Does the Rank of the Perpetrator and Reporter Affect How Agencies Handle Workplace Aggression? A Test of Resource Dependence Theory

Abstract

Workplace aggression is a concern in many organizations. Despite this, research has not significantly examined whether or not organizations stop workplace aggression. Little is known about hierarchical aggression, coworker aggression, subordinate aggression, and agencies’ tolerance or rejections of such behavior. This study begins to fill this void by exploring what happens after employees report workplace aggression. More specifically, this study uses data from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to examine workplace aggression committed by coworkers, supervisors, and subordinates and (a) the likelihood that perpetrators/agencies will retaliate against reporters of workplace aggression and (b) the likelihood that agencies will correct the adverse behavior in a manner that satisfactorily addresses the observers’ concerns. The findings in this article demonstrate that reporters of hierarchical aggression are more likely to face retaliation and less likely to get the behavior stopped than reporters of coworker aggression. Reporters of subordinate aggression, on the other hand, were not found to impact retaliation or corrective actions. Furthermore, the findings regarding retaliation were found to vary depending on whether or not the reporter was the target of the aggression.