Do teachers misbehave? Aggression in school teams
| Published date | 07 September 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2014-0011 |
| Date | 07 September 2015 |
| Pages | 755-772 |
| Author | Dvora Ben Sasson,Anit Somech |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy |
Do teachers misbehave?
Aggression in school teams
Dvora Ben Sasson and Anit Somech
University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Abstract
Purpose –Despite growing research on school aggression, significant gaps remain in the authors’
knowledge of team aggression, since most studies have mainly explored aggression on the part of
students. The purpose of this paper is to focus on understanding the phenomenon of workplace
aggression in school teams. Specifically, the purpose of the study was to examine whether team
affective conflict in school teams mediates the relationship between team injustice climate (distributive,
procedural, and interpersonal injustice climate) and team aggression.
Design/methodology/approach –Data were collected from a survey of 43 school teams at different
schools using questionnaires.
Findings –Results showed that team affective conflict played a role in fully mediating the
relationship of team procedural and interpersonal injustice climate to team aggression.
Research limitations/implications –The present results empirically support the notion that
workplace aggression can be considered not only an individual phenomenon but also a team
phenomenon. Furthermore, it highlights the significance of organizational factors in predicting this
phenomenon. The study should serve to encourage principals to reduce the level of team aggression
and develop a supportive climate characterized by fair procedures and respect.
Originality/value –A review of the literature also reveals that little investigative effort has been
made by scholars to examine aggression on the part of teachers. Evidence for this can be seen in the
scarcity of publications on this topic. The current literature’s call to address this issue in schools
and at the team level (Fox and Stallworth, 2010) stimulated the present study by highlighting the
importance of exploring the contextual factors, rather than the individual ones, responsible for school
team aggression.
Keywords Teams, Affective conflict, School, Injustice climate, Workplace aggression
Paper type Research paper
Recently, workplace aggression has begun to attract scholars’attentioninschools(Foxand
Stallworth, 2010). When exploring aggression in the school context, much has been learned
about the factors that contribute to student aggression (Espelage et al., 2003). However,
exploration of variables in the teacher context which could predict teacher aggression has
been relatively neglected, particularly the role of school teams.
Workplace aggression is defined as “any behavior initiated by teachers that is intended
to harm a teacher within their school or the school itself”(Barling et al., 2007, p. 229,
teachers instead of employees). Research shows that exposure to aggression could have
significant implications for the well-being of the employee and could lead to anxiety
(Barling et al., 2001; Schat and Kelloway, 2000) and to psychological, physical, and
behavioral strain (Keashly and Harvey, 2005). Aggressio n has also negative
organizational implications such as, reducing the work effort which, in turn, impacts
school performance and organizational citizenship behavior (Rotundo and Sackett, 2002).
As mentioned above, most research on school aggression has focussed mainly on
student aggression rather than teacher aggression. Furthermore, the few studies on
teacher aggression (e.g. Blasé and Blasé, 2003) looked at just one source of aggression –
the principal, and did not consider aggression against teachers from other sources, such as
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 53 No. 6, 2015
pp. 755-772
©Emerald Group Publis hing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-01-2014-0011
Received 26 January 2014
Revised 10 November 2014
Accepted 9 December 2014
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
755
Aggression in
school teams
co-teachers. Moreover, previous research has mostly examined the phenomenon of
aggression at the individual level, while neglecting the fact that it might grow in a context
(Young et al., 2006). Accordingly, most research implicitly assumes that individuals’
personal characteristics and reactions in and to the workplace influence the extent to
which they will exhibit aggressive behavior (Barling et al., 2007). Because these behaviors
are performed by individuals, it is appropriate to seek to understand them as individually
manifested acts. However, they may be further understood by an investigation of
how they are embedded in different contexts, such as the work group or the organization
(Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2004). Hence, we suggest that teams may vary in terms
of how much aggression is displayed by their members, and that the incidence of
these behaviors in teams may be meaningfully associated with contextual team-level
characteristics.
Against this background, the main challenge of this study is to develop a team-level
model for betterunderstanding the phenomenonof workplace aggression. Teacherteams
serve as the unit of analysis. These are significant vehicles for school improvement, but
they can also be venues for major conflict and tension that could produce behavioral
outcomes such as aggression, between teachers and administrators and among teachers.
Specifically, the present mediating model proposes that team injustice climate
(distributive, procedural and interpersonal injustice climate) represents a team-level
contextual variable that shapes team members’collective perception regarding team
policies, procedures, and applications (Kozlowski and Klein, 2000). These perceptions
determine the level of team affective conflict, namely, the measure of interpersonal
tensions amongteam members; and affective conflictin turn can be associated with team
aggression (see Figure 1).
Theoretical backround and hypotheses
Workplace aggression in school teams
Different conceptualizations of workplace aggression have emerged in the literature.
Some define this phenomenon as organizational misbehavior or deviant behavior, such
as tardiness and abstinence (Vardi and Wiener, 1996). Some describe it as bullying, i.e.,
repeated negative behaviors enacted toward a co-worker which create a hostile work
environment (Hoel and Cooper, 2000). Other conceptualizations refer to workplace
aggression as employee abuse (Keashly, 1998), and incivility (Cortina et al., 2001).
Definitions vary in accordance with the dimensions of the aggression, the aggressor’s
intentions, and the consequences of the aggression (Snyder et al., 2005).
For the purpose of this research, we chose Neuman and Baron’s definition (2005),
“Any behavior initiat ed by employees that is intended to harm an indiv idual within their
organization or the organization itself”(Barling et al., 2007, p. 229). This definition
consists of both an interpersonal (i.e. aggression targeting a person in the organization)
and an organizational dimension (i.e. aggression targeting the organization
itself) (Hershcovis et al., 2007). Reviewing the literature reveals that aggression is a
multi-dimensional construct. In an exploratory factor analysis Baron and Neuman (1998)
identified three dimensions: first, “Expressions of hostility –includes symbolic or verbal
behaviors”(p. 397); second, “Obstructionism –actions that are intended to impede an
individual’s ability to perform his or her job or interfere with an organization’sabilityto
meet its objectives”(p. 398); and third, “Overt aggression –behaviors associated with
workplace viole nce”(p. 399).
Research shows that the majority of aggressive behaviors in the workplace tend
to be less violent in nature and allow the aggressor to conceal his identity and
756
JEA
53,6
To continue reading
Request your trial