20 Years of workplace bullying research: A review of the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace

Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 581–589

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

20 Years of workplace bullying research: A review of the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace Al-Karim Samnani ⁎, Parbudyal Singh School of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 29 January 2012 Received in revised form 27 July 2012 Accepted 15 August 2012 Available online 23 August 2012 Keywords: Workplace bullying Bullying review Bullying antecedents Bullying consequences Mobbing Workplace aggression

a b s t r a c t Research on workplace bullying, which has just recently passed the 20 year mark, has grown significantly over this duration of time. We provide an extensive review of the extant literature, with a focus on the antecedents and consequences of workplace bullying. We organize our review of the extant literature by level of analysis, which allows us to understand workplace bullying from each major level of analysis, while simultaneously identifying those levels at which research has been sparse. We then develop a conceptual model based on our review that similarly depicts theoretical and/or empirical findings from the extant literature, but in a succinct manner. Based on our review and conceptual model, we identify and highlight a number of key avenues for future research that will help extend the current workplace bullying literature. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. 2.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workplace bullying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Definition and features . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Workplace bullying: antecedents and consequences . . . 3.1. Individual-level antecedents and consequences . . 3.1.1. The target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. The perpetrator . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Group-level antecedents and consequences . . . . 3.2.1. Group-level antecedents . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Group-level consequences . . . . . . . 3.3. Organizational-level antecedents and consequences 3.3.1. Organizational-level antecedents . . . . 3.3.2. Organizational-level consequences . . . 3.4. Societal-level antecedents and consequences . . . 3.4.1. National culture . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2. Societal-level consequences . . . . . . . 4. Workplace bullying — a conceptual model . . . . . . . . 5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Avenues for future research . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Research contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Human Resource Management, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M3J 1P3. Tel.: +1 416 736 2100x22933. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.-K. Samnani). 1359-1789/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.08.004

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

582 582 582 583 583 583 583 584 584 584 584 584 586 586 586 586 586 587 587 587 588 588

582

A.-K. Samnani, P. Singh / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 581–589

1. Introduction Over the past two decades, workplace bullying has emerged as an important area of research in management studies. While some researchers have suggested that even a 10% prevalence of workplace bullying warrants strong attention (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011), some studies have revealed that nearly 95% of employees have had some exposure to general bullying behaviors in the workplace over a 5‐year period (Fox & Stallworth, 2005). Moreover, forms of workplace incivility, such as bullying, entail significant consequences at multiple levels including the individual-, group-, and organizational-levels (Cortina, 2008). With over 20 years of research since the first study specifically investigating workplace bullying (Leymann, 1990), the workplace bullying literature has grown significantly and is sufficiently mature to warrant a comprehensive review of extant literature. Researchers have investigated three important factors: prevalence, antecedents, and outcomes. Prevalence rates have varied internationally. In the U.S., researchers have reported a prevalence rate of nearly 50% (Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007), while in Europe researchers have typically reported prevalence rates ranging from 5 to 10% (Einarsen et al., 2011). Nevertheless, researchers have identified workplace bullying as a phenomenon that has global prevalence and is an important issue for managers to consider across the world (Einarsen et al., 2011; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Furthermore, researchers focusing on antecedents of bullying have predominantly explored dispositional variables such as personality (Coyne, Chong, Seigne, & Randall, 2003; Coyne, Seigne, & Randall, 2000; Glaso, Matthiesen, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2007; Persson et al., 2009) and demographic variables such as age, gender, and ethnicity (Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Lewis & Gunn, 2007). At other levels, researchers have also investigated the influence of team autonomy (Arthur, 2011), leadership (Hoel, Glaso, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2010), ethical climate (Bulutlar & Unler Oz, 2009), and national culture (Loh, Restubog, & Zagenczyk, 2010). In order to organize our review of the literature, we focus on extant theoretical and empirical work according to the level of analysis. Within each level of analysis, we discuss key constructs that have been related to workplace bullying. More specifically, we discuss both the antecedents and consequences associated with bullying at each level. A review of this depth has not been published in a single article specifically focusing on workplace bullying. We believe that this paper can both serve as a comprehensive review of extant literature and stimulate future research based on the gaps identified. In this paper, we present a levels-based review of the extant workplace bullying literature including the individual, group, organizational, and societal levels. We primarily focus on the antecedents and consequences of bullying at these levels. Second, we present a conceptual model that is developed to reflect our levels-based review. Third, we identify and discuss areas for future research that would build on and extend the workplace bullying literature. Fourth, we conclude with a discussion of the contributions of our paper. 2. Workplace bullying 2.1. Definition and features While some studies solely rely on targets indicating whether they have experienced bullying or not, without using or providing a definition (e.g., Liefooghe & Davey, 2001), other researchers (e.g., Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Zapf & Einarsen, 2011) commonly use the following definition of workplace bullying:

Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone's work tasks. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to be applied to a particular

activity, interaction or process it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g. weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six months). Bullying is an escalated process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003, p. 15). Through this definition, four broad features have been extracted to define workplace bullying. These features include frequency, persistency, hostility, and power imbalance (Einarsen et al., 2011; Monks et al., 2009). Frequency refers to the number of times per week that the negative behaviors are exhibited. Researchers vary on whether the minimum number of acts must be one or two per week (Einarsen et al., 2011). Persistency refers to the duration of time for which the negative behaviors are experienced. As with frequency, researchers vary on whether the minimum duration of exposure to negative acts must be six or twelve months (Einarsen et al., 2011). Hostility refers to the underlying negativity of the behaviors. Finally, power imbalance refers to the disparity in perceived power between the target and the perpetrator. This power can take a number of forms (e.g., physical, social–peer groups); thus, is not solely limited to hierarchical power (Cowie, Naylor, Rivers, Smith, & Pereira, 2002). The first study of workplace bullying was published just over 20 years ago in 1990 by Heinz Leymann. In this study, Leymann (1990) found that the bullying behaviors that he had researched in the playground were similarly apparent in the workplace. Einarsen, Raknes, and Matthiesen (1994) subsequently investigated workplace bullying in Norway and found that bullying was indeed a prevalent phenomenon in organizations. The common scales that are now used to measure workplace bullying (e.g., NAQ — Einarsen et al., 1994; WB-C — Fox & Stallworth, 2005) contain a number of items listing negative behaviors that an employee may experience at work. These behaviors range from subtle acts such as gossip, personal jokes, withholding critical information, and ostracism (i.e., giving the silent treatment) to overt acts, such as insults, being told to quit one's job, and violence. The behaviors also range from work-related acts such as excessive workloads, criticism of work, and excessive monitoring of work to person-related forms such as belittling, personal jokes, and aggression. When a respondent indicates that he/ she has experienced one or more of these behaviors on a frequent and persistent basis, researchers can conclude that he/she is a target of bullying (Baillien, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2011; Bulutlar & Unler Oz, 2009; Fox & Stallworth, 2010). We focus specifically on the antecedents and consequences of workplace bullying because we believe that workplace bullying is distinct from other victimization-based constructs in a meaningful way (Tepper & Henle, 2011). To illustrate, the definition of workplace bullying requires the negative acts to be frequent (once or twice a week) and persistent (duration of six to twelve months). These definitional requirements suggest that bullying is a regular and ongoing phenomenon that will tend to have greater psychological implications than one-off acts of violence or aggression (Fox & Stallworth, 2010). Moreover, while abusive supervision solely consists of downwards vertical mistreatment (Tepper, 2007), workplace bullying includes mistreatment that can occur: 1) from supervisor to subordinate, 2) from subordinate to supervisor, 3) between co-workers, and 4) from customers/clients to employee (Fox & Stallworth, 2005). Workplace bullying also ranges from subtle to overt acts, with subtle bullying behaviors being more common (Arthur, 2011; Fox & Stallworth, 2005). In contrast, violence and aggression are more often overt and easy to detect for others (Neuman & Baron, 1998). Therefore, we agree with Tepper and Henle's (2011) recent contention that forms of workplace mistreatment such as workplace bullying are sufficiently distinct and meaningful to be treated separately.

A.-K. Samnani, P. Singh / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 581–589

3. Workplace bullying: antecedents and consequences 3.1. Individual-level antecedents and consequences At the individual level, there are many attributes and qualities that have been associated with the presence of workplace bullying (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Hjelt-Back, 1994; Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999). Based on an extensive review of the extant workplace bullying literature, we identify factors that have been theoretically and/or empirically linked with workplace bullying. First, we focus on the antecedents and consequences associated with the target. Second, we discuss those associated with the perpetrator. 3.1.1. The target Researchers investigating target antecedents have tended to report mixed findings. One key construct for which researchers have found conflicting findings in relation to workplace bullying is personality. To illustrate, Persson et al. (2009) found that targets have higher levels of neuroticism and extraversion (particularly impulsiveness). Glaso et al. (2007) similarly found that targets have higher levels of neuroticism; however, reported that targets also have lower levels of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. From a theoretical perspective, these findings can be supported. To illustrate, employees with low levels of introversion, which suggests that they are passive and unlikely to retaliate to negative behaviors (Goldberg, 1990), will tend to be seen as vulnerable by potential perpetrators. Conversely, employees who are low in agreeableness may be bullied because of their unwillingness to agree at times with others. Finally, employees with low levels of conscientiousness may be viewed by others as less likely to notice or recognize that bullying is occurring, particularly the more subtle forms of bullying. This would tend to make targets with low conscientiousness vulnerable to bullying. Interestingly, Glaso et al. (2007) found two separate clusters of targets, which led them to question whether a general personality profile for targets exists. Furthermore, previous studies by Coyne and his colleagues (e.g., Coyne et al., 2000, 2003) reported conflicting results with respect to extraversion and conscientiousness. However, Coyne et al. (2003) did find that targets had lower levels of emotional stability in comparison to non-targets. Hence, while researchers have found conflicting results with many personality traits (e.g., extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness), there has nonetheless been a consistent finding that targets tend to have higher levels of neuroticism. An alternative explanation for the conflicting findings may be attributed to the different types of targets. For instance, Aquino and Lamertz (2004) and Zapf and Einarsen (2011) suggested that there are two target types: vulnerable and provocative. Thus, extraverts may more often fall under the provocative type while introverts may fall within the vulnerable type. Similarly, employees with low agreeableness may often fall within the provocative type while employees with high agreeableness may tend to fall within the vulnerable type. This explanation for the mixed findings has not been discussed in extant literature and we suggest that researchers should examine this hypothesis by testing for curvilinear relationships between certain personality types (extraverts and agreeableness) and bullying (being targeted). Similar to neuroticism, several researchers have found that targets often have higher levels of negative affect (Coyne et al., 2000, 2003; Glaso et al., 2007; Vartia, 1996). Negative affect can be described as a tendency to experience emotions that include anxiety, fear, sadness, and anger (Watson & Clark, 1984). Consistent with the typology of targets described in Aquino and Lamertz's (2004) study, employees who appear scared, sad, and anxious may tend to appear more vulnerable to potential perpetrators. Similarly, employees with low levels of self-esteem have also been found to be more likely targets (Einarsen et al., 1994; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001). To explain, employees with

583

low self-esteem may be perceived as vulnerable by potential perpetrators because of their lack of confidence, which may make them hesitant to retaliate. Nevertheless, the causal direction of the relationships between both negative affect and self-esteem with bullying have been questioned because of the potential for high negative affect and low self-esteem to develop and increase as bullying persists (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002). As for demographics, while some researchers have reported that females are more likely to be bullied than males (Lewis & Gunn, 2007; Salin, 2001, 2003), other researchers have reported little to no differences across gender (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Leymann, 1996). Researchers have found that in workplace bullying situations, males are typically only targeted by other males, while females tend to be bullied by both males and females, but more often by females (see Hoel et al., 1999). In relation to age, Einarsen and Skogstad (1996) found a higher likelihood of older employees being bullied than younger ones. However, as with gender, conflicting findings have been reported with respect to age (Vartia, 1996). Fox and Stallworth (2005) found that Hispanics/Latinos experienced significantly higher rates of bullying than Whites; however, they found no significant differences in the prevalence rates between Blacks, Asians, and Whites. Conversely, Lewis and Gunn (2007) conducted a study of workplace bullying in the public sector in the UK and examined whether ethnic minorities are bullied in the workplace at a higher rate than White respondents. Interestingly, they found significant differences between White respondents and ethnic respondents; ethnic minorities were almost four times more likely to experience workplace bullying than White respondents. Indeed, several of the findings that they reported were quite startling. They found that ethnic minorities were almost fourteen times more likely to be ignored while at work by their line manager, almost seven times more likely to face continued criticism of their work by colleagues of equal rank, and over nine times more likely to be told to quit their job by colleagues of equal rank than White respondents. While less research has focused on the outcomes of bullying as compared with its antecedents, researchers have nonetheless found a number of important findings. These can be categorized into physiological and psychological outcomes on the one hand, and work-related outcomes on the other. For the former, researchers have found that bullying has adverse effects on physical and mental health (Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, 2004), depression and stress (Bjorkqvist et al., 1994; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002), sleep problems and mood swings (Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007), and suicide (Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002). For work-related outcomes, researchers have found that bullying is associated with intent to leave (Djurkovic, McCormack, & Casimir, 2008), absenteeism (Hoel & Cooper, 2000), and job satisfaction (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). The research outlined above provides a well-rounded understanding of some of the antecedents and outcomes associated with workplace bullying from the target's perspective. However, significantly less research has explored antecedents associated with perpetrators. 3.1.2. The perpetrator The lack of workplace bullying research investigating the perpetrator represents a current challenge in the literature (Baillien et al., 2011). Moreover, the emphasis on target characteristics can appear at times to be blaming the target (Zapf & Einarsen, 2011). While we discuss a few studies that have investigated the perpetrator, we highlight that research on the perpetrator remains a work-in-progress and we call for future research on this critical aspect of the literature. Researchers have found that males are more likely to engage in bullying behaviors than females (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Rayner, 1997). Furthermore, employees with high strain jobs, which entail high workloads and low job autonomy, are more likely to engage in bullying behaviors (Baillien et al., 2011). This suggests that high stress may be a predictor of bullying behaviors (Hoel et al., 1999). Researchers have

584

A.-K. Samnani, P. Singh / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 581–589

also found that being a target is correlated with being a perpetrator (Baillien et al., 2011). This supports Aquino and Lamertz's (2004) assertion that provocative employees, through their own bullying behaviors, may provoke others to engage in similar behaviors towards them as a form of revenge. In a study examining job security and perceived employability, De Cuyper, Baillien, and De Witte (2009) found that job insecurity was associated with employees engaging in workplace bullying. Moreover, they found that employees who concurrently perceived themselves as employable at other organizations were also more likely to engage in bullying. While job insecurity suggests that stress may be a possible factor stimulating bullying behaviors, perceived employability may suggest that employees who believe they can more easily find a job elsewhere will likely take more risks in their current job. One form of taking risks is engaging in bullying behaviors. Beyond the individuallevel, workplace bullying has also been associated with antecedents and consequences at the group-level. 3.2. Group-level antecedents and consequences Similar to perpetrator-related factors, group-level factors have received limited attention in the workplace bullying literature (Einarsen et al., 2003; Heames & Harvey, 2006; Ramsay, Troth, & Branch, 2010; Salmivalli, 2010). However, we believe that groups will be significantly affected by bullying behaviors that occur. First, an employee who is subjected to bullying behaviors will have less job satisfaction and greater absenteeism (Hoel & Cooper, 2000), which may affect group performance (Ramsay et al., 2010). Second, employees within the group will be adversely affected because of their close exposure as witnesses of such behaviors (Einarsen et al., 1994; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Third, these bullying behaviors may create norms that perpetuate such behaviors within the group (Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). Based on our review of the limited studies on group-related factors associated with workplace bullying, we identify group norms, status inconsistency, and certain situational factors (e.g., task conflict) as antecedents of workplace bullying. We follow with a discussion of the potential consequences of workplace bullying on groups. 3.2.1. Group-level antecedents Groups, or employees within groups, who are indirectly impacted by workplace bullying may alter existing group norms as a result (Heames & Harvey, 2006). Indeed, researchers have found that employees are more aggressive when witnessing aggressive colleagues (Aquino & Douglas, 2003; Glomb & Liao, 2003). Moreover, employees who witness bullying behaviors tend to take sides between the target and the perpetrator, and more often take the perpetrator's side in fear of becoming the next target (D'Cruz & Noronha, 2011). This can be particularly destructive for group norms and cohesion (De Dreu, 2008) and may serve to encourage the perpetrator to continue exhibiting these behaviors (Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). In a particularly daunting scenario, bullying situations may cause employees, other than the perpetrator, to bully through mimicking the behaviors observed onto the target as well as onto other group members (Salin, 2003). As a result, this can establish group norms that are accepting of these behaviors (Heames & Harvey, 2006). Therefore, researchers have suggested that group norms that tolerate, or even indirectly encourage, bullying behaviors can stimulate bullying behaviors within the group. In a theory-driven analysis of group-level factors, Heames, Harvey, and Treadway (2006) introduced the concept of status inconsistency and theorized its role as an antecedent of intra-group-level workplace bullying. Status inconsistency represents a situation wherein an employee is different from other members of a group based on a certain characteristic (status) such as age, race, or gender (Heames et al., 2006; Lenski, 1954). Moreover, the potential for status inconsistency

to exist is particularly high in the context of globalization and the increasing diversity within organizations, and thus work groups. Interestingly, Heames et al. (2006) suggested that the employee experiencing the status inconsistency can become either a perpetrator or a target. For instance, researchers have found that the feeling of uncertainty resulting from status inconsistency can produce aggression in employees (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Mundell, 1993; Lenski, 1954). Consequently, this aggression may lead them to engage in bullying behaviors; hence, becoming a perpetrator (Heames et al., 2006). However, an employee experiencing status inconsistency may alternatively be targeted because other group members may perceive a greater power disparity between them and the employee, based on the difference in the relevant characteristic (status). Moreover, an earlier study by Vartia (1996) provides some support for this proposition. More specifically, Vartia (1996) found that 20% of targets felt that they were bullied because of being different from others. Therefore, status inconsistency represents an antecedent to intra-group-level bullying in the workplace. Similar to individual-level factors, situational factors may also help explain the presence of workplace bullying at the group-level. To illustrate, Ayoko (2007) found that high levels of task conflict predicted greater levels of bullying within groups. In addition, Ayoko (2007) also found that groups with low communication openness were more likely to have employees subjected to bullying behaviors from other group members. Furthermore, Arthur (2011) interestingly found that less team autonomy predicted lower levels of workplace bullying, while self-managed teams were associated with higher levels of bullying. To explain, Arthur (2011) suggested that self-managed teams are associated with increased pressures and stress associated with peer monitoring and task interdependence, which lead to more opportunities for bullying to represent an exertion of social power and status. Thus, these findings suggest that certain situational factors are more strongly related to workplace bullying at the grouplevel. 3.2.2. Group-level consequences Coyne, Craig, and Chong (2004) investigated the influence of workplace bullying in a team-related context. In this study, they found that employees who were identified as both targets and perpetrators simultaneously were more likely to be isolated within the team. Moreover, they found that perceptions about team success were lower in groups that had instances of bullying. As mentioned earlier, bullying in groups can also produce more bullying (Ramsay et al., 2010; Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). Overall, the length of this current section illustrates the limited research that has investigated group-level consequences. Thus, more research is needed to understand the range of consequences that are associated with workplace bullying at the group-level. We now turn to organizational-level antecedents and consequences of bullying. 3.3. Organizational-level antecedents and consequences There are a number of factors at the organizational level that have been theorized and/or empirically supported as antecedents of workplace bullying. Accordingly, we discuss four major antecedents of workplace bullying at the organizational level: 1) leadership and management style, 2) organizational culture and ethical climate, 3) organizational policies, and 4) situational factors. We follow this discussion of organizational-level antecedents with organizational-level outcomes. 3.3.1. Organizational-level antecedents First, leadership and management styles represent an organizationallevel antecedent of workplace bullying. Workplace bullying has often been linked with an abuse of power in the organization (Einarsen et al., 1994). Workplace bullying research suggests that the perceptions of

A.-K. Samnani, P. Singh / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 581–589

leadership in one's organization become particularly negative through the lens of the target (Aquino & Thau, 2009; Einarsen et al., 1994). Indeed, the target's dissatisfaction with organizational leadership has been widely reported in the literature (e.g., Ashforth, 1994; Einarsen et al., 1994; Vartia, 1996). Furthermore, while some researchers have identified the abuse of power from leaders (Einarsen et al., 1994), others have asserted that leadership can be too passive, which then stimulates bullying behaviors within the organization (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). To illustrate, research suggests that management tends to give up much of their leadership responsibility in situations characterized by high levels of conflict (Ashforth, 1994). Leadership described as weak and indistinct often leads to unresolved conflicts which, in turn, results in bullying (Strandmark & Hallberg, 2007). To illustrate, weak leadership is less likely to intervene when workplace bullying is occurring, which may typically result in an aggressor perceiving a lower risk of being caught and punished for bullying. As a result, this will make him/her more likely to engage in bullying behaviors (Salin, 2003). Therefore, leadership styles and the strategies they use to resolve conflicts represent a predictor of workplace bullying (Bulutlar & Unler Oz, 2009; Salin, 2003; Vartia, 1996). Targets tend to report an authoritarian management style in their organization (Vartia, 1996). Moreover, authoritarian management styles have also been reported as an antecedent to victimization in the abusive supervision literature (see Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007). In addition, autocratic (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Salin, 2003; Vartia, 1996) and laissez-faire leadership styles (Einarsen et al., 1994; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Leymann, 1996; Skogstad, Einarsen, et al., 2007) are also often associated with the presence of workplace bullying. Furthermore, authoritarian management styles, through creating fear (Hoel & Salin, 2003), may indirectly encourage supervisors to use bullying as a mechanism to display their authority. Second, organizational culture and ethical climate represents an organizational-level antecedent to workplace bullying. Lutgen-Sandvik et al. (2007, p. 857) called for research that investigates “organizational and cultural structures that enable, trigger, and reward bullying”; we concur with this call. Indeed, bullying can be stimulated by workgroups or organizations that normalize abusive, or even competitive, behavior (Coyne et al., 2003; Salin, 2003). We believe that it is important to acknowledge the role of organizational culture and its potential influence in stimulating workplace bullying. While our focus is on organizational culture, culture can also be associated with the industry that the organization falls under, as several studies have shown that certain industries such as healthcare (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001) and hospitality (Einarsen et al., 1994), due to their work cultures, have a higher prevalence of workplace bullying. Organizations characterized by strong power imbalances can create conditions conducive to workplace bullying and result in the institutionalization of such behaviors (Salin, 2003). Indeed, some organizations appear to permit, in some sense, workplace bullying “as the way things are done” (Salin, 2003, p. 1220). In a recent study, Bulutlar and Unler Oz (2009) investigated whether ethical climates stimulate bullying in organizations. Interestingly, their study found that organizations with instrumental ethical climates, which typically cause employees to act egoistically and in their own self-interests, are associated with increased bullying. Alternatively, they found that a caring ethical climate and a rules ethical climate predicted lower levels of workplace bullying in organizations. One interesting, but frightening perspective that has been taken on workplace bullying is that some organizations may perceive it as being an efficient way of inducing performance (Salin, 2003). To illustrate, striving for excellence, without consideration of costs, may help workplace bullying become accepted in an organization (Salin, 2003). Indeed, certain organizational cultures may even encourage toughness from its employees (Neuman & Baron, 1998; Salin, 2003), which may provoke bullying behaviors as a sign of this toughness.

585

Furthermore, several researchers have asserted that workplace bullying can become an accepted and even encouraged part of such organizational cultures (Bulutlar & Unler Oz, 2009; Cowie et al., 2002; Harvey, Treadway, Heames, & Duke, 2009). Therefore, workplace bullying may in fact be perceived positively by senior management in some organizations. From a critical perspective, Liefooghe and Davey (2001) argue that workplace bullying can be attributed to broader concepts of organizational power and control. They assert that managers do not have control over organizational practices that potentially cause bullying and, as a result, are left as “scapegoats.” In fact, they argue that these organizational practices and the system as a whole, reward managers for enforcing them; in other words, the managers' own performance is also measured according to successful enforcement (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001). Furthermore, they argue that “the routine subjugation of employees by organizational practices may in itself be seen to constitute bullying” (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001, p. 378). From this perspective, the aggressor is the organization itself and its culture. They found that certain organizational practices, for example using statistics for performance measures, call handling times, and policies pertaining to sick time, were described by participants as bullying. These output-based measures and policies create a culture that fosters and encourages bullying behaviors. Furthermore, the organizational culture of their sample was characterized as overly mechanistic, controlling, and dehumanized (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001). Social learning theory suggests that behavioral modeling and imitation of workplace bullying can help perpetuate it (Salin, 2003). This has significant implications for witnesses of bullying behaviors in the workplace, particularly when they observe that the behavior is reinforced or results in workplace advantages, either formal or informal. Indeed, social learning theory suggests that “individuals do not necessarily, in the first instance, need to experience this result for themselves but merely witness reinforcement occurring to others as a result of their aggressive behavior” (Randall, 2001, p. 36). Finally, the relationship between organizational culture and individual characteristics may be bi-directional. To illustrate, an organization's culture may influence an individual to be aggressive and engage in bullying, while on the other hand, an aggressive individual may influence an organizational culture to encourage workplace bullying (O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996). Therefore, while we acknowledge the bi-directional possibility of the relationship, we recognize that in both instances organizational culture plays the key role in fostering or stimulating the behavior. Indeed, bullying is found to be most prevalent in organizations where the behaviors are explicitly, or implicitly, supported or condoned by senior management (Einarsen, 1999; Hoel & Salin, 2003). Third, organizational policies represent an organizational-level antecedent to workplace bullying. Organizational policies establish clear statements regarding behaviors that are acceptable versus unacceptable in an organization (Richards & Daley, 2003). Indeed, the lack of a clear policy regarding an issue (e.g., workplace bullying) creates significant challenges for employees who would like to raise it against a perpetrator (Richards & Daley, 2003). Salin (2003) argues that organizations can prevent some level of power imbalances in the organization through their structure and policies, particularly those regarding discrimination against groups that face additional barriers in the workplace (e.g., minorities, females). Furthermore, Salin (2003) also argues that a lack of policies regarding bullying, which implies low monitoring and no punishments against perpetrators, can result in employees interpreting an organizational acceptance of the behavior. As mentioned earlier, Bulutlar and Unler Oz (2009) found that a work climate, which is a more explicit component of culture (Cullen, Victor, & Stephens, 1989), based on rules and policies, had significantly lower rates of bullying. To illustrate, a work climate based on rules and policies strongly differentiates between right and wrong behavior (Bulutlar & Unler Oz, 2009). Indeed, researchers have found that there

586

A.-K. Samnani, P. Singh / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 581–589

is a strong relationship between work climate and employee behavior (Wimbush, Shepard, & Markham, 1997). Therefore, while clear policies may prevent bullying behaviors to a degree, empirical evidence reveals that when these policies are embedded within the work climate of the organization, there is a significantly lower likelihood of workplace bullying. Fourth, certain situational factors can also represent organizationallevel antecedents to workplace bullying. Researchers have theorized and/or empirically found that organizational change/restructuring (Skogstad, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2007), work organization (Hoel & Salin, 2003), and reward structures (Salin, 2003) can predict workplace bullying. To illustrate, organizational change/restructuring can result in job insecurity, which De Cuyper et al. (2009) found to be associated with higher levels of workplace bullying. Forms of work organization, such as small, repetitive tasks, can create frustration, which researchers have also suggested to be related to workplace bullying (Einarsen et al., 2003; Hoel & Salin, 2003). Finally, reward structures that provide incentives for employees to compete with one another can stimulate bullying through behaviors that are intended to weaken competition (i.e., co-workers). In addition, Arthur (2011) found that HR systems that are characterized by internal labor markets predict less workplace bullying than external labor markets. Because internal labor markets are more strongly associated with long-term employment and internal promotion, Arthur (2011) suggested that less concern about job security amongst employees explains fewer instances of bullying. We now turn to organizational-level consequences of workplace bullying. 3.3.2. Organizational-level consequences There are no studies to our knowledge that have investigated the effects of workplace bullying on organizational-level outcomes. This suggests a need for such research. Nevertheless, Vega and Comer (2005) suggested that the cumulative effects of bullying at the organizational-level are likely to influence organizational performance and the firm's bottom-line. We anticipate similar organizational outcomes. Furthermore, researchers have found that workplace bullying has negative consequences for witnesses of bullying (e.g., Einarsen et al., 1994; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007), which suggests that consequences of bullying reach further than just the direct targets. In addition, we believe that bullying can affect organizational culture whereby such behaviors can permeate through multiple departments and divisions within the firm (Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998; Salin, 2003). In this way, certain aggressive employees, particularly if holding important positions within the organization, may influence aggressiveness within the organizational culture (O'Leary-Kelly et al., 1996). Beyond the organizational-level, researchers have suggested that workplace bullying can also be examined at the societal-level. 3.4. Societal-level antecedents and consequences 3.4.1. National culture National-level factors, such as culture, may also represent a predictor of workplace bullying (Harvey et al., 2009; Hoel et al., 1999; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). However, the relationship between culture and workplace bullying has received limited attention to date (Loh et al., 2010). Interestingly, culture may influence whether individuals in a country perceive workplace bullying as an acceptable versus unacceptable way of managing work tasks (Salin, 2003). For instance, toughness (Neuman & Baron, 1998) and large hierarchically-based power distances may be more acceptable in some cultures versus others (Loh et al., 2010). Moreover, Escartin, Zapf, Arrieta, and Rodriguez-Carballeira (2011) found that employees in Central America often viewed workplace bullying as a primarily physical and overt form of workplace mistreatment. In contrast, employees from Southern Europe were more likely than

employees from Central America to identify subtle forms of workplace mistreatment as bullying. Three broad dimensions (see Hofstede, 1980) have been mentioned in relation to workplace bullying: power distance; masculinity versus femininity; and individualism versus collectivism (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). The cultural dimension of power distance is particularly pertinent. As mentioned, one of the key features of workplace bullying is that there must be a perceived power disparity between the perpetrator and the target (Einarsen et al., 2003). Indeed, Loh et al. (2010) argue that employees from low power distance countries will respond more negatively to workplace bullying than employees from countries that score highly on power distance. Consequently, potential perpetrators in countries that have higher levels of power distance will often perceive a lower likelihood of being punished for exhibiting bullying behaviors and thus will be more likely to engage in bullying. Countries in Scandinavia (e.g., Norway; Sweden) tend to have lower levels of power distance and score comparatively higher on the dimension of femininity than countries such as the US and UK (Einarsen, 2000; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001; Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2003). A culture of femininity suggests that individuals tend to value interpersonal relationships to a greater degree (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Newman & Nollen, 1996), which implies that the abuse of these relationships (e.g., bullying) may be less tolerated (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001). A culture of individualism in the US implies competition, which may increase the likelihood of workplace bullying situations. To explain, employees will typically value their individual achievement over that of others (e.g. subordinates, colleagues), which may lead them to engage in bullying behaviors in order to weaken their competitors (e.g., co-workers) (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Indeed, Lutgen-Sandvik et al. (2007) found a similar prevalence rate of workplace bullying in a UK sample as in their US sample, both of which were notably higher than prevalence rates in Scandinavian countries. This suggests that national culture may be playing an important role, as the US and UK are relatively close in broad cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980).

3.4.2. Societal-level consequences Similar to our discussion of organizational-level consequences, few researchers have investigated the societal-level consequences of workplace bullying. Hoel, Sparks, and Cooper (2001) contend that workplace bullying can result in growing medical costs, premature retirement, and a greater need for social services and welfare. Furthermore, Vega and Comer (2005) suggested that workplace bullying may have an influence on unemployment levels, interpersonal relationships beyond the workplace, and legal costs associated with court cases. Future research on societal-level consequences would advance the literature in this respect.

4. Workplace bullying — a conceptual model Building on our review of the extant workplace bullying literature, we developed a conceptual model that depicts the antecedents and consequences discussed (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, we have designed and organized this model to reflect the levels-based analysis that we have undertaken. We believe that this model helps illustrate the areas of research that have received some attention, which can help researchers in the literature search and review stages, while also allowing researchers to infer the research gaps that currently exist at key levels. Moreover, conceptual models such as this help organize the extant literature in a way that presents key information in a succinct manner. We will now discuss avenues for future research and the contributions of our paper.

A.-K. Samnani, P. Singh / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 581–589

5. Discussion 5.1. Avenues for future research Our review illustrates that there are a number of avenues for future research on workplace bullying. At an individual-level, much of the research on personality factors remains inconclusive (Aquino & Thau, 2009). As we mentioned, one interesting hypothesis that researchers may test is whether there is a curvilinear relationship between certain personality factors (e.g., agreeableness, extraversion) and being a target of bullying. This would account for the different target types (vulnerable and provocative) reported in the literature (Zapf & Einarsen, 2011). Research on the perpetrator is relatively non-existent with only a few studies that serve as exceptions (e.g., Baillien et al., 2011; De Cuyper et al., 2009). This provides a host of research questions and opportunities to explore. For example, are certain personality factors and traits more strongly associated with being a perpetrator of bullying? Do perpetrators bully as a form of revenge towards the organization (e.g., in response to perceptions of fairness or justice)? Can biological factors predict individuals who become perpetrators? Do perpetrators use bullying as a tactic to increase targets' performance through the use of fear? Research at the group-level is also sparse (Ramsay et al., 2010). Conducting more theoretical and empirical research can provide a better understanding of how workplace bullying may be predicted at the group-level. For instance, research that investigates team composition, team interdependence, and team reward systems may provide fruitful avenues to investigate. Group-level consequences have also received scant attention. With studies revealing that witnesses also suffer as a result of workplace bullying (e.g., Einarsen et al., 1994; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007), the implications for groups may be devastating. While workplace bullying research of organizational-level antecedents has received relatively more attention than group and

Perpetrator Personality and Traits - Aggressive Demographics - Male

societal-level antecedents, organizational-level consequences have been comparatively unexplored. This is a particularly important line of research since a better understanding of the organizational-level consequences can increase the perceived importance of workplace bullying as an organizational phenomenon in the eyes of practitioners and organizational managers. While researchers have suggested potential implications for the firm's bottom-line, researchers should explore the precise outcomes. Finally, national culture can play an important role in explaining how employees may interpret and react to behaviors such as bullying. With an increasingly integrated global economy, researchers should consider the possible cross-cultural issues associated with bullying in organizations.

5.2. Research contributions Through our review of the literature, we make three distinct contributions to workplace bullying research. First, we gathered and organized, according to level of analysis, extant research on workplace bullying to provide a single paper that covers many of the key theoretical and empirical findings that have been made over the past 20 years in relation to its antecedents and consequences. This paper provides a source through which researchers can locate this voluminous research to gain an overview of workplace bullying over the past 20 years. Second, upon gathering, organizing, and presenting this review of the literature, we developed a conceptual model that reflects our levels analysis and provides a succinct, but holistic depiction of workplace bullying. This conceptual model can be used to identify areas that have been explored and infer those that have received little to no attention. Third, based on our review of the literature and conceptual model, we present avenues for future research, some of which we find to be particularly glaring (e.g., group-level antecedents, organizational-level consequences, societal-level antecedents and consequences).

Group Factors - Group norms

- Status inconsistency - Situational factors (e.g., team autonomy)

Workplace Bullying

Target Personality and Traits - Neuroticism - Introversion - Agreeableness - Conscientiousness - Negative affect - Low self-esteem Demographics - Female - Ethnic Minority

587

Organization Factors - Leadership and Management Style - Organizational Culture - Organizational Policies - Situational Factors (e.g., reward systems)

Broad Societal Factors - National Culture

Fig. 1. Workplace bullying — a conceptual model.

Consequences Individual - Psychological WellBeing - Physiological WellBeing - Suicide - Absenteeism - Intent to Leave - Job Satisfaction Group - Team Effectiveness - Team Norms Organizational - Organizational Performance - Organizational Culture Societal - Unemployment - Legal Costs - Interpersonal relationships

588

A.-K. Samnani, P. Singh / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 581–589

6. Conclusion Over the past 20 years, we have seen a significant rise of research on workplace bullying. Researchers have found that bullying in the workplace is not only highly prevalent in several countries around the world, but it also has significant personal (e.g., psychological and physiological) and work-related consequences for employees. This research has simultaneously resulted in investigations of the antecedents that stimulate bullying. While much progress has been made over the past 20 years, research remains sparse at certain key levels. We particularly encourage future research to investigate perpetrator-related antecedents of bullying as well as group, organizational, and societal outcomes associated with this phenomenon. Moreover, we believe that these antecedents and consequences will vary across different countries particularly due to cultural issues. Thus, we encourage researchers to consider the societal and cultural factors that may influence bullying experiences in the workplace. References Aquino, K., & Douglas, S. (2003). Revenge attitudes and hierarchical status as moderators of the relationship between identity threat and antisocial behavior in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 195–208. Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: Social roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1023–1034. Aquino, K., & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target's perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741. Arthur, J. B. (2011). Do HR system characteristics affect the frequency of interpersonal deviance in organizations? The role of team autonomy and internal labor market practices. Industrial Relations, 50, 30–56. Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201. Ashforth, B. E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47(7), 755–778. Ayoko, O. (2007). Communication openness, conflict events and reactions to conflict in culturally diverse workgroups. Cross-Cultural Management: An International Journal, 14, 105–124. Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Mundell, B. (1993). Status inconsistency in organizations: From social hierarchy to stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 21–36. Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job autonomy and workload as antecedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek's Job Demand Control Model for targets and perpetrators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 191–208. Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 173–183. Bulutlar, F., & Unler Oz, E. (2009). The effects of ethical climates on bullying behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 273–295. Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen justice: Incivility as modern discrimination in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33, 55–75. Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, K. P., & Pereira, B. (2002). Measuring workplace bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 7, 33–51. Coyne, I., Chong, P. S. L., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2003). Self and peer nominations of bullying: An analysis of incident rates, individual differences, and perceptions of the working environment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 209–228. Coyne, I., Craig, J., & Chong, P. S. L. (2004). Workplace bullying in a group context. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 301–317. Coyne, I., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2000). Predicting workplace victim status from personality. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9, 335–349. Cullen, J. B., Victor, B., & Stephens, C. (1989). An ethical weather report: Assessing the organization's ethical climate. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 50–62. D'Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). The limits to workplace friendship: Managerialist HRM and bystander behavior in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 33, 269–288. De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity and workplace bullying among targets and perpetrators: Moderation by employability. Work and Stress, 23, 206–224. De Dreu, C. K. W. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 5–18. Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2008). Workplace bullying and intention to leave: The moderating effect of perceived organizational support. Human Resource Management Journal, 18, 405–422. Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 10, 16–27. Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 5, 371–401. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The concept of bullying at work. In S. Einarsen (Ed.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3–30). London: Taylor and Francis.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen (Ed.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–40). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis. Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Work and Organizational Psychology, 4, 381–401. Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 185–201. Escartin, J., Zapf, D., Arrieta, C., & Rodriguez-Carballeira, A. (2011). Workers' perception of workplace bullying: A cross-cultural study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 178–205. Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the US workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 438–456. Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2010). The battered apple: An application of stressoremotion-control/support theory to teachers' experience of violence and bullying. Human Relations, 63, 927–954. Glaso, L., Matthiesen, S. B., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Do targets of workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 313–319. Glomb, T. M., & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 486–496. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. Harvey, M., Treadway, D., Heames, J. T., & Duke, A. (2009). Bullying in the 21st century global organization: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 27–40. Heames, J. T., & Harvey, M. (2006). Workplace bullying: A cross-level assessment. Management Decision, 44, 1214–1230. Heames, J. T., Harvey, M., & Treadway, D. (2006). Status inconsistency: An antecedent to bullying behaviors in groups. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 348–361. Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Manchester: University of Manchester Institute of Science and Psychology (UMIST). Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behavior is not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 367–387. Hoel, H., Glaso, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of Management, 21, 453–468. Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14, 195–230. Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organizational antecedents of bullying. In S. Einarsen (Ed.), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice (pp. 203–218). London: Taylor and Francis. Hoel, H., Sparks, K., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). The cost of violence/stress at work and the benefits of a violence/stress-free working environment. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lenski, G. (1954). Status crystallization: A non-vertical dimension of social status. American Sociological Review, 19, 405–413. Lewis, D., & Gunn, R. (2007). Workplace bullying in the public sector: Understanding the racial dimension. Public Administration, 85, 641–665. Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terrorism at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5, 119–126. Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165–184. Liefooghe, A. P. D., & Davey, K. M. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 375–392. Loh, J., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2010). Consequences of workplace bullying on employee identification and satisfaction among Australians and Singaporeans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 236–252. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree, and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 837–862. Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2 configurations among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 467–484. Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and health correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 393–413. Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Basic assumptions and post-traumatic stress among victims of workplace bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 87–111. Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., Naylor, P., Barter, C., Ireland, J. L., & Coyne, I. (2009). Bullying in different contexts: Commonalities, differences and the role of theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 14, 146–156. Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 753–780. Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391–419. O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review, 21, 225–253. Persson, R., Hogh, A., Hansen, A. -M., Nordander, C., Ohlsson, K., Balogh, I., et al. (2009). Personality trait scores among occupationally active bullied persons and witnesses to bullying. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 387–399.

A.-K. Samnani, P. Singh / Aggression and Violent Behavior 17 (2012) 581–589 Ramsay, S., Troth, A., & Branch, S. (2010). Workplace bullying: A group processes framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1348/2044- 8325.00200. Randall, P. (2001). Bullying in adulthood: Assessing the bullies and their victims. London: Brunner-Routledge. Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 249–255. Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Workplace bullying: What we know, who is to blame, and what can we do? London: Taylor and Francis. Richards, J., & Daley, H. (2003). Bullying policy: Development, implementation and monitoring. The concept of bullying at work. In S. Einarsen (Ed.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 247–258). London: Taylor and Francis. Robinson, S. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658–672. Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: A comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 425–441. Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56, 1213–1232. Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 15, 112–120. Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 110–122. Skogstad, A., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Organizational changes: A precursor of bullying at work. International Journal of Organizational Theory and Behavior, 10, 58–94.

589

Strandmark, M. K., & Hallberg, L. R. M. (2007). The origin of workplace bullying: Experiences from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector. Journal of Nursing Management, 14, 1–10. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289. Tepper, B. J., & Henle, C. A. (2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 487–498. Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying-psychological work environment and organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 203–214. Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 101–109. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490. Wimbush, J. C., Shepard, J. M., & Markham, J. (1997). An empirical examination of the multi-dimensionality of ethical climate in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 67–77. Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims and perpetrators. In S. Einarsen (Ed.), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, Vol. 2. (pp. 177–200)London: Taylor and Francis. Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the workplace: The concept of bullying at work. In S. Einarsen (Ed.), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice (pp. 103–126). London: Taylor and Francis.