Violence in the United States workplace
According to Ashkanasy, Zerbe and Hrtel (2000), workplace violence has detrimental effects to workers and the entire organization because it affects performance. If these issues are not handled in time, they lead to greater negative effects to the work environment. Workplace violence has also been a cause of a considerable number of deaths in the country, especially where homicide is involved. Going to the workplace every time should be productive, satisfying and enjoyable. This should be so because employees spend most of their time at the workplace. People tend to work better where they are assured of safety as they go on with their tasks (Lord, Klimoski and Kanfer 36). Workers should not feel afraid every time they are going to work. In fact they should always look forward for a new day at work, for most of the organizations in the United States, this is not the case. This is because their days at the workplace have turned into nightmares. Workplace violence has threatened the peace and enjoyment that should be the workplace experience (Rayner, Hoel and Cooper 47).
Workplace violence takes many forms. They include intimidation, bullying, sexual harassment, robbery, homicide, discrimination, stalking harassment etc. Schell and Lanteigne (2000) identify four categories of workplace violence. The first one is where a client or a patient is the perpetrator. The other one is where the violence takes place in a robbery. The third category is violence committed against co-workers or by the managers. The final category is where domestic violence is extended to the workplace.
According to Carter and Weaver (2003), workplace violence can come from within or outside the organization. But even violence where the perpetrator is from outside the organization, they always seem to have a connection with the organization or its workers. They may have a legitimate interaction with the organization they may be people who get services from the organization, or people with some connection with the organization. This could be a former worker or an individual related to a former worker. Bullying is identified as the most common issue in the workplace. Corcoran and Cawood (2003) describe bullying as the cancer of the workplace. This is because bullying deteriorates the welfare of organizations. Bullying involves verbal or physical aggression on another person. This kind of behavior demoralizes the victims and robs their sense of worth and wellbeing. Victims of the workplace violence are usually individuals who do not have resources for protection. The victims are those who lack emotional resilient, those who are generally isolated, or those who lack political support (Adler and Denmark 35).
There are various factors that contribute to workplace violence. The causes of workplace violence are complicated factors that can either be psychological, social or economical related.
A lot of theories have been used to understand workplace violence. According to psychologists, bullying and other workplace issues are evident in situations where there is lack of feeling of worthiness and power. The aim of bullying and any other form of violence at the workplace is to cause intimidation and this is why it is generally directed to the weak. Those who are thirsty for power and control are usually the perpetrators (Giles and Hyndman 46).
Human behavior theory is a theoretical perspective employed as a way of understanding workplace violence. This theory describes the knowledge of human behavior as an explanation of why human beings act the way they act (Cot and Simpson 56). This theory is established under three basic principles. They are psychoanalytical principle, the environmental principle and the social learning principle. The first principle is an emphasis to unconscious intention as an element of human personality. From this perspective, the way people behave is viewed as interaction between intended and unintended desires. The environmental perspective concerns strengthening, simulation and social interactions. From this perspective, it is argued that the way people develop is impacted by their personal experiences (Stanko 23).The theory is the basic foundation to the perception of how behavior is affected by some elements of compensation and reprimand. Jones (1999) supports this theory by arguing that there is an impact of peer pressure on peoples behavior. The social learning perspective argues that human behavior is as a result of interrelation between the social motivation and the personality of a person (Parry 72). The theory suggests that the environment and individual personality have influence on how a person behaves. According to Moser and Mcilwaine (2004), there are other characteristics apart from personality that affect behavior, culture and intelligence. This theory gives an explanation as to the way the influence of some environments upon the way some people behave are dependent upon their principles and objectives. This mostly explains workplace violence from the perspective of peoples behavior towards others (Ginn and Henry 26). This is also in line with Brofenbrenners Ecological Systems Theory. According to Brofenbrenners Ecological Systems Theory, every system has roles, norms and regulations that shape its development. This theory also relates to human beings and their environment. These environments include family, economic and political structures. These environments are observed as parts of life due to the fact that they are with us from when we are young until we are adults. Therefore, every behavior is as a result of these environments. This theory observes development within a system of interactions as being affected by the environment. The way people interact within the organization is dependent on the environment within that organization (Giles and Hyndman 28).
According to Maslow, human needs are universal. In Maslows hierarchy of needs, the lowest level has basic psychological needs (Rayner, Hoel and Cooper 38). These basic needs include food, air, warmth and security. As one goes higher in the hierarchy, there are other more refined needs. These needs include love, esteem and self-actualization. According to this theory, before a person thinks about the more sophisticated needs higher on the hierarchy, his basic needs need to be met. Van Fleet and Van Fleet (2007) reveal that people require a place where they feel secure before they pursue other requirements like social interaction or occupational activities. This is according to the theory of primacy of security. This theory is also derived from Marlows hierarchy of needs (Hoobler and Swanberg 32).
From this perspective, in work settings where there are factors that contribute to job fulfillment, wellbeing in the workplace is achieved. The opposite happens in situations where those factors are not met. Baines (2005) highlights the factors that contribute to job satisfaction as performance reward, safe working conditions, balanced worklife situations, and job safety. Just like the individuals basic needs, these are the basic needs in any organization. Whenever these needs are not met, there is no way of evading conflicts at the workplace (Hinchberger 45). According to Vecchi (2009), one way to handle workplace conflicts is to ensure that employees satisfaction is observed.
Workplace conflicts can be explained from the perspective of the characteristics of the perpetrators and the victims. This view is founded on the supposition that the characters of the perpetrators and the victims are responsible for the issues. From clinical perspective in support of this view, the perpetrators are people with psychological problems. They possess personalities that are very hard to deal with (Lucero and Allen 28). According to Ringstad (2005), these individual lack empathy and have unrealistic self-esteem. Psychologists have argued that individuals with unrealistically high self-respect are likely to have aggressive behavior and become tyrannical towards other people the moment they fail to get positive reactions in the working environment (Goldstein 7). These are people who are domineering and enjoy seeing their victims suffer.
From an industrial perspective, workplace issues can be institutionalized in the workplace. There are three fundamental explanations brought forward in explaining this theoretical view (Cote 52). The fist one is where organizations use cultures of intimidation politically to have control over their worker in efforts to achieve the organizations objectives. These are situations where the management has become used of harassing and intimidating the workers any time they want things to be done (Spencer and Munch 6). In this perspective, the objective of intimidation is to program norms of subservience and cause the employees to be afraid of retaliating. This way, the organization preserves culture of hierarchy in the workplace. The workers are made to accept the fact that there is nothing they can do to stop the management (Corcoran and Cawood 27). The second is where there are conflicts of roles in the organization. Where there are conflicts of roles, workplace conflicts cannot be avoided. Moser and Mcilwaine (2004) illustrate this occurrence with nursing staff who are caught in a crossroad between demands from the doctors and adherence to nursing management regulations. Demands from doctors most of the time conflict with the nursing rules. Workplace conflicts are made worse where employees have low level of control over what they are supposed to do while at the same time they face role conflict. In organizations where there is no single agreement on how tasks are supposed to be carried out, there is always a problem. In these situations, the leaders become more authoritative making the conflicts worse. There is lack of clear understanding of whose demands should be respected. Bullying can be used in this case, being directed to the employees who no longer understand the right thing to do. They may end up doing some tasks and leaving out others. Demands from more than one direction leave the workers confused (Cot and Simpson. 47). The third is the culture of organization that appreciates and at times rewards workplace conflicts. Lucero and Allen (2006) give prison systems as an example of such an environment. Another example by Van Fleet and Van Fleet (2007) is the military groups. These two organizations have a culture of domination. This culture provides a fertile ground for bullying and intimidation. Ashkanasy, Zerbe and Hrtel (2000) supports this view by arguing that bullying culture is strongly manifested where there is emphasis to conformity and multiplicity is discarded.
Workplace conflict has also been made clear from economical and sociological dimensions. Stanko (2003) argues that economical crisis affect the safety of the workplace. The contribution of this argument is in line with Maslows theory. Because of economic difficulties, most of the basic needs of the organization are not met. Another economic view to this issue is the establishment of the global market economy. Globalization has brought in rapid changes to the working environment. Dealing with these changes has consequently brought about workplace conflict (Ginn and Henry, 28). The United States has been at the center of globalization. Most of the organizations in the country are competing on the global arena. This has raised pressures on the management which is then directed to the workers. The conflicts have been experienced in a number of ways. The first is that the increase in pressures to perform has led the managements to direct the pressure to the workers. The second way is that the power of the unions to regulate the behavior of the management towards the employees has been reduced. The environment has allowed the incorporation of people of different gender and race without having in place proper procedures for dealing with issues that may arise. There has been increasing use of contingent employees thus raising job insecurity.
Carter and Weaver (2003) argue that workplace conflicts are as a result of interactions within the organization of individuals with diverse attitudes, principles, and beliefs. He argues that this aspect establishes a natural environment for conflict. This is so because there will always be differing views, competition for authority and territoriality, envy, discrimination and difficult social dynamics. Ashkanasy, Zerbe and Hrtel (2000) agree with these views observing that conflicts are an unavoidable aspect of human interactions. He also argues that even after conflict is dispersed, a psychological residue is left rendering it impossible to completely deal with the issue (Stanko 25). This thinking is in line with the theory of Sigmund Freud. Sigmund Freud argues that peoples behaviors are motivated by libido. This libido is energy that is gotten from life instinct (Moser and Mcilwaine 94). He suggested that it is the oppression of the urge resulting from the libido that is shown as aggression. According to the psychoanalytical theory, aggression is an inborn trait in every human being. He argues that this aggression is inherent in people from childhood. There are times when the aggression is resolved and other situation where it does not. In cases where it is resolved, it is completely eradicated through the process of development. Even so, it is never resolved completely and this is the reason why it is inherent in every human being. Freuds theory best explain gender related conflicts (Carter and Weaver 56).
Another theorist, Konrad Lorenz adapted Freuds theory together with the evolution theory. He argues that aggressiveness is as a result of evolution. In his view, aggressiveness is important for it enables survival. It is in the view of this theory that conflicts in the workplace takes place. This is where every person is in competition to acquire his or her place in the organization. From this way of thought, conflicts in the workplace cannot end. This competition is what makes survival possible and every one needs to compete to succeed.
Conclusion
It is evident from research that workplace violence is rampant in the society. In the current world, there is no organization that is immune to this problem. This problem cannot be completely eradicated, but can only be reduced. Careful and practical measures can reduce the probability of tragedies and reduce the risk to the organization. There is proof that workplace violence has rendered organizations the least desirable places for individuals to stay. People are always aware that the problem is there and that it can affect any person. It is clear from the theoretical explanations that most characteristics that lead to negative social behaviors are inherent. However, this does not mean that organizations should tolerate or condone any negative behavior from whatever quarters. They all should be dealt with accordingly, at least to help those that lack resources to protect themselves.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment