On The Insider: Palin on SNL?
Find Articles in:
all
Business
Reference
Technology
News
Sports
Health
Autos
Arts
Home & Garden
advertisement
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with
ProQuest

UNDERSTANDING THE AGGRESSIVE WORKPLACE: DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORKPLACE AGGRESSION TOLERANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Communication Studies,  Fall 2004  by Coombs, W Timothy,  Holladay, Sherry J

<< Page 1  Continued from page 2.  Previous | Next

One application could be to the growing trend in workplace aggression training that is focused on the early detection of potential problems. People in supervisory roles are trained to identify the symptoms of workplace aggression. Once identified, the employee is referred to an employee assistance program or a special program for workplace aggression (Magyar, 2003). Many experts claim there are always warning signs before physical aggression occurs in the workplace and data indicate that training to identify cues does reduce employee-on-employee physical aggression (Most effective, 2003). Many of the symptoms are the verbal and passive forms of workplace aggression such as negative comments towards others (verbal aggression) and interrupting people (Magyar, 2003). If employees dismiss these lesser forms of workplace aggression and see them as appropriate, the employees are likely to miss potential warning signs for more serious physical workplace aggression.

Extant research (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Geddes & Baron, 1997) suggests Buss's (1961) classification system for aggression effectively captures the complexity and variety of workplace aggression. Buss's (1961) system uses three dimensions to classify aggressive acts: (1) physical/verbal, (2) active/passive, and (3) direct/indirect. Physical acts involve deeds (e.g., kicking or shoving) while verbal acts involve the use of words to inflict harm (e.g., insults or harsh criticism). The active dimension reflects how harm is produced by performing a behavior (e.g., actual assault or insults) while the passive category indicates harm is created by withholding some action (e.g., not providing needed information). The direct dimension indicates how aggression can be perpetrated directly toward the target (e.g., insulting a person to his or her face) while the indirect aspect denotes how aggression may be expressed through an intermediary or by attacking something valued by the target (e.g., spreading rumors behind his or her back). Baron and Neuman (1996) used Buss's (1961) three dimensions to create a typology of eight workplace aggression categories: (1) physical-active-direct (PAD), (2) physical-active-indirect (PAI), (3) physical-passive-direct (PPD), (4) physical-passive-indirect (PPI), (5) verbal-active-direct (VAD), (6) verbal-active-indirect (VAI), (7) verbal-passive-direct (VPD), and (8) verbal-passive-indirect (VPI).

Previous workplace aggression research (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Geddes & Baron, 1997; Neuman & Baron, 1997) has found examples from all eight categories of aggression in the workplace. However, the underlying factor structure of the system has not been examined. Hence, the eight-category system has never been tested to determine if people actually discern between the types of aggressive behaviors and if they perceive these behaviors to be inappropriate in the workplace.

There are reasons to believe that a factor analysis of the eight category system will not yield a distinct factor structure. The categories are intertwined due to the crossing of three dimensions. We will illustrate this overlap using the PAI items. The PAD and PAI differ on direct/indirect dimension but share the physical and active dimensions. The PAI items share the physical dimension with the PPI items. Furthermore, the PAI items share the active dimension with the VAD and VAI items. It would be difficult to get a clean factor loading on any of the three dimensions because each item represents three separate dimensions. What binds all of the items together is the belief that each taps the workplace aggression construct.