3. lewis, d

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

1/26

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC

SECTOR: UNDERSTANDING THERACIAL DIMENSION

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

This paper reports the research findings of the experiences of public sector workersof bullying at work across 13 organizations in South Wales. The study explored theexperiences of White and Ethnic minority respondents and found that there aresignificant differences in the type and frequency of bullying behaviours being ex-perienced by the two groups. Ethnic minority respondents are more likely to labelthemselves as suffering from bullying behaviours than their White counterparts. Theevidence presented in this paper demonstrates how line managers use different tac-tics when bullying Ethnic respondents compared to White respondents. Furthermore,when colleagues bully fellow colleagues, there are subtly different patterns of bully-ing behaviour towards White and Ethnic victims. Given the specific requirement tocomply with the public duty for promotion of racial equality expected under the RaceRelations Amendment Act (2000), it is important that these findings are recognized

by UK public sector organizations.

INTRODUCTION

In a report on stress, health and ethnicity for the United Kingdom Health andSafety Executive (HSE), findings indicated that racial discrimination, par-ticularly in combination with gender and ethnicity (HSE ResearchReport 2005, No. 308), was a stark influence on work stress. In particular,workplace discrimination for Black Caribbean women centred on racial abuse,iniquitous work practices and being felt as valued less by management. Feel-

ings of being devalued and ignored ensued. These facets of discriminationmirror closely the research evidence for bullying at work where inequalitiesof treatment result in feelings of abandonment and isolation (see, for example,Einarsen et al.2003; Lewis 2004). This paper takes a novel approach to work-place bullying research by specifically exploring the negative behaviours thatare reported as bullying and linking them directly with the ethnic classifica-tion of employees. A second original feature offered in this paper is specificconsideration of the different perpetrators who might instigate bullying be-haviours, including different grades of manager and colleagues at different

levels. The aims of this paper are therefore twofold: first, to discover if minor-ity ethnic groups suffer more or less negative behaviour experiences

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

2/26

642 DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

than White counterparts. Second, to explore if there are differences in thebehaviours exhibited by bullies dependent upon their organizational status.Such an approach would enable us to better understand the experiences ofEthnic and White employees and also to attain improved understanding of

the behaviours of bullies.With nearly 30 years of legislative experience of dealing with race relations

at work (Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003), culturein the UK should be sufficiently experienced in understanding and workingtowards eradicating racism and racial discrimination in the workplace. Yetevidence from UK society still indicates disadvantage for black and minorityethnic [BME] people. UK national statistics reveal that mixed race adults andAsian adults were more likely to be victims of crime compared to Whiteadults (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/). In 2002/03, minority ethnic groups

faced higher risks of being the victim of a racially motivated incident thanWhite people. Of people who had experienced a crime they thought wasracially motivated in a 12-month period, 4 per cent were mixed race people,3 per cent were Asians, 2 per cent were Black people and 2 per cent werefrom a Chinese or other background. This compares with less than 1 per centof White people (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/). Employment rates forthe United Kingdom in 200203 showed that non-White ethnic groups had18 per cent lower employment compared to White groups; in parts of London,the levels of lower employment compared to White groups varied between14 per cent and 39 per cent (Brook 2004). Data collected by Walling (2004)indicate that the majority of ethnic groups have higher proportions of working-age people living in workless households with Black African groups havingthe highest proportion compared to White groups (workless households arewhere all adults are unemployed or economically inactive or a mixture ofboth). Chakraborti and Garland (2004), in a study of racial harassment inrural contexts, reported how ethnic minorities regularly experienced racialharassment. Many respondents had experienced racial harassment on adaily or weekly basis and in one sample some 70 per cent of respondentshad some experience of racial harassment within a 12-month period. Broadsocial and economic indicators such as these paint a bleak landscape formany black and ethnic minority people. Even so, the disadvantage for BMEgroups is often worse in an organizational context.

Institutional racism within some UK public sector institutions has beenshown to continue to have prominence. When Stephen Lawrence, a Londonteenager, was murdered in 1993 by a group of White youths, the subsequentlengthy inquiry revealed clear evidence of institutional racism within theMetropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Macpherson Report (StephenLawrence Inquiry 1999) of the subsequent Inquiry found that institutionalracism played a part in the flawed investigation by the MPS of the murder

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

3/26

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR 643

urgency and commitment in parts of their investigation. The Inquiry ac-cepted the Commission for Racial Equalitys (CRE) submission that institu-tional racism exists, not only in the MPS and other police services, but alsoin other institutions. The CRE (2003a) also found that in their investigation

of the murder of Zahid Mubarek, a young Asian youth murdered by a Whiteracist with whom he was forced to share a prison cell, the Prison Service wasguilty of a catalogue of errors in their handling of the two prisoners.

Because of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, legislation introducedin 2000 aimed to address the race equality agenda in the public sector spe-cifically with the purpose of embracing a more proactive requirement todeliver enhanced race relations and positive race equality outcomes. As partof the government agenda to augment race relations in the public sector, theCRE undertook research to gauge employer responses with the aim of meas-

uring the extent and quality of response to this public duty; a componentof the public duty to promote race equality included employee experiencesacross the employment cycle and to gauge employee satisfaction. Findingsfrom the CRE report entitled Towards Racial Equality (2003b) statedProgress in implementing the employment duty varied considerably and inmany cases there was little attention in schemes or policies to employmentmeasures (p. 6). The results also indicated that many institutions needed tomove beyond simply monitoring staff profiles and applicants for jobs andto move towards addressing human resource (HR) and employment prac-tices of those already in employment (CRE 2003b, p. 12).

The Macpherson Report also highlighted that the occurrence of such in-stitutional discrimination is the reason why the public sector has failed inthe past to provide an adequate and appropriate service to minority groups.The report subsequently introduced a new definition of a racist incident thataims to cover all hate crime incidents; these can be classified as any inci-dent which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any person . The defini-tion is important for two reasons. Firstly, if the victim thinks that the incidentis racist but the perpetrator or investigating officer does not, the episodeshould still be classified as a racist one. Second, if the victim does not acceptthe incident as racist but the investigating officer or witness feels that it wasracist, then it remains classified as a racist occurrence. This definition hasbeen widely accepted by the majority of Public Sector organizations. TheRace Relations Amendment Act (2000) brought with it an enforceable dutyto promote race equality within public bodies. Some of the specific duties tobe complied with include the publication of a Race Equality Scheme describ-ing their public functions; the monitoring of staff ethnicity; and staff trainingto ensure public access for all to their services. Of particular interest is thepublication of ethnic monitoring, where the results will provide an overviewof the status of the minority ethnic employees and whether those from mi-

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

4/26


agencies, published a report (Jones 2002) highlighting that racist incidentsin the workplace were prevalent and, in particular, verbal abuse was themost common. While verbal abuse is classified as a form of racial harass-ment, it may also be linked to a catalogue of workplace bullying incidents

suffered by minority ethnic employees.The link between prejudice and workplace bullying can be made using

Allports (1954) Scale of Prejudice. Allport (1954) identified five stages ofprejudice: prejudicial comments made against individual or societal groups;avoidance of individuals or groups of people; subtle aggression shown tothe individual; physical attack; and extermination with the killing of anindividual. In each of these five stages, we see parallels with workplace bul-lying research. Comments and snide remarks, social exclusion, aggressivebehaviour and attack have all been reported in studies of bullying at work

(see, for example, Bjorkvist et al.1994, Einarsen and Raknes 1995, Vartia 1996;Archer 1999; Rayner 1999). While it is extremely rare that individuals aremurdered in the workplace, the victim committing suicide because of theactions of others may also achieve Allports final stage indirectly.

WORKPLACE BULLYING AND RACIAL HARASSMENT

In the last decade or so, organizational scholars and writers have increas-ingly drawn our attention to the growing interest in workplace bullying and

other forms of interpersonal conflict. Workplace aggression is referred to bymany different synonyms, including, for example, bullying (Adams 1992),workplace harassment (Bjorkqvist (1992), mobbing (Leymann 1996), andworkplace victimisation (Zapf 1999). As the field of research into workplacebullying remains relatively underdeveloped (generally considered to bearound 15 years old) much of the foundation for its study has involved theanalysis of cross-sectional data to identify causes of bullying at individual,social and organizational levels (see, for example, Hoel and Salin 2003; Zapfand Einarsen 2003). Here researchers have painted a picture of bullyingwhere the experience impacts negatively on the psychological well-being ofthose who experience, witness or are simply bystanders to it (Lewis andSheehan 2003). In line with many academic paradigms, there are no univer-sally agreed definitions of workplace bullying although there is agreementthat bullying is best represented as events that are systematically negative,resulting in social, psychological and psychosomatic problems for the re-cipient (Einarsen et al.2003). Salin (2001), Zapf and Gross (2001) and Vartiaand Hyyti (2002) all demonstrate the widespread problem of workplacebullying by citing numerous international studies in Scandinavia, the UK,Australia and the USA. A common thread found in studies of bullying isthe significant health effects for all who are exposed to it. Severe psycho-

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

5/26


5,000 UK respondents, found that nearly 40 per cent had been exposed toregular (daily or weekly) negative acts but that only 10.6 per cent had actuallyreported being bullied. This draws into question methodological concerns ofself-reporting of negative experiences and labelling oneself as suffering from

bullying at work. It appears in some cases that although individuals experi-ence the same types and frequencies of negative behaviours, there is generalreluctance by some to take on the mantle of victim (Einarsen 2000).

Workplace bullying is found in most organizations, no matter the size,location or sector (see, for example, Einarsen et al.2003). The reality in theUK is that most studies of bullying have taken place in the public sector viaaccess through trade union membership lists. Previous studies have high-lighted various parts of the public sector that have significant experience ofworkplace bullying. Zapf et al. (2003) summarize pan-European research

studies where public administration, health, education and social care con-sistently show higher prevalence of bullying compared to private sector re-sponses. Hoel and Coopers UK study (2000) showed how bullying wasmore prevalent in public sector organizations such as the prison service orteaching and less prevalent in retailing or manufacturing. Zapf et al.(2003)attempt to explain why such responses might be better understood, particu-larly around the concept of emotional labour (Hochschild 1983), somethingwhich is clearly found in many public sector jobs, and not in the instrumen-tal roles of some private sector jobs such as in manufacturing organizations.What Zapf et al.(2003) does not explain is the very nature of the changingdemands on public sector employees, particularly in the UK. For example,Lewis (2003) explains, in a study of bullying in further and higher education,how the changing global landscape of education, coupled with governmentpressure to see colleges and universities as autonomously managed organi-zations, presented pressure-vessel situations where bullying was regardedas commonplace. In a sizeable UNISON (a large public sector trade union)study in 1997, Rayner (1997) highlighted that 83 per cent of bullies were inmanagement grades. When we consider the significant changes taking placein the public sector through constant restructuring, shifting governmentpolicy, and European legislative change such as working time directives,managers tend to adopt more autocratic practices to bring about change(Sheehan 1999). As Salin (2001, p. 435) noted, with the broad Europeantrend of restructuring of the public sector in the 1990s, issues such as down-sizing and increased demands for efficiency may have contributed to in-creased stress, frustration, and insecurity. Such a changing landscape couldexplain why bullying is consistently reported to be more prevalent in thepublic sector.

Archer (1999), in a study of the UK Fire Service, showed how bullying wasendemic, partly because of the paramilitary culture of the service but also

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

6/26


of initiation ceremony. Any new employee might be expected to be the re-cipient of initiation, but for some people from different ethnic or culturalbackgrounds, this behaviour may be seen as offensive or hostile behaviourexclusively shown towards him/her, rather than a universal inaugural cere-

mony. This experience was reported within the Fire Service (Home OfficeReport 1999), where minority ethnic staff stated the difficulty they faced bythe conscious or unconscious actions of their White male colleagues, andreported their acceptance to the group was only conditional on fitting in(p. 25). Such a culture has also surfaced within the Police Force who, despitetaking great strides in promoting diversity within their policies and prac-tices, were exposed by a BBC undercover documentary in 2004 entitled TheSecret Policeman. The documentary highlighted high levels of discrimina-tory beliefs held by new recruits and in particular the determination that

some held to bully one member of staff, from a minority ethnic background,out of the Police Force. An ethnic minority person, working in an organiza-tion in which they are predominately the minority, might explain why theybecome easy targets for workplace bullies. While it is accepted that anyonecan become the victim of workplace bullying, Archer (1999, p. 99) notes; ifyou are in a minority by either gender or race the likelihood is dramaticallyincreased.

Specific studies of workplace bullying and ethnicity are rare. In their broadcross-sectional study, Hoel and Cooper (2000) reported that respondentsfrom an Asian ethnic background were more likely to be bullied than thosefrom a White background, with 19.6 per cent of Asian respondents reportingbullying as compared to 10.5 per cent of White respondents. They also re-ported that respondents from Asian or Afro-Caribbean origin recounted highfrequencies of insults or offensive remarks and practical jokes carried outby people you don t get on with. Chinese respondents reported the few-est negative acts. However, in terms of one negative act being ignored,excluded, or sent to Coventry the Chinese respondents reported the high-est prevalence. While these figures provide us with some insight into thelevel of workplace bullying aimed at minority ethnic people, it must also benoted that less than 3 per cent of respondents from the Hoel and Cooperstudy came from minority ethnic backgrounds and as such the findingsshould be treated with caution. Numerous media articles and small UKsurveys have raised the issue of bullying suffered by minority ethnic peoplein the workplace. People Management magazine (2001) reported that aroundhalf of all ethnic minority staff in the NHS reported that they have beenracially harassed in the workplace in the previous year. A report from theRoyal College of Nursing (People Management magazine 2001) highlightedthat nursing is one of the professions at greatest risk from bullying and, inparticular, nurses from ethnic minorities were chiefly at risk, with three out

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

7/26


by work colleagues (compared to 10 per cent of nurses generally) with over60 per cent of ethnic minority nurses having been subjected to racial abuseby patients (compared to 20 per cent of nurses generally). However, thisstudy did not concern itself specifically with bullying. Other organizations that

have been investigated for racially motivated bullying include the automo-tive manufacturer, Ford, who were ordered to pay 150,000 to a former em-ployee who suffered racist bullying from fellow staff members (PersonnelToday 2002, December). Aside from these largely anecdotal or cross-sectionalaccounts, few empirical studies of ethnicity and bullying exist.

Writers such as Adams (1992) are keen to separate the issue of bullying atwork from recognized problems of racism. The difficulty with this discon-nection is that it is not nearly so easy to distinguish where harassment ordiscrimination because of race or ethnicity differs from bullying because

of race or ethnicity. If ethnicity defines why people are initially targeted forgeneral workplace bullying (as opposed to being targeted for racial harass-ment reasons), the issues are nonetheless the same from an organizationalperspective. If employees are targeted for bullying or racial reasons and theimpact on the recipient is seen to be negative or pejorative then, in organi-zational terms, this must be unacceptable. Similarly, if employees indicatethat they are recipients of negative behaviours, whether the organizationlabels these as bullying, racial, sexual or any other classifying label is some-what meaningless. The reality is that if the behaviours are received as orperceived to be negative they are therefore detrimental to sound workingpractice. It is both stereotyping and prejudice which leads to the stigma-tization of employees from minority ethnic backgrounds (Heatherton et al.2003). The definition of a stigmatized individual also provides an image ofthe general profile of a workplace bullying victim. As Heatherton et al.(2003p. 1) noted: a person who is stigmatised is a person whose social identity,or membership in some social category, calls into question his or her fullhumanity the person is devalued, spoiled or flawed in the eyes of others.As Zapf and Gross (2001) demonstrated, in a typical bullying scenario, thecontinued subjection to negative behaviours over time leads to a processof stigmatization. Whether such stigmas are caused by racism first and bul-lying second or bullying first and race second, is largely immaterial. Whatshould be of concern to public sector organizations is the understanding anderadication of negative behaviours regardless of the labels applied.

METHODS

The aim of this research, based in South Wales UK, was to investigate ifWhite British and minority Ethnic employees working across a range ofpublic sector organizations were being exposed to bullying behaviours. We

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

8/26


from the same sources in the workplace. Although methodological issuessurrounding race or ethnic categories in health contexts have been raised ongrounds that race is not a valid scientific concept (see, for example, Fullilove1998; Stolley 1999), writers such as Krieger (2003) argue that failing to study

the health impact of race leaves us with incomplete understanding. We con-sequently adopt a position that argues that it is critical to understand andidentify whether racial disparities exist within the construct of workplacebullying within public sector workplaces.

One of the recognized challenges (Lewis 2002) in undertaking researchinto workplace bullying is the major difficulty of access to those who per-ceive that they are suffering from bullying at work. The issues of stigma,fear, stress, and so on, are often recognized as inhibitors in gaining access tovictims, particularly if those victims are men (Lewis 2002). While qualitative

data can often provide the rich thickness to illustrate meaning and contextfor the type of bullying occurrence, accessing those members of the com-munity who in fact represent only 1 per cent of the local population isextremely problematic.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES

In the 2001 UK census, 96 per cent of the population of Wales describedthemselves as White British. The ethnic population of the UK as a whole

stands slightly higher at 7.9 per cent (2001 national census figures). Thepopulation of Wales is clustered into two principal corridors along the south-ern and northern coastal areas. As with many countries where ethnic peo-ples are largely located, these include city areas such as Cardiff, Swanseaand Newport in the south and Wrexham in the north. Our study focused onfour counties in the south-east of Wales where the minority ethnic popula-tion was relatively small. The population figures for these counties areshown in table 1.

The reason for choosing these areas in particular is founded on the body

of evidence that states that rural and semi/rural areas with a low minorityethnic population are those that are most likely to have people who expressviews of racism, sexism and other forms of discriminatory beliefs as op-posed to more multi-cultural areas (see, for example, Jay 1992; Dhillon 1995,

TABLE 1 Minority ethnic population in the geographic areas being studied

County borough Total population Minority ethnicpopulation

Minority ethnicpopulation (%)

Rhondda-Cynon-Taf 231,946 2,673 1.15Bridgend 128,645 1,767 1.37Caerphilly 169,519 1,548 0.91

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

9/26


Henderson and Kaur 1999; Jones 2002). Throughout history, the South Walesvalleys, although not strictly classified as rural, have been an area of settle-ment for people from a range of ethnic backgrounds and for a variety ofdifferent reasons. Most notable groups include Italians and Poles, who es-

caped persecution during and after the Second World War; Caribbeans inthe 1950s who helped to fill mainly low paid jobs vacated by British service-men after the Second World War, and Asians throughout the 1960s and 1970s,who mainly settled into work with the National Health Service or startedbusinesses. Other flows of immigration into South Wales include Somalis;East Europeans in the 1990s and Filipinos in recent times following recruit-ment drives by the National Health Service to fill vacancies in local hospitals.All of this, plus general migration patterns, has seen South Wales become amelting pot, albeit a relatively small one, of people from a wide spectrum of

ethnic backgrounds.This small ethnic population required selective targeting of organizations.

This type of convenience sampling is essential because of factors such asthe availability of certain individuals who are otherwise difficult to contactor identify (see Bryman 2001). This is extremely appropriate for this studysince there are very few minority ethnic people living in these county bor-ough communities. Furthermore, given the focus of the study to examinebullying and ethnicity within a public-sector context it was necessary toidentify a broad range of organizations that might predictably employhigher numbers of minority ethnic employees. This resulted in the followingorganizations being sampled for the study:

Four National Health Trusts The Welsh Ambulance Service South Wales Fire Service Two Police Forces The Prison Service Three South Wales Universities

Three Further Education Colleges Four Local Public Authorities The Royal College of Nursing HM Revenue and Customs Three Trade Unions

The majority of these organizations were known to have employees froma variety or ethnic backgrounds, in particular the National Health Trusts andthe Universities who both employ larger numbers of minority ethnic staff.

Instrument usedIn line with many European studies of workplace bullying (see, for example,

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

10/26


statements of negative behaviours which allow respondents to indicatewhether they experienced such behaviours on a daily, weekly, monthly orrarely basis (see tables 2 and 3). Respondents can also indicate if they neverexperienced such behaviours. It is important to note that all items in the

TABLE 2 Negative acts from line managers as experienced by White and Ethnic staff

Statement Frequency of experience (%)

White respondentsexperiences (monthlyor more frequently)

Ethnic respondentsexperiences (monthlyor more frequently)

Are you given tasks or jobsby your line manager that

are demeaning to you?

10.9 28.2

Do you feel your line managerexcessively and unnecessarilymonitors your work?

13.9 19.1

Do you feel your work is unnecessarilycriticized by your line manager?

11.7 21.8

Do line managers withhold informationfrom you which affects yourperformance?

15.3 15.5

Are you ignored or excluded by yourline manager whilst at work?

1.5 20.9

Do you feel singled out by your line

manager for any reason?

5.8 20

Does your line manager continuallyremind you of your errors orweaknesses?

10.9 12.7

Do you face continued criticism ofyour work by your line manager?

11.7 21.8

Are you ever patronized or belittledat work by your line manager?

8 14.5

Does your line manager undermineyou at work?

7.3 14.5

Has your line manager ever humiliatedyou in front of other people, whilst at

work?

5.8 8.2

Do you face hostility from your linemanager?

3.6 10.9

Has your line manager made offensiveremarks or behaviour with referenceto your race or ethnicity?

5.1 6.4

Does your line manager spreadgossip or rumours about you?

1.5 8.2

Has your line manager told you toquit your job?

2.9 5.5

Are you the subject of practicaljokes made by your line manager?

5.8 0.9

Do you receive threats of physicalviolence against you by your linemanager?

1.5 1.8

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

11/26


TABLE 3 Negative acts by colleagues of equal grade or rank as experienced by White andEthnic staff

Statement Frequency of experience (%)

White respondentsexperiences (monthlyor more frequently)

Ethnic respondentsexperiences (monthlyor more frequently)

Are you the subject of practical jokesmade by colleagues of equal rank?

12.4 6.4

Do you feel singled out by colleaguesof equal rank for any reason?

6.6 33.6

Are you ignored or excluded by colleaguesof equal rank whilst at work?

8.0 30.9

Are you ever patronized or belittled atwork by colleagues of equal rank?

7.3 28.2

Have colleagues of equal rank madeoffensive remarks or behaviour withreference to your race or ethnicity?

8.8 20.9

Do your colleagues of equal rankundermine you at work?

5.8 21.8

Do you face hostility from colleaguesof equal rank?

5.1 20.9

Do your colleagues of equal rankcontinually remind you of yourerrors or weaknesses?

5.1 19.1

Do you face continued criticismof your work by colleagues ofequal rank?

2.2 14.5

Have colleagues of equal ranktold you to quit your job?

3.6 33.6

Do your colleagues of equal rankwithhold information from youwhich affects your performance?

5.8 17.3

Have you ever been humiliated bycolleagues of equal rank in frontof the other people, whilst at work?

5.1 16.4

Do you feel your work is unnecessarily

criticized by your colleagues ofequal rank?

2.2 14.5

Do colleagues of equal rank spreadgossip or rumours about you?

5.1 10.9

Are you given tasks or jobs by colleaguesof the same rank as you that aredemeaning to you?

2.2 13.6

Do you feel colleagues of the same rankas you excessively and unnecessarilymonitor your work?

4.4 9.1

Have colleagues of equal rank everwritten racist graffiti or racist

messages on your property orequipment?

0.7 3.6

Do you receive threats of physical 0.7 1.8

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

12/26


NAQ are described in behavioural terms without reference to the wordbullying. The questionnaire also has one question that asks if the respon-dents felt they had been bullied at work. This was to identify whether re-spondents who indicated experience of negative behaviours also indicated

that they felt they had been bullied. In addition to the standard NAQ instru-ment, we wanted to identify who were the sources of such behaviours andwhether the negative behaviours differed dependent upon who was thesource. We asked respondents to indicate who they experienced any of thenegative behaviours from: senior managers, line managers, colleagues of equalgrade or rank, colleagues of a lower grade or rank, from members of thepublic, or from employees of other organizations whom they met as part oftheir work role.

The self-completion questionnaires were distributed by post to 1000 po-

tential respondents. Sudman and Bradburn (2001) note that postal question-naires could be more appropriate than personal interviews because theydilute the possibility of certain bias and interviewer variability. Sudman andBradburn (1982) also note that respondents would be more likely to reportincidences to which there is anxiety or sensitivity attached, which is clearlythe nature of workplace bullying. However, the disadvantages of the self-completion questionnaires are the possibility of missing data and that thoserespondents whose competency in English is limited will be restricted intheir ability to answer some questions. Other disadvantages might includelow response rates. A covering letter outlining the reasons for the research,why it was important, and giving guarantees of confidentiality, was includedwith the questionnaire as was a reply-paid envelope for returning thecompleted instrument.

We obtained 247 completed questionnaires, giving a response rate of24.7 per cent. The gender balance of responses was 51 per cent males and49 per cent females. The survey categorized the age groups into the following:1624 years (7 per cent), 2534 years (36 per cent), 3544 years (32 per cent),4554 years (16 per cent) and 55 and above (9 per cent). This presents anormal distribution by age and gender. The distribution between White andnon-White was 56 per cent to 44 per cent respectively. It is important to notethat while we sought sufficient responses in each of the ethnic categories asoutlined by the Commission for Racial Equality, the responses were too fewin many cases to analyse the data by classifications such as Black, Indian andPakistani, and so on. As such, it was necessary to adjust the data so that allEthnic categories were classified as one group and all White respondents asanother group. Fortunately, our age and ethnic groupings followed eachother well in three of the five age categories as can be seen from figure 1.

RESULTS

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

13/26


of bullying is different for males and females, with 24 per cent of femalesstating that they had experienced bullying compared to 17 per cent of men.When this same question is analysed by ethnic group, 9 per cent of all of theWhite respondents indicated they had been bullied but some 35 per cent ofall Ethnic respondents reported suffered bullying. This represents a highlysignificant difference with c2= 26.395 and p < 0.001.

Using a grouping variable of gender and the Mann-Whitney significancetest, we obtained the following: (1) that there was a significant differencebetween the White males and the non-White males in their experience ofbeing bullied. Non-White males demonstrated experiencing greater levelsof bullying than White males (U = 1508 with p < 0.05); and (2) the sameexperience was true for female respondents except that the experience washighly significant (U = 1169.5 and P < 0.001).

Our examination of the data revealed very little evidence of negative be-haviours from senior managers, from members of the public, or from work-ers of associated organizations. The two principal sources of negativebehaviours were line managers and colleagues of equivalent grade. We havere-classified the results into two principal groupings of frequency: negativebehaviours that occur monthly or more frequently, and negative behavioursthat rarely or never occur. Table 2, above, indicates the frequency of negativebehaviours where line managers are cited as the foundation.

The data in table 2 indicate that Ethnic employees perceive themselves to

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-70

Age

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

White non White

White

Non White

FIGUREFIGURE 1 ge and ethnicity of respondentsAge and ethnicity of respondents

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

14/26


belittled and rumour spreading. Only practical jokes occur more frequentlyfor White respondents.

Table 3, above, compares the negative behaviours where colleagues ofequal grade or rank are the perpetrator. The results in table 3 illustrate even

higher frequencies of negative behaviours being experienced by minorityethnic employees. Negative experiences in areas such as being singled out,patronized or belittled, excluded and undermined, are four, five or even sixtimes more likely to be experienced by Ethnic respondents. Once again, onlypractical jokes are experienced more by White respondents than Ethnic re-spondents. These initial results demonstrate that an almost complete rangeof negative behaviours are frequently being experienced more often byEthnic respondents compared to White respondents. When we explore thesignificant differences based on the negative behaviours from colleagues we

find only one significant difference for White respondents but 10 significantdifferences for Ethnic respondents. These are shown in table 4. These resultsgive further credence to the evidence that minority Ethnic employees appearto endure greater levels of bullying behaviours than their White counter-parts.

The data were further examined using the statistical technique of factoranalysis. Factor analysis is a multivariate statistical procedure used to sum-marize information from a large number of measured variables into a smallernumber of latent variables, sometimes referred to as factors. By adopting thisapproach, we could better understand the structure of the 18 NAQ variablesand reduce the dataset to one of manageable proportions. The varimaxorthogonal rotation was considered to be the appropriate approach and thisis also in line with that of many other researchers of conflict and work-place bullying (see, for example, Withey and Cooper 1989; lafsson andJhannsdttir 2004).

For each of the 18 NAQs, the five categories of response used were never,rarely, weekly, monthly and daily, in line with the standard categoriza-tion. When it came to the data analysis, the five response categories weresomewhat sparse for analysis, with too few frequencies in some categories.These five categories could almost be considered continuous in nature, and,to overcome such issues, it was decided to regroup the responses into never,rarely and more often by merging categories. These three groups can beseen to be quite discrete and so less subjective in nature. Exploratory factoranalysis was carried out to see whether there were any differences in termsof factor groups between line managers and colleagues of equal grade, basedon responses from White respondents as one discrete group and Ethnic re-spondents as another group. By adopting this approach we aimed to discernwhether the behaviours differ further as a result of ethnic classification.

The initial analysis that took place was an exploration of the 18 negative

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

15/26


coefficients to test for reliability we obtain the following: factor 1 = 0.884,factor 2 = 0.819, and factor 3 = 0.623.

Table 5 illustrates how the three factors could be classified as bullyingrelated to the job or work being undertaken (factor 1), personalized bullying(factor 2) and bullying as social ridicule in the working environment. Factor1 explains bullying as criticism, excessive monitoring, being reminded ofmistakes and errors, withholding information and being singled out.Personalized bullying (factor 2) is interpreted as humiliation, exclusion, be-ing told to quit and comments on race/ethnicity. The third factor presentsbullying as a combination of gossip/rumour and practical jokes, makingbullying a more socialized negative experience.

Our next step was to compare the results of line manager behaviours to-wards Ethnic respondents. Table 6 demonstrates the factor analysis results

TABLE 4 Significant differences in negative behaviours from colleagues of equal gradeexperienced by White and Ethnic respondents

Mann-Whitney U Asymp. Sig.(2-tailed)

Are you given tasks or jobsby your colleagues whichare demeaning to you?

6771.000 P < 0.05 Ethnic respondents

Do you face continued criticismof your work by yourcolleagues?


Have your colleagues toldyou to quit your job?


Are you undermined at workby your colleagues?


Do you ever feel singled

out by your colleagues?


Are you the subject of practicaljokes made by your colleagues?

6100.000 P < 0.001 White respondents

Are you ever patronized orbelittled by your colleaguesat work?


Are you ignored or excludedat work by your colleagues?


Do you face hostility fromyour colleagues?


Do your colleagues make offensiveremarks or behaviour with

reference to your race orethnicity?


Have your colleagues ever writtenracist graffiti or racist messageson your property or equipment?


8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

16/26


The results for Ethnic respondents show a similar but discretely differentpattern to that of their White colleagues. We find that factor 1 componentsare personalized bullying behaviours, factor 2 components are work/rolerelated bullying behaviours and factor 3 components relate to bullying bythreats.

These two separate analyses yield results that demonstrate that Whiteand Ethnic respondents experience similar negative behaviours from linemanagers, resulting in common factors between both groups. However, Ethnicrespondents suffer greater frequency of personalized bullying than theirWhite counterparts who experience higher frequency of work- or job-relatedbullying. For Ethnic respondents, there is also evidence of bullying by

TABLE 5 A factor analysis of behaviours of line managers towards white respondents

Line managers behaviours towards whiterespondents

Components

Bullying by

job/work role

Personalized

bullying

Social

bullying

Do you ever feel your work is unnecessarilycriticized by your line manager?

.846

Do you feel your work is excessively andunnecessarily monitored by your linemanager?

.773

Does your line manager continuallyremind you of your errors or weaknesses?

.711

Do you ever feel singled out by yourline manager?

.706

Are you undermined at work by your

line manager?

.704

Are you given tasks or jobs by your linemanager which are demeaning to you?

.683

Does your line manager with holdinformation that affects your performance?

.620

Does your line manager make offensiveremarks or behaviour with referenceto your race or ethnicity?

.842


.832

Have you been humiliated in front of otherpeople at work by your line manager?

.614

Are you ignored or excluded at workby your line manager?

.488

Are you the subject of practical jokesmade by your line manager?

.774

Does your line manager spread gossipor rumours about you?

.772

Extraction Method: Principal ComponentAnalysis. Rotation Method: Varimaxwith Kaiser Normalization

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

17/26


Our next analysis was to consider the behaviours of colleagues of equalgrade to their White and Ethnic colleagues. Following a similar process ofusing exploratory factor analysis, we undertook a first rotation for Whiterespondents that revealed 4 factors and accounted for 62 per cent of thevariation. Unfortunately, the fourth factor consisted of only one componentand this was deemed to be of limited value. Hence the varimax rotation wasrepeated but with an imposed constraint of three factors. The variance thatwas now accounted for reduced to 56 per cent but does appear to provide

TABLE 6 A factor analysis of behaviours of line managers towards ethnic respondents

Line manager behaviourstowards ethnic respondents

Components

Personalized

bullying

Bullying by job/

work role

Bullying by

threats

Does your line manager make offensiveremarks or behaviour with referenceto your race or ethnicity?

.824

Are you ever patronized or belittledby your line manager at work?

.769

Are you given tasks or jobs byyour line manager which aredemeaning to you?

.743

Have you been humiliated infront of other people at work

by your line manager?

.600

Are you undermined at work byyour line manager?

.770

Do you ever feel your work isunnecessarily criticized byyour line manager?

.694

Does your line manager withhold information that affectsyour performance?

.672

Does your line manager continuallyremind you of your errors orweaknesses?

.621

Do you feel your work is excessivelyand unnecessarily monitored byyour line manager?

.601

Do you receive threats of physicalviolence against you by your linemanager?

.900


.424

Extraction Method: Principal ComponentAnalysis. Rotation Method: Varimaxwith Kaiser Normalization

a Rotation converged in 6 iterations

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

18/26


of colleagues of equal rank fall into categories of personal/social bullying,

TABLE 7 A factor analysis of behaviours of colleagues of equal grade/rank towards whiterespondents

Behaviour of colleagues of equalrank towards white colleagues

Component

Personalized orsocial bullying

Bullying by jobor work role

Bullying bythreats

Have you been humiliated in frontof other people at work by yourcolleagues?

.795

Do you ever feel singled out byyour colleagues?

.750

Are you ignored or excluded atwork by your colleagues?

.721

Are you ever patronized or belittledby your colleagues at work?

.714

Do you face hostility from yourcolleagues? .691

Do your colleagues spread gossipor rumours about you?

.654

Do your colleagues make offensiveremarks or behaviour withreference to your race or ethnicity?

.652

Are you the subject of practical jokesmade by your colleagues?

.595

Are you undermined at work byyour colleagues?

.588

Do you feel your work is excessively

and unnecessarily monitored byyour colleagues?

.704

Do you ever feel your work isunnecessarily criticized by yourcolleagues?

.695

Do your colleagues continually remindyou of your errors or weaknesses?

.669

Do you face continued criticism ofyour work by your colleagues

.665

Are you given tasks or jobs by yourcolleagues which are demeaningto you?

.609

Does your colleague withholdinformation that affects yourperformance?

.537


.881

Do you receive threats of physicalviolence against you by yourcolleagues?

.739

Have your colleagues told you toquit your job? .555

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

19/26


factors that account for 64 per cent of the variance in the data. The CronbachsAlpha coefficient scores are: factor 1 = 0.932; factor 2 = 0.741; and factor3 = 0.656. The results in table 8 demonstrate similar patterns within the fac-tor components as for White colleagues. There are however one or two sub-

TABLE 8 A factor analysis of behaviours of colleagues of equal grade/rank towards ethnicrespondents

Behaviour of colleagues ofequal rank towards ethnic

colleagues

Component

Personalizedbullying

Bullying by jobor work role

Social andthreateningbullying

Have your colleagues told you toquit your job?

.876

Are you ever patronized or belittledby your colleagues at work?

.860

Are you ignored or excluded at workby your colleagues?

.857

Do you ever feel singled out by yourcolleagues?

.856

Do your colleagues make offensiveremarks or behaviour with referenceto your race or ethnicity?

.785

Are you undermined at work byyour colleagues?

.727

Have you been humiliated in frontof other people at work by yourcolleagues?

.717

Do you feel your work is excessivelyand unnecessarily monitored byyour colleagues

.775

Do you ever feel your work is

unnecessarily criticized by yourcolleagues?

.741

Does your colleague withholdinformation that affects yourperformance?

.703

Do your colleagues spread gossip orrumours about you?

.668

Are you given tasks or jobs by yourcolleagues which are demeaningto you?

.499

Do you receive threats of physicalviolence against you by yourcolleagues?

.861


.851

Are you the subject of practical jokesmade by your colleagues?

.462

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

20/26


to quit their job alongside more personalized bullying threats of patroniza-tion, being singled out, humiliated, or suffering racist comments. These arethings which do not appear to happen so frequently with White respondents.Ethnic respondents also appear to suffer fewer social forms of bullying such

as gossip or rumours than their White counterparts who experience gossipor practical jokes as part of their personalized bullying experience.

DISCUSSION

This study of public sector workers has demonstrated that one in five re-spondents indicated that they felt they had been bullied at work and thiswas higher for women (24 per cent) than for men (17 per cent). These find-ings are comparable to other studies, where typical prevalence rates fluctu-

ate between 5 per cent and over 30 per cent (see Zapf et al.2003 for summaryaccounts). It is unsurprising that we could find little evidence for bullyingtaking place from senior managers, given that senior managers are less likelyto come into direct contact with employees on a day-to-day basis. It is, how-ever, surprising that more evidence was not uncovered for bullying by mem-bers of the public or user groups of public services, particularly given thenumbers of NHS respondents, education workers and emergency serviceworkers taking part in this study.

As with many studies of bullying at work we found clear evidence ofnegative behaviours from line managers, the most prevalent of these beingdemeaning tasks, excessive monitoring, excessive criticism, withholding in-formation, and exclusion. However, the novel approach taken in this studyalso sought to identify the negative behaviours emanating from colleaguesof equal grade or rank and not only to consider the Ethnic differences. Toour knowledge, such an approach is unique in studies of bullying at work.The negative behaviours from colleagues are quite different from the nega-tive behaviours from line managers. Here we see how jokes, racist remarks,humiliation and hostility are the most frequently occurring negative behav-iours. These are important findings as it enables us to understand how thenegative behaviours differ according to whether managers or colleagues in-stigate them. With this heightened understanding, organizations and thosetasked with dealing with bullying at work such as human resource manag-ers and trade union officers, can make informed decisions on interventionstrategies and possible diversity awareness programmes. The data in thisstudy suggests that adopting a blanket approach to tackling bullying is toosimplistic since different groups use different bullying tactics.

When specifically exploring the data by ethnic classification we find a higherprevalence of bullying amongst non-White groups, with 35 per cent indicatingthat they suffer from bullying compared to just 9 per cent of White respon-

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

21/26


Bullying amongst Ethnic employees is statistically significant for both menand women, although it is highly statistically significant amongst women(U = 1169.5, p < 0.001). These findings are comparable to other studies of bul-lying where gender was the focus (see, for example, Vartia and Hyyti 2002),

although no specific studies have sought to explore the ethnic differences ingender groups. These results confirm the cross-sectional analysis undertakenby Hoel and Cooper (2000) where some Ethnic groups were approximatelytwice as likely to experience bullying compared to their White counterparts.

This study has shown that line managers use different bullying tacticstowards White respondents compared to Ethnic respondents. When linemanagers bully White respondents, the most prominent types of negativebehaviour relate to the work or job role first and personalized bullying sec-ond. This order is reversed for Ethnic respondents, with personalized bully-

ing being the most prominent. These findings are extremely important sincethey enable us to better understand the negative tactics employed by linemanagers towards White and Ethnic respondents. When we look at thenegative behaviour of colleagues, we find less distinct differences when thevictim is from an Ethnic group. When colleagues bully other colleagues,the focus of the attack is personal first and foremost. Exclusion and beingignored, humiliation, being undermined and patronized, feature strongly inthe armoury of the bully regardless of whether the victim is White or fromsome other Ethnic classification. However, there are some subtle and not-so-subtle differences in the behaviour of colleagues towards Ethnic respon-dents. Most prominent among these is being told to quit the job, somethingwhich occurs with greater frequency for Ethnic respondents. The resultsshow how social forms of bullying such as gossip or rumour or practicaljokes are more prominently used against White colleagues than Ethniccolleagues. It is possible that when colleagues bully, their tactics change toreflect firstly their organizational status and, secondly, the behaviours theymay perceive they can get away with. It is clear from these results that whileEthnic respondents are continuing to experience bullying tactics by theircolleagues, the more obvious racist actions of practical jokes and graffiti aremasked by more subtle bullying behaviours. This might well be the resultof over 30 years of the raising of racial awareness in British workplaces thathave not eradicated negative behaviours towards Ethnic employees butmerely changed them from being overt to covert.

We already know from existing European studies of bullying at work howdifferent forms of bullying behaviours can be classified as organizationallyderived or socially orientated (see, for example, Einarsen and Raknes 1995;Zapf et al. 1996). What we have not known up to this point is how thesenegative behaviours have differed based on the perpetrators position or rolein the organization and the recipients ethnic classification. The data from

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

22/26


bullying amongst male nurses, The risk associated with being different hasbeen documented by many social and political processes throughout humanhistory. Although not reported here, we are continuing to analyse the datafor the health effects and intervention strategies adopted by White and

Ethnic respondents who are experiencing bullying in public service organi-zations. This might provide us with further clues as to how differencemanifests itself in organizations.

Methodological limitationsAlthough we believe we have obtained a balanced sample of Ethnic and Whiterespondents, the relatively small sample size of 247 people must be taken intoaccount. Furthermore, the study contained too few respondents in the different

Ethnic classifications as outlined by the Commission for Racial Equality toenable us to see whether sub-groups of negative behaviour might exist or not.For example, do Chinese respondents have a different workplace experiencecompared to Indian employees? It is therefore important that further studiesare undertaken using larger datasets where a range of Ethnic and minoritygroups are represented. Nevertheless, we believe some valuable informationhas been provided by this study. Self reporting measures of issues such asbullying should always be considered carefully in situations where it is notpossible to control for other measures such as health, personality or other

psycho-social variables that produce artificially high results. Even so, when anemployee feels they are experiencing bullying it is their perception that mattersto them and we have accepted that insight as the basis for this study.

The paper has already recognized the important but constraining issue ofaccess to victims of bullying in a generic way. Studies of this kind add furtherlayers of complexity to the access issue, this time on the basis of ethnic clas-sification. Access to qualitative data that provides the richness of meaningand understanding that workplace bullying requires is extremely important,but researchers will need to find methods to overcome problems of access,

particularly with groups of individuals who fall outside of norm categories.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reinforces the evidence of other studies conducted globally intobullying at work, in that incidences rates are comparable. The 20 per cent ofrespondents in this study who indicated they were experiencing bullying atwork is relatively high compared to some other studies. This indicates thatfurther work needs to be undertaken across the public sector with a largersample which brings together both qualitative and quantitative data.

A fundamental finding from this study is the use of different negative

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

23/26


We also know that clusters of negative behaviours exist and that these areused to bully in relation to an individuals role; as a personalized attack oreven as a form of social bullying. The evidence indicates that line managersbully White respondents by attacking their work role while line managers

bully Ethnic respondents by a personalized attack. Peer bullying to Whiteand Ethnic respondents remains largely one of personalized or social bully-ing. This is most likely to be because peers do not possess the power to bullyon the basis of work role. These findings have fundamental implications forstrategies of intervention in dealing with bullying at work.

The 1999 Macpherson Report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry definedinstitutional racism as The collective failure of an organization to providean appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour,culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and

behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice,ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage eth-nic people. This study has demonstrated that ethnic people continue to bedisadvantaged in public sector workplaces. The negative behaviours theyexperience clearly constitute bullying at work. This has more fundamentalimplications on the public employment duty for racial equality of the 2000Race Relations (Amendment) Act. While the 1976 Race Relations Act did notcover racial harassment, by December 2003, racial harassment was an offenceunder law. The duty on public sector employers to monitor practices byethnic origin (including grievance) and publish their results annually meansthat evidence from studies such as ours becomes even more important.However, particularly significant are the findings of a report into public dutycompliance in Wales (June 2005). In an interview with Chris Myant, Directorof the Commission for Racial Equality in Wales, we were told that none ofthe 43 public bodies contacted by the CRE in Wales were compliant and only8 of these were compliant in part. Results such as these do not augur wellwhen considering the findings of studies such as ours.

What our study now shows us is that the perpetrators of these bullyingbehaviours discriminate clearly on ethnic grounds and adapt their tacticsaccordingly. The year 2006 saw the 30th anniversary of the Race RelationsAct in Britain. It would seem that so much more needs to be done.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the respondents andorganizations who enabled this study to take place. Specific thanks are givento Andrew Jones of the Valleys Race Equality Council.

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

24/26


Archer, D. 1999. Exploring Bullying Vulture in the Para-military Organization, International Journal ofManpower, 20 1/2, 94105.

Bjorkqvist, K. 1992. Sex Differences in Physical, Cerbal, and Indirect Aggression: A Review of RecentResearch, Sex Roles, 30, 3/4, 17788.

Bjorkqvist, K., K. Osterman and M. Hjelt-Back. 1994. Aggression Among University Employees,AggressiveBehaviour, 20, 17384.

Brook, K. 2004. Labour Market Data for Local Areas by Ethnicity, Labour Market Trends, October 2004, 40516.Bryman, A. 2001. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chakraborti, N. and J. Garland. 2004. Englands Green and Pleasant Land? Examining Racial Prejudice in a

Rural Context, Patterns of Prejudice, 38, 4, 38398.Commission for Racial Equality. 2003a. Racial Equality in Prisons. London: Commission for Racial Equality.Commission for Racial Equality. 2003b. Towards Racial Equality. London: Commission for Racial Equality.Commission for Racial Equality (Wales). 2005. Welsh public bodies fail race equality survey (available by

email from CRE Wales), 27 June.Dhillon, P. 1995. Challenging Rural Racism. London: NCVO.Einarsen, S. 2000. Harassment and Bullying at Work: A Review of the Scandinavian Approach,Aggression

and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 5, 4, 371401.Einarsen, S. and B.I. Raknes. 1995. Harassment at Work and the Victimization of Men, paper presented at the

Seventh European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology, Gyor, Hungary, May.Einarsen, S., H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper. 2003. The Concept of Bullying at Work: the European Tradi-

tion, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace:International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis.

Eriksen, W. and S. Einarsen. 2004. Gender Minority as a Risk of Exposure to Bullying at Work: The Case ofMale Assistant Nurses, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 4, 47392.

Fullilove, M.T. 1998. Comment: Abandoning Race as a Variable in Public Health Research an Idea WhoseTime Has Come,American Journal of Public Health, 88, 12978.

Gemzoe-Mikkelsen, E. and S. Einarsen. 2001. Bullying in Danish Work-life: Prevalence and Health Corre-lates, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4, 393413.Health and Safety Executive. 2005. Research Report [RR.308], Ethnicity, Work Characteristics, Stress and Health.

London: HSE Books.Heatherton, T.F., R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull (eds). 2003. The Social Psychology of Stigma. New York:

Guilford Press.Home Office Reports. 1999. Equality and Fairness in the Fire Service. London: Home Office.Henderson, P. and R. Kaur. 1999. Rural Racism in the UK. London: Community Development Foundation.Hochschild, A.R. 1983. The Managed Heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Hoel, H. and C. Cooper. 2000. Destructive Conflict and Bullying at Work, Report produced by the Manchester

School of Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.

Hoel, H. and D. Salin. 2003. Organizational Antecedents of Workplace Bullying, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives inResearch and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis.

Jay, E. 1992. Keep them in Birmingham Challenging Racism in South-west England. London: Commission forRacial Equality:

Jones, A. 2002. Racism in the Valleys Perception or Reality? Valleys Race Equality Council: Pontypridd,South Wales.

Krieger, N. 2003. Does Racism Harm Health? Did Child Abuse Exist Before 1962? On Explicit Questions,Critical Science, and Current Controversies: An Ecosocial Perspective, American Journal of Public Health,93, 2, 1949.

Lewis, D. 2002. The Social Construction of Workplace Bullying a Sociological Study with Special Reference

to Further and Higher Education. Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Wales (Cardiff),School of Social Sciences and Education.

h l f ll k l l l l h

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

25/26


Lewis, D. 2004. Bullying at Work: the Impact of Shame Among University and College Lecturers , BritishJournal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 3, 281300.

Leymann, H. 1996. The Content and Development of Mobbing at Work, European Journal of Work & Organi-zational Psychology, 5, 2, 65184.

lafsson, R.F. and H.L. Jhannsdttir. 2004. Coping with Bullying in the Workplace: the Effect of Gender,

Age and Type of Bullying, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 3, 31933.People Management Magazine. 2001. A Painful Issue for the Health Service, 12, 78.Personnel Today. 2002. Ford forced to pay 150,000 to victim of racist bullying, December.Race Relations (Amendment) Act. 2000. London: The Stationery Office.Rayner, C. 1997. Incidence of Workplace Bullying,Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 3,

18191.Rayner, C. 1999. From Research to Implementation: Finding Leverage for Prevention, International Journal of

Manpower, 201/2, 2838.Salin, D. 2001. Prevalence and Forms of Bullying amongst Business Professionals: A Comparison of Two

Different Strategies for Measuring Bullying, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4,42541.

Sheehan, M. 1999. Workplace Bullying: Responding with some Emotional Intelligence, International Journalof Manpower, 20 1/2, 5769.

Shields, M. and S. Wheatley Price. 2002. Racial Harassment, Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Quit: Evidencefrom the British Nursing Profession, Economica, 69, 295326.

Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, The. 1999. A Report by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. London: The StationeryOffice, February.

Stolley, P.D. 1999. Race in Epidemiology, International Journal of Health Services, 29, 9059.Sudman, S. and N.M. Bradburn. 1982.Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. San Fran-

sisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Vartia, M. 1996. The Sources of Bullying Psychological Work Environment and Organizational Climate,

European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5, 2, 20314.Vartia, M. and J. Hyyti. 2002. Gender Differences in Workplace Bullying among Prison Officers, EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 1, 11326.

Walling, A. 2004. Workless Households: Results from the Spring 2004 LFS, Labour Market Trends, November,43545.

Withey, M. and W. Cooper. 1989. Predicting Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect,Administrative Science Quarterly,34, 52139.

Zapf, D. 1999. Organizational, Work Group Related and Personal Causes of Mobbing/bullying at Work,International Journal of Manpower, 20 1/2, 7085.

Zapf, D., C. Knorz and M. Kulla. 1996. On the Relationship between Mobbing Factors, and Job Content,Social Work Environment, and Health Outcomes, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5,

2, 21537.Zapf, D. and C. Gross. 2001. Conflict Escalation and Coping with Workplace Bullying: A Replication and

Extension, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4, 497522.Zapf, D., S. Einarsen, H. Hoel and M. Vartia. 2003. Findings on Bullying in the Workplace, in S. Einarsen,

H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspec-tives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis.

Zapf, D. and S. Einarsen. 2003. Individual Antecedents of Bullying: Victims and Perpetrators, in S. Einarsen,H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspec-tives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis.

Date received 17 July 2005. Date accepted 30 January 2006.

8/14/2019 3. Lewis, D.

26/26

3. lewis, d

Documents