Re-positioning workplace aggression interventions: a violence framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to investigate the socio-psychological systems in organizations that structurally support workplace aggression. Design/methodology/approach Using both a structural and contextual model of intimate partner violence (IPV), the factors supporting workplace aggression were analyzed. The narratives were provided from the participants’ lived experiences of workplace aggression, producing clear indications of where formal and informal power reside. Findings The methods of power and control used by workplace perpetrators parallel those illustrated in IPV. The inaction of management and the lack of social support enabled informal power asymmetries and the organizational norm of silence. The findings have implications for how workplaces view and intervene in relationship-based violence. Originality/value Workplace aggression has been studied from a conflict management perspective, without exploring the components that enable and support organizational abuse. As a result, organizational responses to workplace aggression have failed to address the complex relationship-based components and consequences. The primary contribution of this study is the disruption of the conflict-based perspective of workplace aggression into a more appropriate framework of violence, power and control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".