The Impact of Workplace Aggression on Employee Satisfaction With Job Stress, Meaningfulness of Work, and Turnover Intentions

• Author: James Gerard Caillier
• Published date: 01 June 2021
• Date: 01 June 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019899976
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019899976

Public Personnel Management

2021, Vol. 50(2) 159 –182

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0091026019899976

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

The Impact of Workplace

Aggression on Employee

Satisfaction With Job Stress,

Meaningfulness of Work,

and Turnover Intentions

James Gerard Caillier1

Abstract

Research concerning workplace aggression has become more prevalent over the

past several decades. These studies have mainly focused on the antecedents and

outcomes of workplace aggression in general or one specific type of workplace

aggression. This article took a different approach. Specifically, it tests the impact of

workplace aggression overall, as well as several types of workplace aggression, on the

following work-related attitudes: satisfaction with job stress, turnover intentions,

and meaningfulness of work. The moderating effect of satisfaction with job stress

in the workplace aggression–turnover intention relationship and the workplace

aggression–meaningfulness of work relationship were also investigated. Research

findings demonstrated that workplace aggression decreased satisfaction with job

stress and meaningfulness of work. Workplace aggression also increased turnover

intentions. However, satisfaction with job stress did not interact with workplace

aggression in either of the work-related attitudinal models (i.e., turnover intentions

and meaningfulness of work). Furthermore, not all types of workplace aggression

were found to affect work attitudes. These results are thoroughly discussed in the

article.

Keywords

workplace aggression, stress, meaningfulness of work, turnover intentions

1The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

Corresponding Author:

James Gerard Caillier, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA.

Email: jgcaillier@ua.edu

899976PPMXXX10.1177/0091026019899976Public Personnel ManagementCaillier

research-article2020

160 Public Personnel Management 50(2)

Introduction

Belongingness theory contends that human beings have an essential desire to fit in

with others in all facets of society (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). That desire obviously

includes places of work, where individuals spend an enormous amount of their time.

Accordingly, organizations are viewed as social entities where workers strive to form

and maintain high-quality relationships with colleagues, subordinates, and managers

(Caillier, 2017). This has prompted organizations to devote a considerable amount of

time and resources to enhance the quality of relationships within their walls, which has

proven to be beneficial. Nevertheless, it is difficult to maintain high-quality relation-

ships throughout organizations as they are complex and comprised of a diverse set of

individuals. Problems are therefore bound to occur between employees, leading to

negative workplace interactions.

Several acts are subsumed under negative workplace interactions. One that is par-

ticularly concerning to organizations is workplace aggression. Workplace aggression

refers broadly to efforts by individuals to harm others in the organization (Baron &

Neuman, 1996). Hence, it includes physical acts and nonphysical acts, such as intimi-

dation, undermining, and ostracism, which can have a detrimental impact on employ-

ees. Such aggression is distressing because it negatively influences organizations and

employees. Elevated levels of stress, anxiety, and depression, as well as lower levels

of work attitudes (e.g., Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Frone, 2000; Hansen et al., 2006;

Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Manier et al., 2017) are just a few of the adverse employee

outcomes that come from workplace aggression.

In addition, anyone with ties to an organization can be the aggressor. This includes

managers, coworkers, subordinates, and even nonorganizational members, such as

customers, clients, patients, and contractors. Consequently, workplace aggression is

common. Bowling et al. (2015) reported that 10% to 41% of employees faced such

acts in the United States, as well as 8% to 26% in Austria, 3% to 20% in Belgium, 2%

to 27% in Denmark, 5% to 24% in Finland, 8% to 10% in France, 23% in Ireland, 5%

to 9% in Lithuania, 20% in South Africa, 4% in Sweden, 55% in Turkey, and 11% in

the United Kingdom. Therefore, workplace aggression is a global issue.

Given the practical and theoretical significance of workplace aggression, research

has provided useful insights into the antecedents and outcomes of workplace aggres-

sion since the 2000s (Bowling et al., 2015). This article seeks to extend the latter in

several ways. First, the sites of the study are cabinet and independent U.S. federal

agencies. Including these agencies in the analyses makes this a large-scale study that

is fairly representative of the U.S. federal government. We also know less about how

workplace aggression affects employees in agencies. Understanding this is important,

as government workers provide needed services, which can be adversely affected by

aggression. Second, workplace aggression comprises many dimensions and each is

examined in this article. Therefore, a more nuanced approach is taken. Third, several

possible outcomes of workplace aggression are examined. These outcomes are work-

related employee factors, including satisfaction with job stress, turnover intentions,

and meaningfulness of work. Finally, this article focuses on the nonphysical/sexual