هوش عاطفی و عواطف بی موقع به عنوان مدیریت پرخاشگری در محل کار : تاثیر بر انتخاب رفتار

This paper presents a model of emotional intelligence and dispositional affectivity as moderators of workplace aggression. Particular attention is devoted to the mediating processes through which workers make behavioral choices resulting from perceived injustices primarily using the interpersonal and intrapersonal skills of “emotional intelligence” and dispositional affectivity. The model explores the five components of emotional intelligence, which include self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. Building on the works of Goleman [Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.; Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.] and others, the model examines the individual's degree of emotional intelligence and the impact that these skills may have on the type of behavior exhibited after the perception of injustice. The model also examines the impact that dispositional affectivity has on behavioral choices as well. It is proposed that the specific behavior choice can result in adaptive/constructive behavior or maladaptive behavior, such as workplace aggression. We include research propositions and discuss managerial implications as well as recommendations for training, selection practices, counseling, and attributional training.

There exists much interest in the area of emotional intelligence on the part of both academic scholars and practitioners (Fox, 2000). Mayer and Salovey (1995) define emotional intelligence as “the capacity to process emotional information accurately and efficiently, including that information relevant to the recognition, construction, and regulation of emotion in oneself and others” (p. 197). Dimensions of emotional intelligence include self-confidence, self-control, emotional awareness, and empathy. These emotional dimensions are just a few of many that permeate everyday organizational life. Emotionally intelligent individuals may be more aware of their own feelings as well as the feelings of others, better able to identify them, and better able to communicate them when appropriate (Mayer & Salovey, 1993). Emotions influence behavior choices in the workplace and can even undermine rational selection of optimal courses of action (Leith & Baumeister, 1996). Dispositional affectivity is also a significant predictor of work attitudes and may impact individual behavior at work. The two dimensions of affective response are trait-positive affect (PA) and trait-negative affect (NA) (Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993). Positive affect is the disposition to experience positive affective states while negative affect is the disposition to experience negative affective states. Studies have shown affect to be strongly related to job attitudes (Fisher, 2000) and to reactions to stress in the workplace Burke et al., 1993, Chen & Spector, 1991, Dua, 1993, Moyle, 1995 and Schaubroeck et al., 1992. Therefore, dispositional affectivity may play a significant role in predicting individual behaviors in the face of perceived injustice at work. Emotional intelligence and dispositional affectivity may be integral to understanding aggression in the workplace. The presence of aggression in the workplace has received considerable attention in recent literature Aquino et al., 1999, Bulatao & VandenBos, 1996 and Neuman & Baron, 1998. Thus, the need to recognize the roots of workplace aggression has been well documented Bulatao & VandenBos, 1996, Chenier, 1998, Greenberg & Barling, 1999 and O'Leary-Kelly et al., 1996. In 1992, some sources estimated occurrences of nonfatal workplace violence assaults to be as high as half a million incidents (Bulatao & VandenBos, 1996). Bachman (1994) estimated organizational costs to include US$55 million in lost wages resulting from 1,751,100 missed days of work on the part of half a million employees. However, little attention has been given to nonfatal forms of organizational violence on the part of academic researchers (O'Leary-Kelly et al., 1996). O'Leary-Kelly et al. (1996) define workplace aggression as the process by which an individual attempts to physically injure a coworker, and they define workplace violence as the outcome, or the consequences, of those attempts. In a study by Romano (1994), 20% of participating human resource managers indicated that their organizations had encountered workplace violence since 1990. Though workplace violence receives significant media attention, much of the aggression at work is in a less intense form. In fact, 99.8% of the victims of workplace violence survive (Bulatao & VandenBos, 1996). Aggression can encompass various forms of behavior by which individuals attempt to harm others in the workplace (Neuman & Baron, 1998). Aggression can include insubordination, sabotage, lying, spreading rumors, and other incidents of antisocial behavior (Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). An employee survey by Baron and Neuman (1996) shows that workplace aggression is mostly verbal, passive, indirect, and subtle rather than physical, active, direct, and overt. Andersson and Pearson (1999) show that, for some individuals, even the slightest incivility at work can spiral into intense aggressive behaviors. Costs of workplace aggression include legal liabilities, lost productivity, and damaged corporate reputations (Greenberg & Barling, 1999). Aggression and its relationship to emotional intelligence and dispositional affectivity has not been explored and this relationship could have multiple effects on individuals in organizations. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to fill this research void by synthesizing the existing literature on emotional intelligence and dispositional affectivity and to advance a model that shows their impacts on workplace aggression. Linking emotional intelligence, dispositional affectivity, and workplace aggression should significantly contribute to organizational theory and practice by offering new avenues for future research and practical applications for preventing aggression in the workplace. The paper has several contributions to the literature in that it merges the research of two emotional variables that have never been combined, it further links each of those emotional variables to workplace aggression, and finally shows the relationship between all three variables. The model is also a significant contribution because it fulfills three distinct objectives: (1) to understand the individual difference variables that affect the process of workplace aggression, (2) to serve as a guide for future research, and (3) to suggest intervention strategies that could be used by practitioners seeking to prevent or alleviate workplace aggression.

The model presented in this paper was intended to be an initial step in identifying individual differences in the process of workplace aggression. Limited empirical data reveals a great need to uncover the mystery of this topic. Although our focus in the current article was on dispositional affectivity and emotional intelligence, two critical variables we propose to influence workplace aggression, we realize further theoretical development and clarification is needed for both these variables. Indeed, several authors Fox, 2000 and Schutte et al., 1998 have noted the need for further theoretical development of the emotional intelligence construct. Further scale development also needs to be conducted in order to find a reliable measure. Recent controversy has also mounted in defining dispositional affectivity. Likewise, this construct also needs clarification prior to empirical study. Allen and Lucero (1996) suggest the use of published arbitration decisions to provide insights into the detailed record of employee behaviors. These authors note that published arbitration decisions could also provide insights (because they represent an objective viewpoint from a third party) as to the aggressor's behavioral history and the nature of events leading to the incident itself. Likewise, organizational records might also be a rich source of data. This approach could aid researchers in identifying emotional intelligence and dispositional affectivity as well as a host of other individual difference variables that might need examination in order to understand the process of workplace aggression. Future research with regard to our model should also include exploring contextual variables within the work environment and their impact on the process of workplace aggression. Specific contextual variables might include performance appraisal methods, human resource policies and practices, work design and technological issues, organizational culture, and structural and design issues. In addition, political, power, leadership, and trust issues may also be important contextual components to consider. Finally, attributional processes as they are filtered through personality variables such as emotional intelligence and dispositional affectivity may also need to be considered in future research. As noted previously, attributional training is one approach to modifying resulting affect from perceived injustices. The attributional process may provide further insights into the complexity of the workplace aggression model. In light of increasing aggression in the workplace and its associated costs and consequences, there are several compelling reasons for researchers to pursue theoretical development and empirical study in this area. Understanding the complexities of workplace aggression would significantly benefit the organizational environment and society as a whole. Likewise, it would enable organizations of all types to make the most of their valuable human resources.