Buying Local: Diverging Consumer Motivations and Concerns
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Agribusiness 35, 1 (Spring 2017) © Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia Human Capital, Workplace Violence, and Human Resource Management in Agribusiness: Review and Recommendations David D. Van Fleet Human capital is an important resource in agribusiness—maybe the most important. To be competitive in the use and development of human capital, the costs and consequences of workplace violence must be reduced. Agribusinesses must produce goods and services that provide value while, at the same time, assuring healthy, safe work environments. However, that has been limited due to a paucity of research as to the extent, types, and causes of workplace violence in agribusiness. This article identifies what can be done and illuminates areas in need of research to better understand, detect, and prevent workplace violence in agribusiness. Key words: Human capital, human resource management, practice, research, safe workplace, workplace violence In their efforts to obtain a competitive advantage, managers increasingly recognize that the resources most important to an organization’s success are its human resources (Lyons and Conley, 2012; Mugera, 2012; Chacko, Wacker, and Asar, 1997). Yet one of the more threatening human capital issues in any business, including agribusiness, is workplace violence, which can have devastating effects on the productivity of organizations and on the quality of life of employees (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2001). Protecting and developing human capital has been proffered, therefore, as a critical goal for all agribusiness organizations (Shelman and Connolly, 2012). Unfortunately, relatively few employers have established effective programs to combat this problem (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1996). Workplace violence refers to willful or negligent acts, including either proscribed criminal acts or coercive behavior, that occur in the course of performing any work-related duty and that lead to significant negative results, such as physical or emotional injury, diminished productivity, or property damage (Van Fleet and Van Fleet, 2010, p. 45). Workplace violence persists in industrialized countries but is becoming an important concern in developing countries as well (Holt-Giménez, 2015; Bowie, Fisher, and Cooper, 2005). It is clearly an international phenomenon having been noted in England David D. Van Fleet is professor in the Morrison School of Agribusiness, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University. The comments of Drs. Patrick M. Wright, Ricky W. Griffin, Ella W. Van Fleet, Arthur G. Bedeian, and anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the author. 54 Spring 2017 Journal of Agribusiness (Fevre et al., 2011; Buckley, 2015), India (Staermose, 2013), China (Lo et al., 2011), and elsewhere (Bowie, Fisher, and Cooper, 2005). Even though workplace violence is not new and occurs internationally, it is difficult to predict its magnitude because research is relatively new and most countries do not have organizations specifically focused on workplace violence (Bowie, Fisher, and Cooper, 2005). The first report by the International Labor Organization was published in 1998 (Chappell and Di Martino, 1998), and even when more violent incidents such as homicide are reported, most other forms of physical and emotional harm are not (Fisher and Lab, 2010). In the United States, studies and statistics are more readily available, so that information provides much of the background in this article although the conclusions clearly are international in nature. Statistics for U.S. organizations show that more than three persons die in the workplace every workday of the year, and many innocent bystanders are also affected (U.S. Department of Labor, 2013). Not all of these deaths are the result of workplace violence; at the same time, death and physical injury statistics do not tell the whole story about the many forms of workplace violence. The rate of recurrence and the costs— emotional as well as physical harm—are high enough to warrant serious attention by company owners and managers, as well as by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Many of those violent incidents occur in agribusinesses (agribusiness here refers to industries and occupations that involve the four “Fs” —food (and drink), fiber, forest (products), and (bio)fuel). Although legislation exists to deal with some agribusiness workplace problems (Ferjuste, 2011; Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 1983), managers in agribusiness must address the broader issue of workplace violence as both legal and economic consequences stem from it (Holmes, 2013; Russell, 2012; Paetzold, O’Leary-Kelly, and Griffin, 2007). More succinctly, for agribusinesses to be truly competitive in the future (Agriculture and Food Policy Research Group, 2006), workplace violence and its associated costs and consequences must be reduced or eliminated. To that end, agribusinesses must establish a positive atmosphere that guarantees the rights of all employees to a safe workplace (USDA, 2001). However, in agribusiness human resource management has been stymied in its ability to develop highly effective programs due to a paucity of research as to the extent, types, and causes of workplace violence. In this article, I first provide a brief review of the workplace violence literature in an effort to identify the more common types of violence encountered in agribusinesses. Then I turn our attention to what can be done now by any organization, anywhere in the world, particularly through human resource management to prevent or at least reduce such violence. Finally, I illuminate areas that are in need of Van Fleet Workplace Violence in Agribusiness 55 more research in order to better understand, detect, and prevent workplace violence in agribusiness in the future. Workplace Violence Workplace violence in one form or another occurs frequently (Haynes, 2013; Morgan, 2013). But what exactly is workplace violence? The U.S. Department of Labor defines workplace violence as “an action (verbal, written, or physical aggression) which is intended to control or cause, or is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury to oneself or others, or damage to property. Workplace violence includes abusive behavior toward authority, intimidating or harassing behavior, and threats” (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). The definition employed here, contrary to many traditional definitions, indicates that behavior is labeled workplace violence if it is work-related and leads to negative work results, regardless of where it occurs, regardless of whether the harm is physical or emotional, and regardless of the relationship between perpetrator and victim. This definition means that workplace violence can originate from employees toward other employees, managers, or an organization itself. It also includes behavior directed from managers or outsiders toward employees (Van Fleet and Griffin, 2006), and it even may occur off premises. These are important distinctions as organizations strive to assure a positive workplace atmosphere. Workplace Violence in Agribusiness Nearly 60% of all work-related homicides in 1998 occurred in retail trade and services (Sygnatur and Toscano, 2000) and half of the homicides at work happened in food and beverage establishments (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). From 2005-2009, while those employed in farming, fishing, and forestry had low instances of workplace violence (0.8% of the total), those in food preparation and service-sector retail occupations had a much higher rate (7.2%) (Harrell, 2011). In 2009, the rate was 13.2% in service-sector retail sales which includes convenience store clerks, gas station employees, bartenders and other sales clerks (Seckan, 2013). A sample of some of the most severe violence in U. S. agribusiness over the past 33 years is shown in the Appendix (Van Fleet and Van Fleet, 2010). But these are just examples of severe instances of workplace violence in the United States. The most common forms of workplace violence are far less severe. For example, lower-level supervisors in many agribusiness organizations have been known to threaten employees, show favoritism, use inappropriate (usually authoritarian) styles of 56 Spring 2017 Journal of Agribusiness management, and show little consideration for the problems of their subordinates (Asbed, 2012; Human Rights Watch, 2012; Dominguez, 1997). Higher-level managers have ignored poor supervision at lower levels of organizations and even supported poor supervisors in order to show a “solid front” against criticism (Human Rights Watch, 2012). Such less-severe behaviors are more significant than they might appear at first glance because they clearly increase the likelihood of violent responses to managerial actions. Sexual Harassment One form of workplace violence that merits special attention in agribusiness is sexual harassment. Although much of the workplace violence facing agribusiness employees, especially females, seems to occur in developing economies (Chedotum et al., 2013, Olubunmi and Otufale, 2012), there are problems in the United States as well (Yeung and Rubenstein, 2013a, 2013b). Sexual harassment, especially among migrant workers, is far too common—including subtle forms such as telling off-color jokes, using vulgar language, obscene gestures, unwanted sexual demands, inappropriate touching, and physically violent forms including rape, assault,