Citation
The effects of individual differences and charismatic leadership on aggressive workplace behavior

Material Information

Title:
The effects of individual differences and charismatic leadership on aggressive workplace behavior
Creator:
Hepworth, William K
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
63 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Individual differences ( lcsh )
Charisma (Personality trait) ( lcsh )
Aggressiveness ( lcsh )
Work environment ( lcsh )
Anger in the workplace ( lcsh )
Aggressiveness ( fast )
Anger in the workplace ( fast )
Charisma (Personality trait) ( fast )
Individual differences ( fast )
Work environment ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
by William K. Hepworth.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
53873019 ( OCLC )
ocm53873019
Classification:
LD1190.L645 2003m H46 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND CHARISMATIC
LEADERSHIP ON AGGRESSIVE WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR
by
William K. Hepworth
B. A., University of Colorado at Denver, 2001
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Psychology
2003
i
1


This thesis for the Master of Arts
degree by
William K. Hepworth
has been approved
by
Donna L. Chrobot-Mason
Date


Hepworth, William K. (M. A., Industrial/Organizational Psychology)
The Effects of Individual Differences and Charismatic Leadership on Aggressive
Workplace Behavior
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Annette J. Towler
ABSTRACT
This study examined the relationship among charismatic leadership, five
individual differences, and the incidence of workplace aggression. A survey was
administered to 213 people from many different types of occupations. The
individual differences investigated were trait anger, attribution style, negative
affectivity, attitudes toward revenge, and self-control. The results suggest that
charismatic leadership and the individual differences predictors used in this study
accounted for a significant amount of the variance in the reported incidence of
workplace aggression. There were no interactions of charismatic leadership and
individual differences on workplace aggression. Further research is encouraged
which focuses on charismatic leadership, individual differences and their
interactions with situational, group level, and organizational variables.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
Annette J. Towler
m


DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to the loving memory of my father, William R. Hepworth and
to my wonderful mother, Dorothy P. Hepworth, in gratitude for a lifetime of love
and support.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis advisor, Annette J. Towler,
for her guidance and support on this research and throughout my graduate career.
I also wish to express my deepest thanks to Donna Chrobot-Mason whom I have
had the privilege of working with since my junior year of undergraduate school for
her patience and guidance these last four years. I would also like to thank Mitch
Handelsman for his keen insight and sage advice on this project and also during my
time at CU-Denver. Also, thanks to Scott Douglas for his assistance. Last, but not
least, I would like to thank my wife, Veronica, for her endless patience throughout
my academic career and my family and friends for their encouragement and support.


CONTENTS
Tables.........................................................viii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................1
Background and Definition of Workplace Aggression.........1
Increased Incidence of Workplace Aggression...............3
Individual Differences and Workplace Aggression...........5
Trait Anger............................................5
Negative Affectivity...................................6
Self-Control...........................................7
Attributional Style....................................7
Attitudes Toward Revenge...............................8
Current Preventative Strategies for Workplace Aggression..9
Charismatic Leadership...................................13
The Influence of Charismatic Leadership on Individual
Differences Involving the Incidence of Workplace Aggression....20
2. METHOD...................................................26
Participants..........................................26
Procedure.............................................26
vi


Measures...............................................28
Individual Antisocial Behavior Scale...................28
Trait Anger Scale......................................28
Negative Affectivity Scale.............................29
Self-Control Scale.....................................29
Attributional Style Scale..............................30
Attitudes Toward Revenge Scale.........................31
Charismatic Leadership Scale...........................31
Data Analysis.............................................32
3. RESULTS.......................................................33
4. DISCUSSION....................................................36
Limitations...............................................39
Future Research...........................................40
Conclusion................................................41
APPENDIX
A. Survey Measures and Items......................43
REFERENCES.............................................51
Vll


TABLES
Table
1. Demographics.....................................................57
2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.....................58
3. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Trait Anger,
Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence
of Workplace Aggression..........................................59
4. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Negative
Affectivity, Charismatic Leadership, and the Incidence of
Workplace Aggression.............................................60
5. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Self-Control,
Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of
Workplace Aggression.............................................61
6. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Organizational
Attribution Style, Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of
Workplace Aggression.............................................62
7. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Attitudes Toward
Revenge, Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of
Workplace Aggression.............................................63
VUl


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background and Definition of Workplace Aggression
Twenty years ago the term going postal was relatively unknown in the
common American vernacular. Now, workplace violence seems such a part of our
everyday lives that going postal has become a familiar term used to describe
divergent types of violence. In a survey administered by the Society for Human
Resource Management 45 percent of the 1,016 respondents indicated that
employees at their organizations were concerned that violence could occur at work
(Society for Human Resource Management, 1996). For the period between 1993
and 1999 in the United States, an average of 1.7 million violent victimizations per
year were committed against persons who were at work or on duty, according to the
National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001). The
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries reported
that there were 674 workplace homicides in the year 2000, and that homicide is the
third leading fetal cause of occupational injury in the United States (Bureau of
Labor Statistics [BLS], 2001). The BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses reported a total of 16,664 workplace non-fatal assaults and violent acts
with lost workdays in 1999 (BLS, 2000). These figures confirm that workplace
1


violence is an issue of grave concern, which necessitates investigation by
organizational researchers.
Considering the significance of the burgeoning problem of workplace
aggression, researchers have endeavored to identify the factors that influence violent
workplace incidents. The majority of research has concentrated on situational
variables and on individual differences, such as personality traits, that influence and
predict workplace aggression: This study strives to augment previous research by
focusing on one factor that might ameliorate workplace aggression: charismatic
leadership.
Although the impression derived from the increase in media reports over the
last several years on the expanding phenomena of workplace violence is alarming,
severe acts of violence involving direct physical assault represents a relatively rare
event in work settings (Neuman & Baron, 1998). However, workplace
aggressionefforts by individuals to harm others with whom they work or have
workedare much more prevalent and may prove extremely damaging to
individuals and organizations (Neuman & Baron, 1998). Because media reports
focus almost exclusively on homicide, it is essential to delineate the differences
between workplace violence and workplace aggression. Efforts to harm others in an
organizational context range from subtle and covert actions to active confrontations,
the destruction of property, and direct physical assaults (Barling, 1996; Robinson &
Bennett, 1995). Aggression has been defined as any behavior where the aggressor
2


delivers a noxious stimulus to another personwith the intent of harming the other
personand expects that this noxious stimulus will harm the targeted victim (Geen,
1990). Violence is defined as an act carried out with the intention, or perceived
intention, of causing physical pain or injury to another person. Martinko and Zellars
(1998) and Baron and Neuman (1996) similarly delineated workplace aggression as
employee behavior that is intended to harm current or previous coworkers or the
organization to which they are presently, or have previously been employed.
Douglas and Martinko (2001) defined the incidence of workplace aggression as the
frequency of acts by employees to harm (actual or potential) others with whom they
work or the employing organization. Because workplace violence pertains to
occurrences of direct physical assaults, and workplace aggression concerns any
example of behavior by an individual who attempts to harm others at work or their
organizations, I shall use the all-encompassing term workplace aggression for this
study. This distinction is in accord with the terminology of aggression and
violence in existing literature on human aggression (Baron & Richardson, 1994;
Huesmann, 1994).
Increased Incidence of Workplace Aggression
Aggression, like other forms of complex behavior, derives from the
interaction of a wide range of social, situational, and personal factors (Neuman &
Baron, 1998). Although the body of psychological literature concerning workplace
3


aggression is expanding, most of the academic work concerning workplace
aggression in the organizational literature is theoretically based. The majority of
studies to date have examined customer or client-perpetrated violence, demographic
and psychological correlates attempting to isolate employee attitudes, and
situational determinants/correlates of employee violence (Greenberg & Barling,
1999). Other researchers have explored organizational and group level factors as
explanations for the reported surge in workplace aggression. Downsizing, changes
involving pay cuts or freezes, computer monitoring of employee performance,
changes in management, employee diversity, reengineering, budget cuts, increased
pressure for productivity, autocratic work environments, and the use of part-time
employees are related to the increase of aggressive workplace behaviors (Baron &
Neuman, 1996).
Greenberg (1990) reported that underpayment inequity was positively
related to employee theft. Folger and Baron (1996) stipulated that in the workplace
individuals want to be treated fairly, not only by coworkers and supervisors, but also
by their organization. They contended that being treated unfairly might play a
powerful role in the occurrence of workplace aggression. Being treated unfairly can
lead to anger and resentment which is leveled at the source of the perceived
inequity, thus resulting in an aggressive act. Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found
support for these assertions and reported that organizational injustice positively
correlates to organizational retaliatory behaviors (e.g., employee theft, sabotage,
4


disobeying of supervisors instructions). Skarlicki and Folgers model comprised
measures of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, which accounted for
68 percent of the variance in obtained scores. Another study by Robinson and
OLeary-Kelly (1998) supported the hypothesis that the modeling of antisocial
behavior by work group members significantly influenced self-reports of antisocial
behavior by individual members of the work group.
Individual Differences and Workplace Aggression
Douglas and Martinkos (2001) research has illustrated that certain
individual characteristics are significant predictors of workplace aggression. Trait
anger, attribution style, negative affectivity, attitudes toward revenge, self-control,
and previous exposure to aggressive cultures accounted for 62 percent of the
variance in the respondents self-reported incidence of workplace aggression. For
the purpose of this study, I replicated their work by investigating all of these
individual differences except previous exposure to aggressive cultures. I chose not
to include previous exposure to aggressive cultures because the measure used in
their study related to neighborhood and home environments and not the workplace.
Trait Anger
The literature concerned with anger and aggression refers to anger as a
strong negative emotional state that may incite aggressive behavior (Berkowitz,
5


1993; Geen, 1990). Anger also constitutes several feelings that can vacillate in
intensity over time. Feelings may range from tepid annoyance to blind rage. There
are two categories of anger: state anger and trait anger. State anger is an emotional
response to a particular event that is short-lived. On the other hand, trait anger is the
disposition to experience state anger over time and context, a stable personality trait
(Speilberger, 1996). Therefore, those that have more experiences with state anger
are high trait anger individuals. Those who have fewer experiences with state anger
are low trait anger individuals. High trait anger individuals are assumed to discern
more situations as anger provoking.
Negative Affectivitv
Negative affectivity regards a general disposition in relation to subjective
distress (Watson, 1988; Watson & Clark, 1984). Individuals with high negative
affectivity are pessimistic, often feel anxious, and are extremely sensitive to
negative events. Geen (1990) suggested that negative affectivity is a precursor to
aggression, and Berkowitz (1993) showed that people with high negative affectivity
are more likely to respond to negative stimulation much more aggressively than
those with low negative affectivity.
6


Self-Control
Previous research on self-control suggests that individuals lack of ability to
manage their emotions may be related to the incidence of workplace aggression.
Baron and Richardson (1994) alluded to low self-control individuals as people who
manifest a stable tendency to react offensively to minimal provocations (p. 121).
Geen (1990) suggested that individuals with lower levels of self-control are more
likely to be aggressive when exposed to stressful or provocative situations than
those with high levels of self-control.
Attributional Style
The way a person conceptually evaluates negative outcomes may predict
anger and possibly aggression. Martinko and Zellars (1998) suggested that when
people exhibit inclinations to attribute negative workplace outcomes to other
persons or their employer, and believe that these outcomes were controllable,
intentional, stable, and with no extenuating circumstances, anger and subsequent
aggression are more likely to be demonstrated than if individuals exhibit tendencies
to attribute the causes to factors that are internal, uncontrollable, unintentional or
unstable.
7


Attitudes Toward Revenge
Stuckless and Goranson (1992) assert that revenge might be described as the
proclivity to inflict damage, injury, or punishment in return for an injury or insult or
the infliction of harm in return for perceived harm. They proposed that when
individuals take part in aggressive behaviors for the purpose of revenge, they see
their behavior as acceptable and justifiable and also that certain people have more
positive attitudes toward seeking revenge than others. Therefore, the propensity to
strive for revenge may be related to the incidence of aggressive behavior.
Hypothesis la: There will be a positive relationship between trait anger and
the incidence of workplace aggression.
Hypothesis lb: There will be a positive relationship between negative
affectivity and the incidence of workplace aggression.
Hypothesis lc: There will be a positive relationship between low levels of
self-control and the incidence of workplace aggression.
Hypothesis Id: There will be a positive relationship between hostile
organizational attribution style and the incidence of workplace aggression.
Hypothesis le: There will be a positive relationship between attitudes toward
revenge and the incidence of workplace aggression.
8


Current Preventative Strategies for
Workplace Aggression
While the burgeoning organizational literature has made significant strides
in predictive models dealing with workplace aggression, there is a paucity of
research regarding prevention strategies. Many organizations have implemented
violence prevention programs, although programs differ in their approach due to the
diverse nature of organizations, and the fact that one standard policy would not
necessarily be appropriate and applicable to all enterprises (Nicoletti & Spooner,
1996). In general, public offices have clearer policies and procedures than do
private corporations (Barker, 1994). Despite the media hype concerning specific
workplace homicides, the U.S. Postal Service is not a particularly high-risk
environment for occupational fatalities. The United States Postal Service (USPS)
adapted a program and policies which in numerous ways is the archetype for many
companies. The USPS plan includes guidelines for hiring and firing practices, puts
emphasis on using proper reporting, assessment, and security measures. The plan
also attempts to encourage a positive work atmosphere with the USPSs Employee
Assistance Program (EAP) as the cornerstone of the violence prevention program.
The USPS has the most comprehensive EAP in the world, and in the mind of many
professionals is the prototype for clinical responsiveness, cost-effectiveness, and
clinical efficacy (Bulatao & Vandenbos, 1996).
9


The Strategic Safety Association, a consulting firm for preventing workplace
violence, has developed a program with a focus on employees that emphasizes
employer attunement to the individual employees stress level (Barker, 1994).
Lindsey, in his 1994 book, Evaluating the Workforce, developed a workplace
violence prevention program which is built on the premise that violence in the
workplace assumes diverse forms including sexual harassment, threats, violence,
vandalism, belligerence, and verbal conflicts that escalate into physical altercations.
Lindseys method entails administration of a standardized survey to all employees,
in which they anonymously rate their job stress and satisfaction level. Aggregated
data that present a view of the emotional pulse of the company is available for
review, and when problem areas or sudden changes become evident, they can be
addressed immediately (Nicoletti & Spooner, 1996). Another approach developed
by Baron, in Violence in the Workplace (1993), accentuates understanding human
behavior as a basis for predicting violence with training and education as essential
elements for any organizations threat management plan. Baron stipulated that
training should comprise information to acquaint workers with a profile of a
violent person based on specific traits found in former perpetrators such as: a past
history of violence, psychosis, romantic obsession, substance abuse, depression,
extemalization of blame by the person, impaired neurological functioning,
frustration with the environment, interest in weapons, and the presence of a
personality disorder (Nicoletti & Spooner, 1996).
10


Joseph A. Kinney of the National Safe Workplace Institute designed a
violence prevention program which states that threat assessment starts with
appraisal of the source of the threat, coupled with information known about
attributes of violent individuals. In assessing threats it is important to scrutinize the
overall life context of the person, particularly other stress factors (recent breakup of
a relationship, financial problems, etc.) that may impact the work environment.
Another aspect to consider is the extent of psychological anchors the individual
maintains. Anchors are personal characteristics and life circumstances that help
stabilize and ground people during stressful times including, but not limited to: a
secure family life, stable finances, lack of substance abuse, and positive work
history. Kinney also advises use of a mandatory reporting system, with negative
consequences for employees who fail to report suspicious behavior (Kinney, 1995).
The Nicoletti-Flater Approach emphasizes education and training as an
instrumental type of violence prevention, but these programs are tailored to major
businesses, corporations, and governmental agencies. This method incorporates a
three-phase strategy designed to address threats arising from internal or external
sources. Phase one and two concentrate on coordinated receipt and dispersement of
information and timely, proactive intervention to prevent the occurrence of violence.
The third phase of this approach involves response action following a major
incident. The design of the program is to assist organizations to develop guidelines
11


that recognize and thwart all levels of threat or violence that may occur in the
workplace (Nicoletti & Flater, 1996).
It must be noted that the workplace violence programs that I have discussed
are primarily concerned with violence and the threat of violence. But, the
overwhelming majority of acts of mistreatment in organizations are subtler than
those involving physical violence. However, acts of aggression that are verbal
and/or less intense in nature serve as the initial step in an upward spiral that leads to
physical and/or more intense forms of aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1997). In
addition, because workplace violence is a relatively new field, there is little research
available on the effectiveness of workplace violence prevention programs. While
existing programs may appear to be effective, given what is not known, and what is
still to be learned about workplace aggression, none of the programs suggested
should be taken as the final word or the ultimate solution (Bulatao & Vandenbos,
1996).
A new era of treating employees respectfully is also emerging from
increased awareness of the problem of workplace aggression. Increased sensitivity
to employee issues and viewpoints can effectively complement a comprehensive
violence prevention program (Nicoletti & Flater, 1996). Johnson & Indviks (1994)
paths to prevention of workplace violence includes proposing key procedures
such as: pre-employment guidelines, threat analysis and immediate security
response, notifying law enforcement, security for executives and threatened
12


personnel, policies for communicating with the workforce and the media,
establishing psychological assistance programs, and disseminating information
about violence to all employees. But, Johnson and Indvik also suggested a unique
approach to prevention of workplace aggression with a strong emphasis on
increasing workers self-esteem and empowering them through compassionate
leadership. The researchers stipulated that employees who feel empowered and
united with the company in a significant way will maximize their effort, output, and
contribution, while simultaneously decreasing aggressive tendencies and reducing
the propensity for workplace aggression within the organization (Johnson & Indvik,
1994).
Charismatic Leadership
Another preventative strategy for reducing workplace aggression is the
presence of effective leaders in organizations. Besides the threat of workplace
aggression, scholars and management practitioners generally are in agreement that
leaders in the twenty-first century will face a gamut of new challenges, which will
impose new role demands. House (1995) asserted that,
Because much of the twenty-first century work will be intellectual rather
than physical, to observe, monitor, and control the processes and behavior by
which organizational members accomplish their tasks will be difficult if not
impossible. As a result, a substantial proportion of organizational members
will work without direct supervision (p. 410-411).
13


Consequently, organizational leaders will need to empower individuals to promote
individual initiative, motivation, and willingness to take personal responsibility for
task accomplishment in order to attain valuable competitive advantage.
Empowering leadership implies providing autonomy to ones followers. To a great
extent, leaders permit and stimulate followers to enable, direct, and control
themselves in fillfilling their responsibilities in alignment of their goals with the
goals of their leader and the larger organization (Bass, 1998).
Beginning in the 1980s, organizational research began to shift to new
leadership paradigms, which have been referred to as charismatic,
transformational, inspirational, and visionary leadership (Bass, 1985; Bennis
& Nanus, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977; Sashkin, 1988). These
theories focus on outstanding leaders who have remarkable effects on their
followers. According to these new leadership paradigms, such leaders transform the
needs, values, preferences and aspirations of followers from self-interests to
collective interests, cause followers to become deeply committed to the leaders
mission, inspire followers to make meaningful self-sacrifice in the interest of the
mission, and induce followers to perform well above and beyond the call of duty.
The salient component and underlying concept in all of these theories is charisma.
Research on these theories has generated formidable support for the positive effects
charismatic leaders have on follower outcomes such as heightened motivation, job
satisfaction, and performance (House & Howell, 1992; Shamir, 1992). Charisma
14


was initially introduced into leadership theory by sociological pioneer Max Weber
in 1947. The word charisma is of Greek derivation and means gift.
Numerous theoretical models of charismatic leadership have been proposed
in the organizational literature. House and Shamir (1993) synthesized the various
charismatic theories in the literature and offered the following components of
charismatic leadership. To summarize, charismatic leaders are visionary (e.g., Bass
& Avolio, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977), arouse followers
motives (e.g., House & Shamir, 1993), are excellent role models (e.g., Bass, 1988;
Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977), project self-confidence and are optimistic
(Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977), empower their followers (Bass, 1988;
House, 1977) and challenge the status quo to demonstrate commitment to their
values and vision (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). Charismatic leadership also has
beneficial effects on follower performance. Empirically, charismatic leadership has
positively correlated to higher performance levels among followers, as well as to
more motivated and satisfied followers (House & Shamir, 1993). House and Shamir
(1993) have noted that the effect size of these studies of charismatic leadership
behavior on follower performance and satisfaction is greater than prior field study
conclusions of other forms of leader behavior, with correlations of .50 or better and
well below .01 probability of error due to chance.
There are numerous reasons why charismatic leadership should be
investigated as a practical deterrence to workplace aggression. Charismatic leaders
15


use empowerment strategies rather than control to arouse and transform followers
motives and also achieve a position of influence. Conger and Kanungo (1988)
posited a model of the empowerment process that illustrates leaders strategies,
where the leader first identifies organizational and environmental conditions that are
antagonizing the employee and need to be addressed. Identification lays the
groundwork for empowerment strategies such as idealizing the vision, inspirational
articulation of the vision, as well as modeling behavior (personal risk taking and
sacrifice) that in turn furnishes self-efficacy information to the followers. Deriving
self-efficacy information from the behavior of the leader strengthens followers self-
determination beliefs and they feel empowered and self-assured. Thus, these
feelings enable employees to be more productive and committed to the leader and to
the vision. Perhaps empowerment is a mediator between charismatic leadership and
individual differences. Bass and Avolio (1993, p. 56) also delineated empowering
effects on followers. Behavioral indicators such as (1) promoting self-development
among followers (individualized consideration), (2) convincing followers that they
have the ability to achieve high performance levels (inspirational motivation), (3)
fostering a readiness for changes in thinking (intellectual stimulation), and (4)
modeling through self-sacrifice (idealized influence) furnish self-efficacy
information to followers and subsequently have empowering effects on them.
House and Shamir (1993) asserted that charismatic leaders transform
followers self-concepts through at least four mechanisms: (1) changing followers
16


perceptions of the nature of the work itself by making it appear to be more heroic,
ethically appropriate, and meaningful, (2) by offering an appealing future vision, (3)
by cultivating a profound collective identity among followers, and (4) increasing
both individual and collective self-efficacy. In the case of workplace aggression
the potential for transformation from a disgruntled, aggressive employee to a
productive, committed follower provides adequate reason to further explore the
effects of charismatic leadership.
The role of contextual and situational factors in the study of charismatic
leadership has been very limited, and rarely applied outside the fields of political
science and religion. What does exist is largely theoretical and speculative. The
most prevailing speculation is that periods of stress and turbulence are the most
favorable time for charismatic leadership. This contention is derived from the work
of political scientists looking at charismatic leadership in political and religious
contexts (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). The underlying premise is as follows. In
times of change and stress people feel anxious, helpless, and frustrated. Nothing
can be taken for granted, prior arrangements no longer work, and the future looks
foreboding. During times like this people yearn for someone who has a clear sense
of direction. Therefore, they are more readily accepting of a leader who has self-
confidence and a vision that furnishes meaning to the current situation and the
promise of better times ahead. Pillai and Meindl (1991) manipulated a crisis
situation which found support that participants who experienced crisis during a
17


group task selected leaders more on the basis of their charismatic appeal than those
who did not experience a crisis.
We are living in the era of organizational downsizing. In many instances,
the consequent layoffs shatter long-standing psychological contracts between the
employee and employer concerning job security. The negative effects of this type
of organizational restructuring has already been linked to instances of workplace
aggression and suggests a particular intuitive appeal to examining charismatic
leadership as an effective remedy to reduce workplace aggression.
Another reason to explore the possibility of counteracting the effects of
workplace aggression by charismatic leadership is in the context of training. There
are few human skills or capabilities, either physical (such as skill at golf) or
cognitive (including writing ability) that we are unable to develop to a higher level
of expertise with training and practice. This is not saying that we are all capable of
playing golf like Tiger Woods, or writing like Shakespeare. But viewing charisma
on a continuum with some individuals being more charismatic than others, it is a
reasonable supposition to consider that less charismatic individuals can further
extend their charismatic horizons by training and practice.
Research by Shea and Howell (1999) suggested that it is possible to train
actors to exhibit behaviors that observers are able to identify as charismatic. Their
study illustrates that articulating a profound vision, expressing confidence in
individuals capabilities, and communicating high expectations are effective
18


leadership behaviors which, if developed by managers, could contribute to follower
performance (p. 392). Research by Towler (2001) demonstrated support for the
effectiveness of charismatic language training. In this study, participants who
received charismatic language training performed at higher levels on a declarative
knowledge test and demonstrated more charismatic language behaviors than those
participants who received presentation skills training or no training. Charismatic
language training influenced the use of several charisma language behaviors,
including number of body gestures, stories told, number of analogies, and vocal
fluency (p. 27). Conger and Kanungo (1988) asserted that a charismatic leadership
training program should be focused on behavioral components in five areas of
competency, which are: (1) critical evaluation and problem finding skills, (2)
visioning (goals) and planning (tactics) skills, (3) communication (articulation and
interpersonal sensitivity) skills, (4) exemplary personal behavior and impression
management skills, and (5) empowering skills (p. 313). I believe the
aforementioned reasons furnish adequate support for the investigation of
charismatic leadership as a deterrent force in combating workplace aggression.
Therefore I propose:
Hypothesis 2: Perceived charismatic leadership will be negatively correlated
with the reported incidence of aggressive workplace behavior.
19


The Influence of Charismatic Leadership on Individual
Differences Involving the Incidence of Workplace Aggression
One dimension of charismatic leadership is the ability of leaders to
recognize and transform the needs of followers (House & Shamir, 1993). One
common factor between the individual differences of trait anger, hostile
organizational attribution, negative affectivity, attitude toward revenge, and self-
control is the notion that individuals will perceive their workplace as a stressful
environment. Although we have already discussed how charismatic leadership is
more readily accepted during times of stress, it is conceivable that a charismatic
leader may ameliorate the stress of highly aggressive individuals. For instance, an
individual who attributes an organizational downsizing to ineffective management
or organizational policy may manifest a hostile organizational attribution style.
Over time and the persistence of negatively attributing workplace problems to
ineffective management, this hostile organizational attribution style could persist
and result in various types of workplace aggression. At the same time, an individual
who does not attribute the situation as the organizations or managements fault
would not develop a hostile attribution style. A charismatic leader who recognizes
the potential aggression in this situation may transform the followers needs and
behavior through the articulation of a vision that furnishes a purposeful meaning to
the current situation, as well as illuminate a hopeful future scenario where the
circumstances aggravating the stress are absent. The charismatic leader may
20


acknowledge agreement with the potentially aggressive individual that
organizational policies and/or poor management were responsible for the
restructuring and then proceed to articulate a vision of a future organization where
the aggravating circumstances (e.g., poor management or organizational policies)
are rectified. I am not hypothesizing that a charismatic leader will change
personality traits. However, a charismatic leader may create a climate, where
although the employee is still predisposed to a hostile attribution style or still has a
high level of trait anger, the individual may be less inclined to be aggressive at work
because of the supportive leader.
Negative affectivity is described as the inclination for an individual to
experience a variety of negative emotions across time and situations (Watson &
Clark, 1984). It is reasonable to assume that an individual with a tendency toward
negative affectivity would become more pessimistic, anxious, and extremely
sensitive, for example, during downsizing. An employee who is prone to negative
affectivity may identify with the self-confidence that is projected from a charismatic
leader, and from observing the leaders behavior accept the leader as a role model.
Thus, the charismatic leader becomes a positive image. This image may encourage
the follower to question his or her own self-image. Accepting the charismatic leader
as a role model could moderate potentially aggressive employees tendencies toward
negative affectivity by buying into the vision of the leader, as well as observing the
self-confident manner in which the leader conducts him/herself. With the leader
21


providing an ideal and perhaps a focus for the follower, it is conceivable that the
follower would emulate the leaders behavior and although still retaining a high
level of negative affectivity may be less inclined to manifest aggressive workplace
behavior.
Individuals confronted with an organizational restructuring may be prone to
attitudes toward revenge against the organization if they believe that management or
the organization is responsible for the restructuring. These individuals may also
conceive their behavior as justifiable and acceptable, perhaps a kind of payback for
the perceived inept management in the organization. Conger and Kanungo (1987)
suggested that leaders are viewed as more charismatic when their views are highly
discrepant from the status quo; they take high personal risks, and they incur high
costs that involve significant self-sacrifice to achieve a shared vision. Potentially
aggressive individuals with attitudes toward revenge, in all likelihood, are not happy
with the status quo in their organization. When a potentially aggressive individual
observes a leader communicating beliefs contrary to the status quo, in spite of
negative consequences (self-sacrificing), the sincerity of the leaders held beliefs
may increase the leaders influence with this individual. Research by Yorges,
Weiss, and Strickland (1999) shows that sacrificing resulted in greater influence for
the leader. Conger and Kanungo (1987) stipulate that in theory, the greater the
leaders sacrifice as conceptualized by followers, the greater the trustworthiness.
The opposition to the status quo may also help disgruntled employees identify with
22


the leader. Trustworthiness is another essential component of charismatic
leadership. If followers become committed to the leaders mission it is conceivable
that although they may still have a positive attitude toward revenge that
commitment to the mission and trust in the leader may reduce the inclination to
aggressive behavior.
It is not difficult to appreciate the idea of an individuals self-control
becoming tenuous, for example, due to the stress of an organizational restructuring.
Lack of self-control could become more pronounced if the individual perceives little
hope that positive workplace changes will occur in the future. If the situation
continues unabated, the probability of workplace aggression increases. People are
naturally motivated to maintain and increase their self-esteem and self-worth. Self-
esteem is founded on a sense of competence, power, achievement, or the ability to
cope with, as well as control ones environment (Bandura, 1986). A charismatic
leader who instills the belief and expresses confidence in a potentially aggressive
follower that he or she can achieve beyond their conceived limitations, empowers
the individual and the motivational process may in turn affect followers self-
concepts. This may result in the follower more closely identifying, as well as
aligning with, the values of the leader. The follower who is low in self-control may
observe the leaders behavior, accept the charismatic leader as a role model and
strive to model his/her behavior after the leader. Therefore, although the individual
may still have a low level of self-control, he/she may be less inclined to display
23


aggressive workplace behavior. When the leader communicates lofty expectations
to the follower, as well as confidence in the ability of the follower to meet such
expectations, the followers perceived self-efficacy increases. Self-efficacy is
defined as judgment of ones capability to achieve a specific level of performance.
Self-efficacy is a potent source of motivation (Bandura, 1986). Thus, an individual
whose self-control may have been slipping would be motivated to achieve the
expected level of performance delineated by the charismatic leader. The change in
the followers self-concept would attenuate the realization that a lack of self-control
may be a detriment to the mission.
Research by Gibson and Barsade (1999) found that employees who reveal
higher levels of chronic anger (i.e., ongoing, generalized feelings of anger which is
focused on other individuals in the workplace) are more likely to conclude that they
have not been treated with respect and dignity by their supervisors. Also, they are
more inclined to presume that they have been betrayed by their employers than
employees who describe lower levels of chronic anger. A charismatic leader who
emerges during a time of crisis or stress, for example, an organizational
restructuring, through a critical evaluation of the existing situation, will assess the
capabilities, the needs, and level of satisfaction experienced by followers.
According to Conger and Kanungo (1998), charismatic leaders are distinguished
from non-charismatic leaders by their uncanny sensitivity to follower abilities and
needs. One aspect of a charismatic leader is the ability to transform the values,
24


attitudes, and behavior of their followers. This type of leadership also utilizes
unconventional means to transcend the existing order. A charismatic leader may
commiserate with individuals who are angry about the status quo and then through
passionate articulation of an idealized future vision and comprehensive use of
impression management skills, influence the individual high in trait anger to identify
with future goals and instill a compelling desire to move toward the common cause.
Identification with the common cause and collective identity would encourage a
high trait anger individual to transcend the personal behavior that is not acceptable
to the collective identity.
Hypothesis 3: Charismatic leadership will have a moderating effect on the
relationship between trait anger, hostile organizational attribution style,
attitudes toward revenge, self-control, and negative affectivity toward
aggressive workplace behavior. When participants perceive their leader to
be charismatic, there will be less of a relationship between the individual
difference variables and aggressive workplace behavior. When participants
do not perceive their leader to be charismatic, individuals who score high on
the individual difference indices will be more prone to aggressive workplace
behavior than individuals who score lower.
25


CHAPTER 2
METHOD
Participants
Data were collected from 213 employees from various organizations who
had been working at their present job for at least six months and all participants
were at least 18 years of age. The sample included 108 women and 105 men who
participated in the study. See Table 1. for demographic information. The
educational level of the participants ranged from some high school to Ph.D. level.
The age and occupations of the participants also varied considerably. One
organizational sample consisted of 63 employees of a well-known
telecommunications firm from a large western metropolitan area. The response rate
from this firm was forty-two percent. Due to the delicate nature of the data and to
further insure confidentiality of the participants, I collected the other data from
employees outside of their organization. Participants were from various types of
organizations such as restaurants, retail stores, hospitals, and office firms.
Procedure
I collected data by administering a survey instrument utilizing established
measures. I believed that surveying different types of organizational environments,
26


which included white-collar office workers to blue-collar truck drivers, would help
to generalize the findings of the study. I also thought that if only one organization
was surveyed, and this firm treated their employees well, it would limit the reported
incidence of aggressive behavior. Using various organizations and employees with
different occupations would increase the likelihood of self-reports of workplace
aggression and also enabled me to collect sufficient data.
No reference was made as to the purpose of the study to the participants
except that it was to examine certain attitudes and perceptions of workplace
situations. Confidentiality was assured to participants due to the delicate nature of
the data, and respondents were not asked to provide any identifying information on
the questionnaire. The 63 participants from the telecommunications firm completed
surveys and placed them in a locked survey collection box at their place of
employment. I contacted employees from other organizations who agreed to recruit
members of their company to participate. These respondents received surveys in a
self-addressed stamped envelope and were asked to mail completed surveys back to
me. The response rate for these organizations was approximately 35 percent. I
thought that if participants completed surveys outside of their organization they
would be more likely to respond honestly and without fear of reprisal from their
supervisor or the organization.
27


Measures
Individual Antisocial Behavior Scale
Robinson and OLeary-Kellys (1998) 9-item Individual Antisocial Behavior
Scale was used to measure the incidence of workplace aggression. The instrument
asked the participants to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale the extent to which they
had engaged in aggressive workplace behaviors during the last 6 months. One
sample item stated, I did something that harmed my employer or boss, with
replies ranging from not at all to frequently, if not always. Robinson and
OLeary-Kelly (1998) reported internal reliability of .68 for a sample consisting of
197 full-time employees, as well as alphas of .75 and .81 for a sample of 102
masters of business administration students, which were attained at two different
points in time. The alpha reliability coefficient for this study was .80.
Trait Anger Scale
This construct was measured using the 10-item Trait-Anger subscale of the
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Speilberger, 1996). The subscale is
composed of Likert-type items that measure individual differences toward the
inclination to experience state anger over a period of time. 1 get angry when Im
slowed down by others mistakes is one sample item. Replies ranged from almost
28


never to almost always. Higher scores indicated higher trait anger. Douglas and
Martinko (2001) reported internal reliability coefficients at .92 and .93 for their pilot
study and main study, respectively. The coefficient alpha for this current study was
.83.
Negative Affectivitv Scale
Participants completed the 11-item negative afifectivity subscale from the
short form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) (Tellegen,
1982). Respondents rated on scales of 1 to 5 the degree to which they generally felt
afraid, upset, or hostile. Minor setbacks sometimes irritate me too much is a
sample item. Replies ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Higher
scores indicated higher levels of negative affect. Douglas and Martinko (2001)
reported an alpha score of .87 for their study. In this study, the internal reliability
coefficient was .89.
Self-Control Scale
The Self-Control subscale of the Personal Values Scale (Scott, 1965)
measured the participants level of self-control. The subscale consists of 20 Likert-
type items on a five-point scale that measure the degree to which people value self-
control. I let off steam when I am frustrated is one sample item and responses
ranged from absolutely not true to absolutely true. Higher scores indicated less
29


self-control. Past research has indicated alphas between .80 and .92 (Douglas &
Martinko, 2001) and the alpha score for this study was .81.
Attributional Style Scale
The Organizational Attributional Style Questionnaire (OASQ; Campbell &
Martinko, 1998; Kent & Martinko, 1995; Martinko & Moss, 1999) was employed to
determine the extent a person manifests a hostile attributional style. The 28-item
scale consists of 7-point Likert-type items that measure the extent individuals
demonstrate a tendency to attribute negative workplace outcomes to external, stable,
intentional, and controllable causes. For example, survey participants read the
following vignettes: You receive a poor performance evaluation and You fail to
receive a promotion that you wanted for a long time. Participants then answered,
To what extent is this outcome caused by something about you (1) as opposed to
being caused by other people or circumstances? (7) To what extent is the failure to
receive the promotion caused by things that vary over time (1) versus things that are
stable over time (7)? To what extent do you believe that another individual had
control over this failure from absolutely no control (1) to total control (7)? Finally,
To what extent do you believe that another individual intentionally caused this
failure from not intentional (1) to totally intentional (7)? Scores for each
dimension were acquired by calculating the mean of the responses on that particular
dimension. Then, a composite score for attributional style was obtained by
30


determining the mean of the four dimensions. Past research has reported alphas
ranging from .70 to .89 (Douglas & Martinko, 2001). The reliability coefficient for
this study was .81.
Attitudes Toward Revenge Scale
Ten items from Stuckless and Goransons (1992) vengeance scale, which is
a 20-item measure, were utilized to measure the respondents attitudes toward
revenge. The measure uses 7-point Likert type items, which determines the extent
to which an individual maintains a positive attitude toward revenge. For example,
participants were provided the statement, If someone causes me trouble, Ill find a
way to make them regret it and then were asked to rate their response from (1)
strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Stuckless and Goranson (1992) reported an
internal reliability coefficient of .92 and for this study the alpha score was .86.
i
Charismatic Leadership Scale
The Charismatic Leadership component of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1995) is a 12-item measure that employs a 5-
point Likert scale. Participants were presented with the statement, We are
interested in the effectiveness of your supervisor. For each item below, respond to
which degree your supervisor is characteristic of the behavior, using the following
scale. One sample item reads, Talks optimistically about the future, and then
31


participants were asked to respond from (0) not at all to (4) frequently, if not
always. Internal reliability has been reported as high as .95 in previous research
studies and for this study the alpha score attained was .96.
Data Analysis
Hierarchical multiple regression procedures were employed for analysis of
the data. Five separate procedures were run, one for each individual difference
variable and included the five control variables, as well as the charismatic
leadership X individual difference interaction term. The categorical variables age,
profession, education, and tenure were dummy coded before running analyses and
were entered in the first step. Each of the individual differences variables and the
charismatic leadership variable were entered in Step 2 as main effects. Then the
individual difference X charismatic leadership product term was entered in Step 3.
The continuous independent variables were centered in order to reduce the effect of
multicollinearity between the interaction term and the independent variables (Aiken
& West, 1991).
32


CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Means, standard deviations, and variable intercorrelations are presented in
Table 2. These results indicate that bivariate correlations between the criterion
variable of self-reported incidence of workplace aggression and the predictor
variables of trait anger, negative affectivity, self-control, organizational attribution,
and attitudes toward revenge were significantly correlated. Charismatic leadership
indicated a significant negative correlation to workplace aggression, r = -. 27, p =
.00 in a two-tailed test.
The first hierarchical regression analysis indicated significant main effects
for charismatic leadership and trait anger, AR2 = .23, F (2, 188) = 29.57, p = .00.
Please refer to Tables 3-7 for hierarchical regression analyses. This analysis
indicated that individuals who possess high levels of trait anger were more likely to
report a greater incidence of workplace aggression than individuals who manifested
lower levels of trait anger, B = -.41, p = .00. The analysis also showed that
charismatic leadership was negatively related to reported incidence of workplace
aggression, B = .21, p = .001. The results did not support Hypothesis 3 that posited
there would be an interaction between charismatic leadership and trait anger on
workplace aggression.
33


Significant main effects were found for the combination of negative
affectivity and charismatic leadership, AR2 = .08, F (2,188) = 9.47, p = .00.
However, results indicated that negative affectivity, B = -. 13, p = .07, did not
independently account for a significant amount of the variability in the incidence of
workplace aggression. Charismatic leadership negatively related to workplace
aggression, B = .26, p = .00. The analysis did not show support for Hypothesis 3,
which stated that charismatic leadership would moderate the effects of negative
affectivity on aggressive workplace behavior.
The next hierarchical regression procedure indicated significant main effects
for self-control and charismatic leadership, AR2 = .28, F (2,186) = 37.14, p = .00.
These findings suggest that individuals who have low levels of self-control would
presumably report a higher incidence of aggressive workplace behavior than
individuals who possessed higher levels of self-control, B = -.48, p = .00.
Charismatic leadership negatively related to workplace aggression, B = .23, p = .00.
Again, Hypothesis 3 was not supported, as there was not a significant interaction
between charismatic leadership and self-control.
Significant main effects were found for hostile organizational attribution
style and charismatic leadership, AR2 = .09, F (2,188) =10.64, p = .00. This
analysis infers that employees who have a higher hostile organizational attribution
style would be more likely to report greater incidence of aggressive workplace
behavior than individuals who display lower levels on this indice, B = -.17, p = .019.
34


Charismatic leadership indicated a negative relationship to workplace aggression, 13
= .23, p = .001. No support was found for Hypothesis 3, which was the interaction
of charismatic leadership and hostile organizational attribution style.
Finally, significant main effects were found for the predictors attitude
toward revenge and charismatic leadership, AR2 = .24, F (2,188) = 16.51, p = .00.
Results indicate that an employee who has a stronger attitude toward vengeful
behavior would be more likely to report a greater incidence of aggressive workplace
behavior than an individual who has a weaker attitude toward revenge, B = -.30, p =
.00. Charismatic leadership exhibited a negative relationship with workplace
aggression, B = .23, p = .001. Again, there was no relationship with the interaction
of charismatic leadership and attitudes toward revenge.
35


CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
The results Teplicate prior research (Douglas & Martinko, 2001), which
indicated that the individual difference variables trait anger, attributional style, and
attitudes toward revenge were significant predictors of the self-reported incidence of
workplace aggression. However, the current study also found that self-control, as
well, was a significant predictor of workplace aggression. This finding was perhaps
due to the different sample population in that different organizational environments
would affect how individuals maintains their level of self-control. For example, if
an individual is in an organization where there is a high level of provocation from
within the organization, this provocation may affect how an employee with a low-
level of self-control would react to the stimuli.
The findings also suggest that the combination of each of the significant
individual differences and charismatic leadership variables contribute to
considerable variability in the measure of workplace aggression beyond the variance
explained by the control variables. The amount of variability explained ranged from
9 percent for the combination of charismatic leadership and attributional style to 28
percent for the combination of charismatic leadership and self-control. The
significant main effects found for charismatic leadership in the self-reported
36


incidence of workplace aggression indicate charismatic leadership should be given
serious consideration as a practical way of reducing aggressive workplace behavior.
Again, I am not suggesting that a charismatic leader will change the attitudes toward
revenge an employee may harbor against his/her organization. The individual may
still have a positive attitude toward revenge, but that individual may not manifest
vengeful behavior against the organization due to the relationship with the leader.
Prior research supports that subordinates who attribute charismatic qualities
to their supervisors consequently take pride in affiliating with the supervisor
(identification), and share the same mission commitment, are motivated, to perform
above the call of duty in the form of organizational citizenship behavior (Deluga,
1995). Another consideration is that charismatic leaders sensitivity to their
employees needs indicates conscientious concern and respect for subordinates,
which could in all likelihood encourage reciprocal respect from followers (Conger,
Kanungo, & Menon, 2000). This reciprocal respect may prevent an employee set on
revenge to manifest the behavior. The employee still has a positive attitude toward
revenge, but out of respect for the leader curbs the aggressive behavior.
I had hypothesized that charismatic leadership would moderate the influence
of each of the individual difference predictors in the self-reported incidence of
workplace aggression. For example, when the effect of charismatic leadership was
high, I predicted that there would be little difference between employees with
positive or negative attitudes toward revenge. However, when the effect of
37


charismatic leadership was low, individuals with a positive attitude toward revenge
would be more prone to aggressive behavior than individuals with a negative
attitude toward revenge. As indicated in the results none of these hypotheses were
confirmed. The lack of support for these hypotheses may be explained by the
extremely low self-reported incidence of aggressive workplace behavior for the total
sample. The low mean score on the dependent variable workplace aggression
created a floor effect (basement effect). A floor effect occurs when the sample
scores are so low on an instrument that any further variation in scores cannot be
reliably measured (Shaughnessy & Zechmeister, 1994). In other words, because the
reported incidence of workplace aggression was so low, any further variance could
not be detected by the interaction of charismatic leadership and the individual
difference variables on the criterion variable.
One plausible reason for the low self-reports of aggressive workplace
behavior could be due to the delicate nature of the data. Participants may have been
inclined to report socially desirable responses and underreported the incidence of
aggressive workplace behavior, therefore biasing the data. This is a prevalent
problem in studies of workplace aggression (Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998) and
needs to be addressed, possibly with additional validity scales that detect socially
desirable response patterns.
Another feasible reason that the interactions were not significant is that
charismatic leadership is a distal predictor and proximal measures may be more
38


likely to detect an interaction. For example, an abusive supervisor who denigrates
his employees, instead of empowering them like a charismatic leader, may have
more of an effect on an employees likelihood of reporting aggressive workplace
behavior. However, it could just be that charismatic leadership does not moderate
the individual difference variables with their relationship to aggressive workplace
behavior.
Limitations
Limitations to this study need to be taken into consideration for
interpretation purposes. First, as in similar studies of workplace aggression,
questionnaire data were used. Also, because all survey measures were administered
at one point in time, the possibility of common method variance was not eliminated.
Another item of consideration is the sampling method I utilized. Data were
obtained from different organizations with varied occupational groups in order to
generalize the results. However, previous research has suggested that this method
may have introduced unnecessary noise, which deflated some observed relationships
(Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998). Another concern is that I am not certain that
data were obtained from representative groups from each organization, because
certain types of employees may have been more likely to respond than others, thus
biasing the results. However, it should be taken into consideration that this sample
is more representative than a sample taken from participants of only one
39


organization. Again, the delicate nature of the data may have caused participants to
respond in a socially desirable manner thus biasing the data.
Finally, a limited subset of individual differences was investigated in this
study. Previous research (Baron & Neuman, 1999) indicates that Type A behavior
contributes a significant amount to the variability in reported incidence of
aggressive behavior. Other individual difference predictors such as impulsivity,
emotional susceptibility, perceived controllability, egotism, agreeableness, and
anxiety may also explain a significant proportion of the variance in incidence of
workplace aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001).
Future Research
Other data collection methods such as interviews and observations should be
employed in future research, which could support and determine findings
concerning the relationship between charismatic leadership, individual differences
and workplace aggression. Longitudinal research designs that could assess the
influence over time a charismatic leader has over employees predisposed to
aggressive behavior could provide support for the existence of these effects.
Additional research is also warranted concerning other personality variables, as
previously reported, that interact with aggressive workplace behavior. Another
research avenue that requires investigation is how a charismatic leader could affect
group level and organizational variables linked to workplace aggression.
40


Future research should also examine the different components of charismatic
leadership to illuminate why charismatic leaders have the effect they do. Research
by Kirkpatrick & Locke (1996) has indicated that vision is strongly related to
motivating followers attitudes and positively affect congruence concerning
participants and leaders beliefs and values. For example, if vision, or perhaps
empowerment could be identified as a mediator of aggressive workplace behavior it
would have important implications for managers. One area of practical application
would be training, as programs that concentrate on specific mediators could be
designed for the purpose of reducing workplace aggression.
Finally, we dont understand why charismatic leadership is negatively
related to the reported incidence of workplace aggression. We need to get into the
black box of charismatic leadership with mediator models to understand this
relationship and find what components of charismatic leadership are significant.
Empowerment is one possible mediator that could be explored.
Conclusion
Despite the limitations, the implications of this study may be important.
First, the results provide support for previous research concerning particular
individual difference variables as significant predictors of workplace aggression.
To date, this is the first study that has investigated the relationship between
charismatic leadership and aggressive workplace behavior. The hypotheses
41


concerning the interaction of charismatic leadership and the individual difference
variables in relation to workplace aggression were not supported. Again, this may
have been due to the low self-reported incidence of workplace aggression or maybe
it is because the effect just doesnt exist. However, the main effects found for
charismatic leadership in relationship to workplace aggression are notable. From a
research perspective, these findings provide avenues of direction for future
investigation, which in turn could furnish practical organizational strategies for
combating and reducing the burgeoning problem of workplace aggression.
42


APPENDIX
A. Survey Measures and Items
Trait-Anger subscale of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory fSpeilberger.
19961.
For the following: Read each statement and then circle the number on the scale
which best describes how you generally feel. Remember that there are no right or
wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement.
Almost never 1 2 3 4 Almost always
1. I have a fiery temper.
2. I am quick tempered.
3. I am a hot-headed person.
4. I fly off the handle.
5. When I get mad, I say nasty things.
6. When I get frustrated, I feel like hitting someone.
7. I feel infuriated when I do a good job and get a poor evaluation.
8. It makes me furious when I am criticized in front of others.
9. I feel annoyed when I am not given the recognition for doing good work.
10.1 get angry when Im slowed down by others mistakes.
Negative Affectivitv subscale from the short form of the Multidimensional
Personality Questionnaire (MPOl (Tellegen. 19821.
Please indicate how accurate you believe each statement to be by circling the
number on the scale which best describes your response.
Strongly disagree 0 1 2 3 4 Strongly agree
1. I often lose sleep over my worries.
2. Minor setbacks sometimes irritate me too much.
3. There are days when Im on edge all of the time.
4. I am too sensitive for my own good.
5. I often find myself worrying about something.
6. My feelings are hurt rather easily.
43


7. Often I get irritated at little annoyances
8. I suffer from nervousness
9. My mood often goes up and down.
10.1 sometimes feel just miserable for no good reason.
The Self-Control subscale of the Personal Values Scale (Scott. 1965Y
For the following: Please read each statement and indicate how accurate you believe
each statement to be by circling the number on the scale which best describes your
response.
Absolutely not true 1 2 3 4 5 Absolutely true
1. I keep my feelings hidden from others. (R)
2. I lose my temper easily.
3. I practice self-control. (R)
4. I show my feelings readily
5. I tell people off when they offend me.
6. I reply to anger with gentleness. (R)
7. I never lose my temper, no matter what the reason. (R)
8. I express my anger openly and directly when provoked.
9. I swear when I am angry.
10.1 suppress my hostility. (R)
11.1 do not get upset when things go wrong. (R)
12.1 suppress the urge to speak hastily in anger. (R)
13.1 let others see how I really feel.
14.1 get upset when things do not go well.
15.1 get so angry that other people know about it.
16.1 do not express anger, even when I have a reason for doing so. (R)
17.1 let people know when I am annoyed with them.
18.1 keep my feelings of frustration from other people. (R)
19.1 keep my hostile feelings to myself. (R)
20.1 let off steam when I am frustrated.
The Organizational Attributional Style Questionnaire (PASO: C. R. Campbell &
Martinko. 1998: Kent & Martinko. 1995: Martinko & Moss. 19991.
For the following: A) Please read each situation and imagine it happening to you.
B) Please answer the questions as accurately as possible by circling the number on
the scale which best describes your response.
44


1. You receive a poor performance evaluation.
A. To what extent is this poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
evaluation caused by something completely completely due to
about you versus other people or circumstances? do to me other circumstances
B. To what extent is such an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
evaluation caused by things that variable stable
vary over time versus things that are stable over time? over time over time
C. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual had absolutely total
control over this poor evaluation? no control control
D. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual not totally
intentionally caused this poor evaluation? intentional intentional
2. You fail to receive a promotion that you wanted for a long time.
A. To what extent is the failure to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
receive the promotion caused by completely completely due to
something about you versus other do to me other circumstances
people or circumstances?
B. To what extent is the failure to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
receive the promotion caused by variable stable
things that vary over time versus over time over time
things that are stable over time?
C. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual had absolutely total
control over this failure? no control control
45


D. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual not totally
intentionally caused this failure? intentional intentional
3. You received almost no raise compared to others in your department.
A. To what extent is the failure to
receive a comparable raise
caused by something about
you versus other people or
circumstances?
B. To what extent is the failure to
receive a comparable raise
caused by things that vary over
time versus things that are
stable over time?
C. To what extent do you believe
that another individual
controlled your failure to
receive a comparable raise?
D. To what extent do you believe
that another individual
intentionally caused your failure
to receive a comparable raise?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
completely completely due to
do to me other circumstances
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
variable stable
over time over time
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
absolutely total
no control control
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not totally
intentional intentional
4. Your coworkers failed to nominate you for an award that you believe you
earned.
A. To what extent is the failure to
be nominated caused by
something about you versus
other people or circumstances?
1 2 3
completely
do to me
4 5 6 7
completely due to
other circumstances
B. To what extent is the failure to
be nominated caused by
things that vary over
time versus things that are
stable over time?
1 2
variable
over time
3 4 5
6 7
stable
over time
46


To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual had absolutely total
control over your failure to be nominated? no control control
To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual not totally
intentionally caused your failure to be nominated? intentional intentional
5. You are informed that key suggestions you made in a meeting will not be
implemented.
A. To what extent is the failure to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
have your suggestions completely completely due to
implemented caused by something about you versus other people or circumstances? do to me other circumstances
B. To what extent is the failure to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
have your suggestions variable stable
implemented caused by things that vary over time versus things that are stable over time? over time over time
C. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual had absolutely total
control over the failure to have your suggestions implemented? no control control
D. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual not totally
intentionally caused the failure intentional intentional
to have them implemented?
6. You are having a great deal of difficulty getting along with your coworkers.
47


A. To what extent is the difficulty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to get along with your completely completely due to
coworkers caused by do to me other circumstances
something about you versus
other people or circumstances?
B. To what extent is the difficulty to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
get along with your coworkers variable stable
caused by things that vary over over time over time
time versus things that are
stable over time?
C. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual had absolutely total
control over the difficulty to get no control control
along with your coworkers?
D. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual not totally
intentionally caused the intentional intentional
difficulty to get along with you
coworkers?
7. You were not selected for advanced training that you wanted to attend.
A. To what extent is the failure to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
be selected for this training completely completely due to
caused by something about you do to me other circumstances
versus other people or
circumstances?
B. To what extent is the failure to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
be selected for this training variable stable
caused by things that vary over over time over time
time versus things that are
stable over time?
C. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual had absolutely total
control over this failure to be no control control
selected for training?
48


D. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that another individual not totally
intentionally caused this failure intentional intentional
to be selected for training?
Attitudes Toward Revenge (Vengeance Scale) Stuckless and Goranson (1992V
For the following: Please read each statement and indicate how accurate you
believe the statement to be by circling the number on the scale which best
describes your response.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
1. Its not worth my time or effort to pay back someone who has wronged me.
(R)
2. I try to even the score with anyone who hurts me.
3. I live by the motto Let bygones be bygones. (R)
4. I dont just get mad, I get even.
5. I find it easy to forgive those who have hurt me. (R)
6. I believe in the motto An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
7. I am not a vengeful person. (R)
8. Honor requires that you get back at someone who has hurt you.
9. It is usually better to show mercy than to take revenge. (R)
10. If someone causes me trouble, Ill find a way to make them regret it.
The Charismatic Leadership component of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire fMLOi (Bass & Avolio. 1995L
We are interested in the effectiveness of your supervisor. For each item below,
respond to what degree your supervisor is characteristic of the behavior, using
the following scale:
0 1 2 3 4
not at once in a sometimes fairly frequently,
all while often if not always
49


1. Talks about most important values and beliefs
2. Talks optimistically about the future
3. Instills pride in being associated with him/her
4. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished
5. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose.
6. Displays a sense of power and confidence
7. Articulates a compelling vision of the future
8. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission
9. Expresses confidence that goals would be achieved
10. Goes beyond his/her self-interest for the good of the group
11. Acts in ways that build your trust
12. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of his/her decisions
Individual Antisocial Behavior Scale /Robinson and OLearv-Kellv. 19981.
For each item below please respond to how often you have indulged in these
behaviors.
0 1 2 3 4
not at once in a sometimes fairly frequently,
all while often if not always
1. I have damaged property belonging to my employer.
2. I have said or did something to purposely hurt someone at work.
3. I did work badly, incorrectly, or slowly on purpose.
4. I have griped with coworkers
5. I have deliberately bent or broken rules.
6. I have criticized people at work.
7. I did something that harmed my employer or boss.
8. I said rude things about my supervisor or organization.
50


REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1986). Socialfoundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barker, T. (1994). How to prevent violence in the workplace. Safety and Health,
150, 1, 32-38.
Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace
violence. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job:
Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 29-49). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Baron, S. A. (1993). Violence in the workplace. Ventura, CA: Pathfinder
Publishing.
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1999). Social and personal determinants of
workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the
Type A behavior pattern. Aggressive Behavior, 25,281-296.
Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New
York: Plenum.
Bass, B. M. (1988). Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership. In J. A.
Conger, R. N. Kanungo, & Associates (Eds.), Charismatic leadership
(pp. 40-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and
educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B.M & Avolio, B. J. (1985). (Eds). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press.
51


Bass, B.M & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to
critiques. In M.M Chemers & R Ayman. (Eds). Leadership theory and
research: Perspectives and directions, (pp. 49-80). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Bass, B.M & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B.M & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Manual for the multifactor leadership
questionnaire: Rater form (5x short). Palo Alto, CA: Sage.
Bennis, W. G. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. New
York: Harper & Row.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2001). National Crime Victimization Survey Report,
1993-1999, Washington, D.C.: Author.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000). Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses,
1999, Washington, DC: Author.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001). National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries,
2000, Washington, D.C.: Author.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of
charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management
Review, 12a637-647.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N., (Eds.). (1988). Charismatic leadership: The
elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. J. (2000). Charismatic leadership and
follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,1A1-161.
52


Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relationship between attributional charismatic leadership
and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology. 25 (18), 1652-1669.
Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual
differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86 (4), 547-559.
Filipczak, B. (1993). Armed and dangerous at work. Training, 30,39-43.
Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1996). Violence and hostility at work: A model of
reactions to perceived injustice. In G.R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.),
Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 51-85).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Geen, R. G. (1990). Human aggression. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gibson, D. E., & Barsade, S. G. (1999, August). The experience of anger at work:
Lessons from the chronically angry. In R. R. Callister (Chair), Anger in
organizations: Its causes and consequences. Symposium conducted at the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The
hidden cost of paycuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568.
Greenberg, L. & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against
co workers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and
perceived workplace factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 897-
913.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L.L.
Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century: A speculative inquiry.
In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work (pp. 411-450). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
53


House, R J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership.
Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81-108.
House, R. J & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational,
charismatic and visionary theories. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds).
Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions, (pp. 577-
594). San Diego: Academic Press.
Huesmann, L. R. (Ed.) (1994). Aggression: Current perspectives. New York:
Plenum
Kinney, J. A. (1995). Essentials of managing workplace violence. Charlotte, NC:
Pinkerton Services Group.
Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E.A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three
charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (1), 36-51.
Johnson, P. R, & Indvik, J. (1994). Workplace violence: An issue of the nineties.
Public Personnel Management, 23, 4, 515-523.
Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L. (1998). Toward a theory of workplace violence: A
cognitive appraisal perspective. In RW. Griffin, A. OLeary-Kelly, & J.M.
Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant
behavior (pp. 1-42). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace
aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and
preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391-419.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R.
Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp.
37-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nicoletti, J. & Spooner, K (1996). Violence in the workplace: Response and
intervention strategies. In G.R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence
on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 267-282).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
54


Pillai, R. & Meindl, J. R. (1991). The effects of crisis on the emergence of
charismatic leadership. Best paper proceedings, Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management, 420-452.
Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace
behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38: 55-572.
Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its
nature, and its causes. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & R. J. Bies (Eds.),
Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 3-28). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Robinson, S. L. & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The
influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy
of Management Journal, 41 (6), 658-672.
Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.),
Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness
(pp. 122-160). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shamir, B. (1992). Attribution of influence and charisma to the leader: The
romance of leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22,
386-407.
Shaughnessy, J. J. & Zechmeister, E. B. (1994). Research methods in psychology.
257-258. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shea, C. M., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A
laboratory study of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance.
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 3, 375-396.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 434-443.
Society for Human Resource Management (1996). 1996 Workplace Violence
Survey, Alexandria, VA: Author.
Speilberger, C. D. (1996). State-trait anger expression inventory, research edition:
Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
55


Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: Development of a
measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 7, 25-42.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional Personality
Questionnaire. (Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology,
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus).
Towler, A. J. (2001). Effects of charismatic language training: The effects of
training on attitudes, behavior, and performance. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Rice University, Houston, Texas.
VanderBos, G. R., & Bulatao, E. Q. (1996) (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying
risks and developing solutions (pp. 1-23). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Watson, D. (1988). The vicissitudes of mood measurement: Effects of varying
descriptors, time frame, and response formats on measures of positive and
negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 128-141.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to
experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect of leader
outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, (3), 428-436.
56


Table 1.
Demographics
Gender Freauencv Percent
Female 108 50.7
Male 105 49.3
Educational Level Frequencv Percent
Some High School 3 1.4
High School Graduate 24 11.3
Some College 50 23.5
College Graduate 93 43.7
Tech School Graduate 15 7.0
Masters Degree 26 12.2
Ph.D. 3 1.4
Other 2 .9
Age Freauencv Percent
18-24 29 13.6
25-31 60 28.2
32-38 44 20.7
39-45 27 12.7
46-52 34 16.0
53-59 13 6.1
60+ 6 2.8
Tenure Freauencv Percent
6 months-1 year 36 16.9
1-5 years 118 55.4
5-10 years 27 12.7
10-20 years 21 9.9
20+ years 11 5.2
Occupation Freauencv Percent
Managerial 48 22.5
Professional 57 26.8
Technical 37 17.4
Sales/Customer Service 35 16.4
Clerical/Secretarial 21 9.9
Skilled/Semi-skilled labor 13 6.1
57


Table 2.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. IWA .80 .52
2. CL 2.17 1.08 -.27**
3. TA 2.19 .58 41** -.17*
4. NA 1.86 .82 .14* -.11 .46**
5. SC 2.95 .49 .45** -.12 .52** .30**
6. AS 3.54 .94 .24** -.27** .28** .08 .17*
7. ATR 2.84 1.03 .31** -.14** .45** .28** .39** .25**
Note. IWA = Incidence of Workplace Aggression, CL = Charismatic Leadership,
TA = Trait Anger, NA = Negative Affectivity, SC = Self-Control, AS =
Attributional Style, ATR = Attitudes Toward Revenge.
* p<.05, ** p<.01. N sizes range from 211-213.
58


Table 3.
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Trait Anger, Charismatic
Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression
Variable Steo
Step 1
Gender .08
Age
18-24 .27
25-31 .20
32-38 .16
39-45 .17
46-52 .15
53-59 -.06
Education
Some HS -.17
HS Grad/GED -.26
Some College -.34
College Grad -.51
Tech School Grad -.30
Masters Degree -.26
Profession
Managerial -.05
Professional .01
Technical -.03
Sales/Cust Service .05
Clerical/Secretarial .004
Organizational Tenure
-5 years -.15
5-10 years .03
10-20 years -.009
20+ years .04
Step 2 Trait Anger
Charismatic Leadership
Step 3
Step 2
Step 3
_ **
.21**
Trait Anger X Charismatic Leadership
.01
Note. N = 213. Entries are standardized betas. Dependent variable: Incidence of
Workplace Aggression. ** p < .01.
59


Table 4
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Negative Affectivity, Charismatic
Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression

Variable Step 1
Step 1
Gender .08
Age
18-24 .27
25-31 .20
32-38 .16
39-45 .17
46-52 .15
53-59 -.06
Education
Some HS -.17
HS Grad/GED -.26
Some College -.34
College Grad -.51
Tech School Grad -.30
Masters Degree -.26
Profession
Managerial -.05
Professional .01
Technical -.03
Sales/Cust Service .05
Clerical/Secretarial .004
Organizational Tenure
1-5 years -.15
5-10 years .03
10-20 years -.009
20+ years .04
Step 2
Negative Affectivity
Charismatic Leadership
Step 3
Step 2_____________Step 3
-.13
.26**
________Negative Affectivity X Charismatic Leadership___________________.08
Note. N = 213. Entries are standardized betas. Dependent variable: Incidence of
Workplace Aggression.
** p < .01.
60


Table 5
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Self-Control, Charismatic
Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression
Variable Step 1
tep 1
Gender .09
Age
18-24 .27
25-31 .21
32-38 .16
39-45 .17
46-52 .15
53-59 -.07
Education
Some HS -.17
HS Grad/GED -.27
Some College -.35
College Grad -.53
Tech School Grad -.31
Masters Degree -.27
Profession
Managerial -.05
Professional .02
Technical -.03
Sales/Cust Service .05
Clerical/Secretarial .009
Organizational Tenure
1-5 years -.16
5-10 years .02
10-20 years -.01
20+ years .04
ltep2 Self-Control
Step 2
Step 3
Step 3
Charismatic Leadership
Self-Control X Charismatic Leadership
-.48**
.23**
.00
Note. N = 213. Entries are standardized betas. Dependent variable: Incidence of
Workplace Aggression.
** p<.01.
61


Table 6
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Organizational Attribution Style,
Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression
Variable Sten 1
Step 1
Gender .08
Age
18-24 .27
25-31 .20
32-38 .16
39-45 .17
46-52 .15
53-59 -.06
Education
Some HS -.17
HS Grad/GED -.26
Some College -.34
College Grad -.51
Tech School Grad -.30
Masters Degree -.26
Profession
Managerial -.05
Professional .01
Technical -.03
Sales/Cust Service .05
Clerical/Secretarial .004
Organizational Tenure
1-5 years -.15
5-10 years .03
10-20 years -.009
20+ years .04
Step 2
Step 3
Org. Attribution Style -.17*
Charismatic Leadership .23**
Step 3
_______Ore. Attribution Style X Charismatic Leadership__________________-.01
Note. N = 211. Entries are standardized betas. Dependent variable: Incidence of
Workplace Aggression.
* p<.05, **p<.01.
62


Table 7
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Attitudes Toward Revenge,
Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression
Variable Step 1
Step 1
Gender .08
Age
18-24 .27
25-31 .20
32-38 .16
39-45 .17
46-52 .15
53-59 -.06
Education
Some HS -.17
HS Grad/GED -.26
Some College -.34
College Grad -.51
Tech School Grad -.30
Masters Degree -.26
Profession
Managerial -.05
Professional .01
Technical -.03
Sales/Cust Service .05
Clerical/Secretarial .004
Organizational Tenure
1-5 years -.15
5-10 years .03
10-20 years -.009
20+ years .04
Step 2
Attitudes Toward Revenge
Charismatic Leadership
Step 3
Step 2
-.30**
.23**
Step 3
_______Attitudes Toward Revenge X Charismatic Leadership___________________.01
Note. N = 212. Entries are standardized betas. Dependent variable: Incidence of
Workplace Aggression.
** p< .01.
63


Full Text

PAGE 1

THE EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP ON AGGRESSIVE WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR by William K. Hepworth B. A., University of Colorado at Denver, 2001 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Psychology 2003

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by William K. Hepworth has been approved by Date

PAGE 3

Hepworth, William K. (M. A., Industrial/Organizational Psychology) The Effects ofIndividual Differences and Charismatic Leadership on Aggressive Workplace Behavior Thesis directed by Associate Professor Annette J. Towler ABSTRACT This study examined the relationship among charismatic leadership, five individual differences, and the incidence of workplace aggression. A survey was administered to 213 people from many different types of occupations. The individual differences investigated were trait anger, attribution style, negative affectivity, attitudes toward revenge, and self-control. The results suggest that charismatic leadership and the individual differences predictors used in this study accounted for a significant amount ofthe variance in the reported incidence of workplace aggression. There were no interactions of charismatic leadership and individual differences on workplace aggression. Further research is encouraged which focuses on charismatic leadership, individual differences and their interactions with situational, group level, and organizational variables. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. Signed Annette J. Towler III

PAGE 4

DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to the loving memory of my father, William R. Hepworth and to my wonderful mother, Dorothy P. Hepworth, in gratitude for a lifetime oflove and support.

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis advisor, Annette J. Towler, for her guidance and support on this research and throughout my graduate career. I also wish to express my deepest thanks to Donna Chrobot-Mason whom I have had the privilege of working with since my junior year of undergraduate school for her patience and guidance these last four years. I would also like to thank Mitch Handelsman for his keen insight and sage advice on this project and also during my time at CU-Denver. Also, thanks to Scott Douglas for his assistance. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my wife, Veronica, for her endless patience throughout my academic career and my family and friends for their encouragement and support.

PAGE 6

CONTENTS Tables .................................................................................................. viii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1 Background and Definition of Workplace Aggression .................. 1 Increased Incidence of Workplace Aggression ............................. 3 Individual Differences and Workplace Aggression ....................... 5 Trait Anger ............................................................................ 5 Negative Affectivity .............................................................. 6 Self-Control. ................. : ........................................................ 7 Attributional Style ................................................................. 7 Attitudes Toward Revenge .................................................... 8 Current Preventative Strategies for Workplace Aggression ........... 9 Charismatic Leadership ............................. ................................. 13 The Influence of Charismatic Leadership on Individual Differences Involving the Incidence ofWorkpIace Aggression .... 20 2. 1'v1ETHOD ......................................................................................... 26 Participants .............. ................... .. ............................................. 26 Procedure .................................................................................... 26 vi

PAGE 7

Measures ............................................................................... 28 Individual Antisocial Behavior Scale .................................... 28 Trait Anger Scale ................................................................. 28 Negative Affectivity Scale .................................................... 29 Self-Control Scale ................................................................ 29 Attributional Style Scale ...................................................... .30 Attitudes Toward Revenge Scale .......................................... 31 Charismatic Leadership Scale ............................................... 31 Data Analysis .............................................................................. 32 3. RESULTS ......................................................................................... 33 4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 36 Limitations .................................................................................. 39 Future Research .......................................................................... 40 Conclusion .................................................................................. 41 APPENDIX A. Survey Measures and Items ............................................................... 43 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 51 vii

PAGE 8

TABLES Table 1. Demographics ................................................................................... 57 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations .................................. 58 3. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Trait Anger, Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression .................................................................. 59 4. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Negative Affectivity, Charismatic Leadership, and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression ...................................................................... 60 5. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Self-Control, Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression ...................................................................... 61 6. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Organizational Attnoution Style, Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression ....................................................... .............. 62 7. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Attitudes Toward Revenge, Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression ...................................................................... 63 Vlll

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background and Definition of Workplace Aggression Twenty years ago the tenn "going postal" was relatively unknown in the common American vernacular. Now, workplace violence seems such a part of our everyday lives that "going postal" has become a familiar term used to. describe divergent types of violence. In a survey administered by the Society for Human Resource Management 45 percent of the 1,016 respondents indicated that employees at their organizations were concerned that violence could occur at work (Society for Human Resource Management, 1996). For the period between 1993 and 1999 in the United States, an average of 1.7 million violent victimizations per year were committed against persons who were at work or on duty, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries reported that there were 674 workplace homicides in the year 2000, and that homicide is the third leading fatal cause of occupational injury in the United States (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2001). The BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses reported a total of 16,664 workplace non-fatal assaults and violent acts with lost workdays in 1999 (BLS, 2000). These figures confirm that workplace 1

PAGE 10

violence is an issue of grave concern, which necessitates investigation by organizational researchers. Considering the significance of the burgeoning problem of workplace aggression, researchers have endeavored to identify the factors that influence violent workplace incidents. The majority of research has concentrated on situational variables and on individual differences, such as personality traits, that influence and predict workplace This study strives to augment previous research by focusing on one factor that might ameliorate workplace aggression: charismatic leadership. Although the impression derived from the increase in media reports over the last several years on the expanding phenomena of workplace violence is alarming, severe acts of violence involving direct physical assault represents a relatively rare event in work settings (Neuman & Baron, 1998). However, workplace aggression--efforts by individuals to harm others with whom they work or have worked-are much more prevalent and may prove extremely damaging to individuals and organizations (Neuman & Baron, 1998). Because media reports focus almost exclusively on homicide, it is essential to delineate the differences between workplace violence and workplace aggression. Efforts to harm others in an organizational context range from subtle and covert actions to active confrontations, the destruction of property, and direct physical assaults (Barling, 1996; Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Aggression has been defmed as any behavior where the aggressor 2

PAGE 11

delivers a noxious stimulus to another person-with the intent of harming the other person-and expects that this noxious stimulus will harm the targeted victim (Geen, 1990). Violence is defmed as an act carried out with the intention, or perceived intention, of causing physical pain or injury to another person. Martinko and Zellars (1998) and Baron and Neuman (1996) similarly delineated workplace aggression as employee behavior that is intended to harm current or previous coworkers or the organization to which they are presently, or have previously been employed. Douglas and Martinko (2001) defined the incidence of workplace aggression as the frequency of acts by employees to harm (actual or potential) others with whom they work or the employing organization. Because workplace violence pertains to occurrences of direct 'physical assaults, and workplace aggression concerns any example of behavior by an individual who attempts to harm others at work or their organizations, I shall use the term workplace aggression for this study. This distinction is in accord with the terminology of "aggression" and ''violence'' in existing literature on human aggression (Baron & Richardson, 1994; Huesmann, 1994). Increased Incidence of Workplace Aggression Aggression, like other forms of complex behavior, derives from the interaction of a wide range of social, situational, and personal factors (Neuman & Baron, 1998). Although the body of psychological literature concerning workplace 3

PAGE 12

aggression is expanding, most of the academic work concerning workplace aggression in the organizational literature is theoretically based. The majority of studies to date have examined customer or client-perpetrated violence, demographic and psychological correlates attempting to isolate employee attitudes, and situational determinants/correlates of employee violence (Greenberg & Barling, 1999). Other researchers have explored organizational and group level factors as explanations for the reported surge in workplace aggression. Downsizing, changes involving pay cuts or freezes, computer monitoring of employee performance, changes in management, employee diversity, reengineering, budget cuts, increased pressure for productivity, autocratic work environments, and the use of part-time employees are related to the increase of aggressive workplace behaviors (Baron & Neuman, 1996). Greenberg (1990) reported that underpayment inequity was positively related to employee theft. Folger and Baron (1996) stipulated that in the workplace individuals want to be treated fairly, not only by coworkers and supervisors, but also by their organization. They contended that being treated unfairly might playa powerful role in the occurrence of workplace aggression. Being treated unfairly can lead to anger and resentment which is leveled at the source of the perceived inequity, thus resulting in an aggressive act. Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found support for these assertions and reported that organizational injustice positively correlates to organizational retaliatory behaviors (e.g., employee theft, sabotage, 4

PAGE 13

disobeying of supervisor's instructions). Skarlicki and Folger's model comprised measures of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, which accounted for 68 percent of the variance in obtained scores. Another study by Robinson and o 'Leary-Kelly (1998) supported the hypothesis that the modeling of antisocial behavior by work group members significantly influenced self-reports of antisocial behavior by individual members of the work group. Individual Differences and Workplace Aggression Douglas and Martinko's (2001) research has illustrated that certain individual characteristics are significant predictors of workplace aggression. Trait anger, attribution style, negative affectivity, attitudes toward revenge, and previous exposure to aggressive cultures accounted for 62 percent of the variance in the respondents' self-reported incidence of workplace aggression. For the purpose of this study, I replicated their work by investigating all ofthese individual differences except previous exposure to aggressive cultures. I chose not to include previous exposure to aggressive cultures because the measure used in their study related to neighborhood and home enviromnents and not the workplace. Trait Anger The literature concerned with anger and aggression refers to anger as a strong negative emotional state that may incite aggressive behavior (Berkowitz, 5

PAGE 14

1993; Geen, 1990). Anger also constitutes several feelings that can vacillate in intensity over time. Feelings may range from tepid annoyance to blind rage. There are two categories of anger: state anger and trait anger. State anger is an emotional response toa particular event that is short-lived. On the other hand, trait anger is the disposition to experience state anger over time and context, a stable personality trait (Speilberger, 1996). Therefore, those that have more experiences with state anger are high trait anger individuals. Those who have fewer experiences with state anger are low trait anger individuals High trait anger individuals are assumed to discern more situations as anger provoking. Negative Affectivity Negative affectivity regards a general disposition in relation to subjective distress (Watson, 1988; Watson & Clark, 1984). Individuals with high negative affectivity are pessimistic, often feel anxious, and are extremely sensitive to negative events. Geen (1990) suggested that negative affectivity is a precursor to aggression, and Berkowitz (1993) showed that people with high negative affectivity are more likely to respond to negative stimulation much more aggressively than those with low negative affectivity. 6

PAGE 15

Self-Control Previous research on self-control suggests that individuals' lack of ability to manage their emotions may be related to the incidence of workplace aggression. Baron and Richardson (1994) alluded to low self-control individuals as people who manifest a "stable tendency to react offensively to minimal provocations (p. 121)." Geen (1990) suggested that individuals with lower levels of self-control are more likely to be aggressive when exposed to stressful or provocative situations than those with high levels ofself-control. Attributional Style The way a person conceptually evaluates negative outcomes may predict anger and possibly aggression. Martinko and Zellars (1998) suggested that when people exhibit inclinations to attribute negative workplace outcomes to other persons or their employer, and believe that these outcomes were controllable, intentional, stable, and with no extenuating circumstances, anger and subsequent aggression are more likely to be demonstrated than if individuals exhibit tendencies to attribute the causes to factors that are internal, uncontrollable, unintentional or unstable. 7

PAGE 16

Attitudes Toward Revenge Stuckless and Goranson (1992) assert that revenge might be described as the proclivity to inflict damage, injury, or punishment in return for an injury or insult or the infliction of harm in return for perceived harm. They proposed that when individuals take part in aggressive behaviors for the purpose of revenge, they see their behavior as acceptable and justifiable and also that certain people have more positive attitudes toward seeking revenge than others. Therefore, the propensity to strive for revenge may be related to the incidence of aggressive behavior. Hypothesis la: There will be a positive relationship between trait anger and the incidence of workplace aggression. Hypothesis 1 b: There will be a positive relationship between negative affectivity and the incidence of workplace aggression. Hypothesis lc: There will be a positive relationship between low levels of self-control and the incidence of workplace aggression. Hypothesis Id: There will be a positive relationship between hostile organizational attribution style and the incidence of workplace aggression. Hypothesis Ie: There will be a positive relationship between attitudes toward revenge and the incidence of workplace aggression. 8

PAGE 17

Current Preventative Strategies for Workplace Aggression While the burgeoning organizational literature has made significant strides in predictive models dealing with workplace aggression, there is a paucity of research regarding prevention strategies. Many organizations have implemented violence prevention programs, although programs differ in their approach due to the diverse nature of organizations, and the fact that one standard policy would not necessarily be appropriate and applicable to all enterprises (Nicoletti & Spooner, 1996). In general, public offices have clearer policies and procedures than do private corporations (Barker, 1994). Despite the media hype concerning specific workplace homicides, the U.S. Postal Service is not a particularly high-risk environment for occupational fatalities. The United States Postal Service (USPS) adapted a program and policies which in numerous ways is the archetype for many The USPS plan includes guidelines for hiring and firing practices, puts emphasis on using proper reporting assessment, and security measures. The plan also attempts to encourage a positive work atmosphere with the USPS's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) as the cornerstone of the violence prevention program. The USPS has the most comprehensive EAP in the world, and in the mind of many professionals is the prototype for clinical responsiveness, cost-effectiveness, and clinical efficacy (Bulatao & Vandenbos, 1996). 9

PAGE 18

The Strategic Safety Association, a consulting :firm for preventing workplace violence, has develpped a program with a focus on employees that emphasizes employer attunement to the individual employee's stress level (Barker, 1994). Lindsey, in his 1994 book, Evaluating the Workforce, developed a workplace violence prevention program which is built on the premise that violence in the workplace assumes diverse forms including sexual harassment, threats, violence, vandalism, belligerence, and verbal conflicts that escalate into physical altercations. Lindsey's method entails administration of a standardized survey to all employees, in which they anonymously rate their job stress and satisfaction level.Aggregated data that present a view of the emotional "pulse" of the company is available for review, and when problem areas or sudden changes become evident, they can be addressed immediately (Nicoletti & Spooner, 1996). Another approach developed by Baron, in Violence in the Workplace (1993), accentuates understanding human behavior as a basis for predicting violence with training and education as essential elements for any organization's threat management plan. Baron stipulated that training should comprise information to acquaint workers with a ''profile'' of a violent person based on specific traits found in former perpetrators such as: a past history of violence, psychosis, romantic obsession, substance abuse, depression, externalization of blame by the person, impaired neurological functioning, frustration with the environment, interest in weapons, and the presence of a personality disorder (Nicoletti & Spooner, 1996). 10

PAGE 19

Joseph A. Kinney of the National Safe Workplace Institute designed a violence prevention program which states that threat assessment starts with appraisal ofthe source of the threat, coupled with infonnation known about attributes of violent individuals. In assessing threats it is important to scrutinize the overall life context of the person, particularly other stress factors (recent breakup of a relationship, financial problems, etc.) that may impact the work environment. Another aspect to consider is the extent of psychological "anchors" the individual maintains. Anchors are personal characteristics and life circumstances that help stabilize and ground people during stressful times including, but not limited to: a secure family life, stable finances, lack of substance abuse, and positive work history. Kinney also advises use of a mandatory reporting system, with negative consequences for employees who fail to report suspicious behavior (Kinney, 1995). The Nicoletti-Flater Approach emphasizes education and training as an instrumental type of violence prevention, but these programS are tailored to major businesses, corporations, and governmental agencies. This method incorporates a three-phase strategy designed to address threats arising from internal or external sources. Phase one and two concentrate on coordinated receipt and dispersement of infonnation and timely, proactive intervention to prevent the occurrence of violence. The third phase of this approach involves response action following a major incident. The design of the program is to assist organizations to develop guidelines 11

PAGE 20

that recognize and thwart all levels of threat or violence that may occur in the workplace (Nicoletti & Flater, 1996). It must be noted that the workplace violence programs that I have discussed are primarily concerned with violence and the threat of violence. But, the overwhelming majority of acts of mistreatment in organizations are subtler than those involving physical violence. However, acts of aggression that are verbal and/or less intense in nature serve as the initial step in an upward spiral that leads to physical and/or more intense forms of aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1997). In addition, because workplace violence is a relatively new field, there is little research available on the effectiveness of workplace violence prevention programs. While existing programs may appear to be effective, given what is not known, and what is still to be learned about workplace aggression, none of the programs suggested should be taken as the final word or the ultimate solution (Bulatao & Vandenbos, 1996). A new era of treating employees respectfully is also emerging from increased awareness of the problem of workplace aggression. Increased sensitivity to employee issues and viewpoints can effectively complement a comprehensive violence prevention program (Nicoletti & Flater, 1996). Johnson & Indvik's (1994) ''paths to prevention" of workplace violence includes proposing key procedures such as: pre-employment guidelines, threat analysis and immediate security response, notifYing law enforcement, security for executives and threatened 12

PAGE 21

personnel, policies for communicating with the workforce and the media, establishing psychological assistance programs, and disseminating information about violence to all employees. But, Johnson and Indvik also suggested a unique approach to prevention of workplace aggression with a strong emphasis on increasing workers self-esteem and empowering them through "compassionate leadership." The researchers stipulated that employees who feel empowered and united with the company' in a significant. way will maximize their effort, output, and contribution, while simultaneously decreasing aggressive tendencies and reducing the propensity for workplace aggression within the organization (Johnson & Indvik, 1994). Charismatic Leadership Another preventative strategy for reducing workplace aggression is the presence of effective leaders in organizations. Besides the threat of workplace aggression, scholars and management practitioners generally are in agreement that leaders in the twenty' first century will face a gamut of new challenges, which will impose new role demands. House (1995) asserted that, "Because much of the twenty-first century work will be intellectual rather than physical, to observe, monitor, and control the processes and behavior by which organizational members accomplish their tasks will be difficult if not impossible. As a result, a substantial proportion of organizational members will work without direct supervision (p. 410-411)." 13

PAGE 22

Consequently, organizational leaders will need to empower individuals to promote individual initiative, motivation, and willingness to take personal responsibility for task accomplishment in order to attain valuable competitive advantage. Empowering leadership implies providing autonomy to one's followers. To a great extent, leaders permit and stimulate followers to enable, direct, and control themselves in fulfilling their responsibilities in alignment of their goals with the goals of their leader and the larger organization (Bass, 1998). Beginning in the 1980's, organizational research began to shift to new leadership paradigms, which have been referred to as "charismatic," ''transformational,'' "inspirational," and ''visionary'' leadership (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977;Sashkin, 1988). These theories focus on outstanding leaders who have remarkable effects on their followers. According to these new leadership paradigms, such leaders transform the needs, values, preferences and aspirations of followers from self-interests to collective interests, cause followers to become deeply committed to the leaders mission, inspire followers to make meaningful self-sacrifice in the interest of the mission, and induce followers to perform well above and beyond the call of duty. The salient component and underlying concept in all of these theories is charisma. Research on these theories has generated formidable support for the positive effects charismatic leaders have on follower outcomes such as heightened motivation, job satisfaction, and performance (House & Howell, 1992; Shamir, 1992). Charisma 14

PAGE 23

was initially introduced into leadership theory by sociological pioneer Max Weber in 1947. The word charisma is of Greek derivation and means "gift". Numerous theoretical models of charismatic leadership have been proposed in the organizational literature. House and Shamir (1993) synthesized the various charismatic theories in the literature and offered the following components of charismatic leadership. To summarize, charismatic leaders are visionary (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977); arouse followers' motives (e.g., House & Shamir, 1993), are excellent role models (e.g., Bass, 1988; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977), project self-confidence and are optimistic (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1977), empower their followers (Bass, 1988; House, 1977) and challenge the status quo to demonstrate commitment to their values and vision ((2onger & Kanungo, 1987). Charismatic leadership also has beneficial effects on follower performance. Empirically, charismatic leadership has positively correlated to higher performance levels among followers, as well as to more motivated and satisfied followers (House & Shamir, 1993). House and Shamir (1993) have noted that the effect size of these studies of charismatic leadership behavior on follower performance and satisfaction is greater than prior field study conclusions of other forms of leader with correlations of .50 or better and well below .01 probability of error due to chance. There are numerous reasons why charismatic leadership should be investigated as a practical deterrence to workplace aggression. Charismatic leaders 15

PAGE 24

use empowerment strategies rather than control to arouse and transform follower's motives and also achieve a position of influence. Conger and Kanungo (1988) posited a model of the empowerment process that illustrates leaders' strategies, where the leader first identifies organizational and environmental conditions that are antagonizing the employee and need to be addressed. Identification lays the groundwork for empowerment strategies such as idealizing the vision, inspirational articulation of the vision, as well as modeling behavior (personal risk taking and sacrifice) that in turn furnishes self-efficacy information to the followers. Deriving self-efficacy information from the behavior ofthe leader strengthens followers' self determination beliefs and they feel empowered and self-assured. Thus, these feelings enable employees to be more productive and committed to the leader and to the vision. Perhaps empowerment is a mediator between charismatic leadership and individual differences. Bass and Avolio (1993, p. 56) also delineated empowering effects on followers. Behavioral indicators such as (1) promoting self-development among followers (individualized consideration), (2) convincing followers that they have the ability to achieve high performance levels (inspirational motivation), (3) fostering a readiness for changes in thinking (intellectual stimulation), and (4) modeling through self-sacrifice (idealized influence) furnish self-efficacy information to followers and subsequently have empowering effects on them. House and Shamir (1993) asserted that charismatic leaders transform followers' self-concepts through at least four mechanisms: (1) changing followers' 16

PAGE 25

perceptions of the nature of the work itselfby making it appear to be more heroic, ethically appropriate, and meaningful, (2) by offering an appealing future vision, (3) by cultivating a profound collective identity among followers, and (4) increasing both individual and collective self-efficacy. In the case of workplace aggression the potential for transformation from a disgruntled, aggressive employee to a productive, committed follower provides adequate reason to further explore the effects of charismatic leadership. The role of contextual and situational factors in the study of charismatic leadership has been very limited, and rarely applied outside the fields of political science and religion. What does exist is largely theoretical and speculative. The most prevailing speculation is that periods of stress and turbulence are the most favorable time for charismatic leadership. This contention is derived from the work of political scientists looking at charismatic leadership in political and religious contexts (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). The underlying premise is as follows. In times of change and stress people feel anxious, helpless, and frustrated. Nothing can be taken for granted, prior arrangements no longer work, and the future looks foreboding. During times like this people yearn for someone who has a clear sense of direction. Therefore, they are more readily accepting of a leader who has self confidence and a vision that furnishes meaning to the current -situation and the promise of better times ahead. Pillai and Meindl (1991) manipUlated a crisis situation which found support that participants who experienced crisis during a 17

PAGE 26

group task selected leaders more on the basis oftheir charismatic appeal than those who did not experience a crisis. We are living in the era of organizational downsizing. In many instances, the consequent layoffs shatter long-standing psychological contracts between the employee and employer concerning job security. The negative effects of this type of organizational restructuring has already been linked to instances of workplace aggression and suggests a particular intuitive appeal to examining charismatic leadership as an effective remedy to reduce workplace aggression. Another reason to explore the possibility of counteracting the effects of workplace aggression by charismatic leadership is in the context of training. There are few human skills or capabilities, either physical (such as skill at golf) or cognitive (including writing ability) that we are unable to develop to a higher level of expertise with training and practice. This is not saying that we are all capable of playing golflike Tiger Woods, or writing like Shakespeare. 'But viewing charisma on a continuum with some individuals being more charismatic than others, it is a reasonable supposition to consider that less charismatic individuals can further extend their charismatic horizons by training and practice. Research by Shea and Howell (1999) suggested that it is possible to train actors to exhibit behaviors that observers are able to identify as charismatic. Their study illustrates that articulating a profound vision, expressing confidence in individuals' capabilities, and communicating high expectations are effective 18

PAGE 27

leadership behaviors which, if developed by managers, could contribute to follower performance (p. 392). Research by Towler (2001) demonstrated support for the effectiveness of charismatic language training. In this study, participants who received charismatic language training performed at higher levels on a declarative knowledge test and demonstrated more charismatic language behaviors than those participants who received presentation skills training or no training. Charismatic language training influenced the use of several charisma language behaviors including number of body gestures, stories told, number of analogies, and vocal fluency (p. 27). Conger and Kanungo (1988) asserted that a charismatic leadership training program should be focused on behavioral components in five areas of competency, which are: (1) critical evaluation and problem fmding skills, (2) visioning (goals) and planning (tactics) skills, (3) communication (articulation and interpersonal sensitivity) skills, (4) exemplary personal behavior and impression management skills, and (5) empowering skills (p. 313). I believe the aforementioned reasons furnish adequate support for the investigation of charismatic leadership as a deterrent force in combating workplace aggression. Therefore I propose: Hypothesis 2: Perceived charismatic leadership will be negatively correlated with the reported incidence of aggressive workplace behavior. 19

PAGE 28

The Influence of Charismatic Leadership on Individual Differences Involving the Incidence of Workplace Aggression One dimension of charismatic leadership is the ability ofleaders to recognize and transform the needs offollowers (House & Shamir, One common factor between the individual differences oftrait anger, hostile organizational attribution, negative affectivity; attitude toward revenge, and selfcontrol is the notion that individuals will perceive their workplace as a stressful environment. Although we have already discussed how charismatic leadership is more readily accepted during times of stress, it is conceivable that a charismatic leader may ameliorate the stress of highly aggressive individuals. For instance, an individual who attributes an organizational downsizing to ineffective management or organizational policy may manifest a hostile organizational attribution style. Over time and the persistence of negatively attributing workplace problems to ineffective management, this hostile organizational attribution style could persist and result in various types of workplace aggression. At the same time, an individual who does not attribute the situation as the organization's or management's fault would not develop a hostile attribution style. A charismatic leader who recognizes the potential aggression in this situation may transform the follower's needs and behavior through the articulation of a vision that furnishes a purposeful meaning to the current situation, as well as illuIilinate a hopeful future scenario where the circumstances aggravating the stress are absent. The charismatic leader may 20

PAGE 29

acknowledge agreement with the potentially aggressive individual that organizational policies and/or poor management were responsible for the restructuring and then proceed to articulate a vision of a future organization where the aggravating circumstances (e.g., poor management or organizational policies) are rectified. I am not hypothesizing that a charismatic leader will change personality traits. However, a charismatic leader may create a climate, where although the employee is still predisposed to a hostile attribution style or still has a high level of trait anger, the individual may be less inclined to be aggressive at work because of the supportive leader. Negative affectivity is described as the inclination for an individual to experience a variety of negative emotions across time and situations (Watson & Clark, 1984). It is reasonable to assume that an individual with a tendency toward negative affectivity would become more pessimistic, anxious, and extremely sensitive, for example, during downsizing. An employee who is prone to negative affectivity may identify with the self-confidence that is projected from a charismatic leader, and from obserVing the leader's behavior accept the leader as a role model. Thus, the charismatic leader becomes a positive image. This image may encourage the follower to question his or her own self-image. Accepting the charismatic leader as a role model could moderate potentially aggressive employees tendencies toward negative affectivity by buying into the vision of the leader, as well as observing the self-confident manner in which the leader conducts himlherself. With the leader 21

PAGE 30

providing an ideal and perhaps a focus for the follower, it is conceivable that the follower would emulate the leader's behavior and although still retaining a high level of negative affectivity may be less inclined to manifest aggressive workplace behavior. Individuals confronted with an organizational restructuring may be prone to attitudes toward revenge against the organization if they believe that management or the organization is responsible for the restructuring. These individuals may also conceive their behavior as justifiable and acceptable, perhaps a kind of payback for the perceived inept management in the organization. Conger and Kanungo (1987) suggested that leaders are viewed as more charismatic when their views are highly discrepant from the status quo; they take high personal risks, and they incur high costs that involve significant self-sacrifice to achieve a shared vision. Potentially aggressive individuals with attitudes toward revenge, in all likelihood, are not happy with the status quo in their organization. When a potentially aggressive individual observes a leader communicating beliefs contrary to the status quo in spite of negative consequences (self-sacrificing), the sincerity ofthe leader's held beliefs may increase the leader's influence with this individual. Research by Y orges, Weiss, and Strickland (1999) shows that sacrificing resulted in greater influence for the leader. Conger and Kanungo (1987) stipulate that in theory, the greater the leader's sacrifice as conceptualized by followers, the greater the trustworthiness. The opposition to the status quo may also help disgruntled employees identify with 22

PAGE 31

the leader. Trustworthiness is another essential component of charismatic leadership. If followers become committed to the leader's mission it is conceivable that although they may still have a positive attitude toward revenge that commitment to the mission and trust in the leader may reduce the inclination to aggressive behavior. It is not difficult to appreciate the idea of an individual's self-control becoming tenuous, {or example, due to the stress of an organizational restructuring. Lack of self-control could become more pronounced if the individual perceives little hope that positive workplace changes will occur in the future. If the situation continues unabated, the probability of workplace aggression increases. People are naturally motivated to maintain and increase their self-esteem and self-worth. Self esteem is founded on a sense of competence, power, achievement, or the ability to cope with, as well as control one's environment (Bandura, 1986). A charismatic leader who instills the belief and expresses confidence in a potentially aggressive follower that he or she can achieve beyond their conceived limitations, empowers the individual and the motivational process may in turn affect followers self concepts. This may result in the follower more closely identifying, as well as aligning with, the values ofthe leader. The follower who is low in self-control may observe the leader's behavior, accept the charismatic leader as a role model and strive to model his/her behavior after the leader. Therefore, although the individual may still have a low level of self-control, he/she may be less inclined to display 23

PAGE 32

aggressive workplace behavior. When the leader communicates lofty expectations to the follower, as well as confidence in the ability of the follower to meet such expectations, the followers' perceived self-efficacy increases. Self-efficacy is defined as judgment of one's capability to achieve a specific level of performance. Self-efficacy is a potent source of motivation (Bandura, 1986). Thus, an individual whose self-control may have been slipping would be motivated to achieve the expected level of performance delineated by the charismatic leader. The change in the follower's self-concept would attenuate the realization that a lack of self-control may be a detriment to the mission. Research by Gibson and Barsade (1999) found that employees who reveal higher levels of chronic anger (i.e., ongoing, generalized feelings of anger which is focused on other individuals in the workplace) are more likely to conclude that they have not been treated with respect and dignity by their supervisors. Also, they are more inclined to presume that they have been betrayed by their employers than employees who describe lower levels of chronic anger. A charismatic leader who emerges during a time of crisis or stress, for example, an organizational restructuring, through a critical evaluation of the existing situation, will assess the capabilities, the needs, and level of satisfaction experienced by followers. According to Conger and Kanungo (1998), charismatic leaders are distinguished from non-charismatic leaders by their uncanny sensitivity to follower abilities and needs. One aspect of a charismatic leader is the ability to transform the values, 24

PAGE 33

attitudes, and behavior oftheir followers. This type ofleadership also utilizes unconventional means to transcend the existing order. A charismatic leader may commiserate with individuals who are angry about the status quo and then through passionate articulation of an idealized future vision and comprehensive use of impression management skills, influence the individual high in trait anger to identify with future goals and instill a compelling desire to move toward the common cause. Identification with the common cause and collective identity would encourage a high trait anger individual to transcend the personal behavior that is not acceptable to the collective identity. Hypothesis 3: Charismatic leadership will have a moderating effect on the relationship between trait anger, hostile organizational attribution style, attitudes toward revenge, self-control, and negative affectivity toward aggressive workplace behavior. When participants perceive their leader to be charismatic, there will be less of a relationship betWeen the individual difference variables and aggressive workplace behavior. When participants do not perceive their leader to be charismatic, individuals who score high on the individual difference indices will be more prone to aggressive workplace behavior than individuals who score lower. 25

PAGE 34

CHAPTER 2 :METHOD Participants Data were collected from 213 employees from various organizations who had been working at their present job for at least six months and all participants were at least 18 years of age. The sample included 108 women and 105 men who participated in the study. See Table 1. for demographic information. The educational level ofthe participants ranged from some high school to Ph.D. level. The age and occupations ofthe participants also varied considerably. One organizational sample consisted of 63 employees of a well-known telecommunications firm from: a large western metropolitan area. The response rate from this firm was forty-two percent. Due to the delicate nature of the data and to further insure confidentiality of the participants, I collected the other data from employees outside of their organization. Participants were from various types of organizations such as restaurants, retail stores, hospitals, and office firms. Procedure I collected data by administering a survey instrument utilizing established measures. I believed that surveying different types of organizational environments, 26

PAGE 35

which included white-collar office workers to blue-collar truck drivers, would help to generalize the findings of the study. I also thought that if only one organization was surveyed, and this firm treated their employees well, it would limit the reported incidence of aggressive behavior. Using various organizations and employees with different occupations would increase the likelihood of self-reports of workplace aggression and also enabled me to collect sufficient data. No reference was made as to the purpose of the study to the participants except that it was to examine certain attitudes and perceptions of workplace situations. Confidentiality was assured to participants due to the delicate nature of the data, and respondents were not asked to provide any identifying information on the questionnaire. The 63 participants from the telecommunications firm completed surveys and placed them in a locked survey collection box at their place of employment. I contacted employees from other organizations who agreed to recruit members of their company to participate. These respondents received surveys in a self-addressed stamped envelope and were asked to mail completed surveys back to me. The response rate for these organizations was approximately 35 percent. I thought that ifparticipants completed surveys outside of their organization they would be more likely to respond honestly and without fear of reprisal from their supervisor or the organization. 27

PAGE 36

Measures Individual Antisocial Behavior Scale Robinson and O'Leary-Kelly's (1998) 9-itemIndividual Antisocial Behavior Scale was used to measure the incidence of workplace aggression. The instrument asked the participants to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale the extent to which they had engaged in aggressive workplace behaviors during the last 6 months. One sample item stated, ''1 did something that harmed my employer or boss," with replies ranging from "not at all" to "frequently, if not always." Robinson and O'Leary-Kelly (1998) reported internal reliability of .68 for a sample consisting of 197 full-time employees, as well as alphas of .75 and .81 for a sample of 102 master's of business administration students, which were attained at two different points in time. The alpha reliability coefficient for this study was .80. Trait Anger Scale This construct was measured using the lO-item Trait-Anger subscale of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Speilberger, 1996). The subscale is composed of Likert-type items that measure individual differences toward the inclination to experience state anger over a period of time. ''1 get angry when I'm slowed down by others' mistakes" is one sample item. Replies ranged from "almost 28

PAGE 37

never" to "ahnost always." Higher scores indicated higher trait anger. Douglas and Martinko (2001) reported internal reliability coefficients at .92 and .93 for their pilot study and main study, respectively. The coefficient alpha for this current study was .83 .. Negative Affectivity Scale Participants completed the II-item negative affectivity subscale from the short form of the Muhidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) (Tellegen, 1982). Respondents rated on scales of 1 to 5 the degree to which they generally feh afraid, upset, or hostile. "Minor setbacks sometimes irritate me too much" is a sample item. Replies ranged from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Higher scores indicated higher levels of negative affect. Douglas and Martinko (2001) reported an alpha score of .87 for their study. In this study, the internal reliability coefficient was .89. Self-Control Scale The Self-Control subscale of the Personal Values Scale (Scott, 1965) measured the participants' level of self-control. The subscale consists of20 Likert type items on a five-point scale that measure the degree to which people value self control. ''1 let off steam when I am frustrated" is one sample item and responses ranged from "absolutely not true" to "absolutely true". Higher scores indicated less 29

PAGE 38

self-control. Past research has indicated alphas between .80 and .92 (Douglas & Martinko, 2001) and the alpha score for this study was .81. Attributional Style Scale The Organizational Attributional Style Questionnaire (OASQ; Campbell & Martinko, 1998; Kent & Martinko, 1995 ; Martinko & Moss, 1999) was employed to determine the extent a person manifests a hostile attributional style. The 28-item scale consists of7-point Likert-type items that measure the extent individuals demonstrate a tendency to attribute negative workplace outcomes to external, stable, intentional, and controllable causes. For example, survey participants read the following vignettes: "You receive a poor performance evaluation" and "You fail to receive a promotion that you wanted for a long time." Participants then answered, "To what extent is this outcome caused by something about you (1) as opposed to being caused by other people or circumstances? (7) "To what extent is the failure to receive the promotion caused by things that vary over time (1) versus things that are stable over time (7)?" "To what extent do you believe that another individual had control over this failure" from absolutely no control (1) to total control (7)? Finally, "To what extent do you believe that another individual intentionally caused this failure" from not intentional (1) to totally intentional (7)1" Scores for each dimension were acquired by calculating the mean of the responses on that particular dimension. Then, a composite score for attributional style was obtained by 30

PAGE 39

determining the mean of the four dimensions. Past research has reported alphas ranging from .70 to .89 (Douglas & Martinko 2001). The reliability coefficient for this study was .81. Attitudes Toward Revenge Scale Ten items from Stuckless and Goranson's (1992) vengeance scale, which is a 20-item measure, were utilized to measure the respondent's attitudes toward revenge. The measure uses 7-point Likert type items, which determines the extent to which an individual maintains a positive attitude toward revenge. For example, participants were provided the statement ,"If someone causes me trouble, I'll fmd a way to make them regret it" and then were asked to rate their response from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Stuckless and Goranson (1992) reported an internal reliability coefficient of .92 and for this study the alpha score was .86. Charismatic Leadership Scale The Charismatic Leadership component of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1995) is a 12-item measure that employs a 5point Likert scale. Participants were presented with the statement, "We are interested in the effectiveness of your supervisor. For each item below, respond to which degree your supervisor is characteristic of the behavior, using the following scale." One sample item reads, "Talks optimistically about the future," and then 31

PAGE 40

participants were asked to respond from (O) not at all to (4) frequently, if not always. Internal reliability has been reported as high as .95 in previous research studies and for this study the alpha score attained was .96. Data Analysis Hierarchical multiple regression procedures were employed for analysis of the data Five separate procedures were run, one for each individual difference variable and included the five control variables, as well as the charismatic leadership X individual difference interaction term. The categorical variables age, profession, education, and tenure were dunimy coded before running analyses and were entered in the first step. Each of the individual differences variables and the charismatic leadership variable were entered in Step 2 as main effects. Then the individual difference X charismatic leadership product term was entered in Step 3. The continuous independent variables were centered in order to reduce the effect of multicollinearity between the interaction term and the independent variables (Aiken & West, 1991). 32

PAGE 41

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Means, standard deviations, and variable intercorrelations are presented in Table 2. These results indicate that bivariate correlations between the criterion variable of self-reported incidence of workplace aggression and the predictor variables oftrait anger, negative affectivity, self-control, organizational attribution, and attitudes toward revenge were significantly correlated. Charismatic leadership indicated a significant negative correlation to workplace aggression, r = -.27, P = .00 in a two-tailed test. The first hierarchical regression analysis indicated significant main effects for charismatic leadership and trait anger, 8R2 = .23, F (2, 188) = 29.57, p = .00. Please refer to Tables 3-7 for hierarchical regression analyses. This analysis indicated that individuals who possess high levels of trait anger were more likely to report a greater incidence of workplace aggression than individuals who manifested lower levels of trait anger, B = -.41, p = .00. The analysis also showed that charismatic leadership was negatively related to reported incidence of workplace aggression, B = .21, P = .001. The results did not support Hypothesis 3 that posited there would be an interaction between charismatic leadership and trait anger on workplace aggression. 33

PAGE 42

Significant main effects were found for the combination of negative affectivity and charismatic leadership, AR2 = .08, F (2, 188) = 9.47, p = .00. However, results indicated that negative affectivity, 13 = -.13, p = .07, did not independently account for a significant amount of the variability in the incidence of workplace aggression. Charismatic leadership negatively related to workplace aggression, 13 = .26, p = .00. The analysis did not show support for Hypothesis 3, which stated that charismatic leadership would moderate the effects of negative affectivity on aggressive workplace behavior. The next hierarchical regression procedure indicated significant-main effects for self-control and charismatic leadership, AR2 = .28, F (2, 186) = 37.14, p = .00. These findings suggest that individuals who have low levels of self-control would presumably report a higher incidence of aggressive workplace behavior than individuals who possessed higher levels of self-control, 13 = -.48, p = .00. Charismatic leadership negatively related to workplace aggression, 13 = .23, p = .00. Again, Hypothesis 3 was not supported, as there was not a significant interaction between charismatic leadership and self-control. Significant main effects were found for hostile organizational attribution style and charismatic leadership, AR2 = .09, F (2, 188) =10.64, p = .00. This analysis infers that employees who have a higher hostile organizational attribution style would be more likely to report greater incidence of aggressive workplace behavior than individuals who display lower levels on this indice, 13 = -.17, P = .019. 34

PAGE 43

Charismatic leadership indicated a negative relationship to workplace aggression,.B = .23, p = .001. No support was found for Hypothesis 3, which was the interaction of charismatic leadership and hostile organizational attribution style. Finally, significant main effects were found for the predictors attitude toward revenge and charismatic leadership, AR2 = .24, F (2, 188) = 16.51, P = .00. Results indicate that an employee who has a stronger attitude toward vengeful behavior would be more likely to report a greater incidence of aggressive workplace behavior than an individual who has a weaker attitude toward revenge, .B = -.30, p = .00. Charismatic leadership exhibited a negative relationship with workplace aggression, .B = .23, P = .001. Again, there was no relationship with the interaction of charismatic leadership and attitudes toward revenge. 35

PAGE 44

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION The results replicate prior research (Douglas & Martinko, 2001), which indicated that the individual difference variables trait anger, attributional style, and attitudes toward revenge were significant predictors of the self-reported incidence of workplace aggression. However, the current study also found that self-control, as well, was a significant predictor of workplace aggression. This finding was perhaps due to the different sample population in that different organizational environments would affect how individuals maintains their level of self-control. For example, if an individual is in an organization where there is a high level of provocation from within the organization, this provocation may affect how an employee with a low level of self-control would react to the stimuli. The findings also suggest that the combination of each ofthe significant individual differences and charismatic leadership variables contribute to considerable variability in the measure of workplace aggression beyond the variance explained by the control variables. The amount of variability explained ranged from 9 percent for the combination of charismatic leadership and attributional style to 28 percent for the combination of charismatic leadership and self-control. The significant main effects found for charismatic leadership in the self-reported 36

PAGE 45

incidence of workplace aggression indicate charismatic leadership should be given serious consideration as a practical way of reducing aggressive workplace behavior. Again, I am not suggesting that a charismatic leader will change the attitudes toward revenge an employee may harbor against hislher organization. The individual may still have a positive attitude toward revenge, but that individual may not manifest vengeful behavior against the organization due to the relationship with the leader. Prior research supports that subordinates who attribute charismatic qualities to their supervisors consequently take pride in affiliating with the supervisor (identification), and share the same mission commitment, are motivated.to perform above the call of duty in the form of organizational citizenship behavior (Deluga, 1995). Another consideration is that charismatic leaders sensitivity to their employees' needs indicates conscientious concern and respect for subordinates, which could in all likelihood encourage reciprocal respect from followers (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000). This reciprocal respect may prevent an employee set on revenge to manifest the behavior. The employee still has a positive attitude toward revenge, but out of respect for the leader curbs the aggressive behavior. I had hypothesized that charismatic leadership would moderate the influence of each of the individual difference predictors in the self-reported incidence of workplace aggression. For example, when the effect of charismatic leadership was high, I predicted that there would be little difference between employees with positive or negative attitudes toward revenge. However, when the effect of 37

PAGE 46

charismatic leadership was low, individuals with a positive attitude toward revenge would be more prone to aggressive behavior than individuals with a negative attitude toward revenge. As indicated in the results none of these hypotheses were confirmed. The lack of support for these hypotheses may be explained by the extremely low self-reported incidence of aggressive workplace behavior for the total sample. The low mean score on the dependent variable workplace aggression created a floor effect (basement effect). A floor effect occurs when the sample scores are so low on an instrument that any further variation in scores cannot be reliably measured (Shaughnessy & Zechmeister, 1994). In other words, because the reported incidence of workplace aggression was so low, any further variance could not be detected by the interaction of charismatic leadership and the individual difference variables on the criterion variable. One plausible reason for the low self-reports of aggressive workplace behavior could be due to the delicate nature of the data. Participants may have been inclined to report socially desirable responses and underreported the incidence of aggressive workplace behavior, therefore biasing the data. This is a prevalent problem in studies of workplace aggression (Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998) and needs to be addressed, possibly with additional validity scales that detect socially desirable response patterns. Another feasible reason that the interactions were not significant is that charismatic leadership is a distal predictor and proximal measures may be more 38

PAGE 47

likely to detect an interaction. For example, an abusive supervisor who denigrates his employees, instead of empowering them like a charismatic leader, may have more of an effect on an employees' likelihood of reporting aggressive workplace behavior However, it could just be that charismatic leadership does not moderate the individual difference variables with their relationship to aggressive workplace behavior. Limitations Limitations to this study need to be taken into consideration for interpretation purposes. First, as in similar studies of workplace aggression, questionnaire data were used. Also, because all survey measures were administered at one point in time, the possibility of common method variance was not eliminated. Another item of consideration is the sampling method I utilized. Data were obtained from different organizations with varied occupational groups in order to generalize the results. However, previous research has suggested that this method may have introduced unnecessary noise, which deflated some observed relationships (Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). Another concern is that I am not certain that data were obtained from representative groups from each organization, because certain types of employees may have been more likely to respond than others, thus biasing the results. However, it should be taken into consideration that this sample is more representative than a sample taken from participants of only one 39

PAGE 48

organization. Again, the delicate nature of the data may have caused participants to respond in a socially desirable manner thus biasing the data. Finally, a limited subset of individual differences was investigated in this study. Previous research (Baron & Neuman, 1999) indicates that Type A behavior contributes a significant amount to the variability in reported incidence of aggressive behavior. Other individual difference predictors such as impulsivity, emotional susceptibility, perceived controllability, egotism, agreeableness, and anxiety may also explain a significant proportion of the variance in incidence of workplace aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001). Future Research Other data collection methods such as interviews and observations should be employed in future research, which could support and determine findings concerning the relationship between charismatic leadership, individual differences and workplace aggression. Longitudinal research designs that could assess the influence over time a charismatic leader has over employees predisposed to aggressive behavior could provide support for the existence of these effects. Additional research is also warranted concerning other personality variables, as previously reported, that interact with aggressive workplace behavior. Another research avenue that requires investigation is how a charismatic leader could affect group level and organizational variables linked to workplace aggression. 40

PAGE 49

Future research should also examine the different components of charismatic leadership to illuminate why charismatic leaders have the effect they do. Research by Kirkpatrick & Locke (1996) has indicated that vision is strongly related to motivating followers' attitudes and positively affect congruence concerning participants' and leader's beliefs and values. For example, ifvision, or perhaps empowerment could be identified as a mediator of aggressive workplace behavior it would have important implications for managers. One area of practical application would be training, as programs that concentrate on specific mediators could be designed for the purpose of reducing workplace aggression. Finally, we don't understand why charismatic leadership is negatively related to the reported incidence of workplace aggression. We need to get into the "black box" of charismatic leadership with mediator models to understand this relationship and find what components of charismatic leadership are significant. Empowerment is one possible mediator that could be explored. Conclusion Despite the limitations, the implications of this study may be important. First, the results provide support for previous research concerning particular individual difference variables as significant predictors of workplace aggression. To date, this is the first study that has investigated the relationship between charismatic leadership and aggressive workplace behavior. The hypotheses 41

PAGE 50

concerning the interaction of charismatic leadership and the individual difference variables in relation to workplace aggression were not supported. Again, this may have been due to the low self-reported incidence of workplace aggression or maybe it is because the effect just doesn't exist. However, the main effects found for charismatic leadership in relationship to workplace aggression are notable. From a research perspective, these fmdings provide avenues of direction for future investigation, which in turn could furnish practical organizational strategies for combating and reducing the burgeoning problem of workplace aggression. 42

PAGE 51

APPENDIX A. Survey Measures and Items Trait-Anger subscale of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Speilberger. 1996). For the following: Read each statement and then circle the number on the scale which best describes how you generally feel. Remember that there are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on anyone statement. Almost never 1 2 3 4 Almost always 1. I have a fiery temper. 2. I am quick 3. I am a hot-headed person. 4. I fly off the handle. 5. When I get mad, I say nasty things. 6. When I get frustrated, I feel like hitting someone. 7 I feel infuriated when I do a good job and get a poor evaluation. 8. It makes me furious when I am criticized in front of others. 9. I feel annoyed when I am not given the recognition for doing good work. 10. I get angry when I'm slowed down by others' mistakes. Negative Affectivity subscale from the short form ofthe Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire OOQ) (Tellegen. 1982). Please indicate how accurate you believe each statement to be by circling the number on the scale which best describes your response. Strongly disagree 0 1 2 3 4 Strongly agree 1. I often lose sleep over my worries. 2. Minor setbacks sometimes irritate me too much. 3. There are days when I'm "on edge" all of the time. 4. I am too sensitive for my own good. 5. I often find myself worrying about something. 6. My feelings are hurt rather easily. 43

PAGE 52

7. Often I get irritated at little annoyances 8. I suffer from nervousness 9. My mood often goes up and down. 10. I sometimes feel 'just miserable" for no good reason. The subscale of the Personal Values Scale (Scott, 1965). For the following: Please read each statement and indicate how accurate you believe each statement to be by circling the number on the scale which best describes your response. Absolutely not true 1 2 3 4 5 Absolutely true 1. I keep my feelings hidden from others. (R) 2. I lose my temper easily. 3. I practice self-control. (R) 4. I show my feelings readily 5. I tell people off when they offend me. 6. I reply to anger with gentleness. (R) 7. I never lose my temper, no matter what the reason (R) 8. I express my anger openly and directly when provoked. 9. I swear when I am angry. 10. I suppress my hostility. (R) 11. I do notget upset when things go wrong. (R) 12. I suppress the urge speak hastily in anger. (R) 13. I let others see how I really feel. 14. I get upset when things do not go well. 15. I get so angry that other people know about it. 16. I do not express anger, even when I have a reason for doing so. (R) 17. I let people know when I am annoyed with them. 18. I keep my feelings of frustration from other people. (R) 19. I keep my hostile feelings to myself. (R) 20. I let off steam when I am frustrated. The Organizational Attributional Style Questionnaire (OASQ: C. R. Campbell & Martinko, 1998: Kent & Martinko, 1995: Martinko & Moss, 1999). For the following: A) Please read each situation and imagine it happening to you. B) Please answer the questions as accurately as possible by circling the number on the scale which best describes your response. 44

PAGE 53

1. You receive a poor performance evaluation A. To what extent is this poor evaluation caused by something about you versus other people or circumstances? B. To what extent is such an evaluation caused by things that vary over time versus things that are stable over time? c To what extent do you believe that another individual had control over this poor evaluation? D. To what extent do you believe that another individual intentionally caused this poor evaluation? 1234567 completely do to me completely due to other circumstances 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 variable overtime stable overtime 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 absolutely no control total control 1 2 345 6 7 not intentional totally intentional 2. You fail to receive a promotion that you wanted for a long time. A. To what extent is the failure to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 receive the promotion caused by completely completely due to something about you versus other do to me other circumstances people or circumstances; B. To what extent is the failure to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 receive the promotion caused by variable stable things that vary over time versus overtime overtime things that are stable over time? c. To what extent do you believe I 2 3 4 5 6 7 that another individual had absolutely total control over this failure? no control control 45

PAGE 54

, D. To what extent do you believe that another individual intentionally caused this failure? 1234567 not intentional totally intentional 3. You received almost no raise compared to others in your department. A. To what extent is the failure to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 receive a comparable raise completely completely due to caused by something about do to me other circumstances you versus other people or circumstances? B. To what extent is the failure to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 receive a comparable raise variable stable caused by things that vary over overtime overtime time versus things that are stable over time? c. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 that another individual absolutely total controlled your failure to no control control receive a comparable raise? D. To what extent do you believe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 that another individual not totally intentionally caused your failure intentional intentional to receive a comparable raise? 4. Your coworkers failed to nominate you for an award that you believe you earned. A. To what extent is the failure to be nominated caused by something about you versus other people or circumstances? B. To what extent is the failure to be nominated caused by things that vary over time versus things that are stable over time? 46 1234567 completely do to me completely due to other circumstances 1234567 variable overtime stable overtime

PAGE 55

C. To what extent do you believe that another individual had control over your failure to be nominated? D. To what extent do you believe that another individual intentionally caused your failure to be nominated? 1234567 absolutely no control total control 1234567 not intentional totally intentional 5. You are informed that key suggestions you made in a meeting will not be implemented. A. To what extent is the failure to have your suggestions implemented caused by something about you versus other people or circumstances? B. To what extent is the failure to 1234567 completely do to me completely due to other circumstances 1 234 5 6 7 have your suggestions variable stable overtime implemented caused by things over time that vary over time versus things that are stable over time? C. To what extent do you believe that another individual had control over the failure to have your suggestions implemented? D. To what extent do you believe that another individual intentionally caused the failure to have them implemented? 1 234 567 absolutely no control total control 123 4 5 6 7 not intentional totally intentional 6. You are having a great deal of difficulty getting along with your coworkers. 47

PAGE 56

A. To what extent is the difficulty to get along with your coworkers caused by something about you versus other people or circumstances? B. To what extent is the difficulty to get along with your coworkers caused by things that vary over time versus things that are stable over time? c. To what extent do you believe that another individual had control over the difficulty to get along with your coworkers? D. To what extent do you believe that another individual intentionally caused the difficulty to get along with you coworkers? 1234567 completely do to me completely due to other circumstances 1 234 5 6 7 variable overtime stable overtime 1 234 5 6 7 absolutely no control total control 1 234 5 6 7 not intentional totally intentional 7. You were not selected for advanced training that you wanted to attend A. To what extent is the failure to be selected for this training caused by something about you versus other people or circumstances? B. To what extent is the failure to be selected for this training caused by things that vary over time versus things that are stable over time? C. To what extent do you believe that another individual had control over this failure to be selected for training? 48 1 2 345 6 7 completely do to me completely due to other circumstances 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 variable overtime stable overtime 1234567 absolutely no control total control

PAGE 57

D. To what extent do you believe that another individual intentionally caused this failure to be selected for training? 1234567 not intentional totally intentional Attitudes Toward Revenge (Vengeance Scale) Stuckless and Goranson (1992). For the following: Please read each statement and indicate how accurate you believe the statement to be by circling the number on the scale which best describes your response. Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree 1. It's not worth my time or effort to pay back someone who has wronged me. (R) 2. I try to even the score with anyone who hurts me. 3. I live by the motto "Let bygones be bygones." (R) 4. I don't just get mad, I get even. 5. I find it easy to forgive those who have hurt me. (R) 6. I believe in the motto "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." 7. I am not a vengeful person. (R) 8. Honor requires that you get back at someone who has hurt you. 9. It is usually better to show mercy than to take revenge. (R) 10. Ifsomeone causes me trouble, I'll find a way to make them regret it. The Charismatic Leadership component of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio. 1995). We are interested in the effectiveness of your supervisor. For each item below, respond to what degree your supervisor is characteristic of the behavior, using the following scale: o not at all 1 once ina while 2 sometimes 49 3 fairly often 4 frequently, if not always

PAGE 58

1. Talks about most important values and beliefs 2. Talks optimistically about the future 3. Instills pride in being associated with him/her 4. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished 5. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. 6. Displays a sense of power and confidence 7. Articulates a compelling vision of the future 8. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission 9. Expresses confidence that goals would be achieved 10. Goes beyond hislher self-interest for the good of the group 11. Acts in ways that build your trust 12. Considers the moral and ethical consequences ofhislher decisions Individual Antisocial Behavior Scale (Robinson and O'Leary-Kelly. 1998). For each item below please respond to how often you have indulged in these behaviors. o not at all 1 once in a while 2 sometimes 3 fairly often 4 frequently, if not always 1. I have damaged property belonging to my employer. 2. I have said or did something to purposely hurt someone at work. 3. I did work badly, incorrectly, or slowly on purpose. 4. I have griped with coworkers 5. I have deliberately bent or broken rules. 6. I have criticized people at work. 7. I did something that harmed my employer or boss. 8. I said rude things about my supervisor or organization. 50

PAGE 59

REFERENCES Aiken, L. S., & West, S. O. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bandura, A (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Barker, T. (1994). How to prevent violence in the workplace. Safety and Health, 150, 1, 32-38 Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence. In O. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 29-49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Baron, S. A (1993). Violence in the workplace. Ventura, CA: Pathfinder Publishing. Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the Type Abehavior pattern. Aggressive Behavior 25,281-296. Baron, R. A, & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed). New York: Plenum. Bass, B. M. (1988). Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership. In J. A Conger, R. N. Kanungo, & Associates (Eds.), Charismatic leadership (pp. 40-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bass B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bass, B.M & Avolio, B. J. (1985). (Eds). Leadership andpeiformance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. 51

PAGE 60

Bass, B.M & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M.M Chemers & RAyman. (Eds). Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions. (pp. 49-80). San Diego: Academic Press. Bass, B.M & Avolio, B. 1. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B.M & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Manualfor the multifactor leadership questionnaire: Rater form (5x short). Palo Alto, CA: Sage. Bennis, W. G. & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: the strategiesfor taking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2001). National Crime Victimization Survey Report, 1993-1999, Washington, D.C.: Author. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000). Survey of Occupational Injuries and llinesses, 1999, Washington, DC: Author. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001). National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2000, Washington, D.C.: Author. Conger,1. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12 .. 637-647. Conger, 1. A., & Kanungo, R. N., (Eds.). (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. J. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747-767. 52

PAGE 61

Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relationship between attributional charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal oj Applied Social Psychology. 25 (18), 1652-1669. Douglas, S. & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace aggression. Journal oj Applied Psychology, 86 (4), 547-559. Filipczak, B. (1993). Armed and dangerous at work. Training, 30,39-43. Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1996) Violence and hostility at work: A model of reactions to perceived injustice. In G.R. VandenBos & Eo Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 51-85). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Geen, R. G. (1990). Human aggression. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gibson, D. E., & Barsade, S. G. (1999, August). The experience of anger at work: Lessons from the chronically angry. In R. R. Callister (Chair), Anger in organizations: Its causes and consequences. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal oj Applied Psychology, 75,561-568. Greenberg, L. & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors. Journal oJOrganizational Behavior, 20,897913. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J. (1995). Leadership in the twenty-first century: A speculative inquiry. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature oj work (pp. 411-450). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 53

PAGE 62

House, R J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3,81-108. House, R J & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic and visionary theories. In M.M. Chemers & R Ayman (Eds). Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions. (pp.577594). San Diego: Academic Press. Huesmann, L. R (Ed.) (1994). Aggression: Current perspectives. New York: Plenum. Kinney, J. A. (1995). Essentials of managing workplace violence. Charlotte, NC: Pinkerton Services Group. Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E.A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (1), 36-51. Johnson, P. R, & Indvik, J. (1994). Workplace violence: An issue of the nineties. Public Personnel Management, 23, 4, 515-523. Martinko, M. 1., & Zellars, K. L. (1998). Toward a theory of workplace violence: A cognitive appraisal perspective. In R.W. GriffIn, A. O'Leary-Kelly, & 1.M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 1-42). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specifIc forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24,391-419. Neuman, 1. H., & Baron, R A. (1997). Aggression in the workplace. In R Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 37-67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nicoletti, J. & Spooner, K (1996). Violence in the workplace: Response and intervention strategies. In G.R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 267-282). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 54

PAGE 63

Pillai, R. & Meindl, J. R. (1991). The effects of crisis on the emergence of charismatic leadership. Best paper proceedings, Annual Meeting ofthe Academy of Management, 420-452. Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multi-dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 55-572. Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its definition, its nature, and its causes. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & R. J. Bies (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 6, pp. 3-28). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Robinson, S. L. & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (6), 658-672. Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J.A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 122-160). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shamir, B. (1992). Attribution of influence and charisma to the leader: The romance of leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 386-407. Shaughnessy, J. J. & Zechmeister, E. B. (1994). Research methods in psychology. 257-258. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shea, C. M., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A laboratory stU(iy of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 3, 375-396. Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443. Society for Human Resource Management (1996). 1996 Workplace Violence Survey, Alexandria, VA: Author. Speilberger, C. D. (1996). State-trait anger expression inventory, research edition: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 55

PAGE 64

Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: Development ofa measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7,25-42. Tellegen, A. (1982). Briefmanualfor the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. (Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus). Towler, A. J. (2001). Effects of charismatic language training: The effects of training on attitudes, behavior, and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rice University, Houston, Texas. VanderBos, G. R., & Bulatao, E. Q. (1996) (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 1-23). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Watson, D. (1988). The vicissitudes of mood measurement: Effects of varying descriptors, time frame, and response formats on measures of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 128-141. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490. Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The effect ofleader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of charisma Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, (3),428-436. 56

PAGE 65

Table 1. Demographics Gender Freguency Percent Female 108 50.7 Male 105 49.3 Educational Level Freguency Percent Some High School 3 1.4 High School Graduate 24 11.3 Some College 50 23. 5 College Graduate 93 43.7 Tech School Graduate 15 7.0 Master's Degree 26 12.2 Ph.D. 3 1.4 Other 2 .9 Age Freguency Percent 18-24 29 l3.6 25-31 60 28.2 32-38 44 20.7 39-45 27 12.7 46-52 34 16.0 53-59 l3 6.1 60+ 6 2.8 Tenure Freguency Percent 6 months-l year 36 16.9 1-5 years 118 55.4 5-10 years 27 12.7 10-20 years 21 9.9 20+ years 11 5.2 Occu.Qation Freguency Percent Managerial 48 22.5 Professional 57 26.8 Technical 37 17.4 Sales/Customer Service 35 16.4 Clerical/Secretarial 21 9.9 Skilled/Semi-skilled labor l3 6.1 57

PAGE 66

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.IWA .80 .52 2. CL 2.17 1.08 -.27** 3. TA 2.19 .58 .41** -.17* 4. NA 1.86 .82 .14* -.11 .46** 5. SC 2.95 .49 .45** -.12 .52** .30** 6. AS 3.54 94 .24** -.27** .28** .08 .17* 7. ATR 2.84 1.03 .31 ** -.14** .45** .28** .39** .25** ---Note. IWA = Incidence of Workplace Aggression, CL = Charismatic Leadership, TA = Trait Anger, NA = Negative Affectivity, SC = AS = Attributional Style, ATR = Attitudes Toward Revenge. ** Nsizesrange from 211-213.

PAGE 67

Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Trait Anger, Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression Variable Step 1 Gender Age 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 Education SomeRS RS Grad/OED Some College College Orad Tech School Grad Master's Degree Profession Managerial Professional Technical Sales/Cust Service Clerical/Secretarial Organizational Tenure -5 years Step 2 5-10 years 10-20 years 20+ years Sten 1 .08 .27 .20 .16 .17 .15 06 -.17 -.26 -.34 -.51 -.30 -.26 -.05 .01 -.03 .05 .004 -.15 .03 -.009 .04 Trait Anger Charismatic Leadership Step 3 Sten2 -.41 ** .21** Sten 3 Trait Anger X Charismatic Leadershin .01 Note. N = 213 Entries are standardized betas. Dependent variable: Incidence of Workplace Aggression. ** p < .01. 59

PAGE 68

Table 4 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Negative Affectivity, Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression Variable Step 1 Gender Age 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 Education SomeHS HS Grad/OED Some College College Grad Tech School Grad Master's Degree Profession Managerial Professional Technical Sales/Cust Service Clerical/Secretarial Organizational Tenure Step 2 1-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years 20+ years SteR 1 08 .27 .20 .16 .17 .15 -.06 -.17 -.26 -.34 -.51 -.30 -.26 -.05 .01 -.03 .05 .004 -.15 .03 -.009 .04 Negative Affectivity Charismatic Leadership Step 3 SteR2 SteR 3 -.13 .26** Negative Affectivity X Charismatic LeadershiR .08 Note. N = 213. Entries are standardized betas. Dependent variable: Incidence of Workplace Aggression ** p < .01. 60

PAGE 69

Table 5 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Self-Control, Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression Variable Step 1 Gender Age 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 Education SomeRS HS GradiGED Some College College Grad Tech School Grad Master's Degree Profession Managerial Professional Technical Sales/eust Service Clerical/Secretarial Organizational Tenure Step 2 1-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years 20+ years Stell 1 .09 .27 .21 .16 .17 .15 -.07 -.17 -.27 -.35 -.53 -.31 -.27 -.05 .02 -.03 .05 .009 -.16 .02 -.01 .04 Self-Control Charismatic Leadership Step 3 Sten 2 -.48** .23** Stell 3 Self-Control X Charismatic Leadershill .00 Note. N = 213. Entries are standardized betas. Dependent variable: Incidence of Workplace Aggression. ** p < .01. 61

PAGE 70

Table 6 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Organizational Attribution Style, Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression Variable Step i Gender Age 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 Education SomeHS HS Grad/OED Some College College Grad Tech School Grad Master's Degree Profession Managerial Professional Technical Sales/Cust Service Clerical/Secretarial Organizational Tenure Step 2 1-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years 20+ years Sten 1 .08 .27 .20 .16 .17 .15 -.06 -.17 -.26 -.34 -.51 -.30 -.26 -.05 .01 -.03 .05 .004 -.15 .03 -.009 .04 Org. Attribution Style Leadership Step 3 Sten2 Sten 3 -.17* .23** Org. Attribution Style X Charismatic Leadershin -.01 Note. N = 211. Entries are standardized betas. Dependent variable: Incidence of Workplace Aggression. p < .05, ** p < .01. 62

PAGE 71

Table 7 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Attitudes Toward Revenge, Charismatic Leadership and the Incidence of Workplace Aggression Variable Step 1 Step 1 Gender Age 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46-52 53-59 Education SomeRS RS Orad/OED Some College College Grad Tech School Grad Master's Degree Profession Managerial Professional Technical Sales/Cust Service Clerical/Secretarial Organizational Tenure Step 2 1-5 years 5-10 years 10-20 years 20+ years .08 .27 .20 .16 .17 .15 -.06 -.17 -.26 -.34 -.51 -.30 -.26 -.05 .01 -.03 .05 .004 -.15 .03 -.009 .04 Attitudes Toward Revenge Charismatic Leadership Step 3 Step 2 -.30** .23** Step 3 Attitudes Toward Revenge X Charismatic Leadership .01 Note. N = 212. Entries are standardized betas. Dependent variable: Incidence of Workplace Aggression. ** p < .01. 63