Workplace mistreatment may affect observers as strongly as victims
Picture this: On your way out of the office, you notice a manager berating an employee. You assume the worker made some sort of mistake, but the manager's behavior seems unprofessional. Later, as you're preparing dinner, is the scene still weighing on you—or is it out of sight, out of mind?
If you think you'd still be bothered, you're not alone. It turns out that simply observing mistreatment at work can have a surprisingly strong impact on people, even for those not directly involved. That's according to new research led by Edwyna Hill, coauthored by Rachel Burgess, Manuela Priesemuth, Jefferson McClain, and me, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
Using a method called meta-analysis —which takes results from many different studies and combines them to produce an overall set of findings—we reviewed the growing body of research on what management professors like me call 'third-party perceptions of mistreatment.' In this context, 'third parties' are people who observe mistreatment between a perpetrator and the victim, who are the first and second parties.
We looked at 158 studies published in 105 journal articles involving thousands of participants. Those studies explored a number of different forms of workplace mistreatment ranging from incivility to abusive supervision and sexual harassment. Some of those studies took part in actual workplaces, while others examined mistreatment in tightly controlled laboratory settings.
The results were striking: We found that observing a coworker being mistreated on the job has significant effects on the observers' emotions. In fact, we found that observers of mistreatment may be as affected by what happened as the people actually involved in the event.
These reactions fall along a spectrum—some helpful, others less so. On the encouraging side, we found that observers tend to judge perpetrators and feel empathy for victims. These reactions discourage mistreatment by creating a climate that favors the victim. On the other hand, we found that observers may also enjoy seeing their coworkers suffer—an emotion called schadenfreude —or blame the victim. These sorts of reactions damage team dynamics and discourage people from reporting mistreatment.
Why it matters
These findings matter because mistreatment in the workplace is disturbingly common, and even more frequently observed than experienced. One recent study found that 34% of employees have experienced workplace mistreatment firsthand, but 44% have observed it happening to someone else. In other words, nearly half of workers have likely seen a scenario like the one described at the start of this article.
Unfortunately, the human resources playbook on workplace mistreatment rarely takes third parties into account. Some investigation occurs, potentially resulting in some punishment for the perpetrator and some support for the victim. A more effective response to workplace mistreatment would recognize that the harm often extends beyond the victim, and that observers may need support too.
What still isn't known
What's needed now is a better understanding of the nuances involved in observing mistreatment. Why do some observers react with empathy, while others derive pleasure from the suffering of others? And why might observers feel empathy for the victim but still respond by judging or blaming them? Answering these questions is a crucial next step for researchers and leaders seeking to design more effective workplace policies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
19 minutes ago
- Medscape
EGFR+ NSCLC: Experts Weigh Risk vs Reward at ASCO 2025
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Coral Olazagasti, MD: Hello. My name is Coral Olazagasti, and I'm a thoracic oncologist at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami. Joining me today is my friend and colleague, Maria Velez, a clinical instructor at UCLA, and also my other friend and colleague, Ana Velázquez Mañana, who's an assistant professor of medicine at UCSF. Today we are super excited because we are speaking about the ASCO 2025 Annual Meeting here in Chicago. We just came out from the oral abstracts for the metastatic setting for non-small cell lung cancer and we want to share some of the data that we learned. We want to start the discussion here today about EGFR -mutant disease in the second-line setting. We're going to start with Maria. Do you want to tell us a little bit about the HERTHENA-Lung02 study? Maria A. Velez, MD, MS: Sure. HERTHENA-Lung02 was a study that evaluated HER3-DXd, which is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), in the second-line setting for patients with previously treated EGFR -sensitizing mutations. It was an open-label study where patients received either the HER3-DXd or the investigator's choice chemotherapy, and the primary endpoint was median progression-free survival. The results showed that the median progression-free survival for patients who received HER3-DXd was 5.8 months whereas the median for the chemotherapy arm was 5.4 months. Even though it was a statistically significant difference, it was not a very clinically meaningful difference, with a huge implication that 100% of the patients in this study had treatment-related adverse events and some patients experienced interstitial lung disease (ILD). All in all, taking these data into account, even though there's a huge need in the treatment landscape for second-line EGFR -mutant patients, I think this ADC did not really show a substantial enough clinically meaningful benefit and had a large amount of toxicity. Olazagasti: Not to say that this study didn't show any overall survival (OS) benefit. We're talking about a drug that's not really giving patients a longer life and is also giving many side effects, like you mentioned — a large amount of discontinuation due to ILD, and so much toxicity without that benefit there. I think we'll table that regimen for now. Do you agree? Velez: I agree. Ana I. Velázquez Mañana, MD, MSc: I agree. Clearly, it's disappointing to see the results of not beating chemotherapy in the second-line setting, but I do think that potentially there is a role in the third line or afterwards. We know that patients are going to be getting chemotherapy and amivantamab in the second-line setting. There is a need for further drugs and interventions in the third line if patients don't have other AGAs [actionable oncogenic alterations] or other drivers that we can use targeted therapies for. I am hesitant to give up completely on the drug. I do agree it's quite toxic and very disappointing to unfortunately see these results in the second line. Olazagasti: I agree. Moving on to the next study — Ana, do you want to talk to us about the SACHI study? Velazquez Mañana: The SACHI study was an open-label, randomized trial of savolitinib plus osimertinib vs platinum doublet chemotherapy in patients who, post EGFR TKI, had progressed in the second line and had a MET amplification. We know that MET amplifications are an extremely common mechanism of resistance to EGFR TKI-targeted therapies. Interestingly, in this study, which brings a little bit of heterogeneity, they included patients treated with first- and second-generation EGFR TKIsas well as those treated with third-generation TKIs like osimertinib, which would be our standard of care. They did look to make sure those were T790M negative, those treated with earlier generations. Interestingly, the results on the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) showed a benefit of 8.2 months in the combination vs 4.5 months in patients treated with doublet chemotherapy. That [benefit] was maintained in both patients treated with earlier-generation TKIs as well as those treated with third-generation TKIs. It also had some efficacy data and overall response rates of 63.2% vs 36.2%. Definitely, as we know, using a MET-targeted therapy is helpful. We already know from the United States that they use an approval in the second line of chemotherapy and amivantamab. That approach leads to responses in patients after EGFR TKIs. I think it's an interesting approach, obviously, to think of sparing patients from chemo in that second line and combining two TKIs, but we have to see if that is better than chemo with amivantamab would've been, which would've been our standard of care here. With savolitinib, we know what the adverse events are. It's a drug that's been approved in China now for years. It's not used in the United States, but I think, based on these studies, it's interesting to see what other studies will come in the future and whether this is a potential approach for us to use. Olazagasti: Definitely it's interesting. I feel like EGFR is the cool kid on the block now. We have so many options and so many studies looking into it, and it's just interesting to see what the future holds and what else is going to come into play. Continuing down the line of the EGFR second-line studies, I'm going to talk about the OptiTROP-Lung03 study. This study uses sacituzumab tirumotecan. It's a phase 3 study of EGFR mutants. Patients had to receive not only TKI but also platinum therapy, and they were randomized into using sacituzumab tirumotecan — we're going to call it sac-TMT because this is very hard to pronounce — vs docetaxel. The primary endpoints of the study were overall response rates, and secondary endpoints were PFS and OS. The study showed that the overall response rate was 45.1% vs 15.6% in the docetaxel arm. Also, there was a PFS benefit. The median PFS was 6.9 compared to only 2.8 in the chemo arm. Even though the median OS is still ongoing, with the median not reached yet, at 12 months there was an OS of 72.8% compared to 43.2%. I think this drug has been approved in China, and I know that in December it received breakthrough FDA designation in the United States. We'll see, again, what the future holds. Do you have any thoughts about this? Velazquez Mañana: We've been seeing from the different TROP2 ADCs that clearly they have a role in EGFR -driven lung cancer. I think it's exciting to see another one. Unfortunately, there are drugs that have many toxicities, so they are hard to manage for patients. Again, on this one I am a little bit conflicted with what the comparator arm is, and one that not necessarily would be our current standard of care. So we are having a large amount of new development and newer drugs, but because of how long it takes to run trials and the newer approvals that come, it's hard to make comparisons and decisions of which ones you should select and the timing of them. Hopefully, we'll get more data in the future. Olazagasti: I think that's the general consensus. And the dilemma that we have right now in the EGFR space, because we have so many approved options, is that there's really not a great sequential treatment. It's not really a one-size-fits-all approach. Some people use osimertinib alone in the first line. Some people use the FLAURA2 study with osimertinib and chemo. Some people prefer the MARIPOSA regimen. These are all pretty decent options, and so bringing these other drugs into the second- and third-line setting, how do we do the sequencing? I think that's really where the dilemma and the problems are going to come about. Institutions may have different orders and different preferences, but I think in these situations it's also important to take each patient into consideration individually because, like we have already mentioned, it's not only about the treatment and then the benefits, but also the side-effect profile. This one in particular didn't have any ILDs compared to in HERTHENA where they had a high rate, but we have to really look into toxicities because it's not only survival for patients and PFS; it's really about quality of life, too. With this great discussion, I think we're going to wrap up for today. Thank you to my friends and colleagues for joining me. Again, this is Coral Olazagasti, speaking from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting here in Chicago.
Gizmodo
19 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Troubling Case Links Vaping to Aggressive Lung Cancer
Vaping might be safer than cigarette smoking, but they carry their own health risks. A New Jersey man's electronic cigarette habit likely contributed to his fast-spreading, fatal lung cancer, his doctors say. Doctors at the AtlantiCare Regional Medical Center in Atlantic City detailed the tragic death this month in the American Journal of Case Reports. The 51-year-old former smoker and longtime vaper developed an aggressive lung cancer that killed him just months after diagnosis. Though a causative link isn't confirmed, the authors say more studies are needed to figure out vaping's cancer risk. According to the report, the man visited a local hospital sometime in 2020 after he started to cough up blood. During the prior month, he had also been experiencing symptoms of weight loss, chest discomfort, and shortness of breath. Tests soon revealed that he had a form of non-small cell lung carcinoma, specifically determined to be squamous cell carcinoma. The cancer had already started to spread and break off into pieces that reached the heart, making surgery unfeasible. He was discharged and quickly placed on chemotherapy, but to no avail. The man's health continued to rapidly deteriorate and he died three months after his diagnosis. The man had a history of cigarette smoking, the equivalent of 10 pack-years (meaning he smoked roughly a pack a day for 10 years). But he told the doctors he quit in 2009 and switched exclusively to e-cigarettes for the next 11 years. He regularly received lung and heart check-ups, and his last chest X-ray two years earlier was normal, suggesting his cancer only recently emerged. Because of the aggressive and non-responsive nature of the cancer, his relatively young age (most cases are caught in people over 65) and the lack of recent cigarette use, the doctors suspect that vaping probably played a part in his death. 'While causality cannot be established, the case highlights a potential association between [vaping] and malignancy,' they wrote. People have gotten seriously sick from vaping before, though usually under specific circumstances. In 2019, for instance, a mysterious lung disease that affected thousands of people in the U.S. was ultimately traced back to toxic additives primarily used in THC-containing vapes (while the initial outbreak did subside, these cases still appear occasionally). Other chemicals used to flavor vapes have also been tied to rare lung illnesses. But this appears to be one of the first case reports to explicitly link vaping and lung cancer. Other isolated reports have found a connection between vaping and mouth cancer. Some studies have also suggested that people who both vape and smoke (so-called dual users) have a higher risk of lung cancer than people who only smoke. At the same time, the overall research to date doesn't appear to show a significant added risk of lung cancer among people who only vape and have never smoked. And studies have also long found that vaping is less harmful in general than smoking. Given that this case is only one anecdote, the doctors aren't pushing for formal changes to screening guidelines just yet. But they are calling for further studies to untangle the unique dangers that vaping may pose.
Medscape
30 minutes ago
- Medscape
Novel Therapies for Primary Biliary Cholangitis
Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic, progressive autoimmune disease characterized by ongoing bile duct inflammation and elevated alkaline phosphatase (ALP). Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is well established as the initial treatment for PBC. This medication, which helps move bile through the liver, can improve liver function and reduce scarring of the liver. However, UDCA does not appear to provide significant improvement in itching or fatigue. In this ReCAP, Dr Marlyn Mayo of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, discusses novel therapies for PBC in patients not responding to or tolerating UDCA. She notes that obeticholic acid (OCA), the initial second-line therapy approved in 2016, is associated with increased itching, no fatigue improvement, and rare instances of liver worsening — emphasizing the need for safer, more effective second-line options. The approval of PPAR agonists seladelpar and elafibranor in 2024 marked a significant development, according to Dr Mayo. Both compounds demonstrated strong biochemical improvements in their phase 3 trials, effectively lowering ALP levels. A key advantage over OCA is that these PPAR agonists enhance tolerability by alleviating itching and appear to reduce fatigue, a previously untreatable symptom in PBC.
