Customer Aggression : a Theoretical and Meta

The issue of workplace aggression has garnered significant media attention in the last decade (Bensimon, 1994; Bulatao & VandenBos, 1996). This increased public awareness of aggression at work has been closely mirrored by increased attention to this problem among organizational researchers (e.g., Baron & Neuman, 1996; Inness et al., 2005; LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). Over the years, scholars have made successful empirical and theoretical strides in understanding the nature, antecedents, and consequences of workplace aggression. With respect to the nature of aggression, a variety of definitions have been offered (e.g., Neuman & Baron, 1998; Schat & Kelloway, 2005), which, although distinct in certain ways, generally converge on the notion that workplace aggression involves behaviour—occurring in work-related settings—that a target experiences as aversive and that an actor engages in to harm a target. This includes different types of behaviour, ranging from psychological aggression (i.e., behaviour that seeks to cause psychological discomfort or harm) to violence (i.e., behaviour that is intended to physically harm) (Dupre et al, 2006; LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002; Schat & Kelloway, 2005). With respect to antecedents, the relative importance of individual and situational predictors of aggressive behaviours has been examined and demonstrated in a number of studies (Greenberg & Barling, 1999; Inness, et al., 2005; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; for a meta-analytic review, see Hershcovis et al., 2007). A number of studies have also investigated the consequences of exposure to workplace aggression, consequences that include psychological and somatic symptoms, reduced job satisfaction and organizational commitment, turnover intentions, and counterproductive work behaviour (for reviews, see Keashly & Jagatic, 2003; Schat et al., 2005).