As noted above, the causes of aggression are many. These causes may be associated with the actors themselves, their immediate situation, or aspects of the social environment.

People

Do some people have a predisposition to aggression? The short answer is... Yes! As it turns out, some people are "hard-driving" and are easily aroused to hostility (Glass, 1977; Neuman & Baron, 1997b). Other people seem to see a black cloud behind every silver lining and have a predisposition to unpleasant physiological arousal (Eliot & Breo, 1984) and pessimistic feelings (Watson & Clark, 1984). These folks attribute hostile and sinister motives to other people and feel as if everyone is "out to get them" (Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, & Newman, 1990; Kramer, 1994). Finally, there are folks that see aggression as a means to a desired end. These folks believe that it is better to be feared than loved (Christie & Geis, 1970). These are just some of the many personality traits that predispose people toward aggression. However, there are many people who engage in aggression for reasons not associated with personality, to which I now turn my attention.

Social Factors

Aggression is most frequently associated with perceptions of intentional provocation by others (Mantell, 1994; Torestad, 1990) and also with feelings of exploitation (Hollinger & Clark, 1983). Consequently, any social interactions that result in the perception of unfair treatment or sense of frustration may elicit unpleasant thoughts and feelings and lead to aggression. In short, the violation of important social norms can lead to perceptions of unfair treatment and feelings of frustration. In a case where an individual does not receive something to which s/he feels entitled, a perception of unfair treatment is likely to occur. For example, most people feel entitled to be treated with respect and dignity or, simply, with a degree of civility. If, in fact, they are treated in a disrespectful manner, feelings of injustice are likely to ensue.

Other social causes of aggression involve the presence of aggressive norms of behavior. If, for example, you work in a "dog-eat-dog" environment where "only the strong survive," it would be logical to assume that aggression is to be expected. This culture and climate of aggression is conducive to harm-doing behavior and most interactions will be guided by such norms of behavior.

Another example of a social factor that may contribute to aggression relates to the diversity of today's workforce. One need only look around the workplace to see people of different cultures, ethnic backgrounds, personalities, beliefs, attitudes, age levels, and gender. While such diversity often contributes to creative and productive work environments, it can also contribute to conflicts and aggression. For example, a substantial amount of research clearly demonstrates that people like to associate with others who share their attitudes and beliefs (Byrne, 1971). When faced with dissimilarity, people become uncomfortable and are likely to attribute hostile motives to those that they perceive as being "different." This is especially true in the workplace where human behavior comes under close scrutiny (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Byrne & Neuman, 1992). Culture, age, and gender differences may also lead to communications problems and misperceptions which, in turn, may lead to conflict and aggression.

As indicated above, perceptions of injustice, feelings of frustration, and violations of important social norms can all lead to aggression and, unfortunately, many situations in the contemporary workplace contribute to these factors in abundance.

Situational Factors and Aggression

Intense global competition, rapid technological change, and major shifts in workforce demographics have all contributed to a "leaner and meaner" work environment. In the name of productivity, organizations have downsized, rightsized, outsourced, delayered, restructured, and reengineered-eliminating record numbers of jobs (and employees) in the process (Tomasko, 1990). Just when it appeared that the bloodletting was over, 1999 turned out to be the worst year of downsizing in the decade of the 90s. The stress and frustration experienced by individuals losing their jobs is only rivaled by the stress and frustration experienced by the survivors of downsizing, who have to do the work of their dearly departed coworkers. Everyone is experiencing job insecurity in the face of these cutbacks and the associated stress and frustration is noticeable-to even the most casual observer.

Employee monitoring, job-sharing, and pay cuts are other business practices that add to stress levels and feelings of personal violation. Expectations of privacy no longer exist in the workplace as employers monitor phone conversations, telephone usage, voice mail messages, computer files, e-mail, personal rest breaks, and other aspects of on-the-job behavior. According to a recent survey by the American Management Association (1999), 45-percent of major U.S. firms monitor such behavior. Additional forms of monitoring and surveillance, such as review of phone logs or videotaping for security purposes, bring the overall figure on electronic oversight to 67.3 percent. Of the 1,054 organizations participating in the AMA survey, 84 percent indicated that they informed their employees of the existence of such monitoring.

In other words, 16 percent of the companies surveyed (about 169) did not alert their employees that they were under surveillance! Even when these warnings are given, employees can be taken by surprise. Recently, nearly two dozen employees were fired for sending e-mail that violated standards at the New York Times (Carrns, 2000). Clearly, organizations have an oversight responsibility to assure that organizational resources are being used in an appropriate manner but some of these procedures are overly invasive and, on occasion, unethical. Regardless the ethicality of the process, employee monitoring has been found to contribute to employee stress and dissatisfaction (Aiello & Kolb, 1995; Aiello & Shao, 1993).

Another contemporary business practice that contributes to uncertainty and stress involves the abrogation of pre-existing social contracts between employees and employers. People used to have an expectation that loyalty and hard work would be rewarded with promotion, pay increases and, most of all, job security.  This important social norm has been breached leaving people with a sense of betrayal (Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994; Rousseau, 1995; Rousseau, 1996). While management continues to assert that these measures are necessary to meet the challenge of today's highly competitive business environment, the numbers suggest otherwise. Research suggests that the cost-cutting measures may result in short-term gains but little long-term payoff (Cascio, 1993). These numbers tell only part of the story. I now turn my attention to some subtle--but significant--expenses associated with these business practices and the resulting aggression and bullying.