Understanding the aggressive workplace: Development of the workplace aggression tolerance questionnaire

Coombs, W. Timothy; Holladay, Sherry J.

doi:10.1080/10510970409388633

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because mangers usually hold positions of greater power (Fitness, 2000;Skarlicki & Folger, 1997;Tiedens, Ellsworth, & Mesquita, 2000), employees hesitate to strike back directly at their managers, yet they act indirectly and covertly by committing acts such as sabotage or theft to retaliate (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Moreover, previous studies found that indirect aggression in organizations is more commonly justified than direct aggression (Coombs & Holladay, 2004). Our findings partially support the findings of these previous studies.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Aggressiveness in the Workplace

Galin

Avraham

2008

Cross-Cultural Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aimed to investigate whether employees' ethnic culture affects their organizational aggression toward their managers. The authors compared aggression toward managers in two samples of Israeli employees—Jews who are low collectivists and Arabs who are high collectivists. The study's sample was composed of 160 employees in 19 community centers—80 Israeli Jews and 80 Israeli Arabs. Results indicate that ethnic group is the major predictor of employees' aggressive behavior, whereas gender predicts aggression within each ethnic group. Furthermore, a significant distinction in the use of direct and indirect aggression was found between the two ethnic groups. Theories of power distance, cultural communication patterns, and comparative analysis of emotion expressions offer possible explanations for these results.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The level of direct and indirect aggression was measured by 16 items based on Workplace Aggression Tolerance Questionnaire (WATQ) developed by Coombs and Holladay (2004). These items are very similar to a questionnaire developed by Baron and Neuman (1998) to examine workplace aggression of employees toward coworkers.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Aggressiveness in the Workplace

Galin

Avraham

2008

Cross-Cultural Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They grouped the items according to three factors: Expressions of hostility (15 items), obstructionism (9 items) and overt aggression (8 items). This instrument was further developed and tested in various contexts by Harvey and Keashly (2003) and Coombs and Holladay (2003).…”

Section: Measuring Instruments Of Workplace Bullyingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Construction and validation of an instrument to measure workplace bullying

Na-Nan

Virakul

Piriyakul

et al. 2022

IJOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to develop and test an instrument to measure workplace bullying in the Thai context. Design/methodology/approach The research has three phases. Phase 1 involved the development of an instrument and constructs/items as well as testing of content validity and reliability. Phase 2 used exploratory factor analysis to identify the appropriate constructs and items to be included in the instrument. Phase 3 consisted of confirmatory factor analyses to confirm that the measurement instrument built in this research is effective for measuring workplace bullying. Data were collected through interviews of experts and stakeholders in human resource (HR), and through online questionnaires completed by 340 HR employees in Thailand. Findings Results revealed that workplace bullying can be classified into three types: work-related bullying, personal-related bullying and physical-related bullying. Findings confirmed the constructs using theoretical concepts and empirical evidence with values of χ2 = 120.473, df = 98, p = 0.061, χ2/df = 1.229, goodness of fit index = 0.961, adjusted goodness of fit index = 0.938, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.992, comparative fit index = 0.994 and root mean square error of approximation = 0.026. Research limitations/implications The findings of this study add further knowledge to the field of organizational behaviour and could be valuable for developing management theories regarding building an effective work climate. The three types of workplace bullying (work-related, personal-related and physical-related bullying) can be studied as independent, dependent or mediating variables that can both influence and mediate. Results can be used to explain behavioural aspects of workplace bullying in clear and accurate terms. Practical implications The developed instrument can accurately measure levels of workplace bullying behaviours of employees in different organizations with high levels of validity and reliability. Results can be used to develop interventions and guidelines for managing or reducing workplace bullying of employees. The instrument can also be used as a research tool for further studies of bullying behaviour. Social implications Diversity, equality and sustainability are characteristics of organizations that have developed an effective and happy work culture. Allowing workplace bullying to occur can negatively affect such a productive organizational climate. Therefore, the research findings have social implications in terms of their ability to monitor workplace, as well as community bullying. Originality/value The instrument to measure workplace bullying was developed and improved by blending Western concepts with interview data about workplace bullying behaviours experienced by HR employees in Thailand. The instrument can facilitate the measurement of employee bullying levels in companies and can contribute to future studies of bullying behaviours in organizations or workplaces.

show abstract

“…The Confluence Model of Sexual Aggression, when integrated with the GAM (Anderson & Anderson, 2008), adds several specific individual differences as predictors of sexual aggression by creating hostile thoughts or feelings toward women ( Figure 1). Two individual differences that appear to be particularly relevant to sexual harassment are trait aggressiveness (Coombs & Holladay, 2004;Thompson & Morrison, 2013) and ambivalent sexism (LeMaire, Oswald, & Russell, 2016;. The present research includes measures of both of these variables.…”

Section: Theoretical Foundations Of the Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%