Does the Rank of the Perpetrator and Reporter Affect How Agencies Handle Workplace Aggression? A Test of Resource Dependence Theory

• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X20903354
• Published date: 01 September 2021
• Author: James Gerard Caillier
• Date: 01 September 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20903354

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2021, Vol. 41(3) 520 –545

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X20903354

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

Does the Rank of the

Perpetrator and Reporter

Affect How Agencies Handle

Workplace Aggression?

A Test of Resource

Dependence Theory

James Gerard Caillier1

Abstract

Workplace aggression is a concern in many organizations. Despite this, research has

not significantly examined whether or not organizations stop workplace aggression.

Little is known about hierarchical aggression, coworker aggression, subordinate

aggression, and agencies’ tolerance or rejections of such behavior. This study begins to

fill this void by exploring what happens after employees report workplace aggression.

More specifically, this study uses data from the Merit Systems Protection Board

(MSPB) to examine workplace aggression committed by coworkers, supervisors, and

subordinates and (a) the likelihood that perpetrators/agencies will retaliate against

reporters of workplace aggression and (b) the likelihood that agencies will correct the

adverse behavior in a manner that satisfactorily addresses the observers’ concerns.

The findings in this article demonstrate that reporters of hierarchical aggression

are more likely to face retaliation and less likely to get the behavior stopped than

reporters of coworker aggression. Reporters of subordinate aggression, on the other

hand, were not found to impact retaliation or corrective actions. Furthermore, the

findings regarding retaliation were found to vary depending on whether or not the

reporter was the target of the aggression.

Keywords

workplace aggression, corrective action, retaliation, power dependence, leadership

1The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA

Corresponding Author:

James Gerard Caillier, The University of Alabama, 340 ten Hoor Hall, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA.

Email: jgcaillier@ua.edu

903354ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X20903354Review of Public Personnel AdministrationCaillier

research-article2020

Caillier 521

The internal milieu of agencies is complex. It is comprised of workers with diverse

roles, behaviors, expectations, and needs. Consequently, relational problems are bound

to occur, and the performance of agencies rests on how organizations handle these

problems (Leiter et al., 2017). This is so because such relational stressors consume

cognitive resources, which has the added effect of reducing the amount of emotional

and cognitive drive workers can devote to handling their roles and responsibilities

(Hershcovis & Barling, 2010). While there are many forms of relational problems, the

focus of this article is nonphysical workplace aggression. Nonphysical workplace

aggression is obviously less severe than physical workplace aggression, thus garnering

less exposure; but nonphysical workplace aggression is more prevalent in agencies. In

a recent study, for instance, Fischer et al. (2016) surveyed local government employ-

ees in the Netherlands and found that 52.3% and 17.3% of focal employees reported

that they experienced verbal aggression and threats, respectively, while 8.5% were the

recipient of physical violence. In addition, nonphysical aggression often precedes

physical aggression (LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002).

There are several types of nonphysical workplace aggression behaviors.1 These

behaviors include such acts as ostracism, intimidation, and undermining. Most research

on these behaviors has either examined its antecedents or adverse effects on the work

attitudes and objective outcomes (performance, stress, and so forth) of recipients (e.g.,

Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Hershcovis et al., 2007). Only two studies were found to

examine whether or not public organizations stop workplace aggression. Rayner

(1999) shows that only 26.5% of public sector employees reported that aggression was

corrected. Venetoklis and Kettunen (2016) surveyed public employees who had expe-

rienced aggression within the last 12 months and 60% reported that it had not been

corrected. While informative, these articles were limited in that they were largely

descriptive (i.e., utilized percentages) and did not involve significance testing while

controlling for many other contributing factors. Therefore, little is known about orga-

nizational tolerance or rejection of such behavior. Furthermore, research has not suf-

ficiently examined the hierarchical level of perpetrators (i.e., the person perpetrating

the aggression—coworker, subordinate, supervisor) and the impact this has on correc-

tive actions. This omission is notable, as research suggests differing effects on the

attitudes and perceptions of employees (Chang & Lyons, 2012; Hershcovis et al.,

2007). This study begins to fill this void by exploring what happens after employees

report workplace aggression. More specifically, this study uses data from the Merit

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to examine workplace aggression committed by

coworkers, supervisors, and subordinates and (a) the likelihood that perpetrators/agen-

cies will retaliate against reporters of workplace aggression and (b) the likelihood that

agencies will correct the behavior in a manner that satisfactorily addresses the con-

cerns of the employee observing the wrongdoing. In doing so, it also extends previous

research that examined perpetrator type, albeit with a different focus. The ultimate

goal is to determine whether agencies take workplace aggression seriously and to see

if this seriousness varies by type of perpetrator. An argument in the article is that pro-

tecting reporters of workplace aggression from retaliation and stopping the aggressive

behavior means the organization takes the allegations seriously.