A Circle of Violence - Are Burnout Disengagement and Self-Efficacy in Non-University Teacher Victims of Workplace Violence.pdf applied sciences Article A Circle of Violence: Are Burnout, Disengagement...

1 answer below »
I would like to use the same writer from my assignment #89095 if possible.Organizational Behavior - Term Paper


A Circle of Violence - Are Burnout Disengagement and Self-Efficacy in Non-University Teacher Victims of Workplace Violence.pdf applied sciences Article A Circle of Violence: Are Burnout, Disengagement and Self-Efficacy in Non-University Teacher Victims of Workplace Violence New and Emergent Risks? Daniela Acquadro Maran and Tatiana Begotti * Department of Psychology, Università di Torino, 10124 Torino, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 10 June 2020; Accepted: 29 June 2020; Published: 2 July 2020 ���������� ������� Abstract: Workplace violence (WV) is defined as an intentional misuse of power, including threats of physical force against another person or group, which can cause physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social harm. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence, characteristics and consequences of WV in a sample of Italian teachers. Our hypothesis was that WV impacted workplace satisfaction, self-efficacy and burnout. A self-administered questionnaire was answered by 331 teachers. A total of 192 (58%) subjects reported experiencing a physical or psychological form of WV. Overall, findings confirmed our hypothesis: teacher victims of WV showed high levels of burnout—both in terms of exhaustion (F = 3.96; p = 0.04) and disengagement (F = 5.85; p = 0.016), lower levels of workplace satisfaction (F = 13.24; p < 0.001) and regulatory emotional self-efficacy—especially for negative emotions (f = 5.45; p = 0.02) compared with teachers who have never experienced wv. this investigation suggests the importance of preventing wv and offering support to victims. doing so will increase teachers’ ability to manage and cope with violent behavior. prevention and intervention may also decrease serious consequences in relation to victims’ wellbeing, and improve the general stability of the classroom, as well as motivation and academic commitment. keywords: workplace violence; teachers; burnout; self-efficacy 1. introduction in the literature, workplace violence (hereafter wv) is a well-known phenomenon that causes physical, emotional and psychological suffering [1]. the world health organization [2] (p. 4) defines wv as “the intentional use of power, including threat of physical force, against another person or group, that can result in harm to physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. it includes verbal abuse, bullying/mobbing, harassment and threats”. investigating wv and its consequences for individuals and can offer useful information to improve prevention and intervention efforts. according to the fourth european working condition survey report [3], 6% of the 44,000 european workers participating in the survey were exposed to threats of physical violence by colleagues (2%) or other people (4%). in the usa, the occupational safety and health administration [4] noted that an average of nearly two million u.s. workers reported having been a victim of wv. according to the bureau of labor statistics [5], one of the occupational sectors at greatest risk of wv is the educational sector (see also [6]). this is important because many studies involving teachers have emphasized that wv has a negative impact not only on the wellbeing of victims of violence, but also on the quality of their teaching [7–11]. in this sector, the phenomenon of wv has usually been investigated as bullying perpetrated among students, without any consideration of teachers as victims [12,13]. in investigations that involved teachers, findings showed that the prevalence of wv ranged between 7.5–84.8%, evidencing the great variability of the phenomenon. in 2008, russo and appl. sci. 2020, 10, 4595; doi:10.3390/app10134595 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci http://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci http://www.mdpi.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9924-4093 http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/13/4595?type=check_update&version=1 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10134595 http://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci appl. sci. 2020, 10, 4595 2 of 11 colleagues [14] found that among 764 teachers, 22.4% were exposed to harassment at least once in the previous 12 months. findings from a report by robers, zhang, truman and snyder [15] on school crime and safety in the us showed that, in 2007/2008, some 289,600 teachers declared that they had been threatened with injury by a student from school during the previous 12 months. the teacher victims comprised 7.5% of the sample: among the participants, 88,500 were male victims (representing 9.3% of male participants in the survey), while 201,600 were female victims (representing 6.1% of female participants in the survey). these percentages were higher than those in the 2003/2004 survey, in which 127,500 teachers reported an injury (3.4% of all participants; 2.6% among male participants and 3.7% among female participants). similar findings were found by kauppi and pörhölä [9,10] and tiesman and colleagues [16]. in their investigation involving 215 teachers, kauppi and pörhölä [9,10] found that 25.6% of the teachers reported that they had occasionally been subjected to bullying by students. in their investigation involving 6450 education workers, tiesman and colleagues [16] found that 7.8% reported being physically assaulted and 28.9% reported a nonphysical wv event. mcmannon and colleagues’ [6] findings revealed that among 3000 survey participants, 80% reported at least one incident of victimization (with 94% of victims reporting that the perpetrator was a student). similarly, berlanda and colleagues [17] found that among 686 teachers, 84.8% were involved in some form of violence during the course of their professional lives. dzuka and dalbert [18] found that among a sample of 400 teachers, 35.4% reported verbal violence in the last 30 days, 12.4% reported property damage and 4.9% reported physical violence. ozdemir [19] found that among 900 teachers, 24.1% experienced episodes of emotional violence, with lower percentages reporting episodes of verbal (14.7%), physical (6.3%) and sexual (4.6%) violence. in most cases, it appears that the perpetrator of wv is a student or a student’s parent [20–27], while other perpetrators include colleagues and supervisors [28]. the consequences of wv in teachers include physical and emotional injury, such as distress, exhaustion, depression [29], dissatisfaction, disengagement [18,29,30], turnover and intention of leaving the profession. at an organizational level, wv may negatively impact an organizational climate and culture [31]. for example, in an interesting survey by temam, billaudeau and vercambre [32], some 2653 teachers declared that the worst working conditions were characterized by high exposure to psychological violence. wv could cause exhaustion and prolonged distress and, in turn, determine burnout [33]. as described by skaalvik and skaalvik [34], teacher burnout is associated with teachers’ motivation and job satisfaction, their perception of their work ability and their self-efficacy regarding their work (see also [35–37]). they also found that, among 850 teachers, those who were victims of wv suffered from higher levels of burnout syndrome and disengagement. self-efficacy in teachers reflects their belief in students’ achievements and in their ability to organize knowledge and skills and achieve teaching goals [38–41]. according to bandura [42,43], self-efficacy is one of the most important factors that influence human behavior. in the school context, the construct can be the perceived ability of teachers to address the organization of educational activities and classroom management. it can also impact their capacity for emotional self-regulation [44], since the latter is crucial for coping with stressful and threatening situations such as wv. low teacher self-efficacy could cause poor classroom management, which could, in turn, increase violence, bullying [45], stress and burnout [46–51]. current study in the past decade, there have been numerous social and organizational changes in italy that have had a strong impact on the role played by teachers [52], and led to numerous new risk factors in the educational sector. economic and political reforms have led to additional duties and responsibilities for teachers, such as managing for diversity, multiculturalism, special educational needs, and the use of new technologies [53,54]. in the meantime, italian teachers have also experienced an increase in precarious contracts [55], a lack of social support from colleagues and school managers, an increase in the age of teachers [56], a loss of social prestige, inadequate educational equipment, an increase in appl. sci. 2020, 10, 4595 3 of 11 parental disinterest and a decrease in students’ motivation to learn [52]. these social and working conditions have a consequence on perceived stress and self-efficacy [57]: continued exposure to stressors increases the risk of burnout and disengagement [58]. given the above, the major purpose of the current study was to describe the prevalence of wv in a sample of italian teachers and also the consequences of wv in terms of workplace satisfaction, burnout and regulatory emotional self-efficacy. the study had a descriptive aim and the research design was cross-sectional. the hypotheses were as follows: (a) teacher victims of workplace violence report a lower level of workplace satisfaction than teachers who have never experienced wv. (b) teacher victims of workplace violence report a higher level of burnout (both in terms of exhaustion and disengagement) than teachers who have never experienced wv. (c) teacher victims of workplace violence report a lower level of regulatory emotional self-efficacy than teachers who have never experienced wv. 2. methods 2.1. participants the participants were 472 teachers from different kindergartens and primary and secondary schools in the metropolitan city of turin in northwest italy. the inclusion criteria for participation in the survey was working as a teacher in a non-university organization and working at a school in the metropolitan city of turin. therefore, we excluded cases in which the worker was a pre-service teacher, a university teacher or an employee not in charge of teaching (e.g., caretaker or administrative clerk). after the approval of the local ethical committee (university of torino n.133260/2019), a self-administered anonymous questionnaire was distributed to all teachers in schools that had volunteered to participate in the research. alongside a hard copy of the questionnaire, participants received an information letter and an informed consent form in accordance with the declaration of helsinki [59]. a box reporting the title of the project and the date of return of the questionnaires was placed on school premises. participants had ten working days to complete the questionnaire and put it in the box. all questionnaire respondents participated on a voluntary basis and did not receive any compensation or extra credit for their participation in the investigation. research assistants trained by the researchers collected the data. 2.2. measures workplace violence (wv): the violent incident form (vif) [60] was used to investigate workplace violence (italian version by magnavita and bergamaschi [61]). the instrument uses a broad definition of violence that includes different forms. participants were asked if they had ever experienced physical aggression, verbal aggression, threatening or stalking during the last 12 months, during the course of their working life or on the way from their home to their workplace (or vice versa). victims of wv were asked to refer to the frequency of the episodes and the characteristics of the abuse and the perpetrator (role, gender, and age) and to identify the circumstances of the aggression and its consequences. workplace satisfaction: the copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (copsoq ii) [62] was 0.001)="" and="" regulatory="" emotional="" self-efficacy—especially="" for="" negative="" emotions="" (f="5.45;" p="0.02)" compared="" with="" teachers="" who="" have="" never="" experienced="" wv.="" this="" investigation="" suggests="" the="" importance="" of="" preventing="" wv="" and="" offering="" support="" to="" victims.="" doing="" so="" will="" increase="" teachers’="" ability="" to="" manage="" and="" cope="" with="" violent="" behavior.="" prevention="" and="" intervention="" may="" also="" decrease="" serious="" consequences="" in="" relation="" to="" victims’="" wellbeing,="" and="" improve="" the="" general="" stability="" of="" the="" classroom,="" as="" well="" as="" motivation="" and="" academic="" commitment.="" keywords:="" workplace="" violence;="" teachers;="" burnout;="" self-efficacy="" 1.="" introduction="" in="" the="" literature,="" workplace="" violence="" (hereafter="" wv)="" is="" a="" well-known="" phenomenon="" that="" causes="" physical,="" emotional="" and="" psychological="" suffering="" [1].="" the="" world="" health="" organization="" [2]="" (p.="" 4)="" defines="" wv="" as="" “the="" intentional="" use="" of="" power,="" including="" threat="" of="" physical="" force,="" against="" another="" person="" or="" group,="" that="" can="" result="" in="" harm="" to="" physical,="" mental,="" spiritual,="" moral="" or="" social="" development.="" it="" includes="" verbal="" abuse,="" bullying/mobbing,="" harassment="" and="" threats”.="" investigating="" wv="" and="" its="" consequences="" for="" individuals="" and="" can="" offer="" useful="" information="" to="" improve="" prevention="" and="" intervention="" efforts.="" according="" to="" the="" fourth="" european="" working="" condition="" survey="" report="" [3],="" 6%="" of="" the="" 44,000="" european="" workers="" participating="" in="" the="" survey="" were="" exposed="" to="" threats="" of="" physical="" violence="" by="" colleagues="" (2%)="" or="" other="" people="" (4%).="" in="" the="" usa,="" the="" occupational="" safety="" and="" health="" administration="" [4]="" noted="" that="" an="" average="" of="" nearly="" two="" million="" u.s.="" workers="" reported="" having="" been="" a="" victim="" of="" wv.="" according="" to="" the="" bureau="" of="" labor="" statistics="" [5],="" one="" of="" the="" occupational="" sectors="" at="" greatest="" risk="" of="" wv="" is="" the="" educational="" sector="" (see="" also="" [6]).="" this="" is="" important="" because="" many="" studies="" involving="" teachers="" have="" emphasized="" that="" wv="" has="" a="" negative="" impact="" not="" only="" on="" the="" wellbeing="" of="" victims="" of="" violence,="" but="" also="" on="" the="" quality="" of="" their="" teaching="" [7–11].="" in="" this="" sector,="" the="" phenomenon="" of="" wv="" has="" usually="" been="" investigated="" as="" bullying="" perpetrated="" among="" students,="" without="" any="" consideration="" of="" teachers="" as="" victims="" [12,13].="" in="" investigations="" that="" involved="" teachers,="" findings="" showed="" that="" the="" prevalence="" of="" wv="" ranged="" between="" 7.5–84.8%,="" evidencing="" the="" great="" variability="" of="" the="" phenomenon.="" in="" 2008,="" russo="" and="" appl.="" sci.="" 2020,="" 10,="" 4595;="" doi:10.3390/app10134595="" www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci="" http://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci="" http://www.mdpi.com="" https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9924-4093="" http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/13/4595?type="check_update&version=1" http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10134595="" http://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci="" appl.="" sci.="" 2020,="" 10,="" 4595="" 2="" of="" 11="" colleagues="" [14]="" found="" that="" among="" 764="" teachers,="" 22.4%="" were="" exposed="" to="" harassment="" at="" least="" once="" in="" the="" previous="" 12="" months.="" findings="" from="" a="" report="" by="" robers,="" zhang,="" truman="" and="" snyder="" [15]="" on="" school="" crime="" and="" safety="" in="" the="" us="" showed="" that,="" in="" 2007/2008,="" some="" 289,600="" teachers="" declared="" that="" they="" had="" been="" threatened="" with="" injury="" by="" a="" student="" from="" school="" during="" the="" previous="" 12="" months.="" the="" teacher="" victims="" comprised="" 7.5%="" of="" the="" sample:="" among="" the="" participants,="" 88,500="" were="" male="" victims="" (representing="" 9.3%="" of="" male="" participants="" in="" the="" survey),="" while="" 201,600="" were="" female="" victims="" (representing="" 6.1%="" of="" female="" participants="" in="" the="" survey).="" these="" percentages="" were="" higher="" than="" those="" in="" the="" 2003/2004="" survey,="" in="" which="" 127,500="" teachers="" reported="" an="" injury="" (3.4%="" of="" all="" participants;="" 2.6%="" among="" male="" participants="" and="" 3.7%="" among="" female="" participants).="" similar="" findings="" were="" found="" by="" kauppi="" and="" pörhölä="" [9,10]="" and="" tiesman="" and="" colleagues="" [16].="" in="" their="" investigation="" involving="" 215="" teachers,="" kauppi="" and="" pörhölä="" [9,10]="" found="" that="" 25.6%="" of="" the="" teachers="" reported="" that="" they="" had="" occasionally="" been="" subjected="" to="" bullying="" by="" students.="" in="" their="" investigation="" involving="" 6450="" education="" workers,="" tiesman="" and="" colleagues="" [16]="" found="" that="" 7.8%="" reported="" being="" physically="" assaulted="" and="" 28.9%="" reported="" a="" nonphysical="" wv="" event.="" mcmannon="" and="" colleagues’="" [6]="" findings="" revealed="" that="" among="" 3000="" survey="" participants,="" 80%="" reported="" at="" least="" one="" incident="" of="" victimization="" (with="" 94%="" of="" victims="" reporting="" that="" the="" perpetrator="" was="" a="" student).="" similarly,="" berlanda="" and="" colleagues="" [17]="" found="" that="" among="" 686="" teachers,="" 84.8%="" were="" involved="" in="" some="" form="" of="" violence="" during="" the="" course="" of="" their="" professional="" lives.="" dzuka="" and="" dalbert="" [18]="" found="" that="" among="" a="" sample="" of="" 400="" teachers,="" 35.4%="" reported="" verbal="" violence="" in="" the="" last="" 30="" days,="" 12.4%="" reported="" property="" damage="" and="" 4.9%="" reported="" physical="" violence.="" ozdemir="" [19]="" found="" that="" among="" 900="" teachers,="" 24.1%="" experienced="" episodes="" of="" emotional="" violence,="" with="" lower="" percentages="" reporting="" episodes="" of="" verbal="" (14.7%),="" physical="" (6.3%)="" and="" sexual="" (4.6%)="" violence.="" in="" most="" cases,="" it="" appears="" that="" the="" perpetrator="" of="" wv="" is="" a="" student="" or="" a="" student’s="" parent="" [20–27],="" while="" other="" perpetrators="" include="" colleagues="" and="" supervisors="" [28].="" the="" consequences="" of="" wv="" in="" teachers="" include="" physical="" and="" emotional="" injury,="" such="" as="" distress,="" exhaustion,="" depression="" [29],="" dissatisfaction,="" disengagement="" [18,29,30],="" turnover="" and="" intention="" of="" leaving="" the="" profession.="" at="" an="" organizational="" level,="" wv="" may="" negatively="" impact="" an="" organizational="" climate="" and="" culture="" [31].="" for="" example,="" in="" an="" interesting="" survey="" by="" temam,="" billaudeau="" and="" vercambre="" [32],="" some="" 2653="" teachers="" declared="" that="" the="" worst="" working="" conditions="" were="" characterized="" by="" high="" exposure="" to="" psychological="" violence.="" wv="" could="" cause="" exhaustion="" and="" prolonged="" distress="" and,="" in="" turn,="" determine="" burnout="" [33].="" as="" described="" by="" skaalvik="" and="" skaalvik="" [34],="" teacher="" burnout="" is="" associated="" with="" teachers’="" motivation="" and="" job="" satisfaction,="" their="" perception="" of="" their="" work="" ability="" and="" their="" self-efficacy="" regarding="" their="" work="" (see="" also="" [35–37]).="" they="" also="" found="" that,="" among="" 850="" teachers,="" those="" who="" were="" victims="" of="" wv="" suffered="" from="" higher="" levels="" of="" burnout="" syndrome="" and="" disengagement.="" self-efficacy="" in="" teachers="" reflects="" their="" belief="" in="" students’="" achievements="" and="" in="" their="" ability="" to="" organize="" knowledge="" and="" skills="" and="" achieve="" teaching="" goals="" [38–41].="" according="" to="" bandura="" [42,43],="" self-efficacy="" is="" one="" of="" the="" most="" important="" factors="" that="" influence="" human="" behavior.="" in="" the="" school="" context,="" the="" construct="" can="" be="" the="" perceived="" ability="" of="" teachers="" to="" address="" the="" organization="" of="" educational="" activities="" and="" classroom="" management.="" it="" can="" also="" impact="" their="" capacity="" for="" emotional="" self-regulation="" [44],="" since="" the="" latter="" is="" crucial="" for="" coping="" with="" stressful="" and="" threatening="" situations="" such="" as="" wv.="" low="" teacher="" self-efficacy="" could="" cause="" poor="" classroom="" management,="" which="" could,="" in="" turn,="" increase="" violence,="" bullying="" [45],="" stress="" and="" burnout="" [46–51].="" current="" study="" in="" the="" past="" decade,="" there="" have="" been="" numerous="" social="" and="" organizational="" changes="" in="" italy="" that="" have="" had="" a="" strong="" impact="" on="" the="" role="" played="" by="" teachers="" [52],="" and="" led="" to="" numerous="" new="" risk="" factors="" in="" the="" educational="" sector.="" economic="" and="" political="" reforms="" have="" led="" to="" additional="" duties="" and="" responsibilities="" for="" teachers,="" such="" as="" managing="" for="" diversity,="" multiculturalism,="" special="" educational="" needs,="" and="" the="" use="" of="" new="" technologies="" [53,54].="" in="" the="" meantime,="" italian="" teachers="" have="" also="" experienced="" an="" increase="" in="" precarious="" contracts="" [55],="" a="" lack="" of="" social="" support="" from="" colleagues="" and="" school="" managers,="" an="" increase="" in="" the="" age="" of="" teachers="" [56],="" a="" loss="" of="" social="" prestige,="" inadequate="" educational="" equipment,="" an="" increase="" in="" appl.="" sci.="" 2020,="" 10,="" 4595="" 3="" of="" 11="" parental="" disinterest="" and="" a="" decrease="" in="" students’="" motivation="" to="" learn="" [52].="" these="" social="" and="" working="" conditions="" have="" a="" consequence="" on="" perceived="" stress="" and="" self-efficacy="" [57]:="" continued="" exposure="" to="" stressors="" increases="" the="" risk="" of="" burnout="" and="" disengagement="" [58].="" given="" the="" above,="" the="" major="" purpose="" of="" the="" current="" study="" was="" to="" describe="" the="" prevalence="" of="" wv="" in="" a="" sample="" of="" italian="" teachers="" and="" also="" the="" consequences="" of="" wv="" in="" terms="" of="" workplace="" satisfaction,="" burnout="" and="" regulatory="" emotional="" self-efficacy.="" the="" study="" had="" a="" descriptive="" aim="" and="" the="" research="" design="" was="" cross-sectional.="" the="" hypotheses="" were="" as="" follows:="" (a)="" teacher="" victims="" of="" workplace="" violence="" report="" a="" lower="" level="" of="" workplace="" satisfaction="" than="" teachers="" who="" have="" never="" experienced="" wv.="" (b)="" teacher="" victims="" of="" workplace="" violence="" report="" a="" higher="" level="" of="" burnout="" (both="" in="" terms="" of="" exhaustion="" and="" disengagement)="" than="" teachers="" who="" have="" never="" experienced="" wv.="" (c)="" teacher="" victims="" of="" workplace="" violence="" report="" a="" lower="" level="" of="" regulatory="" emotional="" self-efficacy="" than="" teachers="" who="" have="" never="" experienced="" wv.="" 2.="" methods="" 2.1.="" participants="" the="" participants="" were="" 472="" teachers="" from="" different="" kindergartens="" and="" primary="" and="" secondary="" schools="" in="" the="" metropolitan="" city="" of="" turin="" in="" northwest="" italy.="" the="" inclusion="" criteria="" for="" participation="" in="" the="" survey="" was="" working="" as="" a="" teacher="" in="" a="" non-university="" organization="" and="" working="" at="" a="" school="" in="" the="" metropolitan="" city="" of="" turin.="" therefore,="" we="" excluded="" cases="" in="" which="" the="" worker="" was="" a="" pre-service="" teacher,="" a="" university="" teacher="" or="" an="" employee="" not="" in="" charge="" of="" teaching="" (e.g.,="" caretaker="" or="" administrative="" clerk).="" after="" the="" approval="" of="" the="" local="" ethical="" committee="" (university="" of="" torino="" n.133260/2019),="" a="" self-administered="" anonymous="" questionnaire="" was="" distributed="" to="" all="" teachers="" in="" schools="" that="" had="" volunteered="" to="" participate="" in="" the="" research.="" alongside="" a="" hard="" copy="" of="" the="" questionnaire,="" participants="" received="" an="" information="" letter="" and="" an="" informed="" consent="" form="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" declaration="" of="" helsinki="" [59].="" a="" box="" reporting="" the="" title="" of="" the="" project="" and="" the="" date="" of="" return="" of="" the="" questionnaires="" was="" placed="" on="" school="" premises.="" participants="" had="" ten="" working="" days="" to="" complete="" the="" questionnaire="" and="" put="" it="" in="" the="" box.="" all="" questionnaire="" respondents="" participated="" on="" a="" voluntary="" basis="" and="" did="" not="" receive="" any="" compensation="" or="" extra="" credit="" for="" their="" participation="" in="" the="" investigation.="" research="" assistants="" trained="" by="" the="" researchers="" collected="" the="" data.="" 2.2.="" measures="" workplace="" violence="" (wv):="" the="" violent="" incident="" form="" (vif)="" [60]="" was="" used="" to="" investigate="" workplace="" violence="" (italian="" version="" by="" magnavita="" and="" bergamaschi="" [61]).="" the="" instrument="" uses="" a="" broad="" definition="" of="" violence="" that="" includes="" different="" forms.="" participants="" were="" asked="" if="" they="" had="" ever="" experienced="" physical="" aggression,="" verbal="" aggression,="" threatening="" or="" stalking="" during="" the="" last="" 12="" months,="" during="" the="" course="" of="" their="" working="" life="" or="" on="" the="" way="" from="" their="" home="" to="" their="" workplace="" (or="" vice="" versa).="" victims="" of="" wv="" were="" asked="" to="" refer="" to="" the="" frequency="" of="" the="" episodes="" and="" the="" characteristics="" of="" the="" abuse="" and="" the="" perpetrator="" (role,="" gender,="" and="" age)="" and="" to="" identify="" the="" circumstances="" of="" the="" aggression="" and="" its="" consequences.="" workplace="" satisfaction:="" the="" copenhagen="" psychosocial="" questionnaire="" (copsoq="" ii)="" [62]="">
Answered 6 days AfterAug 09, 2021

Answer To: A Circle of Violence - Are Burnout Disengagement and Self-Efficacy in Non-University Teacher Victims...

Shalini answered on Aug 12 2021
136 Votes
Running head: ASSIGNMENT            1
ASSIGNMENT        18
ISSUES IN THE WORKPLACE
Table of Contents
Introduction    3
Prominent Reasons of Stress in the Workplace    3
Prominent Reasons for Workplace Anger    5
Prominent Factors for Workplace Violence    7
Ways to Reduce Stress, Anger and Persiting Workplace Violence    9
Benefits of Preventing Stress, Anger and Workplace Violence    11
Conclusion    13
Part-2    13
Introduction
Stress, anger and violence in the workplace are becoming more obvious and prevalent now days. In the present times most of the employees complaints and share their experiences regarding the stress they face during their work, anger that instigates within them as well as violence they observe in the workplace. All these are interrelated to each other as the stress that the employee’s observe in their work instigates their anger and they sometimes end up being violent on t
he perceived issue.
In the workplace, the employers often ignore the mental wellbeing and the mental health of the employees, which hurts their sentiments and they are outraged to take some stern steps. The stress in the workplace is due to several reasons sometimes it is due to the excessive workload, conflict with the colleagues and the management or sometimes due to the ignorance of their rights. In this paper the various reasons that lead to the stress, anger and violence in the workplace is discussed. Along with all these paper shed light on the several measures by adopting which this problem would be reduced and eliminated from the workplace.
In the workplace, there are certain reasons behind the increasing stress, anger and violence. Some of the most prominent reasons include some certain points.
Prominent Reasons of Stress in the Workplace
Workplace stress is one of the major things that are observed in the employees. The major factors contributing towards this stress include-
Long Hours- it is generally observed that in some of the organizations the employees are compelled to work much more than the standard working hours, which stresses them a lot. The long working hours reduces the rest of an employee, which reflect as a stress within the employees.
Heavy Workload- along with long working hour’s heavy workload is also a prominent factor that instigates stress among the employees in the workplace. As the employees within the organization are liable to do their basic work in given time in such situation when they are experiencing heavy workload their mind was stressed.
Changes within the Organization- the organization goes through several kinds of changes time to time. If the employees feels that the organizational change is in their favor they appreciate it while if they feel that the change would create difficulties for them it causes stress within them.
Job Insecurity- in the workplace job insecurity is one of the major factors behind the stressful work environment as well as the stressed employees. Among all the major factors job insecurity is one of the most prominent one as it lead the employees towards worrying about their future and dealing a constant pressure regarding maintaining their job position (AcquadroMaran &Begotti, 2020).
Boring Work- boring work is also one of the major factors behind the stress in the workplace. The employees get involved in the works, they find interesting and creative while doing repetitive and boring work frustrates them which is one of the major factors behind the stress.
Changes to Duties- it is obvious that the employees in the organization perform specific duties entitled to them and they become used to their routine but in the case if they observed the change to their duties and that too frequently they are stressed with the fact. The employees find it difficult to get compatible with the change work, responsibilities and duties, as they require time to settle with their new responsibilities.
Tight Deadlines- in the workplace the employees are stressed due to their work related activities most often. The employees spends a good amount of their time in their workplace in such situations if the employees are bind to work in tight deadlines it make it more difficult for them to comply initially. In fact, the employees take lot of stress to complete their work, which eventually leads towards stress.
Role Conflict- apart from all the things taking place within the workplace in context of the management and the organization the relationship with the colleagues is also a major thing. The good relationship with the colleagues is a major stress buster while the conflict with the colleagues especially the role conflicts create a stressful situation in the workplace.
Bad Management Practices- it is generally preferred the management practice within the organization should be good as it influences positive work environment in the workplace. In the cases where the bad management practices are observed in the organization it is seen that the environment in the workplace is stressful and tensed.
Lack of Autonomy- the lack of autonomy in the workplace is also one of the major reasons that are context in regards to the stressful situation in the workplace. In the organizations and the workplace, it is generally observed that the employees do not have the right to autonomy, which creates a stressful situation for them.
Prominent Reasons for Workplace Anger
Workplace anger is also one of the most widely observed things. Though it is considered that sometimes-excessive stress, felt by the employees instigates the anger inside them while some times anger is instigated due to several reasons and factors. Some of the prominent reasons for anger in the workplace include-
General Harassment- in the recent times it is observed that the major reason for the instigation of the workplace anger is the harassment felt by the employees whether it is sexual or by some other means. Analyzing the present scenario it could be said that the harassment has become the most prevalent thing in the workplace now days though in the starting the employees try to be calm but when the things go beyond their limit they protest regarding it.
Favoritism- one of the major factors that instigates anger among the employees in the workplace is the favoritism shown by the employer towards any particular employee or a team. It outraged the anger among the group who feel ignored or deprived of their basic right.
Criticism- in the workplace criticism is a very obvious and frequent thing that the employees have to deal with. The employers, their managers or the superiors criticize the employee. When the employees are criticized frequently or they are criticized in the front of other staffs and client it outrages their anger, as they feel humiliated.
Inadequate Training- the inadequate training could also be blamed for the sustaining anger in the workplace. As seeking the current environment, the employees and the employers should also be trained regarding anger management, as they had to deal with certain circumstances in the workplace. However, some of the organizations focus on providing training to the employees regarding anger management and stress management but majority of the organizations did not focus on all these aspects. The inadequate training should also be blamed for the increasing case of anger in the workplace.
Withdrawal of Earned Benefits- anger could be instigated within the workplace through several ways among all the common ways withdrawal of the earned benefits is also a prime one. In many of the cases, it is observed that the earned benefit that is provided to the employees is withdrew due to some reasons whether it is due to any wrongful act committed by the employees or the negligence towards their work. In such cases anger is instigated within the employees as they feel their rights are discarded, they did not focus on the act they committed. All they notice is the withdrawal of their benefits.
Unfair Performance Appraisal-in most of the organizations one of the major reasons behind the sustaining anger is believed to be the unfair performance appraisal. The employees working in the organization believes that there effort would be considered and will bring out several benefits for them. In such cases when they observe that, the appraisal given by the management is not as per their work or is not appropriate it instigates anger inside them. They feel devalued and discarded; the employees’ believe that an expected performance appraisal is necessary to motivate them to work better (El Sayed, Sanford &Kerley, 2019).
Lack of Resources to meet the Objective- in almost every organization the employees have certain targets and objectives that they have to achieve in order to leave their impression and helping the organizations in achieving success. In any of...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download