Explaining Organizational Responses to Workplace Aggression

• Author: Elizabeth D. Fredericksen,Suzanne McCorkle
• DOI: 10.1177/0091026013487050
• Date: 01 June 2013
• Published date: 01 June 2013
• Subject Matter: Articles

Public Personnel Management

42(2) 223 –238

© The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0091026013487050

ppm.sagepub.com

Article

Explaining Organizational

Responses to Workplace

Aggression

Elizabeth D. Fredericksen1 and Suzanne McCorkle1

Abstract

Although scholarship in the area of workplace aggression is beginning to flourish,

the varied definitions, assumptions, and methodologies used to describe workplace

aggression compound the challenge of formulating practical theory and models to

address workplace aggression. While this phenomenon occurs in public, private, and

nonprofit organizations, the unique political and legal context of public organizations

warrants targeted attention. We propose the organizational Accountability Grid as an

umbrella concept to understand how organizations become permissive or disciplined

cultures in their responses to workplace aggression. The productive management of

workplace aggression is necessary to ensure the accountable pursuit of the public

interest.

Keywords

workplace aggression, accountability, bullying

While many individuals practice good manners and humane behavior, human aggres-

sion seems to thrive in organizations. Although workplace rudeness seems quite

innocuous in comparison with the extremes of physical violence, the aggressive

behaviors in some work environments detract from a dignified and productive work-

place, spur inefficiency, cause personal distress, and may, at worst, lead to workplace

homicide or the perpetuation of social, economic, and moral harms. To the extent that

workplace aggression harms individuals (whether citizens or employees) or hampers

performance (of individuals and organizations), it impinges on the overall

1Boise State University, ID, USA

Corresponding Author:

Elizabeth D. Fredericksen, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Boise State University, 1910

University Drive, Boise, ID 83725-1935, USA.

Email: elizabethfredericksen@boisestate.edu

487050PPM42210.1177/0091026013487050Public Personnel ManagementFredericksen and McCorkle

research-article2013

Fredericksen and McCorkle

224 Public Personnel Management 42(2)

effectiveness of public administration. Government accountability is inextricably

meshed with the actions of government employees charged with collectively acting in

the public interest. To understand why public organizations permit aggression in the

workplace, we first examine the significance of interpersonal workplace aggression

and its individual and organizational effects. Next, we introduce accountability schol-

arship to understand the structures that constrain or permit misbehavior in public orga-

nizations. Finally, we extend the concept of accountability mechanisms in organizations

to the specific arena of workplace aggression and organizational permissiveness.

Workplace Aggression

Workplace aggression encapsulates efforts by individuals to harm others with whom

they work, or have worked, or to harm the organization in which they are presently, or

were previously, employed (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Neuman & Baron, 1998).

Interpersonal workplace aggression focuses on behavior by a person or group directed

at one or more individuals that results in physical, social, and/or economic harm.

Scholarly attention to aggression and human relationships is not new. However,

focused attention on interpersonal aggression is more recent. Initial research pinpoints

schoolyard relationships and a substantial body of literature explores many nuanced

aspects of aggression between and among children in the school setting (Rigby, 2003;

Wolke & Samara, 2004). Research includes a general consideration of the social, eco-

nomic, and institutional context in which children collectively target others (Ma, 2002;

McConville & Cornell, 2003; Swearer & Doll, 2001), as well as the specific environ-

ment, culture, and norms of the classroom or the school that allows aggressive behav-

iors to prosper (Ojala & Nesdale, 2004). Models abound that are intended for

intervention (Smith, Ananiadou, & Cowie, 2003) and for prevention (DeRosier, 2004;

Orpinas, Horne, & Staniszewski, 2003). Unfortunately, policy or administrative

responses to school-based childhood aggression have been fragmented and inconsis-

tent in the United States, depending on the reactions of states, school districts, princi-

pals, and individual teachers (Jones, 2006; Limber & Small, 2003).

Aggression does not disappear after high school graduation. A vast array of schol-

arship considers interpersonal aggression in adult intimate relationships (Olson, 2002;

Sabourin & Stamp, 1995). Critical scholarship now is emerging to explore aggression

in other structured organizational settings, but disciplinary differences and limited

attention to the nuances of public management constrain the utility of such

scholarship.

Interpersonal Workplace Aggression: U.S. and European Approaches

Much of the initial research on workplace aggression, particularly interpersonal work-

place aggression, draws from two parallel approaches developed in the United States

and Scandinavia. In the United States, scholars from sociology and psychology formed

concepts that we now associate with the broader construct of workplace aggression. In

a study of workers’ compensation claims in California and Nevada, Brodsky (1976)