefit from having supportive coworkers. However, the effect of unfair treatment by customers or by coworkers does not depend on the worker’s level of perceived coworker support. Regardless of how supportive a worker’s coworkers are, experiencing unfair treatment by customers or coworkers significantly decreases the worker’s well-being. This finding illustrates the great impact that mistreatment by others—supervisors, customers, and coworkers—in the context of service work can have on worker well-being.

It may be the case that the type of support examined in this study—whether coworkers are available to help in difficult times—is beneficial for workers who experience unfair treatment by their supervisor but is not helpful for workers who are treated unfairly by customers or by other workers. There are many possible reasons for this difference. First, workers may be unwilling to discuss poor treatment by some coworkers with other coworkers. Workers may feel uncomfortable disclosing problems with their peers or they may not want to worsen the situation by involving additional workers in the conflict. In contrast, coworkers may be ideal sources of support for coping with mistreatment from a supervisor because they may work under the same supervisor and may share experiences of poor treatment. In such cases, coworkers should have a unique ability to empathize with one another and provide each other with a reliable source of comfort (Hodson, 2001; Lively, 2008; Marks, 1994; Thoits, 1986, 1990).

In addition, discussing problems with coworkers may aid a worker’s coping efforts in response to supervisor mistreatment because the mistreatment may be seen as unchangeable. Research suggests that emotion-focused coping (e.g., receiving comfort from coworkers) as opposed to other types of coping such as problem-focused coping (e.g., altering the situation), is most beneficial in uncontrollable circumstances (see Thoits, 1995). Although workers may need to report to their supervisor, they may be able to avoid interactions with troublesome coworkers or terminate their association with disrespectful customers. Managing stress caused by unfair customers in ways that enable workers to move on and not dwell on the experience may be more helpful than turning to coworkers for support.

Also, it is possible that supervisors may actually serve as a source of support for workers who are mistreated by customers or other workers. For example, although workers may feel unable to confront a supervisor directly regarding his or her unfair treatment, they may report unfair treatment by customers or coworkers to a supervisor. Supervisors may be able to provide workers with instrumental support (e.g., intercepting the customer–worker interaction or disciplining the coworker) that may alleviate the stress for the worker. Although I am unable to determine the reason for the different effects of coworker support based on the source of stress, future research efforts may be directed at identifying the types of support that are most effective in dealing with difficult customers and poor treatment by coworkers. Furthermore, the quantitative data used in this study allowed for a test of the buffering hypothesis; however, they do not allow for a more detailed examination of the types of support sought by workers exposed to mistreatment. A multimethod approach, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques, would be most informative (Lively, 2008).

Future researchers may also be interested in studying the consequences of different forms of mistreatment at work. The measure of unfair treatment utilized in this study was a broad measure meant to capture various types of mistreatment. Focusing on more specific forms of poor treatment by others in the workplace would allow researchers to assess whether the benefits of coworker support depend on more specific actions of others. For example, does coworker support benefit workers who experience discrimination at work to the same extent it benefits workers who are forced to work undesirable shifts?

Finally, this research also reaffirms the importance of job characteristics for worker well-being (e.g., Karasek, 1979; Kohn & Schooler, 1973; Link, Lenon, & Dohrenwend, 1993). Although excessive demands were associated with decreased worker well-being, job autonomy and complexity of work predicted higher job satisfaction and less psychological distress. Pay grade, however, was unrelated to job satisfaction and psychological distress when the other job characteristics and demographic variables were taken into account (also, see Yoon & Thye, 2002). Nevertheless, taken together these findings illustrate that having a desirable job does not compensate for the negative impact on workers of being treated badly at work. Controlling for the job characteristics most commonly associated with worker well-being, unfair treatment by others at work substantially compromises worker well-being.

Conclusion

Using survey data from a large sample of workers, I examined the relationships among unfair treatment by a supervisor, by customers, and by coworkers, coworker support, and worker well-being. As evidenced by the association between unfair treatment at work and worker well-being, here indicated by job satisfaction and psychological distress, being treated unfairly by others in the workplace is a stressful experience for workers. Given the significance of interpersonal relations in service work, mistreatment by others may be particularly harmful to workers in service positions. Furthermore, the analyses reported here also demonstrate that the treatment workers receive from other coworkers can greatly impact their well-being and job satisfaction. Thus, it is important to identify the ways in which the impact of stress from mistreatment by others can be mitigated or, ultimately, eliminated. Interacting with others in service relationships or encounters is a key feature in a majority of the jobs in the United States today (BLS, 2009; Lopez, 2010). Specifying the moderators of the relationship between exposure to various sources of stress and worker well-being may help provide more satisfying work experiences for workers in interactive service positions.

Within the sociology of mental health and illness literature, stress process models suggest that social support can buffer the negative effects of stress on well-being (e.g., House, 1981; Thoits, 1995; Turner 1983). In the service work environment, coworkers may be a beneficial source of support for workers. As they share many similar experiences, workers may be increasingly likely to turn to coworkers for help managing their stress (Lively, 2000, 2008; Marks, 1994; McGuire, 2007). In the context of unfair treatment by others, coworkers have a unique ability to empathize with each other and this support may help protect workers from the consequences of poor treatment. Although the results of this study suggest that coworker support is generally beneficial for service workers, evidence for a buffering effect of support was only found for stress associated with unfair treatment by a supervisor. Whereas unfair treatment by a supervisor can result in psychological distress and compromise job satisfaction, this relationship is greatly diminished among workers who believe they have supportive coworkers.

However, although coworker support helps to protect workers from the consequences of negative treatment by their superiors, this finding should not lead us to underestimate the negative impact that unfair treatment has on workers, particularly on workers without supportive coworkers. Unfair treatment, especially by a supervisor, greatly detracts from a worker’s job satisfaction and is associated with psychological stress. Furthermore, unfair treatment in the workplace was quite common among the respondents, with 41% of workers reporting that they experience unfair treatment by their supervisor at least sometimes. Although coworker support benefits workers, it may also enable supervisors to continue to mistreat their subordinates with little repercussion (see Lively, 2000). Thus, in addition to studying the ways in which coworkers help each other deal with stressors experienced in the workplace, future research efforts should ultimately be directed toward preventing the occurrence of unfair treatment.