Workplace Voilence and Workplace Aggression

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254121227
Workplace Violence and

Workplace Aggression: Evidence
Concerning Specific Forms,
Potential Causes, and Preferred...
Article in Journal of Management June 1998

DOI: 10.1177/014920639802400305
CITATIONS READS
412 2,566
2 authors, including:
Joel H Neuman
State University of New York at New Paltz
20 PUBLICATIONS 1,729 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Joel H Neuman on 16 January 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Management
1998, Vol. 24, No. 3, 391-419
Workplace Violence and Workplace

Aggression: Evidence Concerning
Specific Forms, Potentiai Causes, and
Preferred Targets
Joel H. Neuman
State University of New York at New Paltz
Robert A. Baron
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Contrary to the impression generated by an increasing number of

news reports in the past several years, the occurrence of workplace
violence.extreme acts of aggression involving direct physical
assault-^represents a relatively rare event in work settings. However,
workplace aggression.efforts by individuals to^harm others with whom
they work or have workedare much more prevalent and may prove
extremely damaging to individuals and organizations. This paper
presents empirical evidence on the varied forms of workplace aggres-
sion and their relative frequency of occurrence in work settings. We
offer a theoretical framework for understanding this phenomenonone
based on contemporary theories of human aggressionand demon-
strate how principles associated with this framework may be applied to
the management and prevention of all forms of aggression in work-
places.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida"A man who had been dismissed from his city job
cleaning the beaches here opened fire on his former colleagues early this morning,
killing five and seriously injuring another before turning the gun on himself,
police officers said." (New York Times, February 10, 1996).
City of Industry, California"A postal worker walked up to his boss, pulled
a gun from a paper bag and shot him dead, the latest incident in an alarming
increase in workplace violence." (Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1995).
Corpus Christi, Texas"A former employee opened fire Monday in a refin-
ery inspection company, killing the owner, his wife and three workers before
fatally shooting himself, police said." (Poughkeepsie Journal, April 4, 1995).
Direct all correspondence to: Joel H. Neuman, Department of Business Administration, State University of New
York at New Paltz, 75 South Manheim Blvd., New Paltz, NY 12561-2499.
Copyright 1998 by JAI Press Inc. 0149-2063
391
392 J.H NEUMAN AND R.A. BARON
In recent years, reports such as these have appeared in newspapers and

magazines with increasing frequency, and this media attention to incidents of
violence occurring in work settings has been mirrored by vastly increased scien-
tific interest in this important issue. A recent search of the ABI Inform database
for the period 1987 through 1996 revealed 263 articles related to "workplace
violence." The majority of these articles (83%) were published between 1994 and
1996. A similar search of the World Wide Web, using the Alta Vista search
engine, revealed about 2,000 entries. Consistent with the rising tide of workplace
violence seemingly reflected in such articles, criminologists note that workplace
homicide is the fastest growing category of murder in America (O'Boyle, 1992).
The increasing attention being devoted to workplace violence is further
evidenced by a growing number of textbooks (e.g., S. A. Baron, 1993; Capozzoli
& McVey, 1996; Kinney, 1995; Labig, 1995), training seminars (e.g., AMA,
1996, Cornell University, 1996) instructional videos (e.g., Edge Training
Systems, 1996; Orr, 1994), and television documentaries (e.g., Nevins, 1994)
which describe the nature of the problem and/or suggest strategies for its preven-
tion/management.
Is all this attention justified? At first glance, the answer would appear to be a
definite "yes." For the period 1980-1992, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) recorded 9,937 workplace homicidesclose to 800 a
year (Jenkins, 1996). In 1989, homicide was the third.leading cause of death in the
workplace for all employees. By 1993, homicide had become the second leading
cause of death on-the-job for all employees (approaching the numbers for job-
related deaths in motor vehicle accidents in frequency) and had become the lead-
ing cause of death for women (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1994, 1995; Centers for
Disease Control, 1993, Rigdon, 1994).
Faced with such disturbing statistics, it is not surprising that many employ-
ees have begun to express concern about becoming the victim of workplace
violence (McAllister, 1994; Sharpe, 1994). In a recent survey administered by the
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM, 1996), 45% of the 1,016
respondents indicated that employees at their organizations were concerned that
violence could occur at work. Yet, careful examination of the existing evidence
suggests a more complex picture than first meets the eye. A large majority of
workplace homicides do not involve murderous assaults between coworkers
within an organization; rather, they occur in connection with robberies and related
crimes (BLS, 1992). In 1993, for example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded
1,063 workplace homicidesof that number, only 59 were co-worker related. So,
although media accounts of workplace violence typically describe situations in
which disgruntled employees lash out against coworkers or supervisors in
murderous rage, this does not appear to constitute an accurate account of the vast
majority of homicides in work settings.
A recent review of the workplace violence literature by Leonard and Sloboda
(1996) is also consistent with this conclusion, and suggests the need for greater
caution in interpreting workplace homicide data. These authors identified approx-
imately 90 articles published between 1987 and 1995 addressing workplace
violence. Twenty-six percent of these reports focused on workplace violence
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998
WORKPLACE AGGRESSION 393
involving coworkers or former coworkers but, in discussing such incidents, actu-

ally reported general homicide figuresdata that included robberies or other
crimes. As Leonard and Sloboda rightfully conclude, this "could lead to drawing
erroneous conclusions" (1996, p. 7).
The fact that the majority of workplace homicides are committed by organi-
zational "outsiders" is also reflected in the occupations that are at highest risk.
According to an alert issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC, 1993), for the period
1980-89, the occupation with the highest rate of occupational homicide was taxi-
cab driver/chauffeur, with a rate 21 times the national average (15.1 deaths per
100,000 workers per year). Other high-risk occupations include law enforcement
officers, hotel clerks, gas station workers, security guards, stock handlers/baggers,
store owners/managers, and bartenders. Clearly, the high homicide rates experi-
enced by individuals working in these occupations does not reflect assaults by co-
workers; rather, "the types of high-risk workplaces and occupations identified
suggest that robbery is a predominant motive" (CDC, 1993, p. 3).
Another problem associated with both media accounts of workplace violence
and many published studies on this topic is the fact that these sources focus exclu-
sively on homicide, as opposed to other harmful but less dramatic acts. As we will
demonstrate, non-lethal forms of violence occur with substantially greater
frequency than fatal assaults yetperhaps because they often go unreported
they have been largely ignored. For example, comparing workplace homicide
statistics for 1992 (BLS data) with estimates of workplace crimes of violence
reported in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)' for the same
period (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994) revealed that only 1 in 650 workplace
crimes of violence involved homicide. Indeed, recent findings suggest that fully
99.8% of the victims of workplace violence survive the assaults they experience
(Bulatao & Vandenbos, 1996).
So, to return to the question we posed earlier"Is all this attention to work-
place violence justified?" we believe that an appropriate answer might be: "Yes,
but not necessarily for the reasons that the media or other sources suggest." It is
our contention, and a central theme of this paper, that efforts by individuals to
harm others with whom they work or have worked, or their organization itself,
actually take many different forms and, that among these, physical assault and
homicide are simply the most visible and dramatic examplesthe tip of the
iceberg, so to speak. Consistent with this view, we suggest that the term work-
place violence is potentially somewhat misleading, since it directs attention solely
to a small, if dramatic, subset of all harm-doing behaviors that occur in work
settings. For this reason, we suggest that a clear distinction should be drawn, at the
outset, between workplace aggressiona general term encompassing all forms of
behavior by which individuals attempt to harm others at work or their organiza-
tions, and workplace violence, which refers only to instances involving direct
physical assaults. This distinction is consistent with the usage of the terms
"aggression" and "violence" in extant literature on human aggression (e.g.. Baron
& Richardson, 1994; Huesmann, 1994), and this, too, we believe, offers a strong
basis for adopting such terminology here.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

Having commented on the origins of current interest in workplace violence,

and having clarified what we feel is an important distinction between workplace
aggression and workplace violence, we will tum to the major tasks of this paper.
Briefly, we will proceed as follows. First, we will address some important defini-
tional issues related to workplace violence, focusing on its nature and scope.
Second, we will describe various forms of workplace aggression and provide data
on their relative frequency. Third, we will discuss potential causes of workplace
aggression, both personal and organizational. Fourth, we will offer a theoretical
framework for understanding workplace aggressiona framework that will, we
hope, be useful to other investigators in planning research on this topic. Fifth, we
will offer strategies for the prevention and management of workplace aggression,
based on our theoretical model. Finally, we will call attention to key issues and
questions in need of further research and comment on the implications of such
work for management practice.
We should note at the outset that in all these tasks, we draw heavily on the
literature on human aggression generally. We feel that proceeding in isolation
from this large body of knowledge would be both inefficient and inexcusable: it
would, in fact, be akin to "reinventing the wheel." Thus, another purpose of this
paper is that of building conceptual bridges between research on workplace
aggression and workplace violence and research on human aggression generally.
We feel that such bridges have been largely lacking in the past, and that this has
appreciably slowed progress in current efforts to understand, and manage, work-
place aggression and violence.
The Nature and Scope of Workplace Violence

Terrorism, domestic violence, armed robbery, verbal threats, sexual harass-
ment, spreading gossip, needlessly consuming required resources, theft, and
vandalismthese are only some of the many behaviors that have been subsumed
under the heading workplace violence. This raises an important questionwhat is
workplace violence?
Definitional Issues
Unfortunately, the term workplace violence has been assigned many differ-
ent definitions in existing literature (cf.. Barling, 1996; Bulatao & VandenBos,
1996; Lanza et al., 1991; McPhail, 1996; Mullen, 1997; O'Leary-Kelly et al.,
1996). We believe that this somewhat confusing state of affairs may be clarified
by: (1) focusing on violence and aggression that is "organization-motivated" and
(2) distinguishing between violence and aggression.
Recently, O'Leary-Kelly et al. (1996) proposed distinguishing between acts
that are "organization-motivated" and those that have their bases in factors
outside the control of the organization. Adopting this position accomplishes the
following. First, the underlying motivation for an act becomes the defining issue
as opposed to the location in which the act occurs. Second, this perspective
focuses on organizational insiders (individuals presently, or previously, employed
by the organization) thereby limiting (and clearly articulating) the nature of the

relationship between perpetrator and victim. Third, this perspective by its very
nature defines workplace aggression/violence as a unique phenomenon by delim-
iting the variables of interest.
With respect to the problem of how broadly to define violence, conceptualiz-
ing the phenomenon as workplace aggression directly addresses this issue. Specif-
ically, as generally construed in current literature on aggression, human
aggression involves any act in which one individual intentionally attempts to
harm another. Therefore, all forms of intentional harm-doing in organizations
would qualify as workplace aggression and the term violence would be applied
only to serious instances of physical assault.
Consistent with the reasoning presented above, we define workplace aggres-
sion as efforts by individuals to harm others with whom they work, or have
worked, or the organizations in which they are presently, or were previously,
employed (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Neuman & Baron, 1997a).
In excluding acts such as terrorism, domestic violence, and armed robberies
from our definition, we do not suggest that these acts be ignored; rather, we
simply suggest that there is no practical benefit or theoretical justification for
studying them as workplace aggression/violence. In fact, we believe that failure to
consider the unique underlying motives associated with these particular actions is
likely to impede progress in the prevention and management of these serious acts.
Similarly, violence related primarily to the nature and/or location of the work
being performed is, we contend, better conceptualized as "occupational violence"
(Mullen, 1997) rather than as workplace violence. This would include assaults
against law enforcement officers, attacks on health care professionals by emotion-
ally disturbed patients, and so on. Because such assaults are not related to the poli-
cies or practices of an organization, and are perfonned by "outsiders," it makes
little sense to describe them as instances of workplace violence.
Having defined our focus of attention as organization-motivated aggression,
we now tum to the many forms of such behavior, and their relative frequency of
occurrence in the workplace.
The Nature and Prevalence of Workplace Aggression
The literature on human aggression suggests that efforts by individuals to
barm others assume an amazingly diverse range of forms (e.g.. Baron & Richard-
son, 1994). Is this also true of aggression in work settings? And, if so, what forms
are most frequent? Several attempts to answer such questions have been made.
For instance, S. A. Baron (1993) suggests that aggression occurs at three levels:
(1) tbe withholding of cooperation, spreading rumors or gossip, consistent argu-
ing, belligerency, and the use of offensive language, (2) intense arguments with
supervisors, coworkers, and customers, sabotage, verbal threats and feelings of
persecution, and (3) frequent displays of intense anger resulting in recurrent
suicidal threats, physical fights, destruction of property, use of weapons, and the
commission of murder, rape, and/or arson. In a similar vein, Mantell (1994)
proposes a Workplace Violence Spectrum that considers the degree to which
employees are likely to engage in covert (e.g., anonymous letter writing, vandal-
ism), overt (e.g., intimidation), or dangerous behaviors (e.g., sabotage, assault).
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL, 24, NO, 3, 1998

396 J,H NEUMAN AND R,A, BARON
Table 1. Three-Factor Model of Workplace Aggression
Factor
Workplace Aggression Factors Loading" Ranking''
Expressions of Hostility
Staring, dirty looks, or other negative eye-contact .73 8
Belittling someone's opinions to others .66 4
Giving someone the silent treatment .62 6
Negative or obscene gestures toward the target .61 14
Talking behind the target's back/spreading rumors .60 1
Interrupting others when they are speaking/working .59 2
Intentionally damning with faint praise .58 9
Holding target, or this person's work, up to ridicule .57 17
Flaunting status/acting in a condescending manner .56 3
Sending unfairly negative info to higher levels in company .55 19
Leaving the work area when the target enters 54 11
Delivering unfair/negative performance appraisals .52 21
Failing to deny false rumors about the target 51 12
Verbal sexual harassment 50 7
Failing to object to false accusation about the target 45 22
Obstructionism
Failure to return phone calls or respond to memos 69 5
Causing others to delay action on important matters 68 16
Failing to warn the target of impending danger 68 24
Showing up late for meetings run by target 61 10
Failing to defend target's plans to others 60 15
Interfering with or blocking the target's work 55 23
Needlessly consuming resources needed by the target 54 18
Direct refusal to provide needed resources or equipment 54 25
Intentional work slowdowns 52 20
Overt Aggression
Attack with weapon 74 33
Physical attack/assault (e,g,, pushing, shoving, hitting) 73 31
Theft/destruction of personal property belonging to target 68 26
Threats of physical violence 68 27
Failing to protect target's welfare or safety 60 29
Damaging/sabotaging company property needed by target 52 30
Steals/removes company property needed by target 51 28
Destroying mail or messages needed by the target 47 32
Notes: ''Italics indicate factor loadings that were used to define each factor.
^Tie lower the ranking, the greater the relative frequency of occurrence,

While these classificatioti schemes are useful iti drawing attentioti to a broad array
of aggressive behaviors that may occur in work settings, they are essentially athe-
oretical in nature, and are not based on extensive empirical data.
Empirical Evidence on the Forms and Frequency of Workplace Aggression
Recently, some research has examined the prevalence of various forms of
workplace aggression and the extent to which these forms are consistent with the
typologies cited above (e.g.. Baron & Neuman, 1996, in press; Geddes, 1994;
Geddes & Baron, 1997; Neuman & Baron, 1997a). Tbese investigations have
been guided by theoretical and empirical research related to human aggression
(e.g.. Buss, 1961) and employee deviance/counterproductive behavior (e.g.,
Hogan & Hogan, 1989; Hollinger & Clark, 1983; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). In
one such study (Baron & Neuman, in press), 452 persons, employed full time,
rated the frequency with which they experienced 40 different forms of aggressive
behaviorforms identified in prior research (e.g.. Baron & Neuman, 1996).
Exploratory factor analysis of these data revealed 33 variables subsumed by the
following three dimensions (refer to Table 1): (1) expressions of hostility, (2)
obstructionism, and (3) overt aggression. We will use these three dimensions as a
convenient framework for presenting empirical evidence on the nature and preva-
lence of workplace aggression.
Expressions of Hostility. Referring to Table 1, it can be seen that this
dimension includes behaviors that are primarily verbal or symbolic in nature (e.g.,
gestures, facial expressions, and verbal assaults). Although these forms of aggres-
sion may not seem particularly lethal, they do take an emotional toll (especially
over the long term; Kinney, 1993).
Data are limited with respect to the prevalence of this form of aggression, but
what is known suggests that these behaviors are ubiquitous in organizational
settingsas they are in other social settings. The data also suggest that expressions
of hostility occur significantly more often than any other form of aggression.
Referring to the "ranking" column in Table 1, eight of the top ten most frequently
occurring forms of aggression involve expressions of hostility (Baron & Neuman,
in press). Consistent with the findings of other research (Northwestern National
Life Insurance Company, 1993), respondents rated overt behaviors (those typically
associated with workplace violence) as the least prevalent form of aggression.
In a study of workplace harassment, Bjorkqvist, Osterman and Hjelt-Back
(1994) surveyed 338 university employees in Finland. Thirty-two percent of the
respondents indicated that they had observed others being shouted at loudly or
being exposed to insulting comments, insinuating glances, negative gestures,
undue criticism, and unfairly damaging performance evaluations. Interestingly,
Geddes and Baron (1997) found that 68.9% of managers in their study reported
experiencing verbal forms of aggression in response to negative performance
evaluations (e.g., insulting comments, use of profanity, threats of retaliation,
silent treatment, spreading rumors). In another study that collected data from
3,393 municipal workers, located in three cities in the southwestern United States,
over 50% of the respondents admitted to criticizing or arguing with coworkers
(Bennett & Lehman, 1996).

Ostracism, intentionally being ignored by others who are in one's presence,

is a pervasive phenomenon (Williams & Sommer, 1997). In organizations, ostra-
cism has been used to shun workers who violate group norms or as retaliation
against whistleblowers (Miceli & Near, 1992; Sheler, 1981).
In addition to those behaviors noted above, the scope of hostile expressions
is only limited by one's imagination. The reader may consider the extent to which
he or she has encountered, or witnessed, biting sarcasm, disapproving head-shak-
ing, looks of disdain, hurtful gossip, or character assassination. Personal experi-
ence would suggest that these behaviors are ubiquitous in the workplace and
extremely damaging to individuals and potentially damaging to organizations.
Obstructionism. Again, referring to Table 1, the behaviors subsumed
under the heading of obstructionism include actions that are designed to impede
an individual's ability to perform his or her job or interfere with an organization's
ability to meet its objectives. The majority of these behaviors involve passive
forms of aggression (withholding some behavior or resource), so they are
extremely difficult to track. In fact, the covert nature of these acts is what makes
their use so appealing to potential aggressors. By using such covert tactics, they
may maximize the harm done to intended victims while minimizing the danger to
themselves (Bjorkqvist, Osterman & Hjelt-Back, 1994). This is especially rele-
vant in work settings where the perceived source of injustice may be an immedi-
ate superior with power to retaliate with great effect. Even where no power
relationship exists, would-be aggressors expect to interact with intended victims
(coworkers) on a regular basis, and so are vulnerable to retaliation from these
persons or their allies. This is especially true if victims can identify the source of
an attack.
Consistent with the presumption that covert forms of workplace aggression
provide advantages over more overt actions. Baron and Neuman (1996) found that
passive aggression was significantly more prevalent in work settings than active
aggression. In related work, 452 persons employed full time rated obstructionism
as significantly more prevalent in work settings than overt aggression (Baron &
Neuman, in press).
Work slowdowns represent a form of obstructing behavior that has received
a good deal of attention in the management and organizational behavior literature
beginning, in 1878, with the work of Frederick Taylor (Taylor, 1911). Specific
examples of work slowdowns have been identified in research related to
employee sabotage. In a study conducted by Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1987), of
the 29 employee sabotage behaviors identified, eight involved work slowdowns
(e.g., creating "down time," slowdowns, leaving the work cite, "losing" paper
work, "getting lost," pulling the fire alarm, and carrying out management direc-
tives to the letter. One of the behaviors identified in this study is particularly rele-
vant to the present discussion: "as a group, slowing down work output to get
foreman in trouble, fired, or transferred" Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1987, p. 372).
Analoui (1995) observed obstructionism in his six-year investigation of
sabotage in an international entertainment company based in England. Two forms
of sabotage uncovered in this study involved "inaction" and "wastage." With
respect to inaction, predictable destruction of resources (e.g., machinery) occurs
as a result of deliberate inaction on someone's part (a clear example of passive

aggression). In terms of wastage, deliberate action results in the wastage of some
resource (e.g., raw materials). This is an example of needlessly consuming
resourcesone of the behaviors subsumed by obstructionism. Of 91 acts of sabo-
tage reported in this study, 23 involved inaction and 14 involved wastage. In
short, obstructionism accounted for about 40% of sabotage-related behavior
among employees.
Lastly, obstructionism may manifest itself in the form of "anti-citizenship"
(Youngblood, Trevino & Favia, 1992) or "organizational retaliatory behavior"
(ORBs for short; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). These are viewed as counterparts to
organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988)informal contributions that
participants can choose to proffer or withhold without fear of sanction or formal
incentives. The intentional withholding of these voluntary actions, that would
benefit individuals and organizations, would constitute ORBs or anti-citizenship
behaviors. As suggested by Skarlicki and Folger (1997), "some ORBs may not
appear to be as dangerous as more overtly aggressive acts but, in the aggregate,
may detractfi-omeffective organizational functioning."
With respect to obstructionism, people do fail to return phone calls, show up
late for meetings, absent themselves from work, and delay action on important
matters for reasons totally unrelated to aggression. However, when these acts are
motivated by malicious intent (as may often be the case), their effects can be quite
damaging to individuals and organizations.
Overt Aggression
Behaviors subsumed under the heading overt aggression are ones that are
typically associated with workplace violence (refer to Table 1). As we have
already presented data related to workplace homicide, we now tum our attention
to non-fatal forms of overt aggression.
Non-fatal Physical or Sexual Assault. In 1992, the New York State
Department of Labor reported over 11,000 work-related assaults which were seri-
ous enough to cause injuries resulting in at least one lost work day (NYCOSH,
1995). Nationally, 11% of all violent crimes were committed against people at
work. In the Northwestern National Life (1993) study cited earlier, 15% of the
respondents indicated that they had been physically attacked on the job at some
point in time and 14% indicated that someone had been physically attacked in
their workplace within the preceding 12 months.
With respect to the precise nature of workplace assaults, of the 1,016 human
resource professionals responding to the SHRM (1996) study, 22% reported inci-
dents of pushing or shoving, 13% reported fist fights, and 1% reported rape or
sexual assault. In a similar study of 500 private sector managers (AMA, 1994),
4.8% reported hand-to-hand violence, and 1.0% reported rape or sexual assault.
While the number of physical assaults that occur in workplaces is certainly
significant, we again wish to emphasize the fact that the vast majority of employ-
ees never witness or experience this form of aggression. For example, of 452
persons recently surveyed (Baron & Neuman, in press), 70.6% had never
witnessed physical assaults and 20.6% indicated that they had witnessed them

rarely. When asked if they had ever personally experienced such an assault,
88.1% indicated that they had not.
Property Damage and Theft. With respect to property damage, destruction
of machinery or goods, passing on defective work, flattening tires, scratching
cars, planting computer viruses, deletion of important computer records, and writ-
ing on company furniture have all been identified as acts of sabotage and vandal-
ism in the workplace (Crino & Leap, 1989; DiBattista, 1991; Giacalone, Riordan
& Rosenfeld, 1997). In the six year longitudinal study of workplace sabotage
conducted by Analoui (1995), of the 451 acts of sabotage he identified, 93 (21%)
involved destructive practices.
Although sabotage is by definition an act of aggression, such is not the case
with theft; that is, theft is probably not perceived by a majority of individuals as
an aggressive act. Rather, it is commonly viewed as an action performed for
economic gain. However, within the context of our definition, theft may some-
times qualify as aggressionintentional harm-doing. This would be the case in
situations where employees steal items they do not intend to use or sell, because
they realize that taking them will inflict economic loss on the organization or, in
other instances, will inconvenience or harm specific individuals who need these
items. For example, research by Greenberg and others (e.g., Greenberg, 1990,
1993, 1994, 1997; Greenberg & Scott, 1996) suggests that many individuals steal
from their companies because they believe they are not receiving rewards propor-
tionate to their contributions. So, to even the score, they simply appropriate
company property.
Perpetrators and Victims
With respect to data on the perpetrators and victims of workplace aggression,
little systematic research has been done and most of it has focused on workplace
homicide and is, therefore, related primarily to armed robbery. These data suggest
that the majority of perpetrators are male as are 80% of the victims. The homicide
rate for male workers is approximately three times that for women, although
homicide is the leading cause of death for women from occupational injury (CDC,
1993).
With respect to workplace aggression statistics, some research has focused
on the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim in work-related relationships.
For example. Baron and Neuman (in press) found that 44.5% of respondents
reported aggression against a coworker (peer) on some occasion as compared with
31.4% reporting aggression against a supervisor or 26.8% reporting aggression
against a subordinate. In all instances, perpetrators seem to view their own aggres-
sion as significantly more justified than the aggression of others. The finding that
the majority of aggression occurs among coworkers at the same organizational
level seems consistent in the literature.
To summarize, a wide range of aggressive behaviors has been identified in
work settings and, contrary to reports in the popular press, the majority of these
behaviors do not involve physical assault; rather, they involve aggression that is
verbal and covert in nature. Furthermore, the bulk of these acts are directed
against coworkers (peers) rather than supervisors and subordinates. Having
l
.>
(A e
tfl
o
S!
Agg
s.
o
T
1 '(A
if
s O)
CO S! T3
(S (0
I
nple
tern
c 3
1 1
o
u
at
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 24. NO. 3, 1998
provided an overview of the nature of workplace aggression, we tum next to the

potential causes for such behavior.
Potential Causes of Aggression

Aggression, like other forms of complex behavior, stems from the interplay
of a wide range of social, situational, and personal factors. Although a detailed
discussion of the causes of aggression is beyond the scope of this paper, we feel it
important to devote some attention to a limited number of variables that may be
particularly relevant in organizational settings. In addition, we present a model of
aggression that should prove useful in understanding the causesand hopefully
suggesting effective strategies for the preventionof workplace aggression (refer
to Figure 1).-^ In the section that follows, we will address each stage of the model
presented and briefly discuss the variables associated with each stage.
Social Determinants of Workplace Aggression
When asked to describe situations that made them angry, most persons refer
to something that another person said or didsomething that caused them to
become upset and to view aggression against this person as justified (Harris,
1993; Torestad, 1990). Here, we will examine the potential effects of several
social factors that seem especially relevant to aggression in workplaces: unfair
treatment, frustration-inducing events, increased workforce diversity, and aggres-
sion-related norms of behavior.
Unfair Treatment. There is a significant amount of research related to
organizational justice (Greenberg, 1987, 1990) suggesting that, under certain
circumstances, perception of unfair treatment is associated with conflict (e.g.,
Cropanzano & Baron, in press; Crosby, 1976; Mark & Folger, 1984), workplace
aggression (Hoad, 1993; Baron, Neuman & Geddes, 1997; Neuman & Baron,
1997b), employee theft (e.g., Greenberg, 1990, 1993, 1994), and negative reac-
tions to employee layoffs (Brockner, Konovsky, Cooper-Schneider, Folger,
Martin & Bies, 1994). With respect to coworker-involved homicide, the perpetra-
tors of these acts often point to what they believe was unfair treatment at the
hands of a supervisor or coworker (e.g., S. A. Baron, 1993; Kinney, 1995;
Mantell, 1994). For example, Weide and Abbott (1994) found that over 80% of
the cases of workplace homicide they studied involved employees who "wanted
to get even for what they perceived as {their} organizations' unfair or unjust treat-
ment of them (p. 139). In a recent study, Neuman and Baron (1997b) found that
individuals who perceived that they were being treated unfairly by their supervi-
sors were significantly more likely to report that they engaged in aggression
against those superiors.
Frustration-Inducing Events. Frustrationinterference with on-going,
goal-directed behaviorhas long been viewed as an antecedent of aggression
(Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939; Feshbach, 1984; Spector, 1997).
However, systematic research on this variable indicates that it is a relatively weak
elicitor of aggression except, perhaps, in instances where individuals perceive tbat
thwarting of their goal-directed behavior by others is intentional and also unfair
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. VOL. 24, NO. 3. 1998
illegitimate or unwarranted (e.g., Berkowitz, 1989, 1994; Geen, 1991). In organi-

zational settings, frustration (presumably because it often is perceived as inten-
tional and unfair) has been found to be positively correlated with aggression
against others, interpersonal hostility, sabotage, strikes, work slowdowns, steal-
ing, and employee withdrawal (Spector, 1975, 1978, 1997; Storms & Spector,
1987). It is important to note that these thwarting behaviors are a central compo-
nent of obstructionism.
Increased Workforce Diversity. Workforces are becoming increasingly
diverse in the United States and many other countries. If not managed properly,
this increased diversity may lead to heightened tension and interpersonal conflict.
This may be the case for the following reasons. First, a substantial amount of
research suggests that people are attracted to others they perceive as being similar
to themselves and repulsed by those who they view as being dissimilar (cf.,
Byrne, 1971; Dryer & Horowitz, 1997). Workforce diversity, by its very nature,
places in close proximity people with many differences (e.g., age, gender, ethnic-
ity, culture, and physical and/or mental capabilities). To the extent that these
differences are perceived by individuals and generate feelings of negative affect
(we address negative affect below), they may result in decreased levels of inter-
personal attraction and increased potential for aggression. To the extent that these
differences cause difficulty in interpersonal communication, or lead to mutual
stereotyping, aggression may increase (e.g., Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Rogers,
1983; Schwartz & Stmch, 1990). Support for these hypotheses was obtained in
two recent studies where it was found that the greater the increase in diversity in
their workplaces reported by individuals, the greater the workplace aggression
they reported witnessing and experiencing (Baron & Neuman, 1996, in press).
Normative Behavior and Norm Violations. Norms may play an important
role in aggression in several ways. First, there may be a widespread belief that
aggression is just a "normal" part of the job. For example, a CSEA survey of its
members found that 75% of jail workers, 59% of health workers, 48% of office
workers, and 41% of field workers reported being verbally abused on the job
(NYCOSH, 1995). Workers in these occupations view this kind of behavior as
job-related and seldom report these acts when they occur. Second, organizational
cultures may foster a contentious organizational climate (e.g., a "dog-eat-dog"
environment) or celebrate the appearance of toughness (e.g., a "macho" image).
For example, it has become quite fashionable for CEOs of major corporations to
brag about the number of employees they have terminated or operations they have
excised (Dumaine, 1993; Loeb, 1996).
Third, the violation of important social norms may be viewed as an injustice,
requiring some form of retaliation. For example, long-term employee-employer
relationships (once an accepted norm) have been replaced by temporary and part-
time affiliations. These "contingent" employment relationships are associated
with higher levels of stress and frustration (Fierman, 1994). Recent evidence
suggests that the use of part-time workers and job-sharing arrangements (which
are increasingly prevalent) are associated with workplace aggression (Baron &
Neuman, 1996; in press).

Fourth, aggression is often employed against workers who violate estab-

lished production norms. For example, as early as the Hawthorne Studies (Roeth-
lisberger & Dickson, 1939) "deviates" were disciplined by coworkers if they
worked too fast. These "rate busters" were often physically threatened to bring
them into line with accepted levels of production.
Situational Determinants of Aggression
Variables in this category involve the situational and environmental contexts
in which aggression may occur. Our discussion will focus on some contemporary
business practices (situational) and a few general environmental factors that have
been found to be associated with aggression.
Situations: The changing face of modern workplaces. Apart from the
norm violations associated with abandonment of the social contract, layoffs and
downsizings have a more direct effect on aggression. Growing evidence suggests
that the survivors, as well as victims, of layoffs experience considerable frustra-
tion and stress (Brockner et al., 1994), as well as depression, resentment, and
hostility (Catalano et al., 1993; Catalano, Novaco & McConnell, 1997). Follow-
ing reductions in force, survivors may experience declining morale and an
increasing distrust of management (Brockner, 1988; Cascio, 1993), and frequently
have to cope with increased workloads (Tomasko, 1990). With respect to work-
place aggression, cost-cutting (e.g., downsizing, layoffs, budget cuts, and pay
cuts/freezes) and organizational change (change in management, restructuring,
and reengineering) are significantly related to expressions of hostility and
obstructionism (Baron & Neuman, in press).
Another contemporary business practice involves the use of computers to
monitor employee productivity. This practice has been strongly linked with
increased levels of stress (Aiello & Shao, 1993; Amick & Smith, 1992; Smith,
Carayon, Sanders, Lim & LeGrande, 1992). In a study by Gallatin (1989), 81% of
the respondents indicated that electronic performance monitoring made their jobs
more stressful. Another study, comparing attitudes of monitored and non-moni-
tored employees performing similar work, demonstrated that monitored employ-
ees experienced more stress (Irving, Higgins & Safayeni, 1986).
Environmental conditions. Hot temperatures, high humidity, extreme
cold, poor lighting and air quality, high noise levels, and crowding all have been
linked to increased levels of human aggression (e.g., Anderson, Anderson &
Deuser, 1996; Baron, 1994; Cohn & Rotton, 1997). While none of these is neces-
sarily linked to contemporary business practices, many organizations have
extended cost-cutting policies to this general area. Thus, many have taken such
steps as raising thermostats in the summer and lowering them in the winter, defer-
ring regular maintenance such as painting or carpet cleaning (e.g.. Baron, 1994).
In fact, recent reports indicate that the U. S. Congress is investigating the aviation
industry's practice of re-cycling the cabin air on board commercial airliners, as
opposed to providing fresh oxygen. Some industry experts suggest that this poses
health risks for passengers. Now, we are not suggesting that foul air on board
airplanes leads to foul tempersalthough aggression on commercial airliners is a
growing problemwe merely point out that cost-considerations may adversely

impact environmental factors. This, in tum, may contribute to an increased likeli-

hood of aggression.
Personal Determinants
A substantial body of research findings indicates that individuals differ
substantially in their propensity to aggress. While some respond mildly to even
strong provocation, others react with strong emotions and overt aggression to
even seemingly mild forms of annoyance (e.g.. Baron & Richardson, 1994; Toch,
1992). Thus, as shown in Figure 1, we suggest that the social and situational
factors described above may infiuence individuals to varying degrees, depending
on a number of dispositional factors. Several of these factors will now be
described.
Type A Behavior Pattern. Individuals classified as Type A are often impa-
tient and irritable (Glass, 1977), prefer to work alone and, when they must work
with others, desire to control the situation (Miller, Lack & Asroff, 1985). Individ-
uals classified as Type B show the opposite pattern of behaviorthey demon-
strate a much calmer demeanor. Furthermore, Type As lose their tempers more
frequently and demonstrate higher levels of aggression than Type Bs (Holmes &
Will, 1985). In work settings. Type As report a higher frequency of confiict with
subordinates than Type Bs (Baron, 1989) and demonstrate tendencies toward
aggression and irritability on-the-job (Evans, Palsane & Carrere, 1987). Recently,
Neuman and Baron (1997b) found a significant relationship between Type A
Behavior Pattern and all three forms of workplace aggression; i.e., expressions of
hostility, obstructionism, and overt aggression.
Self-Monitoring Behavior. Persons classified as high in self-monitoring
(Snyder, 1974) possess considerable social sensitivity and alter their words or
deeds to produce favorable impressions on others (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). In
contrast, persons low in self-monitoring seem less aware of others' reactions or, at
least, are less concemed with them. Accordingly, low self-monitors tend to
behave in a manner consistent with their lasting attitudes and values and do not
readily adjust their actions to changing situational conditions (Snyder, 1987;
Snyder & Ickes, 1985). This suggests that high, as opposed to low, self-monitors
would be more conciliatory in confiict situations and less provocative in their
behavior towards others, and there has been some support for this hypothesis
(Baron, 1989). Consistent with this line of reasoning, Neuman and Baron (1997b)
found a significant relationship between low self-monitoring and obstmctionism.
Hostile Attributional Bias. As suggested previously, when individuals
interpret another person's behavior as hostile, they are likely to feel aggrieved and
retaliate. Research suggests that some individuals perceive hostile intent on the
part of others even when this intent is lacking (e.g.. Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge
& Newman, 1981; Nasby, Hayden & DePaulo, 1979). In fact, these individuals
develop an expectancy that others will respond to them in hostile ways prior to
any interaction taking place. These individuals are, therefore, more likely to
behave aggressively in response to even minor provocation (Dodge & Coie,
1987).

Internal States and Cognitive Appraisal

Everyday experience would suggest that how we feel and wbat we think bas
a substantial impact on what we do, and a large body of research findings suggests
this is very much the case with respect to human aggression.
Unpleasant feelings and hostile/aggressive thoughts. Regardless of the
source, negative affect (e.g., negative moods, unpleasant physiological arousal)
may evoke unpleasant thoughts and memories. These, in tum, may lead to irrita-
tion, annoyance, and anger. Conversely, aggression-related thoughts and memo-
ries may elicit unpleasant feehngs and arousal (cf., Anderson & Anderson, 1996;
Anderson, Anderson & Deuser, 1996; Berkowitz, 1989,1994). Just as personality
traits may predispose individuals to respond in a particular way, subtle feelings
and thoughts may predispose individuals to particular forms of behavior. But,
depending upon the intensity of these internal states (and personal detenninants),
additional (higher level) cognitive processing may further influence perceptions
of the problem and the choice of action.
Cognitive appraisal. In response to internal stimulation, we attempt to
identify the reason(s) for these thoughts and feelings. And, on occasion, we may
be mistaken in our causal attributions. This is especially true in ambiguous situa-
tions. For example, we might misattribute a state of physiological arousal to an
unpleasant interaction with a coworker when, in fact, it was really due to the extra
cup of coffee we had at breakfasta caffeine-induced reaction (Zillmann, 1996).
The important point is that no real "attack" need occur; rather, we may simply
perceive that as tbe case.
Upon making an hostile attribution, further cognitive appraisal occurs. For
example, was tbe act intentional or accidental? Are there mitigating factors that
might excuse the action? Have apologies been offered? Perceptions of malicious
intent, and the absence of explanations or signs of remorse, may increase the like-
lihood of an aggressive response.
Next, individuals consider their options and this, to a large extent, is a func-
tion of tbeir behavioral repertoire (skills, abiUties, and coping strategies) and their
particular circumstances (the kinds of responses available in a given situation).
Finally, individuals must consider the consequences associated with each avail-
able response.
The process outlined above is quite complex and provides numerous oppor-
tunities for misperception, misattribution and, potentially, aggression. Fortu-
nately, it also provides many opportunities for the prevention and effective
management of workplace aggression, as noted below.
The Prevention and Control of Workplace Aggression

To an encouraging degree, many of the principles outlined above are incor-
porated in a workplace violence prevention program developed by the United
States Postal Service (USPS; Anfuso, 1994). This program addresses: (1) person-
nel selection, (2) security, (3) workplace violence/aggression policies (4) organi-
zational climate, (5) employee support, and (6) employee separation/termination.
In the section that follows, we employ this program as a basis for our discussion

and as a means for illustrating how the principles and findings discussed in the
preceding section (in the context of our model of workplace aggression) can be
put to use in practical programs for managing such behavior.
Personnel Selection (Personal Determinants^
As noted previously, some individuals are predisposed to respond aggres-
sively even to minor provocations. Accordingly, a good place to identify these
individuals is before they are hired.
Personnel Screening. The use of background data as a predictor of on-the-
job performance has had a long history in employment settings (McDaniel, 1989;
Owens, 1976), and recent attention has focused on using these data in screening
for violence-prone employees (S. A. Baron, 1993; Mantell, 1994; Slora, Joy,
Jones & Tenis, 1991). The purpose of this type of investigation is not to uncover
a single, minor indiscretion in the applicant's past; rather, it is an attempt to
uncover a pattern of aggressive behavior (e.g., convictions for crimes of violence,
spousal abuse, child abuse, or workplace assaults). Many organizations contract
with firms that specialize in this type of investigation (Anfuso, 1994).
Pre-employment Testing. Even, when successful, background investiga-
tions and reference checks are only able to identify those persons who have
engaged in overtly aggressive acts or those who have been apprehended and pros-
ecuted for violence. For these reasons, some organizations have turned to other
screening devices. For example, scales designed to assess a person's predisposi-
tion to engage in violent on-the-job activities are included in some personnel
selection batteries (Slora, Joy, Jones & Terris, 1991). A version of the London
House Personnel Selection Inventory (PSI) (London House, 1980) contains scales
that measure propensity towards physical assault, intentional damage and waste,
and hostile customer relations. The Personnel Decisions Inc. (PDI) Employment
Inventory (Personnel Decisions Incorporated, 1985) contains scales that measure
trouble with authority, hostility, and thrill seeking, and the Reliability Scale of the
Hogan Personnel Selection Series (Hogan & Hogan, 1986, 1989) measures hostil-
ity to authority, thrill seeking, and social insensitivity.
Another method for identifying potentially aggressive employees is through
carefully structured job interviews. In addition to questions designed to assess an
applicant's job-related knowledge, skills, and abilities, Mantell (1994) strongly
recommends asking every applicant a series of questions designed to assess
whether he/she has ever been treated unfairly and how he/she responded to this
unfair treatment. Indications of continuous unfair treatment ("everyone is out to
get me") or aggressive/violent responses to unfair treatment may suggest cause
for concern. A similar interview strategy involves the use of situational, or behav-
ioral response, interviews in which the candidate is asked how he or she would
deal with a particular work-related (potentially frustrating) situation.
Security (Situational Antecedents)
Depending on the nature of the business and the size of the facility, securify
practices will vary greatly. For example, the USPS has 47,000 facilities that range
from one-person post offices to large plants employing more than 4,000 workers.

Security practices vary from simple awareness training to the installation of secu-
rity cameras, employee access badges, alarm and intercom systems, and security
guards. Clearly, the majority of these precautions are designed to guard against
"outsiders." However, security impacts tbe workplace in other ways. For exam-
ple, if employees feel unsafe at work they may be inclined to carry weapons for
tbeir own protection. Paradoxically, this may contribute to acts of violence.
Workplace Aggression/Violence Policies (Situational/Social Antecedents and
Cognitive Appraisal)
Organizations must clearly articulate that aggression will not be tolerated
and provide defmitions of inappropriate bebavior. Not only will this serve to
establish norms of appropriate bebavior, but also it may dispel the belief that
certain forms of aggression are part-of-the-job. In addition, a good workplace
aggression/violence policy outlines procedures for reporting inappropriate bebav-
ior and specifies sanctions for policy violations.
Organizational Climate (Social, Situational, Environmental Antecedents and
Internal States)
Driven by the idea that a healthy workplace is a safe workplace, many orga-
nizations are focusing attention on organizational climate.
Fair Treatment. Since aggression is most frequently associated with
perceptions of intentional provocation by others (Mantell, 1994; Torestad, 1990)
and witb feelings of exploitation (HoUinger & Clark, 1983), strategies that mini-
mize these perceptions should prove useful in reducing aggression. Support for
tbis reasoning is provided by research demonstrating a relationship between
perceptions of unfair treatment and increased theft rates (Greenberg, 1990, 1994)
and negative reactions to employee layoffs (Brockner et al., 1994). Fairness and
respect for the individual is a cornerstone of well-designed prevention programs
(e.g., Anfuso, 1994; Nicoletti & Spooner, 1996).
Environmental Factors. As noted previously, poor air quality, high noise
levels, crowding, poor lighting, uncomfortably high or low temperature, and high
humidity are factors that are associated witb negative affect (unpleasant internal
states), increased levels of stress, and aggression. Aside from normal occupational
safety and health concerns, efforts should be made to ensure comfort whenever
possible. Clearly, there are situations in which employees must work in less than
ideal (even hostile) conditions. Whenever this occurs, employees should be
provided with protective clothing and equipment to offer them as much protection
as possible. Additionally, appropriate rest periods and/or carefully designed shifts
should be employed. With respect to shift work, these can be the basis for quite a
bit of stress and frustration, especially as relates to rotating shifts and associated
sleep deprivation. While we have no data demonstrating a relationship between
shift work and aggression, this might be a fruitful area of research.
Organizational Culture. Organizational culture and the resulting climate
bas a strong effect in shaping bebavior. While the workplace aggression policy
defmes appropriate and inappropriate bebavior, Bpye and Jones (1997) suggest
that modifying several elements of organizational climate can help reduce coun-

terproductive behavior. Some of their suggestions include (a) setting an example

(climate of honesty displayed by leadership, (b) treating employees with trust,
respect, and dignity, (c) providing adequate compensation, (d) communicating a
policy concerning counterproductive behavior, (e) consistently punishing unac-
ceptable behavior, and (d) reducing job stress.
Employee Support (All Stages)
This prevention strategy attempts to deal with a broad range of factors
related to antecedent conditions, intervening processes, and behavioral responses.
Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). The USPS and Hardees Food
Systems have directed a good deal of resources at employee assistance programs
(EAPs). This involves conducting training with supervisors and managers on how
best to use EAPs and how to educate employees on their use (Anfuso, 1994).
EAPs are an effort to address employee problems before they intensify and, possi-
bly, culminate in violence. To draw an analogy, Folger and Skarlicki (1995)
suggest that employees who explode in violence are like popcorn kernels that
explode when the surrounding oil reaches a critical temperature. EAPs are an
attempt at "turning down the heat" before the "oil" (employee problems) reaches
that critical level.
With respect to specific employee problems, EAPs may be particularly
useful in addressing problems related to alcohol and substance abuse. Research
suggests that these are related to aggression in general, as well as workplace
aggression in particular (Barling, 1996; Greenberg & Barling, 1995; Bennett &
Lehman, 1996). EAPs also may prove useful in addressing problems related to
stress, depression, and domestic violence.
Training. Formal training can provide individuals with skills that are
useful in defusing, managing, and responding to aggression. For example, one
major reason why individuals become involved in repeated aggressive encounters
is that they are severely lacking in basic social skills. Such persons are insensitive
to the emotions of others, are unable to express their wishes or refuse requests in a
way that angers others, and so on (Baron & Richardson, 1994). People lacking in
such skills account for a significant proportion of violence in many societies
(Toch, 1992). Fortunately, research demonstrates that training is effective in
teaching social skills and that the acquisition of these competencies is associated
with significant reductions in aggressive behavior (Goldstein, 1981; Schneider,
1991).
In addition to social skills training, instruction in conflict management
(Rahim, 1992), interpersonal communication (Johnson, 1978), and stress manage-
ment (Huesmann, 1994) have demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing inter-
personal aggression. More specific forms of training targeted at particular work-
related variables also may prove useful. For example, instruction related to
designing and conducting performance evaluations may reduce perceptions of
unfairness, feelings of frustration, and hostility often associated with this process
(Carroll & Schneier, 1982). Training in the appropriate administration of disci-
pline (Grote & Harvey, 1983), as well as guidance in dealing with "difficult"
subordinates, peers, and superiors (Solomon, 1990), may decrease the potential
for confrontation and reduce the level of stress and anxiety associated with these
unpleasant situations. All of these factors, as we have argued previously, may
serve as antecedents to aggression.
Employee Separation
Terminations are extremely stressful events for those being discharged, those
who must carry out the dismissals, and, in many instances, those left behind.
While terminations for economic or disciplinary reasons are often necessary,
organizations should give careful consideration to alternatives to downsizing
(Anfuso, 1996) and the procedures they employ when reductions in force are
necessary. Consideration must also be given to the individuals being terminated,
with respect to their potential for violence. Should this potential exist, health care
professionals and security personnel should be consulted.
As noted previously, employees must be treated with respect and dignity,
especially during a time when their dignity is being so severely threatened. In the
case of planned downsizings and layoffs, many organizations have committed
significant resources in an effort to help employees with outplacement, counsel-
ing, and other related services. Not only is this beneficial for those leaving the
organization, but also those remaining behindthe "survivors." Recent evidence
suggests that after reductions in force, survivors look to each other for cues as to
how to respond (Brockner et al., 1997). To the extent that this is true, unfair treat-
ment may result in widespread discontent and, potentially, increased levels of
aggression.
The procedures outlined above are common to many prevention strategies in
use at this time (Anfuso, 1994; Nicoletti & Spooner, 1996). With the exception of
security issues, which deal primarily with organizational outsiders, most of the
approaches described may well prove useful across the entire range of behaviors
associated with workplace aggression.
Before concluding this section, it is important to note a few important legal
considerations with respect to prevention programs in general and personnel
screening and selection procedures in particular. Under the legal doctrines of
"respondent superior, negligent hiring practices, or duty to warn," employers may
be held liable for the actions of their agents (employees) if the employer knows
or should have knownthat a person was at risk for committing violence against
others (Ryan & Lasek, 1991; Anfuso, 1994). In this regard, violence prevention
programs and employee screening may limit an employer's legal liability.
However, some of the information obtained during the screening process may
violate the applicant's right to privacy or the American's with Disabilites Act
(Felsenthal, 1995; When laws collide, 1995). Accordingly, organizations should
sohcit guidance from legal experts in their particular jurisdictions prior to engag-
ing in related activities.
Unresolved Issues and Directions for Future Research

As noted earlier in this paper, the volume of research on workplace aggres-
sion and violence is rising sharply. The ultimate goal of this work is, of course,
infonning management practiceproviding organizations and managers with

techniques and procedures effective in reducing such behavior, or at least, in
minimizing its potential costs, both human and financial. Before this goal can be
reached, however, several basic issues relating to research on these topics must be
resolved. In this section, we call attention to these issues and also suggest several
avenues for future research that, in our view, are especially important and worthy
of pursuit.
Some Unresolved Issues
Since we have already discussed issues relating to definitions of the terms
workplace violence and workplace aggression, we will not repeat those comments
here. Suffice it to say that agreement on the meaning of these terms among
researchers and practitioners is crucial for the attainment of rapid progress in
these areas. Another issue, not previously considered, is the need for reliable and
carefully validated survey instruments to measure workplace aggression. To date,
only a few such instruments have been validated in work settings (e.g., the
London House Personnel Selection Inventory; London House, 1980) and these
instruments generally focus on physical assault, property damage, and general
hostilityactions that represent only a small proportion of intentional harm-doing
behaviors occurring in organizations. Most workplace aggression/violence
research conducted to date has not used these measures but has relied, instead, on
ad hoc instruments, created for specific investigations (e.g.. Baron & Neuman,
1996). It seems important to develop additional, and carefully validated, survey
instruments for assessing the nature, causes, and consequences of workplace
aggression.
A related issue involves a heavy reliance, in past research, on self-report
measures of workplace aggression. While self-report measures are often revealing
and accurate, they can also be subject to many sources of error and biasespe-
cially when used to collect sensitive information (e.g., Dalton, Wimbush & Daily,
1994; Lee, 1993; Newman & Krzystofiak, 1979). Thus, it would seem important
to develop altemative measures and to incorporate other sources of data into
future research on workplace aggression and violence. Potentially rich sources of
information on these topics might include grievance proceedings, human resource
interventions, anonymous "speak-up" programs, arbitration reports, sabotage
logs/incident reports (cf., Giacalone, Riordan & Rosenfeld, 1997). All these
sources of data should be explored in future studies.
An Agenda for Future Research
While recent studies of workplace aggression and violence have provided
important insights into the nature, causes, and prevalence of such actions, a
number of key questions remain to be addressed. Perhaps the most basic of these
involves the following question: What internal processes mediate between various
events in work settings and overt aggression? In other words, what are the internal
mediators of such behavior? As noted in Figure 1, research on human aggression
suggests that these might include negative feelings (e.g., feelings of anger, anxi-
ety, negative affect), and hostile thoughts (e.g., images of revenge, memories of
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL, 24, NO. 3, 1998

previous anger-provoking incidents and reactions to such feelings, etc.).

However, little evidence currently exists concerning the questions of whether
such reactions are induced by negative changes in workplaces (e.g., downsizing,
computer monitoring, increased use of part-time help), and whether such reac-
tions, if they occur, are determinants of aggressive reactions to such changes.
Future research designed to address this important issue may add appreciably to
our understanding of the roots of workplace aggression and violence.
A second issue concerns the possibility of developing procedures for identi-
fying those individuals most likely to respond aggressively to external events in
work settingsaggression-prone individuals. Some efforts along these lines have
already occurred (e.g., S. Baron, 1993; Neuman & Baron, 1997b), but to date,
there has been little attempt to link this work closely to existing knowledge about
personal characteristics that play a role in aggression. Are aggression-prone
employees more likely to be Type As than Type Bs? More likely to be high rather
than low in irritability? High in the tendency to attribute others' actions to hostile
intentions? Future research designed to examine these and related possibilities
may prove valuable in developing reliable procedures for identifying employees
who, as Folger and Baron (1996) suggest, are "likely to explode" as conditions in
their organizations worsen.
A third issue deserving of careful attention in future research is the role of
perceived fairness in workplace aggression and violence. A growing body of
evidence suggests that individuals' perceptions that they have been treated
unfairly often play a key role in workplace aggression and violence (e.g., Green-
berg, 1997; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). However, a number of questions relating to
this relationship remain unanswered. Do all kinds of perceived unfairness
unfairness concerning outcomes (distributive justice), unfairness concerning
procedures (procedural justice), and unfairness witb respect to personal treatment
(interpersonal justice)-have similar effects on workplace aggression and
violence? Do different kinds of perceived injustice have contrasting effects on
specific forms of workplace aggression (e.g., obstructionism versus overt aggres-
sion)? Future studies should examine these and related issues. The findings of
such research might well suggest specific tactics that organizations and individual
managers can adopt to minimize feelings of unfairness among employees, and
hence many forms of workplace aggression and violence. Along these lines, a
recent study by Beugre and Baron (1997) suggests that when employees perceive
that procedures in their organizations are fair, they tend to perceive the distribu-
tion of outcomes as fair, too. If such findings are confirmed in future studies, they
would suggest that organizations should focus on procedural justice as an "enter-
ing wedge" to reducing feelings of injustice and resentment among employees,
and hence workplace aggression and violence as well.
It should be noted that the research agenda suggested here is certainly not
meant to be inclusive. Rather, the suggestions provided above are offered on the
basis of two criteria: (1) tbey pertain to issues and questions we believe to be
important, but have not yet been systematically investigated; (2) evidence
concerning these issues may prove helpful to organizations and managers in their
efforts to reduce or manage workplace aggression and violence.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have focused on a limited number of issues related to work-
place aggression and violence. Central to our efforts has been a focus on what we
believe are important questions that have been largely ignored in the literature.
First, we addressed the tremendous range and variety of acts of workplace aggres-
sion and provided empirical evidence as to their nature and relative frequency.
Second, we demonstrated that contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of
aggressive acts in work settings do not involve physical assault; rather, they are
verbal/symbolic, covert, and/or passive in nature. Third, we provided a model of
workplace aggression that is based on contemporary theories of human aggres-
sion. Such a model, we believe is essential if we are to make progress in the study
of this important topic. Fourth, we provided theoretical and empirical evidence
linking a broad range of social, situational, and environmental factors to the
occurrence of workplace aggression. In this context, data were presented suggest-
ing that many contemporary business practices (e.g., downsizing, contingent
employment practices, increased workforce diversity) may contribute to work-
place aggression. Fifth, we discussed several strategies that may prove effective in
the prevention and control of aggression and violence in work settingsstrategies
based on current theories of human aggression. Finally, we called attention to
several unresolved issues in the rapidly growing literature on workplace aggres-
sion and violence and proposed an agenda for future research on these topics.
If there is a major theme to this paper, it can be stated as follows: Workplace
aggression is, in the final analysis, human aggression occurring in a specific
contextthe varied locations where people work. Since conditions in workplaces
are, in some respects, unique (e.g., employees interact with one another more
frequently and over longer periods of time than is true of many other social
settings), some of the variables that infiuence workplace aggression, too, may be
unique. However, it is our view that many of the factors that have been found to
infiuence human aggression generally may also play a role in the occurrence of
workplace aggression. For this reason, a primary task for researchers working in
this field is that of building conceptual and empirical bridges between their ongo-
ing research and existing literature on human aggression. Doing so, we believe, is
not only required by basic rules of science; it is also the most efficient hieans for
making rapid progress toward the dual goals of understanding and effectively
managing such behavior.
Notes
1. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) measures the violent crimes of rape, robbery, aggravated
and simple assault; personal thefts; and the household crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.
Survey estimates are based on data obtained from a stratified, multi-stage cluster sample of approximately
26,200 housing units (drawn from 60,500 housing units selected to participate). Since crime victims are asked
directly about crime, all crimes are measured, whether or not they were reported to police.
2. Space limitations prevent a thorough discussion of the causes of aggression and the model presented in Figure
1. The reader is directed to Baron and Richardson, 1994, Berkowitz, 1994, and Gcen, 1991 for discussions
related to the causes of aggression. For information related to the theoretical bases for the aggression model,
as well as the underlying mechanisms which play a role in the occurrence of aggression. Readers are directed
to research by Anderson, Deuser and DeNeve, 1995, Berkowitz, 1989, Geen, 1991, Lazarus and Folkman,

1984. The reader is further directed to a body of work relating negative affect to cognition and behavior (cf.,
Forgas, 1995). For additional examples of the application of aggression theories to the study of workplace
aggression, refer to research by Martinko and Zellars (1996) and O'Leary-Kelly, Paetzold and Griffin (1995).
3. Parenthetical references, in the following section headings, indicate the stages of the aggression model to
which each particular strategy relates.
References
Aiello, J. R., & Shao, Y. (1993). Electronic performance monitoring and stress; The role of feedback and goal
setting. In M. J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Applications and case studies
(pp. 1011-1016). Amsterdam; Elsevier Science.
American Management Association (1994). Workplace violence; Policies, procedures & incidents. American
Management Association 65th annual human resources conference & exposition onsite survey. Washing-
ton, DC; Author. April.
American Management Association (1996). Workplace violence: How to protect your employees and your
company. Training seminar presented by the American Management Association, New York. March 11.
Amick, B. C , & Smith, M. J. (1992). Stress, computer-based work monitoring and measurement systems; A
conceptual overview. Applied Ergonomics, 23: 6-16.
Analoui, F. (1995). Workplace sabotage; Its styles, motives and management. Journal of Management Develop-
ment, 14: 48-65.
Anderson, C. A., & Anderson, K. B. (1996). Violent crime rate studies in philosophical context; A destructive
testing approach to heat and southern culture of violence effects. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70: 740-756.
Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E. (1996). Examining an affective aggression framework;
Weapon and temperature effects on aggressive thoughts, affect, and attitudes. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22: 366-376.
Anfuso, D. (1994). Deflecting workplace violence. Personnel Journal, 73: 66-77.
Anfuso, D. (1996). Save jobs: Strategies to stop the layoffs. Personnel Journal, 75: 66-69.
Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence. In G. R. VandenBos &
E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Workplace violence (pp. 2 9 ^ 9 ) . Washington, DC; American Psychological Associ-
ation.
Baron, R. A. (1989). Personality and organizational conflict; Effects of the Type A behavior pattern and self-
monitoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44: 281296.
Baron, R. A. (1994). The physical environment of work settings; Effects on task performance, interpersonal rela-
tions, and job satisfaction. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 16, pp. 1-46). Greenwich, CT; JAI Press.
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression; Evidence on their relative
frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22: 161-173.
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H., (in press). Workplace Aggression^The Iceberg Beneath the Tip of Workplace
Violence; Evidence on its Forms, Frequency, and Targets. Public Administration Quarterly.
Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1997). Workplace aggressionthe iceberg beneath the tip of work-
place violence: Further evidence on its forms and potential organizational and individual causes. Unpub-
lished manuscript.
Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York; Plenum.
Baron, S. A. (1993). Violence in the workplace: A prevention and management guide for business. Ventura, CA;
Pathfinder Publishing.
Bennett, J. B., & Lehman, W. E. K. (1996). Alcohol, antagonism, and witnessing violence in the workplace;
Drinking climates and social alienationintegration. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Work-
place Violence (pp. 105-152). Washington, DC; American Psychological Association.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis; Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin,
iO6: 59-73.
Berkowitz, L. (1994). Is something missing? Some observations prompted by the cognitive-neoassociationist
view of anger and aggressive behavior; Current perspectives. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behav-
ior: Current perspectives (pp. 35-57). New York: Plenum'
Beugre, CD., & Baron, R.A. (1997). Organizational justice: Measuring its components and the relationships
between them. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees. Aggressive
Behavior, 20: 173-184.
Boye, M. W., & Jones, J. W. (1997). Organizational culture and employee counterproductivity. In R. Giacalone
and J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 172-184). Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a
valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24: 641-657.
Brockner, J. (1988). The effects of work layoffs on survivors: Research, theory, and practice. In B. M. Staw & L.
L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 213-255). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C , & Bies, R. J. (1994). Interactive effects
of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management
Journal, 37: 391-409.
Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B., Stephan, J., Hurley, R., Grover, S., Reed, T., DeWitt, R. L., & Martin, C. (1997).
The effects on layoff survivors of their fellow survivors' reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
27:835-863. *-^'
Bulatao, E. Q., & VandenBos, G. R. (1996). Workplace Violence: Its scope and the issues. In G. R. VandenBos
& E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the Job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 1-23). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U. S. Department of Justice (1994). Criminal victimization in the United States. 1992:
A National Crime Victimization Survey Report. NCJ-145125. Washington, DC: Author.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (1992). National census of fatal occupational injuries. Washington, DC: Author.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (1994). News. National census of fatal occupational injuries. 1993 [news release].
Washington, DC: Author.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (1995). News. National census of fatal occupational injuries. 1994 [news release].
Washington, DC: Author.
Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: John Wiley.
Byme, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Capozzoli, T., & McVey, R. S. (1996). Managing violence in the workplace. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Carroll, S. J. Jr., & Schneier, C. E. (1982). Performance appraisal and review systems: The identification,
measurement, and development of performance in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Cascio, W. F. (1993). Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Academy of Management Execu-
tive, 7: 95-104.
Catalano, R., Dooley, D., Novaco, R. W., Wilson, G., & Hough, R. (1993). Using ECA Survey data to examine
the effects of job layoffs on violent behavior. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 44: 874-879.
Catalano, R., Novaco, R., & McConnell, W. (1997). A model of the net effect of job loss on violence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 1440-1447
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1993).
Preventing homicide in the workplace. NIOSH Alert, Publication No. 93-109. September.
Cohn, E. G., & Rotton, J. (1997). Assault as a function of time and temperature: A moderator-variable time-series
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72: 1322-1334.
Cornell University (1996). Preventing workplace violence. Training seminar presented by Cornell Universitv
New York, NY.
Crino, M. D., & Leap, T. L. (1989). What HR managers must know about employee sabotage. Personnel. 66:31-
38.
Cropanzano, R., & Baron, R. A. (in press). Injustice and organizational conflict: The moderating effect of power
restoration. Intemational Journal of Conflict Management.
Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83: 85-113.
Dalton, D. R., Wimbush, J. C , & Daily, C. M. (1994). Using the unmatched count technique (UCT) to estimate
base-rates for sensitive behavior. Personnel Psychology, 47: 817-828.
DiBattista, R. A. (1991). Creating new approaches to recognize and deter sabotage. Public Personnel Manage-
ment. 20: 347-352.
Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in
children's peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 1146-1158.
Dodge, K. A., & Newman, J. P. (1981). Biased decision-making processes in aggressive boys. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 90: 375-379.
Dryer, D. C , & Horowitz, L.,M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus simi-
larity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 592-603.
Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, O., H. & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Dumaine, B. (1993). America's toughest bosses Fortune, 128: 39-42, 44, 48, 58.
Edge Training Systems (1996). On the edge: Violence in the workplace. (Available from Edge Training Systems
URL: http://www.edgetraining.com).
Evans, G. W., Palsane, M. N., & Carrere, S. (1987). Type A behavior and occupational stress: A cross-cultural
study of blue-collar workers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 1002-1007.

Felsenthal, E. (1995). Potentially violent employees present bosses with a catch-22. Wall Street Journal, April 5,
pp. B1,B5.
Feshbach, S. (1984). The catharsis hypothesis, aggressive drive, and the reduction of aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 10: 9\-\0\.
Fierman, J. (1994). The contingency workforce. Fortune, 129(January): 30-34, 36.
Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1996). Violence and hostility at work: A model of reactions to perceived injustice. In
G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds), Workplace violence (pp. 51-85.) Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. (1995, August). A Popcorn Model of workplace violence. Symposium conducted at the
meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, BC.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117: 39-66.
Gallatin, L. (1989). Electronic monitoring in the workplace: Supervision or surveillance?. Boston: Massachusetts
Coalition on New Office Technology.
Geddes, D. (1994). The relationship between negative feedback and increased organizational aggression. Paper
presented at the 1994 Academy of Management Meeting: Dallas, TX.
Geddes, D., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Workplace aggression as a consequence of negative performance feedback.
Managment Communications Quarterly, 10: 433454.
Geen, R. G. (1991). Human Aggression. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Giacalone, R. A., Riordan, C. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1997). Employee sabotage: Toward a practitioner-scholar
undertanding. In R. Giacalone and J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 109-
129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1987). Reasons for employee sabotage in the workplace. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 1: 367-378.
Glass, D. C. (1977). Behavior patterns, stress, and coronary disease. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldstein, A. P. (1981). Social skills training. In A. P. Goldstein, E. G., Carr, W. S. Davidson II & P. Wehr (Eds.),
In response to aggression: Methods of control and prosocial alternatives (pp. 159-218). New York: Perga-
mon.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12: 9-22.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75: 561-568.
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions
to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54: 81-103.
Greenberg, J. (1994). Restitution and retaliation as motives for inequity-induced pilferage. Unpublished manu-
script.
Greenberg, J. (1997). The STEAL motive: Managing the social determinants of employee theft. In R. Giacalone
& J. Greenberg (fAs..), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 85-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, J., & Scott, K. S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hands that feed them? Employee theft as social
exchange process. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.)., Research in Organizational Behavior, (Vol.
18, pp. 111-156). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1995). Predicting employee aggression: Roles of person behaviors and workplace
factors. Unpublished manuscript. Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.
Grote, R. C , & Harvey, E. L. (1983). Discipline with punishment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harris, M. B. (1993). How provoking! What makes men and women angry? Aggrex.sive Beftavior, 19: 199-211.
Hoad, C. D. (1993). Violence at work: Perspectives from research among 20 British employers. Security Journal,
4: 64-86.
Hollinger, R. D., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan personnel selection series manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer
Systems.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). How to measure employee reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 273-
279.
Holmes, D. S., & Will, M. J. (1985). Expression of interpersonal aggression by angered and non-angered persons
with Type A and Type B behavior patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40: 723-727.
Huesmann, L. R. (Ed.). (_\994). Aggression: Current perspectives. New York: Plenum.
Irving, R. H., Higgins, C. A., & Safayeni, F. R. (1986). Computerized performance monitoring systems: Use and
abuse. Communications of the ACM, 29: 794-801.
Jenkins, E. L. (1996). Violence in the workplace: Risk factors and prevention strategies. (DHHS [NIOSH] Publi-
cation Number 96-100). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Johnson, D. W. (1978). Human relations and your career: A guide to interpersonal skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Kinney, J. A. (1993). Breaking point: The workplace violence epidemic and what to do about it. Chicago, IL:
National Safe Workplace Institute Press.

Kinney, J. A. (1995). Violence at work: How to make your company safer for employees and customers. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kraus, J. F., Blander, B., & McArthur, D. L. (1995). Incidence, risk factors and prevention strategies for work-
related assault injuries: A review of what is known, what needs to be known, and countermeasures for inter-
vention. Annual Review of Public Health, 16: 355-379.
Labig, C. E. (1995, August). Workplace security: Forming a violence response team. HR Focus, 72: 15-16
Lanza, M. L., Kayne, H. L., Hicks, C , & Milner, J. (1991). Nursing staff characteristics related to patient assault.
Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 12: 253-265.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer-Verlag
Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Leonard, J. R., & Sloboda, B. A. (1996). Workplace violence: A review of current literature. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA.
Loeb, M. (1996). The bad boss gets a new life. Fortune. I33(Ma.y 27): 192.
London House (1980). Personnel Selection Inventory. Park Ridge, IL: Author.
Mantell, M. R. (1994). Ticking bombs: Defusing violence in the workplace. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
Mark, M. M., & Folger, R. (1984). Reponses to relative deprivation: A conceptual framework. In P. Shaver (Ed.),
Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 192-218). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L. (1996). Toward a theory of workplace violence: A social learning and attribu-
tional perspective. In J. B. Keys & L. N. Dosier (Eds.), Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings
(pp. 419-423). Georgia: Office of Publications and Faculty Research Services, Georgia Southern Univer-
sity.
McAllister, B. (1994, December 7). Fear of workplace violence widespread in postal service. Washington Post,
p. A3.
McDaniel, M. A. (1989). Biographical constructs for predicting employee suitability. Journal ofApplied Psychol-
ogy, 74: 964-970.
McPhail, S. M. (1996). A proposed taxonomy of workplace violence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1992). Blowing the whistle: The organizational and legal implications for companies
and employees. New York: Lexington.
Miller, S. M., Lack, E. R., & Asroff, S. (1985). Preferences for control and the coronary-prone behavior pattern:
I'd rather do it myself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 492^99.
Mullen, E. A. (1997). Workplace Violence: Cause for Concern or the construction of a new category of fear. The
Journal of Industrial Relations, 39: 21-32.
Nasby, W., Hayden, B., & DePaulo, B. M. (1979). Attributional bias among aggressive boys to interpret unam-
biguous social stimuli as displays of hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89: 459468.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997a). Aggression in the workplace. In R. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Anti-
social behavior in organizations (pp. 37-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997b). Type A behavior pattern, self-monitoring, and job satisfaction as predic-
tors of aggression in the workplace. In G. Chao (Chair), Counterproductive Job Performance and Organi-
zational Dysfunction. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, Missouri.
Neuman, J. H., Baron, R. A., & Geddes, D. (1996). A three-factor model of workplace aggression: Predicting
specific forms of aggression in organizational settings. Unpublished manuscript.
New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (1995, March). Violence in the workplace: The New
York State experience. New York: Author.
Newman, J., & Krzystofiak, F. (1979). Self-reports versus unobtrusive measures: Balancing method variance and
ethical concerns in employment discrimintion research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 82-85.
Nevins, S. (Executive Producer). (1994). Murder nine to five. New York: Home Box Office.
Nicoletti, J., & Spooner, K (1996). Violence in the workplace: Response and intervention strategies. In G. R.
VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp.
267-282). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Northwestern National Life (1993). Fear and violence in the workplace: A survey documenting the experience of
American workers. Minneapolis, MN: Northwestern National Life.
O'Boyle, T. F. (1992). Disgruntled workers intent on revenge increasingly harm colleagues and bosses. Wall
Street Journal, September 15, pp. BI, BIO.
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffm, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research
framework. Academy of Management Review, 21: 225-253.
O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Paetzold, R. L., & Griffm, R. W. (\995, August). Sexual harassment as aggressive behav-
ior: A new framework for understanding sexual harassment. Paper presented at the meeting of the Acad-
emy of Management, Vancouver, BC.

Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. yoa/o/A/ageme/, 14: 547-

557.
Orr, G. (Producer). (1994). Report to management: Understanding and preventing workplace violence [Video].
(Available from Video Distribution, 3727 West Magnolia Blvd., Suite 162, Burbank, CA 91510-7711).
Owens, W. A. (1976). Background data. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 609-644). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Personnel Decisions Incorporated (1985). Development and validation of the PDI Employment Inventory. Minne-
apolis, MN: Author.
Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organizations (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rigdon, J. E. (1994). Companies see more workplace violence. Wall Street Joumal, April 12, pp. Bl, B9
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling
study. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 555-572.
Roethlisberger, E. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univeristy
Press.
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Race variables in aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theo-
retical and emprical reviews (Vol. 2, pp. 27-50). New York: Academic Press.
Ryan, A. M., & Lasek, M. (1991). Negligent hiring and defamation: Areas of liability related to pre-employment
inquiries. Personnel Psychology, 44: 293-319.
Schneider, B. H. (1991). A comparison of skill-building and desensitization strategies for intervention with
aggressive children. Aggressive Behavior, 17: 301-311.
Schwartz, S. H., & Stnich, N. (1990). Values, stereotypes, and intergroup antagonism. In D. Bar-Tall, C. F. Grau-
man, A. W. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotypes and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 343-
362). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sharpe, R. (1994). Self-defense classes go to the workplace, as fear of violence increases. The Wall Street Joumal,
February 8, p. 1.
Sheler, J. L. (1981). When employees squeal on fellow workers. U.S. News & World Report, November 16 pp
81-82
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and inter-
actional justice. Journal ofApptied Psychology, 82: 434443.
Slora, K. B., Joy, D. S., Jones, J. W., & Terris, W. (1991). The prediction of on-the-job violence. In J. W. Jones
(Ed.), Preemployment honesty testing: Current research and future directions (pp. 171-183). Westport,
CT: Quorom.
Smith, M. J., Carayon, P., Sanders, K. J., Lim, S. Y., & LeGrande, D. (1992). Employee stress and health
complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring. Applied Ergonomics, 23: 17-28.
Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology,
30: 526-537.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearance/private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: W. H.
Freeman.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5: 125-139.
Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzen & E. Aronson (Eds.), The hand-
book of social psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 883-947). New York: Random House.
Society for Human Resource Management (1996). 1996 Workplace Violence Survey. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Solomon, M. (1990). Working with difficult people. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Spector, P. E. (1975). Relationship of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions of employees.
Joumal of Applied Psychology, 60: 635-637.
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review of the literature. ferioe/PiycAo/opy 31-
815-829.
Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.),
Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reac-
tions: The moderating effect of locus of control. Joumal of Occupational Psychology, 60: 227-234.
Taylor, F. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Toch, H. (1992). Violent men: An inquiry into the psychology of violence (Rev. Ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychologcial Association.
Tomasko, R. M. (1990). Downsizing: Reshaping the organization for the future. New York: AMACOM.
Torestad, B. (1990). What is anger provoking: A psychophysical study of perceived causes of anger. Aggressive
Behavior, 16: 9-26.
Weide, S., & Abbott, G. E. (1994). Murder at work: Managing the crisis. Employment Relations Today,
2/(Summer): 139-151.
When laws collide (1995). Nation's Business, February, p. 23.

Williams, K, D,, & Sommer, K, L, (1997), Social ostracism by coworkers: Does rejection lead to loafing or
compensation? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23: 693-706,
Youngblood, S, A,, Trevino, L, K,, & Favia, M, (1992), Reaction to unjust dismissal and third-party dispute reso-
lution: A justice framework. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 4: 283-307,
Zillmann, D, (1996), Anger, In Encyclopedia of Mental Health. New York: Harcourt Brace,

View publication stats

Workplace Voilence and Workplace Aggression

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Workplace Voilence and Workplace Aggression

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Workplace Violence and

Article in Journal of Management June 1998

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Workplace Violence and Workplace

Contrary to the impression generated by an increasing number of

Copyright 1998 by JAI Press Inc. 0149-2063

In recent years, reports such as these have appeared in newspapers and

involving coworkers or former coworkers but, in discussing such incidents, actu-

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

Having commented on the origins of current interest in workplace violence,

The Nature and Scope of Workplace Violence

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL, 24, NO, 3, 1998

Table 1. Three-Factor Model of Workplace Aggression

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL, 24, NO, 3, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL, 24, NO, 3, 1998

Ostracism, intentionally being ignored by others who are in one's presence,

as a result of deliberate inaction on someone's part (a clear example of passive

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

provided an overview of the nature of workplace aggression, we tum next to the

Potential Causes of Aggression

illegitimate or unwarranted (e.g., Berkowitz, 1989, 1994; Geen, 1991). In organi-

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

Fourth, aggression is often employed against workers who violate estab-

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

impact environmental factors. This, in tum, may contribute to an increased likeli-

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

Internal States and Cognitive Appraisal

The Prevention and Control of Workplace Aggression

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

terproductive behavior. Some of their suggestions include (a) setting an example

Unresolved Issues and Directions for Future Research

infonning management practiceproviding organizations and managers with

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL, 24, NO. 3, 1998

previous anger-provoking incidents and reactions to such feelings, etc.).

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. yoa/o/A/ageme/, 14: 547-

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL. 24, NO. 3, 1998

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, VOL, 24, NO, 3, 1998

You might also like