Sex and position status differences in workplace aggression

Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to examine sex and position status differences in the experience of workplace aggression. Based on the imbalance of power thesis, the aim is to posit that: women would report targeting other women; men would report targeting either sex; supervisors would report targeting a peer or subordinate; victims would report that a supervisor more often uses indirect forms of aggression; a peer more often uses direct forms of aggression; and; after controlling for position status, men would report using direct forms of aggression more often than women who, in turn, would report using indirect forms of bullying more often than men.Design/methodology/approachA sample of 180 Canadian supervisory and non‐supervisory workers from several industries completed a questionnaire that included measures of aggressive acts.FindingsMost men reported being targeted by another man, and most women reported being targeted by another woman. Similarly, most men reported that they targeted another man, and most women reported that they targeted another woman. Most respondents reported that their aggressor had either higher or the same position status as them, whereas, if the respondents targeted others, their victim had the same or lower status. Compared to similar status aggressors, higher status aggressors were reported by the respondents as using both direct and indirect forms of aggression more often. After controlling for position status, compared to women, men reported using both forms more often as well.Originality/valueThe findings have implications for how victims cope with workplace aggression and for developing organizational anti‐harassment policies.

Are Bullying Behaviors Tolerated in Some Cultures? Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship Between Workplace Bullying and Job Satisfaction Among Italian Workers

“…It is interesting to notice that in our study men and managers reported better mental health that women and employees in lower job positions. This finding is congruent with previous literature that has shown that: (a) women reported more negative health effects, such as post-traumatic symptoms, as a result of exposure to bullying behaviors (e.g., Rodríguez-Muñoz et al 2010 ); perpetrators of bullying are likely to be men and employees in managerial positions than women and employees in other job positions (e.g., Hauge et al 2009 ;Lee and Brotheridge 2011 ). Thus, interventions to counteract workplace bullying should take into account the job position and gender of perpetrators and victims since these variables seem to play a pivotal role on how workplace bullying is perceived (e.g., Escartín et al 2011b, Hauge et al 2009Lee and Brotheridge 2011 ).…”

Relationship between leadership perception and engagement in workplace deviant behavior

“…However, it has an insignificant correlation value that indicates that leadership is not the influencing factor to this behavior. As mentioned by Kantur (2010), and Lee and Brotheridge (2011), there are various factors that can influence the employees behavioral outcome, which include various contextual factors, situational factors, and personal factors. Within the organizational environment, these factors interact with each other and potentially influence deviant behavior.…”

The role of chronological age and work experience on emotional labor

“…Cheung and Tang, 2010;Yeung et al, 2011, Lee andBrotheridge, 2011). There are two reasons for these incongruities.…”