Introduction

This study seeks to understand the relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace violence, and how positive organizational communication can act as a moderator in this relationship. It is well-known that interpersonal conflict can negatively impact employee well-being, job satisfaction, and overall organizational performance. Additionally, unresolved interpersonal conflict can lead to more severe issues such as workplace violence (Jex & Gudanowski, 1992). In recent years, there has been a growing interest in researching this topic in order to develop strategies for preventing and managing these issues in the workplace (Burgess & Burgess, 2017; Ferris, Hwang, & Brymer, 2016).

Previous studies have shown a connection between interpersonal conflict and workplace violence (Jex & Gudanowski, 1992). For instance, research by Jex and Gudanowski (1992) found that people who reported experiencing a high degree of interpersonal conflict were more likely to report workplace violence.

This study aims to delve deeper into the relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace violence, and to identify potential factors that may influence this relationship. Research has already established a positive link between these two issues (Jex & Gudanowski, 1992), however, it is acknowledged that the relationship is complex and can be affected by various factors such as organizational communication (Burgess & Burgess, 2017; Ferris, Hwang, & Brymer, 2016; Lee, 2015).

This research addresses the lack of knowledge in the field by examining the influence of organizational communication in the relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression. The research will focus on identifying specific aspects of organizational communication that play a role in this relationship, adding to the existing literature on workplace aggression and organizational communication. The findings will have practical implications for organizations in terms of managing interpersonal conflict and preventing workplace aggression.

Previous research has established a positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace violence (Burgess & Burgess, 2017; Jex & Gudanowski, 1992). However, there is a gap in the literature on the specific mechanisms through which organizational communication can moderate this relationship (Ferris, et al., 2016; Lee, 2015). The study aims to fill this gap by investigating the specific dimensions of organizational communication, such as openness, trust, respect, and support that are related to the relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace violence.

Theoretical Foundation

Communication climate theory is a theoretical framework that describes the overall communication patterns and perceptions in an organization. The theory posits that communication climate can be characterized by a set of dimensions such as openness, trust, respect, and support, which can have a significant impact on the overall functioning of the organization (Ferris, et al. 2016). According to this theory, the way in which communication is perceived and managed within an organization can either exacerbate or mitigate the effects of interpersonal conflict on workplace violence (Burgess & Burgess 2017).

The theory suggests that a positive communication climate, characterized by open and respectful communication, can help to reduce the likelihood of workplace violence by addressing and resolving conflicts before they escalate (Jex & Gudanowski, 1992). A positive communication climate can also promote positive employee attitudes, behaviors and outcomes, such as job satisfaction, commitment, and trust, and a reduction of stress, burnout and turnover.

On the other hand, a negative communication climate, characterized by closed communication, lack of trust, disrespect and lack of support, can exacerbate conflicts and increase the likelihood of workplace violence (Lee, 2015). Research has supported the theory, showing that a positive communication climate can mitigate the negative effects of interpersonal conflict on workplace violence, and that a negative communication climate can exacerbate it (Burgess & Burgess, 2017; Ferris, et al. 2016; Jex & Gudanowski, 1992; Lee, 2015). These studies have also found that communication climate can have a significant impact on employee outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, and trust, and a reduction of stress, burnout and turnover (Lee, 2015).

Literature Review

Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal conflict is a common occurrence in social interactions and relationships. It arises when individuals have incompatible goals, beliefs, values, or needs. The literature on interpersonal conflict can be divided into several categories, including the causes, forms, and resolution of conflict. One of the main causes of interpersonal conflict is communication breakdown. When individuals fail to effectively communicate their needs, desires, and concerns, misunderstandings can arise, leading to conflict. Additionally, a lack of trust and mutual respect can also contribute to the emergence of conflict.

Interpersonal conflict can take many forms, including verbal, nonverbal, and physical aggression. Verbal aggression is the use of words to attack or harm another person, while nonverbal aggression is the use of nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions or gestures, to convey hostility. Physical aggression involves the use of physical force to harm another person.

Effective conflict resolution is essential for maintaining healthy relationships . One of the most effective ways to resolve conflict is through active listening and effective communication. This involves expressing one's own needs and concerns while also listening to and understanding the other person's perspective. Additionally, negotiation and compromise can also be effective in resolving conflict (Mayer, 2004).

Research has shown that when there is a high level of interpersonal conflict in the workplace, it can lead to negative outcomes such as increased employee turnover, absenteeism, and dissatisfaction with their job, as well as decreased team. Additionally, when there is a high level of interpersonal conflict, employees may be more reactive to stressors in the workplace. It is widely acknowledged that interpersonal conflict in the workplace is a significant source of stress and strain for employees, with detrimental effects on their overall health and well-being (Spector & Bruk-Lee, 2007).

Workplace Aggression

Workplace aggression is a prevalent issue that has been widely studied in the literature. It is defined as intentional behavior that is directed towards the harm or injury of others in the workplace. Workplace aggression can take many forms, including verbal, nonverbal, and physical aggression.

One of the main causes of workplace aggression is poor communication and lack of trust. When individuals fail to effectively communicate their needs, desires, and concerns, misunderstandings can arise, leading to aggressive behavior. Additionally, a lack of trust and mutual respect can also contribute to the emergence of aggression.

Workplace aggression can have negative effects on both the individual targets and the organization as a whole (Spector & Bruk-Lee, 2007). For individuals, it can lead to increased stress, decreased job satisfaction, and physical and mental health problems. For organizations, it can lead to decreased productivity, increased absenteeism and turnover, and damage to the organization's reputation (Sieber & Vos, 2018).

Effective strategies for preventing and managing workplace aggression include creating a positive work culture, promoting effective communication and trust, and providing training and education on aggression. Additionally, organizations can implement policies and procedures for addressing aggression, such as providing a safe and confidential way for employees to report aggressive behavior (Sieber & Vos, 2018).

Organizational Communication

Organizational communication is a critical aspect of organizational functioning and performance, and it has been widely studied in the literature. Organizational communication refers to the process of exchanging information, ideas, and messages between individuals and groups within and between organizations (Cheney & Christensen, 1984). It includes both formal and informal communication channels and can take place at various levels within an organization, such as intra-group, inter-group, and external communication.

Effective organizational communication is essential for achieving organizational goals and objectives (Maldonado, 2017). Effective communication can lead to increased productivity, job satisfaction, and employee engagement (Morsy & Tariq, 2018). Additionally, effective communication can lead to improved decision-making, problem-solving, and conflict resolution.

However, communication can also be a source of conflict and misunderstandings within organizations. Poor communication can lead to decreased productivity, job dissatisfaction, and high turnover (Morsy & Tariq, 2018). Additionally, poor communication can lead to a lack of trust and mutual respect, which can contribute to the emergence of conflict.

Effective strategies for improving organizational communication include promoting open and transparent communication, encouraging active listening and effective feedback, and providing training and education on communication skills. Additionally, organizations can implement communication technologies such as intranet, email and instant messaging, and social media platforms to improve the flow of information and communication within the organization (Maldonado, 2017).

In conclusion, Organizational communication plays a critical role in organizational functioning and performance. Effective communication can lead to increased productivity, job satisfaction, and employee engagement. However, poor communication can lead to conflict and misunderstandings within organizations. Strategies for improving organizational communication include promoting open and transparent communication, encouraging active listening and effective feedback, providing training and education on communication skills, and the implementation of communication technologies Figure 1.

Hypotheses Development

The Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and Workplace Aggression

The literature suggests that there is a correlation between employees engaging in actions that negatively impact organizational productivity and the escalation of workplace conflict (Kisamore et al., 2010). Many researchers have pointed out that conflict can escalate to aggression. However, the current research on workplace aggression mainly focuses on the negative consequences of workplace hostility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999) and does not adequately address the connection between workplace conduct and conflict resolution methods. Despite the clear parallels between inappropriate workplace behavior and dispute resolution techniques, there has been a lack of research that integrates these two areas of study.

Based on the literature reviewed, it is hypothesized that the experience of interpersonal conflict in the workplace is a significant predictor of workplace aggression. Individuals who experience high levels of interpersonal conflict in the workplace are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior towards their colleagues and may be more reactive to stressors in the workplace. This relationship may be explained by the negative emotions and stress that can result from interpersonal conflict, which may lead to aggressive behavior as a coping mechanism. Hence, we predict:

H₁: There is a positive relationship between employees' interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression.

Organisation Communication and Workplace Aggression

A positive communication climate, characterized by openness and trust, has been linked to lower levels of workplace aggression (Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992). In contrast, poor communication practices, such as lack of feedback or inconsistent communication, can lead to increased aggression among employees. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that organizations with high levels of positive communication will have lower levels of workplace aggression, and vice versa."

Positive organizational communication, which includes effective and open communication, mutual trust, and respect among employees, is essential for creating a positive and healthy work environment. On the other hand, workplace aggression, which includes behaviors such as bullying, incivility, and social undermining, can have detrimental effects on the well-being of employees and the overall functioning of the organization.

One study by Hershcovis (2011) found that effective communication within an organization can lead to a reduction in aggressive behavior among employees. The study suggests that organizations that promote open and honest communication among employees are more likely to have a positive work environment and less likely to experience workplace aggression.

Furthermore, a positive communication climate, characterized by openness and trust, has been linked to lower levels of workplace aggression (Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992). These studies suggest that organizations with a positive communication climate are more likely to have a culture of mutual respect and understanding, which can reduce the likelihood of aggressive behavior among employees.

These studies suggest that organizations with a poor communication climate are more likely to have a culture of mistrust and aggression, which can increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior among employees. We propose that:

H₂: There is a negative relationship between positive organizational communication and workplace aggression.

The Moderating Role of Organisational Communication

Organizational communication is an important and unavoidable aspect of any workplace. Its role in moderating the relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression is significant. Research has shown that effective communication within organizations can reduce workplace aggression and increase employee satisfaction (Segal, 2016). Effective communication also encourages healthy relationships between employees and supervisors. It can reduce the risk of conflict escalation and improve workplace dynamics. Communication strategies such as the use of inclusive language, active listening, and clear guidelines can help to reduce interpersonal conflict (Lim & Duran, 2017). From these studies, it is clear that organizational communication plays an important role in moderating the relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression

Organizational communication plays a crucial role in shaping the relationship between various workplace factors and outcomes. In particular, it has been shown to moderate the relationship between various stressors and employee well-being (Choi & Lee, 2013, p. 45). For example, when employees perceive high levels of positive communication within their organization, they may be better able to cope with the demands of their job, leading to lower levels of burnout and higher job satisfaction (Choi & Lee, 2013). Additionally, the level of communication within an organization has been shown to moderate the relationship between job demands and employee turnover intent (Wang et al., 2016). Hence we predict that:

H₃: Positive Organizational Communication negatively moderates the relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression.

Methods

Sampling

In order to test a theory, data was collected from personnel in the Indian Tourism industry. The Indian tourism industry is known for its diversity and rich culture, and this can lead to unique challenges in terms of managing interpersonal relationships and communication within the workplace. The study aimed to understand the perceptions and experiences of employees in the industry regarding these issues. The data was collected in two waves, with a six-week gap between them, to reduce recall bias and concerns about causality. Participants were assured that their anonymity would be protected, no personal information would be shared, and that they could withdraw from the study at any time. They were also told that there were no right or wrong answers and that their responses should reflect their genuine thoughts. 670 employees were given questionnaires and 250 complete data sets were saved for analysis, which corresponds to a 37% response rate.. a large producer of steel, and the industry is known for having a difficult working.

For the first survey, data was collected on employees' perceptions of Interpersonal Conflict (IC) and Organizational Communication (OC). The second survey, on the other hand, focused on Workplace Aggression (WA) in order to address any concerns about bias in the research method. In total, 390 surveys were returned in the first round and 280 in the second out of the 670 distributed. Additionally, 420 surveys were not included in the analysis due to incomplete information and missing data. Finally, 250 questionnaires were used for the data collection.

Respondents’ Summary

In this research, we employed descriptive statistics to analyze the data. The majority of the respondents were male, comprising around 75% of the participants, while 25% were female. The proportion of participants who had been with the organization for over a decade was 20%, those with tenure between 5-10 years was 30%, and those with less than 5 years of tenure made up 50%. In terms of their positions in the organization, 15% were senior managers, 25% were middle-level managers, and 60% were at the junior level. The education levels of the participants were: post-graduates (15%), graduates (30%), and undergraduates (55%).

Scale of Measurement

The items for the three focal constructs came from previous research and used Likert scales, ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree"

Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale

Spector and Jex (1998) created a scale to assess the frequency of hostile encounters in the workplace, called the interpersonal conflict at work scale (ICAWS). The scale consisted of four questions, and participants were asked to rate their experiences on a scale from one to five, where one represented less than once per month and five represented many times each day. The four items used in the scale were: (1) "How often do other people yell at you at work," (2) "How often do you get into arguments with others at work," (3) "How often are people rude to you at work," and (4) "How often do people do nasty things to you at work." The scale aims to measure the extent to which an individual is subjected to negative interactions in the workplace.

Workplace Aggression Scale

This study utilises a well-established scale to measure workplace aggression is the Workplace Aggression Scale (WAS) developed by Schat, Kelloway, and Fridhandler (2010). The WAS is a self-report measure that assesses the frequency and severity of aggressive behavior in the workplace. It includes 15 items that assess three different types of aggression: verbal aggression, physical aggression, and passive aggression.

Organisation Communication Scale

The Communication Climate Measure (CCM) developed by Scott, et al. (2003) is a 12-item self-report scale that assesses the communication climate within an organization based on three dimensions: openness, mutual trust, and respect. The scale is designed to be completed by employees and can be used to compare communication climates across different departments or teams within an organization. The scale is based on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represents "strongly disagree" and 5 represents "strongly agree".

Analysis and Results

The study aimed to investigate the role of positive Organizational Communication as a moderating factor in the relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression. To do this, the researchers first adjusted the variables by mean-centering them, as suggested by Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003). They then used a method called PROCESS macro, outlined by Hayes (2013), to examine all the connections in the moderated model. A multiple regression model was used to determine if there is a positive correlation between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression and if the third independent variable has an effect on this relationship.

Table 1 shows that the internal consistency reliability of all three scales and their sub-scales is deemed satisfactory, as indicated by the reliability coefficients. The reliability coefficient for the interpersonal conflict scale was particularly high at 0.91, while the coefficients for the workplace aggression scale and positive Organizational Communication Scale were 0.83 and 0.89 respectively. These results demonstrate a high level of overall internal consistency among all three scales.

Table 1 Internal Consistency Reliability
	Mean	SD	α	AVE
Interpersonal Conflict (IC)	3.9	0.59	0.91	0.67
Workplace Aggression (WA)	2.9	0.54	0.83	0.63
Organizational Communication (OC)	3.9	0.42	0.89	0.71
Gender	1.6	0.47	-	-

**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05, DV (Fornell-Lacker)

Notes: Reliabilities (coefficient alpha) in parentheses on diagonal. n = 250 (employee) Employee gender (1 = male, 2 = female).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is a measure of how well different measurements correspond to different concepts. The concept is that if two or more concepts are different, then they are considered distinct, and this will result in no multicollinearity, and the discriminant validity is established. This is the idea behind discriminant validity, as described by Bagozzi et al. (1991).

Fornell and Lacker Criterion

Discriminant validity is established when the square root of the AVE (average variance extracted) for a particular concept is greater than its correlation with all other constructs, as per the criterion set by Fornell and Larcker (1981). In this study, it was found that the square root of AVE (IC=0.81, WA=0.74, OC=0.87) is stronger than its correlation with other constructs (Table 2), thus providing strong evidence for the establishment of discriminant validity.

Table 2 Discriminant Validity And Corelations
	1	2	3	4
Interpersonal Conflict (IC)	0.81
Workplace Aggression (WA)	0.59**	0.74
Organizational Communication (OC)	-0.52*	-0.77**	0.87
Gender	0.32	0.63*	-0.083	-

Common Method Bias

This study relies on self-reported data, which may introduce a potential issue of common method bias. To address this, a Harman Single Factor test was conducted, and it was found that the highest amount of variance explained by a single factor was 31%, which is less than 50% as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). Therefore, it can be concluded that common method bias is not a significant issue in this study Tables 3 & 4.

Table 3 Model Summary
R	R-Sq	MSE	F	df1	df2	p
0.631	0.61	0.1532	5.5451	3	246	0.0006

R, R-value; R²,p, significance, R-squared value; MSE, degrees of freedom 1; df 2, degrees of freedom 2;Mean Square Error; F, F-value; df1.

Table 4 Regression Results For The Conditional Moderating Effect Of Organizational Communication (Oc) On The Relationship Between Interpersonal Conflict (Ic) And Workplace Aggression (WA)
Predictor	ß	SE	t	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Constant	2.131	0.0262	93.4336	2.1309	2.2112
Interpersonal Conflict (IC)	0.556**	0.0577	1.1667	-0.0989	0.1131
Organizational Communication (OC)	-0.364***	0.0561	3.3643	0.1162	0.3721
Interpersonal Conflict * Organizational Communication (IC*OC)	-0.175*	0.2249	3.3103	0.1233	0.5581

Notes: n = 250 pairs.LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5000.

Table 5 Test(S) Of Highest Order Unconditional Interaction(S)
Interaction Term	R2-chng	F	df1	df2	p
IC*OC	0.58	10.45	1	246	0.0009

R², R-squared value; R, R-value; MSE,degrees of freedom 1; df 2, degrees of freedom 2; p, significance Mean Square Error; F, F-value; df1.

The results presented in Table 5 indicate that a greater level of interpersonal conflict (as indicated by β = 0.556, SE = 0.0577, t= 1.1667, p < 0.01**) supports Hypothesis 1, and results in an increase in workplace aggression. The results also indicate that there is a positive association between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression. On the other hand, positive Organizational Communication is negatively associated with workplace aggression (β = -0.364, SE = 0.0561, t= 3.3643, p < 0.001***) which supports Hypothesis 2, meaning that an increase in positive Organizational Communication results in a decrease in workplace aggression. Furthermore, the results suggest that positive Organizational Communication has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression (β = -0.175, SE =.2249, t= 3.3103, p < 0.05*). The significant correlation between the two variables supports this conclusion. This supports Hypothesis 3, which states that positive Organizational Communication acts as a negative moderator of the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression (as shown in Figures 2 and 3). This effect weakens the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression. The results imply that when there is a positive Organizational Communication, it reduces the likelihood of workplace aggression, particularly in cases of interpersonal conflict. The model summary shows that the total variance explained in workplace aggression is approximately 51% (R² = .61, F (3, 246) = 5.6561, p= 0.006, p< .05), and when including the higher-order unconditional interaction (Table 5) the variance explained is 58%.

***p 0.001; **p <0.01; *p<0.05

Discussion

The study presents a three-factor model that is found to provide a satisfactory fit to the available data. The internal consistency reliability of all three scales and their sub-scales is deemed satisfactory, as indicated by the reliability coefficients. Additionally, the results of the Fornell and Lacker test (IC=0.79, WA=0.77, OC=0.81) show that it is stronger than its correlation with other constructs, providing strong evidence for establishing discriminant validity.

The study aims to examine the moderating role of positive organizational communication in the relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression. The results show that there is a positive correlation between interpersonal conflict (IC) and workplace aggression (WA) which is consistent with the findings of previous research such as Hershcovis et al. (2012) and Aquino et al (2006) which suggest that targets of aggression are more likely to react against the perpetrator when the perpetrator has a high amount of formal or social authority, as long as both the perpetrator and the target had low levels of task dependency. Also this study found that, positive Organizational Communication (OC) is negatively related to workplace aggression (WA) and will reduce such incidences. The study provides ample evidence that supports the fact that positive organizational climate can reduce workplace aggression, which is consistent with the findings of previous researchers (Bowen et al., 2011; Lipi?ska-Grobelny, 2021; Spector et al., 2007)

Source: Calculated from Statistical Package by James Gaskin.

Figure 3 illustrates the results of a simple slope analysis that was conducted to gain a better understanding of the characteristics of the moderating effects. The slope of the line representing organizational communication is steeper than that of the other variables, indicating that the impact of interpersonal conflict on workplace aggression is more pronounced at lower levels of organizational communication than at higher levels. Additionally, it is clear that organizational communication has a dampening effect on the positive correlation between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression. As can be seen in Figure 3, the connection between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression decreases as the organizational communication improves.

Implications

Theoretical Implications

Creating and maintaining a positive environment within an organization can help prevent aggressive behavior. This study aims to examine the moderating effect of positive Organizational Communication (OC) on the relationship between interpersonal conflict (IC) and workplace aggression (WA). The tools used in this study allowed the researcher to identify whether there was a moderating effect of positive Organizational Communication on this relationship, as opposed to previous studies (Bowen et. al, 2011) which only focused on the direct relationship between the variables. The results of this study revealed a negative moderating effect, indicating that positive Organizational Communication not only relates to workplace aggression but also has a negative impact on the relationship between IC and WA.

This study aims to fill the gap in understanding the relationship between interpersonal conflict experiences and workplace aggression by examining the moderating role of positive Organizational Communication. A culture of tolerance can discourage victims from reporting their complaints and give aggressors the confidence to continue their aggressive behavior. The results of the study support the idea that positive Organizational Communication can weaken the positive relationship between interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression. This is evident from the analysis that good or positive Organizational Communication is weakening the positive relationship of interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression.

This study argues that when an employee perceives fair treatment and satisfaction with managing conflicts, it will not escalate to aggression. This can be connected to organizational communication in the sense that positive organizational communication can help create a culture of fairness and support in the workplace. This includes clear and effective communication of policies and procedures for managing conflicts, as well as providing employees with the necessary resources and support to effectively navigate and resolve conflicts. Additionally, positive organizational communication can also include providing opportunities for employees to give feedback, and for management to actively listen to and address employee concerns. By fostering a culture of fairness and support through positive organizational communication, employees are more likely to perceive fair treatment and satisfaction in managing conflicts, which in turn, can prevent escalation of aggression.

Practical Implications

It would appear that such an atmosphere is a resource that an organisation may use to prevent, halt, or neutralise the escalation and advancement of conflict to aggressive behaviour. To be more specific, working in an organisation with a strong communication climate has the opposite effect and prevents the escalation of conflict to aggressive behaviour, while working in a poor organisational communication climate seems to increase the risk of increased exposure to aggression over time. Positive and supportive organizational communication climate can be a resource that an organization can use to prevent, halt, or neutralize the escalation of conflict to aggressive behavior. Positive organizational communication can contribute to creating such a climate by promoting open and transparent communication, fostering a culture of respect and trust, and providing clear policies and procedures for managing conflicts. Additionally, organizations can use communication strategies such as creating a zero-tolerance policy for aggression, raising awareness among employees and managers about different forms of aggression, and establishing rules and regulations to deal with negative work behaviors. These actions can help create an organizational communication climate that reduces the risk of escalation of conflicts to aggressive behavior.

This work clearly illustrates the impact of Organizational Communication on behavioral outcomes. To create a culture of fairness and honesty, as established by leaders, organizations should focus on building trust and respect for employees, maintaining their dignity, and protecting their rights. This includes communicating policies on aggression, recording incidents, encouraging reporting, consistently punishing unacceptable behavior, and promoting transparent communication. Providing timely feedback, promoting work-life balance, using organizational socialization and mentorship techniques, providing training and development opportunities, following open-door policies, offering flexible benefits and employee assistance programs, and offering support during difficult times can help create a climate in which employees feel safe, secure, and respected. This will also strengthen their trust in management and the organization, preventing them from taking matters into their own hands.

Limitation and Future Scope of study

It is important to note that this study has several limitations that must be acknowledged. One limitation is the use of self-reported data which may be subject to bias. Data collected from a single source using a single method can be influenced by factors such as social desirability, the "halo effect," recall accuracy and standard method variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). This can compromise the internal validity of the data. It is difficult to eliminate all biases when using self-reported data.

Moreover, the experience of expressing or being challenged by aggression is partly a subjective evaluation of the social environment. However, by using items that describe observable behaviors, this study reduces these biases to some extent. Additionally, the use of longitudinal data helps mitigate some of these effects. However, this study does not examine the idea that exposure to aggression influences a person's view of the organization's atmosphere, influencing their responses to the survey. Future research could include Pre-Post or test-group investigations to study these consequences in greater depth. Organizational Communication comprises several components; each of which has a unique impact on an individual and whose practical ramifications may be investigated separately. For example, communication has been identified as an essential component in preventing workplace violence (Jakobsson et al., 2021). Therefore, its position as a moderating factor for aggression can also be investigated.

Conclusion

The current research has examined the correlation between conflict and aggression, and found that there is a direct relationship between the two. Additionally, the results of the study showed that the positive organizational communication can have an impact on the relationship between conflict and aggression. These findings are important because they encourage organizations to evaluate the factors that lead to aggression in the workplace and make changes to the organization communication climate in order to prevent aggression from occurring.

References

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 18(2), 117–127.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression: Correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D. L., Hwang, Y., & Brymer, R. (2016). Workplace violence and organizational communication: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(2), 147–182.

Cross Ref

Ferris, G. R., Hwang, J., & Brymer, R. (2016). Power, politics, and communication climate in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 312–336.

Cross Ref

Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Cross Ref

Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). Incivility, social undermining, bullying...oh my!: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(3), 309.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, J. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2011). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 685–712.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Jex, S. M., & Gudanowski, D. M. (1992). Effects of communication climate and individual differences on workplace aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 956–964.

Maldonado, R. (2017). Organizational communication: The role of communication in organizational decision making. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(4), 483–512.

Cross Ref

Morsy, S. A., & Tariq, S. (2018). Organizational communication and its impact on organizational performance. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(4), 514–539.

Na-Nan, K., Chaiprasit, K., & Pukkeeree, P. (2018). Factor analysis-validated comprehensive employee job performance scale. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(10), 2436–2449.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

Schat, A., Kelloway, E. K., & Fridhandler, L. (2010). The Workplace Aggression Scale: Development, construct validation, and assessment of criterion-related validity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(2), 161–172.

Cross Ref

Scott, K. D., & Waddell, D. (2003). Communication climate in organizations: measurement and assessment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31(4), 365–385.

Cross Ref

Segal, J. (2016). The impact of communication on workplace aggression. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(1), 3–30.

Cross Ref

Sieber, S. D., & Vos, J. (2018). Preventing workplace aggression. Routledge.

Cross Ref

Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Spector, P. E., & Bruk-Lee, V. (2007a). Conflict, health, and well-being. In The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management in Organizations (1st ed., pp. 283–304). Psychology Press.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Spector, P. E., & Bruk-Lee, V. (2007b). Workplace aggression: A new frontier. Routledge.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms scale. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 356–367.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 01-Jun-2023, Manuscript No. AMSJ-23-13667; Editor assigned: 03-Jun-2023, PreQC No. AMSJ-23-13667(PQ); Reviewed: 10-Jun-2023, QC No. AMSJ-23-13667; Revised: 17-Jun-2023, Manuscript No. AMSJ-23-13667(R); Published: 05-Oct-2023