(PDF) Adiaphoric aggression: Hidden forms of aggression in organizations

T.C.

MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ

SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ

İNGİLİZCE İŞLETME ANABİLİM DALI

ÖRGÜTSEL DAVRANIŞ (İNG.) BİLİM DALI

ADIAPHORIC AGGRESSION:

HIDDEN FORMS OF AGGRESSION IN ORGANIZATIONS

Doktora Tezi

İHSAN İLKER ÇİTLİ

İstanbul, 2023

T.C

MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ

SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ

İNGİLİZCE İŞLETME ANABİLİM DALI

ÖRGÜTSEL DAVRANIŞ (İNG.) BİLİM DALI

ADIAPHORIC AGGRESSION:

HIDDEN FORMS OF AGGRESSION IN ORGANIZATIONS

Doktora Tezi

İHSAN İLKER ÇİTLİ

Advisor: PROF. DR. TÜLAY TURGUT

İstanbul, 2023

i

ABSTRACT

Aggressive behaviors among employees may have devastating effects on the

organizations. Thus, thorough ethical codes and regulations have been developed to prevent

aggressive behaviors. Employees, on the other hand, may use hidden forms of aggression

which are not easily understood by others or not mentioned in ethical codes to protect their

position. The present study was aimed to investigate these hidden aggressions. For this

purpose: (1) a new framework including hidden forms of aggression was drawn up, (2) an

aggression scale, congruent with the framework, was developed, and (3) antecedents of

aggression were investigated. Newly developed aggression framework differs from other

aggression frameworks by using an ethical perspective for classifying aggression. In the

framework, aggressive behaviors were classified as adiaphoric and unethical aggressive

behaviors. To test the developed framework and proposed antecedents’ effects, four

preliminary and one main study were conducted with the participation of 679 individuals in

total. Initial research was conducted with qualitative content analysis method. 22 employees

were interviewed, and aggressive behaviors mentioned by them were analyzed. Second

quantitative research was conducted to see 88 practitioners’ opinions about the congruency

between aggressive behaviors and the developed framework. The third and fourth

preliminary research were conducted to develop the initial version of Adiaphoric and

Unethical Aggression Scale (AUAS). Lastly, main quantitative research was carried out with

a sample of 500 employees. The findings indicated that: (1) AUAS is a valid and reliable

measurement tool, (2) level of leader toxicity and job demands has an increasing affect on

the employee aggression, and (3) these main effects are mediated by organizational injustice

and negative affect. Present study contributes to the organizational aggression literature by

investigating the hidden forms of aggression from an ethical perspective.

Keywords: Adiaphoric aggression, Unethical Aggression, Employee aggression,

Workplace aggression

ii

ÖZET

Çalışanların saldırgan davranışlarının örgütler üzerinde yıkıcı etkileri olabilir. Bu

nedenle, örgütlerde bu tip davranışları engellemek için etik kodlar ve düzenlemeler

geliştirilmiştir. Öte yandan çalışanlar da kendi konumlarını korumak için etik kodların

kapsamı dışında kalan ve başkaları tarafından kolayca anlaşılamayacak gizli saldırganlık

biçimlerini kullanabilmektedirler. Bu çalışmada bu tip gizli saldırganlıkların araştırılması

hedeflenmiştir. Bu amaçla: (1) gizli saldırganlık biçimlerini içeren yeni bir kavramsal

çerçeve önerilmiş, (2) kavramsal çerçeveye uygun ölçme aracı geliştirilmiş ve (3)

saldırganlığın öncülleri araştırılmıştır. Geliştirilen kavramsal çerçevede saldırganlık, etik bir

bakış açısıyla adiyaforik ve etik dışı saldırganlık olarak sınıflandırılmıştır. Bu yönüyle

literatürdeki diğer saldırganlık sınıflamalarından farklılaşmaktadır. Önerilen kavramsal

çerçeveyi ve öncülleri test etmek için toplam 679 kişinin katılımıyla dört ön ve bir ana

çalışma yürütülmüştür. İlk araştırmada 22 çalışandan nitel yöntem ile veri toplanmış ve içerik

analizi yapılarak saldırgan davranış türleri ve frekansları belirlenmiştir. İkinci araştırmada

nicel yöntemle 88 sosyal bilimcinin ilk araştırmadan elde edilen saldırgan davranışalar ile

geliştirilen çerçeve arasındaki uyum hakkındaki görüşleri incelenmiştir. Üçüncü ve dördüncü

ön araştırmalar Adiyaforik ve Etik Dışı Saldırganlık Ölçeğinin (AEDSÖ) ilk versiyonunu

geliştirmek amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Son olarak, 500 kişilik örneklem ile ana nicel araştırma

yapılmıştır. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular; (1) AEDSÖ’nün geçerli ve güvenilir bir

ölçüm aracı olduğunu, (2) toksik liderlik ile iş taleplerinin, çalışan saldırganlığını arttırdığını

ve (3) bu ana etkilere örgütsel adaletsizlik ile olumsuz duygulanımın aracılık ettiğini

göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak bu çalışmanın çalışanlar arasındaki gizli saldırganlık türlerinin ve

öncellerinin özgün bir bakışla incelenmesi bakımından literatüre katkı sağlayacağı

düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Adiyaforik saldırganlık, Etik dışı saldırganlık, Çalışan

saldırganlığı, Örgütlerde saldırganlık

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr.

Tülay Turgut. She has guided, supported, and encouraged me with her invaluable academic

expertise at every step of this study. Without her contribution, it would have been impossible

for me to complete this study. I would like to thank my committee members Prof. Dr. Tülay

Bozkurt and Prof. Dr. Seçil Bülbül. Throughout this study, they have supported and

encouraged me with their invaluable scientific experiences. I would also like to thank to the

members of the Istanbul jazz dance scene. Without the great help of these jitterbugs, data

collection would have been much more difficult. Near the end, I would like to thank my

darling Hande Diker for her invaluable emotional support during my long PhD journey and

for all the love she brought into my life.

And last but not least, I wanna thank me for not giving up.

İHSAN İLKER ÇİTLİ

Istanbul, 2023

iv

DEDICATION

To the philosophers and scientists

who have devoted their lives to upholding the veritas.

 
 
v 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page No. 
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... I 
ÖZET .................................................................................................................................... II 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. III 
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... IV 
TABLE LIST ................................................................................................................... VIII 
FIGURE LIST ...................................................................................................................... X 
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 6 
2.1. Definition of Aggression ........................................................................................ 6 
2.1.1 Organizational Concepts Related with Aggression .................................... 7 
2.1.2 Aggression Studies in Organizations ........................................................ 18 
2.2. Adiaphoric Aggression: Origin and Definition .................................................... 24 
2.3. Toxic Leadership and Its Relationship with Aggression ...................................... 27 
2.3.1 Leadership: Definition and Theories ........................................................ 28 
2.3.2 Dark Side of Leadership ........................................................................... 29 
2.3.3 Toxic Leadership: Definition and Dimensions ......................................... 31 
2.3.4 The Relationship Between Toxic Leadership and Adiaphoric Aggression
............................................................................................................................ 34 
2.4. Job Demands and Its Relationship with Adiaphoric Aggression ......................... 35 
2.4.1 Job Demands: Definition and Theories..................................................... 35 
2.4.2 The Relationship Between Job Demands and Aggression ....................... 38 
2.5. Mediating Role of Organizational Injustice ......................................................... 39 
2.6. Mediating Role of Negative Affectivity ............................................................... 43 
3. METHOD ........................................................................................................................ 50 
3.1. Preliminary Studies .............................................................................................. 51 

 
 
vi 
1.1 Preliminary Study 1: Exploration of Adiaphoric and Unethical Forms of 
Aggression ......................................................................................................... 51 
1.1.1. Sample ......................................................................................... 51 
1.1.2. Procedure & Instrument .............................................................. 51 
1.1.3. Findings ....................................................................................... 52 
1.2 Preliminary Study 2: Expert Options ........................................................ 53 
1.2.1. Sample ......................................................................................... 54 
1.2.2. Procedure & Instrument .............................................................. 54 
1.2.3. Findings ....................................................................................... 54 
1.3 Preliminary Study 3: Item Pool, Face & Content Validity ....................... 57 
1.3.1. Sample ......................................................................................... 57 
1.3.2. Procedure & Instrument .............................................................. 57 
1.3.3. Findings ....................................................................................... 57 
1.4 Preliminary Study 4: Pilot Study .............................................................. 58 
1.4.1. Sample ......................................................................................... 58 
1.4.2. Procedure & Instrument .............................................................. 58 
1.4.3. Findings ....................................................................................... 59 
2. Sample .................................................................................................................. 61 
3. Procedure .............................................................................................................. 64 
4. Instruments ........................................................................................................... 64 
4.1 Adiaphoric and Unethical Aggression Scale (AUAS) .............................. 64 
4.2 Toxic Leadership Scale ............................................................................. 65 
4.3 Job Demands Scale ................................................................................... 65 
4.4 Organizational Injustice Scale .................................................................. 65 
4.5 Negative Affectivity Scale ........................................................................ 65 
5. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 66 
FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 67 
1. Validity and Reliability of the Scales ................................................................... 67 
1.1 Adiaphoric and Unethical Behaviors Scale (AUAS) ................................ 69 

 
 
vii 
4.1.2 Toxic Leadership Scale ............................................................................. 74 
4.1.3 Job Demands Scale ................................................................................... 77 
4.1.4 Organizational Injustice Scale .................................................................. 79 
4.1.5 Negative Affect Scale ............................................................................... 82 
4.2. Common Method Bias Testing ............................................................................. 85 
4.3. Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................................... 85 
4.3.1 The Relationship Between Toxic Leadership and Adiaphoric Aggression 
and The Mediating Effects of Organizational Injustice and Negative 
Affectivity. ......................................................................................................... 88 
4.3.2 The Relationship Between Job Demands and Adiaphoric Aggression and 
The Mediating Effects of Organizational Injustice and Negative Affectivity. .. 91 
4.3.3 The Relationship Between Toxic Leadership and Unethical Aggression 
and The Mediating Effects of Organizational Injustice and Negative 
Affectivity. ......................................................................................................... 94 
4.3.4 The Relationship Between Job Demands and Unethical Aggression and 
The Mediating Effects of Organizational Injustice and Negative Affectivity. .. 97 
4.4. Additional Analyses: Demographical Differences on Aggression ..................... 100 
4.4.1 Differences in Adiaphoric Aggression by Age groups ........................... 100 
4.4.2 Differences in Adiaphoric Aggression by Gender .................................. 101 
4.5. Summary of the Findings ................................................................................... 101 
5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 103 
6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ................................ 110 
7. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 112 
8. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 146 
Appendix A.  Preliminary Study 1: Informed Consent Form ................................. 146 
Appendix B.  Preliminary Study 1: Semi structured questions ............................... 147 
Appendix C.  Preliminary Study 2: Online Survey ................................................. 148 
Appendix D.  Main Study Survey ........................................................................... 149 
 

 
 
viii 
TABLE LIST 
Page No. 
Table 1: Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors ................................................................ 8 
Table 2: Prosocial and Noncompliant Behaviors ................................................................... 9 
Table 3: Organizational Betrayal Concept ............................................................................ 12 
Table 4: Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors .................................................................... 13 
Table 5: Organizational Misbehavior ................................................................................... 14 
Table 6: Mobbing.................................................................................................................. 16 
Table 7: Aggression Typology of Buss ................................................................................ 19 
Table 8: Organizational Aggressive Behaviors Classification ............................................. 21 
Table 9: Workplace Aggression Dimensions ....................................................................... 23 
Table 10: Themes and Frequencies ...................................................................................... 53 
Table 11: Test of Probabilities .............................................................................................. 56 
Table 12: Correlations of Pilot Study ................................................................................... 60 
Table 13: Descriptive Statistics of Sample ........................................................................... 63 
Table 14: Demographical Distribution of Equal Halves ...................................................... 68 
Table 15: EFA Results of Aggression Scale ......................................................................... 71 
Table 16: CFA Fit Indices of Aggression Scale ................................................................... 72 
Table 17: Reliability and Validity of AUAS ........................................................................ 73 
Table 18: CFA Fit Indices of Toxic Leadership Scale ......................................................... 75 
Table 19: Reliability and Validity of Toxic Leadership Scale ............................................. 76 
Table 20: CFA Fit Indices of Job Demands Scale ................................................................ 78 
Table 21: Reliability and Validity Scores of Job Demands Scale ........................................ 79 
Table 22: CFA Fit Indices of Organizational Injustice Scale ............................................... 81 
Table 23: Reliability and Validity Scores of Organizational Injustice Scale ....................... 82 
Table 24: CFA Fit Indices of Negative Affect Scale ............................................................ 84 
Table 25: Reliability and Validity Scores of Negative Affect Scale .................................... 84 
Table 26: Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables ............................................................. 86 

ix

Table 27: Adiaphoric Aggression Perception by Age ........................................................ 100

Table 28: Adiaphoric Aggression Perception by Gender ................................................... 101

Table 29: Summary of Findings ......................................................................................... 102

x

FIGURE LIST

Page No.

Figure 1: Deviant Workplace Behaviors .............................................................................. 10

Figure 2: Destructive Leadership Behaviour: A Definition and Conceptual Model ............ 31

Figure 3: Circumplex Model of Emotions ............................................................................ 44

Figure 4: Research Model ..................................................................................................... 49

Figure 5: Scree Plot of AUAS .............................................................................................. 70

Figure 6: CFA Paths of Aggression Scale ............................................................................ 72

Figure 7: CFA Paths of Toxic Leadership Scale .................................................................. 74

Figure 8: CFA Paths of Job Demands Scale ......................................................................... 77

Figure 9: CFA Paths of Organizational Injustice Scale ........................................................ 80

Figure 10: CFA Paths of Negative Affect Scale ................................................................... 83

Figure 11: Correlations Among Study Variables ................................................................. 87

Figure 12: The Mediation Model Between Toxic Leadership and Adiaphoric Aggression . 88

Figure 13: The Mediation Model Between Job Demands and Adiaphoric Aggression ....... 91

Figure 14: The Mediation Model Between Toxic Leadership and Unethical Aggression ... 94

Figure 15: The Mediation Model Between Job Demands and Unethical Aggression .......... 97

1. INTRODUCTION

Staying profitable in highly competitive markets is becoming increasingly difficult

in modern business world. Staying profitable is a two-sided coin, one side is maximizing the

revenues, while the other is minimizing the costs, and there is no doubt about the employees’

effect on these two sides. Thus, creating a positive psychological environment that boosts the

employee efficiency is important for organization management.

To create this positive psychological environment, unintended employee behaviors

should be managed. In literature, counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) term is widely

used to refer these kinds of employee behaviors. Widely accepted definition of CWB is “the

behaviors that detract from organizational effectiveness rather than advancing it (Ones et al.,

2017, p. 109)”

Since CWB decreases the efficiency of workforce, many scholars attracted to

investigate the concept. By their rigorous efforts’ literature of CWB (e.g., employee

misbehavior, deviant employee behaviors, non-compliant behaviors, workplace aggression)

has emerged. Moreover, they have used these broad concepts to assess the empirical

relationships with other organizational behavior (OB) concepts.

Although it is tempting to define a framework which comprises whole CWB, it is

quite difficult in terms of scientific methodology. Because CWB’s may be the manifestation

of different psychological factors (Marcus & Schuler, 2004; Ones et al., 2017; Sackett, 2002;

Sackett & DeVore, 2001). For this reason, CWB studies contain many methodical errors.

Their first common error source is mis-conceptualizations. Many behaviors which may be

the outcomes of different psychological phenomena are assessed as the outcomes of one

broad concept. Furthermore, researchers tried to categorize them according to level of

damage and/or the directed target, instead of the psychological factors behind them.

2

Another problematic aspect of the CWB frameworks is limited representation of

subtle and insidious forms aggression. Obvious and explicit forms of aggression which can

easily reveal the identity of perpetrator, have been examined more elaborately. However,

Kaukiainen et al. (2001), reported that people are more prone to exhibit indirect and minor

forms than serious and major forms. Buss (1961) also mentioned that indirect and passive

forms are more circuitous ways of inflicting harm rather than other forms. Thus, it is seen

that, employees are likely to prefer insidious and subtle ways of aggression more than other

forms to protect their selves from counter attacks, social exclusion, or ethical code sanctions.

Lastly, some aggressive behaviors mentioned in these models are outdated and

many new forms of aggression (e.g., cyber incivility) have been invented in today’s working

life. Thus, a literature gap also exists on new forms of aggressive behaviors.

To sum up, counterproductive work behaviors: (1) may be the manifestation of

aggression, (2) may be exhibited with an intent to benefit self, (3) or may be exhibited without

any cognitive or affective reasons. Thus, conceptualizing all unwanted employee behaviors

as a broad concept such as CWB cannot help to understand their reasons. Furthermore,

already developed CWB measurement tools need revision.

Many scholars from organizational fields studied aggression with a similar

perspective (e.g., Baron & Neuman, 1996; Baron & Neuman, 1998; Neuman & Baron,

2016). These studies contributed to aggression literature; however, they have an important

shortcoming regarding their focal point. They addressed overt and serious forms of

aggressive behaviors more elaborately than subtle and insidious forms. This narrow research

perspective could have stemmed from the idea that serious forms are more harmful and

investigating them will be more valuable for literature. When overt and serious forms are

compared to subtle and insidious forms one by one, this assumption may be true for some

cases. For instance, attacking to a target with a weapon is quite harmful than spreading

rumors about the target. But comparing the cumulative effect of subtle and insidious forms

with overt and serious forms is more difficult. Because, in daily life, subtle and minor forms

3

are more widespread than serious and major ones. Thus, cumulative effects of subtle and

insidious forms’ may be also devastating for organizations.

To get rid of these conceptional and methodical shortcomings, this study was

conducted to examine the minor and subtle aggressive behaviors exhibited by employees.

This limited focus narrows study’s coverage; however, it may lead to a better understanding

of subtle and insidious forms of aggressive behaviors among employees.

In this regard, adiaphoric aggression (AA) term was used to refer subtle and

insidious forms of aggression. The term “adiaphoric” has quite similar meanings in different

philosophical schools. But, in common use, it refers to ethically indifferent actions. In other

words, if an action cannot be classified as ethical or unethical, then it will be referred as an

adiaphoric action. For instance, missing a phone call is an adiaphoric action, because this

action cannot be classified neither ethical nor unethical.

On the other hand, in modern organizations, almost all types of aggressive behaviors

are considered as unethical behaviors, and perpetrators may face with sanctions. Thus,

employees may prefer to deliver noxious stimuli by the behaviors which cannot be easily

classified as unethical. In other words, employees likely to prefer harming the target with

adiaphoric actions. Furthermore, until the perpetrators admit that they exhibited the

adiaphoric action with an intention to harm, no one can easily accuse them. Hence,

conceptualizing and measuring the adiaphoric actions done with aggressive intentions would

contribute to employee aggression literature.

The secondary objective of the present study was to investigate antecedents of

aggression among employees. Regarding antecedents of aggression, it is obvious that one of

the most important ones is leadership. In literature, many studies have been conducted to see

the effect of leadership on aggression. Part of these studies' aim was to investigate negative

leadership styles’ predictive power on aggression (Burton & Hoobler, 2011; Hepworth &

Towler, 2004; Kayani & Alasan, 2021; Fauzia Syed et al., 2021). However, number of

studies investigating the relationship between toxic leadership and aggression directly is

4

limited. But fortunately, in a number of studies, researchers reported the predictive power of

different leadership styles on the concepts (i.e., deviant workplace behaviors,

counterproductive work behaviors) that covers aggressive behaviors partially (S. Y. B.

Huang et al., 2021; Iqbal et al., 2021; Ozturk & Poyraz, 2021; Shen & Lei, 2022; Wulani &

Junaedi, 2021). Thus, considering the literature, toxic leadership was defined as an

antecedent of aggressive behaviors studied in present study.

Another problematic aspect of the modern organizations is high job demands.

Employees working under excessive demands, are likely to feel emotions like anger and

attitudes like hostility, which can increase the likelihood of aggression. Job demands’ effect

on the aggressive behaviors has been mentioned in a number studies (Chang et al., 2019;

Demir et al., 2014; Taylor & Kluemper, 2012). Like toxic leadership studies, concepts

which are not focused to aggressive behaviors directly, but covering aggressive behaviors

partially were also predicted by job demands. For instance, bullying (Rodwell & Demir,

2012), mobbing (Steele et al., 2020), deviant employee behaviors (Adeoti et al., 2017), and

counterproductive work behaviors (Balducci et al., 2011) were predicted by job demands.

In light of relevant literature, job demands was defined as second antecedent of aggressive

behaviors studied in present study.

These negative antecedents may affect aggression directly or indirectly through

other phenomena. Toxic leader’s unethical behaviors and high demands may disrupt

employees’ perceptions about the organization’s fairness. Similar to a chain reaction,

increased injustice perception likely to trigger anger and hostility which in turn may increase

the likelihood of the manifestation of aggressive behaviors. In literature; (1) toxic

leadership’s predictive power on injustice perception (Reyhanoglu & Akin, 2020; Zhu &

Kou, 2014), (2) job demands’ predictive power on injustice perception (Bechtoldt et al.,

2007; Fox et al., 2001; Proost et al., 2015), and (3) injustice perceptions’ predictive power

on both aggression and counterproductive employee behaviors (Beugre, 1996; Chory &

Hubbell, 2008; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Zhang & Inness, 2016) have been reported. Thus,

5

organizational injustice defined as a conveyor concept between the antecedents proposed in

this study (i.e., toxic leadership, job demands) and aggressive behaviors.

Like organizational injustice perception, negative mood is another phenomenon that

may have an increasing effect on exhibition of aggressive behaviors. Negative working

conditions, such as working with a toxic superior and/or pressure of high job demands, may

put employees in a negative mood. Once employee’s mood turned to negative, their

propensity to aggression may increase easily as well. Existing literature is also congruent

with this theoretical implication. For instance, Weiss and Cropanzano’s well regarded

affective events theory was built with a similar perspective. According to authors affectivity

mediates the relationship between perceived work events and employees’ behavioral

outcomes (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). According to them, daily job events trigger affective

reactions which in turn decreases job satisfaction and increases intention to quit levels. In

addition, many other scholars have reported empirical supports on the relationship between:

(1) job demands and negative affectivity (Balducci et al., 2011; C. Huang et al., 2021), (2)

toxic leadership and negative affectivity (Okray & Huseyinzade Simsek, 2020), (3) negative

affectivity and aggression (Aquino et al., 1999; Șulea et al., 2010). Hence, negative

affectivity is defined as the second mediator, that acts as a conveyor between the antecedents

(i.e., toxic leadership and job demands) and employees’ adiaphoric and unethical aggressive

behaviors.

6

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Main aim of present study was to investigate adiaphoric behaviors done with

aggressive intentions and possible antecedents of these behaviors. In this regard, literature of

aggression, (definitions, typologies) ethics philosophy, and the adiaphorism concept were

reviewed in this section. Furthermore, regarding antecedents, literature of toxic leadership,

job demands, organizational injustice, and negative affect were reviewed and summarized in

this section as well.

2.1. DEFINITION OF AGGRESSION

The term aggression is derived from the Latin word aggredī, which means to attack,

to approach, or to undertake (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-a). Today, it is used to refer the

behaviors done with an intention to inflict harm. Similar to its dictionary meaning mostly

cited scientific definitions of aggression are; “a response that delivers noxious stimuli to

another organism (Buss, 1961, p. 2).” and “any behavior directed toward another that is

intended to cause harm (Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2011, p. 601).” Later, Baron expanded

these basic definitions by adding target’s perspective. “Aggression is any form of behavior

directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to

avoid such treatment (Baron, 1977, p. 7). ” When taken together, it will be seen that all

definitions refer to aggressive behaviors as an intentional behavior exhibited to harm the

target. It is obvious that, aggressive behaviors are likely to risk the welfare of individuals and

societal harmony. Thus, many philosophers and scientists have studied the phenomenon, and

in light of these rigorous studies, societies have developed mechanisms (e.g., ethic codes,

legal sanctions, preventive educations) to control the prevalence of aggressive behaviors.

7

2.1.1 Organizational Concepts Related with Aggression

Scholars also investigated the presence of aggression phenomenon within work

settings. When these studies are evaluated from a classification point of view, it will be seen

that scholars are divided into two schools (Marcus & Schuler, 2004). One of these schools

was focused to conceptualize broad concepts such as counterproductive work behaviors ,

while the other was focused to investigate harmful employee behaviors vis-à-vis

psychological factors trigger them (e.g., organizational retaliatory behaviors). Both methods

have its own advantages but, unfortunately, they also share similar methodical errors.

One of these comprehensive frameworks was well-known Counterproductive work

behaviors (CWB) framework. According to Sackett (2002) CWB refers to

“Counterproductive workplace behavior, at the most general level, refers to any

intentional behavior on the part of an organization member viewed by the organization as

contrary to its legitimate interests (p. 5).”

Sackett argued that all behaviors against the interests of organization are counter-

productive regardless of psychosocial factors behind them. Similar to Sacket, Gruys (1999)

categorized eighty-seven different types of CWB in her comprehensive employee taxonomy

(see Table 1). When this framework is assessed from a critical point of view, theoretical

shortcomings will be seen. First, behaviors mentioned in this typology may be the behavioral

outcomes of quite different psychological factors. Thus, they should be investigated in

relation to the psychological phenomena that trigger them, rather than an arbitrarily defined

concept such as counterproductive work behaviors. In other words, CWB defined in this

framework, may be the outcomes of aggression, unethical selfish drives, laziness, tardiness,

or even incivility. Hence, treating them as a single concept may lead to false scientific

implications. Moreover, limited representation of aggressive behaviors narrows this

framework’s capacity to assess employee aggression comprehensively.

8

Table 1: Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors

Category

Behavior

Theft and related behavior

theft of cash or property, giving away of goods or

services, misuse of employee discount

Destruction of property

deface, damage, or destroy property; sabotage

production

Misuse of information

reveal confidential information, falsify records

Misuse of time and

resources

waste time, alter timecard, conduct personal

business during work time

Unsafe behavior

fail to follow safety procedures, failure to learn

safety procedures

Poor attendance

unexcused absence or tardiness, misuse sick leave

Poor quality work

intentionally slow or sloppy work

Alcohol use

alcohol use on the job, coming to work under the

influence of alcohol

Drug use

possess, use, or sell drugs at work

Inappropriate verbal

actions

argue with customers, verbally harass coworkers

Inappropriate physical

actions

physically attack coworkers, physical sexual

advances toward coworker

Note. Retrieved from “The dimensionality of deviant employee behavior in the

workplace [Doctoral dissertation]” by Melissa L. Gruys, 1999, University of

Minnesota.

Another early effort to investigate CWB, including aggressive behaviors, was

Puffer’s framework. Puffer (1987) developed prosocial and noncompliant behaviors

framework to examine both prosocial and noncompliant behaviors of employees. Like other

CWB frameworks, employee aggression was also represented limitedly (See Table 2).

Several behaviors which may be the manifestation of employee aggression, was mentioned

in the framework. However, they were not classified regarding aggression. Furthermore,

some behaviors mentioned in the typology (e.g., being late, taking excessive breaks) may not

be related with aggression. For instance, employees may exhibit such behaviors due to

laziness or incivility. Thus, shortages and lack of comprehensive examination of aggressive

behaviors, limit this framework’s usefulness in terms of investigating employee aggression.

9

Table 2: Prosocial and Noncompliant Behaviors

Dimension

Behavior

Prosocial

Investigating post sale customer service problems

Assisting other salespeople (e.g., handling their customers' post

sale problems)

Housekeeping (e.g., keeping product displays and catalogs tidy)

Marking the floor for special sales (i.e., attaching sales tags to

merchandise)

Assisting in general store operations (e.g., opening and closing

the store

Noncompliant

Being late, taking excessive breaks

Complaining about the company or coworkers

Violating floor rules (e.g., taking sales from other salespeople)

Making unrealistic promises to customers (e.g., promising early

delivery dates)

Failing to do fair share of noncommission sales promotions (e.g.,

phoning customers about upcoming sales, selling account

insurance)

Note. Retrieved from “Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work

performance among commission salespeople” by S. M. Puffer,1987, Journal of

Another research, which dominates the CWB literature is deviant workplace

behaviors (DWB) of Robinson and Bennett (1995). Researchers postulated that

counterproductive work behaviors can be defined in relation with two dimensions (See

Figure 1). They aimed to measure all counterproductive behaviors as well as aggression in

relation to level of seriousness and the target directed. However, the dimensions of their

framework do not represent any psychological factor either. For instance, “sexual verbal

abuse” and “verbal abuse” classified as serious interpersonal deviant behaviors. But the

psychosocial factors behind these behaviors can be quite different from each other. In other

words, serious interpersonal deviance cannot be defined as a psychological factor. Another

problematic aspect of the model is limited representation of aggression forms. In all 4

deviance domains, only limited number of aggression types are mentioned, and many

aggressive behavior types are neglected.

10

Note. Retrieved from “A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multidimensional scaling study” by S. L. Robinson and R. J. Bennett, 1995, Academy

of Management Journal, 38(2), pp. 555-572, Copyright by JSTOR.

To sum up, DWB, one of the dominating studies of CWB literature, also contains

methodical and conceptual errors. Therefore, using this framework for investigating

aggression in organizations may not be appropriate.

Another frequently cited concept in OB literature is organizational betrayal. Unlike

deviant work behaviors and noncompliant behavior models, organizational betrayal was

aimed to define only the betrayal behaviors of employees. According to Moberg (1997),

organizational betrayal consist of destructive and harmful behaviors towards organization

with an intention to benefit self or others. Like other CWB frameworks, Moberg also

classified these behaviors according to the level of seriousness (See Table 3). Some of these

Figure 1: Deviant Workplace Behaviors

11

behaviors likely to be triggered by aggressive drives, but Moberg argued that these behaviors

are the exhibition of organizational betrayals related to gains rather than aggression. Even if

these behaviors are forms of betrayal, betraying itself can be a subtle and insidious form of

aggression. For instance, slowdowns can be the manifestation of aggression due to perceived

injustice. Thus, this framework might have another dimension such as betrayal for benefit

and betrayal for aggression. Moreover, scope of this model consists of only betrayal

behaviors towards organization. But employees may manifest betrayal behaviors to punish

other members of their organization as well. For instance, they can lie about the facts to harm

other employees. Concisely, betrayal framework should be revised to get rid of these errors

and to be more precise for understanding employee behaviors. Even if it is revised, this model

to is not comprehensive enough for assessing employee aggression.

12

Table 3: Organizational Betrayal Concept

Level Of

Betrayal

Beneficiaries

Self Alone

Self and Others

High

Low

Embezzlement

Treason

Insider Trading

Espionage

Self-Dealing

Corruption

Lying about Facts

Whistle Blowing

Failure to Disclose Facts

Cover Up

Shirking

Strikes

Bureaucratic Opposition

Organized Slowdowns

Padded Expense Accounts

Sick Outs

Untimely Exit

Unsanctioned Partiality

Note. Retrieved from “On Employee Voice” by D. J. Moberg,1997, Business Ethics

Retaliation propensity of employees has also been investigated by different scholars.

According to Skarlicki and Folger (1997) retaliatory behaviors are employee's reactions

against perceived injustice in their organizations (See Table 4). They also defined many

retaliation behaviors that are also common in aggression. However, when the model assessed

in more detail, conceptual discrepancies, and scholar’s fallacy of creating a comprehensive

model can be seen again. For instance, behaviors such as “spent time on personal matters

while at work” can be triggered by selfish gains rather than retaliation, or “talked back to

their boss.” can be the exhibition of aggression directly. Another problematic issue of this

framework is the retaliation concept itself. For instance, retaliatory behaviors can be the

13

exhibition of aggression or manifestation of an obstructionism towards an occupational rival.

Hence, claiming that these behaviors are exhibited only with an intention to retaliation may

be misleading. Although retaliation and aggression concepts have a strong relationship, the

model is not comprehensive enough for assessing all forms of aggression. Thus, this model

too has shortages regarding the examination of aggression.

Table 4: Organizational Retaliatory Behaviors

Retaliatory Behaviors

On purpose, damaged equipment, or work process

Took supplies home without permission

Wasted company materials

Called in sick when not ill

Spoke poorly about the company to others

Refused to work weekends or overtime when asked

Left a mess unnecessarily (did not clean up)

Disobeyed a supervisor's instructions'

'Talked back' to their boss

Gossiped about their boss

Spread rumors about coworkers

Gave a coworker a "silent treatment"

Failed to give coworker required information

Tried to look busy while wasting time

Took an extended coffee or lunch break

Intentionally worked slower

Spent time on personal matters while at work

Note. Retrieved from “Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,

procedural, and interactional justice” by D. P. Skarlicki and R. Folger,1997, Journal

14

Weitz and Vardi (2008) proposed misbehavior framework to classify CWB, and

they defined three misbehavior types. They named these types as: (1) misbehaviors intended

to benefit self (TYPE S), (2) misbehaviors intended to benefit organization (TYPE O), and

(3) misbehaviors intended to damage organization (TYPE D) (See Table 5). In the model,

Weitz and Vardi classified unwanted employee behaviors regarding to intents of perpetrators.

When it is evaluated in detail, similar theoretical shortcomings will be seen again. First,

distinctiveness of the factors seems problematic. For instance, same behavior may be done

for both self-benefits and organization’s benefits. Likewise, same behavior may be exhibited

for self-gains while damaging the organization. Hence measurements done with this model

may contain errors in terms of scientific methodology. Second shortage is limited and

superficial representation of aggression. Only aggressive behaviors directed to organization

were included to model. Thus, many forms like aggression directed to other individuals, were

neglected. Consequently, misbehavior framework of Weitz and Vardi (2008) may be useful

for understanding some types of counterproductive work behaviors, but it is not

comprehensive enough in terms of employee aggression.

Table 5: Organizational Misbehavior

Dimensions

Behavior

Type S

distorting data, stealing, and selling manufacturing

secrets, harassing peers,

Type O

falsifying records or offering inducements to improve

chances of obtaining a contract for the organization

Type D

sabotage

Note. Retrieved from “Understanding and managing misbehavior in organizations”

by, E. Weitz and Y. Vardi, 2008, in C. Wankel (Eds.) 21st Century Management: A

15

Another well-known unwanted behavior concept is mobbing. According to

Leymann (1990), mobbing is a special communication type towards a person or a group,

which exhibited almost every day and minimum of six months. This communication type

should have hostile and unethical characteristics. Scholar also developed a mobbing scale

which later revised by Zapf et al. (1996). The scale and its dimensions are one of the widely

used mobbing frameworks in literature (see Table 6). Many of these mobbing behaviors can

be also exhibited with aggressive drives, but the duration and the daily prevalence of the

behaviors distinguishes mobbing from aggression. According to Leymann (1990), to define

someone’s behavior as mobbing, these behaviors must be exhibited for a minimum of six

months period, and it must take place frequently (every day). For instance, temporary

conflicts cannot be classified as mobbing. Considering Leymann’s definition and mobbing

behaviors defined by Zapf et al. (1996), it can be argued that some aggressive behaviors may

be related with mobbing but not all of them. In other words, mobbing refers to systematic

actions directed to a person or a group to force them quit their jobs or withdrawal from current

job positions. On the other hand, aggression is aimed to harm the target and it may or may

not be related with the target’s withdrawal. Moreover, frequency of behavior is not a criterion

while defining that action as an aggressive behavior.

Consequently, many types of the aggressive behaviors can be the manifestation of

mobbing, but all aggressive behaviors cannot be seen as mobbing. Furthermore, concept is

not covering all aggressive behaviors. Thus, mobbing concept too is not useful for

investigating all aggressive behaviors.

16

Table 6: Mobbing

Forms of Mobbing

Attacking the victim with measures

Attacking the victim's social relationships

Attacking the victim's private life

Physical violence

Attacking the victim's attitudes

Verbal aggression

Rumors

Note. Retrieved from “On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job content,

social work environment, and health outcomes” by D. Zapf, C. Knorz and M. Kulla,

1996, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), pp. 215-237,

Copyright by Psychology Press, an imprint of Erlbaurn (UK) Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Another concept that also shares similar behavioral outcomes with aggression is

organizational incivility. Organizational incivility refers to breaking social norms with

ambiguous intentions (Maslach et al., 1996; Pearson & Porath, 2005). In contrast to

organizational incivility, employee aggression is not limited to social norm breaches.

Moreover, uncivil behaviors may or may not be done with an intention to harm, but

aggression's distinctive characteristic is the perpetrator's intention to harm the target. Thus,

organizational incivility concept is quite different from employee aggression

Like incivility, Duffy et al. (2002) proposed social undermining behaviors in

workplace which has also behavioral overlaps with employee aggression. According to Duffy

and co-authors, social undermining refers to the behaviors that are “intended to hinder, over

time, the ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related

success, and favorable reputation (p. 332).” They also proposed that social undermining has

three distinctive characteristics. First, the behavior should be exhibited intentionally to

disrupt targets’ social relationships, work success, or occupational reputation. Second,

undermining behaviors are not overt or serious acts but insidious or forgivable acts that

gradually weaken the target by time. In other words, they do not weaken the target if they are

17

infrequent, their overall effect adds up by time and repetition. Lastly, Undermining behaviors

may take the form of direct actions (e.g., belittling the ideas), withholding actions ( e.g.,

withholding the information), verbal actions (e.g., derogating the target), or physical actions

(e.g., intentional slowdowns).

From a critical point of view, Duffy et al. (2002) have pointed out the conceptual,

and methodical problems of the leading unintended employee behaviors studies (i.e.,

counterproductive work behaviors, deviant employee behaviors, antisocial behaviors,

workplace aggression). Similar shortages are also argued elaborately and more detailed in

present study. Furthermore, they also mentioned the importance of insidious or forgivable

acts. However, their study seems to have some other conceptual and methodical shortages as

well. First, as they stated in their definition, to classify a perpetrator’s behaviors as social

undermining that behaviors should be (1) intentional, (2) focused to disrupt social

interactions, reputation, or success, (3) repetitive and insidious or forgivable. But in today’s

organizations, despite many aggressive behaviors are insidious, they may not be repetitive or

intentionally exhibited within a plan to hinder the target on the social domains proposed by

Duffy and co-authors. Rather, many of them may be triggered with a basic emotion, anger,

to harm the target psychologically and/or physiologically. This anger may basically be

stemmed from a perceived inequality in social exchanges or many other irritable occasions.

Second, despite they stated that employee aggression and social undermining has clear

differences, they also pointed out that aggression and social undermining have behavioral

overlaps, and many social undermining behaviors are aggressive behaviors. This creates

another contradiction regarding measuring or distinguishing social undermining from

aggression. Consequently, social undermining may have an overlap with adiaphoric

aggression in terms of insidiousness, but it distinguishes from adiaphoric aggression

regarding other specifications proposed by Duffy.

In a nutshell, despite Duffy et al. (2002) pointed out the conceptual and methodical

shortages in unintended employee behaviors, but the narrow and blur structure of social

18

undermining concept limits its ability for examining the workplace aggression

comprehensively.

To sum up, many scholars have investigated various types of counterproductive

employee behaviors. Through their rigorous investigations, valuable concepts have been

developed and broadened scientific knowledge on different façades of counterproductive

work behaviors. However, these models were addressing all kinds of counterproductive

employee behaviors (e.g. Fox & Spector, 2005; Robinson & Bennett, 1995), and aggression

was represented limitedly within their frameworks. Therefore, investigating aggression and

its organizational antecedents is not possible by using these broad concepts.

2.1.2 Aggression Studies in Organizations

One of the most prevalent forms of CWB are aggressive behaviors among

employees. Thus, some scholars investigated aggressive behaviors directly (e.g. Baron &

Neuman, 1996; Björkqvist et al., 1994; Dupre & Barling, 2006; Hershcovis et al., 2007;

O'Leary-Kelly et al., 1996), rather than studying broad CWB concepts. By these scholars’

rigorous efforts, employee aggression literature has emerged. Despite, their valuable

contributions to literature, these studies have shortcomings as well. But, still, they have

illuminated the way for investigating aggressive employee behaviors effectively. Therefore,

these models have been reviewed in this section.

One of the pioneering works on aggression was Buss’ aggression model. Before

working on aggression, scholar had worked on a similar concept—the hostility (Buss et al.,

1956). He proposed five hostility dimensions, which were resentment, verbal hostility,

indirect hostility, assault, and suspicion. One year after the hostility research, Buss and

Durkee (1957) developed their popular Hostility-Guilt Scale with seven dimensions. Later,

Buss changed his focus to the typology of aggression and published his well-known

aggression typology.

19

According to him, all aggressive behaviors can be classified with three dimensions.

These dimensions are passive/active, indirect/direct, and verbal/physical (see Table 7). It is

conceivable that, perpetrators of active and direct forms likely to face with serious sanctions

and/or social exclusion. For instance, in physical assault incidents, perpetrators can face

strong sanctions such as termination of the employment contract. Thus, employees may avoid

such behaviors for the fear of ruining their careers. On the other hand, behaviors like "hiding

information from the target" are more insidious, and perpetrators cannot be accused of

aggression, until they admit it. Therefore, within an organizational context, passive, and

indirect forms could be preferred more than active and direct in forms. Many scholars,

including Buss himself, postulated and emphasized similar notions about these insidious

forms of aggression. According to Buss (1961, p. 9) “When the attack is passive, it would be

difficult for the victim to blame the perpetrator. Dupre and Barling (2006) also argued that

organizational aggression models’ focus is on serious aggression however cumulative effects

of less serious ones may be devastating as well.

Table 7: Aggression Typology of Buss

Aggression Type

Behavioral Outcomes

Verbal

Passive

Direct

Not answer the phone

Indirect

Hiding information from the target

Active

Direct

Yelling and/or giving reprimand to

target

Indirect

Gossiping about the target

Physical

Passive

Direct

Blocks the things that can be beneficial

for the target

Indirect

Not blocking the things that can be

harmful to the target

Active

Direct

Physical assault

Indirect

Stealing or damaging targets property

Note. Retrieved from The Psychology of Aggression by A. H. Buss, 1961, Copyright

1961 by John Wiley & Sons Inc.

20

Furthermore, despite the plausibility of his theoretical framework, Buss have not

investigated the aggressive behaviors on organizational level. He developed a measurement

tool later, but the dimensions of this tool were quite different from his aggression typology

framework. Nevertheless, he provided a useful framework for classifying aggressive

behaviors.

Turgut (2007) classified common organizational aggressive behaviors, by using the

aggression typology developed by Buss (See Table 8). In light of Turgut’s organizational

aggression classification, it can be argued that passive and indirect forms are more insidious

due to their hidden nature, and thus they may be more common in today's working life. The

secret nature of these aggression types makes them more difficult to be identified until the

perpetrators admit that their intention was to harm the target. In other words, perpetrators can

easily get rid of accusations just by refusing that they did this behavior with aggressive

intentions. For instance, if an employee has been accused of missing the phone calls

intentionally to make the target’s work difficult, it is not easy to prove the accusation until

the perpetrator admits it. However, insidious aggressions are not limited to indirect and

passive aggression forms. Many other types may have been invented. In fact, ordinary

behaviors can also be used as a way of inflicting harm. Even an altruistic like behavior can

be disguised aggressive behavior

21

Table 8: Organizational Aggressive Behaviors Classification

Aggression type

Behaviors

physical/active/direct

sexual assault

physical/active/indirect

theft

physical/passive/direct

intentionally working slow

physical/passive/indirect

intentionally going to meetings late

verbal/active/direct

threatening the target

verbal/active/indirect

gossiping about the target

verbal/passive/direct

intentionally missing the phone calls of

target

verbal/passive/indirect

intentionally slowing down the information

sharing

Note. Adapted from “Kurumlarda ahlaka aykırı davranışlar ve saldırganlık” by T.

Turgut, 2007 in S. Tevrüz (Eds.), Etik Yaklaşımlar ve İş Ahlakı [Ethical Approaches

Another well-known study on aggressive behaviors, without any doubt, is Baron

and Neuman’s work. They defined overt and covert forms of organizational violence by using

the typology of Buss. According to them, aggression in organizations has overt (physical,

direct, active) and covert (verbal, indirect, passive) forms, and they argued that covert forms

are more prevalent than overt ones. However, their study results showed that not only covert

types but also all other passive types are prevalent among employees (Baron & Neuman,

1996). Hence, their research hypothesis was rejected but their study results provided

empirical support about the prevalence of passive forms.

After their first research, Baron and Neuman conducted another study which was

addressing workplace violence (Baron & Neuman, 1998). Their second study was aimed to

22

develop a measurement tool for workplace violence (See Table 9), and they renounced from

the overt and covert typology of their previous study. When the dimensions shown in Table

9 evaluated from a critical perspective, theoretical and methodological discrepancies can be

seen. The difference between the sub-dimensions is not clear. The hostility dimension

consists of both active-physical-direct and active-verbal-indirect behaviors. Obstructionism

dimension consists of both passive-indirect and active-direct types of aggression. Lastly, the

overt aggression dimension consists of both active and passive forms of aggressive

behaviors. Hence, it is plausible to think that theoretical discrepancies between dimensions

may increase the number of errors in the measurements done by this scale.

Another problematic issue of this measurement tool is the content of items.

According to Baron and Neuman “sexual harassment” is a hostile behavior. However, the

combination of sexual drives and low moral development may also trigger such behaviors.

Furthermore, in modern world, verbal sexual harassment cannot be regarded as a hostile

behavior, but a sexual harassment. It is also considered as a violation of human rights, and

perpetrators would face with serious sanctions. Therefore, this measurement tool needs a

revision to become more precise and error free. Before an extensive revision, using this tool

for studying more complex forms of aggression and its antecedents may be misleading.

23

Table 9: Workplace Aggression Dimensions

Dimensions

Behaviors

Hostility

Verbal sexual harassment

Sending unfairly negative info to higher levels in

the company

Obstructionism

Failing to warn the target of impending danger

Needlessly consuming the resources needed by

target

Overt Aggression

Failing to protect the target's welfare or safety

Steals/removes company property needed by

target

Note. Retrieved from “Workplace aggression - The iceberg beneath the tip of

workplace violence: Evidence on its forms, frequency, and targets” by R.A. Baron

and J.H. Neuman, 1998, Public Administration Quarterly, pp. 446-464, Copyright

1998 by SPAEF.

Studies reviewed above contributed to workplace aggression literature, however

they also had some theoretical and methodical deficiencies. First, they were focused on

obvious and serious forms rather than subtle and insidious forms of aggression. But, in

today’s working life, employees tend to develop new subtle and insidious ways of aggression

to get rid of sanctions and to protect their status. Thus, the cumulative effect of subtle and

insidious aggression may be more devastating for organizations. Another problematic aspect

is outdated items of the scales. For instance, many of them do not have items related with

cyber incivility, discrimination, sexism, ageism, and other ethical concerns of contemporary

work life. Thus, these models must be revised to be valid in today’s working life.

Consequently, in light of the literature and the reasons summarized above indicates a

literature gap on examination of subtle and insidious forms of aggression in organizations.

For this reason, main aim of present study was: (1) to investigate these behaviors, (2) to

measure them, and (3) to reveal the relationships between possible antecedents.

24

2.2. ADIAPHORIC AGGRESSION: ORIGIN AND DEFINITION

It is known that humankind has a great ability to hide their real intentions by

regulating their own behaviors, gestures, and facial impressions. They use this regulation

ability more frequently when they do not want to take the responsibility of their behaviors,

particularly when their intends are aggressive. In a similar vein, employees who want to

convey noxious stimuli to target, could use this regulation ability to protect themselves from

negative consequences. In other words, employees could harm others by the behaviors which

could not be classified as unethical by others easily. Wide variety of behaviors can be used

for this purpose. For instance, not exhibiting a necessary behavior, may be serving to this

purpose.

Classifying aggressive behaviors regarding to their ethical degree may pave the way

for understanding these subtle and insidious aggression forms. For this purpose, moral

(ethics) philosophy concepts can be used for classifying different types of aggression. Latin

word ethics refers to a philosophical discipline which deals with defining ethic behaviors,

beliefs, and universal moral principles (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-c). According to Socrates,

father of moral philosophy, people must pursue moral virtuousness than happiness, because

real happiness could only come with moral virtue. Hence, to achieve the moral virtue, people

should have the capacity to distinguish good and evil. In other words, people who has the

knowledge of ethical behaviors, will live a virtuous life, and thus they will be happy in their

entire life (Rahman et al., 2002). Socrates’ student and his successor, Plato, later argued that

purpose of ethical behaviors is reaching to the summum bonum, a Latin expression which

refers to ultimate good. According to philosopher, reaching summum bonum could only be

possible by wisdom, temperance, and justice. Another ethics philosopher John Lock, the

pioneer of political liberalism, defined ethics from human rights perspective. According to

him, human rights are litmus test of ethics, and thus, actions that violates human rights are

unethical (Aktan, 2009, p. 46).

25

To sum up, the common goal of these philosophers was to distinguish ethical and

unethical actions by defining universal moral principles. These pioneering philosophers’

ideas created the essence of ethics and embodied the moral principles that have been used to

control the unethical behaviors in modern societies.

Scientists have studied ethics concepts as well. Accordingly, many types of ethics,

(i.e., descriptive ethics, meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics which also

comprises business ethics) have been developed (Tevrüz, 2007, pp. 2-3). While business

ethics was emerging by these studies, members of organizations started to acknowledge the

importance of universal ethics—and more willing to protect it (e.g., human rights, equity,

inclusion, social justice). Hence, social reactions against ethical misconducts became

stronger in today’s working life, and organizations forced to create ethical codes to convince

employees about fair working conditions and to protect themselves. For these reasons,

today’s organizations have detailed internal ethical codes to deal with ethical misconducts or

unwanted employee behaviors. Many common types of unethical behaviors and sanctions

against them are defined in these codes. However, many grey areas that are not mentioned—

or cannot be mentioned—in these codes are still exist. Moreover, perpetrators likely to use

these gaps to inflict harm.

In consideration of the ethics literature, it is seen that main goal of ethics is to define

universal criteria for defining ethical actions. However, some actions cannot be defined either

good or bad. For instance, ambitiousness cannot be classified as good or bad. Some people

could classify ambitiousness with personal experiences or attitudes; however, it is not

possible to define a universal criterion for classifying this personal characteristic. For

instance, a social entrepreneurs’ ambition to solve the social problems can be classified as

ethical, but a corrupt entrepreneurs’ ambition to become rich cannot be classified as ethical.

Therefore, ambition alone cannot be classified as an ethical or unethical personal disposition.

Philosophers and scholars have used adiaphoric term to mention such actions.

Greek word adiaphoric (i.e., adiaphora, adiaphoron, adiaphorism, adiaphorist) was used to

26

refer indifference in ancient Greece. Cynics used adiaphoric term to refer inaction. Aristotle

used adiaphora to refer thinks that cannot be distinguished regarding to ethics. In stoicism,

adiaphoric refers to actions that are indifferent in terms of societal ethics. According to

Stoics, all objects of human pursuit are good, bad, or adiaphoric (Wikipedia, n.d.). In

Lutheranism, term used to refer things which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the

word of God. In other words, things that are indifferent for God are (Lueker et al., 2010).

In addition to philosophical definitions, Zygmunt Bauman used the “adiaphorism”

term to refer: (a) things which are outside the content of ethical expectations of society, (b)

things that are ethically unimportant, (c) things that are not mentioned in ethical codes by the

ethical authorities due to their low importance (Bauman, 1998). Bauman also proposed novel

concepts such as adiaphoric organizations, adiaphoric members, and adiaphorization to

refer individuals or groups that are not taking into consideration the ethical rules (Bauman &

Donskis, 2016). The term has been mentioned in organizational literature as well. Grigore et

al. (2021), used Bauman’s adiaphorization to refer practices that are indifferent in terms of

ethics. In their study, they theorized Liquid Corporate Social Responsibility as the

ambivalence between “adiaphoric practices (i.e., instrumental morality, careerism, and self-

interest) and the moral impulse to do good (Grigore et al., 2021, p. 1).” In Grigore’s research

model adiaphoric practices refers to the practices which cannot be subjected to ethical

assessments. For instance, careerism is neither good nor bad in terms of widely accepted

societal and/or organizational ethic codes.

Considering these definitions, it is plausible that adiaphorism concept of moral

philosophy can be a useful criterion to investigate subtle and insidious aggression as well. In

other words, employees likely to use adiaphoric actions to protect their selves from negative

consequences of being an aggressor. Because adiaphoric actions are ethically indifferent, and

they are not mentioned in ethical codes or rules. Thus, in present study adiaphoric aggression

is defined as:

27

“Subtle and insidious aggressive acts that cannot be subjected to ethical

assessments easily by others.”

This perspective distinguishes from other workplace aggression models by the

classification criterion. In well-known studies of aggression, scholars have classified

aggression according to the degree of seriousness (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Dupre & Barling,

2006), but in present study aggressive behaviors were classified vis-à-vis ethics. In other

words, aggressive behaviors are classified as: (1) adiaphoric aggressive behaviors, and (2)

unethical aggressive behaviors

In this regard, aggression typology of Buss has been used as the fundament of the

new typology proposed in present study. When his typology is evaluated from an ethical

point of view, it is seen that indirect and passive forms mostly consist of adiaphoric actions,

while active and direct forms mostly consist of unethical actions. Employees who do not

want to face with negative consequences likely to choose adiaphoric actions rather than

unethical actions. For instance, hitting someone will be perceived as an unethical behavior

by others, but remaining silent—instead of sharing the necessary information—would be

perceived as an adiaphoric action, which will protect the aggressor from negative

consequences. Moreover, adiaphoric aggressions may be more prevalent due to their secret

nature, and their cumulative effect may more devastating.

2.3. TOXIC LEADERSHIP AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH

AGGRESSION

When literature is reviewed, it is seen that leadership style’s effect on many Ob

concepts have been reported by the scholars. CWB and employee aggression are two of these

concepts. Furthermore, subordinates of dark leaders are likely to manifest insidious and

subtle forms of aggression. Thus, this part was dedicated to review leadership literature

especially the toxic leadership framework due to its comprehensive nature.

28

2.3.1 Leadership: Definition and Theories

The lexical meaning of leadership is “to guide on a way especially by going in

advance” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-d). It is derived from old English leden or leoden which

refers to guiding or showing the way (Rost, 1993). Lexical and historical means of the word

emphasizes that leaders, somehow, persuades people to act towards a goal. In general

organizations can be seen as a group of people, which are acting to achieve common goals

(Robbins & Judge, 2013), and leaders are the key members of effective organizations. For

this reason, many scholars have studied leadership characteristics, traits, and styles.

According to Stogdill (1950, p. 2) leadership is “the process of influencing the

activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement”.

Another well-known leadership definition is “Leadership is an attribute that involves

combination of a meaningful vision with the ability to influence others by non-coercive

means to act in a certain way” (Kotagal & Pellegrini, 2015, p. 1). Robbins and Judge (2018)

defined leadership as the ability to lead people for achievement of a goal. Considering these

definitions, it is seen that an effective leader should have three capabilities: (a) ability of

influencing the group, (b) setting common goals, and (c) guiding the group towards the goals

with effective and supportive ways.

Scholars have a consensus on some characteristics of an effective leader, however

their perspective on how one can became an effective leader is quite different from each

other. Regarding this difference, leadership theories can be classified in two different classes:

(a) trait theories which are focused to define personal characteristics of a good leader, and

(b) behavioral theories which are focused to define effective leadership behaviors in order to

train leaders (Robbins & Judge, 2013). In other words, these theories investigate “whether

one is born or made as a leader” (Schein, 2004, pp. 1-2). According to trait theoreticians,

leaders are born, not made. Hence, theories like big five (Goldberg, 1992) and 16 personality

factors (Cattel, 2001) have been focused to investigate personality types of good leaders. On

the other hand, behavioral theoreticians argued that leaders are made, not born, and good

29

leadership is related with learned skills, not with personal dispositions. Thus, behaviorists’

focus was defining behavioral patterns which are necessary for becoming an effective leader.

Leaderships styles such as authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), transformational

& transactional leadership (Burns, 1978), ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005), shared

leadership (Carson et al., 2007) are some of the well-regarded behavioral models.

In both school, vast majority of studies aim was to investigate how “good leaders”

should be in terms of ethics. However, in modern world, behaviors of leaders are far more

complex than argued in these studies models. They are not exhibiting effective and

humanistic behaviors on every occasion. In fact, some leaders, such as Hitler, are considered

as the stereotype of evil. Hence, dark side of leadership has also attracted scholars and some

scholars aimed to investigate dark side of leadership.

2.3.2 Dark Side of Leadership

One of the pioneers who mentioned dark side of the leadership on literature was

Kotter. According to the researcher, leadership is: “the process of moving a group (or groups)

in some direction through mostly non-coercive means” (Kotter, 1988, p. 16) . This definition

differs from other leadership definitions by its emphasis on “mostly non-coercive means”. In

other words, leaders can use coercive methods on some occasions.

Another well-known dark-side leadership theory is abusive leadership. According

to Tepper (2000, p. 178), abusive leadership refers to “subordinates’ perceptions of the extent

to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal

behaviors, excluding physical contact.” Despite Tepper’s definition exclude physical contact,

definition covers all other abusive behaviors, and researcher reported the negative effect of

abusive supervision on turnover, commitment, work and family conflict and distress.

Tyrannical leaders are also examined by scholars, Ashforth (2016), proposed petty

tyranny concept to acknowledge dark side of leadership. According to scholar, petty tyrants

are “one who lords his or her power over others” (p.755). Petty tyrants distinguish from others

30

by exhibiting behaviors including arbitrariness, self-aggrandizement, belittling other, lack of

consideration, a forcing style of conflict resolution, discouraging initiative, and

noncontingent punishment. Moreover, scholar also investigated antecedents and

consequences of petty tyranny leadership style. Despite Ashforth’s study efforts contributed

to the body of dark side leadership literature, petty tyranny model had two shortcomings, (1)

the model was not addressing all harmful leadership behaviors, and (2) consequences

proposed by Ashforth were limited with withdrawal behaviors.

Destructive leadership of Einarsen is another well-regarded dark-side leadership

concept. According to scholar destructive leadership refers to:

“The systematic and repeated behavior by a leader, supervisor, or manager that

violates the legitimate interest of the organization by undermining and/or sabotaging the

organization’s goals, tasks, resources, and effectiveness and/or the motivation, well-being,

or job satisfaction of subordinates (Einarsen et al., 2007, p. 2).”

Furthermore, Einarsen argued that four leadership styles can be defined regarding

to two dimensions which are named as pro-organizational or anti-organizational behaviors,

and pro-subordinate or anti-subordinate behaviors (See Figure 2). Within these styles,

derailed and tyrannical ones are the most destructive one’s.

Destructive Leadership model was more comprehensive than previous dark side

leadership models, and it was covering both destructive behaviors towards organization and

subordinates (Einarsen et al., 2007). However, its coverage was limited.

31

Note. Retrieved from “Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual

model” by S. Einarsen, M. S. Aasland and A. Skogstad, 2007, The Leadership Quarterly,

2.3.3 Toxic Leadership: Definition and Dimensions

One of the most comprehensive dark-leadership models is toxic leadership (TL)

model of Lipman-Blumen (2005a). Due to its comprehensive nature and elaborated sub-

dimensions it is widely used in organizational literature. According to Lipman-Blumen

(2005b, p. 2) Toxic Leaders are: “those individuals, who by dint of their destructive

behaviors and dysfunctional personal qualities generate a serious and enduring poisonous

effect on the individuals, families, organizations, communities, and even entire societies they

lead.”

Figure 2: Destructive Leadership Behaviour: A Definition and

Conceptual Model

32

In toxic leadership model researcher’s main aim was to investigate toxic behaviors

exhibited by the leaders. She also reported that toxicity of a leader differs time to time. Same

leader may dispose different types and levels of toxicity. Moreover, leaders can manifest

different types of toxic behaviors to certain employees. In other words, same leader may be

an evil for one employee, but a hero for another (Lipman-Blumen, 2005b).

When literature is reviewed regarding measurement of toxic leadership, it is seen

that measurement tool developed by Schmidt (2008), have been used in vast majority of TL

studies. According to scholar, toxic leadership consists of abusive supervision, authoritarian

leadership, narcissism, self-promotion, and unpredictability dimensions. In other words,

toxic leadership can be seen as an umbrella concept which covers many traits mentioned in

other dark-side leadership models.

Abusive supervision dimension refers to leaders’ abusive behaviors (e.g., threats

about terminating work agreement). In literature abusive leadership is defined as “sustained

display of hostile and verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper,

2000, p. 178). According to Schmidt (2008), abusive supervision is one of the dimensions of

toxic leadership since it includes “nonverbal and intentional destructive behaviors (p. 7).”

Scholar also argued that Tepper’s measurement tool should be revised to be more

comprehensive and precise.

Authoritarian leadership refers to leaders’ decisions which are done without

consultation with followers. These kinds of leaders expect unquestioned obedience from

followers. In situations such as crisis management or routine tasks authoritarian leadership

style may be effective to some extent, but in normal situations this leadership style may

increase followers dissatisfaction (Kotagal & Pellegrini, 2015). According to Schmidt

(2008) authoritarian leadership behaviors are also manifested by toxic leaders regardless of

the situation. In other words, toxic leaders, exhibit these behaviors when they are not

necessary. In literature authoritarian leadership styles’ negative effect on task performance,

(Chan et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2011), in-role and extra-role performance (Schuh et al., 2013;

33

Shen et al., 2019), employee silence and organizational citizenship behaviors (Ahmad Bodla

et al., 2019; Chan et al., 2013) have been reported by scholars. Furthermore, authoritarian

leadership behaviors’ effect on CWB concepts (Aydinay et al., 2021; Jiang et al., 2017) was

also reported by scholars.

Narcissism dimension is related with grandiose self-importance feelings of leaders

(Schmidt, 2008). When narcissism literature is reviewed, it is seen that one of the most

common definition of concept is: “ a pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack

of empathy (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 645).” Narcist personalities

distinguish from other personalities by: (a) grandiose sense of self-importance, (b) unlimited

success, power, or beauty fantasies, (c) beliefs about the being a “special” person (d) require

excessive admiration, (e) sense of entitlement for favorable treatment, (f) exploitative

behaviors, (g) lack of empathy, (h) envious of others, and (i) arrogant behaviors (American

Psychiatric Association, 2013). Concept also attracted scholars’ attention. Kets de Vries and

Miller (1985) argued that, narcissistic personal characteristics is an important factor on the

orientation of leaders, and narcissism types defines many behaviors of leaders. Schmidt

(2014) reported that narcissism is one of the dimensions of toxic leadership.

Self-promotion refers to leaders behaviors that are done to promote self (Schmidt,

2008). These behaviors can be seen as normal in today’s working life since every employee

exhibit self-promotion behavior for careerism. Indeed, curriculum vitaes are kind of self-

promotion documents prepared by employees. However, self-promotion behaviors of toxic

leaders consist of unrealistic behaviors. For instance, changing behaviors in the presence of

supervisor, or denying responsibility of mistakes are self-promotion behaviors of a toxic

leaders.

Unpredictability dimensions consist of toxic leaders’ arbitrary behaviors. Schmidt

(2008) reported that leader’s arbitrary toxicity may be perceived more toxic by the followers

than consistently toxic behaviors. In other words, daily changes in leader’s supportive and

toxic behaviors creates more distress than a leader who consistently exhibits toxic behaviors.

34

Indeed, subordinates of toxic leaders stated that, they rather prefer to work with a consistent

toxic leader rather than working with an inconsistent toxic leader. Thus, Schmidt (2008),

defined unpredictability as another dimension of toxic leadership.

2.3.4 The Relationship Between Toxic Leadership and Adiaphoric Aggression

Number of studies investigated the relationship between toxic leadership and

employee aggression is limited. However, relationships between other leadership styles and

the concepts that includes aggression were reported in a number of studies. The positive

relationship between dark leadership styles (i.e., destructive, toxic, laissez faire, despotic,

narcissistic, and abusive) and; (1) aggressive reactions (Burton & Hoobler, 2011), (2) deviant

employee behaviors (Haider et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2017), and (3) counterproductive work

behaviors (Aydinay et al., 2021; Puni et al., 2016; Qayyum et al., 2020) have been reported.

On the other hand, constructive leadership styles’ (i.e., transformational, and ethical)

hindering effect on; counterproductive work behaviors (Budiasih & Yogasari, 2019; Göktaş

Kulualp & Koçoğlu, 2019), and deviant employee behaviors (Evans et al., 2021; Pradhan,

2014) was reported as well. Hence, in light of empirical support provided by these studies, it

can be argued that leadership styles have an effect on aggressive behaviors of employees.

From a similar perspective, behaviors of a toxic leader, may adversely influence

subordinates, and these subordinates: (1) may feel irritated and thus, they may exhibit

aggression, or (2) may perceive the aggressive behaviors of leader as the key to success in

that organization and copy them. In both psychological states, level of adiaphoric and

unethical aggression may increase.

To sum up, it is plausible that subordinates of a toxic leader, likely to demonstrate

both adiaphoric and unethical forms of aggression. Thus, first hypothesis was stated as;

H1a: Toxic leadership has a positive relationship with adiaphoric aggression.

H1b: Toxic leadership has a positive relationship with unethical aggression.

35

2.4. JOB DEMANDS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH ADIAPHORIC

AGGRESSION

When the literature is reviewed to gain insight about the high demanded jobs’ effect

on employees, it will be seen that job demands affects many organizational concepts. CWB

(Balducci et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2017), aggression (Enwereuzor et al., 2018), employee

deviance (Hammes & Walsh, 2017), and workplace incivility (Koon & Pun, 2018) are some

of these concepts. Hence, the probability of job demands to have an increasing effect on

adiaphoric aggression is high as well. For this reason, this part of the present study was

devoted to a review of job demands literature and its relationship with aggression.

2.4.1 Job Demands: Definition and Theories

In modern organizations managing the costs effectively is vital for the existence of

organization. One of the important façades of costs efficiency is employee salaries. Thus,

many organizations are trying to reduce the number of employees. However remaining

employees are expected to cover the duties of those who laid off. Consequently, job demands

on remaining employee increases. Scholars, with a similar perspectives, investigated high

job demands effects on stress. One of the early efforts for understanding occupational stress

was demand-control model (DCM) of job strain. In DCM, Karasek (1979), proposed that job

strain is caused by the joint effect of work demands and decision latitude (job control).

According to his framework: (1) Employees experience higher degrees of job strain when

they are working in high demanded jobs with low decision latitude. (2) Employees, who are

working under high demanded positions with a high decision latitude, are more active and

they develop new behaviors. (3) Employees working in low demanded jobs with low control,

are in a passive mode and their activity levels are limited. (4) Employees working in low

demanded jobs with decision latitude, will feel lower strain, unlike high demands and low

control environments. Karasek’s model was the pioneering research for examining job

demands effect on employee stress.

36

Like demand-control model, Demerouti et al. (2001) , developed job demands-

resources (JDR) model of occupational stress. Demerouti proposed that different jobs have

their own characteristics, and these characteristics may alter the stress levels of employees.

Despite, characteristics of jobs vary among the organizations, it is possible to categorize them

as demands and resources (Rothmann et al., 2006). According to Demerouti et al. (2001, p.

501), demands are “physical, social, or organizational aspects of the jobs that are associated

with physiological and mental costs (e.g., exhaustion)”. Moreover, they defined job resources

as (1) functional things which makes achieving goals easier, (2) the things that decrease the

job demands’ effects on employees, and (3) the things that stimulate personal growth and

development. Demands defined by them were workload, time pressure, recipient contact, and

physical environment, while job resources are, feedback, rewards, job control, participation,

job security, and supervisor support. In sum, job demands & resources model of Demerouti

et al. (2001) can be seen as an extended version of demand control model (Karasek, 1979).

Main difference between Karasek’s and Demerouti’s model was their perspective about job

resources. According to Karasek, control on job is the only psychological resource, however,

in JDR, Demerouti offered many resources which may hinder employees’ strain levels.

Another model of job strain is effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model of Siegrist

(1996). Siegrist postulated that strain levels of employees is related with the balance between

given efforts and gained rewards. According to scholar, efforts can be intrinsic (e.g., need for

control), or extrinsic (e.g., obligations, demands), while rewards are money, esteem, and

status control. One of the unique characteristics of ERI is status control. According to

Siegrist, every work setting has its own characteristics. Some of these characteristics may

threaten, employees’ feelings about their own knowledge, efficacy, and esteem, which, may

interrupt their feeling of control over intrinsic rewards. To define this feeling Siegrist

proposed self-control concept and added that self-control is one of the most important

perceived rewards. To sum up, Siegrist’s job stress model differs from other models by its

emphasis on rewards. Author claims that high demands may not increase job stress if

sufficient rewards are given to employees.

37

According to Caplan (1987), who proposed well-known person-environment fit

model, job strain is related with fit between person and environment. person environment fit

refers to “process of adjustment between organizational members and their working

environment” (Caplan, 1987, p. 249). Moreover, stress arises neither from the person nor

from the environment. Stress arises because of the incongruity between person and

environment. And this simple but powerful notion was used as a fundament for many stress

and well-being theories (Edwards et al., 1998). In today’s working life, many HR

professionals are using Caplan’s fit concept to recruit the nominees who fits best to their

organization and to make efficient job placements.

Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics (JC) model is another well-known model

of job stress. According to authors, critical job dimensions (i.e., skill variety, task identity,

task significance, autonomy, and feedback) create positive psychological states (i.e.,

meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge about results), and these positive

psychological states: (1) increase the employees’ performance, and (2) decrease their

turnover intention (Hackman & Oldham, 1974).

Scholars also investigated dimensions of job demands concept. One of the widely

accepted factor structures was developed by Xanthopoulou et al. (2007). Their research has

provided empirical support for workload, emotional demands, emotional dissonance, and

changes at work dimensions. Workload dimension refers to the degree of physical loads. If

employees perceive high physical demands relative to their daily shift or the salary, they

perceive high levels of workload. Emotional demands dimension is related with the degree

of emotionally challenging situations in the work. Employees working in emotionally

challenging roles feel more demands because of the additional efforts they give to regulate

their emotions. Emotional dissonance dimension is related with emotion labor expected from

employees. In other words, it refers to discrepancy between employee’s real emotions and

expected emotions from them. If the discrepancy is high, that employees feel higher levels

of emotional dissonance at work. Lastly, changes at work dimension refers to the degree of

perceived unexpected changes in their work settings. Unexpected role changes and duties

38

increase the degree of perceived job demands because adaptation to new situation brings

additional intellectual demand.

2.4.2 The Relationship Between Job Demands and Aggression

Scholars also studied results of job demands. In vast majority of these studies job

demands’ relationship with negative employee behaviors have been reported. Distress related

with high demands has a positive relationship with soldier’s counterproductive work

behaviors (Chen et al., 2017; Tucker et al., 2009). High demands have an increasing effect

on bullying behaviors among employees (Smoktunowicz et al., 2015; Van den Broeck et al.,

2011). High demands increasing effect on incivility (Torkelson et al., 2016) have been also

reported. Adeoti et al. (2017) reported a positive relationship between job demands and

employee deviance.

In addition to these main effects, types of job demands and concepts including

aggression or sharing common behavioral outcomes with aggression was also studied by

scholars. Workload’s relationship with cyber incivility (Zhou et al., 2022), cynicism (Viotti

et al., 2021), interpersonal deviance (Adeoti et al., 2021) aggression and bullying (Bernstein

& Batchelor, 2022) was reported by researchers. Moreover, Bechtoldt et al. (2007) found

empirical support for the relation between changes at work and counterproductive work

behaviors.

Scholars also studied high demands relationship with aggressive behaviors of

employees. The positive relationship between work demands and aggression among nurses

have been reported in several studies (Chang et al., 2019; Demir et al., 2014; Enwereuzor et

al., 2018)

Considering the literature, it can be argued that employees faced with high job

demands will experience more distress and they may likely to exhibit adiaphoric and

unethical aggressive behaviors. Thus, second hypothesis was stated as:

39

H2a: Job demands has a positive relationship with adiaphoric aggression.

H2b: Job demands has a positive relationship with unethical aggression.

2.5. MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL INJUSTICE

Before organizational justice (OJ) was emerged as a concept in literature,

pioneering researchers’ aim was to examine inequity perceptions of employees. One of the

well-known efforts was Adam’s Inequity Theory. According to him, inequity arises when

persons “whenever his perceived job inputs and/or outcomes stand psychologically in an

obverse relation to what he perceives are the inputs and/or outcomes of other (Adams, 1963,

p. 424).” Adams’ theory paved the way to development of OJ concept. According to Fox et

al. (2001), OJ refers to employees’ perceptions about the fairness of the treatment on

workplace. Like Fox, Cropanzano and Molina (2015) postulated that organizational justice

refers to workers’ perceptions about the fairness of their organization. When employees

believe that the treatment among members is fair, they tend to show higher performance,

better work attitudes. On the other hand when they believe that the treatment among members

is unfair they tend to show unintended employee behaviors or attitudes.

As concept gained popularity among researchers, different sub-dimensions of OJ

have been investigated. Widely accepted and studied sub-dimensions of OJ are distributive,

procedural, and interactional justice types.

Distributive justice refers to fair allocation of resources. For doing so resources

should be distributed according to equity, equality, and need components (Cropanzano et

al., 2007). In literature, distributive injustice’s relationships with bullying (Samsudin et al.,

2020), CWB (Flaherty & Moss, 2007), anger (Stouten et al., 2013), deviant work behaviors

(Khattak et al., 2021), and directly with aggression (Chory & Hubbell, 2008) were reported

by scholars. These study results also support the possible relationship between distributive

injustice and aggression forms (i.e., adiaphoric, and unethical) studied in present study.

40

Procedural justice refers to appropriate allocation of the formal procedures. To

guarantee the fairness; all employees should be treated equally, any discrimination should

not be involved to allocation, decision making should be done with objective information, all

stakeholders must involve in decision making processes related with themselves, and each

step of the conduct must comply professional ethical codes (Cropanzano et al., 2007).

Scholars studied the outcomes of procedural injustice as well. Procedural injustice’s effect

on CWB (Jones, 2009), negative employee behaviors (Greco et al., 2019), aggression

towards supervisor (Greenberg & Barling, 1999), and psychological contract breach (Peng

et al., 2016) have been reported in number of studies. Taken together, these research results

can be seen as supports to proposed relationship between procedural injustice and aggression

forms (i.e., adiaphoric, and unethical) studied in present study.

Lastly, interactional justice refers to authority figures’ appropriate and fair

treatments towards their subordinates. To do so, figures representing the authority should

treat employees with dignity and relevant information should be shared with sub-ordinates

clearly (Cropanzano et al., 2007). Interactional injustice’s relationship with organizational

outcomes was also studied by various scholars. Its relationship with negative affect (Yi &

Gong, 2008), retaliation (Skarlicki et al., 1999), CWB (Flaherty & Moss, 2007; Le Roy et

al., 2012), and lastly aggression(Burton & Hoobler, 2011) was reported in literature. In light

of the mentioned study results and theoretical explanations, it seems plausible to argue that

interactional injustice may increase the occurrence of aggression forms (i.e., adiaphoric, and

unethical) studied in present study.

Employees who perceive their organization as an unjust place are likely to develop

negative feelings towards their organization which in return may trigger aggression. The

relationship of perceived injustice and aggression was also mentioned in different fields of

social sciences. For instance, According Dollard et al. (1939) aggression is a behavioral

reaction triggered by frustration. Likewise, Homans (1974), postulated that if individuals do

not get the rewards they expected or they get a punishment that they do not expect, they may

exhibit aggression. Moreover, this relationship was also studied within organizational

41

context. Study results showed that perceived organizational injustice may trigger workplace

aggression (Chory & Hubbell, 2008; Coşkun & Balcı, 2020). Furthermore, the relationship

between injustice perceptions and CWB models covering aggression have been reported in

literature as well. For instance, Polatçı and Özçalık (2015) found empirical support for the

relationship between perceived injustice and counterproductive behaviors. Syaebani and

Sobri (2013), reported a positive relationship between injustice and deviant work behaviors.

In a nutshell, the relationship between organizational injustice and concepts which also

include aggressive behaviors, have been mentioned by many scholars.

On the other hand, from an organization-wide perspective, many characteristics of

an organization (e.g., salaries, succession plans, vested benefits, ethical policies) may be

related with organizational injustice perceptions of employees, but some characteristics may

have more devastating effects than others. Firstly, leadership style may predict organizational

injustice perceptions of employees. This predictive power comes from leader’s authority and

power. If leaders’ behaviors are arbitrary, abusive, coercive, destructive, or toxic, injustice

perception of employees may easily increase. Moreover, leaders have the ability to alter many

other organizational phenomena which in turn can increase the injustice perception among

employees as well. Thus, leadership can be seen as one of the important predictors of

organizational injustice.

This implication is also in line with relevant literature. For instance, increasing

effect of abusive supervision (Aryee et al., 2007) and toxic leadership (Edwards, 2019;

Reyhanoglu & Akin, 2020) on organizational injustice were reported by scholars. On the

other hand, positive effect of transformational leadership (Akar & Üstüner, 2019; Mauludin

& Sulistyorini, 2018), and ethical leadership (Bağrıyanık, 2017; Engelbrecht et al., 2018; Fox

et al., 2001; Xu et al., 2014), have been also reported. Considering these studies, it can be

argued that leadership style may have a predictive power on organizational justice. In other

words, harmful leadership styles increase the injustice perception, while employees working

with supportive leaders perceive less organizational injustice.

42

To sum up, it seems plausible to argue that toxic leadership may foster adiaphoric

and unethical aggression via perceived organizational injustice. Thus, third hypothesis was

stated as:

H3a: Organizational injustice mediates the relationship between toxic leadership

and adiaphoric aggression.

H3b: Organizational injustice mediates the relationship between toxic leadership

and unethical aggression.

Organizational injustice may have conveyor role on the relationship between job

demands and adiaphoric aggression as well. Employees working in high demanded jobs, may

feel that their effort is not reciprocated by the organization. This imbalance feeling, may

nurture organizational injustice perception, which in turn may pave the psychological path

for aggressive behaviors. Hence, employees more likely to demonstrate aggressive behaviors

when they perceive the organization as an unjust place. Relevant literature also supports this

theoretical implication. The association between high demands and injustice have been

reported by scholars (e.g., Hassard et al., 2017; Narisada, 2020). Moreover, the relationship

between models of job stress, including various job demands, and organizational injustice

was also mentioned in literature. The relationship between job demands and distributive

justice (Clements & Kinman, 2021; Narisada, 2020), and distress’ effect on injustice

perception (F. Syed et al., 2021) were reported in a number of studies.

In light of the theoretical implications and study results, it is plausible to argue that

organizational injustice mediates the relationship between job demands and adiaphoric and

unethical aggression. Thus, fourth hypothesis was stated as;

H4a: Organizational injustice mediates the relationship between job demands and

adiaphoric aggression.

H4b: Organizational injustice mediates the relationship between job demands and

unethical aggression.

43

2.6. MEDIATING ROLE OF NEGATIVE AFFECTIVITY

Affectivity is an umbrella concept, which refers to short-lasting but intense affective

reactions (i.e., emotions) and long-lasting but less intense affective reactions (i.e., positive,

and negative moods) Thus, to understand affective reactions clearly, emotions and moods

should be understood.

The word emotion is derived from Old French esmovoir and from its Latin form

emovēre, which means to remove or to displace (Merriam-Webster, n.d.-b). Nowadays, the

emotion word is used to refer strong feelings like love, fear, etc. (Cambridge Dictionary,

n.d.). Emotions and their effects on human behaviors have been attractive topics for the

scholars since the very beginning of psychology science. Thus, many studies have been

conducted on these topics and many quite similar definitions of emotion concept have been

emerged. One of the well-regarded ones is “subjective feelings that have a positive or

negative value for the individual (Hayes & Stratton, 2022, p. 113).” Same scholars also

reported that emotions may trigger physiological changes (e.g., hearth rate, blood pressure),

and cognitive changes (e.g., limiting the intellectual skills) as well. Another distinctive

characteristic of the emotions is facial impressions. Emotions can be distinguished by

universal facial impressions which can be easily understood by others (McShane & Von

Glinow, 2021).

Since the very beginning of emotion studies (i.e., approximately 120 years ago)

researchers divided into two schools which are discrete and circumplex schools. Discrete

Emotion scholars advocated that emotions are discrete (e.g., anger, fear, disgust) and must

be studied one by one. For instance, a well-known discrete emotions study was conducted by

Ekman (1973). According to scholar all humans have six basic emotions which are joy,

surprise, contempt, sadness, disgust, and anger. Furthermore, facial impressions related with

these emotions are universal, and each individual has the ability understand distinguish these

facial impressions regardless of their cultural background.

44

On the other hand, circumplex scholars argued that, emotions are emerged in

relation to some psychological dimensions (Rogelberg, 2007). One of the pioneering studies

of circumplex school was conducted by Russell (1980). According to researcher, emotions

can be described by an affect circumplex which consists of pleasure vs displeasure, and

arousal vs sleepiness dimensions. These dimensions were also referred as valance and arousal

dimensions. Russel also added that these dimensions are not independent but interrelated. In

other words, all emotions are embodied by the combination of these dimensions. For

instance, happiness could be related with both pleasure and arousal dimensions. (See Figure

3).

Figure 3: Circumplex Model of Emotions

Note. From “A Circumplex model of affect” by J.A. Russel, 1980, Journal of Personality and

Regardless of the different perspectives of the schools, scholars from both schools

have argued that emotions are intense but short-termed affective reactions towards a specific

45

source which may have psychological, cognitive, and physiological outcomes. Furthermore,

many different types of emotions, such as pleasure, trendlines, exist.

On the other hand, mood is used to describe feelings which are less intense but last

longer. Moods are not aroused by a specific stimulus, nor directed to a specific source in

contrast to emotions. However, emotions could pave the psychological way for mood

changes. For instance, when a particular work event makes an employee angry, its effect

would become less intense by time, however the remaining less intense negative feeling may

evolve to a negative mood. Furthermore, once the negative mood become dominant, that

person would likely develop more negative emotions to other work events. Thus, it is seen

that there is an interplay between emotions and moods (Robbins & Judge, 2013). For

instance, when a manager directs insulting critics to an employee in front of others, that

employee would likely to feel negative emotions such as anger, shame, helplessness etc.

After a while, that employee’s negative emotions would lose their intensity, but less intense

emotions may alter employee’s mood from positive to negative. Hence the employee would

develop more negative emotions to future work events and may exhibit unwanted behavioral

responses such as aggression.

Scholars have also proposed different classifications for moods. For instance,

Hersey (1932) classified moods as positive, negative, and neutral in relation with emotions.

According to Watson et al. (1988), in vast majority of mood studies, two factor structure

(i.e., positive, and negative moods) have been supported empirically. Positive mood consists

of long-lasting positive emotions’ (e.g., proud, enthusiastic, interested) combination, while

negative mood consists of long-lasting negative emotions’ (e.g., guilty, scared, hostile)

combination. Watson also developed Positive Negative Affectivity Scale (PANAS) which is

a well-regarded and widely used measurement tools for measuring affectivity.

On the other hand, in early management era, which is named as classical

management era, scholars were focused on assessing the best way of doing jobs. Thus,

affective and cognitive sides of workers was neglected or represented limitedly (Robbins &

46

Coulter, 2012). scientific management (Tylor, 1911) and general administrative theory

(Fayol, 1920; Weber, 1947) were the pioneering researches of this era. The purpose of the

first was to investigate best way of doing a job while the latter was aimed to reveal how

management should be done, but both were ignoring the psychological aspect of employees.

Even, Max Weber himself, was advocating the impersonality principle, which means

uniformed applications and rules must administered to every employee regardless of their

personal characteristics (Robbins & Coulter, 2012).

After this initial management studies era, researchers focal point changed to human

factor in organizations. The main distinction of the era could be seen as the emphasis to

workers psychology; hence this era is also named as OB era. By this focal change, behavioral

management era, which is shaped by the behavioral approach in psychology, have been

started (Robbins & Coulter, 2012). One of the leading studies of this era was Hawthorne

studies (Mayo, 1933). Hawthorne studies revealed that individuals are altering their

behaviors according to social expectations when they are surveilled or when they are working

as a part of group. This research was a breakthrough for management studies since early

management studies were not emphasizing humanistic side of workers. They were seeing

workers as the rational decision makers who are driven by the motivation of increasing self-

gains. However, Hawthorne studies revealed that workers could behave irrationally on some

occasions due to their emotions and attitudes. Thus, researchers acknowledged the

importance of psychology and started to study psychological façades of organizations

(Robbins & Coulter, 2012).

Job related affectivity concept is one of the concepts flourished by this behavioral

management era. Revealing the affectivity phenomenon’s effect on employees has also

attracted scholars from OB field. By the rigorous efforts of these scholars, employees’

emotional responses to daily work events have been investigated. Furthermore, many

scholars studied causes and consequences of emotions in organizational context. Weiss and

Cropanzano (1996), in their well-known affective events theory (AET), argued emotions as

the mediator concepts which conveys the daily work events’ effects to behavioral responses

47

and work attitudes of employees. According to AET, work events trigger affective reactions,

which may alter employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Thus, effect of affectivity on work

settings is also important for increasing the efficiency of human recourses. In other words,

workers are not the computer programs or machine-like objects that makes logical decisions,

but they are emotional creatures whose behaviors influenced by their affectivity. For this

reasons workers affectivity should be taken into consideration during the investigation of

employee behaviors.

Considering the relevant literature, it is plausible argue that, like social life, working

life itself can alter employees’ moods. Furthermore, their mood in social life and work can

be quite different. Thus, from OB point of view, present study was aimed to investigate work

related mood in relation with aggression. Scholars were also attracted with the effects of work

life on moods of employees. When literature is reviewed with this perspective, the number

of studies investigating the effect of toxic leadership on job related negative affectivity is

limited, however other leadership styles’ effect on affectivity was reported. For instance the

relationship between abusive supervision and affective commitment of employees is reported

by Aryee et al. (2007). Michel et al. (2013) found that abusive supervisions relationship with

workplace deviance mediated by work related negative affect. On the other hand, the

relationship between job related negative affect and aggression (Douglas & Martinko, 2001;

Hepworth & Towler, 2004; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Toro et al., 2020) was also reported by

scholars. In light of the theoretical implications and study results summarized above, the fifth

hypothesis of this study was stated as;

H5a: Negative affectivity mediates the relationship between toxic leadership and

adiaphoric aggression.

H5b: Negative affectivity mediates the relationship between toxic leadership and

unethical aggression.

48

High demands can also alter employees’ affective states. Employees working in

high demanded works, may feel extensive pressure which in return may make them more

reactive to work events in an angry manner. Moreover, as mentioned above experiencing

negative emotions such as anger, can put employees in a negative mood towards their job as

well. Literature also supports this relationship. Balducci et al. (2011) reported that affectivity

plays a conveyor role on the relationship between high job demands and CWB. (C. Huang et

al., 2021) found empirical support for mediating role of negative affectivity on the

relationship between job demands and distress. Lastly, Vantilborgh et al. (2016) also reported

the mediator role of negative affectivity on the relationship between high demands and

perceived psychological breach.

Considering these theoretical implications and study results summarized above,

sixth hypothesis of this study was stated as:

H6a: Negative affectivity mediates the relationship between job demands and

adiaphoric aggression.

H6b: Negative affectivity mediates the relationship between job demands and

unethical aggression.

Considering the literature review, theoretical implications, and hypotheses, the

research model of this study is shown in Figure 4. Accordingly, toxic leadership and job

demands are defined as the possible antecedents, while organizational injustice and negative

affectivity as mediator variables which convey the antecedent concepts’ effect on adiaphoric

and unethical aggression.

49

Figure 4: Research Model

50

3. METHOD

Ambiguous factor structures of unintended employee behavior models, and

literature gap on hidden and insidious forms of employee aggression in organizations was

the starting point of present study. In this respect, subsequent preliminary studies were

conducted before main study.

First preliminary study was a qualitative study which was conducted with an

exploratory spirit to gain a better understanding about experienced aggression forms by the

employees. Furthermore, in light of this research, a new framework (i.e., adiaphoric and

unethical aggressive behaviors) was developed. Second preliminary study was conducted to

see the experts’ opinions about the proposed new concept’s coverage. A checklist, consists

of aggression forms derived from initial research, was sent to experts to see their opinions

about the clarity of proposed hypothetical framework. Third preliminary research was

conducted to collect experts’ scorings about the item pool developed in light of first and

second preliminary research. In this regard, item pool was sent to eight academicians from

related fields to get their feedbacks about face and content validity. Afterwards, item pool

was revised according to their feedbacks. Last preliminary research was the pilot research of

newly developed aggression scale. A survey consist of item pool and scales of research model

was sent to 88 white-collar employees. In light of this pilot study item pool was reviewed

and necessary revisions were made again.

After preliminary studies main quantitative research was conducted to assess the

relationships between adiaphoric and unethical aggression, toxic leadership, job demands

organizational injustice, and negative affect. To gain a better understanding about parallel

mediation proposed in model, conditional process analysis method developed by Hayes and

Stratton (2022) was used.

51

3.1. PRELIMINARY STUDIES

To develop a measurement tool for investigating adiaphoric and unethical

aggressive behaviors, a series of preliminary studies have been conducted. These studies

were aimed to: (1) explore new types of both adiaphoric and unethical aggressive behaviors,

(2) explore their prevalence, and (3) investigate the relationships with possible antecedents.

3.1.1 Preliminary Study 1: Exploration of Adiaphoric and Unethical Forms of

Aggression

Main aim of this preliminary study was to define aggressive behavior patterns,

categorize them, evaluate their prevalence, and address the antecedents perceived by private

sector employees. In this regard, an exploratory qualitative study was conducted.

3.1.1.1. Sample

Snowball sampling technique was used to invite participants from researcher’s

professional network. Twenty-seven white-collar employees, working for private sector

organizations based in Istanbul accepted to participate the study. Three of them were

excluded from the sample due to their jobs’ inadequate structure (one was running his own

company, two were working remotely as a freelancers) and two of them refused to participate

after they read the informed consent. Consequently, study was conducted with a sample of

22 respondents. Regarding demographical distribution, of the participants, 13 were female,

9 were male, ages were between 22 and 53 years, tenures were between 2 and 30 years, and

10 of them had managerial positions.

3.1.1.2. Procedure & Instrument

Before starting the interviews, an online informed consent form (See Appendix A )

has been sent to all participants to take their written consent. Due to Covid-19 restrictions,

interviews were conducted with video conferencing method. Length of video interviews were

varied between 20 and 70 minutes.

52

Interviews started with short answered demographical questions. These questions

were addressing respondents’ age, gender, tenure, educational level, number of the

employees working in their organizations, and their managerial position.

After the demographical questions part, sixteen open-ended questions were directed

to participants (See Appendix B). First ten questions were aimed to address (a) perceived

aggression types, (b) behaviors related with these aggression types, and (c) prevalence of

these behaviors (e.g., Are you witnessing aggressive behaviors among your colleagues, how

often?). Last six questions were aimed to investigate perceived antecedents of aggressive

behaviors (e.g., what is the most important reason that triggers your colleague’s aggression).

3.1.1.3. Findings

In first step, interviews have been transcribed. To get a better understanding of the

data, the researcher has read these transcripts several times. Afterwards, transcripts were

analyzed with inductive coding method and thematic analysis by qualitative data analysis

package (Ronggui, 2012) of R statistical computing program (R Core Team, 2013).

Aggressive behavior forms mentioned by respondents coded, and these codes have been

grouped under the predefined themes of Buss’ typology.

After categorization of aggression codes and themes, frequencies were calculated.

It was seen that many new forms of aggression (e.g., sending bcc mails to administrators to

reveal the targets mistakes, making things to expose target to the monotonous job tasks,

psychological violence) which have not stated in previous studies were mentioned by

employees. Furthermore, in-line with the aim of the present study, calculated frequencies

supported that indirect and passive forms were more prevalent than active/direct forms (See

Table 10).

53

Table 10: Themes and Frequencies

Note. f = Frequencies

3.1.2 Preliminary Study 2: Expert Options

Preliminary Study 2 was conducted to see the options of experts from related social

science fields (i.e., psychology, psychological counselling) about the aggressive behaviors

extracted from initial research and their congruence with the typology of Buss.

Coded Aggressive Behaviors

f

Themes

Forms of

Aggression

Agresif tavırlar

18

Active-Direct

f= 147

Unethical

Aggression

f= 147

Alay etmek, iğnelemek

22

Aşağılama, küçümseme

27

Bağırma/Ses Yükseltme

36

Fiziksel Saldırı

7

Hakaret, Küfür

20

İftira atmak

5

Sözel kavga

4

Tahdit etmek

8

Dedikodu

44

Active-Indirect

f= 170

Adiaphoric

Aggression

f= 246

Hatalarını aleyhte kullanma

38

İş yükünü arttırmak, angarya

işler, imkânsız işler, monoton

işler

23

Kaba/nezaketsiz iletişim

30

Memnuniyetsiz davranışlar,

söylemler, söylenerek iş yapma

7

Sabotaj

3

Yanlış yönlendirme

3

Yönetici yetkilerini olumsuz

biçimde kullanmak

4

Yöneticiye şikayet

18

İletişim kurmama, yok sayma,

görmezden gelme

18

Passive Direct

f=24

Sosyal İzolasyon, dışlama

6

Bilgi saklama

12

Passive-Indirect

f=52

İşi eksik, geç, özensiz yapma,

hiç yapmama

21

Yanlışı uyarmamak

5

Yardım etmemek

14

54

3.1.2.1. Sample

Snowball sampling technique have been used to reach the participants from

researcher’s professional network. 102 respondents answered the survey questions, but 19 of

them excluded from the sample due to their inadequate expertise. Remaining 83 was defined

as the sample of study. Of the respondents, 31 were university students, 51 had bachelor's

degree, one had master's degree and two had doctoral degrees

3.1.2.2. Procedure & Instrument

To collect the data, due to Covid-19 restrictions online survey method was chosen.

Aggressive behavior forms extracted from the first preliminary research, were sent to

respondents and they were asked to classify these behavior patterns according to

passive/active and direct/indirect aggression types proposed by Buss (see Appendix C).

First part of the survey was consisting of informed consent and short answered

questions about university degree and field of study. Second part of the survey was consisted

of descriptions about the aggression typology of Buss (1961), and aggression codes of

Preliminary Study 1. Respondents were asked to choose the best category for each aggression

code presented in this part. Categories were defined as AD = active-direct, AI = active-

indirect, PD = passive-direct, or PI = passive-indirect.

3.1.2.3. Findings

After data collection process, data was analyzed with R statistical computing

program (R Core Team, 2013). To see the respondents’ total categorization, percentages of

each category for every code (See Table 11) was calculated. To assess whether the results

significantly differ from chance probability or not, Chi-square test of probabilities method

was used. This method is a statistical test for investigating the statistical difference between

a given distribution and chance distribution (Navarro, 2016).

55

Proposed themes and experts’ opinions about the congruence of the categories

largely matched with each other (see Table 11). However, “Hedef kişiyle kaba ve nezaketsiz

şekilde iletişim kurmak.” and “Hedef kişiye yardım etmemek.” behaviors were classified in

different themes. Despite respondents did not classify these two items under the proposed

themes, they were still in-line with the adiaphoric aggression and unethical aggression

typology postulated in present study. Another problem was seen in “Hedef kişiyi sosyal

izolasyona maruz bırakmak, dışlamak.” behavior. Respondents’ scores were equal for active-

direct and passive-direct themes. This equality may have been caused by the confusing

lexical meaning of the code. Some respondents may have thought that code was referring to

doing something for social exclusion, however, the code was referring to staying in a passive

mode to create a social exclusion for the victim. For instance, not inviting victim to coffee-

breaks or lunches. To get rid of this error, items related with this code were revised before

pilot study. Calculated percentages and significance levels of the distributions are shown in

Table 11.

56

Table 11: Test of Probabilities

ITEMS

Hyp.

AD

AI

PD

PI

x2

df

p

(%)

Hedef kişiyi küçümsemek, aşağılamak.

AD

84.71

5.88

4.71

161.64

3

0.00

Hedef kişiye hakaret etmek, küfretmek.

AD

94.12

1.18

3.53

216.69

3

0.00

Hedef kişinin yüzüne karşı iftira atmak.

AD

84.71

5.88

3.53

5.88

161.73

2

0.00

Hedef kişiyle sözel kavga etmek.

AD

90.59

7.06

2.35

0.00

125.67

2

0.00

Hedef kişiyi tehdit etmek.

AD

82.35

12.94

3.53

1.18

151.75

3

0.00

Hedef kişiyle alay etmek, iğnelemek.

AD

78.82

14.12

7.06

0.00

79.79

2

0.00

Hedef kişiyle kaba ve nezaketsiz şekilde

iletişim kurmak.

AI

69.41

11.76

12.94

5.88

90.39

3

0.00

Hedef kişiye ses yükseltmek, bağırmak.

AD

91.76

3.53

1.18

202.20

3

0.00

Hedef kişiye karşı agresif tavırlar

sergilemek

AD

91.76

5.88

2.35

0.00

130.75

2

0.00

Hedef kişiye fiziksel saldırıda bulunmak.

AD

91.76

2.35

1.18

4.71

202.29

3

0.00

Hedef kişiyi yöneticisine şikâyet etmek,

yöneticiyi dolduruşa getirmek.

AI

9.41

70.59

8.24

11.76

94.44

3

0.00

Hedef kişinin arkasından dedikodu

yapmak.

AI

9.41

68.24

10.59

11.76

84.84

3

0.00

Hedef kişiye ağır, yapılması imkânsız,

monoton veya angarya işler vermek.

AI

25.88

49.41

16.47

8.24

32.32

3

0.00

Hedef kişinin tanık olabileceği şekilde

memnuniyetsiz davranışlarda,

söylemlerde bulunmak. Söylenerek işini

yapmak.

AI

17.65

51.76

11.76

18.82

33.45

3

0.00

Hedef kişiyi sabote edecek davranışlarda

bulunmak.

AI

38.82

41.18

10.59

9.41

30.72

3

0.00

Hedef kişiyi yanlış yönlendirmek.

AI

37.65

40.00

12.94

9.41

26.29

3

0.00

Hedef kişiye zarar vermek için yönetici

yetkilerini olumsuz bir şekilde

kullanmak.

AI

31.76

44.71

9.41

14.12

27.05

3

0.00

Hedef kişinin hatalarını onun aleyhinde

kullanmak.

AI

36.47

38.82

12.94

11.76

21.87

3

0.00

Hedef kişiye yardım etmemek

PI

8.24

3.53

69.41

18.82

93.59

3

0.00

Hedef kişiyle iletişim kurmamak, yok

saymak, görmezden gelmek,

PD

9.41

12.94

63.53

14.12

67.71

3

0.00

Hedef kişiyi sosyal izolasyona maruz

bırakmak, dışlamak.

PD

31.76

23.53

31.76

12.94

8.13

3

0.04

Hedef kişiden bilgi saklamak.

PI

9.41

12.94

51.76

25.88

37.59

3

0.00

Hedef kişinin yanlışlarını bilerek

uyarmamak.

PI

8.24

9.41

57.65

24.71

54.06

3

0.00

Hedef kişiyi zor durumda bırakmak için

işi eksik, geç, özensiz yapmak.

PI

4.71

24.71

22.35

48.24

32.60

3

0.00

Note. Hyp = Hypothetical factors proposed by researcher, AD = active-direct, AI =

active-indirect, PD = passive-direct, PI = passive-indirect, x2 = chi squared, df =

degrees of freedom, p = p-values.

57

In conclusion, Preliminary Study 2 showed that respondents from behavioral

science fields have also classified these behaviors similar to the classification proposed in

present study. Only, three behavioral patterns were classified differently, 21 was classified

in the same proposed classes. In other words, there was 87.5% match between the classes

proposed by the researcher and the classification done by 83 respondents.

3.1.3 Preliminary Study 3: Item Pool, Face & Content Validity

Preliminary Study 3 was dedicated to refinement of initial item pool, defining

permanent items for pilot study, and consider face and content validity. In this regard, items,

written by researcher were sent to scholars from related fields to collect their ratings about

face and content validity.

3.1.3.1. Sample

Eight academicians from researcher’s academic network have been invited to score

item pool and provide feedbacks about the items’ validity. Of the academicians, five had PhD

degrees on Organizational Behavior, one had PhD degree on management, one had PhD

degree on psychology, and one was a PhD student on forensic psychology.

3.1.3.2. Procedure & Instrument

To collect data an online form was sent to respondents. The form was including 66

items and their expected dimensions. Respondents were asked to rate (0= totally incongruent,

10 = totally congruent) each item, regarding their congruency with the proposed dimensions

and write their suggestions about the item.

3.1.3.3. Findings

After data collection part, average scores for every item was calculated by R

programming language for statistical computing (R Core Team, 2013). Items with low

averages excluded or rewritten considering the suggestions of academicians.

58

Considering the academicians’ contributions about the face and content validity of

items, pilot measurement tool was created with 48 assessed items.

3.1.4 Preliminary Study 4: Pilot Study

In light of the findings about the face and content validity of scale, some items are

re-written or excluded, and a pilot study has been conducted to gain insight about the scales’

reliability scores and correlations among study variables.

3.1.4.1. Sample

Pilot study was conducted with the participation of white-collar employees from

İstanbul Province. Snowball sampling technique was used to reach the sample of the study

and 88 employees responded to survey. Of the respondents, ages were between 26 and 50

years old, tenures were between 1 to 27 years, 63 were females, 25 were males, 64 were

single, 24 were married, 2 had high school graduate, 58 had bachelor’s, 23 had master’s and

4 had PhD degrees,

3.1.4.2. Procedure & Instrument

Due to Covid-19 restrictions, online data collecting methods were used. An online

survey link was sent to participants and their responses have been collected. Online survey

form was consisted of three parts. First part was including informed consent and a check box

for admitting the informed consent. Second part was consisted of demographical questions

which were addressing gender, age, tenure, marital status, education, sector, department,

number of workers, income, and managerial positions of participants. Third part was

consisted of toxic leadership, job demands, organizational injustice, negative affectivity

scales and item pool of Adiaphoric and Unethical Aggression Scale (AUAS) in present study

(see Appendix D).

59

3.1.4.3. Findings

In order to evaluate the pilot survey data, means, standard deviations, correlation

coefficients among variables and Cronbach’s alpha scores were calculated (see. Table 12).

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of all scales were higher than .70 cut-off point defined for

social sciences (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Correlation coefficients among variables were

also in line with present study’s hypotheses. Thus, it was concluded that newly developed

AUAS’s item pool and scales chosen for measuring the proposed antecedents had enough

reliability and correlation scores for conducting main study.

60

Note. * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are shown in parenthesis

Table 12: Correlations of Pilot Study

61

3.2. SAMPLE

Target population of the main study was the employees working at private sector

companies in Istanbul province. According to Krejcie and Morgan (1970) sample sizes above

384 observations provides enough variability for investigating psychological phenomena.

However, the newly developed AUAS was consisted of 48 items in total. According to Hair

et al. (2014), to conduct factor analysis, minimum 5:1 observation item ratio is needed. Thus,

in order to conduct EFA and CFA to different halves of dataset 480 observations were needed

for present study. Consequently, sample needed for present study was defined as 500

participants by considering the probability of possible outliers, and data collection process

conducted until reaching 500 respondents.

Sample distribution, in accordance with demographical factors, is shown in Table

13. Respondents were between 20 and 57 (M= 37, SD=9) years old. Their tenures varied

between 1 and 35 years with an average of 7.13(SD=5.69), in addition to sectoral tenure,

their tenure in their present organizations varied between 1 and 28 years with an average of

4.85(SD=3.95). To sum, ages and tenures of the respondents indicated that research sample

was consisted of a working class mainly in the middle of their career. Of the respondents,

251 were female and 249 were male, 419 were married or living with a partner, and 81 were

single, 79 had high school degrees, 367 had bachelor’s degree, 48 had master’s degrees and

six had PhD degrees.

Regarding their organizations and departments, respondents were working in

research & development, finance, public relations, law department, human resources,

accounting, marketing, production, and management departments. They were employed by

the various sized organizations. 86 were working in the organizations that employs 1 to 9

employees, 174 were working in the organizations that employs 10 to 49 employees, 114

were working in the organizations that employs 50 to 250 employees, and 126 were working

in the organizations that employs more than 259 employees. In other words, according to

legal code 2018/11828, which defines the classification of enterprises, 74.8% of sample were

62

working for SME’s and 24.2% were working for large companies. Of the respondents, 34

were earning monthly salaries lower than 6,000 ₺, 246 were earning monthly salaries between

6.000-9.999 ₺, 117 were earning monthly salaries between 10,000-14,999 ₺, 61 were earning

earning monthly salaries between 15,000-19,999 ₺, 23 were earning monthly salaries

between 20,000-24,999 ₺, and 19 were earning monthly salaries more than 25,000 ₺. Net

minimum wage defined by the government was 5,500 ₺ during the data collection process.

Lastly, 262 of the respondents had managerial positions and 238 did not.

63

Table 13: Descriptive Statistics of Sample

n

%

% Cum.

M

SD

min

max

Age

37.08

9.01

20

57

Tenure in Sector

500

7.13

5.69

1

35

Tenure in Org.

500

4.86

3.95

1

28

Gender

Female

249

49.8

Male

251

50.2

100

Marital Status

Living with a partner

419

83.8

Single

81

16.2

100

Education

Highschool

79

15.8

Bachelor's

367

73.4

89.2

Master's

48

9.6

98.8

PhD

6

1.2

100

Department

R&D

34

6.8

Finance

46

9.2

16

Public Relations

56

11.2

27.2

Law department

16

3.2

30.4

Human Resources

60

12

42.4

Accounting

82

16.4

58.8

Marketing

47

9.4

68.2

Production

86

17.2

85.4

Management

73

14.6

100

Number of employees in org.

1-9

86

17.2

10-49

174

34.8

52

50-249

114

22.8

74.8

+250

126

25.2

100

Monthly Income (₺)

-6000

34

6.8

6000-9999

246

49.2

56

10000-14999

117

23.4

79.4

15000-19999

61

12.2

91.6

20000-24999

23

4.6

96.2

+25000

19

3.8

100

Managerial Status

Yes

262

52.4

No

238

47.6

100

Note. n=number of observations, % Cum.=Cumulative Percentage, M=Mean,

SD=Standard Deviation

64

To sum up, calculated demographical factor frequencies and percentages indicated

that research sample was the representative of target population aimed for the present study

in terms of major demographical classes.

3.3. PROCEDURE

In order the reach the target population, convenience sampling method was used.

An online survey link was distributed from online occupational networks. To guarantee the

respondents membership to the target population, questions addressing type of their

employment (i.e., public sector, private sector, part-time, full-time, self-employed,

freelancer) have been included to online survey as well. Respondents out of the population

were filtered according to answers given to these questions. Online survey was consisting of

the same parts and measurement tools distributed on pilot study (see Appendix D).

3.4. INSTRUMENTS

Self-report surveys are sensitive to Social Desirability Bias (Randall & Fernandes,

1991) and controlling this bias is highly important for the accuracy of measurements.

According to Krumpal (2013, p. 2025), social desirability occurs “Due to self-presentation

concerns, survey respondents underreport socially undesirable activities and overreport

socially desirable ones.” In present study to control this bias, Normative Technique

developed by Sirken (1970) was used. According to scholar survey questions about others’

behaviors are less affected by social desirability bias than questions about respondents’ own

behaviors. Thus, in main study survey, respondents were asked to rate other employees’

behaviors, rather than rating their behaviors. In other words, all variables in the study were

measured as perceived variables.

3.4.1 Adiaphoric and Unethical Aggression Scale (AUAS)

Adiaphoric and Unethical Aggression Scale (AUAS) was consisted of 48 items

which were shaped after three preliminary studies, by the participation of 114 white collar

employees and academicians from related fields. 35 of the items were related with adiaphoric

65

aggression forms and 13 items were related with unethical aggression forms. Respondents

rated the items on a five points Likert scale from never (1) to always (5).

3.4.2 Toxic Leadership Scale

To assess toxic leadership, scale developed by Schmidt (2008's) was used. Turkish

adaptation study of scale was conducted by Nuri (2020) and researcher reported .94

Cronbach’s alpha score for the overall version of Turkish scale. Scale consists of

authoritarian leadership (5 items), narcissism (6 items), unpredictability (5 items), abusive

supervision (6 items), and self-promotion (4 items) dimensions. Respondents rated the items

on a five points Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

3.4.3 Job Demands Scale

To assess job demands, scale developed by Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) and adapted

into Turkish by Metin (2010) was used. Scale consists of workload (4 items), emotional

demands (6 items), emotional dissonance (5 items), and changes at work (7 items)

dimensions. Cronbach’s alpha score of the Turkish adaptation was calculated as .81 by Metin.

Respondents rated the items on a five points Likert scale from never (1) to always (5).

3.4.4 Organizational Injustice Scale

To assess organizational injustice, scale developed by Colquitt (2001) and adapted

into Turkish by Sulu (2010) was used. Cronbach’s alpha scores of all dimensions were

calculated higher than .90 in adaptation study. Scale consists of distributive injustice (4

items), procedural injustice (7 items), interpersonal injustice (4 items), and informational

injustice (5 items) dimensions. Respondents rated the items on a five points Likert scale from

strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

3.4.5 Negative Affectivity Scale

To assess negative affectivity (mood) of participants, PANAS scale developed by

Watson et al. (1988) was used. Turkish adaptation of scale was conducted by Tülin (2000),

66

scholar calculated .83 and .86 Cronbach’s alpha scores for positive affectivity (10 items) and

negative affectivity (10 items) dimensions. Respondents rated the items on a five points

Likert scale from never (1) to always (5).

3.5. DATA ANALYSIS

After data collection process, to analyze data R coding program for statistical

computing (R Core Team, 2013) was used. In first step, dataset was examined for missing

data

Adiaphoric aggression: Hidden forms of aggression in organizations

Abstract