VanBuren 1
ShaVon VanBuren
Prof. Kramer
COMS 560
16 November 2014
Conflicts and disputes in the workplace can be harder and more stressful to
handle then the conflicts we have with our family and friends. In the workplace we
are forced to interact or encounter people daily that we may not normally socialize
with. This study was conducted using newspaper articles, scholarly journals and
real life workplace examples to show how conflict resolution can be successful in
job disputes and question the responsibilities that companies have to protect
employees from workplace violence and what can be done to protect them.
Workplace harassment or conflict is considered ‘any negative workplace
interpersonal interaction that affects the terms, conditions, or employment
decisions related to an individual's job, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment, but is not based on any legally protected
characteristic’ (Rospenda & Richman, 2004, p. 221–222). The Department of
Justice published a report suggesting that each year in the United States there are
1.7 million cases of workplace violence.
It is also known as interpersonal conflict with four unique characteristics.
The first one is that the parties involved have the perception that they do not have
the same goals and ideas and they can’t come to the same consensus. This
2
perception that the parties cannot agree on anything will negatively affect the
relationship if the issue is never addressed. However there is a strong seriousness
and urgency to resolve the conflict. Interpersonal conflict can consist of gossip or
bullying, and escalating to assault, threats and homicide. There are four main
categories of workplace violence: criminal intent, customer client, employee-on-
employee and personal relationship (Haynes). This paper will focus on employee-
on-employee violence. Although this type of violence consists of only 7% of all
workplace violence it is the most prevalent in the media (Haynes).
When workplace conflicts escalate and companies fail to control the
situation conflicts can become violent and even deadly. In the summer of 2012 laid
off apparel designer Jeffrey Johnson, fatally shot his former co-worker of six years
outside of the Empire State Building.. For more then a year Jeffrey Johnson and
Steven Ercolino’s relationship was fueled with animosity and conflict. Johnson
was fired after an apparel line he created underperformed. As Ercolino was the
account executive, Johnson blamed him for not promoting his products more
aggressively (De Avila, Hollander and Jennifer).
Johnson and Ercolino had very different personalities and lived contrasting
lives. Steven Ercolino was an outgoing family man with a cheerful presence. In
contrast Jeffrey Johnson lived by himself in his New York apartment with his cats.
He was quiet and withdrawn and did not receive many visitors. Sources believe
that he blamed Ercolino for his financial woes once he was fired and an eviction
VanBuren 3
notice was the final straw that lead to the deadly altercation. The pair has at least
one altercation that was noted on their file. An elevator fight occurred with
security surveillance showing Johnson initiating the fight and attacking Ercolino
first. Both men filed complaints but no evidence was shown that charges were file.
After Johnson was fired he was still frequenting his employers office because he
still had health insurance with the company. New York Police Department
spokesman Paul Browne noted that many of Johnson’s former employees felt
uneasy with him being allowed into the building. Although many of his former
coworkers felt this way he was not banned from returning. This simple act may
have saved the lives of both Ercolino and Johnson. On that fateful August day,
Jeffery Johnson went to his former job and waited outside until 9am when he saw
Steven Ercolino. Johnson shot Ercolino in the head and several times in the body.
Upon fleeing the scene Johnson was killed by police and nine bystanders were
wounded in the shootout.
This case poses interesting questions about who all is responsible for
workplace violence. Without a doubt Jeffrey Johnson is responsible for the death
of Steven Ercolino but their employer Hazan Import is also responsible for not
protecting Ercolino and the other employees. Ercolino and Johnson’s relationship
is an example of destructive conflict that could have been prevented.
Companies have a moral and ethical obligation to protect their employees.
This means protecting them from forces within the company as well as outside.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSH Act was created to provide
4
safe and healthy environments for employees. There are currently no standards in
place for workplace violence but under the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1)
of OSHA employers must provide a workplace environment that "is free from
recognizable hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious harm to
employees." (U.S Department of Labor). This means that employers have a duty
and can be cited if proven aware of a possible hazard and did not act to prevent or
abate it (Department of Labor). However with the duty clause, courts state that
employers can only face liability if it can be proven that the hazard or incident
could have been prevented. In Dayna Royal’s book published in the Florida Law
Review she states:
“The government bears the burden of specifying the particular steps an
employer must take to avoid a citation for violating the general duty clause.
The government must also demonstrate the feasibility and likely utility of
alternative measures. Courts consistently hold that because the general duty
clause is a tool of last resort, standards are the preferred enforcement
mechanism. If a specific hazard is a concern, a standard should address it,
rather than relying on the general duty clause.”
The OSHA Act places standards on employers but is not effectively implemented
and fails to protect employees from preemptive attacks. The quote emphasis that
companies should not rely on the OSHA Act to prevent workplace violence before
exhausting conflict resolution techniques. When the parties involved in destructive
VanBuren 5
conflicts are unable to reach an agreement and settle their difference on their own
an alternative dispute resolution can be a viable option. Mediation is an example
of an alternative dispute resolution where a mediator is brought in to be an
unbiased force to break down the power struggle and help both sides
comprehensively express their issues, concerns and goals (Borisoff and Victor, p.
21). Mediation is known to be cost effective and produces great results regardless
of the conflict issues. The mediator is able to lay down a foundation of trust with
the parties involved in the conflicts stating that he or she is completely impartial.
The second stage of mediation allows each party to divulge information about
their perceptions and issues with the other and their goals they wish to be
negotiated. The third stage involves the mediator identifying the main problems
within the conflict and “helping the clients to prioritize the issues to be negotiated,
to establish a framework or an ‘issue agenda’ of what will be negotiated and most
important, to set the criteria that all solutions or alternatives must meet in order to
be acceptable (Borisoff and Victor, p. 22)”. Once the criteria and problem have
been established potential solutions are brought forward and their values assessed
and discussed. The mediator helps the parties evaluate these solutions and find
compromises. Once an agreement has been reached, the final step in mediation is
to finalize the agreement in the parties’ own words and have them sign the
agreement.
Conflict is inevitable and apart of our lives. How we choose to deal with
conflict shapes our relationships. When there are incompatible means and goals
6
that lead to conflict in the workplace it is easy to attribute this to personality
clashes. However researcher Dr Michelle Tuckey from the University of South
Australia published an article in British Psychological Society discussing the idea
that personality clashes are not to blame for workplace conflict but the workplace
environment itself is to blame. Tuckey says "Workplace harassment is bad for
workers and bad for employers. For individuals, the adverse impacts include
greater mental health problems, more physical health complaints, greater burnout
and, in the worst case scenario, suicide." Michelle Tuckey and her collague
Annabelle M. Neall created a methodological review conducted “to identify
current methodological gaps and propose new strategies for advancing knowledge
on harassment at work.” The review used 234 samples from over 224 peer-
reviewed articles published between 1987-2012. All of these articles focused on
the consequence and the process of different forms of workplace conflict from
victimization, abusive supervision and bullying that creates a negative work
environment. Thirty-seven of the articles were chosen at random and used in the
coding process to gauge inter-rater reliability. The coding process consisted of four
categories: construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and statistical
conclusion validity. The results showed that research conducted on workplace
violence is steadily increasing. Out of the articles used in the sample 58% of them
were published in the last five years of the review period, 2008-2012. These
articles were published in a wide variety peer review journals and disciplines. In
terms of workplace conflict , the study showed that bullying comprised of 36%,
VanBuren 7
followed by aggressive coworkers with 21.3%, harassment with 10% and
workplace incivility and abusive supervision were tied at 9.2%. In conclusion of
the findings Tuckey said:
“Research shows workplace harassment is generally not an issue of
personality conflicts but rather a reflection of the whole organisational
system. Yet our review of current studies done in the field found the
overwhelming majority of harassment research has been conducted at the
individual level, with 85 percent of studies only including information from
one data source – most commonly the target or victim.”
There are many effective tools to successfully manage conflict situations and
improve employee relations. In positive conflicts issues can be handled amongst
the parties involved. In destructive conflict situations
Companies have an obligation to be vigilant of conflicts in their workplace and
promote a safe and confidential atmosphere for employees to step forward with
any claims. In order for a company to run smoothly and effectively workplace
morals and values must be established and held accountable by upper
management. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“OSH Act”) needs
to be fully enforced in all states in order fully protect employees. However the
OSHA agency cannot be solely responsible for keeping employees safe. More
studies should be conducted on how to bring conflict dispute resolution to
companies in a cost effective manner and also checking back up on the parties
involved in the conflict. Research must also be continually conducted on
8
workplace violence. Studies show us the data in which format through conflict is
inflicted upon coworkers from the victims point of view but not from the
perception of the company, supervisors, other employees or the accused. Dr.
Tuckey raises an interesting concept that it is imperative that more investigative
research is conducted into the organizations themselves. By having multiple
perspectives it may guide us to having a better understanding of the many factors
that contribute to workplace conflicts and ultimately the prevention of workplace
violence.
.
Bibliography
Annabelle M. Neall, Michelle R. Tuckey. A methodological review of
research on the antecedents and consequences of workplace harassment. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2014; DOI: 10.1111/joop.12059
VanBuren 9
Borisoff, Deborah and David A. Victor. Conflict Management A
Communication Skills Approach. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1998.
Department of Labor. "DOL Workplace Violence Program - Appendices."
Department of Labor. 2014.
Haynes, Mark. Workplace Violence: Why Every State Must Adopt a
Comprehensive Workplace Violence Prevention Law. 13 April 2013.
<http://www.cornellhrreview.org/workplace-violence-why-every-state-must-
adopt-a-comprehensive-workplace-violence-prevention-law/>.
Richman, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Flaherty, J. A., Freels, S., & Zlatoper, K.
(2005). Perceived organizational tolerance for workplace harassment and distress
and drinking over time [harassment and mental health]. Women and Health, 40, 1–
23. doi:10.1300/J013v40n04_01
Royal, Dana. Take Your Gun To Work And Leave It In The Parking Lot:
Why The Osh Act Does Not Preempt State Guns- At-Work Laws. Florida Law
Review.
http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/01/Royal_BOOK.pdf
Sophia Hollander, Joseph De Avila, & Jennifer Maloney, Deadly Clash
Started in Workplace, Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2012, at A15.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB1000087239639044481270457760978107750509
6
U.S. Department of Justice, FBI Academy, National Center for the Analysis
of Violent Crime, Workplace Violence: Issues in Response, available at
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/workplace-violence (last visited
December 12, 2012).
U.S Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration,
OSH Act of 1970. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?
p_table=oshact&p_id=2743
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
