David Gibbs
April 22, 2002
This paper is going to look at anger, conflict, and violence in the workplace today. There have been many cases of extreme violence displayed in the last few years. Instances in Seattle, Honolulu, Atlanta, and even here in Jackson have shown how anger in the workplace can result in violent tragedy. This has forced businesses of all sizes to strengthen security, especially in times that may increase the possibility of some type of conflict. For example, in the current recession the economy is in, hundreds of companies have had to layoff thousands of employees, which has been a source of workplace violence in the past. “Violence-prevention firms seize the opportunity, promising training programs and other measures to safeguard offices from lethal lunatics” (Dobbs, 2000). However, it does not always take such extreme situations to cause problems. Anger and violence in the workplace is an extremely sensitive topic recently and is often the result of some type of conflict.
Conflict has been defined as the interaction of inter-dependant people or groups who perceive incompatible goals and interference from each other in achieving these goals. It has been seen as the dysfunctional outcome resulting from poor communication, a lack of openness and trust between people, and the failure of managers to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of their employees (Robbins, 2001). Since conflict is generally the cause of office anger and/or violence, there are many theories on how to control, prevent, predict, and manage conflict in the workplace. There are also several practices on how to handle conflict, once it arises in order to minimize any anger, as well as prevent violence. One traditional myth is that lack of communication is the source of most conflicts. “Although it may contribute to conflict, recent studies show that within organizations, structural factors and individual value differences are probably greater sources of conflict” (Robbins, 2001).
There are many needs for research in the area of violence in the workplace. The main reason being that the more research done in this field of study, the closer America’s workplaces are to being violence-free. If we can determine some correlation between behavior, and subsequent acts of violence, then hopefully we will be able to better control this type of irrational behavior. Initial research has been done to attempt to identify certain characteristics of disruptive behavior. Pamela Johnson and Julie Indvik categorized these disruptive employees into several profiles: the autocrat, the rebel, and the aggressor to name a few. Research has also been conducted analyzing how to handle, manager, and even prevent violence in the workplace. But even though these early studies have been conducted, anger and violence are still prevalent in the workplace. Until the workplace is free from violent outrages like the ones in Honolulu, Seattle, and Atlanta, there will be a need for research in determining how to deal with such actions. No one was able to predict that Bryan Uesugi, the Xerox repairman in Honolulu, would have committed such a horrible, violent act of rage. That is exactly the reason that further research needs to be conducted.
Although it is extremely difficult to predict these types of actions, several types of behavior have been attributed with increasing conflicts. A few of these catalysts to anger in the workplace are general harassment, favoritism, insensitivity by managers, and depersonalization.
Each of these should be analyzed further in an effort to decrease and resolve conflict. “The conflict process can be seen as compromising five stages: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes” (Robbins, 2001). Each of these stages characterizes a more involved, more intense step in the process of conflict. The earlier in these five stages in which we are able to recognize and resolve a conflict, the less dramatic the negative impact will be. Ideally, we would like to strive to recognize and resolve any conflict in the first stage of the process, which states that there is presence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise.
Previous research could also be narrowed down for better focus and understanding. It was said that there are characteristics of disruptive behavior. But are there certain corporate actions that seem to trigger these disruptive behaviors in workers? Are there any situations that seem to send someone with these characteristics over the edge? Finally, how do age and gender affect these issues? These are just a few of the areas in which further research is needed.
As mentioned earlier, places like Honolulu, Seattle, Atlanta, and Jackson have all been victims of serious acts of workplace violence. On November 2nd, 1999, in Honolulu, a Xerox copier repairman was arrested after opening fire and killing seven co-workers. At the time, no motive was determined. The next day in Seattle, a man walked into a shipyard and began firing, killing 2 and injuring 2. In Atlanta, a disgruntled day-trader walked into a former employer’s office and opened fire. In all, the suspect had killed 9, and wounded an additional 12 people. Mark Barton had had a troubled past, but on the day of the shootings, he had argued about how bad the stock market was performing. Finally, here in Jackson, Kenneth Tornes, a 32-year old, 9-year veteran of the Jackson Fire Department, walked into the central fire station, and started shooting fire department supervisors. Tornes allegedly searched for anyone with a rank of captain or higher and when all was done, five people were killed, and four others were wounded at the station. Tornes reportedly also shot and killed his wife earlier that day. “What motivated Tornes to kill his wife is not known. What is known is that he had serious problems with fire department supervisors. Jackson Firefighter Tim Dukes said about Tornes, “He was a perfect gentleman except when you got him talking about the chiefs. He’s been talking about doing this for years.” Other co-workers said the Tornes was very upset about the long-running dispute between firefighters and superiors over reprimands for what were considered to be trivial matters (Macko, 1996). “The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health reports that homicide is the second-leading cause of death in the workplace. Murder is the number-one workplace kill of women and the third-leading cause of death for men, after motor vehicle accidents and machine-related fatalities. The majority of workplace homicides are committed by firearms, and for every actual killing, there are anywhere from 10 to 100 sublethal acts of violence committed at work” (Miller, 2002).
“Despite the devastating tragedies in Honolulu, Seattle, and other places, aggression at work usually takes more subtle forms. More commonly, employees with retaliate verbally, engaging in either a screamfest or the silent treatment or gossiping behind the back of the supervisor or co-worker” (USA Today Magazine, 2000). Some resort to obstructionist tactics such as work slowdown, withholding information, not returning phone calls, or frequently calling in sick. But increasing employees’ perceptions of procedural fairness in the work environment could significantly help defuse angry reactions.
In his article Managing Conflict in the Workplace, Peter Varhol focuses on conflict management in the workplace today. “Most people don’t enjoy facing the difficult situations that sometimes occur with co-workers in the workplace.” But now there is more of it than in the past, so learning how to deal with it is an important skill. Also, how you manage it could have significant impact on your career. “Those who deal successfully with potential conflicts are far more likely to receive added responsibilities and promotions, in addition to the pay increases and respect that come with them. On the other hand, not dealing successfully with conflict can potentially relegate you to a career backwater, with technical challenges and pay raises passing you by” (Varhol, 2002). Dealing with conflict is a skill that is much more essential than in the past, mainly because there is so much more if it now. Also, conflict may arise as a result of unclear company goals, or when everyone does not share those goals. Many times individuals are working for individual goals, promotions, job security, and money rather than for the common good of the company. In tighter markets, companies may force strict deadlines and cause higher stress levels on employees, making the workplace a potential minefield for interpersonal conflict.
With this foundation established, Varhol identifies several ways to prevent conflict when possible, and manage it when it is inevitable. The first is to be prepared for potential conflicts. Disagreements with coworkers should not be a surprise, so if employees think ahead and try to anticipate where conflicts might arise, they may be better prepared to handle them. Second, do not personalize disagreements. One of the worst responses to a conflict or disagreement on a decision or opinion is to interpret it as a personal attack and respond in kind. This type of response not only makes the situation even more unpleasant and difficult to resolve, but also leaves bad feelings that could be impossible to repair. Individuals should address the issue, not the emotion, which leads to the third point, which is not to get caught up in emotion. Participants should attempt to shut out emotional content of the discussion, and focus on the facts. Fourth, do not avoid situations or decisions on account of potential conflict. One of the least effective ways to deal with conflict is to avoid the topic of the conflict or the person behind it. This approach solves nothing, and can create and uncomfortable environment. Fifth, he suggests being above board in your actions. This involves adopting a policy of open communication, which resolves many conflicts before they even happen. Finally, be willing to listen and compromise. Rarely is your way clearly the best, especially to others who may have different viewpoints.
Most people would prefer not to deal with interpersonal conflicts. Yet it is a part of life, and especially a part of working in teams. There is an age-old business adage that says, “85 percent of a manager’s success comes from the ability to deal with people.” While dealing with a department full of different personalities is an on-going challenge, the changing nature of work has made working with people a much more complex problem.
Pamela Johnson and Julie Indvik discuss different stereotypes of some behavior, and how to deal with them. “Some companies are fraught with stress, tension, anxiety, and low morale. Those factors can foster employees’ feelings of helplessness, rage, despair, and anger. As a result, workers can act out in a myriad of ways. Unresolved behavioral problems can turn into financial losses when angry employees turn into litigious employees” (Johnson and Indvik, 2000). Their work discusses the background leading to these problems, characteristics of disruptive employees, the changing nature of the law, employment practices liability insurance, and what employers can do to help.
The changing nature of work acts as a catalyst to many workplace problems. Where employees once worked nine to five, they are now expected to work 50, 60, or more hours a week in order to help their organizations exist and thrive in the global economy. However, raises generally do not keep pace with inflation. While many employees may love their work, they hate their jobs. As a result of this dissatisfaction, work problems arise in organizations. And now, downsizing, restructuring, and reengineering are turning workplaces upside-down, leaving workers frustrate, scared, and angry. In return, workers act out in many different ways. The disruptive employees display behavioral problems such as absenteeism, workplace violence, accidents, theft, substance abuse, excessive health care utilization, and even lawsuits filed (Johnson and Indvik, 2000).
This pair has categorized disruptive employees into 10 categories. The first six have to do with the employees’ views, beliefs, or perceptions about work itself, while the remaining four deal more with general office behavior. The Autocrat is the first. This person wants everything done in a certain way and allows co-workers little input or authority in decision-making. They usually have a high level of authoritarianism. The second is The Rebel. This type of employee refuses to obey company rules, and enjoys pressing against the rules and boundaries. They are usually tolerated because of exceptional competence, but often get themselves into trouble by offending or alienating people in high places. Next is The Aggressor. This person is often accused of not being a team player and being overly protective of their turf. They generally turn everything into a win-lose battle. Fourth is The Criticizer. This type of person possesses a total lack of sensitivity to the feelings of others. They usually describe themselves as a “people person,” yet tend to deliver well-meant feedback in a devastating way, never realizing the impact. The Procrastinator is the fifth type of disruptive employee. This is the person who waits and waits to do the work, until the mood strikes him or her to do it. The sixth type is The Perfectionist, who wants every “dot and tittle” to be correct before releasing a document. Many times projects drag on and deadlines are missed due to their obsessive behavior. The final four better describe behavior within others in the workplace. The Backstabber is the seventh type. This employee bonds with co-workers for his or her personal advantage or advancement. Next is The Objector. This is a smart person with the right answers, but nit-picks about everything. They always seem to have a better approach to tasks; meanwhile, they spend more time objecting than performing. The Busybody is the ninth type of disruptive employee. This person goes too far with his or her involvement with people in the company, using information (often incorrect or damaging) as entry to conversations and professional and social relationships. Finally, there is the Politician. This person is the most dangerous of all difficult people. They often have the support of co-workers and can undermine a manager’s position in the department. These descriptions characterize several different types of problematic employees. Most of their disruptive behavior is a result of anger.
Job security so well known in the past has vanished in the new world market. Employers are slashing the size of their labor force to meet competition. They are also cutting budgets (i.e. travel) and taking away many of the fringe benefits once enjoyed by employees (i.e. flex-time, telecommuting), leaving the employees angrier than ever before. Many people feel overworked, stressed out, and pushed to the max. The result is that unpleasant occurrences that leave us angry and willing to vent that anger on each other are going on in offices today. Ego-crushing e-mails are sent, catcalls occur at the conference table, and disparaging remarks are whispered in the hallway (Johnson and Indvik, 2001). Some catalysts to anger in the workplace, as outlined by Johnson and Indvik are:
· General harassment – sexual or other types
· Favoritism of one employee over another
· Insensitivity by managers
· Unfair performance appraisals
· Lack of resources
· Lack of adequate training
· Absentee bosses
· Depersonalization of the contemporary workplace
· Lack of teamwork
· Withdrawal of earned benefits
· Lack or violation of trust
· Poor communication
These 12 catalysts of anger decrease productivity and block teamwork. Unresolved behavioral problems can turn into financial losses, when angry employees turn into litigious employees.
Even more so with the vast amount of state and federal laws, regulations, and court rulings that govern almost every aspect of how businesses hire, manage, promote, and fire their employees.
With anger so prevalent in today’s work society, it is important for managers to be educated in order to deal with it. “It’s not rational or fair, but HR professionals often become the embodiment of every unpopular policy, every lost job, every perceived or real injustice. People quite literally shoot the messenger” (Halcrow, 1998). Johnson and Indvik also offer some ideas on how to deal with problems. Employers can discourage supervisors and co-workers from engaging in discriminatory or harassing behavior by making it clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. They can provide employees with channels of communication to report supervisory conduct and decisions they regard as discriminatory, harassing, or otherwise wrongful, while promptly investigating these complaints and seeking legal advice for any that remain unresolved. They should monitor employees’ work performance. They can be sure that morale of the other workers does not suffer because of a disruptive employee. They can evaluate the disruptive employee’s value in terms of work performance and contribution as well as the intensity of the disruptive behavior and make a determination as to whether the problem is worth solving. They can create a clear script clearly illustrating the focus, direction, and chain of command of the organization and enforce the chain. They can stay abreast of the various federal rules and deadlines. And finally they can increase severance packages in exchange for a promise not to sue. One of the most important things a manager can do is to listen. People want to know you understand them and know how they feel. Few of us enjoy conflict or confronting the people who cause problems and create discord, but being an effective manager today calls for you to seek out employee-generated conflict in its many forms, rather than avoid it.
Joseph Kinney, executive director of the National Safe Workplace Institute, in his book Violence at Work: How to Make Your Company Safer for Employees and Customers, warns that current and future generations of workers will continue to have less emotional maturity, greater feelings of unearned entitlement, poorer social skills, little experience in nonviolent conflict resolution, less respect for older generations, a lower attention span, poorer discipline, and higher rates of violence.
This review affects the everyday managers in several ways. Managers need to be well educated in this topic, and there are numerous suggestions on how to prevent, predict, and handle conflict, anger, and violence. Managers should periodically review past studies in this area, as well as new literature available. “One of the best ways to avoid workplace violence is not to hire violent workers” (Miller, 2002). This, of course, is easier said than done. However, efforts in this regard should include thorough application reviews and background checks, careful interviewing, and appropriate psychological screening measures.
Companies should have clear, strong, fair, and consistent written policies against violence and harassment. Further, these policies should be well communicated. Companies should train employees in conflict management and appropriate ways to vent anger. Also, management should consistently take action every time an employee acts out his or her anger. If it comes down to having no choice but to fire a worker, this should be done in a firm, but humane manner. Too often, employers disregard problematic or unethical behavior from its employees, until it eventually snowballs into damaging results that could have been prevented.
Do not ignore any warning signs. Often, these signs can be observed hours, days, or weeks prior to violent incidents, or emotional outbreaks. They may also be preceded by a history of work-related problems. Management should address any issues immediately. Resolving conflict in the initial stages will result in fewer and less involved, less damaging outcomes. Not only from a production standpoint, but also from an interpersonal relationship standpoint.
Managers need to find the most appropriate balance between autocratic and participative leadership styles. Although many times which type of leadership style depends on the situation, managers can generally designate different styles to their different employees. Matching the managing style with employee behavior will increase relations and performance, reducing the possibility of problematic behavior. One of the most important policies managers should adhere to is one of open communication. Try to create an atmosphere inviting to communication. Constantly give feedback to employees, and attempt to continuously receive employee expectations, grievances, etc.
With regards to violence, there is a myth about the profile of the workplace killer that describes him as a disgruntled loner with few interests except guns (Beck and Schouten, 2000). This profile has never been validated by any research. Managers should constantly be aware of behavior of all of their employees. Sometimes, problematic or disruptive employees can be the most productive employees. They may possess a pleasant demeanor, high intelligence, or fine talents, but they simply choose get along successfully with others.
Finally, threats or problematic behavior may reflect problems in the organization. Managers need to have a broader view, and be aware of such problems. Management, at all levels, starting at the top, must take a preventative approach that spans the organization. HR can help management take a more system-oriented view instead of the short-term view that hurts in the long run.
Beck, James, and Schouten, Ronald. (2000). Workplace Violence and Psychiatric Practice. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 64 (1), 36-49.
Bensimon, Helen Frank. (1997). What to do About Anger in the Workplace. Training and Development, 51 (9), 28-32.
Calabrese, Kirk. (2000). Interpersonal Conflict and Sarcasm in the Workplace. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 126 (4), 459-495.
Dobbs, Kevin. (2000). The Lucrative Menace of Workplace Violence. Training, 37 (3),
54-60.
Halcrow, Allan. (1998). Anger is Our Greatest Problem. Workforce, 77 (8), 6-7.
Johnson, Catherine, Ford, Rebecca, and Kaufmas, Joanne. (2000). Emotional Reactions to Conflict: Do Dependance and Legitimacy Matter?. Social Forces, 79 (1), 107-138.
Johnson, Pamela and Indvik, Julie. (2000). Rebels, Criticizers, Backstabbers, and Busybodies. Public Personnel Management, 29 (2), 165-175.
Johnson, Pamela. and Indvik, Julie. (2001). Rudeness at Work: Impulse Over Restraint. Business Etiquette, 30 (4), 457-466.
Lyon, Brenda. (2000). Don’t Go From Mad to Worse. Nursing, 30 (12), 60-62.
Macko, Steve. (2000). Firefighter Goes on a Shooting Rampage. EmergencyNet NEWS Service, http://www.emergency.com/ff-shoot.htm.
McClure, Lynne. (1999). Address Workplace Anger Early and Fend off Sabotage Before it Becomes a Problem. Workforce, 78 (7), 39.
Miller, Laurence. (2002). How Safe is Your Job?: The Threat of Workplace Violence. USA Today Magazine, 130 (2682), 52-55.
Unknown. (2000). What is Society Willing to Spend on Human Beings? Multinational Monitor, 21 (11), 5-6.
Unknown. (2000). Standoff Ends After Rampage in Honolulu. ABCNEWS.com, http://www.abcnew.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/honolulushooting991102.html.
Unknown. (2000). Expressing Anger in the Workplace. USA Today Magazine, 129 (2666), 6.
Unknown. (2000). Gender Guidelines for Employment and Skills Training in Conflict-Affected Countries. Women’s International Network News, 26 (2), 10-11.
Varhol, Peter. (2000). Managing Conflict in the Workplace. Electric Design, 48 (22),
155-156.