The Devil Made Me Do It: Identifying Management Practices That Breed Workplace Aggression

Michael J. Petrillose, Ph.D.  Assistant Professor, Hospitality Management, SUNY Delhi

Diane Gayeski – Ithaca College Ph.D., CEO, Gayeski Analytics and Professor, Organizational Communication, Learning & Design, Ithaca College

Abstract

Workplace violence is a worldwide epidemic and is a major financial and performance risk in any organization, especially restaurants and hotels.  Synthesizing research on workplace violence and organizational performance engineering, this paper rejects the assumption that aggressive behavior is best prevented by screening, surveillance, and training.  Rather, it asserts that many typical management and communication practices actually create an environment that breeds poor service, property destruction, anger, and even violence.  A pilot tool for assessing an organization’s management communication infrastructure is presented, accompanied by recommendations for initiatives to advance this stream of research and practice in the hospitality industry.

From desk rage to homicide: threats to the hospitality industry

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the workplace is the most dangerous place to be in America.  Violence that leads to serious injury or death is merely the most visible tip of the iceberg of aggressive behaviors.  Workplace stress can cause what has been coined “desk rage”, a syndrome that includes pushing, teasing, or yelling at co-workers or customers (Integra Realty Resources, 2001), damaging property or equipment, or purposely “hiding out” and not working up to standards (Girion, 2000).   Belligerent behavior – from simple verbal abuse to actual homicide – represents a major financial and performance risk for any organization, especially for restaurants and hotels.  These environments typically are characterized by many situations in which it may be difficult to control negative behaviors:

q       Large staffs with a high turn-over rate and spotty performance in prior jobs and education

q       Lack of ability to carefully monitor employee behavior (e.g. high employee to supervisor ratios, much work done independently such as housekeeping, night shifts done with minimal supervision, etc.)

q       Complex work environments that create opportunities for mischief (e.g. kitchens where food can be contaminated, use of knives, etc.)

q       Workplaces open to the public with constant mobility of customers (e.g. hotel public spaces)

q       Hours of operation and environment that tempts crime perpetrators (e.g. late-night restaurants with minimal staff to protect people, property, and cash).

The hospitality industry has typically taken a person-oriented approach to preventing violence and aggressive behavior.  The underlying assumption is that the tendency for negative behavior is situated in individuals: in other words, there are people who are prone to violence or who simply don’t know how to control their anger and be courteous. Thus, the common management interventions to preempt negative behavior have been:

q     screening of prospective employees

q     surveillance of the workplace through cameras, security guards, etc.

q     training employees in customer service and  harassment prevention

Although these assumptions and interventions are partially appropriate and effective, research indicates that rude and even injurious behavior is often prompted by factors in the organization itself – specifically policies, culture, and management communication (O’Leary-Kelley, Griffin, & Glew, 1996). The management system itself  (rather than employees’ backgrounds, character, or training) may well be the most powerful factor associated with aggressive behavior.  Because the hospitality industry is so susceptible to violence (Desk rage is on the rise, 2001) and its success is so intimately tied to safety and courteous customer service, (Petrillose, Shanklin & Downey, 1998; Petrillose. & Brewer, 2000), it is critical to:

q       Conduct research about how organizations unwittingly create environments that breed aggressive behavior

q     Develop practical assessment methods to screen organizations for management factors that are associated with aggressive and violent behaviors

q     Create tools and techniques that hospitality executives can use to preempt aggressive behavior and violence through management interventions that go beyond the common practices of employee screening and surveillance

q     Teach and model the management communication techniques that are required for future hospitality supervisors to sustain a courteous and safe environment.

This paper presents a foundation for these initiatives.

Review of workplace violence research

Persons in service–related fields are more likely to be victims of workplace violence, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Violence is most likely to occur in public and government facilities (17.2%) followed by restaurants and bars (14.6%) and hotel and motels (1.4%) (Desk rage is on the rise, 2001).  One in four workers are attacked, threatened, or harassed each year, with instances of verbal violence being about three times that of physical violence.  The cost of this is estimated to be as high as $36 billion in the United States alone, reflecting lost productivity (500,000 employees missing 1,750,000 days of work per year), diminished company image and customer retention, more than $13 billion in medical costs, and increased security and insurance payments.  When there are aggressors in the workplace, employees and customers are repelled, causing tardiness, absenteeism, turnover, and lost sales (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2003; Johnson & Indvik, 2001; Reisenauer, 2002).  In telephone surveys, employees across various industries admit that stress and anger at their employers is causing them to pick fights with and yell at co-workers or customers, cry on the job, purposely damage equipment or property, and intentionally work slowly or look busy while doing nothing (Girion, 2000).  The personal and societal cost of poor work environments is also significant: many unhealthy patterns such as lack of sleep, abuse of alcohol and drugs, and overeating are common reactions to stress, and family and community relationships suffer.

What factors are associated with workplace aggression?  Although most violent crimes are perpetrated by individuals who have some history of psychological and /or social problems, much belligerence is caused by factors in the work environment.  Thus, it is important to avoid a “blame the victim” approach when instituting measures to reduce bad behavior.  Based on a synthesis of the research on workplace violence, the following factors have been found to be indicators of the kind of problematic workplace environment that is associated with aggressive behavior:

q     Highly authoritarian workplace

q     Employees overloaded by work and stress

q     Long hours and inadequate breaks

q     Supervision is changeable and unpredictable

q     Employees get mixed messages

q     Management methods are invasive of privacy

q     Extreme secrecy; management not open about goals, strategies, or current business data

q     Employees are devalued; their unique contributions not solicited or recognized

q     Short-term benefits are pursued at expense of long-term effectiveness

q     Tolerance of moderate levels of aggressive conduct or rude behavior of peers or customers

q     Recent downsizing, poor business performance, or other major changes in jobs

q     Uncomfortable workplace (poor temperature, seating, etc.)

q     Long, stressful commute

q     Use of new technologies that cause information overload, require continual learning, and cause stress when they are unreliable (e.g. e-mail, new POS systems)

A communication and performance engineering approach

As indicated above, an emerging body of research finds that much violence and uncivil behavior in the workplace is caused by managerial and environmental factors rather than individual traits.  O’Leary-Kelley and Griffin (1996) defined the term Organization-Motivated Aggression (OMA) which is based on social learning theory.  Their exploratory study found that a major factor associated with workplace violence and aggression is modeling of peers’ or supervisors’ behavior, despite training or executive assertions that rudeness, harassment and violence are not tolerated.  In other words, many supervisors operate according to the old saying, “do what I say, not what I do”.  This study and others found that rude, patronizing, and punishing behavior by supervisors is common, especially in service industries, and thus a focus on managerial communication is essential because employees model the behavior they experience.  Put simply, employees treat others as they are treated.  Research specifically in hotel management has reinforced this assertion, finding that service behaviors and an orientation towards quality must emanate from top management actions (Withiam, 1996).

Another approach to reducing workplace aggression is provided by the field of human performance technology, a professional model for organizational improvement that focuses on assessing root causes of performance gaps and developing interventions that address both the workplace environment and the worker’s repertory of behavior (Van Tiem, Moseley & Dessinger, 2000).  Thomas Gilbert (1978), one of the founders of this approach, developed the Behavior Engineering Model as a way to categorize the management approaches and personal factors that impact performance (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1  Behavior Engineering Model based on Gilbert (1978).

Rummler (1999) asserts that the most influential factors in workplace performance are the organizational and job systems: policies, procedures, communication climate, information, and management incentives: “If you pit a good performer against a bad system, the system will win every time.” (p. 55). Even when organizations do focus on their management systems, decision-makers often inadvertently institute performance interventions that generate exactly what they wish to avoid.  For example, rigid managerial control and surveillance develops a suspicious culture in which employees do not feel valued and trusted. This is precisely the climate that research shows is associated with destructive and violent behavior.

Sending employees to training on customer relations or harassment prevention can also lead to unexpected results. Employees may feel punished or insulted by being “sent” to training rather than having a say in this decision themselves. For example, one major study in the training industry reported that workers have a significant voice in the decision about whether they will receive training less than 10 percent of the time. More than seven times out of 10, that decision is made by a supervisor, manager, or higher executive (Schaaf, 1998).  Patronizing content or approaches or exercises that bring up sensitive cultural or personal issues can be direct antecedents to violence.  A workplace shooting in August 2003 occurred directly after the perpetrator attended a required ethics training course during which he apparently became agitated (Seven Dead in Chicago Workplace Shooting, 2003).  Other studies find that sometimes front line employees actually perform more poorly after training: they are so overwhelmed with information that they return to the job and freeze.  This information overload causes stress, which is associated with absenteeism, turnover, and hostile behavior – exactly what the training is trying to prevent. 

Communication technologies such as voicemail, e-mail, the Internet and corporate intranets, cell phones, and instant messaging are also stressors.  In a consulting engagement with a major restaurant chain, it was found that store managers were typically rising at 5 AM and beginning to listen to their voicemails as they dressed because they could expect to receive several hours worth of voicemails from various corporate sources throughout a typical day (Gayeski, 1999). Similar research has found that workers are typically interrupted by email or phone messages every few minutes.  This overload of data, as well as the popular and unquestioned assumption that “more communication is better” have made these problems even worse.  Communication and training activities take time away from one’s “real” work, further adding to stress because employees then have to somehow catch up on the work that accumulated while they were in meetings or courses.  Too often, corporate messages come from different sources and are not coordinated; in fact, they may be contradictory and seemingly arbitrary. This dis-integration of the communication system is causing stress, an erosion of credibility, an attitude of cynicism, and poor performance focus (Gayeski, 1998).

Clearly, new approaches for not only interpersonal communication but also for selecting and managing formal communication and training are needed. Often the most powerful messages are embedded in the communication and training policies themselves rather than in the content of instruction or meetings. For example, employees may be required to attend “empowerment training” and to wear silly empowerment buttons – clearly sending the message that they are not, in fact, empowered. However, uncovering these unintentionally destructive patterns is not as easy as it may appear.

Prototype screening tool

To bridge the gap between theory and practice, the hospitality management field needs tools to screen operations for the typical management and business environment factors that have been shown to be antecedents to organizational-motivated aggression. Building on established models for organizational communication audits (Gayeski, 2000), and the review of literature on workplace aggression, a survey has been developed and is being piloted at selected hospitality operations. Each item will be rated by an individual employee on a 1-5 Likert scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The statements noted here with asterisks indicate problematic factors; the rest of the statements represent conditions or policies that are considered “best practice” in avoiding aggressive behavior. (see Table 2).

Table 2  Hospitality communication analytics survey

Copyright Gayeski Analytics 2004 all rights reserved