Joel H. Neuman, Ph.D.
Director of the Center for Applied Management
and Associate Professor of Management & Organizational Behavior
State University of New York at New Paltz
Note: This paper was presented on January 28, 2000 at the Workplace Bullying 2000 conference in Oakland, California, sponsored by the then Campaign Against Workplace Bullying. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie for their efforts in organizing this conference and their extraordinary work in bringing public attention to the problem of workplace bullying and helping the victims of this evil.
Introduction
Increasingly, over the past decade, organizational scholars have turned their attention to the 'darker side' of employee behavior. This has included research related to bullying (Adams, 1992), mobbing (Leyman, 1990), psychological abuse (Keashly, Trott, & MacLean, 1994), work harassment (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Hjelt-Back, 1994), counterproductive-deviant workplace behavior (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), unreliability (Hogan & Hogan, 1989), petty tyranny (Ashforth, 1994), office politics (Ferris & King, 1991), incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), workplace aggression/violence (Baron & Neuman, 1996), organizational retaliatory behavior (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), revenge (Bies & Tripp, 1996), and antisocial behavior (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997). While the defining features of the behaviors subsumed under each of these labels vary, these phenomena do share at least one common characteristic. Implicit in all of these formulations is the notion that an individual, or group, is engaging in some form of behavior that would be considered harmful (or at the least, undesirable) to the target-individual, group, or organization. In short, all of these behaviors constitute workplace aggression-efforts by individuals to harm others with whom they work or their organizations (Neuman & Baron, 1997a).
Consistent with this premise (and the arguments that I have made elsewhere; (e.g., Neuman & Baron, 1997a; 1998), the vast literature on human aggression may do much to inform all of the research streams cited above but the present paper will focus on workplace aggression and its relationship with bullying and worker productivity.
This paper is being written for three audiences: (1) the general working public, (2) academic researchers, and (3) practitioners. As a result, I will try to avoid the use of jargon and make every attempt to define and explain topics outside the realm of daily experience.
Some Basic Definitions
The following concepts are central to the present paper and require some explanation to assure a common understanding:
Aggression involves acts by individuals that are intended to harm other individuals or groups (Baron & Richardson, 1994). "Intentions" and "harm" are central and important elements of this definition. If one person attempts to harm another person but fails in this attempt, we would still consider this a form of aggression because there was intent to do harm. Conversely, if one person harms another by accident, this would not be considered an aggressive act. For example, a dentist may inflict pain on a patient but that harm is unintentional (at least I would hope that it is unintentional). As a result, the dentist's behavior would not be considered aggressive.
Another aspect of the definition of aggression involves the infliction of harm. This harm may be inflicted in some physical way (e.g., punching, biting, stabbing, pushing) or by means of verbal behavior (e.g., by means of yelling, shouting, cursing, insulting, degrading, or criticizing). Consequently, aggression can result in either physical or psychological harm to the target.
Workplace aggression involves efforts by individuals to harm others with whom they work (or have worked) or the organizations in which they are presently (or were previously) employed (Neuman & Baron, 1997a). Workplace aggression can involve aggression by one coworker against another, superior against subordinate, or subordinate against superior.
Bullying involves deliberate, hurtful and repeated mistreatment of a target. Although bullying can occur among coworkers (or be directed by subordinates against superiors), the most common form of bullying involves the abuse of power by superiors against subordinates. It also is important to note that some people hold informal power over others as opposed to legitimate power; i.e., power granted by the organization to establish superior-subordinate relationships.
A very important aspect of the definition of bullying involves the fact that bullying involves repeated mistreatment of a target. In other words, the bully engages in repeated attacks against the target. This is one area where bullying and aggression are somewhat different. Aggression may include a single act and not an on-going pattern of harm-doing behavior. It is my contention that not all forms of aggression represent acts of bullying but all forms of bullying involve aggression. For example, product tampering, sabotage directed against an organization, and vandalism of company property are all forms of workplace aggression but they are not instances of bullying.
The Causes of Aggression
The Basic Propositions
The following propositions are central to my paper and I will explain each of them in the sections that follow:
1) Conditions that elicit hostile thoughts, unpleasant feelings, and/or physiological arousal lead to aggression.
2) Increasingly, such conditions are common in the modern workplace, resulting in perceptions of injustice, increased levels of stress, and negative affect.
3) These factors contribute to an atmosphere where bullying is more likely to occur.
4) Both the causes and consequences of aggression and bullying are enormously costly to organizations in both human and financial terms.
The Causes
Based on a substantial amount of aggression research, it is clear that aggression stems from a wide variety of social, situational, and personal factors (Geen, 1968). Central to the present paper are the findings which demonstrate that any factors that trigger hostile thoughts, unpleasant feelings, and/or physiological arousal can increase the likelihood of an aggressive response (Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995). Since all acts of bullying begin with a single act of aggression, anything that increases the likelihood of aggression may serve to increase the likelihood of bullying.
Hostile Thoughts and Aggression
Can thoughts actually lead to aggression? Research shows that when people think "hostile" and "aggressive" thoughts they are more likely to engage in acts of aggression against others. The thought that we have been treated unfairly by another person may trigger thoughts of revenge. This is also true when we believe that we have not been shown a certain level of respect or we perceive (think) that another person has acted in some provocative manner (e.g., taunting, criticizing, or insulting us).
Negative Affect and Aggression
The word "affect" is simply a fancy way of saying "mood." So, negative affect simply means being in a negative emotional state. Research has demonstrated that being in such a mood increases the likelihood of aggression. People who are in a negative mood demonstrate less helping behavior, are more unpredictable, are less patient, and more likely to engage in uncivil behavior (Isen, 1984).
Physiological Arousal and Aggression
Heart rate, muscle tension, and "butterflies" in one's stomach are all manifestations of physiological arousal. Recent research in cognitive psychology has demonstrated that the sensations created by physiological arousal can increase the likelihood of aggression (Anderson et al., 1995).
Thoughts, Feelings, and Arousal: Putting it all Together
As noted above, hostile thoughts, unpleasant feelings, and physiological arousal may each lead to aggression but there is more to the story. As it turns out, each of these internal states has the ability to elicit the other. For example, when thinking hostile thoughts, an individual is likely to experience unpleasant feelings (e.g., anger) and physiological arousal (e.g., knot in the pit of one's stomach). Conversely, being in a depressed (or blue) mood is likely to elicit related thoughts and physiological arousal. Finally, physiological arousal (no matter what the cause) can elicit related thoughts and feelings. For example, there is evidence that demonstrates that physiological arousal brought on by the ingestion of caffeine (too many cups of coffee for breakfast) can actually be misattributed as anger and lead to aggression (Anderson et al., 1995). To make matters worse, once this cycle gets started, it seems to intensify as each of the internal states elicits the others. If allowed to continue, the process can quickly escalate and result in a furious response. But what kinds of things bring about these reactions?
The Factors that Lead to Unpleasant Internal States and Aggression
The Basic Propositions
The following propositions are central to my paper and I will explain each of them in the sections that follow:
1) Conditions that elicit hostile thoughts, unpleasant feelings, and/or physiological arousal lead to aggression.
2) Increasingly, such conditions are common in the modern workplace, resulting in perceptions of injustice, increased levels of stress, and negative affect.
3) These factors contribute to an atmosphere where bullying is more likely to occur.
4) Both the causes and consequences of aggression and bullying are enormously costly to organizations in both human and financial terms.
The Factors
As noted above, the causes of aggression are many. These causes may be associated with the actors themselves, their immediate situation, or aspects of the social environment.
People
Do some people have a predisposition to aggression? The short answer is... Yes! As it turns out, some people are "hard-driving" and are easily aroused to hostility (Glass, 1977; Neuman & Baron, 1997b). Other people seem to see a black cloud behind every silver lining and have a predisposition to unpleasant physiological arousal (Eliot & Breo, 1984) and pessimistic feelings (Watson & Clark, 1984). These folks attribute hostile and sinister motives to other people and feel as if everyone is "out to get them" (Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, & Newman, 1990; Kramer, 1994). Finally, there are folks that see aggression as a means to a desired end. These folks believe that it is better to be feared than loved (Christie & Geis, 1970). These are just some of the many personality traits that predispose people toward aggression. However, there are many people who engage in aggression for reasons not associated with personality, to which I now turn my attention.
Social Factors
Aggression is most frequently associated with perceptions of intentional provocation by others (Mantell, 1994; Torestad, 1990) and also with feelings of exploitation (Hollinger & Clark, 1983). Consequently, any social interactions that result in the perception of unfair treatment or sense of frustration may elicit unpleasant thoughts and feelings and lead to aggression. In short, the violation of important social norms can lead to perceptions of unfair treatment and feelings of frustration. In a case where an individual does not receive something to which s/he feels entitled, a perception of unfair treatment is likely to occur. For example, most people feel entitled to be treated with respect and dignity or, simply, with a degree of civility. If, in fact, they are treated in a disrespectful manner, feelings of injustice are likely to ensue.
Other social causes of aggression involve the presence of aggressive norms of behavior. If, for example, you work in a "dog-eat-dog" environment where "only the strong survive," it would be logical to assume that aggression is to be expected. This culture and climate of aggression is conducive to harm-doing behavior and most interactions will be guided by such norms of behavior.
Another example of a social factor that may contribute to aggression relates to the diversity of today's workforce. One need only look around the workplace to see people of different cultures, ethnic backgrounds, personalities, beliefs, attitudes, age levels, and gender. While such diversity often contributes to creative and productive work environments, it can also contribute to conflicts and aggression. For example, a substantial amount of research clearly demonstrates that people like to associate with others who share their attitudes and beliefs (Byrne, 1971). When faced with dissimilarity, people become uncomfortable and are likely to attribute hostile motives to those that they perceive as being "different." This is especially true in the workplace where human behavior comes under close scrutiny (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Byrne & Neuman, 1992). Culture, age, and gender differences may also lead to communications problems and misperceptions which, in turn, may lead to conflict and aggression.
As indicated above, perceptions of injustice, feelings of frustration, and violations of important social norms can all lead to aggression and, unfortunately, many situations in the contemporary workplace contribute to these factors in abundance.
Situational Factors and Aggression
Intense global competition, rapid technological change, and major shifts in workforce demographics have all contributed to a "leaner and meaner" work environment. In the name of productivity, organizations have downsized, rightsized, outsourced, delayered, restructured, and reengineered-eliminating record numbers of jobs (and employees) in the process (Tomasko, 1990). Just when it appeared that the bloodletting was over, 1999 turned out to be the worst year of downsizing in the decade of the 90s. The stress and frustration experienced by individuals losing their jobs is only rivaled by the stress and frustration experienced by the survivors of downsizing, who have to do the work of their dearly departed coworkers. Everyone is experiencing job insecurity in the face of these cutbacks and the associated stress and frustration is noticeable-to even the most casual observer.
Employee monitoring, job-sharing, and pay cuts are other business practices that add to stress levels and feelings of personal violation. Expectations of privacy no longer exist in the workplace as employers monitor phone conversations, telephone usage, voice mail messages, computer files, e-mail, personal rest breaks, and other aspects of on-the-job behavior. According to a recent survey by the American Management Association (1999), 45-percent of major U.S. firms monitor such behavior. Additional forms of monitoring and surveillance, such as review of phone logs or videotaping for security purposes, bring the overall figure on electronic oversight to 67.3 percent. Of the 1,054 organizations participating in the AMA survey, 84 percent indicated that they informed their employees of the existence of such monitoring.
In other words, 16 percent of the companies surveyed (about 169) did not alert their employees that they were under surveillance! Even when these warnings are given, employees can be taken by surprise. Recently, nearly two dozen employees were fired for sending e-mail that violated standards at the New York Times (Carrns, 2000). Clearly, organizations have an oversight responsibility to assure that organizational resources are being used in an appropriate manner but some of these procedures are overly invasive and, on occasion, unethical. Regardless the ethicality of the process, employee monitoring has been found to contribute to employee stress and dissatisfaction (Aiello & Kolb, 1995; Aiello & Shao, 1993).
Another contemporary business practice that contributes to uncertainty and stress involves the abrogation of pre-existing social contracts between employees and employers. People used to have an expectation that loyalty and hard work would be rewarded with promotion, pay increases and, most of all, job security. This important social norm has been breached leaving people with a sense of betrayal (Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994; Rousseau, 1995; Rousseau, 1996). While management continues to assert that these measures are necessary to meet the challenge of today's highly competitive business environment, the numbers suggest otherwise. Research suggests that the cost-cutting measures may result in short-term gains but little long-term payoff (Cascio, 1993). These numbers tell only part of the story. I now turn my attention to some subtle--but significant--expenses associated with these business practices and the resulting aggression and bullying.
The Effects of Stress, Injustice, and Negative Affect on
Organizational Effectiveness and Profitability
Each of the internal states noted previously (physiological arousal, hostile thoughts, and negative affect) not only lead to aggression and bullying but decreases in human performance, as well. These performance decrements have a significant impact on the organizational bottom-line.
Stress and Performance
For almost a century, psychologists have known that there is a relationship between stress and performance (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). When stress (or arousal) levels are too high or too low, performance suffers. Optimum performance is most likely to occur and moderate levels of arousal. Since stress levels are rarely too low in today's workplace, I will confine my comments to high levels of stress. However, if you are puzzled as to why low levels of stress lead to low levels of performance, the answer is simple. If a person experiences little or no arousal (stress) it simply means that s/he doesn't care about the job at hand. Why would a person expend any effort in completing a job for which s/he has little interest? The answer is simple--they wouldn't! Consequently, low stress leads to low levels of performance. With regard to high levels of stress, people become easily distracted and often ruminate about the stress that they are experiencing. This leads to cognitive impairments--the inability to focus your thoughts on the job at hand. This, of course, leads to lowered levels of performance.
In addition to the cognitive impairments noted above, persistent stress has been linked to health problems, substance abuse, lowered levels of patience, violations of politeness norms and increased incidence of aggression (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Apart from the costs directly related to workplace aggression, work-related stress impacts the organization in other ways. According to the American Institute of Stress, an estimated one million workers are absent on an average workday because of stress-related complaints. Stress is said to be responsible for more than half of the 550,000,000 workdays lost annually because of absenteeism. Job stress is estimated to cost U.S. industry $300 billion annually, as assessed by absenteeism, diminished productivity, employee turnover, direct medical, legal, and insurance fees, and workplace violence. The market for stress management programs, products, and services was $9.4 billion in 1995 and was projected to be $11.31 billion for 1999.
Effects of Injustice on Performance
With respect to perceptions of injustice, when people believe they have been treated unfairly (especially by their supervisors) they often attempt to "even the score." Consequently, injustice can elicit acts of revenge, sabotage, obstructionism, theft, vandalism, withdrawal behaviors (withholding effort), turnover, spreading gossip, grievances, cynicism, and mistrust. All of these behaviors represent direct and indirect costs to the organization. In a six year, longitudinal study on workplace sabotage, Analoui (1995) found that 65% of all acts of sabotage stemmed from discontent with management and its unfair behavior toward workers. Similarly, Crino and Leap (1989) suggest that this discontent with management leads to reduced loyalty and "once that loyalty has been destroyed, an employee is more likely to commit an act of sabotage" (p. 32). These authors point out that events such as the Union Carbide plant explosion in Bhopal, a Pacific Southwest Airline crash in California, and a devastating hotel fire in San Juan, Puerto Rico, "were allegedly initiated by disgruntled employees with a score to settle" (Crino & Leap, 1989, p. 32). With our increasing reliance on computers, the threat of sabotage becomes even greater. Computer viruses ("logic bombs") may be planted with ease and their effects can be extremely costly to organizations and individuals (McEwen, 1990). Clearly, the costs associated with unfair treatment can assume astounding levels in both human and financial terms.
Effects of Negative Affect on Performance
Aside from the depression that often accompanies a "blue mood," cognitive psychologists have found negative affect may impact human performance in many ways. In a series of studies over the past two decades, researches have established a relationship between positive affect (being in a good mood) and increased levels of creativity (Carnevale & Isen, 1986; Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987; Isen, Johnson, Mertz, & Robinson, 1985). Conversely, these studies demonstrate that negative affect is associated with decreases in creativity and innovation. Negative affect is also associated with less helping behavior, decreased organizational citizenship behavior, more unpredictable behavior, mistrust, and cynicism (Isen & Baron, 1991; Isen, Clark, & Schwartz, 1976; Levin & Isen, 1975).
Measuring the Costs Associated with
Stress, Injustice, and Bullying
As suggested above, the same factors that lead to increased incidence of aggression and bullying may often lead to decreases in employee performance or costly acts directed against the organization. This proposition has received support from Wilson (1991) who estimated that $5 billion to $6 billion dollars is lost every year in the United States economy because of real or perceived abuse of employees by employers. Preliminary data from a long-term study being conducted at a large federal agency demonstrates the connection between work-related stress, injustice and such factors as annual leave used, employee terminations, suspensions, discrimination and violence claims, and various conduct and performance problems. But measuring the actual costs to business and society is difficult for the reasons provided below.
Measurement problems
Some forms of aggression are easy to measure. For example, tracking instances of workplace homicide is relatively easy÷you just count the bodies. But, as easy (and as gruesome) as this sounds, even this has proven difficult. There is no single reporting agency tracking these data. Consequently, we are left to compile data from various sources and this can result in a less than accurate picture. Also, what do you classify as a workplace homicide? If a husband follows his wife into the workplace and fatally attacks her, is that a case of workplace homicide? It is my position that it is no--it is a case of domestic violence that has spilled over into the workplace. It was not motivated by factors inherent in the working relationship. But how would you classify a situation in which an individual commits suicide at home as a result of years of bullying and torment on the job? Unfortunately, this does occur and we will probably never know the true extent to which it does occur because our data collection procedures do not capture such information.
If we can't even count the bodies, how can we hope to capture the costs associated with spreading damaging gossip, failure to return phone calls or provide needed information? As you can see, these more subtle forms of aggression and bullying are extremely difficult to capture.
There is another problem in trying to capture the costs to business. How do you capture things that might have been but weren't? For example, if a disgruntled employee comes up with an idea that can generate tremendous revenues for his/her company, do you really think that this employee will share this idea with management? Hardly! In this instance, the company stands to lose a considerable amount of revenue but will never be aware of this loss because the organization can only measure things that have happened or were anticipated to happen÷not things that might have been but weren't.
How do we track the time spent by employees discussing their unhappiness with others or the impact of this ill will as it spreads through the organization? How do we track intentional instances of aggression and distinguish them from accidents or unintended behavior? If we are to make any progress in establishing the true costs of stress, injustice, aggression, and bullying in both human and financial terms, we must formulate procedures for capturing this kind of information and academic research working together with practitioners must create and validate techniques for measuring such behavior.
In the meantime, there is ample evidence to suggest that injustice, stress, aggression, and bullying are costly to people and organizations. If you doubt this for an instance, just spend a few minutes listening to the victims of bullying and there will be little doubt left in your mind. Maybe it's as simple as that!
References
Adams, A. (1992, October). Holding out against workplace harassment and bullying. Personnel Management, 48-50.
Aiello, J. R., & Kolb, K. J. (1995). Electronic performance monitoring and social context: Impact on productivity and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 339-353.
Aiello, J. R., & Shao, Y. (1993). Electronic performance monitoring and stress: The role of feedback and goal setting. In M. J. Smith & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Applications and case studies (pp. 1011-1016). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
American Management Association. (1999). Workplace monitoring and surveillance survey . Washington, DC: American Management Association.
Analoui, F. (1995). Workplace sabotage: Its syles, motives and management. Journal of Management Development, 14, 48-65.
Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. E., & DeNeve, K. M. (1995). Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 434-448.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit-for-tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755-777.
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-173.
Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression. (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: "Getting even and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 246-260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173-184.
Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Byrne, D., & Neuman, J. H. (1992). The implications of attraction research for organizational issues. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrial/Organizational Psychology . Amsterdam: North Holland.
Carnevale, P. J., & Isen, A. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the deiscovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1-13.
Carrns, A. (2000, February 4). Prying Times: Those bawdy e-mails were good for a laugh--until the ax fell. The Wall Street Journal, pp. A1, A8.
Cascio, W. F. (1993). Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Academy of Management Executive, 7, 95-104.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Crino, M. D., & Leap, T. L. (1989, May). What HR managers must know about employee sabotage. Personnel, 66, 31-32, 34-36, 38.
Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., Bachorowski, J. A., & Newman, J. P. (1990). Hostile attributional biases in severely aggressive adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 385-392.
Eliot, S. R., & Breo, D. L. (1984). Is it worth dying for? New York: Bantam Books.
Ferris, G. R., & King, T. R. (1991). Politics in human resources decisions: A walk on the dark side. Organizational Dynamics, 20, 59-71.
Geen, R. G. (1968). Effects of frustration, attack and prior training in aggressiveness on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 316-321.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (Eds.). (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glass, D. C. (1977). Behavior patterns, stress, and coronary disease. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). How to measure employee reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 273-279.
Hollinger, R. D., & Clark, J. P. (1983). Theft by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Isen, A. M. (1984). Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition. In J. R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 179-236).
Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. ?, pp. 1-53). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.
Isen, A. M., Clark, M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1976). Duration of the effect of good mood on helping: "Footprints on the sands of time.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 385-393.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122-1131.
Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. S., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1413-1426.
Keashly, L., Trott, V., & MacLean, L. M. (1994). Abusive behavior in the workplace: A preliminary investigation. Violence and Victims, 9, 341-357.
Kramer, R. M. (1994). The sinister attribution error: Paranoid cognition and collective distrust in organizations. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 199-230.
Levin, P. F., & Isen, A. M. (1975). Something you can still get for a dime: Further studies on the effect of feeling good on helping. Sociometry, 38, 141-147.
Leyman, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and victims, 5, 119-126.
Mantell, M. R. (1994). Ticking bombs: Defusing violence in the workplace. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing.
McEwen, J. T. (1990, Summer). The growing threat of computer crime. Detective, 6-11.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997a). Aggression in the workplace. In R. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997b, April). Type A Behavior Pattern, Self-Monitoring, and job satisfaction as predictors of aggression in the workplace. In G. Chao (Chair), Counterproductive Job Performance and Organizational Dysfunction. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, Missouri.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391-419.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137-152.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. M. (1996). Changing the deal while keeping the people. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 50-61.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the Workplace: The Roles of Distribuive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
Tomasko, R. M. (1990). Downsizing: Reshaping the organization for the future. New York: AMACOM.
Torestad, B. (1990). What is anger provoking: A psychophysical study of perceived causes of anger. Aggressive Behavior, 16, 9-26.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
Wilson, C. B. (1991). U. S. businesses suffer from workplace trauma. Personnel Journal, 70, 47-50.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psycholgy, 18, 459-482.
