Administrative Assault:
A Contemporary Psychoanalytic View Of Violence And Aggression In The Workplace

Michael A. Diamond, Ph.D.
Stephen Furbacher Professor of Organizational Change
Director, Center for the Study of Organizational Change
University of Missouri-Columbia
College of Business and Public Administration
318 Middlebush Hall
Columbia, Mo. 65211
DIAMOND@BPA.MISSOURI.EDU

In this article, the author offers a psychoanalytic perspective of violence and aggression in the workplace. With particular focus on public sector organizations, such as the postal service, the author submits that shame and injustice are at the emotional core of the problem. Following a statistical summary of violence in the workplace and an overview of the social and behavioral science research, the author provides a psycho-dynamic schema for analyzing the potential for violence at work. The model presented combines what the author refers to as a toxic mix of oppressive cultures and persecutory identities at work. In conclusion, the author provides a brief description of his organizational change methodology.

Violence in the workplace involving worker against co-workers and subordinates and supervisors is a problem of increasing magnitude. The risk of becoming a victim of a workplace homicide is particularly high for some industries and occupations. Homicide was the leading cause of fatal occupational injuries in three industry groups and four occupational groups in 1980-1989 (Jenkins, Kisner, et.al., 1993). Homicides were the leading cause of fatal occupational injuries in retail trade (1.66 per 100,000), service (.61 per 100,000), and finance, insurance, and real estate (.39 per 100,000) (1993). Additional National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) data show that between 1980 and 1992, the greatest number of homicides occurred in retail trade (38% of total) and service industries as a whole (17%) (Jenkins, 1996). For the period 1983-1993, the workplace homicide rate for the Postal Service , 0.63 per 100,000 workers, was just under the workplace homicide rate for all occupations from the National Traumatic Occupational Facilities surveillance system data (NTOF).

Coworkers appear disproportionately responsible for homicides that occur in the Postal Service. "From 1983 to 1989, 20 out of 35 work-related homicides were committed by coworkers or former coworkers, but 14 of these occurred in a single incident." (Bulatao and Vandenbos, 1996) According to a 1993 survey from the private agency, Northwestern National Life, of 89 workers who had been physically attacked at work at some point in their lives, 44% reported being attacked by a customer or client, 30% by coworkers or former employees; 24% by strangers, and 3% by someone else.

This paper attempts to more fully understand the social and emotional roots of aggression and violence in the workplace. While focusing primarily on public employees and the public sector workplace, the author does not intend to imply a great difference exists between public and private sector violence and aggression. Rather, it is the author’s intent to examine the psychological nature of the relationship between aggressive actions at work, management practices and organizational culture. A contemporary psychoanalytic perspective is applied because it acknowledges unconscious processes at work (Czander, 1993; Diamond, 1993; Hirschhorn, 1988; Kets de Vries and Miller, 1984; Levinson, 1972; 1981; Zaleznik and Kets de Vries, 1975). The selection of a psychoanalytic approach enables the organizational researcher to better understand and interpret the meanings and motivations behind destructive human actions in the workplace. Whether viewed as a human science or hermeneutic discipline, psychoanalytic theory may assist the organizational researcher with an avenue for interpreting actions and language. Psychoanalysis proffers a comprehensive theory of human personality well-suited to explaining the origins of violence and aggression. On its own, however, psychoanalytic theory is insufficient for purposes of understanding and explaining (internal or external) organizational dynamics.

At the outset a statistical overview and introduction to the problem of violence in the workplace is further elaborated. Then, a discussion of the GAO REPORT ON POST OFFICES and the relevance of organizational culture in assessing workplace violence is proffered. Next, the author suggests that a combination of (1) oppressive organizational cultures characterized by unilateral executive/supervisory/managerial practices such as termination, suspension, downsizing, reengineering, rightsizing, and other forms of organizational rejection of members or threatened elimination of workers; and (2) persecutory organizational identities comprised of persecutory (individual and collective) transferences of emotion between managers and workers, narcissistic injury, rage and shame anxiety in the minds of workers, promote violence and aggression in the workplace. Typically, this entails workers who feel victimized, taken advantage of, mistreated, and treated unjustly by managers and/or executives and often the public (external constituents, citizens, legislators).

It needs to be clearly stressed and understood that exploring the unconscious reasons for violent and aggressive actions is not intended to blame the victim of (what the perpetrator perceives to be) an oppressive work environment. Rather, it is to explain the psycho-dynamics of the victim’s internalization of persecuted feelings and the concomitant need to externalize punishing (internalized) self-images. While the local post office may not appear on the surface to be an oppressive culture, many employees may experience it as oppressive. Certainly studies by the GAO confirm this impression. Hence, the organizational analyst ought not jump to conclusions based solely on "factual" and observable data. One requires access to the internal world of workers as well (Diamond, 1984). Disregard and insensitivity for the emotional life of employees and their psychological attachment (transference) to the workplace, is a fundamental omission of executive leaders and their senior managers as well. Moreover, and this will not come as a surprise to organizational humanists, an absence of participation and employee input into critical managerial decisions may further provoke hostility derived from feelings of powerlessness and, in some instances, hopelessness among workers. The workplace experienced by workers as under siege by management (and often the public) is a culture ripe with persecutory identifications and aggressive actions. The common wisdom, often articulated by the press, of the lone wolf or the disgruntled employee, reinforces American individualist ideology as explanatory theory of violence in the workplace, separating culture from identity and violence. This popular view is mythology, which prevents the public from potentially understanding that the lone wolf is not at all alone--persecuted identities are linked, not causally but dialectically, to oppressive work cultures. Understanding violence and aggression in the workplace requires transcending common folklore. Examining the social and behavioral science research on the subject is a good first step.

LITERATURE REVIEW: A Psychoanalytic Perspective

Recently, many articles and studies on the subject of violence and aggression[1] in public and private organizations have appeared (Nigro and Waugh, Public Administrative Review, Vol. 56, No. 4, 1996; NIOSH, Current Intelligence Bulletin 57, June, 1996; The Washington Post, July, 9, 1966; O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, and Glew, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, No.1, 1966; Driscoll, Worthington, and Hurrell, Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol.47, No. 4, 1995; Resnick and Kausch, Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol.47, No. 4, 1995; Mossman, Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol.47, No.4, 1995; Stone, Business Horizons, March-April, 1995; Harvey and Crosier, Business Horizons, March-April, 1995; Johnson and Indvik, Public Personnel Management, Vol.23, No.4, 1994; General Accounting Office, 1994). These articles vary in analytic complexity, rigor, and insight into the problem. They concur that violence and aggression in the workplace is a serious issue (O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, Glew, 1996) and some suggest that employee-on-employee aggression may be a consequence of management practices and workplace culture (General Accounting Office, 1994). Nigro and Waugh conclude that management must "implement personnel policies and management processes that improve the organization’s ability to identify and neutralize potentially violent employees, customers, and clients " (1996:330). In outlining a research agenda on occupational violent crime (OVC), Nigro and Waugh (1996) suggest that reliable intelligence from cooperating public agencies, the construction of a database that includes variables related to risk factors, an employer-level reporting system that "captures situational, organizational, and social-psychological information," and data on the primary motivations of offenders, would be helpful. However, they admit that "strategies designed to prevent robberies, politically motivated terrorism, or other violent intrusions by outsiders may offer little or no protection against employee-on-employee assaults" (1994: 331), which is the focus of this article.

Much of the literature on workplace violence focuses on the need for additional security and training to better cope with "disgruntled" employees and angry customers. The heightened emphasis on security and training, while helpful, is a reaction to an inadequately understood problem. Nevertheless, social and behavioral scientists have proffered some insights into the roots of aggression and violence in organizations. For example, O’Leary-Kelly, et.al., (1996) look at "organization-motivated aggression" from a social-learning perspective. They propose that given the influence organizations have over employees, insider-perpetrated aggression is instigated by certain factors. They write: "Organizations that control the rewards and opportunities that insiders have available to them, as well as the policies under which they must operate, may at times take actions that are perceived as aversive by employees (aversive treatment)" (p.240). The authors imply that aggressive acts on the part of employees are a reaction to the authorities who control and disperse rewards and other resources. These disbursements may be viewed by employees as unfair, what the authors call "aversive treatment." Hence, I would argue, employees’ perceptions of "unfair" treatment by employers and management may trigger hostilities between and among them. "Descriptions of the individuals who commit workplace violence often describe them as "disgruntled" and frequently mention resentment" (Folger and Baron in eds, VandenBos and Bulatao, 1996:63). In their article, " Violence and Hostility at Work: A Model of Reactions to Perceived Injustice," Folger and Baron proffer evidence for a significant link between the findings of basic research on the causes and nature of human aggression and the causes and effects of felt injustice (1996). O’Leary-Kelly, et. al., then, go on to say that: "employers provide, through the socialization process, important information on the types of employee behaviors that are acceptable and will be rewarded (incentive inducements)" (p.240). Socialization is a key ingredient of workplace culture. Here, I would add, the authors point toward another contributing factor to organizationally-motivated aggression, the method of controlling subordinate behavior by rewarding dominant and acceptable governing values, norms, ideology and identity. In some instances, cultures may be explicitly engineered by companies for these purposes (Kunda, 1992). Employees may experience ambivalence and feel resentment surrounding such "incentive inducements" and react aggressively to what might be perceived as excessive infringement of their entitlement to freedom and independence. Others might take a more severe view of these common tactics, viewing incentive inducements as a method of indoctrination. On the other hand, some employees might be willing to accept these controls and such acceptance carries expectations of job security, career development, and just treatment. I would hypothesize that when and if this psychological contract is broken, employees may feel deceived and betrayed. Nevertheless, all workers do not react violently.

O’Leary-Kelly, et. al., continue to suggest that: "during and after the socialization process, organizations provide important models that influence the types of behaviors that insiders exhibit (modeling influences)" (p.240). While the authors do not argue the following point, their observation might imply that the workplace culture perpetuates the status quo through implicit requirements of impersonation and role conformity. Organizational culture must be self-incorporated.

From a psychoanalytic perspective, I would argue that this phenomenon is even more powerful in its effect. Organizations that encourage, consciously or unconsciously, "modeling influences" such as these may promote in-authenticity and false self systems[2] for employees. In other words, employees are driven externally by their superordinate authorities and, consequently, come to assume the personating "as if performance"[3] in which they are coerced to operate on the assumption: "I will be as you desire me" (Diamond, 1984). Most humans require greater authenticity and independence of mind. Under these circumstances, some workers may become enraged over the excessive limits to self-expression and self-realization. It is as if membership requires self-denial and for some, possibly, death of self (Denhardt, 1987; Hummel, 1982).

Finally, O’Leary-Kelly, et. al., write that: "the organization provides the physical environment within which most employees work on a daily basis (physical environment)" (p.240). Although an artifact of organizational culture, I suggest that the significance of physical environment is often underestimated. Dating back to the Hawthorne Experiments at the Western Electric Company (1933), the conditions and quality of facilities and office space or plant design have been known to affect workers’ morale and satisfaction. Moreover, the caliber of work space is a signifier of the value organizations place upon their employees. This, in turn, influences the worker’s sense of self-worth as communicated by the employer’s attention and investment in the physical environment. In other words, physical is never merely physical, external; it is always partly symbolic.[4]

In sum, according to the social-learning approach, aggression is viewed as "prompted by external factors (situational cues and reinforcers), rather than internal factors such as instincts and drives" (p.230). No doubt external factors such as these will affect employees. However, not unlike many social and behavioral scientists, the authors reduce and bifurcate the theoretical possibilities in exploring the subject matter at hand. In Cartesian fashion, they assume the internal as something unknowable, or unconscious. Rather than an expansion of consciousness, positivists often divide self and other, subject and object in a manner that excludes the influence of intersubjectivity and unconscious meanings, fantasies, and perceptions. It is as if workers, managers, executives, and the like have no inner life, no experience of the workplace that they internalize and that, in turn, influences their perceptions of events and helps to shape their reactions and construction of identity at work (Czander, 1993; Diamond, 1993; Stein, 1994; Weick, 1995).

Sharply contrasting and delineating external factors from internal ones is an example of this limitation. One only needs to read the wealth of empirically-based infant studies to see the error in such sharp bifurcations (Mahler, et.al., 1975; Stern, 1985; Bowlby, 1983, Vol.1-3). Aggression and violence are human actions that are both externally and internally-motivated. It is not a simple causal relationship. The individual influences the workplace; the organization impacts on the individual, and the degree of affect is certainly influenced by the power relations of hierarchic institutions and organizational cultures. Leadership values and practices may or may not reinforce aggression among workers. More participative and interpersonally competent leaders often establish better working relationships and communications with workers and managers than resigned, incompetent, or inaccessible bosses (Diamond, 1993; Argyris, 1990). However, reactions to and perceptions of leadership styles and cultures often differ among groups of workers. Work design and operations may be a factor as well. For example, rigidly structured and routinized work operations often suppress the freedom and creative spirit of some individual employees, but not all workers react aggressively or violently. What matters, psychoanalytically, is the nature of internalization of social and interpersonal experiences. Unconscious demands and expectations distinguish one employee from another. These unconscious processes come into play and shape the nature of the individual’s reaction.

What separates the violent reaction from the nonviolent one, is an issue of self-other boundaries or the lack or vulnerability of self-other boundaries. In other words, the cognitive and emotional failure to distinguish oneself from others can trigger a violent reaction. Feeling attacked, abused and treated unjustly, a worker with a self-deficit of this nature will strike back out of narcissistic rage.[5] The difference is that his internal world is incapable of containing such aggression and thereby requires of him to lash out and regain whatever fantasized self-dignity may remain.

The individual may express his inner experience of mistreatment through actions at work by way of sabotage, absenteeism, prejudice and various forms of hostility and violence. Workplace aggression is a dialectical and inter-subjective phenomenon in which external realities such as social class, unemployment, organizational downsizing, organizational structure, work processes, roles and culture, and internal worlds of emotions, fantasies, motives, wishes, perceptions, anxieties, and the like, collide. Economy meets psychology.

Just because a social psychological dimension of organizational life is internal to workers or unconscious, does not mean that we cannot know it. On the contrary, we can know it through the language and communication of affects and through human interactive processes of empathy and introspection of ethnographers, participant observers, and psychoanalytic action researchers in organizations (Baum, 1987; Diamond, 1993; Allcorn, 1994; Stein, 1994; Van Maanen, 1988; Weick, 1995) and from clinical psychological and psychiatric research (Monahan, 1995; Gilligan, 1996; VandenBos and Bulalao, eds., 1996). However, more insight from clinical and field research is essential, if we are to more fully understand the incidents of violence and unproductive, unhealthy aggression at work. Traditional positivistic (social and behavioral science) approaches to this problem are of limited assistance in deepening our understanding of irrational and aggressive human actions. Contemporary psychoanalysis, which is a complex relational theory of human unconscious actions and nonrational, emotional processes, can provide us with some additional insights (Mitchell, 1988).

Overview of the Problem

According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), homicide and other workplace violence is the second leading cause of death in the workplace. The study reported that there were 1,063 work-related homicides in 1993--one third more than the annual rate during the 1980s and a 5.6 percent increase from 1992. Among those murdered, 177 were in managerial and professional occupations, 335 were in sales, 225 were in services, and 202 were drivers or factory workers. The annual rate at which bosses are being killed at work has doubled since 1985. Guns are the means in 75 percent of all deaths. And that is only the homicides.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has not kept track of violent assaults or threats in which no one dies. The fact is that the workplace is becoming more dangerous. Nineteen percent of workers report being harassed on the job; 7 percent report threats of physical harm, and 3 percent report being physically attacked. Eighty-eight percent of workers say that they are psychologically affected by the increase of violence at work, 62 percent say their work life is disrupted, 23 percent are physically injured or sick, and only 7 percent report no negative consequence according to a study released by Northwestern National Life Insurance Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Moreover, the Society for Human Resource Management has discovered that half (54 percent) of the violent incidents were committed by an employee against another employee; about 13 percent involved an employee against a supervisor; and 7 percent were committed by customers against employees. A study by Dennis Johnson, a Florida-based clinical psychologist and consultant on workplace violence, estimated that about 110,000 cases of serious physical assault, including sexual harassment and homicide, occurred in the United States in 1992. The cost to employers was about $4.2 billion. A broader 1994 Justice Department Study put the number even higher. It reported that nearly 1 million crimes of all types occur in the workplace and that more than half go unreported. Finally, at least 41 people have been slain in shootings in postal service facilities in the past decade, spurring a Postal Service policy to terminate any postal worker found with a gun at work.

According to an in-depth study conducted by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health from 1980 to 1988, homicides at work accounted for about 12 percent of job-related deaths. Of every 100 people who died while at work, 14 of them were killed by some "one" rather than by some "thing" (NIOSH, Pub. No. 93-109, Alert: Preventing Homicide in the Workplace (1993) [the "NIOSH Study"].

Beyond the statistics, most reports and studies of violence in workplace provide little to no insight into the relationship between organizational cultures and the production of aggression and hostility between fellow workers and between employers and employees. The psychological nature of worker attachments to each other and the organization is not taken into sufficient consideration. More importantly, the psychological roots of aggression and violence are not understood. And, finally, the examination of the "corporate culture" is limited by an examination of values that does not explore the deeper unconscious meaning of membership in an oppressive, punitive culture -- located in the organizational identity. The U.S. Postal Service is a case in point.

GAO Report on the U.S. Postal Service

In September 1994 the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) submitted a two volume report on the U.S. Postal Service to Congress. The report is entitled: U.S. POSTAL SERVICE: Labor-Management Problems Persist on the Workroom Floor." This report responded to a Congressional request for a comprehensive review of labor-management relations at the U.S. Postal Service and was prompted by the November 1991 shooting of postal employees in the Royal Oak Mail Service Center in Royal Oak, Michigan. Additional recorded incidents of workplace violence at Postal facilities made this Congressional request more urgent.

The GAO reported that "in mail processing plants and post offices, many employees stated that they worked in an atmosphere of intimidation and tension that was too often characterized by the use of (1) formal disciplinary processes to correct employee problems, (2) grievance processing to obtain relief from disciplinary actions, and (3) arbitration to resolve the ensuing conflict. We [GAO] concluded that the "us versus them" attitude and behavior of both management and unions must end if the Postal Service is to be successful in an increasingly competitive environment" (Vol.1, 1994:4). In Volume 2 of the GAO report, the authors go on to describe "an autocratic management style that promotes conflict on the workroom floor" and a nonparticipative, Postal Service "corporate culture" that must change. One employee opinion survey dealing with performance dimensions showed that "many craft employees felt that managers and supervisors did not treat employees with respect and dignity and that the organization was insensitive to individual needs and concerns" (Vol.2, 1994: 42). Hence, "the postal workforce gives the postal service low marks" (41). The GAO report concludes that despite many accomplishments, the Post Office has not been able to change its corporate culture.

Unfortunately, the language of the GAO report reflects a threatening and punitive attitude that will not have a constructive nor reflective influence on the U.S. Post Office workers and managers. For example, the GAO states: "the "us versus them" attitude and behavior of both management and unions must end if the Postal Service is to be successful in an increasingly competitive environment." This statement threatens the Postal Service with job loss due to competition in the market. It exhibits insensitivity to precisely the problem of workers’ feeling disrespected and without dignity that GAO itself reports. Moreover, it shows an unconscious collusion between GAO and the "corporate culture" they criticize. The GAO language is symptomatic of a larger punitive, organizational culture that disrespects and devalues its employees. The point here is not to "kill the messenger," rather it is to stress the importance of providing critical feedback in a manner that respects the integrity of the recipient. More important, the language of GAO is symptomatic of a "persecuted" and, in turn, punitive public organization that is unreflective and limited in its learning capabilities. GAO might be well advised to examine its own culture and organizational identity to avoid negatively and unconstructively affecting their consultation with the U.S. Postal Service. Unintentionally, GAO may be perpetuating a workplace culture that promotes angry and disgruntled workers. Profound change will not occur as a result of coercion or threats. Such a tactic may be symbolic of the persecutory nature of GAO itself. One might consider the extent to which the larger systemic organizational identity of the Federal public service perpetuates a repetition compulsion or vicious circle that, in effect, limits the depth of reflective learning and possible change of public agencies under the present political climate -- one that is unfriendly and, at times, hostile to government. Reinvention is not a substitute for reflective organizational diagnosis and assessment.

Since the GAO report more than a few additional incidents have occurred such as the following at a Post Office in Industry, California: Bruce Clark, 22 years old, known as the "Cat Man", fatally shot his supervisor, James Whooper III, on July 29, 1995 with a .38 caliber revolver. Clark killed Whooper at the 24 hour mail processing plant. Clark was a distribution clerk at the facility, and had argued with the supervisor and punched him in the back shortly before the fatal shooting. There had been no documentation of any violent behavior or disciplinary problems. The "Cat Man" was described as "soft spoken." The plant consisted of 1,000 process workers and another 1,800 carriers who work out of the station. The Industry postal plant at that time was a site of a special program allowing employees more decision making authority to improve morale.

In another instance, Dorsey Thomas, 23 years old, a mail clerk veteran and current employee of the U.S. Postal Office, entered the Palatine Mail Center on August 29, 1996. He approached 41 year old, Mike Mielke, a co-worker, and fired a semiautomatic weapon five times, hitting Mielke twice. Thomas, then, went down to the lobby area of the Center and shot another co-worker, Steve Collura age 45, at a 10 foot range. Post office employees who were interviewed suggested that the relationship between the three co-workers was good, "they spoke everyday." Dorsey had maintained a "spotless" record with the Post Office but he was allegedly experiencing some "mental problems." Terence Gillespie, the defense attorney, stated that this was "totally out of character" for Thomas. Palantine employs 1,600 people and within the past year has experienced six different occurrences of either fighting or other disturbances. This incident is currently attributed to the lack of security offered at the Mail Center. The American Postal Workers Union recently filed a grievance regarding the security problems of the Center.

Having presented the case of the U.S. Postal Service and the GAO to illustrate the problem, we turn to an explanation of violence and aggression in the workplace. In so doing, we will explore the socio-psychodynamics of (1) oppressive organizational cultures and (2) persecutory organizational identities.

In the following section, I wish to suggest that while many researchers describe the violent and aggressive workplace as oppressive, they find it hard to explain why some oppressive cultures promote aggressive behavior and others do not. I submit that the key to understanding aggression and violence at work resides in the unconscious organizational terrain of intersubjective experience found in the organizational identity beneath the oppressive organizational culture, and that aggression and violence will likely erupt when a persecutory organizational identity resides within a significant number of organizational members. Horrible as they might be aggressive and violent acts in the workplace are human phenomena that originate from individuals in the context of their workplace attachments and inter-subjective relationships. The following discussion attempts to articulate this conceptual framework.

Social Psycho-Dynamic Factors In Violence and Aggression At Work: The Toxic Mix Of Oppressive Cultures and Persecutory Identities

Oppressive Organizational Cultures are institutions of dominance and submission. Often despite managements’ espoused ideology (of participation, collaboration, or democracy in the workplace), their theories-in-practice (Argyris, 1990) exhibit top-down, unilateral control as the governing value for managing subordinate behavior or service delivery. These organizations are cynically thought of by workers as "talking the talk" but rarely "walking the walk." Such managerial contradictions can be costly and may result in depersonalization of the workers. In her book, The Bonds of Love, psychoanalytic sociologist, Jessica Benjamin (1988) writes: "...the more the other is subjugated, the less he is experienced as a human subject and the more distance or violence the self must deploy against him. The ensuing absence of recognition, indeed of an outside world, breeds more of the same" (p.220).

Governing implicit (typically not explicit) values of dominance and submission are often disguised via an ideology of professionalism and rationalism that may foster over-dependency of workers on management. In combination with narcissistic and expansive, leadership personalities, these organizational dynamics are key ingredients in oppressive workplace cultures. As an action researcher for over 16 years, the author has observed this phenomenon many times. Often characterized by top-down retribution, intimidation, and punishment, such organizational cultures may be deceptive at first glance.

For example, executive leaders may espouse participation and emphasize the so-called "open door policies." Consequently, their tendency toward secrecy and "closed-door" decision making, unilateral actions, and an inability to listen with empathy, angers workers (Stein, 1994). Workers feel they have no voice in policies and procedures that directly impact them and their work. Members assume a mistrustful and combative attitude toward each other. Teamwork and collaboration are often absent. Work is often routinized and impersonal. Worker input often comes with union representation and/or in the form of worker protests against management policies and practices. The oppressive organizational culture operates within the larger systemic context of an unappreciative public and a disrespectful hierarchy of managers and administrators. Workers are viewed as expendable instruments of labor and tools of management. The U.S. Postal Service and its relationship to the GAO and other federal agencies is an example of the consequences of an oppressive organizational culture.

The existence and perpetuation of oppressive organizational cultures in the postmodern era of downsizing, reengineering, and reinventing may seem somewhat anachronistic. However, they are quite commonplace and quite often destructive. In their recent book (1996), social scientists Allcorn, Baum, Diamond, and Stein chronicle the downsizing of a major metropolitan hospital. They reluctantly concluded that if one were take this extensive case study as a specimen of the re-engineering of other hospitals nationwide, the observer could not help but to draw an analogy to a workplace version of a holocaust. The questionable (yet not uncommon) administrative practice in downsizing which requires employees to gather in a auditorium for the purpose of mass termination of their employment, is one profound illustration of contemporary forms of oppressive management.

Not surprisingly, worker reactions to oppressive managerial practices often mirror the aggression of their superiors, closing a vicious circle of dominance and submission that virtually assures the continuation of an oppressive workplace. Workers, managers and executives often polarize into subgroups that view the other as all bad (evil and punishing) and them-selves as all good (righteous and victimized). This is a (cognitive-emotional) phenomenon that psychoanalysts refer to a splitting--a common occurrence in oppressive cultures. Sanctimonious attitudes emerge among group cultures that resist constructive and open-minded dialogue with the perceived opposition--what psychoanalyst and political psychologist, Vamik Volkan , referring to a similar phenomenon in international conflict and warfare (1988) refers to as "the [human] need for enemies and allies".

These polarized human relations in organizations among and between executive leaders and workers are supported by collective psychological splitting. This dynamic is typical of organizations riddled by conflict and excessive controls. Organizational participants come to project bad images and feelings onto others (perceived enemies). Consequently, the projecting self comes to view the targeted other as dehumanized and depersonalized object. Finally, and often tragically, this enables the parties in opposition to engage in horrific verbal and sometimes physical attacks on one another. Through aggressive and/or passive aggressive, management practices, executive leaders may denigrate the value and esteem of their workforce. In some instances, employees at first successfully contain the negative projections of their aggressive bosses, at a later point in time cannot take the abuse any longer and thereby come to identify with the bad image of the rejecting authority. This process of projection, introjection, and identification is what psychoanalysts call projective identification. [6]

In a case example from the author’s experience in assisting agencies, an impatient executive ordered a new director to transform the culture of a public agency from typically control-oriented bureaucracy to an entrepreneurial, customer and service-oriented, organization. The director felt the executive’s time-frame was unrealistic and assumed he could not say anything nor could he negotiate a more realistic planned change with the executive. These untested assumptions had their consequences. The director who was, then, angry at the impatient executive, displaced his anger on to his employees by insisting they change immediately. His internalized aggression was, then, expressed in the form of irrational, psychological splitting. Hence, he conveyed to his employees that they had been doing their work all wrong and that he knew how to do it right. He was observed at times, publicly, referring to his employees as "stupid." Containing the director’s (via the executive’s) hostility and feeling persecuted, the organizational participants found themselves lacking a thoughtful plan or assessment of their agency’s readiness to change. Uncertainty and ambiguity as well as participant anxiety increased. The effort failed. Having internalized the hostile treatment, the employees felt shame and disrespect, despite their past efforts at serving the public good and their commitment to the public service.

Consequently, the employees via the unconscious affect of projective identification, which may have originated with the executive leader’s projection of aggression on to the director in the form of unrealistic expectations, must cope with the narcissistic assault. Some workers who experience the attack in the form of disrespect and personal insult, may lash out in some manner. The object (whether co-worker, supervisor, or manager) of the worker’s anger and hostility, then, becomes a container for the subject’s bad introjects (internalized hostilities in need of externalization via displacement on to the other). Through wishful thinking and acting upon the grandiose fantasy, the worker comes to believe that by attacking or killing the other, the worker will eliminate shame and a deadened sense of self (Eigen, 1996; Gilligan, 1996). The worker (as perpetrator of aggression) symbolically rejects the evil self image and sense of shame (or shame anxiety) signified through the hostile act of violence. Hence, shame is the fundamental emotion triggered in the self that often leads to some form of projected aggression and ultimately has a self-sealing effect by perpetuating the culture of oppression and persecution.. This interpretation ought not to be viewed as the author suggesting the victim is to blame. Nor does it imply that the perpetrator’s act in any less heinous. Rather, it is to acknowledge that both are part of a systemic cycle of dominance and submission and, therefore, need to be understood in a dyadic structural analysis.

The process of projective identification allows one to experience the badness and shame vicariously through the projected image of the other (at a safe distance from the self). Consequently, one is able to denigrate and possibly depersonalize the other’s humanity and justify one’s attack. Ironically, the workers’ actions mirror the manner in which the aggressive and denigrating actions of the superior (executive or director) were experienced. Hence, at the unconscious level of this oppressive organizational culture, the persecutory organizational identity, as I will explain further, may be at work.

The Persecutory Organizational Identity

The persecutory organizational identity represents the deeper human experience of many workers in the oppressive workplace. These workers feel powerless and disrespected. They experience their conflict with the organization and its leadership in a manner that is passive. In other words, things (decisions and actions) are done to them. They have little say and often feel they have little recourse. Inaccessible executive leaders, managers who do not represent them and are often poor communicators and incompetent mediators between workers and executives, combine to make these organizational members feel hopeless and depressed. The lack of mutual respect between the leadership and the workforce is signified by unilateral and top-down, executive and managerial decisions and actions of an oppressive organizational culture. This disrespect and lack of worker participation in the organization is eventually internalized by workers, who come to feel persecuted by their executive leadership. Eventually, the nature of the emotional relationship between workers and their leaders and senior managers takes on the characteristics of a persecutory transference. [7]

Workers come to view the executive leadership as punitive and immoral. Feeling mistreated, discriminated, and without due process, they come to internalize (that which I referred to above as) a sense of shame and deep narcissistic injury. "Leadership doesn’t respect us," they say. "Management is out to get us," they add. "We are treated unfairly," they often remark[8]. Paranoia rises and psychological splitting and irrationality dominate. The psychological foundation is that the persecutory organizational identity is one of a deadened self, lacking self-esteem at work. These workers who feel abused by executive leadership are angry and often hostile. They refuse to be treated badly and they want retribution for the injustice of leadership and managerial practices and decisions that are imposed upon them. Workers, who feel powerless and perceive multiple injustices over time, will become aggressive and, possibly, physically violent. These individual acts of violence and aggression at work stem from workers who feel unfairly treated and rejected by management (Folger and Baron, 1996).

In his book, Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and Its Causes, James Gilligan (1996) writes that "understanding violence ultimately requires learning how to translate violent acts into words" (p.62). Actions represent meaning and meaning resides within the inter-subjective experience of organizational members--the persecutory organizational identity. Gilligan’s in depth examination of violent criminals proffers important insights for understanding the socio-psychodynamics of workplace aggression and is consistent with the claims of many psychologists studying violence at work (VandenBos and Bulatao, et. al., 1996). His studies suggest that individual perceptions of unjust (interpersonal and societal) treatment combined with the emotions of shame, humiliation, and an inevitable deadening of feelings, produce violent acts. His analysis of more than one hundred violent criminals portray men without emotional and often physical sensation. He describes murderers without remorse, an absence of self-esteem and an underlying sense of shame but no guilt.

This sense of shame is often signified by the horrible nature of the violent acts in which the perpetrator in his desire to rid himself of shame by destroying the other who sees the killer for who he is, following the homicide may cut-out the victims’ eyes and/or ears. Shame is in the eyes of the beholder. As long as one can hear, one can hear the gossip of others, for instance. The point here is that shame and persecution are motivating factors that drive the killer, the lack of differentiation (self-other boundaries) implies that shame resides in the other (splitting and projective identification) and that by destroying the other, one destroys one’s deeper sense of shame. Nevertheless, this does not change the killers sense of shame and deadened self; on the contrary, as with serial killers, they are driven to repeat the horrible act.

In his book, Psychic Deadness, psychoanalyst Michael Eigen (1996) explains what he refers to as the causation of moral violence. He writes: "...the sense of persecution may escalate so that one is persecuted by the feelings of persecution" (1996, p.57). "One becomes too impatient and intolerant of working with difficulties and the concomitant waiting, resting, and resetting. Experience itself becomes too persecutory to bother with, and one develops the conviction that respect for experience is futile. The sense of persecution becomes too depressing, and depression too becomes persecutory. The rhythmic pattern of breaking down and building up inherent in mental life is aborted or runs amok, and the individual tries to rid himself of his psyche as much as possible" (1996, p.51). This deep sense of persecution requires action in order to externalize the bad feelings, violent acts are typical of individuals trapped within themselves, feeling tortured and unloved as a result of their experience. Extreme sensitivity to social and institutional injustices is not surprising among these individuals.

Justice, often defined and debated by legal scholars, political philosophers, and experts of logical reasoning, is infrequently understood as a deeply felt emotion that is often at the heart of violent and aggressive acts inside and outside the workplace. According to Gilligan, the perception of injustice is closely linked with the killer’s estimate of self-worth and pride, but it is not solely determined by personality. Public policy and social structure are factors according to Gilligan’s (1996) study. In the case of violence in the workplace, organizational culture and identity (as I have noted above), as well as managerial/administrative policies and practices, are variables as well. Hence, the aggressor’s view of being treated unfairly and unjustly provokes deeper emotions of self-shame and envy. Through the emotion of envy one views the other as having some-thing profound (self-esteem or pride) the self lacks. The aggressor first and foremost comes to view him-self as victimized and, subsequently, persecuted. It is the sense of persecution derived from intolerable depressive feelings that ultimately trigger violence and aggression.

Among some of the most violent men in society, Gilligan explains that these men were objects of violence since childhood, often observing violence between family members. He writes: "As children, these men were shot, axed, scalded, beaten, strangled, tortured, drugged, starved, suffocated, set on fire, thrown out of windows, raped, or prostituted by mothers who were their "pimps;" their bones have been broken; they have been locked in closets or attics for extended periods...(p.45-46). Gilligan, then, goes on to say that violence to the body can kill the soul, even if it does not kill the body. He writes: "Even a pet dog knows it is unloved when it is beaten. A child would have to be out of touch with reality (as many do in fact become) not to realize on some level that to be beaten deliberately is to be rejected and unloved. But the self cannot survive without love. The self starved of love dies. That is how violence can cause death of the self even when it does not kill the body" (p.47). He adds: "Without feelings of love, the self feels numb, empty, and dead" (p.47). Physical violence and psychological abuse and emotional neglect are typical of the childhoods of murderers. The lack of parental love and affection, what British psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott (1965) calls "good enough" mothering can deaden or lock away the self. Self-esteem and pride, which are the opposite of shame and envy, are derivatives of a loving and nurturing facilitative environment and are necessary characterological ingredients for withstanding the assaults of oppressive organizations and draconian managerial practices. At what human cost do we downsize, rightsize, reengineer and reinvent our institutions?

As Briskin (1996) notes in his discussion of the "domination of souls" in the workplace: "No one can mature in a culture or organization without internalizing aspects of it. We are by nature dependent on family, community, social institutions, and our workplaces for our survival and to a large measure our sense of identity" (p.65). With the increasing amount of time and emotional investment of American workers in their work, people are becoming increasingly dependent upon their vocations and careers for emotional rewards of enhanced self-confidence and competence. Beyond the emotional ties to family and community (threads that are often broken or absent all together), the burden of self-esteem support and enhancement often belongs to the workplace, whether or not this is appropriate or realistic; it is problematic and inevitably disappointing. Hence, when the workplace is heartless, there is often literally nowhere else for some workers to turn.

Conclusion: Transforming Oppressive Cultures And Persecutory Identities At Work

Employee-on-employee/employer violence and aggression in the workplace is typically the result of some real world trauma or top-down action or set of actions. Hence, it is typically externally-driven such as the many cases of homicides and suicides preceded by layoffs. However, such acts do not always meet with violent reactions and one must, therefore, understand why these events are interpreted and responded to differently. Hence, understanding the worker’s experience of shame and injustice is critical. It is not my intent to point the finger at management or blame the victim. It is my belief that we need to redirect our analysis of the problem and look more deeply at the context in which aggression and violence occur in organizations. The oppressive organizational culture promotes persecutory organizational identities among employees who feel abused, mistreated, and disrespected. The workplace like any group has an unconscious emotional life that either contradicts or supports its primary task. Whether or not it supports the work, however, is of secondary concern in the study of violence and aggression. If we are to reduce violence in the workplace, we need to understand the origins of violence in the person and in the practices of the organizational culture, its leaders and managers.

How do we change violent and aggressive organizations into healthier and more productive workplaces? The key to transformation is a process of intervention that focuses on restoring self-esteem among the workforce. This restoration can occur when employees feel that their perceived emotional injuries, assaults, and injustices are heard and taken seriously by those who can make a difference. Once heard the employees require evidence through action that the leadership intends to restore the integrity of the workforce and repair the damage that has occurred. It is not the purpose of this paper to do more than outline the process for change, it has been the intent of this article to focus on a deeper understanding of the psychology of workplace aggression and violence. Nevertheless, a concluding note on the process for organizational analysis and change seems necessary. Reparation requires a four step process that includes the following steps:

(1) Confrontation and Interpretation: Confronting the problem of workplace aggression and hostility requires understanding, interpreting, and validating the roots of violence in the organization. This step includes collecting interpretive data from confidential one-on-one interviews, survey data on stress and morale, the collection of documents, artifacts, and on-site observations. Trust between action researcher/interventionist and organizational members at every level is essential and requires deep listening and empathy (Stein, 1994).

(2) Problem setting: Sharing feedback and rendering public: Problem setting requires that organizational members agree on what precisely the problems are in addition to their origins in the system. Shapiro and Carr (1991) would call this a negotiated interpretation. This step follows the first step of analysis and diagnosis and requires reporting the findings to the organizational members for confirmation or rejection. Often, these data are collected through confidential interviews and anonymous surveys so that employees feel protected from intimidation or retribution. In cases of violence and aggressive acts at work, confidentiality and anonymity become exceedingly important.

(3) Problem solving: Working through, grieving and reparation: Creating (what D.W. Winnicott (1965) calls a transitional space) a safe physical and emotional haven for employees to work though feelings of anger and rage, enables them to feel loss and begin the process of letting go and healing their wounded spirits. Then, engaging in solving problems and resolving conflicts empowers the organizational participants. Problem solving is collective action that heals through the process of collaboration and mutual respect, rendering people who have experienced injustices passively to feel proactive through effective, concrete improvements in the workplace. In other words, once the precise problems are agreed upon, members can take charge again and potentially heal themselves and their organization. This third phase of intervention is atypical of most interventions and is central to a psychoanalytic organizational change methodology.

(4) Reorganization: Taking action and changing culture and identity: Reorganization is the period following mourning and grief that any culture must undertake in order to change itself and to forgive the injustices of the past. Surfacing internalized images of self, other, and organization are critical here. Sharing of individual and collect experiences of organizational participants enables cognitive unlearning of old ways and assumptions as well as emotional release of privately held images and experiences that governed behavior. Reorganization implies a new framework for accomplishing work through cooperation; it means that employees participate in the social construction of a new organizational identity.

In conclusion, and without making to great distinction between acts of violence and aggression in business and government, it needs to be stated that the problem of violence and aggression in public organizations is societal and political as well as psychological and organizational. Not until a consensus of the American public, citizens, media, and politicians, acknowledge the existence of an appropriate and necessary role for government, will the internalized hostility of public administrators diminish. And, not until the American political discourse becomes less a symptom of psychological splitting and projective identification, evidenced by the proclivity to scapegoat "bureaucrats" and to analyze complex social problems via "black and white" and "all or nothing" quick fixes and solutions, will we be able to address the underlying problem. Beyond and including the public sector workplace, violence and aggression at work stem from organizational members experiences of shame and injustice on the job. The combination of oppressive organizational cultures and persecutory organizational identities may contribute to these experiences and to violence of workers against co-workers and subordinates against supervisors.

FOOTNOTES

.[1] O’Leary-Kelly, et.al., in their article (1996, Vol.21, No.1,

Organization-Motivated Aggression: A Research Framework, distinguish organization-motivated aggression, as attempted injurious or destructive behavior initiated by either an organizational insider or outsider that is instigated by some factor in the organizational context, from organization-motivated violence, as significant negative effects on person or property that occur as a result of organization-motivated aggression (p.229). Their distinction between aggression (as attempted injurious or destructive behavior) and violence (as resulting significant negative effects on person or property) is helpful and relevant here. However, their slant on organization-motivated aggression and violence is misguided and one-dimensional. Aggression and violence in the workplace are fundamentally human acts that originate from individuals in the context of their workplace attachments and intersubjective relationships. It is a dialectical phenomenon rather than a linear, rational one.

.[2] A false self-system is a defensive structure that protects the true self which is often fragile, wounded, and psychically injured with a false and ingenuine self. In the case of violent individuals, the deeper sense of shame and humiliation is hidden behind a screen of grandiosity or tough and hard masculinity.

.[3] As if performances exemplify the false self in action by projecting the attitude, I will be as you desire me. This represents a violent act against one self that is incalculably great.

.[4] Personal communication with Professor Howard Stein, University of Oklahoma, Department of Family Medicine.

.[5]Concept developed by psychoanalyst and originator of self-psychology, Heinz Kohut (1972).

.[6] Projective identification is a psychic process in which the subject projects part of him- or herself into the object (other) and is able to experience that split-off part vicariously in the other as the object of projection, it is a combined act of projection and introjection. The subject’s urge is to control the object. For projective identification to occur the object must respond to the subject’s projection in a manner that reinforces the nature of the split-off part of the subject.

.[7] Persecutory transferences in organizations signify patterns of interpersonal relationships based on the subject’s view of him or herself as scapegoat. Whether or not the label of self as scapegoat is justified is irrelevant. The important psychological fact is that the individual feels like an object of unjust blame and this influences his or her perception of others and the nature of the emotional bonds he or she establishes. This category of persecutory transference exists in addition to the more common self-object transferences of mirroring-idealizing and twinship or alterego noted by Heinz Kohut and psychoanalytic self-psychology.

[8] These remarks are taken from the author’s field-notes in several public agencies.

References

Allcorn, S. (1994). Anger in the Workplace. Westport, CT.: Quorum Books.

Allcorn, S., Baum, H.S., Diamond, M.A., and Stein, H.F. (1996). The Human Costs of a Management Failure. Westport, CT.: Quorum Books.

Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming Organizational Defenses. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Benjamin, J. (1988). The Bonds of Love. New York: Pantheon Books.

Briskin, A. (1996). The Stirring of Soul in the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bowlby, J. (1983). Attachment, Vol.1; Separation, Vol.2; Loss, Vol.3. New York: Basic Books.

Czander, W. (1993). The Psychodynamics of Work and Organizations. New York: Guilford Press.

Denhardt, R.B. (1987). "Images of Death and Slavery in Organizational Life." Journal of Management, Vol.13, No.3: 529-41.

Diamond, M.A. (1984). "Bureaucracy as externalized self-system: A View from the Psychological Interior." Administration & Society, Vol.16, No.2, 195-214.

Diamond, M.A. (1993). The Unconscious Life of Organizations. Westport, CT.: Quorum Books, Greenwood.

Driscoll, R.J., Worthington, K.A., and J.J. Hurrell, Jr. (1995). "Workplace Assault: An Emerging Job Stressor." Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol.47, No.4, 205-212.

Eigen, M. (1996). Psychic Deadness. New York: Jason Aronson.

Folger, R. and R. Baron. (1996). "Violence and Hostility at Work: A Model of Reactions to Perceived Injustice." In VandenBos and Bulatao, Eds., Violence on the Job. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.

General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters. (1994). "U.S. Postal Service: Labor-Management Problems Persist on the Workroom Floor, Vol.1-2.

Gilligan, J. (1996). Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes. New York: Grosset/Putnam.

Greenberg, J. and S. Mitchell. (1983). Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Harvey, M. and R. Cosier. (1995). "Homicides in the Workplace: Crisis or False Alarm?" Business Horizons, March-April, 11-20.

Hirschhorn, L. (1988). The Workplace Within. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hummel, R.P. (1982). The Bureaucratic Experience. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Jenkins, Kisner, et. al. (1993). Fatal Injuries to workers in the United States, 1980-89. A Decade of Surveillance. National Profile. (DHHS [NIOSH]) Publication Number 93-108. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Johnson, P. and J. Indvik. (1994). "Workplace Violence: An Issue of the Nineties." Public Personnel Management, Vol.23, No.4, 515-523.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R. and D. Miller. (1984). The Neurotic Organization. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Kohut, H. (1972). "Thoughts on Narcissism and Narcissistic Rage." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Vol.27: 361-400.

Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering Culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Levinson, H. (1972). Organizational Diagnosis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Levinson, H. (1981). Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Mahler, M., et. al.. (1975). The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant. New York: Basic Books.

Mayo, E. (1933; 1960). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: Viking Press.

Mitchell, S.A. (1988). Relational Concepts in Psychoanalysis. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Monahan, J. (1995). The Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior. New York: Aronson.

Mossman, D. (1995). "Violence Prediction, Workplace Violence, and the Mental Health Expert." Consulting Psychology Journal, No.47, No.4, 223-232.

NIOSH, Current Intelligence Bulletin 57, (1996). "Violence in the Workplace: Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.

Nigro, L.G., and W.L. Waugh. (1996). "Violence in the American Workplace: Challenges to the Public Employer." Public Administration Review, Vol.56, No.4, 326-333.

Noer, D.M. (1995). Healing The Wounds: Overcoming The Trauma Of Layoffs And Revitalizing Downsized Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W., and D.J. Glew. (1996). "Organization-Motivated Aggression: A Research Framework." Academy of Management Review, Vol.21, No.1, 225-253.

Resnick, P.J. and O.Kausch. (1995). "Violence in the Workplace: Role of the Consultant." Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol.47, No.4, 213-222.

Shapiro, E. and A.W. Carr. (1991). Lost in Familiar Places. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press.

Stein, H.F. (1994). Listening Deeply. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.

Stern, D. (1985). The Interpersonal World of the Infant. New York: Basic Books.

Stone, R. (1995). "Workplace Homicide: A Time for Action." Business Horizons, March-April, 3-10.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). The Tales of the Field. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

VandenBos, G.R. and E.Q. Bulalao, Eds. (1996). Violence on the Job. Identifying Risks and Developing Solutions. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Volkan, V. (1988). The Need To Have Enemies And Allies. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson.

Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.

Winnicott, D.W. (1965). The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment. New York: International Universities Press.

Zaleznik, A. and M.F.R. Kets de Vries. (1975). Power and the Corporate Mind. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.