Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 117130, 2006 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. www.organizational-dynamics.

com

ISSN 0090-2616/$ see frontmatter doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2006.03.002

Understanding and Managing Workplace Aggression

MARK J. MARTINKO SCOTT C. DOUGLAS PAUL HARVEY

here have been numerous reports of violence perpetrated by disgruntled members of organizations. Many of these events were perpetrated by troubled individuals who blamed their colleagues for their personal problems. In one such case, a man named Michael McDermott shot and killed several coworkers at a consulting company in Massachusetts. He explained that he was angered by his companys agreement to mediate a tax dispute between himself and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Another example is Salvador Tapia, who killed six former coworkers after being terminated from his position at a supply warehouse. He spared some employees, explaining that he was only after those who deliberately wronged him. Other memorable examples include incidents at the U.S. Post Ofce, a day trader in Atlanta who turned on his colleagues, and, most recently, a student on an Indian reservation in Minnesota who turned on his classmates. Accompanying these well-publicized incidents has been a growing number of theoretical and empirical works that attempt to explain workplace aggression. The purpose of this article is to describe and synthesize what has been done up to this point, so that both students and practitioners can develop a working model of the dynamics of aggression that can guide proactive measures to reduce it.

aggression such as stealing, sabotage, gossip, incivility, and purposeful work slowdowns may also have detrimental consequences. In general, organizational aggression is any behavior that is intended to harm a person in the organization or the organization itself. Organizational aggression can be viewed as a continuum, with physical violence at the highest extreme graduating down to less severe forms (see Fig. 1).

MODELS OF ORGANIZATIONAL AGGRESSION

The early models of organizational aggression took a sociological approach, emphasizing organizational factors such as working conditions and policies. One of the more impressionistic models is the popcorn model by Robert Folger and Daniel Skarlicki, in which they likened organizational factors to hot oil and described organizational members as individual kernels. Their main point was that organizational conditions precipitate aggression, and that we are more likely to be able to predict the occurrence of aggression by paying attention to organizational conditions (i.e., the pressure created by the heating oil) than trying to predict which person (i.e., kernel) will explode. The early research in this area generally supported these sociological models. It showed lowlevel but signicant correlations between organizational factors such as rigid rules and procedures and incidents of aggression.
117

FORMS AND DEFINITIONS OF AGGRESSION

The most sensational form of aggression is physical violence. However, other forms of

FIGURE 1

A CONTINUUM

OF

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS

IN

ORGANIZATIONS

Anecdotal evidence also supports this notion, with notoriously rigid regulations receiving much of the blame for the episodes of aggression at the U.S. Postal Service in the early 1990s. More recent models, which include our own work in attribution theory, describe how human factors interact with environmental factors. The basic notion of these more recent perspectives is that the ways individuals process information about their successes and failures (i.e., causal reasoning) is signicantly related to whether or not they become aggressive. Thus, a person who is laid off and has a pattern of making external attributions will tend to blame the management (external attribution) while another employee in the same situation who tends to internalize failure

will blame herself. Obviously, the person who blames management is more likely to become aggressive than the person who blames himself. Thus, our research demonstrates that understanding individual differences signicantly increases our ability to predict aggression.

A MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL AGGRESSION: OVERVIEW

A summary of the major individual and organizational factors related to aggression is provided in Fig. 2. The model is based on our own research as well as an integration of work that has been conducted over the last 15

FIGURE 2 A MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL AGGRESSION (ADAPTED FROM MARTINKO (2002), MARTINKO AND ZELLARS (1998); MARTINKO, GUNDLACH, AND DOUGLAS (2002); MARTINKO, DOUGLAS, HARVEY AND GUNDLACH (2006); MARTINKO, DOUGLAS, HARVEY, AND JOSEPH (2005))

118 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

years. A focal point of our model is that it emphasizes that the key to understanding aggression is to understand individuals causal reasoning processes (i.e., their attributions) for trigger events. More specically, the model depicts the chain of events that leads to aggressive behavior, starting with a trigger event such as being laid off. Both human and organizational factors inuence the frequency and intensity with which individuals experience trigger events. However, in our model, a key determinant of aggressive behavior is the beliefs that people have about the causes of the trigger event. As we will describe in more detail below, individuals who attribute the trigger events to external, stable, intentional, and controllable causes are the most likely to become aggressive. On the other hand, people who make internal attributions and blame themselves are less likely to become aggressive. As we will show later, causal-reasoning styles can be measured and are identiable, which enables us to anticipate aggressiveness with more precision than in the past. Next, we will explain the variables in the model emphasizing how this knowledge can be used to manage aggression.

ees to carry transparent purses and does not allow employees to take normal breaks as compared with similar retailers may be perceived as attacking the employees. Thus, a recommendation is to communicate information about the policies of similar organizations so that employees can establish a realistic baseline for their norms. In addition, management needs to make sure that whenever rules and policies exceed industry norms, they provide a solid rationale for the deviations. For example, rigid policies regarding theft might be justied by showing that the organization averages 10% less shrinkage than competitors, resulting in a pay scale that is considerably better than the industry average.

Adverse Work Conditions

A signicant amount of research has also demonstrated that there is a low-level correlation between aggression and adverse working conditions such as high levels of noise, overcrowding, high or low temperatures, and threats to safety. As in the case of rigid rules and procedures, it would seem that working conditions are most likely to be associated with aggression when they exceed the norms for that type of work. Again, the application is for organizations to clearly communicate to employees that their working conditions meet or exceed industry standards, and, when conditions are harsh and cannot be improved, to provide reasonable explanations for the current state of the work environment.

THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT Rigid Rules and Procedures

This factor has been identied in numerous analyses of aggressive incidents. Perhaps the best example of rigidity comes from an incident that occurred at the U.S. Post Ofce. In this case, aggression was triggered when an employee was refused permission to leave his letter-sorting machine after his wife had called and indicated that his house was on re. An obvious application is to reduce rigidity. However, a rule of thumb is that perceptions of rigidity are guided by employees perceptions that the policies of the organization violate norms for similar organizations. For example, a retailer that requires employ-

Aggressive Cultures
Research has generally conrmed that there are differences in the incidence of aggression between cultures. A central tenet of Banduras social learning theory is that people learn behaviors, and in particular, aggressive behaviors, by observing and modeling others. Managers need to be aware of culture at three levels. First, there is the social culture in which the organization is embedded. The
119

incidence of violent behaviors and the nature of violent behaviors are different in different geographical areas. Examples are high crime areas throughout the country that may be both urban and rural. A second level of culture is occupational. Examples are professional sports such as football and basketball, but also other occupations such as ironworkers and police ofcers, all of which are probably above the norm in aggressive behaviors. A third level of culture is the various subcultures within organizations. Clearly the culture of the U.S. Army, Walt Disney Co., and Microsoft Corp. are different. However, we would also expect differences within organizational cultures. In the U.S. Army, the Green Berets undoubtedly exhibit more aggressive behaviors than the part of the army devoted to logistics and support. Likewise, we feel quite sure that the lawyers for Microsoft are more aggressive than the programmers. Recognizing differences in culture, it is clear that policies and procedures designed to manage aggression need to be tailored to specic cultures. This implies that policies may need to recognize differences both within and across organizational cultures. Thus, the notion that policies should be consistent across an organization may be misguided.

all of the perpetrators described in the introduction were men. On the other hand, research indicates that gender differences may not be as great for less overt forms of aggression, such as stealing and gossip. This research suggests that incidents of overt aggression could be managed by hiring disproportionately more females than males to staff particularly stressful positions. For example, at least in some organizations, it appears that there are a disproportionate number of females in stress-producing customer relations positions. Although we are unaware of research in this area, it may be that females are less likely to react to customers aggressively than males. As we write this we are aware such hiring practices would not be politically correct, and may also be in violation of fair hiring practices. More about these conicts will be said in the discussion of managerial implications toward the end of this article.

Negative Affectivity
Negative affectivity is a predisposition for individuals to express dissatisfaction and to experience negative psychological states such as stress, frustration, and anger. While there has been very little research investigating the relationship between negative affectivity and aggression, related constructs such as depression have been cited in the media and in court documents as factors leading to aggression. An example is the 1989 workplace shooting in which Joseph Wesbecker, who had a history of depression, killed eight people at a printing plant. Numerous studies have found that negative affectivity is associated with job dissatisfaction and stress. One particularly interesting nding is that negative affectivity appears to account for a signicant proportion of job satisfaction, suggesting that job dissatisfaction may have more to do with individual predispositions rather than job characteristics. An obvious application of this nding is that hiring people who are already positive in their affectivity can signicantly increase overall job satisfaction. On

HUMAN FACTORS
The environmental and organizational factors described above do not affect all individuals equally. Some people appear to become aggressive with little or no provocation, whereas others appear to retain their composure regardless of organizational and environmental inuences. Individual factors that appear to be related to the proclivity to act aggressively are reviewed below.

Gender
The research in this area is fairly unequivocal. Males are more likely to express overt aggression and be incarcerated for violent crimes than females. For instance, note that
120 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

the other hand, the research suggests that even the best efforts to increase job satisfaction by improving organizational conditions may fail to have marked effects on some individuals. Assuming that stress and job dissatisfaction are also related to aggressive behavior, the research implies that aggression could be reduced by screening for negative affectivity during hiring.

Trait Anger
The literature distinguishes between two types of anger related to aggression: state and trait anger. State anger is related to a persons response to a specic incident. Trait anger is the tendency to experience state anger over time and in different situations. Some individuals are higher on trait anger than others; our research indicates that these individuals are more likely to report and become involved in incidents of aggression. An example is Douglas Williams, who experienced chronic anger and took anger management classes to control his anger. He killed ve coworkers at a Lockheed Martin Corp. plant in 2003. The same research suggests that individuals high in trait anger are more likely than others to perceive situations as anger-provoking. An obvious implication of this research is to screen employees for trait anger, particularly in work environments that are high in the dimensions related to aggression discussed above.

Causal-Reasoning Styles
Causal reasoning concerns how people explain the causes of their successes and failures. Several different theories contribute to the notion of causal reasoning theory. Locus of control theory asserts that people have consistent ways in which they account for their successes and failures. Internals believe that both their successes and failures are functions of their own abilities and efforts, whereas externals believe that outside factors such as the environment and other people control their destiny.

Attribution theory is closely related to the concept of locus of control. Attribution theory is less general in its approach and looks at how peoples attributions (i.e., beliefs) about the causes of their successes and failures affect their emotions and behaviors in specic situations. There are a variety of ways to classify attributions, but the most accepted dimensions are locus of causality (internal or external), stability, controllability, and intentionality. We have postulated and found support for the notion that individuals are most likely to exhibit aggressive behavior when they perceive that the cause of a negative event is external, intentional, controllable, and stablesuch as a chronically abusive supervisor. Although attribution theory generally focuses on the behaviors and emotions resulting from specic attributions, it has also been found that people have attributional tendencies or styles that are related to their behavior and emotions. More specically, within the context of aggression, both theory and research have supported the notion of a hostile attribution style, which predisposes individuals toward aggression. As suggested above, hostile attribution styles are characterized by external, stable, controllable, and intentional attributions for failure and overly optimistic attributions (i.e., internal, stable, controllable, and intentional) for success. The relationship between hostile attribution style and aggression has been well documented in the psychological literature. Anecdotally, a case in which a Xerox Corp. employee named Byran Uyesugi killed seven coworkers provides an illustration of this relationship. Although Uyesugi did not give a clear motive for the killings, witness testimony suggested that he had a deeply ingrained tendency to blame external factors for his problems. This suggests that Uyesugi possessed a hostile attribution style, which may have predisposed him toward aggressive behavior. Our own research has demonstrated signicant differences in organizational aggression related to attribution styles. In one study, we compared a sample of MBA stu121

dents with a sample of prisoners who had been convicted of violent crimes and found that the prisoners t the hostile attribution pattern much more closely than the MBAs. In another study, we found that the incidents of aggression in both a transportation company and a school system were related to external, controllable, stable, and intentional attributions for negative outcomes. Thus, peoples attribution patterns appear to be a key variable explaining differences in individual reactions to environmental events.

THE DYNAMICS OF THE PROCESS: CAUSAL REASONING, EMOTIONS, AND AGGRESSION

Predicting aggression in organizations is analogous to predicting the perfect storm. As in the case of traumatic weather events such as tornados and hurricanes, although we have a reasonable understanding of the factors that contribute to the phenomena, it oftentimes fails to emerge when it is anticipated, and experts are oftentimes surprised when it does appear. In a 1999 Radisson Hotel shooting, for instance, the perpetrator, an employee named Silvio Izquierdo-Leyva, gave no emotional or behavioral clues that he possessed any violent tendencies. We had no problems with him . . . he just snapped, was one coworkers observation. The social and physical dynamics surrounding Hurricane Katrina provide a vivid illustration of the difculties in predicting the dynamics of both physical and social systems. Despite detailed analyses of the forecasted path of Hurricane Katrina, the hurricanes landing apparently surprised authorities, who didnt order an evacuation of New Orleans until the day before the storm. Similarly, although in hindsight experts can explain the aggressive behaviors that accompanied the aftermath of Katrina, those who were in authority apparently did not anticipate the size and scope of the problem. In this section, we make a rudimentary attempt to explain the dynamics of organiza122 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

tional aggression. However, it is important to differentiate between instrumental and organizational aggression before we begin our explanations. As indicated in the introduction, organizational aggression is any act intended to harm an organization or its members. Instrumental aggression, on the other hand, is aggressive behavior that is used to acquire resources. Thus, the motives for aggression on the part of a bank robber are directed toward acquiring the banks money while in the case of organizational aggression, the behavior is retaliatory, resulting from an actual or perceived injury or injustice.

Trigger Event
According to our model, organizational aggression is triggered by negative outcomes that are perceived to be unjustied, such as a layoff or reprimand by a supervisor. Three major types of injustice have been identied: procedural (policies were not followed), distributive (the outcome is unfair given the amount of effort that was expended or as compared to the rewards received by others), and interactional (the communication of the outcomes was disrespectful and devalued the recipient). Thus, a person who does not receive an expected promotion could feel injured by the organization because procedures were violated, their efforts were not fairly rewarded, or because they felt devalued and disrespected by the way the outcome was communicated.

Organizational and Individual Factors

As our model indicates, the degree to which injustice is perceived will be inuenced by both the characteristics of the organization and the traits of the individual. If the organization already has a culture of aggression, rigid rules and policies, and stressful working conditions and the employee has a difcult task along with a hostile attribution style, negative affectivity, and trait anger it is more likely that the individual will per-

ceive a negative outcome as unjust and be motivated to make a hostile attribution. The dimensions of attributions have been found to inuence both emotions and behavior. In particular the locus of causality dimension has been found to affect emotions. When people make an internal attribution for a negative outcome they are likely to blame themselves and feel badly. On the other hand, external attributions direct negative emotions outward. If the person believes that the cause of a denied promotion is an unfair supervisor, the person is likely to feel anger directed toward the source of injustice. While there has been less research on dimensions besides locus of causality, the research that has been done, along with the theoretical literature, indicates that if the person also believes that the cause of the negative outcome was intentional, controllable and not likely to change (i.e., stable), they are also likely to feel anger towards the perceived cause.

attenuated if management addresses the causal reasoning of the perceived victims and can give a credible explanation that convinces the victim that the perceived injury will not continue (unstable), was not controllable, and was not intended by management. In the event that management was the legitimate cause of the negative outcome, anger may still be mitigated by convincing the victim that the outcome was not intentional or controllable, and will not happen again (unstable). Finally, in order for such a strategy to work, it is imperative that the lines of communication are open both ways. Management must communicate, but it must also develop channels for feedback and listen to what employees are saying.

REDUCING AND MITIGATING AGGRESSION

In the discussion above, we emphasized research and theory that support our model of organizational aggression. Along the way, we also pointed out some of the more obvious implications. In this part of the paper we focus on the proactive and defensive strategies managements can use to reduce aggression.

Emotions and Aggression

The nal stage before aggression is emotions. Our model and research, as well the research evolving in psychology, indicates that behavior is often driven by emotions. More specically, in the case of aggressive behavior, anger almost always precedes organizational aggression and may be the best predictor. Thus, even though all of the individual characteristics and organizational characteristics described above may be present, unless the person perceives injustice and becomes angry about it, aggression is unlikely. Emotions and the causal reasoning that leads to the emotions appear to be critical factors in understanding when aggression is most likely to occur. Several applications emerge from the discussion above. Although it may seem somewhat simplistic, anger is a major cue that management must address to reduce incidents of aggression. Second, anger is preceded by perceived injustice that is attributed to stable, controllable, external and intentional causes such as abusive management practices. As a result, anger may be

Developing an Action Plan

Based on our model and theory, the following steps are recommended for developing strategies to mitigate organizational aggression: (1) select and empower a task force; (2) meet and identify the basic strategy, needs and issues; (3) collect data and information both inside and outside of the organization; (4) develop an action plan; (5) present the action plan to management; (6) modify and revise the plan if necessary; (7) implement, and (8) feedback and follow-up. We will now discuss these steps in more detail. Task force identication. The process of developing an action plan for reducing and managing aggression is probably best carried out with representation from all parts of the organization. Broad representation has a
123

number of advantages. It demonstrates that management is serious about managing aggression, increases the probability that problems will be identied, and facilitates both the communication and support of the program once implemented. In general, the task force should include the major internal stakeholders in the organization including respected members of senior management, a cross section of employees, representation from each of the major functional areas of the organization, and a facilitator with the expertise needed to assist the group. Identication of process, needs, and issues. Here, the group identies the type of data and information that will be needed, the size, nature and scope of the intervention, and establishes roles and responsibilities with regard to data collection. Data and information collection. This step should start with basic questions and information about each of the organizational factors identied in the model of aggression depicted in Fig. 1. Each of these areas and the considerations that should be addressed are discussed below. Organizational policies and practices. A comparative analysis of the rigidity and reasonableness of the policies and practices in the organization compared to other organizations should be conducted. Thus, for example, policies meant to deter theft in retail organizations should be compared with similar policies in similar organizations. Examples of questions are as follows: If this company requires transparent purses, do other similar retailers have the same requirement? If so, what is the shrinkage rate in companies that have, versus do not have, this policy? Are the break times and working hours in this company similar to, or different from, those of our competitors? In addition to the general audit of organizational policies, there should also be an examination of the policies that have been developed with respect to aggression. Some
124 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

important questions to consider are whether or not there are specic policies; whether the policies dene aggression in a way that enables managers and other organizational members to identify and report aggressive incidents; whether policies on aggression are communicated to the employees; whether there is a clear communication point for reporting incidents of aggression; and whether there are plans in place to deal with different types of incidents. Finally, organizations and managements should be aware that the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1974 requires organizations to have in place policies and procedures to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees. Many experts today believe that aggressive behavior needs to be disciplined immediately to keep it from escalating and encourage policies that indicate zero tolerance for harassment, bullying, intimidation, or threats. The U.S. Post Ofce is often cited as an example of the effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies that are credited for signicant reductions in aggressive behaviors. When such a policy is implemented, it is recommended that all employees are given a written copy of the policy and be required to sign a statement indicating that they have read and will comply with the policies. Working conditions. Some potential questions with respect to working conditions are: Is the safety record of this company above or below the industry average? Are pressures for sales and production in this company higher or lower than competitors? Do some jobs in the company have more stressful working conditions than others? Are management policies and procedures the same, or do they differ in different parts of the organization? Are there low cost ways to improve working conditions and perceptions of working conditions? Are there any problems with temperature control, cleanliness, or working hours? Culture. With respect to culture, relevant questions are: Is there a culture of aggression in this organization or any part

of the organization? Do prospective employees come from cultures that deviate from the norm in terms of aggressiveness? Are there any policies, practices, or rituals that encourage aggressionsuch as initiations, formal or informal? Are there procedures that encourage reports of aggressive or unethical behavior (e.g., steroid use)? Are there cases of abusive supervision? Is there a history of whistle blowing in the organization and how are whistle-blowers typically treated (e.g., Jose Conseco)? Human factors audit. The purpose here is to identify human factors related to aggression. We recognize that there are privacy, legal, and ethical constraints on both acquiring and using information about human factors. However, considering the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1974, there are legal and moral implications that arise from the failure to manage conditions that create a dangerous and hostile work environments. We will try to strike a balance between these ethical and legal concerns. The rst step is to observe the frequency and intensity of the four factors depicted in Fig. 1. Although the degree to which the factors can be observed varies, measurement procedures are available for all four factors. Obviously gender is directly observable, but there are also a number of psychometric scales that measure masculine and feminine dispositions as well as androgyny. These scales have been used in the study of leadership and, in general, measure the degree to which a person is goal-oriented, relationshiporiented, or is able to integrate both goals and relationships in their leadership styles. These types of scales might be particularly relevant if there is a culture of abusive supervision promulgating rigid rules and procedures. The psychological traits described in Fig. 1 can be observed directly and measured with psychometric instruments. More specically, a number of instruments have been developed to measure attribution style, and have been found to be reasonably reliable and valid. In addition, in our own work with attribution style, we found close to 90%

agreement between our judgments of a persons attribution style formed during structured interviews and the scores that interviewees attained on our psychometric measure. Thus, attribution style can be measured with psychometric tests, but it can also be identied by trained interviewers. Several scales have been developed for assessing negative affectivity. Although we are unaware of attempts by interviewers to judge affectivity, we would expect that, as in the case of attribution style, trained interviewers could make informed judgments. Finally, trait anger is often measured by the STAXI inventory. In addition, state anger may also be measured through reports of aggressive incidents from personnel records. An audit of personnel records may be able to identify areas or subunits of the organization where expressions of anger are most prevalent. Action planning. This process typically starts with a one- or two-day workshop in which the data from the prior phases is used to establish action plans. The rst morning typically begins with a review of the data. This part of the process can be facilitated by providing summaries of the data prior to the workshop and asking the participants to bring to the meeting a list of ve to eight key issues. The rst part of the meeting then focuses on consensus building with regard to the key issues with group-processing techniques such as nominal group decision making. This step ends with a list of the key issues. The second step is the establishment of groups to address the issues identied. This is usually done on a voluntary basis, with the notion that major stakeholders associated with each issue elect to join the groups working with the problems that are most relevant. The action planning groups are then tasked to: (1) clearly dene the problem; (2) identify who owns the problem; (3) propose a solution for the problem; and (4) propose a management structure for leadership and follow-through. Since the problems and interventions are ideally driven by the
125

data, they will vary among organizations. However, there are a number of interventions that have been discussed in the literature that should be considered by all organizations. These include policies on aggression, selection procedures, work restructuring, employee assistance programs, attributional counseling, and behavioral interventions. Since discussion of these interventions is available elsewhere and in our own work, we will provide abbreviated descriptions of these strategies here. Policies on aggression. As stated above, the Health and Safety Work Act of 1974 mandates that employers implement policies to ensure their employees safety and welfare at work. Thus, at the very least all organizations should develop a policy prohibiting aggression, and that policy should be clearly communicated to all employees. Because of potential litigation, it is prudent to provide copies of the policy to all employees and to obtain their signatures indicating that they have read, understand, and intend to comply with the policy. As discussed above, zero tolerance policies appear to be quite effective. Selection procedures. Commonly accepted procedures designed to mitigate aggression are background checks, screening for drug and alcohol abuse, reviews of driving records, and inquiries about any gaps in employment that could indicate incarceration. It is also prudent to verify information regarding education, employment, credit, and military service. Organizations should also consider screening candidates with respect to trait anger, negative affectivity, and attribution style. As described above, there are reasonably reliable measures available. However, the choice to use these instruments presents a signicant dilemma. More specically, since the validity of these tests can be questioned, the use of such testing could be interpreted as potentially violating both the Americans with Disability Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On the other hand, as more evidence supporting the use
126 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

of these variables is developed, the failure to consider these types of variables could also be considered negligent under the Health and Safety Act of 1974. At present our own bias is to develop information about these variables in the employment interview process rather than using psychometric testing. As suggested above, we have found considerable agreement on the assessments of attributions obtained during interviews and those that were the result of psychometric assessments. Communication. Communication is a critical element in any intervention designed to reduce aggressive behavior. In particular, communication regarding trigger events such as layoffs is critical. For example, if a person is laid off, it makes sense that the probability of aggression will be lessened if the individual receives an explanation of the process and the considerations (e.g., past performance as well as economic and business conditions) that were made in the decision. One of the worst examples of poor communication was experienced by one of the authors, who worked in a manufacturing plant when the labor force was reduced from 6,000 to 4,000 employees within a six-month period. Rather than explaining what was going on, management decreased communication and took the draconian measure of waiting until several Friday the 13ths to announce the layoffs. There were numerous acts of vandalism as well as at least one physical altercation that could potentially have been avoided if management had taken the time and effort to explain the rationale for their actions. The research on organizational justice described earlier suggests guidelines for communicating management decisions. Specically, our knowledge of the three forms of justice suggests that people are less likely to feel victimized if managers communicate decisions regarding negative outcomes (i.e., potential trigger events) clearly and with empathy (interactional justice) and include an explanation of how the decision was made (procedural justice) as well as why the out-

comes are fair in terms of employees inputs (distributive justice). Work design. There has been a considerable amount of research on work design, but reducing aggression has not been the focus. However, since attributions associated with aggression are often associated with external, stable, and controllable attributions, work design that allows more self-control and autonomy should be considered as potentially effective in reducing hostile attributions and their consequences. In addition, organizations should consider alleviating conditions surrounding the job that suggest that the workers are powerlesssuch as inadequate parking, poor restroom facilities, lthy working conditions, poor ventilation and temperature control, and poor lighting. Organizational culture. Another strategy for reducing aggression is to facilitate a culture that discourages aggression. Strategies could include but are not limited to vision and goal statements stressing respect and cooperation, reward procedures that punish aggression, and the physical presence of security cameras, alarms, and security guards. Supervisory practices and policies should also be considered to make sure that there is not a culture of abusive supervision or incivility. Employee assistance programs. All organizations should have an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) designed to help employees address personal problems that may be affecting their job performance such as alcohol and drug abuse, marital problems, and nancial problems. The program can take the form of having an onsite coordinator. However, even very small organizations can implement EAPs by helping managers identify potential problems and encouraging employees to consult professionals whose services are covered in their organizations health insurance program. EAPs can be important during layoffs and other important trigger events so employees do not react with aggression directed towards themselves or others.

Attribution counseling. The goal of attribution counseling is to help the employees realistically analyze the causes of trigger events so they can develop constructive attributions. It appears that this type of counseling might have been helpful in the Byran Uyesugi case mentioned above, in that it may have reduced his apparent tendency toward hostile attributions and the associated aggressive behaviors. Although we are not encouraging managers to become amateur counselors, they can intervene by providing clear communication about the causes of negative outcomes. Similarly, when managers notice a pattern of hostile attributions, they can intervene by providing the information needed and by addressing problems when they are legitimate. Behavioral interventions. Organizations also need to have in place contingency plans in the event that aggressive acts occur. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide advice on law enforcement procedures that may have legal implications. However, common sense suggests that procedures should be developed for identifying when a legitimate threat occurs and who will be responsible for addressing threats. We recommend that organizations consult with their own security people, local law enforcement, and the guidelines that have been suggested by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The comprehensive set of guidelines that OSHA has developed for addressing workplace aggression is very helpful. In addition, OSHA also provides guidance regarding record keeping, developing incidence reports, and conducting surveys to assess potential threats. In concluding our discussion of the actionplanning phase, we emphasize that the process of developing the action plans is datadriven, so that it responds to the needs of the organization. We also underscore that participative processes with broad representation from all parts of the organization are advantageous in understanding the nature of
127

existing problems, developing the action plans, and in ultimately implementing the plans. Management approval. In this step, the action plans are presented to senior management. Ideally, senior management attends the last session of the planning phase where the task forces propose their plans. At this point, senior management can adopt the proposals or modify the plans. In most cases it is advisable to provide approval in principle and then for senior management to make the nal decisions considering resources, legal considerations, and the viability of the proposed programs. Implementation. It is highly recommended that implementation of the plans is a line responsibility. Provided that line managers have had active opportunities for input throughout the process, commitment to the programs should be relatively easy to achieve. Feedback and follow-up. Someone in the organization, frequently the person who is responsible for managing compliance with OSHA, should assume the responsibility for maintaining incidence records and serve as the focal point for identifying whether the organization is achieving the goals of the action plans. At the very least, a report to senior management every six months should be required. If problems remain, task forces may be reinstated or formed to analyze the problems and develop solutions.

CONCLUSION
Our purpose in writing this article was to provide a solid theoretical and empirical foundation for developing strategies to miti-

gate organizational aggression. As described in our model, organizational aggression often emerges from a combination of both human and organizational factors. Although we cannot predict aggressive behavior with certainty, we can reduce the probability of aggressive acts by actively managing environmental and human factors. Because every organization is different, we emphasize the need to do a thorough audit before developing programs to mitigate aggression. Once the status of factors within a particular organization is known, organizations can develop action plans to mitigate aggression. These action plans typically address organizational factors by shaping the culture within the organization, structuring jobs to reduce anger leading to aggression, and reducing the incidence of abusive supervision and overly rigid policies. The human side of the equation can be managed through selection processes, policies on aggression, clear communications regarding trigger events, EAPs, attributional counseling, and careful intervention when aggressive incidents do occur. In conclusion, although we know that it is almost impossible to predict specic acts of aggression, we have accumulated knowledge and experience that allow us to reduce the probabilities of aggressive incidents. Given this knowledge, failure to manage factors that are known to be associated with aggression can be considered negligent and organizations may be found to be criminally liable when acts of violence are perpetrated. It is our hope that this article will be a useful starting point for organizations that want to take proactive steps to reduce the probability of aggression in their workplaces.

128 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
productive Workplace Behavior: A Causal Reasoning Perspective, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2002, 10(1/2), 36 50; and S. C. Douglas and M. J. Martinko, Exploring the Role of Individual Differences in the Prediction of Workplace Aggression, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001, 86(4), 547 559. An article by H. Bensimon, Violence in the Workplace, in Training and Development Journal, 1994, 1, 2732 describes how rigid bureaucracy precipitated many of the incidents of aggression in the U.S. Post Ofce. A discussion of the effects of working conditions is provided by R. A. Baron, The Physical Environment of Work Settings: Effects on Task Performance, Interpersonal Relations, and Job Satisfaction, In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1994), Vol. 16, pp. 146. Banduras work describes how cultures affect aggression through modeling. See A. Bandura, Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 1973).

Descriptions of organizational aggression come from CNN and can be found at http://www.cnn.com. They include: Hotel worker kills 5 in shooting spree (30 December 1990); Shooting suspect pleads not guilty to ofce killings (27 December 2000); Seven die in Chicago warehouse shooting (28 August 2003); Medical Journal Apologizes to Prozac Maker (28 January 2005); Plant shooter in anger management classes (10 July 2003); and Suspect in Honolulu shooting spree faces rst-degree murder charges (3 November 1999). The sociological approach to organizational aggression is described by R. Folger and D. P. Skarlicki, A Popcorn Metaphor for Employee Aggression, In R. W. Grifn, A. OLeary-Kelly, and J. M. Collins (Eds.) Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Violent and Deviant Behavior (Stanford, CT: JAI Press, 1998), pp. 4382. Other work demonstrates that human factors contribute to our ability to understand aggression and includes M. J. Martinko, M. J. Gundlach, and S. C. Douglas, Toward an Integrative Theory of Counter-

Mark J. Martinko (Ph.D., University of Nebraska) is the Bank of America Professor of Management at Florida State University. His research focuses on attribution theory and leadership and he has authored or coauthored seven books and more than 80 articles and book chapters. He is a past president and fellow of the Southern Management Association as well as the president of Performance Associates, which specializes in executive/leadership coaching and development. His most recent books are Thinking Like a Winner: A Guide to High Performance Leadership (2002) and Attribution Theory in the Organizational Sciences: Theoretical and Empirical Contributions (2004). (Tel.: +1 850 893 2786; fax: +1 850 644 7843; e-mail: mmartin@cob.fsu.edu). Scott Douglas (Ph.D., Florida State University) is an Associate Professor of Management at The University of Montana. He is the author and coauthor of several articles and book chapters on counterproductive work
129

behaviors, and is currently active in executive development and consulting in the area of managing workplace aggression and violence (Tel.: +1 406 243 5695; fax: +1 406 243 2086; email: scott.douglas@business.umt.edu). Paul Harvey is a Ph.D. student in organizational behavior at Florida State University. His research interests include attribution theory, emotions, perceptions, and ethics. He has an MBA from SUNY-Binghamton and received his Bachelors degree in nance from the University of Connecticut. He has industry experience working in manufacturing nance and personnel recruiting (Tel.: +1 850 644 2038; fax: +1 850 644 7843; e-mail: nph02@garnet.acns.fsu.edu).

130 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS