Suchergebnisse

Abusive Supervision Defined -- Antecedents of Abusive Supervision -- The Impact of Abusive Supervision on the Target -- Reporting Abuse Supervision -- Retaliation Against Reporters of Abusive Supervision -- Issuance of Corrective Actions After Reporting Abusive Supervision -- Workplace Aggression Policies -- Future Research Avenues Regarding Abusive Supervision.

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.

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.

Research has long found that high‐quality workplace relationships have a beneficial impact on employees and organizations. Although these studies have developed elaborate models to examine high‐quality workplace relationships, none were found to explore the association between high‐quality workplace relationships and job stress/exhaustion, commitment, and social impact. To fill this void in the literature, models were developed to explain the expected association that these employee attitudes have with one another. These models were then tested on full‐time, public employees. Several important findings emerged. First, high‐quality workplace relationships were positively related to social impact. Next, social impact was found to positively mediate the relationship between high‐quality workplace relationships and commitment. Finally, social impact was found to positively mediate the relationship between high‐quality workplace relationships and job stress/exhaustion. This latter finding was contrary to expectations.