Anger and Violence at the Workplace - Coursework Example

Anger and violence at the workplace Introduction "Were Ruder Than Ever...Its about the daily assault of selfish, inconsiderate behavior that gets under peoples skin on the highways, in the office, on TV, in stores and the myriad other settings where they encounter fellow Americans." (Wadsworth, cited in Libaw, April 3 2002) Anger and violence at workplace is a worldwide phenomenon that is showing a constant rise, in both the developed and the developing countries. This change in the workplace scenario is more or less a recent phenomenon, and has appeared and grown at an alarming rate from around the turn of this century. With a globalised world, this problem has also taken the multitude of large scale global problem; and as Paterson, Leadbetter, and Miller tells us “the global economy is now an undeniable reality built on the principle of free trade. However, the principle of untrammelled free trade which does not take into account either the environmental or human costs of production has been severely criticised. Corporate downsizing with increased pressures for productivity and the threat of redundancy has raised the threat of violence by disgruntled employees” (Paterson, Leadbetter, and Miller, 2004, 7). Rising propensities that indicate high levels of workplace violence and anger, have become a matter of grave concern especially in places like Australia, Canada, pan-Europe, and America. There are various definitions of workplace violence that range from actual physical assault (Kraus, Blander, and McArthur, 1995), while some define this issue in terms of any kind of behaviour that shows implications and has a potential to turn into a threat for the workers and the corporation, both (Folger, and Baron, 1996). Verbal abuse in workplace scenarios, that seemingly may not have any external manifestation, however often tend to leave deep psychological scars and a career setback, thus making it imperative that one should also include ‘verbal abuse’ as an important element within the definitions of ‘workplace violence’. According to WHO workplace violence is “The intentional use of power, threatened or actual, against another person or against a group, in work-related circumstances, that either results in or has a high degree of likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, mal development, or deprivation” (WHO, 1995). Another relevant definition of workplace violence is given by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which comes under U.S. Department of Labor, “Workplace Violence is violence or the threat of violence against workers. It can occur at or outside the workplace and can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide, one of the leading causes of job-related deaths. However it manifests itself, workplace violence is a growing concern for employers and employees nationwide” (OSHA Fact Sheet, 2002). The European Commission have defined workplace violence as “incidents where persons are abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances related to their work involving an explicit or implicit challenge to their safety, well being or health”, (Wynne et al, 1997, 1). With these definitions that clearly outline the situations that can be labelled as workplace anger and violence we will now take an in-depth look at the workplace conditions in America, Canada, and in other countries from different parts of the world, so as to be able to comprehend the scenario that exists, in regards to the issue of violence at workplace. Discussion Q.1 (Research exercise) Look for data on violence and anger in workplace in other countries. How do these data compare with the Canadian American data presented here? What might you conclude about how violence and anger in the workplace are expressed in different cultures? a) How is workplace violence represented in the European and Asian countries? Fig A: Workers reporting exposure to violence, sexual harassment and intimidation (%). (Source: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2004, 1). In the survey conducted by the European Foundation it was found that in various organisations and the workers across pan Europe there have been complaints of violence in workplace in the form of physical assault, sexual harassment and verbal abuse or threat. A look at the fig A will show us that direct violence shows a decrease in numbers over the years, while sexual harassment remains the same, and verbal abuse or threat has gone up significantly, when we compare between the years 1995 and 2000. So the European picture represents a more tendency towards verbal abuse, in regards to workplace violence. “According to Helge Höel and Vittorio di Martino, there has been a significant shift of research attention in recent years from physical to psychological violence in the workplace. The high public profile at national and European level of work place harassment (including mobbing – ganging up on someone – and intimidation) reflects a new preoccupation with the psychosocial dynamics of the workplace and their negative consequences”(ibid, 2). A more recent ILO study in 2006 showed us that within the EU countries, almost 3 million workers (2%) face physical violence from their co-workers in their workplace; 6 million workers (4%) face physical violence from outsiders (workers in the Public Administration (6%) and the retail industry (5%) have the highest exposure to physical abuse); sexual harassment are faced by 3 million workers that account for 2%, with those in the hotel and restaurant (6%) being most vulnerable to this type of abuse; while 13 million workers (9%) are faced with verbal abuse (threats) and the workers in the hospitality services (13%) and public administrations departments (14%) suffer the most in this regard. According to ILO these figures may vary from country to country, owing to the fact that there is a lack of awareness about workplace violence, and also a failure to report all cases of abuse pertaining to workplace. The ILO study showed that European workplace violence averaged at a rate of 9%, with Finland showing the highest percentage of reported violence at 15%, closely followed by UK and Netherlands at 14%, and Sweden with 12% stands a close third. With reference to the Asian countries ILO remarks “In Japan, the number of cases brought before court counsellors totalled 625,572 between April 2002 and March 2003. Of these, 5.1 per cent, or almost 32,000, were related to harassment and bullying, whereas, from April to September 2003 a 51,444 consultations requests, 9.6 per cent concerned bullying and harassment. In developing countries, the most vulnerable workers include women, migrants and children, according to the report. In Malaysia, 11,851 rape and molestation cases at the workplace were reported between 1997 and May 2001. Widespread sexual harassment and abuse were major concerns in...Kuwait and Hong Kong, China, among others... [While] In South Africa, workers in the health care sector bear the brunt of workplace violence” (ILO, 2006). b) What is the workplace violence statistics and scenario in US and Canada? Now we will take a look at the American and Canadian scenario to get a complete worldwide representation. In Canada, we find that “53% of women and 47% of men reported experiencing workplace violence in 2004” (OB on the edge, 252), while almost 50% of the US workers have either been abused at workplace or have themselves taken part in the perpetrating abuse. A US survey report published in 2001 that covers workplace anger and violent scenarios in US from 1993 till 1999, tells us that “Twelve percent of all workplace victims sustained injuries from the incident. Of those injuries sustained from workplace violence, about 10 out of 11 were minor injuries. Fifty-three percent of all injured victims were not treated or did not receive medical care for injuries sustained, while 26% received treatment from a medical office, clinic, or hospital”( U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics Report, 2001, 6). Various newspaper report clippings show us a rather violent workplace culture trend in US, as for example, on August 30th 2007 on the WNBC news report (New York City) we read, “One Dead In Disgruntled Workers Rampage”; again on 25th February 2005 we find a news article on ABC news in Los Angeles CA, stating “City worker opens fire after being reprimanded -- one dead, gunman kills himself”. c) conclusion from the above presented data: Thus a clear picture emerges where we find that US shows more anger and violence in terms of physical assault at the workplace or in workplace related issues, that often leads to deaths); when compared to other countries round the world, including Canada. Such workplace violence originates more often than not from work related stress within the organisation (Langton, Robbins and Judge, 2009). There are certain workplace culture (that varies from organisation to organisation), and which triggers this violence and anger. These are the so called: ‘macho culture’ where the workers don’t have the means to express their feelings; ‘specialist culture’ where the talented workers don’t care how their behaviour affects others in the workplace; ‘elitist culture’ where right connections and flattery are the basis for promotions and rewards, instead of work quality; offices that tend to resist any change in their workplace environment; and in offices where the workers are forced to work more than their necessary office hours, that is, a ‘work-alcoholic’ office culture (OB on the edge, 253). Q2: Identify three Canadian organisations that are trying to foster better and/ or l toxic environments for their employees: a) Three Canadian companies that are working towards creating a better workplace environment: 1. “Google Canada Media // Online Internet Services. Headquarters at Toronto. (www.google.com). Perks: On-site snacks and drinks; On-site de-stressors including video games, pool and foosball tables, board games, massage chairs and exercise balls. 2. Environics Communications Inc. Advertising & Marketing Advertising. Headquarters in Toronto. (www.environicspr.com) Perks: $5,000.00 to pay for a trip anywhere on a person’s 5th anniversary; $3,000.00 to pay for a trip in Canada on a person’s 8th anniversary; Free healthy breakfast food every day. 3. Protegra Professional Services // Consulting – Management, Winnipeg. (www.protegra.com) Perks: Free beverages; Casual dress; Buffet lunch every month; Company social events (golf, curling etc); Incentive programs” (A special national report for the Great Place to Work Institute Canada, 2009, GPTW 5). b) What kind of effect is this having on the organisations’ bottom line? When the employees of these top ranking organisations were asked as to what keeps their environment stress free (thus free of violence and anger), their answers revealed these particular characteristics: Credibility, where the employees said that their boss was not above doing any kind of work, thus earning their respect and loyalty, naturally; Respect, where the management allows them to place their families and their own selves, before their work; Fairness, in conflict between colleagues the management does not take any sides and gives a completely unbiased and neutral feedback; Pride, the company makes them feel wanted and gives them a certain amount of independence to take certain decisions and calls; and Camaraderie, where workers feel that their colleagues and the management care for them (ibid, GPTW, 4). Thus, from the above survey it is quite clear that the various steps taken by these companies towards creating a better workplace environment have produced a positive effect on the employees, and which in turn are increasing the quality (enhanced bottom line results), and quantity of the work, making the workplace environment a place to enjoy and not be stressed out. Q1: (Your perspective) is it reasonable to suggest, as some researchers have, that young people today have not learned to be civil to other or do not place a priority on doing so? Do you see this as a cause of incivility in the workplace? This is, to some extent, true, as Anderson and Pearson tell us “Historians may view the dawn of the twenty-first century as a time of thoughtless acts and rudeness: We tailgate, even in the slow lane; we dial wrong numbers and then slam the receiver on the innocent respondent; we break appointments with nonchalance” (cited in, OB on the edge, 251). In this globalised age of instant gratification, young people are not taught how to be patient and speak politely, and as Robert Warren, marketing professor in University of Manitoba, observes “simple courtesy has gone by the board... One of the biggest complaints I hear from businesses when I go tom talk about graduates is the lack of interpersonal skills” (ibid). So it is certain that incivility in the younger generation that is joining the workplace scenario today is one major cause for the rise in workplace anger and violence. Q2: what should be done about managers who create toxicity in the workplace while being rewarded because they achieve bottom line results? Should bottom line results justify their behaviour? a) Type of office conditions that foster Managers to create toxicity in the workplaces: Many of the US companies, (especially those based in the Silicon Valley) with their system of ‘hire and fire’ contracts, which they make their employees sign the very first day, are creating a toxic workplace environment. Often downsizing, wrong management decisions, organisational changes, also create toxicity within the office environment. Managerial toxic behaviour is characterised by ‘Actor behaviour’ where the managers vent their anger out on the subordinates instead of discussing the problem, other toxic action behaviours include slamming of doors, sulking, and showing anger without citing any reasons for it; Fragmentor behaviour, here the managers assume no responsibility for the results obtained (this, in most cases is observed, when the results obtained are negative; if the outcome is positive managers do not miss the change to take the credit); Me-first behaviour,  decisions are made by the mangers as per their own conveniences; Mixed-messenger behaviour. The manager’s actions and behaviour don’t match each other; Wooden-stick behaviour, where the mangers are extremely dominating and rigid in their manner; Escape-artist behaviour, here too the managers refuse to take any responsibility and being an escapist move away from reality, often taking refuge in drugs or alcohol (ibid, 253). b) Dealing with managers that produce toxic results: Managers who produce bottom line results, if observed to be producing toxicity in the office should be dealt with strictly by the management. Often just producing good results are not enough within the workplace to retain good workers and to maintain a pleasant working atmosphere. The supervisor, that is the manager, must also be a person, who is approachable and willing to help his juniors, or else there may be desired financial results; but the workers would be stressed out, depressed, and not happy. Such negative working atmospheres would not be able to sustain the bottom line results for long, and soon there is bound to be adverse results seeping in. A toxic manager, however efficient he may be in his work, should not be allowed to function in this manner. He should be asked by the management to change his style of functioning and to react more positively with his juniors; and while considering for a reward, he should passed over for the time being, till he changes his attitude. In no way, should the management, for the sake of their corporation and for the sake of their workers, be tolerant and find justifications for managers that create toxicity within the workplace. c) Dealing with toxicity in workplace: To deal with toxicity of these kinds often there are toxin handlers, who act as buffers softening the blow (like that of downsizing of the company, changes in the organisation, or the toxic behaviour of the manager), that fall on the employees. Thus “the toxin handler helps others around him or her deal with the strains of the organization, by counselling, advising, shielding employees from the wrath of angry managers, reinterpreting the managers’ messages to make them less harsh, etc”(ibid). However most of the organisations do not have any such so called specialised ‘toxin handlers’ to take care of the workplace environment, and generally this job falls onto the human resource manager. According to Frost and Robinson “These people are usually relentless in their drive to accomplish organizational targets and rarely lose focus n business issues. Managing emotional pain is one of their means” (Frost and Robinson, 1999, 96-106). Conclusion There are no doubts that workplace anger and violence is on the rise worldwide. This is owing to the fact that the younger generation is far less patient and less civil, not willing to wait, or be polite to those around them. Another cause of workplace toxicity is the stressful atmosphere in which most of the modern offices function, in today’s context. To remove this high level of workplace toxicity, it is essential that one takes a leaf out of the top Canadian workplace environment creating organisations, and see as to how these companies function by keeping their employees satisfied and happy. Having a toxic workplace does not help a organisation, as the employees cannot give in their full potential within such working environments; while it is also harmful for the employees as such toxicity leads to abuse, both physical and mental, within the workplace scenarios. References A special national report for the Great Place to Work Institute Canada. (2009). Canada’s best workplaces. The Globe and Mail. Accessed at, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/partners/free/sr/best_workplaces_2009/best_workplaces_2009.pdf. Folger, R. and Baron, R. (1996). “Violence and hostility at work: a model of reactions to perceived injustice”, In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (eds.): Violence on the Job. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Frost, P., and Robinson, S. (1999). The Toxic Handler: Organizational Hero—and Casualty. Harvard Business Review, 101. ILO. (2006). New forms of violence at work on the rise worldwide, says the ILO. ILO/06/3. Accessed at, http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Media_and_public_information/Press_releases/lang--en/WCMS_070505/index.htm Kraus, J., Blander, B. and McArthur, D. (1995). Incidence, risk factors and prevention strategies for work-related assault injuries – a review of what is known, what needs to be known, and countermeasures for intervention. Annual Review of Public Health, 16, 355-379. Langton,N., Robbins, S and Judge, T. (2010). Organizational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies and Applications. Canada: Pearson/Prentice-Hall. Libaw, O. (2nd April 2002). Were Ruder than Ever, Poll Find. [Internet News article]. Accessed at, http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91777&page=2 OB on the edge. (nd).The toxic workplace. Accessed at,  http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/3631/3718910/OB_pdfs/langt_OB-edge_02_toxic.pdf. OSHA Fact Sheet. (2002). Workplace Violence. Retrieved from, http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/factsheet-workplace-violence.pdf U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report. (December 2001). Violence in the Workplace, 1993-1999. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vw99.txt WHO (1995). Violence: a public health priority. Geneva: World Health Organization. Wynne, R., Clarkin, N., Cox, T., & Griffiths, A. (1997) Guidance on the Prevention of Violence At Work, European Commission. DG-V, Ref.CE/V-4/97-014-EN-C. Read More