Low-level aggression in the workplace has negative consequences for not only the individual but also the organization. It affects the health, attitude, and job performance of the person on the receiving end. An individual's job performance is the primary reason an organization employs he or she, and the cumulative job performance of different employees is a determinant of organizational performance. Low-level aggression in the workplace is psychological and is characterized by symbolic and verbal acts that result in fear and anxiety in employees. The situation affects not only the person targeted but also others because they fear to be next in line (Berman, Bowman, West & Van Wart, 2015). For example, when Janet runs into Dave, Mary, and Tony on the way to her office, Dave interjects when Mary is about to tell Janet about a succession planning team meeting scheduled for the next day at 9 pm. According to Dave, it is best for Mary not to come between Janet and Jeffrey. Jeffrey is their boss, and he does not like it when someone gets involved in his business. The last time Dave tried has got the silent treatment (Kowalski, 2001). Low level of aggression in the workplace also creates presenteeism within an organization. Presenteeism is a situation where employees show up for work but are so distracted to make any meaningful contribution (Poms, & Tetrick, 2012). For example, Terry Lee visits Tom Rodriguez’s cubicle during working hours just to engage in office politics. From the conversation between the two, it is clear that Terry is demotivated and only puts in just enough effort to keep him at the organization. Low-level aggressive behavior erodes trust, an important element in the workplace. Samantha seems always to take credit for Tom's work, and Jeffrey seems to encourage this behavior (Kowalski, 2001). This creates a situation where employees not only feel unsafe but also undervalued. Such employees are likely to look for work elsewhere costing the organization valuable employees. The organization also loses in monetary terms as it hires and trains new employees. It also affects the reputation of an organization as others interacting with the organization deal with new employees now and then. One way to eradicate low-level aggression in the workplace is to train employees on effective communication. Effective communication involves not only airing your views but also allowing others to air their views. Senior officers in the organization do not give a chance to junior staff to air their views. We see it in the interaction between Janet and Paul. It is also evident in the interaction between Samantha and Jeffery. When Paul stops by Janet's office to tell her about his plans of including her in the succession planning team, he hardly lets Janet speak. It is also important for the management to try and build consensus by consulting with others before making a decision (Leiter, & Baccardax, 2017). Tom unilaterally decides to include Janet in the succession planning team with consulting Jeff, who is heading the team. It is also important to train employees to be more assertive. Despite all the signs indicating to Tom that Samantha is taking credit for his work, he is afraid to confront her and ask for what he deserves. Janet, who also knows that the succession planning proposal was Tom's idea, is hesitant about even attending the meeting. It is also important to encourage face-to-face communication. We see that in the working day, most interaction between employees is through notes. Notes can mask aggression that is easily identifiable in face-to-face communication because of tone variation and facial expressions. There is also a need to create room for dissent (Schat & Frone, 2011). When Dave disagreed with Jeff, he got the silent treatment and now feels he has to keep his opinions to himself if he expects to be successful in the organization. An appraisal system enables management to evaluate employees’ job performance for promotion and pay increases in a fair manner. It also improves performance and eliminates outdated practices. An effective appraisal system has goals for both employer and employees. It improves organizational performance through the application of timely response and training. The best appraisal system for the organization, considering the current environment, is the 360-degree feedback appraisal system. A 360-degree feedback appraisal system is a multi-source assessment process where employees receive feedback on their performance from their colleagues, subordinates, and supervisors. The employee also does a self-evaluation and may receive feedback from other external sources, such as customers, where applicable (Berman, Bowman, West & Van Wart, 2015). The appraisal system is the best for the organization because it will eliminate the scenario where a supervisor takes credit for a contribution made by a junior officer as is the case between Samantha and Tom (Kowalski, 2001). Because the evaluation is anonymous, it will also help management identify what they are doing wrong. For example, Janet might not be able to tell Paul directly to his face that he does not listen or even consider her views but can do it through an anonymous evaluation system. The 360-degree feedback appraisal system will help nurture talented individuals within the organization by giving them recognition for their contributions and promoting or increasing their pay.
References
Berman, E., Bowman, J., West, J., & Van Wart, M. (2015). Human resource management in public service (pp. 390-401). New York: SAGE Publications.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Kowalski, R. (2001). Who's on First? Low-Level Aggression in the Workplace. Public Performance & Management Review, 25 (1), 122. doi: 10.2307/3381173
Leiter, M., Peck, E., & Baccardax, A. (2017). Combating Workplace Aggression via Organizational Interventions. Research and Theory on Workplace Aggression, 322-349. doi: 10.1017/9781316160930.014
Poms, L., & Tetrick, L. (2012). Presenteeism . Fairfax: George Mason University.
Schat, A., & Frone, M. (2011). Exposure to psychological aggression at work and job performance: The mediating role of job attitudes and personal health. Work & Stress, 25 (1), 23-40. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2011.563133
