Workplace aggression targets’ vulnerability factor: job engagement

• Pages: 202-220
• Date: 13 June 2016
• Published date: 13 June 2016
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-11-2015-0065
• Author: Dianne P. Ford,Susan E. Myrden,E. Kevin Kelloway
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Healthcare management

Workplace aggression targets’

vulnerability factor:

job engagement

Dianne P. Ford

Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland,

St John’s, Canada

Susan E. Myrden

Department of Business, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, USA, and

E. Kevin Kelloway

Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine how job engagement affects the experience of

workplace aggression and the related outcomes. Job engagement is introduced as a context variable for

the stressor-strain model to explain differences for targets of workplace aggression.

Design/methodology/approach –A survey was conducted with a sample of 492 North American

working adults from a large variety of industries and jobs.

Findings –Consistent with the hypotheses, fear and anger mediate the relationship between

workplace aggression and strain. Job engagement moderated the relationship between workplace

aggression and anger, such that aggression related to anger only for those employees who were

engaged in their job. These data are consistent with the suggestion that engagement may create

vulnerability for employees.

Research limitations/implications –In this study, the authors highlight the need to include

contextual factors that may explain differences in impact of workplace aggression and employee wellness.

Practical implications –While practitioners may seek to increase job engagement, there appears to

be a greater cost should there be workplace aggression. Thus, the key implication for practitioners is

the importance of prevention of workplace aggression.

Originality/value –With this study, the authors illustrate how job engagement may have a “dark

side”for individuals. While previous research has shown that job engagement helps protect employee

wellness, others show engagement decreases after incidents of workplace aggression. The authors

suggest those who are engaged and targeted will experience worse outcomes. Also, the authors

examine the role of anger for targets of workplace aggression as it relates to fear and strain in

this study.

Keywords Anger, Strain, Workplace aggression, Job engagement

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Workplace aggression is costly to organizations both in terms of losses in productivity

(from poor morale,more absenteeism, and turnover)and costs associated with grievances

or human rights complaints (e.g. LeBlanc and Kelloway, 2002; Madlock and Kennedy-

Lightsey, 2010; Schat and Frone, 2011). It is also a highly negative experience for the

targets of workplace aggression, who, as a result, experience an array of psychological

and physical consequences, like anger, anxiety, illnesses, sleep disturbances, and

difficultieseating (e.g. Barling, 1996; Fitzgerald et al., 1997;Hershcovis and Barling, 2010).

Because of the toxicity of workplace aggression to individuals and organizations, it has

been a popular research topic for the past 15 years.

International Journal of Workplace

Health Management

Vol. 9 No. 2, 2016

pp. 202-220

©Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1753-8351

DOI 10.1108/IJWHM-11-2015-0065

Received 12 November 2015

Revised 22 January 2016

Accepted 31 January 2016

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8351.htm

202

IJWHM

9,2

Workplace aggression has been defined as, “any form of behaviour directed by one

or more persons in a workplace toward the goal of harming one or more others in that

workplace (or the entire organization) in ways the intended targets are motivated to

avoid”(Neuman and Baron, 2005, p. 18), and includes such concepts as incivility,

bullying, social undermining, interpersonal conflict, emotional abuse, violence, and

abusive supervision (Herschovis, 2011). While there is generally a good understanding

of the typical outcomes of workplace aggression, underlying mechanisms (e.g. the

stressor-strain model; see Herschovis, 2011) and target characteristics (Birkeland

Nielsen and Knardahl, 2015; Harvey and Keashly, 2003; Milam et al., 2009), the

contextual factors that leave the target more vulnerable to the negative consequences

of workplace aggression are still not fully understood. In other words, we are not

concerned with what factors put a person at greater risk of being targeted; rather, we

are interested in what puts a person at risk for worse outcomes when targeted.

Psychology has identified many individual factors that lead to stress resiliency and the

ability to recover from significant stressors (e.g. Brown et al., 2012; Thoits, 2011);

however, we are interested in the amplitude of negative effects, not the ability to

recover from the consequences.

Job engagement, which is considered to be a motivational construct, has been

defined as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s‘preferred self’

in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal presence

(physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performances”(Kahn, 1990,

p. 700). It is expressed through an individual’s absorption, dedication, and vigor in his/

her job (Salanova et al., 2005). Organizations have sought to increase their employee

engagement, as it is associated with role innovation and other positive outcomes for

organizations (e.g. Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006; Kahn, 1990). Job engagement ha s been

studied in terms of its relationship to workplace aggression for targets. Specifically,

it has been found to be negatively affected by workplace aggression (or incivility within

an organization), such that targets experience less dedication, absorption, and vigor in

their jobs after experiencing aggression (Rodriguez-Munoz et al., 2009).

According to Engagement Theory (Kahn, 1990, 1992) individuals need to feel safe

(psychologically and physically), have the resources (psychological, cognitive, and

emotional) available and have meaning in their job to be able to become engaged in

their job (enacted through absorption, dedication, and vigor). It would be reasonable to

expect that a target of workplace aggression will feel less safe and have fewer resources

available due to the stress and strain associated with workplace aggression

(e.g. Rodriguez-Munoz et al., 2009). Furthermore, Ford (2008) found disengagement was

associated with physical withdrawal and turnover from the workplace, both of which

have been identified as individual outcomes associated with workplace aggression

(Grandey et al., 2007). Thus past research has shown that a reduction of engagement is

a potential outcome of aggression (e.g. Cogin and Fish, 2009; Rodriguez-Munoz et al.,

2009; Law et al., 2011), but we will explore its role as a moderator as we believe it may

serve as an important boundary condition due to its role in the psychological

experience of the workplace and the job.

We believe there is insufficient understanding of the boundary conditions (e.g.

situational, contextual, or individual factors) that define how workplace aggression

impacts wellness. In addition, Herschovis (2011) identified a ne ed for better

understanding of contextual factors for workplace aggression, thus this research

answers this call. For example, Ford (2013) found contextual factors of media

characteristics (i.e. media richness, anonymity, and location of receipt of

203

Workplace

aggression