Aggression at the service delivery interface: Do you see what I see?

Abstract

Aggression at the service delivery interface (the point of contact between service provider and service recipient) has become a focus of much recent research attention. However, much of what we know is based on cross-sectional survey data – which tells us little about the underlying dynamics within specific aggressive incidents. Further, these data are often collected from the perspective of the service provider alone. For this study, we focused on specific hostile interactions during the delivery of healthcare services and gathered data from the perspectives of service providers and service recipients. Drawing on interviews with US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) staff and US military veterans, we categorised and compared each party's attributions for the initiation of hostile (unpleasant) encounters. We found that staff and veterans had different perspectives on the nature of precipitating factors and that the initial attribution for the event was linked to differences in subsequent responding. These findings are discussed in terms of their insight into the temporal dynamics of aggressive events and their implications for the prevention and management of hostility at the service delivery interface.

Attributions and Appraisals of Workplace Incivility: Finding Light on the Dark Side?

“…What could otherwise be a developmental opportunity might be appraised negatively. Even if the message is not overtly rude but is simply unclear, the subordinate is likely to rely on subconscious and easy‐to‐process information, such as attributing the negative event to being within the supervisor's control (the fundamental attribution error; Jones & Harris, ; Keashly & Neuman, ), fuelling negative appraisal. Communication skills training can teach employees to clarify their intentions for helping employees learn and grow.…”

“…That is, perceived control, which includes assessments of perpetrator ability and knowledge of consequences (Jones & Davis, ), seems to be a prerequisite for inferring intent (malicious or otherwise) of a perpetrator's uncivil actions. This proposition could explain why the belief that perpetrators possessed control over their actions causes targets of aggression to feel more upset (Keashly & Neuman, ) and desire interpersonal distance following broken social contracts (Weiner et al, ). Perceived control seemingly accompanies perceived intent to harm, and we contend it is another key attribution underlying targets' reactions.…”

Medicolegal Sidebar: Avoiding Gender-based Inequities During Orthopaedic Training

“…All three studies support the work and theory generation from the Australian research team 215,214 . The study by Keashly and Neuman (2008) indicates that changes in communication and empowering people to speak up and say what they are thinking in an environment of trust can reduce bullying. Again committed people with leadership ability were selected to support the intervention 223 .…”

“…The study by Keashly and Neuman (2008) indicates that changes in communication and empowering people to speak up and say what they are thinking in an environment of trust can reduce bullying. Again committed people with leadership ability were selected to support the intervention 223 . Rayner and McIvor (2008) suggest that organisational ownership and proactive practice demonstrate that organisations taking workplace bullying seriously and the whole culture against bullying would be strengthened in the first place by having an anti-bullying policy and secondly through informal support.…”

Radical settlements to conflict: Conflict management and its implications for institutional change

“…Second, when institutional constituents substantially alter how they relate to one another, they may also significantly influence how other actors make sense of their environment (Spedale, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2007; Keashly & Neuman, 2008; Jonsson, Greve, & Fujiwara-Greve, 2009). Ancillary organizations to the conflict may begin to imitate and model the newly created behavior of the parties to the settlement, causing change in the field (Galaskiewicz & Wasserman, 1989; Deitch & Hegewisch, 2013).…”