The psychological implications of workplace violence - Assignment Example

? The Psychological Implications of Workplace Violence and Number Introduction Workplace violence is one of the major causes of fatalities in the workplace, especially for women. Violence in the workplace is a wicked and dangerous problem that deprives organizations with efficiency, high productivity, resources, and even the capacity to operate fully. Therefore, workplace violence remains a grave threat to employees and the larger community. This paper argues that victims of workplace violence experience perceived fear and psychological distress or mental problems immediately after the unpleasant incident. These negative outcomes of workplace violence cause dysfunctions in an organization. Hence it is important to implement effective prevention policies against workplace violence. Workplace violence is an issue that demands immediate consideration and prevention. An exact definition of workplace violence can generate more precise statistics and more effective strategies to deal with the issue. For the purposes of this paper, the International Labor Organization (ILO) definition of workplace violence is used (Privitera, 2010, 43): Internal workplace violence is that which takes place between workers, including managers and supervisors; and External workplace violence is that which takes place between workers (and managers and supervisors) and any other person present at the workplace. Although the above definition only highlights the physical features of workplace violence, it does indirectly imply the potential psychological impact of this incident on victims and third parties. Perceived Fear and the Psychological Effect of Workplace Violence Numerous studies have reported the effect of workplace violence on the victims’ psychological or emotional wellbeing, as well as on their self-perception. After a violent incident in the workplace, the victims, those who witnessed the violence, colleagues, peers, family, and other individuals in the organization may go through psychologically distressing outcomes. For the victims and their colleagues it is apparent that the workplace has become an unsafe place. Besides physical injuries, workplace violence usually leads to severe and incapacitating psychological impact. Some examples of the psychological impacts of violence in the workplace are lowered self-worth, distress, vulnerability, anger, fear, depression, denial, humiliation, and guilt. Several researchers have identified post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as an outcome of violence in the workplace among those victimized. Several of the warning signs of PTSD are damaged concentration, weakened memory, recurrent nightmares, disturbance, isolation, bad temper, physiological stimulation, and anxiety (Cavanaugh et al., 2012). Moreover, according to Kamery (2004), employees usually blame themselves for their victimization, and quite often management provokes this self-blaming attitude. Victims of workplace violence immediately feel physical and psychological numbing, distress, denial, and suspicion. Immediately after the unpleasant incident, the victims go through three kinds of effects (Browne-Miller, 2012): (1) withdrawal effects such as truancy, social isolation; reliving effects such as nightmares, recollections; and (3) other effects such as excessive shock, anger, fear, and irritability. Employees who have been involved in interpersonal violence will perhaps suffer from a negative disposition and intensified fear at work. This consequently will lessen employee motivation and satisfaction at work (Mueller & Tschan, 2011). This discovery is significant because it is widely known that employee motivation and satisfaction are an exact determinant of voluntary turnover. Many studies have found out that the lower the employee motivation and satisfaction, the greater the likelihood of voluntary turnover. Thus it is apparent that not merely does workplace violence have a major and considerable psychological effect on victims and other people; in addition, it has an immediate effect on the organization’s functioning. Workplace violence causes temporary and permanent psychological impacts on both perpetrators and their victims. Usually the signs of psychological trauma and job frustration are not caused by a single distressing experience, but from a chain of violent episodes. Psychological outcomes such as anxiety and depression are undoubtedly indicative of the possibility of a wide range of general outcomes (Scott, 2012). These outcomes appear to include the entire array of outcomes normally mentioned in stress research in general (Becher & Visovsky, 2012). In fact, quite persistent are the psychological outcomes that it can be correctly assumed that they influence individuals’ performance in some facets of their lives. Horizontal violence is one of the forms of workplace violence that brings about negative psychological effects on victims. Horizontal violence is characterized by peer-to-peer violence and may involve disrupting work activities, breaching trusts, refusing to provide vital information, verbal attacks, and nonverbal insinuation. Some of the most widespread psychological effects of horizontal violence are PTSD, anxiety, depression, and greater suicidal tendency (Becher & Visovsky, 2012). Horizontal violence has been blamed for numerous problems in staffing and retention of new personnel in the health care sector. Horizontal violence is most prevalent in health care settings. According to Privitera (2010), increasing rates of continuous horizontal violence or harassment and bullying have been reported to negatively affect the physical and psychological wellbeing of nurses, employee retention, and job satisfaction as well as indirect impacts on patient care quality and possibility of negative health outcomes. Horizontal violence harms the individual’s self-esteem and eventually becomes damaging to the nurses’ career, as violent behavior develops from colleagues who are supposed to be providing support, assistance, and guidance (Becher & Visovsky, 2012). Wilkie (1996) provided a summary of the development of the psychological impacts of horizontal violence. The first stage is the stimulation of the flight or fight response. Throughout this phase, individuals suffer from reduced morale, anxiety, and weakened sense of worth. The second stage is characterized by neurotransmitter malfunctioning and sleep disorder. Individuals experience problems controlling their emotions and motivate themselves. In the third stage, brain circuit breakers are stimulated. There is a weakened endurance for detachment, isolation, and depression, resulting in troubled personal relationships and a desire to abandon the workplace (Wilkie, 1996, 35). Continuous horizontal violence among nurses is a major problem. In enhancing and broadening the field of research to intervention and prevention level, theoretical perspectives from sociology, psychology, and biology are explained alongside the theoretical explanation of the frequency of horizontal violence against nurses. Several studies discovered that employees are more likely to be victimized by people outside their organizations or by members of the civic sector than by colleagues, even though there are discrepancies. Nevertheless, in spite of the evidently lower prevalence of co-worker violence existing findings indicate that its psychological effects are more damaging and serious than those of public hostility (Mueller & Tschan, 2011). In the study of Kelloway and LeBlanc (2002 as cited in Mueller & Tschan, 2011), public hostility determined perceived fear and possibility of future victimization but was not related to emotional dedication, physiological health, and psychological wellbeing. In contrast, co-worker violence did not determine perceived fear or possibility of future victimization but was strongly related to reduced employee retention, weakened dedication, and poor health. The explanation for this pattern of findings needs additional study to resolve but there are several available possible explanations. First is that public hostility or client-initiated workplace violence is viewed by employees in some professions as being an unavoidable part of their job and thus less prone to bring about negative outcomes. Second is that public hostility is less traumatic because the victim is not likely to encounter the aggressor for a second time (Mueller & Tschan, 2011). On the contrary, co-worker aggression is less likely to be viewed as an inevitable part of the job and more likely to include repeated encounter with the aggressor, causing much more trauma and consequently affect employees’ behavior, commitment, professional outlook, and health (Mueller & Tschan, 2011). Perceived fear of future workplace victimization comprises both cognitive and psychological response to experiencing a violent incident in the workplace where in a person recognizes a greater likelihood of experiencing other violent episodes in the future. Even though the degree to which this factor reveals both cognitive and psychological components has not been thoroughly studied, it is probable that it involves negative perceptions or beliefs such as thoughts about previous and possible future violent episodes and negative feelings such as being fearful (Browne-Miller, 2012). LeBlanc and Kelloway (2002 as cited in Mueller & Tschan, 2011) incorporated in their study perceived fear and perceived possibility of future victimization. They found out that the two factors were significantly correlated and in their study, perceived possibility was the direct result of violence, which consequently determined perceived fear of future violent episodes. Several studies have reported that fear is the direct outcome of workplace violence and affects psychological wellbeing, job satisfaction, work attitudes, and desire to withdraw from the workplace (Browne-Miller, 2012). Research findings indicate that fear characterizes one of the means by which workplace violence negatively affects individuals’ psychological wellbeing. Interestingly, even witnesses or third parties can suffer from psychological impacts after an act of violence in the workplace. Third parties can be anybody who perceives a degree of involvement in the incident, like peers and family of the victim or the aggressor, as well as superiors, employees, or co-workers. Victims and their families are always concerned about the possibility of future victimization or recurrence (Kamery, 2004). In truth, the more insignificant and random the incident, the more fearful and weaker the victims are likely to feel. Cavanaugh and colleagues (2012) found out that numerous victims of workplace violence reveal they are extremely fatigued, have problems concentrating and recalling vital information. Several scholars also emphasized that every time an episode of workplace violence takes place, there is an effect not just on the victims but on many others as well. These psychological effects, brought about by the behavior of another individual, are usually referred to as explicit or collective sentiments (Privitera, 2010). Witnesses and third parties at times suffer from sentiments of explicit humiliation. On the one hand, they suffer from explicit feelings of humiliation for the aggressors’ actions when they feel related or connected to the aggressors and when they view the aggressors’ actions as dishonorable. On the other hand, individuals suffer from explicit feelings of humiliation for the victims of wrongdoings when they feel related to the victims. Workplace violence also affects individuals who have no direct association with the workplace wherein the violence took place but who have been informed about it. Individuals who will not be regarded as substantially affected by the incident will seriously endure a certain level of fear and distress that people who are directly involved with the workplace violence are likely to experience (Browne-Miller, 2012). Merely knowing about incidents of violence perhaps has an effect on numerous people. Based on the findings of numerous studies, it seems that specific policies should be implemented to mitigate the negative psychological effects of workplace violence on the victims and on other people. The psychological effects of workplace violence can be mitigated. There are three kinds of solution: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary methods involve prevention or discouragement of aggression or violent behaviors in the workplace by eradicating risk factors. Secondary methods suppose that violence in the workplace has taken place or is about to happen and tries to lessen its psychological consequences. Tertiary methods suppose that violence in the workplace has taken place and that psychological damage has been sustained (Browne-Miller, 2012). Hence, the emphasis is to lessen the detrimental effect through therapeutic or counseling interventions. Primarily, it would be useful if there were consistent reporting procedures all over the workplace. With regard to perceptions about workplace violence, it would appear that the perceived fear of aggression depends on how aggression is perceived. Although it would be useful to have a standard description of what makes up violence, this could be hard to attain because of diverse assumptions about victimization (Becher & Visovsky, 2012). For instance, several workers regard verbal abuse to be a form of aggression, whereas others see it as a natural attribute of the job. Immediately after a violent episode in the workplace, critical incident debriefing must take place with every involved or affected individual in the organization (Bible, 2012). Victims of violence, as well as their fellow employees, have the chance to talk about their issues, difficulties, and sentiments about the occurrence, and recommend steps on how to avoid the recurrence of such occurrences. Employers, in association with employees, must develop a mechanism where post-trauma therapy is offered to all employees and their loved ones. The therapy must be performed by an experienced counselor who is knowledgeable about the issues of workplace violence and its outcomes. Employees who witness aggression and third parties may also require support mechanism or counseling (Bible, 2012). Therefore, preventing workplace violence is a complicated issue and requires consideration of a wide range of factors. Conclusion Numerous studies have substantiated the negative psychological effects of workplace violence not just on those who are directly involved but also on those who are indirectly connected to the workplace where the aggression takes place. Some of the commonly reported psychological effects of workplace violence are PTSD, anxiety, and depression. These psychological effects in turn negatively affect employee motivation and job satisfaction. One of the forms of workplace violence that seriously affects employees’ psychological wellbeing is horizontal violence, which is basically bullying and harassment. Besides these psychological effects, workplace violence also brings about perceived fear and possibility of future victimization. Studies have found out that perceived fear and perceived likelihood of future aggression are the immediate outcomes of experiencing workplace violence. But this perceived fear has been found to differ between those who were victimized by the public and those who were victimized by co-workers. Because of the severe psychological effects of workplace violence, it is imperative to develop and implement policies that would help in preventing violence in the workplace. The recommendations above such as critical incident debriefing and post-trauma counseling are very effective strategies in mitigating the psychological effects of workplace violence. However, organizations should make sure that their employees are safe from aggression in the workplace by implementing preventive strategies. Workplace violence negatively affects employee motivation and job dissatisfaction which consequently disrupts organizational functioning. But through useful preventive strategies and post-incident interventions the possibility of organizational dysfunction is lessened. References Becher, J. & Visovsky, C. (2012). Horizontal Violence in Nursing. MEDSURG Nursing, 21(4), 210-213. Bible, J. (2012). The Jerk at Work: Workplace Bullying and the Law’s Inability to Combat It. Employee Relations Law Journal, 38(1), 32-47. Browne-Miller, A. (2012). Violence and Abuse in Society: Understanding a Global Crisis. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. Cavanaugh, C. et al. (2012). Patterns of Violence against Women: A Latent Class Analysis. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(2), 169-176. Kamery, R.H. (2004). Anger, Stress, and Violence in the Workplace: Managing Employee Internal Threats. Proceedings of the Academy of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 8(2), 127-131. Mueller, S. & Tschan, F. (2011). Consequences of Client-Initiated Workplace Violence: The Role of Fear and Perceived Prevention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 217-229. Privitera, M.R. (2010). Workplace Violence in Mental and General Healthcare Settings. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Scott, L. (2012). Workplace Violence: A Scourge Across Diverse Industries. Leadership & Management, 22-28. Wilkie, W. (1996). Understanding the behavior of victimized people. In P. McCarthy, M. Sheehan, & W. Wilkie (Eds.), Bullying, from background to boardroom. Australia: Millennium Books. Read More