CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

218 RAVER AND BARLING
acts), but CWB and deviance also include many acts that are interpersonally
aggressive (Neuman & Baron, 2005).
Two controversial and related issues—the intent to harm and the interpersonal
nature of the construct—must be confronted in defining workplace
aggression. Intent to harm is part of the definition, yet many well-intentioned
behaviors inadvertently cause harm (Neuman & Baron, 2005). In this
regard, we follow the broader social scientific literature on human aggression
that includes intent to harm in the definition of aggression, thereby
excluding acts that accidentally harm others but including intentional acts
of harm that are not successfully carried out (e.g., Anderson & Bushman,
2002). We acknowledge that this remains a source of debate because it fails
to recognize the divergent perspectives and goals of the actors involved
(Felson & Tedeschi, 1993; Mummendry & Otten, 1993), and suggest that
when workplace aggression is studied from the target’s perspective, intent
may be conceptually implied without being empirically assessed.
The definition of workplace aggression that we adopt is also interpersonal
in nature (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), and excludes acts intended
to harm inanimate objects. It is possible for employees to intend to harm
the organization as a social collective that represents many individuals or
upper management (Neuman & Baron, 2005). In contrast, when the goal is
to research acts not directed toward any other individual or social group
(e.g., unethical decision making, lying about hours worked, putting forth
minimal effort, or breaking equipment), it is more appropriate to study
these acts under the rubric of CWB or employee deviance.
In sum, workplace aggression is an overarching construct for being
able to explore the dark side of employees’ interpersonal relations. We
return to Table 7.1 and Table 7.2 to explore the overlap between workplace
aggression and conflict in the sections below, but we first review the extant
empirical literature on workplace aggression.
eMPiriCal researCh on WorKPlaCe aGGression
The empirical research on workplace aggression and related constructs
has emerged along two distinct paths: examinations of (a) the predictors of
enacting aggression and (b) the outcomes of experiencing aggression. Several
recent studies have now moved beyond examining correlates and focused on
mediated or moderated models of the antecedents and/or consequences of
aggression. A summary of the key findings in each of these areas follows.
Predictors of Enacting Workplace Aggression
Research has highlighted several situational factors and individual difference
variables that predict propensity to enact workplace aggression.
With regard to situational predictors, some antecedents reflect features of