Aggression and Bullying in the Workplace Investigation Coursework

Definition of Variables

The primary dependent variable is:

• Bullying. Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, and Cooper specifically count “…harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks… occur(s) repeatedly and regularly and over some time…an escalating process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts” (2003, p. 15). Other authors count it as essential that the perpetrator displays hostile verbal behavior, coercion, physical contact, and other actions that call into question the competence of a colleague at work and degrade the self-esteem of the latter (Keashly and Jagatic, 2003; Forsyth, 2006).
• (Workplace) Aggression. At its rawest, as exemplified by the somewhat animalistic views of Konrad Lorenz, aggression is at the core “the fighting instinct in beast and man which is directed against members of the same species…Aggression, the effects of which are often equated with the death wish, is an instinct like any other and in natural conditions, it helps just as much as any other to ensure the survival of the individual and the species” (2002, pp. 9-10).

In occupational settings, one gives due consideration to definitions adopted by a Workplace Aggressive Behaviour and Violence Advisory Committee of an Australian government unit much concerned about “unacceptable workplace behavior”. This means, of course, excluding those with such organic etiology as hypoxia, dementia, or brain injury. Even then, the scope of what is unacceptable can be further categorized into five classes:

Workplace aggressive behavior: incidents, perceived or real to individuals, when they are abused, threatened, or assaulted in circumstances arising out of, or in the course of their employment, involving an explicit or implicit challenge to their safety, health, or wellbeing.

Workplace violence: an action or incident that physically or psychologically harms another person. It includes situations where employees and other people are threatened, attacked, or physically assaulted at work.

Non-physical violence such as verbal abuse, intimidation, and threatening behavior, may also significantly affect a person’s health and wellbeing. Threats may be perceived or real and there does not have to be a physical injury for the violence to be a workplace hazard. Employees may be affected by workplace violence even if they are not directly involved.

Physical violence: the use of physical force against another person or group that results in physical harm. It includes, but is not limited to, pinching, biting, pushing, spitting, slapping, kicking, beating, shooting, and stabbing.

Psychological violence: the use of power against another person or group that results in psychological harm or an inability to develop professionally. This includes, but is not limited to, verbal abuse, suggestive behavior, threats of physical abuse, intimidation, and bullying. (Department of Health Western Australia, 2004, p. 9).

In turn, Rai (2002) examines aggression in the work setting as “any act of aggression, physical assault, threatening or coercive behavior that causes physical or emotional harm in a work setting” (p. 15).

For this study, one contextualizes workplace aggression according to the Neuman and Baron (1998) paradigm of harmful intent only when targeted at coworkers, current employers, or past employers. It is outside the practical scope of this study to have to include, as proposed by Peek-Asa, Runyan, and Zwerling (2001), those behaviors meant to harm former coworkers and outsiders as long as these take place in a work setting. This is why the latter authors include as valid subjects of aggression and bullying research acts committed against a customer of the firm. This is outside the scope of the intended study.

It helps to construct a more complete workplace bullying and aggression study instrument if one takes into account the Neuman and Baron (1998) model of three dimensions and three dichotomies. The dimensions are effective typologies: verbal or symbolic expressions of hostility, simple obstruction, and overt violence. In turn, the three dichotomies have to do with the verbal versus physical; direct versus indirect; and active versus passive. The merely passive act of not denying a false rumor about a colleague is thus considered harmful because others will conclude that silence means assent.

• Workplace. According to the Department of Health and Human Services of North Carolina, “…workplace includes but is not limited to the physical worksite, restrooms, cafeterias, training sessions, business travel, conferences, work-related social gatherings, etc.” (2001, p. 3). For data-gathering in this study, the operative definition of a workplace shall include only unionized establishments since that is the feasible route of access chosen. This effectively excludes religious institutions, charities, government agencies, and health care establishments. In any case, there has already been more-than-ample literature on bullying in health care and educational institutions.

Unions as routes of access also effectively exclude the broader concept of workplace that embraces non-unionized mobile teams and Web-enabled remote teams:

In an economy increasingly dependent on “knowledge workers”, work is done any time, and anywhere. A definition of the modern workplace needs to recognize this reality. Therefore we believe the workplace should be defined as “…the environment (as place, tools, social connections, physical well-being) enabling work to be done”. This broader definition will lead workplace development to include the determination of:

1. Where work will be done (such as in an office, at home, in a plane or car, in an office, or at a conference, all of the above, etc.);
2. What processes (such as transaction processing, innovating, communicating, learning, etc) will define the work to be done.
3. How technology will enable those processes to be carried out (such as data access, groupware, mobile ware, etc.);
4. When and where people interact to exchange knowledge and information (PdK Consulting, n.d.).

References

Department of Health and Human Services of North Carolina (2001). Definitions. Web.

Department of Health Western Australia (2004). Prevention of workplace aggression and violence: Policy and guidelines. Web.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The European tradition, in Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D and Cooper C (Eds) Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor & Francis.

Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Group dynamics (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By another name: American perspectives on workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 31-61). London: Taylor & Francis.

Lorenz, K. (2002). On aggression (2^nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391-419. PdK Consulting (n.d.). Workplace. Web.

Peek-Asa, C., Runyan, C. W., & Zwerling, C. (2001). The role of surveillance and evaluation research in the reduction of violence against workers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20, 141-148.

Rai, S. (2002). Preventing workplace aggression and violence – A role for occupational therapy. Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and Rehabilitation, 18, 15-22.