Comparing Victim Attributions and Outcomes for Workplace Aggression & Sexual Harassment (Part 1)

Summary by: Ian B. Mondrow, M.A.

Sexual harassment has had a large presence in male-dominated organizations. It is believed that it occurs in these organizations because women are holding positions that were traditionally filled by men. Surprisingly, if a woman had masculine traits, then she is more susceptible to sexual harassment. Hershcovis and Barling (2010) suggest that sexual harassment degrades an individuals gender and thus lowers his/her status/credibility. When this occurs, female victims view the incident as an attack on their gender instead of on themselves. Sexual harassment on men is far less threatening and may even reinforce their male gender role.

Unlike sexual harassment, workplace aggression does not focus on one's gender or classification. It is equally threatening to both men and women as it crushes one's status or need to feel a part of a group. Examples of workplace aggression include social exclusion, gossiping, yelling, and rude behaviors, which all suggest that the individual is of lower status. These behaviors often focus on individual characteristics instead of one's member to a social group (i.e. gender).

Hershcovis and Barling (2010) set out to research the attributable differences between sexual harassment and workplace aggression. An online survey was administered to 117 participants. Participants were provided a story that differed based on the following dimensions: gender dominant workplace vs. gender neutral workplace (equal distribution among men & women) and workplace aggression vs. sexual harassment.  Participants were asked to rate the scenario on how descriptive it was of sexual harassment and workplace aggression on a 1-5 scale. They were also asked to allocate the blame based on a hundred points between themselves and the perpetrator. In addition, survey respondents answered questions evaluating internal attribution, personal attribution, gender attribution, external attribution, aggression ambiguity, and severity. Gender was also collected as a controlled variable.

A multivariate analysis revealed a significance between workplace aggression and sexual harassment, F(6,98) = 14.80, p<.001. It was also found that participants in the gender-dominant scenario were more likely to make an internal attribution in the workplace aggression scenario (M = 2.72) than the sexual harassment scenario ( M = 1.67). Participants that were part of the workplace aggression scenario were more likely to take the encounter personally than those in the sexual harassment scenario. Those that partook in the sexual harassment scenario were more likely to blame their bully's attitudes, F (1,108) = 19.01, p < .01, on their gender and account them for the blame, F (1,108) = 8.92, p < .01.  Participants that were in the workplace aggression scenario were more likely to blame themselves instead of the bully than those in the sexual harassment scenario. Gender distribution within the organization had no effect on sexual harassment but participants in the workplace aggression sample were more likely to make a gender attribution than in the gender-neutral environment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR PROFESSIONALS

Based on the findings in this study, HR practitioners need to be conscious of the fact that victims of workplace aggression are likely to place the blame on themselves. Therefore, when counseling an individual, it is important to emphasize that it is not their fault and that bullying does exist in the organization. In addition, the findings show that bullying can be equally offensive as sexual harassment and should not be taken lightly. HR professionals should examine complaints thoroughly to ensure that bullying does not escalate. 

In regards to sexual harassment, victims are likely to blame the harasser. Which they should! It is vital to understand that no employee is responsible for being a victim of sexual harassment. Regardless of one's clothing, gender, or comments, sexual advances are not acceptable in the workplace and every complaint should be investigated immediately. 

Source: Herschcovis, M.S., Barling, J. (2010). Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. American Psychological Association, 95 (5), 874-888.

Sources of Aggression in the Workplace

Workplace aggression is defined as negative effects [that employees attempt to avoid] towards an organization and its employees (Neuman & Baron, 2005; Raver & Barling, 2007). Research on this topic has focused on its negative effects on performance, satisfaction and emotional well being. Investigators that focus on this topic specify that the negative behavior should induce stress or strain to be considered aggression. This may also impact how the employee views his/her job or the organization.

Hershcovis & Barling (2009) decide to research the topic utilizing a meta-analysis. The following hypothesizes were stated:

1. Aggression from supervisors will have a greater impact on an individual than aggression from co-workers or outsiders.


2. Aggression from co-workers will make an employee feel as though he/she is excluded from social groups.


3. Supervisor aggression produces more stress than co-worker aggression as it can affect the resources (supplies, promotions, etc.) available.

Hershcovis and Barling collected research up to February of 2008. The research they included in the meta-analysis had to fulfill several requirements. These included:

• The data had to focus on aggression that was experienced.


• Correlations must be available.


• The data must be used in only one study.


• The perpetrator had to be clearly identified.

In the end, the researchers had compiled 66 sources of information. T-tests were utilized to compare supervisor aggression and co-worker aggression. They also used Z-Tests to evaluate aggression between co-workers and outsiders. Sub-analysis were used in cases where a study included data between coworker and supervisor aggression.

According to the researchers, results found that supervisors had the biggest impact, followed by co-workers than outsiders. It is suggested that there is a significant impact on job satisfaction, affective commitment, intent to turnover,general health, emotional exhaustion, depression, physical well being, interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and performance (Hershcovis & Barling, 2009). In regards to health, there was no variance between the source of aggression. However, when aggression originated from a company member, it negatively affects the employee's image of the organization. This is based on the fact that employees have a psychological contract that assumes the organization will keep them safe.

When evaluating their own study, Hershcovis and Barling (2009) state that the meta-analysis required a large amount of judgment. They were required to create a consistent scale among studies that used a variety of measurements.

My personal concern with the study is that I feel their correlations were rather weak to claim significance. There was only one variable that had a correlation greater than .05, which was Supervisor-directed deviance. All of the other variables were less than .35. I suggest that readers take this meta-analysis lightly as the findings may not be as significant as suggested. Luckily, this topic is becoming more common and therefore other studies can be found.

Work Cited

Hershcovis, M. S. and Barling, J. (2010), Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 24–44. doi: 10.1002/job.621