workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: a review

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing andGeneral Harassment: A Reviewijmr_339 1..20

Sara Branch, Sheryl Ramsay1 and Michelle Barker1

Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt Campus, Mt Gravatt, GriffithUniversity, Brisbane, Qld 4122, Australia, and 1Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Nathan Campus,

Nathan, Griffith University, Brisbane, Qld 4111, AustraliaCorresponding author email: [email protected]

Research into workplace bullying has continued to grow and mature since emergingfrom Scandinavian investigations into school bullying in the late 1970s. Research com-munities now exist well beyond Scandinavia, including Europe, the UK, Australia, Asiaand the USA. While the terms harassment and mobbing are often used to describebullying behaviour, workplace bullying tends to be the most consistently used termthroughout the research community. In the past two decades especially, researchershave made considerable advances in developing conceptual clarity, frameworks andtheoretical explanations that help explain and address this very complex, but oftenoversimplified and misunderstood, phenomenon. Indeed, as a phenomenon, workplacebullying is now better understood with reasonably consistent research findings inrelation to its prevalence; its negative effects on targets, bystanders and organizationaleffectiveness; and some of its likely antecedents. However, as highlighted in this review,many challenges remain, particularly in relation to its theoretical foundations andefficacy of prevention and management strategies. Drawing on Affective Events Theory,this review advances understanding through the development of a new conceptualmodel and analysis of its interrelated components, which explain the dynamic andcomplex nature of workplace bullying and emphasize current and future debates. Gapsin the literature and future research directions are discussed, including the vexingproblem of developing an agreed definition of workplace bullying among the researchcommunity, the emergence of cyberbullying, the importance of bystanders in address-ing the phenomenon and the use of both formal and informal approaches to preventionand intervention.

Introduction

Workplace bullying, because of its severe personaland organizational effects, detracts from the devel-opment and maintenance of vital, diverse and pro-ductive workplaces. Interest in workplace bullyingemerged over three decades ago, with considerableresearch conducted by scholars throughout the worldin the past 20 years. In this time, researchers havedeveloped a better understanding of the nature ofthis complex, but often misunderstood phenomenon(see Wheeler et al. 2010). While different terminol-ogy exists, workplace bullying tends to be the most

consistently used term, with Einarsen et al. (2011)asserting that harassment, bullying, and mobbingcan be used interchangeably (p. 5), although callshave been made recently to examine the differencesbetween related concepts such as incivility and bul-lying (Hershcovis 2011). With workplace bullyingnow acknowledged as an identifiable research areaof growing interest, we felt that a critical review ofacademic enquiry sourced from scholarly papersand conferences from around the world was timely.Following a brief review of the more traditionalareas that focus on the prevalence of workplacebullying and its definition, we turn to conceptual

bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. *, ** (2012)DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00339.x

2012 The AuthorsInternational Journal of Management Reviews 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA02148, USA

developments and current debates that have shapedacademic enquiry. From this review, we develop andpresent a new model that enhances understanding ofthe complexity of workplace bullying and providesdirection for future research.

Prevalence of workplace bullying

Regrettably, research suggests that a significantnumber of people are exposed to persistent abusivetreatment within the workplace (Keashly and Harvey2006), with the majority of studies within Europeindicating that between 10% and 15% of the work-force are exposed to workplace bullying (Zapf et al.2011), with North American research reportingsimilar prevalence rates (Keashly and Jagatic 2011).However, depending on the definition of work-place bullying used (discussed below), its reportedprevalence can vary quite dramatically. While someresearchers define bullying as having occurred if thetarget has experienced bullying behaviours at leastonce or twice a week for six months (e.g. Leymann1996), others measure less frequent occurrenceof the behaviours, sometimes with no nominatedtime duration (Zapf et al. 2011). This is a significant,ongoing dilemma for researchers and practitioners,for which an agreed resolution would be usefulbecause of legal and policy implications (Einarsenet al. 2011; Nielsen et al. 2011).

Despite this, extensive research has occurred intothose who may be most at risk of being a target ofworkplace bullying. The majority of the research hasfocused on downwards bullying (as perpetrated bymanagers against subordinates); to a lesser extent onhorizontal bullying (one colleague bullying another);and more recently on upwards bullying (a sub-ordinate bullying a person in a managerial position;for a review of prevalence rates, see Zapf et al.2011). Thus, bullying can occur within all levels ofan organization. Additionally, despite some possibleconcentration in particular industries (Hubert andvan Veldhoven 2001; Zapf et al. 2011), workplacebullying can occur in most organizations and indus-tries (Lewis and Gunn 2007).

Definition of workplace bullying

Perhaps owing to the complexity of the phenomenon,researchers and practitioners continue to struggleto develop an agreed definition of workplace bully-

ing (Saunders et al. 2007), with some researchersquestioning whether a uniform definition is possible(Rayner et al. 2002). Fevre et al. (2010) recentlyidentified a constant tension in locating a definitionthat appropriately reflects the nature of the phenom-enon across a range of cultural contexts and alsoretains acknowledgement of the original academicwork in the area (p. 75). Nevertheless, there doesappear to be agreement in the academic communityas to the essential characteristics that determinethe phenomenon (Branch 2008; Nielsen et al. 2008).These elements are captured in a widely useddefinition, which emanated from Scandinavia andwas adapted from Olweuss (1978, 1993) researchinto schoolyard bullying.

[Workplace bullying is] a situation in which oneor more persons systematically and over a longperiod of time perceive themselves to be on thereceiving end of negative treatment on the part ofone or more persons, in a situation in which theperson(s) exposed to the treatment has difficultyin defending themselves against this treatment.(Matthiesen and Einarsen 2007, p. 735)

In relation to the definition provided, period oftime first reflects the characteristic of persistence,or a pattern of behaviour (Einarsen et al. 2011),which distinguishes bullying from a one-off clash(Hoel and Cooper 2001; Saunders et al. 2007). Thus,workplace bullying is often subject to escalationover time (Caponecchia and Wyatt 2009; Zapf andGross 2001). However, the intensity of some one-offevents, their potential for ongoing threat (Einarsenet al. 2011), and/or single incidents being repeatedwith different individuals (Caponecchia and Wyatt2009) means the issue of one-off events remainssubject to debate.

Second, negative treatment relates to the occur-rence and perception of significant, inappropriate,negative or unreasonable behaviours as opposed totrivial behaviours (Einarsen et al. 2011; Hoel andCooper 2001; Saunders et al. 2007). Reaching abso-lute agreement on what are bullying behaviours,however, is virtually impossible because issues suchas context, intensity and the existence of patternsof behaviour are important (Rayner 1997), as is apersons subjective perception of being bullied,which can vary quite substantially across individuals(Agervold 2007, p. 163). Thus, for researchers,practitioners and, most importantly, targets of bully-ing, labelling specific workplace behaviours as actsof bullying is difficult. Furthermore, as technologydevelops, the tactics used by perpetrators are also

2 S. Branch et al.

2012 The AuthorsInternational Journal of Management Reviews 2012 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

likely to vary, requiring ongoing examination. Forexample, an Australian study that explored bullyingin the manufacturing sector found that 10.7% ofrespondents had experienced cyberbullying (Privit-era and Campbell 2009).

Targets difficulty in defending themselves isthe final, commonly agreed definitional element,which can be conceptualized as an imbalance ofpower between the parties. According to the defini-tion, interactions between parties with equal powerwould not be labelled as workplace bullying(Einarsen et al. 2011; Hoel and Cooper 2001; Rayneret al. 2002). Importantly, a targets diminished powerto defend him/herself could be due to either formaland/or informal power structures in which they work(Branch et al. 2007b; Lamertz and Aquino 2004), orto the perpetrators continuing inappropriate, nega-tive behaviours, which wear down the targets abilityto defend him/herself (Einarsen 2000).

Conceptual development

In order to understand a phenomenon as complex asworkplace bullying, a dynamic theoretical frameworkis required so that organizations can ultimatelyprevent and/or intervene in the relevant processes.However, scholarship in the area of workplacebullying has not been grounded in a strong theory base(Einarsen 2000). Indeed, according to Wheeler et al.(2010), we have yet to explain the phenomenon witha comprehensive theory (p. 554). Within this sectionof this paper, we review a number of the theoreticalframeworks that have been presented in the literature,and then introduce a model developed from a syn-thesis of the workplace bullying and related litera-ture. This model will then be used to review keyelements of the workplace bullying research, namely:contributing factors; onset; effects on well-being;individual and organizational responses; and con-tinuation versus possibilities of cessation.

While the workplace bullying field has beenacknowledged as largely atheoretical in its orienta-tion, there have been notable concerted attemptsto redress this situation. Hoel et al. (2002) arguedthat, on the evidence available, workplace bullyingcould be conceptualized as a significant psycho-social hazard, and demonstrated its relationship tothe stress literature both in terms of antecedentsand outcomes for individuals and the organiza-tion. Accordingly, Baillien and colleagues assertthat, while Karaseks Job Demand Control Model

(Karasek 1979) has been successfully applied to awide range of issues, there has been little attentionto social behavioural concerns such as workplacebullying (Baillien et al. 2011a,b). Applying Kara-seks model to workplace bullying, Baillien et al.(2011a) found significant main effects (but not inter-actions) for high workload and low job autonomyat Time 1 to be associated with self-identification asa target at Time 2 (as indicated by the Short-NegativeActs Questionnaire). Additionally, significant inter-action effects (but not main) for high workload andlow job autonomy at Time 1 were associated withself-identification as a perpetrator at Time 2. Theyconclude that their research generally supportsthe work environment hypothesis and contributes tounderstanding of both target and perpetrator roles.Also, the Job Demand Control Model is relevant toboth explaining workplace bullying and identifyingareas of prevention, including avoidance of high-strain jobs, with a focus on increased autonomy andreasonable workloads.

Another important perspective relates to the con-ceptualization of workplace bullying as a particularand severe type of escalating conflict. Using the Con-flict Escalation Model of Glasl (1994) (as cited inZapf and Gross 2001) and a series of quantitativeand qualitative studies, Zapf and Gross found thatmost bullying cases could be tracked according tothe escalating process described by Glasl. Escalationmoves though various phases, commencing withattempts to cooperate and moving over time toincreasingly higher levels of dysfunctionality.As wellas individual effects, they discuss the wide range ofintervention strategies and possible outcomes thatreflect a similarly escalating frame throughout thebullying process (e.g. rational discussion throughto departure from the workplace by the target), notingthat preventive measures and intervention in earlystages of conflict escalation are highly recommended.

One perspective which may advance the con-ceptualization of workplace bullying as an escalatingconflict relates to the area of hostile workplace rela-tionships (see Aquino and Lamertz 2004; Keashlyand Harvey 2006). In their relational model of work-place victimization, Aquino and Lamertz (2004)highlight the interaction between context, targetand perpetrator. They assert that a person [who]perceives himself or herself to be a [target] duringone social encounter may retaliate in a later encoun-ter, thereby enacting a perpetrator role (Aquino andLamertz 2004, p. 1025). Historically, this perspectivehas been fraught with difficulty, as researchers and

Workplace Bullying: A Review 3


practitioners have understandably wished to avoidblaming the victim. Nonetheless, this point of viewis important, as it demonstrates the complexity ofworkplace bullying, in that identifying a true targetor perpetrator may not be possible in many cases (seeGlomb 2002). Moreover, this relational perspectiveenables research from the wider field of communica-tion to be applied to workplace bullying.

Another important perspective and central defini-tional element of workplace bullying is that ofpower. Initial research in this field commonlyidentified managers as the perpetrators of bullying,often linking top-down bullying to organizationalstructures, including the role of overseeing othersand relational power differentials, particularly themisuse thereof (Roscigno et al. 2009, p. 1562). Atargets powerlessness, in this case, results fromthe imbalance of power seen in the organizationalhierarchy. By contrast, others propose more complexconceptualizations of the relationships betweenpower and workplace bullying. Branch et al. (2007b)propose a power and dependency approach inexplaining findings where subordinates were able toderive sufficient informal power to bully a person ina higher organizational position. Along similar lines,Lamertz andAquino (2004) report on the precariousposition of managers unable to draw effectivelyupon their formal powers as one interpretation oftheir finding in relation to the amount of perceivedvictimization towards managers (p. 814). Indeed, therecognition of upwards (e.g. Branch et al. 2007a) andhorizontal bullying (e.g. Schat et al. 2006) empha-sizes that processes beyond formal power are inplay. That is, personal power, or power derived by apersons access to informal sources of power (e.g.expertise, information and networks of people;French and Raven 1959; Raven 1993), can be used togain sufficient power to bully others in the workplace(Branch et al. 2007b; Hutchinson et al. 2006b).

Alternatively, in an attempt to emphasize thedynamic nature of workplace bullying, Hutchinsonet al. (2006b) applied Foucaults (1977) and Cleggs(1993) conceptualization of power. Using thisapproach, bullying was depicted as a dynamic andcomplex interaction of organizational and socialstructures, rather than a formal relationship or aninterpersonal dispute. Using this conceptualization,bullying is a process where implicit social and organ-izational rules, group membership and informal net-works of personal connections are involved, therebytapping into the informal or personal sources ofpower available in the workplace. Moreover, on the

basis of a large qualitative study focused on work-place mobbing, Shallcross et al. (2010) analysed anumber of cases where individuals were publiclyhumiliated and seemingly terrorized through thetactics of gossip, rumours and false accusationsof bullying. According to the authors, power wasenhanced through the use of these tactics becausethe implied threat to the recipient [was] that theytoo may become the target (p. 29). Powerlessness inthis case results from ongoing gossip, rumour andhumiliation that can be associated with an accusationof bullying, with the accuser obtaining powerbecause of the reactions that the term bullyingevokes. These studies highlight the perspective thatinformal sources of power are not to be underesti-mated in their capacity to deliberately perpetratebullying (Shallcross et al. 2010, p. 29).

Indeed, Branch et al. (2007a) found that a lackof a legitimizing agent from the organization duringchange may result in staff perceiving the manager aslacking legitimate power (p. 275), thereby reducing amanagers ability to influence others. Similarly, in herstudy of gender harassment in the US Army, Miller(1997) found that women in positions of authoritywere often not respected owing to a perception thattheir power was illegitimately obtained (e.g. via aquota system). Branch et al. (2007a) also found thata lack of respect for the managers role, as wellas subordinates advanced knowledge and skills(reflecting their information, expert and referentpower; French and Raven 1959; Raven 1993), createsdependence on subordinates that could reduce a man-agers ability to respond to inappropriate behaviour.Thus, through these explorations, the concept ofpower goes beyond the notion of an abuse of authority,presenting a more complex explanation of informalpower processes where dependence by a manager is akey factor that can result in a power imbalance thatenables the onset and escalation of bullying.

What these explorations demonstrate is that allactors in workplace bullying potentially have accessto power, as seen in Lutgen-Sandviks (2006) inter-view study with 30 witnesses and target-witnesses.Notwithstanding concerns about the risks involvedwith resisting bullying, interviewees engaged in arange of resistance strategies such as confronting thebully, using a collective voice, embracing labels suchas troublemaker and developing links to others asallies. Despite interviewees perceiving an escalationof abuse as a result of their resistance, the authorsemphasize the power-as-commodity frame presentspower as something bullies have and targeted

4 S. Branch et al.


workers do not . . . [and] overlooks circumstances inwhich workers resist and eventually alter organiza-tional systems (p. 427). Indeed, it is for this reasonthat many scholars within the field do not refer totargets as victims, which can be seen as a label thatadds to a persons feeling of helplessness (Magleyet al. 1999).

In summary, despite many people within an organ-ization having access to various types of power thatcould enable bullying of another person, the initialapproach to workplace bullying was to look at themanager as a bully. However, Branch et al. (2007b)warn that taking a narrow view of power risks over-looking the complex role that power plays in work-place bullying. Clearly, all within the workplacehave access to a range of power sources (that couldbe used inappropriately) and, by exploring powerdynamics, a more complex explanation of workplacebullying emerges. However, to date much of theliterature on power and workplace bullying has beenconceptual (Keashly and Jagatic 2011) with researchthat applies these conceptualizations restricted toonly a few studies (e.g. Branch et al. 2007a; LamertzandAquino 2004). This theoretical area of workplacebullying has the potential to be highly informative ofprevention and management strategies.

One of the most widely known and comprehensiveframeworks of workplace bullying was proposed byEinarsen et al. (first introduced by Einarsen 2000;Einarsen et al. 2003, 2011), wherein societal, organ-izational and individual characteristics are presentedas dynamic processes that can either hinder orcontribute to the occurrence and continuation ofworkplace bullying; and result in individual andorganizational reactions and effects, that loop back toinfluence factors present in the environment. How-ever, within this framework, the group level (whichrepresents an important structural conduit betweenthe individual and the organization) and the charac-teristics of perpetrators are not visually representedon the model, although these are both briefly dis-cussed in the explanation, perhaps reflecting the lackof attention that currently exists in the literature inrelation to the group level of analysis (see Ramsayet al. 2011) and perpetrators (see Zapf and Einarsen2011).

Several other models have also focused on theinterplay between individual and organizational ele-ments, ultimately highlighting the importance of theinteractive processes of workplace bullying withinan organizational culture (e.g. Harvey et al. 2006;Heames and Harvey 2006). Aquino and Lamertzs

(2004) model of victimization similarly emphasizesthe importance of context, suggesting that certaincharacteristics of an organizational culture and powerdifferences within dyads can increase the likelihoodof victimization occurring over the course of anongoing workplace interaction (p. 1024). Recently,Parzefall and Salin (2010) argued that SocialExchange Theory can be used to highlight the impor-tance of exchange relationships in promoting(or otherwise) a justice climate within organiza-tions. Perceptions of injustice can lead to attitudes andbehaviours being adjusted downwards, which canexplain the negative impact upon the work environ-ment, including bystanders (Parzefall and Salin2010). In essence, the above models propose similarprocesses: characteristics of the work environmentalong with those of individuals play a part in theoccurrence and continuation of workplace bullying,which then has effects on individuals and the work-place, feeding back to encourage or, less probably,deter further bullying.

One interesting conceptual development in thefield is the exploration of emotions and, in particular,the application of Affective Events Theory (AET;Weiss and Cropanzano 1996). While the applicationof AET to the field is an important and only recentaddition to the workplace bullying literature, therehas been use of the theory within the broader antiso-cial behaviour literature. Developed by Weiss andCropanzano (1996), AET suggests that people oftenreact emotionally to incidents, which influences theirsubsequent behaviours, attitudes and ultimately theirwell-being. Thus, incidents in the workplace, such asbullying, can be considered affective events (seeGhosh et al. 2011; Glas et al. 2011; Lee and Broth-eridge 2006; Lim et al. 2008). In one of the fewstudies directly linking AET and bullying, Broth-eridge and Lee (2010) examined the emotional reac-tions to specific bullying behaviours, proposing thateach bullying event will produce an affective reac-tion. They found that belittlement, having ones workundermined and verbal abuse were all associatedwith the negative emotions of sadness, restlessness,anger and, most often, confusion. Brotheridge andLees (2010) research also indicates that repeatednegative events may sensitize targets to further nega-tive events, thereby increasing the level of emotionsexperienced.

Indeed, the AET literature highlights the impor-tance of the duration and intensity of conflict eventsrather than the individual events themselves (Ayokoet al. 2003). For instance, Fuller et al. (2003), using



time series modelling, found that regularly experi-encing low-level stressful events has the potential tocause workers to experience gradually increasinglevels of strain over time (p. 1028). This may explainhow someone in a stressful work environment whois already experiencing strain may not be able torespond effectively to bullying when it occurs,thereby beginning the negative cycle of escalatingevents that can lead to ongoing bullying. Lutgen-Sandviks (2008) interview study highlights thisprocess, with targets experiencing a range of emo-tions, beginning with low levels of discomfort andnervousness in the pre-bullying phase, moving tomore extreme feelings of shame as the process con-tinued. The ongoing destabilization of the targetsself-identity as a result of the escalation of bullyingmeant many [targets] reported being unable torebound fully between attacks (p. 109). DCruz andNoronhas (2010) study of ten targets also highlightsthe emotional strain that ongoing negative eventscan have with depression, anxiety, hopelessnessand helplessness prevailing (p. 525). This, in turn,resulted in decreasing positive feelings about workand people, often leading to withdrawal and quittingthe organization considered the best or only solution.Thus, workplace bullying could be considered anaffective episode consisting of a number of affectiveevents, where it is not so much particular events thatresult in outcomes, but rather the accumulation of(positive or) negative events in an episode that deter-mines how we feel (Ashkanasy 2003, p. 21) andresults in detrimental outcomes for individuals(Kanner et al. 1981). This conceptualization accordswith the definition of workplace bullying presentedearlier (especially in terms of persistence).

Further highlighting the importance of emotionsto the field, Grandey et al. (2007) found that verbalaggression from supervisors, co-workers and cus-tomers all had significant and unique associationswith emotional exhaustion (p. 75). They arguedthat verbal abuse from customers can have a negativeeffect on targets who are expected to control theirnegative reactions, and have fewer response options.Similarly, Sliter et al. (2010) found that customerincivility was positively related to emotional exhaus-tion through the perceived emotional labor demandsof ones job (p. 476). Thus, limited ability to expressemotions or respond to aggressive behaviour influ-ences emotional exhaustion, which may explain whysupport is so important to targets of anti-socialbehaviour. Indeed, one study found that positivesupport from colleagues as well as friends and family

could counteract the accumulation of negative events(Grzywacz and Marks 2000).

Drawing on the literature reviewed above, includ-ing the recent inclusion of affective events, we presenta model to both highlight and extend our currentunderstanding of workplace bullying (see Figure 1).While this is reflective of existing frameworks interms of the societal, organizational and individualcharacteristics and interactions, it also seeks to makemore salient the processes of workplace bullying asdepicted via individual responses, group dynamicswithin organizations and the interactive and cyclicalnature of interactions that ultimately lead to the labelof workplace bullying.As such, the model consists ofseven elements: (A) society; (B) the work environ-ment, which includes characteristics of the organiza-tion (including group characteristics), target,perpetrator and bystanders; (C) the onset of affectiveevents or bullying; (D) the individual and organiza-tional response (highlighting the dyadic interactionbetween perpetrator and target, as well as relevantgroups); (E) individual and organizational well-being; (F) the possible continuation of affectiveevents; and (G) the possible cessation of affectiveevents. Importantly, we believe that this modelhighlights and contributes to current understandingof the processes involved in workplace bullyingandmakes important additions in terms of its dynamicand cyclical nature, which assists in the identificationof intervention points that may minimize its occur-rence. Each of the elements in the model will nowbe reviewed, highlighting potential areas for futureresearch.

Society (A)

While it is recognized that society can influencebullying in the workplace, very little is known abouthow this occurs (Einarsen et al. 2011). Nevertheless,Einarsen and colleagues state that bullying needsto be viewed against the background of societalelements such as culture, legal context and socio-economic factors (as acknowledged in their frame-work). Most references to society in the literaturecentre on how the rate of change in todays society caninfluence the occurrence of bullying (Einarsen et al.2011), how workplace bullying can potentially affectsociety as a result of the costs associated with thephenomenon (e.g. Coyne et al. 2000; Leymann 1996;Salin 2003b) and how pressures in society can bringabout change to recognize and address bullying(Namie 2003).

6 S. Branch et al.


Recently, Beale and Hoel (2011) argued that work-place bullying may be reinforced by the very natureof the capitalist employment relationship (p. 5),which in essence seeks to control employees throughhierarchical structures. In some cases, this can belinked to negative downward pressures to gain com-pliance and increased productivity, perhaps promot-ing a climate of fear (Rayner 1999). Beale and Hoel(2011) argue that employers and managers may notfully support anti-bullying intervention initiatives,which essentially seek to redress power imbalancesin the workplace and therefore interfere with thestatus quo.

Another perspective in the workplace bullyingliterature is the possibility of broad differences basedon national culture.While the cross-cultural perspec-tive presents a complex area that is difficult toresearch, one recent study has investigated percep-tual differences of workplace bullying in two worldregions (Central America (Costa Rica) and SouthernEurope (Spain); Escartn et al. 2011). Whereas therewere many similarities in the understanding of work-place bullying, employees from Central Americaplaced more emphasis on the physical component ofbullying, compared with their European counter-parts. Further research is needed into this level ofunderstanding of workplace bullying.

Work environment (B): Interaction betweenindividual and organizational characteristics(including groups)

Even though there are overlaps and complex inter-relationships among the antecedents of workplacebullying, they can be largely viewed as individual,interpersonal, group and organizational factors (seeEinarsen et al. 2011). Indeed, the literature increas-ingly portrays workplace bullying as a multi-facetedphenomenon, with its antecedents integrally relatedto interactions between characteristics of individualssuch as the perpetrator/s and target/s (see B1 inmodel) and the organizational environment (see B2in model; Harvey et al. 2006; Heames and Harvey2006; Salin and Hoel 2011; Zapf 1999). Baillienet al.s (2009) and Salins (2003b) research empha-sizes this interaction. Within Baillien et al.s (2009)global model of antecedents, three pathways areidentified: bullying due to intrapersonal frustrations(strains) (such as dissatisfaction with recentchanges); the closely related conflict escalationof either personal or work-related conflicts; andexplicit or implicit stimulation through team andorganizational characteristics (intragroup aspect)such as a climate that accepts gossip or backbiting(p. 7). In addition, within this study, individual and

A: Society

B: Work EnvironmentB1: Individual Characteriscs

(Target, Perpetrator, Bystander)

B2: Organizaonal Characteriscs

(including Group)

E: Well-beingIndividual

Physical and Psychological Health

Organisaonal

Job Sasfacon, Absenteeism,

Intenon to Leave

G: Cessaon of Aecve Events

C: Onset of Aecve Events

D: Individual, Group and

Organizaonal Response

F: Connuaon of Aecve Events

Figure 1. Cyclical framework of workplace bullying



organizational characteristics were found to influ-ence each of these pathways by either being thebasis for frustrations, conflict and direct encourage-ment of bullying or affecting how well an individualis able to manage the conflict or frustrations (p. 10).

Similarly, Salin (2003b) identified three classifi-cations for explanations of bullying which ofteninteract with each other. First, she identified enablingstructures including elements necessary to the occur-rence of workplace bullying, such as a power imbal-ance, a perception of low costs to the perpetratorfor their behaviour, dissatisfaction and frustration.Second, motivating structures are the characteristicsof the environment that encourage bullying, includ-ing competition for jobs and an organizationalculture that rewards aggressive or bullying behav-iour. Indeed, research suggests that job insecurity(see De Cuyper et al. 2009), organizational changeresulting in role conflict and job insecurity (see Bail-lien and De Witte 2009), a stressful work environ-ment (see Hauge et al. 2009), poorer psychosocialwork environments (see Agervold 2009, p. 274),high workloads, workgroup disharmony and accept-ance of inappropriate behaviour (see Branch et al.2007a), high job ambiguity and job complexity aswell as low autonomy (Baillien et al. 2009) are asso-ciated with workplace bullying. Third, Salin (2003b)identified precipitating processes that trigger bully-ing, such as a restructure or other forms of organiza-tional change.

While the above reflects the importance of thework environment in workplace bullying processes,historically, most researchers initially focused on theindividual factors that may precipitate occurrencesof workplace bullying. Indeed, according to Zapf andEinarsen (2011), the study of workplace bullyingwould be incomplete without consideration of thevarious personality and individual attributes relatedto targets and perpetrators. In a recent study how-ever, Lind et al. (2009) concluded that differences inpersonality were too minimal to be able to differen-tiate targets of workplace bullying from nontargets,indicating that explanations of workplace bullyingthat only refer to singular explanations, such aspersonality, are inappropriate (p. 231). Nevertheless,some findings have been noted with regard to con-tributing individual factors related to either the targetor the perpetrator, such as personality traits. Identi-fied personality traits of targets include beingrelatively more introverted, anxious, conscientious,neurotic, submissive (Coyne et al. 2000), less agree-able (Glas et al. 2007) and having low self-esteem

(Matthiesen and Einarsen 2007). These characteris-tics may well be linked to reportedly lower socialcompetence and could make targets vulnerable tobullying (Zapf and Einarsen 2011). Alternatively,characteristics such as conscientiousness couldcontribute to the behaviour of targets clashing withprevailing group norms (e.g. putting in more effort orfollowing rules more closely than the group (seeRamsay et al. 2011; Salin 2003a). However, contra-dictory findings with regard to personality persist.What is clear is that owing to the complexity of thephenomenon, a singular portrait of a target does notexist (Glas et al. 2007; Zapf and Einarsen 2011).

Notably, much more is known about targets thanperpetrators, the latter perhaps being more reluctantto come forward (Zapf and Einarsen 2011). However,the literature does suggest that perpetrators maybully because of a need to protect their self-esteem(Baumeister et al. 1996) and/or because of a lack ofsocial competencies, such as emotional control andperspective-taking (Zapf and Einarsen 2011). Indeed,Baillien et al. (2009) identified nine characteristicsof perpetrators, such as intolerant and being verystrict, which may suggest an inability to accommo-date and adopt flexible attitudes and behaviours(p. 9).

Keashly and Harvey (2006) also highlight theinteraction between actors in the escalation of work-place bullying with prolonged exposure to abuse[resulting] in the target behaving in a hostile andaggressive manner (p. 98). Indeed an understandingof workplace bullying must include the reciprocalnature of communication, with research (e.g. Zapfand Gross 2001) indicating that the reactions oftargets may play a part in workplace bullyingexperiences (see Aquino and Lamertz 2004 for arelational model of workplace victimization). Ashighlighted previously, the targetperpetrator rela-tionship is complex, with an accusation of bullyinglinked to a series of interactions that are built upover a period of time (Tehrani 2003, p. 280).Accord-ing to Tehrani (2003), as relationships become morenegative and stressed, seemingly small issues (e.g.not saying hello in the morning) can be interpretedas aggressive acts. As a result, the communicationliterature may be useful in understanding the deterio-ration of workplace relationships to the point wherethey become hostile. Additionally, this perspectivehighlights potential interventions that can promotethe use of effective communication skills that maybe valuable in de-escalating bullying processes (seeHess 2000, 2006).

8 S. Branch et al.


While these interpersonal communicative pro-cesses are clearly important, with individual andenvironmental perspectives the focus of significantresearch, group characteristics have only recentlybegun to be expanded (see Ramsay et al. 2011).The literature indicates that group-based differencessometimes appear to be the only reason people arebullied (e.g. minority groups who have race andethnicity as visible makers are likely to be morevulnerable; see Cortina 2008; Fox and Stallworth2005; Lewis and Gunn 2007; Roscigno et al. 2009).More broadly, Roscigno et al. (2009) found thatgroups occupying structural positions associatedwith little power (which are also more likely to belinked with minority groups) were at greater risk ofbeing bullied. In addition, the intra-group perspec-tive has been considered by researchers. In a study ofdiverse teams in large organizations, it was foundthat communication openness, defined as the ease oftalking and extent of understanding within the group,was important, with low levels of communicationopenness associated with higher levels of destructivereactions to conflict, bullying behaviours and emo-tional reactions to bullying (Ayoko 2007).

While these teams are part of the formal structure(Ayoko 2007), informal groups have also been con-sidered, with certain groups seen as strategic playersin bullying processes. Accordingly, Hutchinsonet al.s (2006a) qualitative research within hospitalsidentified powerful informal networks among perpe-trators of workplace bullying. Their findings suggestthat strong social, cooperative relationships contrib-uted to the continuation and proliferation of work-place bullying (p. 246). They found that legitimateorganizational processes (e.g. promotion) were usedto help conceal bullying and simultaneously allow itto flourish. Similarly, Salin (2003a) demonstratedthat bullies could be rewarded through overt pro-cesses such as performance review and promotion.Alternatively, from the targets perspective, Lutgen-Sandvik (2006) found that targets were sometimesable to turn to each other and to sympatheticco-workers for support, and seek to increase theirpower base through a collective voice and coordi-nated, group-based resistance measures. Importantly,the role of groups and bystanders in contributingto, or tacitly supporting, workplace bullying isstill largely unclear and is another vital area forfuture research (Keashly and Jagatic 2011). In arecent paper, Namie and Lutgen-Sandvik (2010)emphasized the role that upper management, humanresources (HR) and colleagues, can play by either

overtly joining in or passively supporting the bully-ing through inaction. Overall, this section highlightsthe importance of interactions between individualsand their environment, including groups, in work-place bullying processes. However, the futureresearch agenda needs to focus on further delineationof such interactions, with regard to the role of formaland informal groupings, targets and perpetrators.

Onset of affective events (C)

As highlighted earlier, a range of factors can result inthe onset of affective events, with particular triggerssuch as conflict escalation (Baillien et al. 2009) andorganizational change (Branch et al. 2007a; Salin2003b) identified. Additional research also points tothe value ofAET in understanding the onset of work-place bullying. For instance, one study found thatemotional reactions to workplace bullying predictedcounterproductive behaviour (e.g. sabotage by delib-erately doing ones job incorrectly; Ayoko et al.2003). Similarly, negative emotions were found to bean antecedent to incivility (Reio and Ghosh 2009).In their application of AET in the mentorprotgrelationship, Ghosh et al. (2011) found that distanc-ing behaviour by mentors can be an affective eventthat elicits negative emotions in protgs that thenprompt them to instigate incivility against theirmentors (e.g. affect-driven behaviour) (p. 33). Thus,the reactions of others can influence the escalation ofinappropriate behaviour, possibly leading to work-place bullying (see Zapf and Gross 2001).

Individual and organizational responses (D)

Although the dual themes of prevention and manage-ment of workplace bullying are emphasized repeat-edlywithin the literature, understanding the processesof how best to move from conceptualization to goodpractice is only starting to gain momentum. Whilethe literature does reveal agreement about the com-plexity of the problem and the associated need formultifaceted approaches to dealing with it, compre-hensive solutions remain elusive (Saam 2010). Thisis perhaps best reflected in Hoel and Einarsens(2010) quantitative results of statutory regulationsenacted in Sweden in 1993.While bullying in Swedenhas increased since the legislation was introduced,perhaps because of greater awareness of the problemand its characteristics (which is positive), a number ofshortcomings were identified in the enactment of thelegislation, especially in the appropriate training of



those required to provide help to targets. As a result,we are cautioned against relying on a narrow, legisla-tive framework to regulate a complex problem;particularly without appropriate prevention efforts,interventions and rehabilitation processes throughoutsociety and organizations, and specific training for allstakeholders, including management, employees andtrade union representatives (Hoel and Einarsen 2010).Similarly, at the organizational level, formal writtenpolicies and regulations should be accompanied bytraining and development initiatives that are integralto addressing workplace bullying. Also requiredis a positive influence perspective provided by asupportive environmental framework (e.g. skilledleadership), as suggested by research into AET (seeGrzywacz and Marks 2000), and the associated goalof increasing positive norms of behaviour in thework-place (see Keashly and Neuman 2009; Osatuke et al.2009; Ramsay et al. 2011). These elements will nowbe explored.

La Van and Martins (2008) managerial inter-vention matrix (p. 154) highlights the possibilityof using both formal and informal prevention andmanagement strategies. First, in terms of anteced-ents, the matrix indicates that there could be system-atic, formal investigations into triggers of workplacebullying and areas of vulnerability but, informally,there needs to be awareness of unconscious signalsabout tolerance (or lack thereof) of bullying thatcould be enough to help precipitate or hinder bully-ing. One promising intervention in this regard is theCivility, Respect and Engagement in the Workplace(CREW) initiative, which seeks to develop a workenvironment defined by civility, thereby aiming toreduce acceptance of inappropriate behaviour in theworkplace (see Osatuke et al. 2009).

Second, in relation to behaviour, there couldbe formal incident reports, but this should be aug-mented by a focus on more informal modelling ofappropriate behaviours by as many people as possi-ble in the organization. Research by Keashly andNeuman (2009), which involved the design of anintervention that included modelling of collaborativeand respectful communication (along with otherelements) as a way to change organizational mem-bers communication styles and reduce aggression,reflects one such approach which can becomeembedded in the organizations culture (p. 355).Third, consequences (i.e. formal policies, proceduresand processes around codes of conduct, disciplineand grievances) could be set out, while, informally,there needs to be conscious or unconscious

reinforcement of appropriate behaviour (e.g. giv-ing appropriate feedback). Thus, the combinationof formal (e.g. employee assistance programmes,mental health and legal support; see Shannon et al.2007 for a study on the use of these services) andinformal efforts, which develop positive norms and awell-trained workforce that understands and modelsappropriate communication styles, could reduce thelikelihood of negative behaviour occurring.

Moreover, Saams (2010) study with 18 consult-ants with experience in resolving cases of workplacebullying signals the potential value of coaching (e.g.providing coaches to assist parties to resolve the con-flict; see Fox and Stallworth 2009) and organizationaldevelopment (e.g. antecedents such as stress, roleand leadership issues could be addressed). Consult-ants who preferred coaching and organizationaldevelopment (rather than mediation as identified byothers) viewed bullying as a contextually based inter-personal conflict that required multiple approachesto address it. Mediation was also identified asanother commonly used response, but research intothe appropriateness of mediation, because of powerdifferences in workplace bullying cases, is required(Jenkins 2011; Saam 2010).

Of the approaches proposed and used to addressworkplace bullying, two of the most commonapproaches are No Bullying policies and training.Salins (2008) research into the perspectives andrecommendations of HR practitioners indicatessupport for written No Bullying policies that makea commitment to a bullying-free environment,define associated behaviours and consequences,identify contact persons, and outline formal andinformal complaints and investigation processes(p. 223). However, there is debate about the valueof written policies. For instance, in another study,Salin (2009) investigated organizational responsesto workplace harassment by analysing questionnairedata from personnel/HR managers in Finland.None of the identified strategies for response toharassment/bullying, which involved measuresrelating to reconciliation, punishment, transfer andavoidance as reported to the personnel/HR manager,were significantly correlated with the possession ofwritten anti-harassment policies. Longitudinal dataare needed to establish the real value of the develop-ment of written policies and associated preventiveand management measures (Salin 2008).

Interestingly, Salin (2008) found in her analysis offormal anti-bullying policies that targets of bullyingwere typically advised to contact their immediate

10 S. Branch et al.


superiors, suggesting that HR departments areresponsible for formulating policy and procedures,rather than any real involvement in addressing theissue. Indeed, the experiences of participants inDCruz and Noronhas (2010) research wouldsupport this. When participants in their study con-tacted HR managers in the hope of a resolution toworkplace bullying, they often had to follow up theirrequests for action, despite initial reassurances thatsomething would be done. In addition, participantsexperienced disbelief or blame, as well as cancelledmeetings without notice, from HR managers. Insome cases, the alleged bully was included in meet-ings with HR managers, which was perceived bytargets in the study as providing tacit or directsupport to the alleged bully. Importantly, participantsreported an increase in the bullying when they beganto actively [pursue] the matter with HR (p. 525).

Recently, Rayner and Lewis (2011) described thecritical role that HR plays in managing incidents ofworkplace bullying, recommending that HR depart-ments take a health and safety approach to work-place bullying, with bullying perceived as a risk to beaddressed as quickly as possible. By contrast, mostHR departments take a complaints policy route,where one can act only if a written complaint isreceived and the complainant is willing for theaccused to know details of the problem, essentiallyreducing the possibility of informal measures(Rayner and Lewis 2011, p. 334). Interestingly, it wasinformal measures, such as support from colleagues,that participants in DCruz and Noronhas (2010)study and others have found to be most helpfulto targets. As such, in addition to an anti-bullyingpolicy that takes a health and safety approach, aware-ness training strategies that include knowledge ofresponsibilities and obligations of employers andemployees, effective risk identification processes anda system for complaints are highly recommended(McCarthy et al. 2002). Thus, a No Bullying policyis perhaps most successful if used in conjunctionwith other efforts, such as training.

Additionally, training about the nature of bullying,support mechanisms within and outside the organiza-tion, and the management of bullying cases(McCarthy et al. 2002; Vartia et al. 2003) have beensuggested. For example, McCarthy et al. (2002)advise managers to use a no blame or problem-solving strategy, as opposed to punitive measures,when approaching perpetrators. Also, training ininterpersonal skills, conflict resolution and stressmanagement have been found to assist targets to

manage bullying behaviours better (see McCarthyet al. 1995). Such skills may well contribute toa targets ability to develop the capacity neededto manage such behaviour (McCarthy et al. 2002)and possibly de-escalate instances. Zapf andGross (2001) research demonstrates that successful[targets] (as opposed to unsuccessful [targets])were able to avoid direct confrontation and inadequatepassive strategies (e.g. drug use or absenteeism),and also recognize and avoid escalating behaviours(p. 515). Indeed, one recent study applying AET toworkplace bullying, found that the emotional re-actions of targets partly mediated the relationshipbetween workplace bullying and job satisfaction andintention to leave (Glas et al. 2011), emphasizing theimportance of emotional skills training.

In addition to awareness building and skills train-ing for potential targets, training is also recom-mended for bystanders. The rationale for this trainingis that inaction by bystanders leads to perceptions oftacit support for the perpetrator. Thus, bystandersplay a vital role in addressing and managing bullyingbehaviour (Namie and Lutgen-Sandvik 2010). Onesuch approach is the Mentors in Violence Program(MVP; Katz 1995). Developed in the early 1990s inthe US and designed initially to challenge precon-ceived views of violence directed at women, thisprogramme has since been expanded to challengeperceptions of other types of violence, includingbullying. The MVP was one of the first programmesto focus on bystanders, seeking to educate, engageand skill them to address violence (Katz 1995). Morerecent adaptations of this programme have foundlong-term, positive benefits, with improvements inattitudes, knowledge and behaviour (for information,see Banyard et al. 2004, 2007; Katz 1995). A relatedapproach from Canada is the Anti-discriminationResponse Training (ART) programme (Ishiyama2012), which uses an active witnessing model.The ART approach uses a skills training format toenhance readiness to respond to racist situations cog-nitively and behaviourally, and to empower otherwisepassive and silent bystanders to become more activeand vocal. While the programme is currently usedin skilling Canadian teachers and youth workers, theauthors are examining how the ART model can beadapted for skills training to prevent and respond toworkplace bullying.

Training programmes such as MVP, ART andgeneral skill development programmes exposepotential targets and bystanders to the knowledge andskills that will assist them to respond, manage and



de-escalate situations involving bullying. Further,these programmes offer strategies to those entrustedwith the important role of supporting involved partieswhen they need it and developing preventive policiesand practices to safeguard against bullying at work(McCarthy andMayhew2004). Indeed, good levels ofsupport at work were associated with lower levels ofdepression, lower intention to leave and higher jobsatisfaction scores among nurses who reported anexperience of being bullied, comparedwith thosewhoreceived poor levels of support (Quine 1999). Djurko-vic et al. (2008) found similar results when theyexplored the relationship between perceived organ-izational support (POS), workplace bullying andintention to leave. In this study, high levels of POSwere found to offset the effects ofworkplace bullyingon intention to leave (Djurkovic et al. 2008, p. 415).Moreover, a lack of support may impede an individu-als ability to manage bullying behaviours (Lewis andOrford 2005; Leymann and Gustafsson 1996; Mat-thiesen et al. 2003). These results point to the impor-tance of support, indicating that it may act as a buffer,thereby assisting targets to manage positively theexperience of being bullied. Furthermore, recentwork into gender and the role of personal perceptionsand attributions about bullying behaviours highlightsthe need for skills training within the context ofbullying, especially for those expected to supportinvolved parties (see Salin 2011).

While features of support could be experiencedwithin the broad organizational culture and specificcommunicative experiences, it is important to notethat the seeking of support often requires a proactiveapproach. Should targets be feeling helpless and vic-timized, they may be unlikely to engage in support-seeking behaviour. In addition, concern about howseeking support may be perceived by others (Lee1997), feelings of profound shame, as found in astudy of college and university lecturers who hadexperienced workplace bullying (Lewis 2004), andconcern about the ability of the organization torespond effectively (Ferris 2004; Hoel and Cooper2000) may further prevent someone from seekingsupport. This again stresses the importance of devel-oping comprehensive strategies for addressing work-place bullying, including addressing the climate andculture within a workplace.

Individual and organizational well-being (E)

While the negative consequences of workplacebullying for targets, witnesses and organizations have

been well established (see Hogh et al. 2011 for acomprehensive review), an alternative perspective ofwell-being is beginning to emerge within the litera-ture. Research by DCruz (2010) and DCruz andNoronha (2012) found that participants saw the needto process and understand their workplace bullyingexperiences in relation to their long-term well-being,with some even ultimately considering themselvesprivileged to go through such an experience asit helped them discover and develop themselveswithout compromising their values (DCruz andNoronha 2012, p. 20). The authors concluded thatthe emphasis that participants placed on enhancingtheir well-being indicates an alternative approachto workplace bullying, with the potential for trans-formational growth, despite negative circumstances(DCruz 2010; DCruz and Noronha 2012). Thisview accords with researchers within the stress andstrain field (see Folkman and Moskowitz 2000).Despite this emerging and legitimate view, whichpromotes a long-term perspective for individuals,the immediate outcomes for targets, witnessesand organizations are overwhelmingly negative. Forinstance, in their study of 118 targets of workplacebullying, Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2002) found that80.5% of participants reported that no other event intheir life affected them more negatively than the bul-lying (p. 98), despite this group also experiencingaccidents, divorce, bereavement and serious illness.Similarly, another study concluded that targets ofworkplace bullying can experience the same level ofemotional trauma as targets of assaults (Mayhew et al.2004).

Workplace bullying has been identified as a riskfactor in clinical depression (Niedhammer et al.2006), suicide attempts (OMoore et al. 1998), clini-cal levels of anxiety (Quine 1999), post-traumaticstress disorder (PTSD; Matthiesen and Einarsen2004; Mikkelsen and Einarsen 2002; Tehrani 2004),as well as higher levels of job-induced stress, inten-tion to leave, sick leave, absenteeism and lower levelsof job satisfaction (see Kivimaki et al. 2000; Quine1999; de Wet 2010). These individual and associatedorganizational effects are not confined to targets,with findings that witnesses of workplace bullyingcan be affected almost as severely as the actual target(Mayhew et al. 2004; Niedhammer et al. 2006;Rayner 1999).

Thus, workplace bullying has negative effects onwitnesses as well as targets, resulting in some casesin the creation of an abusive work environment,which ultimately affects an organizations ability to

12 S. Branch et al.


function optimally, through loss of productivity,an increase in absenteeism and intention to leave,as well as the cost of intervention programmes(Einarsen 2000; McCarthy and Barker 2000; Mc-Carthy et al. 1995). Such outcomes have vital impli-cations for the well-being and productivity ofindividuals and organizations (Mayhew et al. 2004),and are likely to result in staggering financial coststo organizations (see Hoel et al. 2011 for review;Sheehan et al. 2001). Thus, the literature is clear thatworkplace bullying has severe effects on those whoexperience it directly, as well as those who witness itand organizations as a whole.

Continuation of affective events (F)

Perhaps one of the best-known models describing thedevelopment of workplace bullying is Leymanns(1996) model, in which he suggested that bullyingprogresses through four stages, the conflict (stageone) that triggers the bullying (stage two), personnelmanagement (stage three) and expulsion (stage four).Another model explaining the process of bullyingwas proposed by Bjrkqvist (1992) (as cited in Ein-arsen 2000; Zapf and Gross 2001). In this three-phase model, an increase in intensity of behaviour isthe focus. In the first phase, covert behaviours suchas white-anting or gossip are used, while, in thenext phase, more overt aggressive behaviours occur.In the final phase, the target experiences an intensi-fication of both covert and overt behaviour. Thus,within the first phase, the behaviour may only occuronce in a while (as far as targets can tell at this stage),but, by the final phase it may be occurring daily. Theescalating nature of bullying is best demonstrated inDCruz and Noronhas (2010) study of the experi-ences of ten targets. Believing the bullying behaviourto be a result of a demanding work environment,targets often focused on their work. However, withthe intensification of the behaviour, they had toresolve why they were experiencing this behaviourwhen others were not. As the behaviour continued,targets emotions oscillated between a need forreassurance and distress, with distress triumphingas a result of the ongoing nature of the behaviour.Support did help some targets to cope, althoughisolation from colleagues was identified over timefor some participants. Eventually, targets came to thedecision to leave the organization, which offeredthem some relief.

Thus, workplace bullying is considered to be aform of conflict escalation (Zapf and Gross 2001),

but, perhaps owing to the focus on antecedents, theprocesses that lead to the escalation of workplacebullying have often been overlooked (Keashly andJagatic 2011). Glas et al.s (2011) application ofAET to workplace bullying provides an insightinto this process with a vicious circle of eventsdescribed, where emotional reactions result in theuse of maladaptive coping strategies (pp. 203204).Thus, in order to assist in the development of effec-tive interventions, further research into the life cycleof workplace bullying is required.

Cessation of affective events (G)

Similarly, little is known about the cessation ofbullying, other than that in most cases, targets even-tually leave the organization (Hoel et al. 2011).However, as highlighted in the DCruz and Noronha(2010) study, exiting is often not an easy process.While targets felt they had regained control overtheir lives . . . they felt that they had been overpow-ered and were incapable of successfully fightinginjustice (DCruz and Noronha 2010, p. 529). Often,the post-bullying phase represents a painful grievingperiod wherein targets try to rebuild themselves,including dealing with the perceived loss of profes-sional reputation, organizational identity and self-confidence, and the long-term loss of core beliefs injustice or fairness, often developing new cynicalviews of the world, with many seeking therapeutichelp and, for some, taking months and yearsto recover (Lutgen-Sandvik 2008, p. 110). Furtherresearch into the processes involved in the cessationof bullying, including cases where resolutions tobullying were found, is especially needed in order toassist in the development of suitable individual andorganizational responses.

Conclusion and future directions

The purpose of this review was to articulate thestate of knowledge in the workplace bullying fieldby examining frameworks, research findings andapproaches, and to develop a model that both syn-thesizes and provides guidance for future research.Despite considerable advancements in recentdecades, there is still much that requires attention,especially the key aspects of the definition itself, thedevelopment of a guiding theory, investigation of theimpacts of various workplace levels and structuressuch as groups, and the efficacy of interventions. As



such, the review indicates four significant areas forfuture research in the workplace bullying area.

First, an agreed definition is required so thatresearchers and practitioners can work from a sharedbase, especially in regard to formulation of work-place policies, intervention and prevention strategies,and legislative frameworks (Nielsen et al. 2011). Toadd to the current knowledge in the area it is recom-mended that key definitional dilemmas noted in thereview are explored. The use of both qualitative andquantitative methods that investigate the experiencesof targets, perpetrators and bystanders in relation tothese issues (e.g. the possible importance of one-offacts) would be beneficial (see Hershcovis 2011 forguidance in relation to this). These approacheswould help in reaching a shared understandingof the definition, including the vexed question ofpower sources and their distribution. Clarification inthis area is especially important when consideringappropriate management and workplace inter-ventions, as is agreement on the research criteria ofwhat constitutes bullying in the workplace.

Second, although a range of frameworks have beenproposed to explain workplace bullying, some schol-ars suggest that a comprehensive theory in relationto the phenomenon is still lacking (Wheeler et al.2010), the development of which forms a rich areafor future research and one that has significantconsequences for prevention and management. Asindicated in the review, one recent advance withinthe field is the application of AET, which highlightsthe affective dimensions of workplace bullying andoffers insight into the processes involved, such asinteractions between target and perpetrator, its esca-lation, and how the accumulation of bullying eventscan lead to increasingly negative outcomes fortargets, bystanders and the organization (see Glaset al. 2011; Lee and Brotheridge 2006). This is anexciting advancement in the field and may offer thebeginnings of a comprehensive theory of workplacebullying.

Furthermore, we believe that emotion-focusedresearch has the potential to significantly advanceour understanding of workplace bullying. Indeed, themodel introduced in this review brings in elements ofAET and highlights the dynamic, complex and cycli-cal nature of the phenomenon. As such, the modelmakes a significant contribution to the field andhas the potential to assist practitioners to understandlikely points of intervention, as well as providingresearchers with a framework by which to compre-hend the rapidly growing literature in the field.

In addition, the model introduced in this paperhighlights, in particular, the lack of research into thelife cycle of workplace bullying. While a consider-able amount of knowledge has been developed withregard to antecedents of workplace bullying, verylittle is known about how and why bullying inthe workplace continues. While recent research thatapplied AET to workplace bullying has helped inproviding an understanding of the vicious circle ofevents and maladaptive coping strategies involvedin bullying (see Glas et al. 2011, pp. 203204),further research is needed. Additional researchinto the deterioration of workplace relationships andescalation of conflicts that contribute to cases ofworkplace bullying has the potential to highlightvarious roles and processes involved in bullying,while also informing approaches to interventions,such as the use of effective communication skillswithin the workplace. Thus, literature from the com-munication and emotions fields has the potentialto assist significantly in this regard. Similarly, littleis known about the cessation of workplace bullying(apart from resignations by targets). In particular,explorations of cases where satisfactory resolutionshave resulted for all parties involved are needed toenable us to understand better what promotes thecessation of bullying. Further data from the perspec-tives of relevant stakeholders such as targets,perpetrators, supervisors, work groups, colleagues,bystanders and HR practitioners will help us under-stand how to resolve bullying in the workplacesuccessfully. Conversely, case studies involvingunsatisfactory resolutions from the perspective ofone or more stakeholders would also make contribu-tions to theory-building and HR management appli-cations. Research into the life cycle of bullying,in particular, is therefore needed to facilitate thedevelopment and critical review of suitable indi-vidual and organizational responses.

Third, although workplace bullying is now viewedas a multifaceted phenomenon, which is influencedby characteristics of the perpetrator, target, workgroup and organization (Harvey et al. 2006; Heamesand Harvey 2006), gaps still exist. Unlike theorganizational or environmental perspective, whichhas been widely researched in the past decade, thegroup perspective has only recently been examinedmore closely. Indeed, the role of formal and informalgroups and bystanders in the escalation orde-escalation of workplace bullying requires an in-depth research focus in the future. Social identitytheory and social rules theory, as conceptually

14 S. Branch et al.


applied to workplace bullying by Ramsay et al.(2011), may guide researchers interested in the grouplevel of analysis. In addition, the bystander perspec-tive is an exciting area for the development ofprevention and management strategies, as noted inthis review. In overview, more research is requiredinto group antecedents (both formal and informalgroupings), as well as continued research into indi-vidual factors, especially with regard to perpetratorsand bystanders, and organizational or environmentalfactors. Moreover, given that workplace bullyingis accepted as a multifaceted phenomenon, thereis a need to examine the interaction between each ofthese levels, rather than continuing to explore themin isolation from each other.

Fourth, as highlighted in this review, many ofthe deficiencies in the literature have consequencesfor the development of individual and organizationalresponses. Perhaps related to the lack of a compre-hensive theory, research into the efficacy of interven-tions is at an early stage of development, with limitedempirical analyses of formal initiatives (e.g. NoBullying policies) and informal processes (e.g.leadership development) available. Further research,in particular, is required into the usefulness of media-tion and contexts where it is most suitable (Jenkins2011). Furthermore, the value of written policiesassociated with preventive and management inter-ventions also requires further research attention,especially because of its overwhelming use in organ-izations as a measure to reduce or manage workplacebullying. For example, it would be helpful to under-stand better whether certain types of policies aremost efficacious in enhancing staff awareness ofbullying behaviour and expected organizationalresponses. In addition, professional development ofstaff needs to be far more evidence-based than itcurrently is, suggesting extensive avenues for empiri-cal research. Indeed, HR management practitionersrepeatedly call for evaluation studies to help informstaff training and development initiatives (Noe andWinkler 2012). However, despite some advance-ment in this area, the efficacy of many trainingand development interventions is not known andrequires further research, with experimental andquasi-experimental research designs most usefulin this regard. Similarly, comprehensive strategiesfor addressing workplace bullying, including theinvolvement of workplace climate and culture,lack development and evaluation, although initialresearch demonstrates promise (see Keashly andNeuman 2009; Osatuke et al. 2009).

In conclusion, while this review has highlightedimportant advancements in the field, it has also iden-tified gaps in understanding of the phenomenon itselfand its associated processes. An important contribu-tion of this review is a new integrative model thatcaptures the complexity of workplace bullying proc-esses and provides a way forward for researchers andpractitioners.

ReferencesAgervold, M. (2007). Bullying at work: a discussion of

definitions and prevalence, based on an empirical study.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, pp. 161172.

Agervold, M. (2009). The significance of organizationalfactors for the incidence of bullying. ScandinavianJournal of Psychology, 50, pp. 267276.

Aquino, K. and Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational modelof workplace victimization: social roles and patterns ofvictimization in dyadic relationships. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 89, pp. 10231034.

Ashkanasy, N. (2003). Emotions in organizations: a multi-level perspective. Multi-level Issues in OrganizationalBehavior and Strategy, 2, pp. 954.

Ayoko, O. (2007). Communication openness, conflict eventsand reactions to conflict in culturally diverse workgroups.Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,14, pp. 105124.

Ayoko, O., Callan, V. and Hartel, C. (2003). Workplaceconflict, bullying, and counterproductive behaviours.International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11,pp. 283301.

Baillien, E. and De Witte, H. (2009). Why is organizationalchange related to workplace bullying? Role conflict andjob insecurity as mediators. Economic and IndustrialDemocracy, 30, pp. 348371.

Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N. and De Witte, H. (2011a).Job autonomy and workload as antecedents of workplacebullying: a two-wave test of Karaseks job demand controlmodel for targets and perpetrators. Journal of Occupa-tional and Organizational Psychology, 84, pp. 191208.

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H. and De Cuyper, N.(2009). A qualitative study on the development of work-place bullying: towards a three way model. Journal ofCommunity & Applied Social Psychology, 19, pp. 116.

Baillien, E., Rodrguez-Muoz, A., De Witte, H., Notelaers,G. and Moreno-Jimnez, B. (2011b). The demand-controlmodel and targets reports of bullying at work: a testwithin Spanish and Belgian blue-collar workers. Euro-pean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20,pp. 157177.

Banyard, V., Moynihan, M. and Plante, E. (2007). Sexualviolence prevention through bystander education: anexperimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychol-ogy, 35, pp. 463481.



Banyard, V., Plante, E. and Moynihan, M. (2004). Bystandereducation: bringing a broader community perspectiveto sexual violence prevention. Journal of CommunityPsychology, 32, pp. 6179.

Baumeister, R., Smart, L. and Boden, J. (1996). Relationof threatened egotism to violence and aggression: thedark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103,pp. 533.

Beale, D. and Hoel, H. (2011). Workplace bullying and theemployment relationship: exploring questions of preven-tion, control and context. Work, Employment and Society,25, pp. 518.

Bjrkqvist, K. (1992). Trakassering frekommer blandanstllda vid AA [Harassment exists among employeesat Abo Academy]. Meddelanden fran Abo Akademi, 9,pp. 1417.

Branch, S. (2008). You say tomatoe and I say tomato: canwe differentiate between workplace bullying and othercounterproductive behaviours? International Journal ofOrganisational Behaviour, 13, pp. 417.

Branch, S., Ramsay, C. and Barker, M. (2007a). Managersin the firing line: contributing factors to workplace bully-ing by staff an interview study. Journal of Management& Organization, 13, pp. 264281.

Branch, S., Ramsay, S. and Barker, M. (2007b). Thebullied boss: a conceptual exploration of upwardsbullying. In Glendon, A.I., Thompson, B.M. andMyors, B. (eds), Advances in Organisational Psychology.Bowen Hills, Qld: Australian Academic Press, pp. 93112.

Brotheridge, C. and Lee, R. (2010). Restless and confusedemotional responses to workplace bullying in men andwomen. Career Development International, 15, pp. 687707.

Caponecchia, C. and Wyatt, A. (2009). Distinguishingbetween workplace bullying, harassment and violence:a risk management approach. Journal of OccupationalHealth and Safety Australia and New Zealand, 25,pp. 439449.

Clegg, S. (1993). Narrative, power and social theory. InMumby, D. (ed.), Narrative and Social Control: CriticalPerspective. Newbury, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 1545.

Cortina, L. (2008). Unseen injustice: incivility as moderndiscrimination in organizations. Academy of ManagementReview, 33, pp. 5575.

Coyne, I., Seigne, E. and Randall, P. (2000). Predictingworkplace victim status from personality. EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9,pp. 335349.

DCruz, P. (2010). Identity disruptions and identity work:understanding the impact of workplace bullying on targets.International Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 15,pp. 3652.

DCruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2010). Protecting my interests:HRM and targets coping with workplace bullying. TheQualitative Report, 15, pp. 507534.

DCruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2012). Clarifying my world:identity work in the context of workplace bullying. TheQualitative Report, 17, pp. 129.

De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E. and De Witte, H. (2009).Job insecurity, perceived employability and targets andperpetrators experiences of workplace bullying. Work &Stress, 23, pp. 206224.

Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D. and Casimir, G. (2008).Workplace bullying and intention to leave: the moderatingeffect of perceived organisational support. HumanResource Management Journal, 18, pp. 405422.

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: areview of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression andViolent Behavior, 5, pp. 379401.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (2003). Theconcept of bullying at work: the European tradition.In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (eds),Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: Inter-national Perspectives in Research and Practice. London:Taylor & Francis, pp. 130.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (2011). Theconcept of bullying and harassment at work: the Europeantradition. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper,C. (eds), Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace:Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2ndedn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 340.

Escartn, J., Zapf, D., Arrieta, C. and Rodrguez-Carballeira,A. (2011). Workers perception of workplace bullying:a cross-cultural study. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 20, pp. 178205.

Ferris, P. (2004). A preliminary typology of organisationalresponse to allegations of workplace bullying: see no evil,hear no evil, speak no evil. British Journal of Guidance &Counselling, 32, pp. 389395.

Fevre, R., Robinson, A., Jones, T. and Lewis, D. (2010).Researching workplace bullying: the benefits of takingan integrated approach. International Journal of SocialResearch Methodology, 13, pp. 7185.

Folkman, S. and Moskowitz, J.T. (2000). Stress, positiveemotion and coping. Current Directions in PsychologicalScience, 9, pp. 115118.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of thePrison. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.

Fox, S. and Stallworth, L. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying:exploring links between bullying and racism in the USworkforce. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, pp. 438456.

Fox, S. and Stallworth, L. (2009). Building a frameworkfor two internal organizational approaches to resolvingand preventing workplace bullying: alternative disputeresolution and training. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 61, pp. 220241.

French, J. and Raven, B. (1959). The bases of socialpower. In Cartwright, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Power.Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, pp. 150167.

16 S. Branch et al.


Fuller, J., Stanton, J., Fisher, G., Spitzmuller, C., Russell, S.and Smith, P. (2003). A lengthy look at the daily grind:time series analysis of events, mood, stress, and satisfac-tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, pp. 10191033.

Ghosh, R., Dierkes, S. and Falletta, S. (2011). Incivilityspiral in mentoring relationships: reconceptualizing nega-tive mentoring as deviant workplace behavior. Advancesin Developing Human Resources, 13, pp. 2239.

Glasl, F. (1994). Konfliktmanagement. Ein Handbuch frFhrungskrfte und Berater [Conflict Management: aHandbook for Managers and Consultants], 4th edn. Bern,Switzerland: Haupt-Verlag.

Glas, L., Matthiesen, S., Nielsen, M. and Einarsen, S.(2007). Do targets of workplace bullying portray a generalvictime personality profile? Scandinavian Journal ofPsychology, 48, pp. 313319.

Glas, L., Vie, T., Holmdal, G. and Einarsen, S. (2011). Anapplication of affective events theory to workplace bully-ing: the role of emotions, trait anxiety, and trait anger.European Psychologist, 16, pp. 198208.

Glomb, T. (2002). Workplace aggression: antecedents,behavioral components, and consequences. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 7, pp. 2036.

Grandey, A., Kern, J. and Frone, M. (2007). Verbal abusefrom outsiders versus insiders: comparing frequency,impact on emotional exhaustion, and the role of emotionallabor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12,pp. 6379.

Grzywacz, J. and Marks, N. (2000). Reconceptualizing theworkfamily interface: an ecological perspective on thecorrelates of positive and negative spillover between workand family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,5, pp. 111126.

Harvey, M.G., Heames, J.T., Richey, R.G. and Leonard, N.(2006). Bullying: from the playground to the boardroom.Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12,pp. 111.

Hauge, L., Skogstad, A. and Einarsen, S. (2009). Individualand situational predictors of workplace bullying: whydo perpetrators engage in the bullying of others? Work &Stress, 23, pp. 349358.

Heames, J. and Harvey, M. (2006). Workplace bullying:a cross-level assessment. Management Decision, 44,pp. 12141230.

Hershcovis, M.S. (2011). Incivility, social undermining,bullying . . . oh my!: a call to reconcile constructs withinworkplace aggression research. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 32, pp. 499519.

Hess, J. (2000). Maintaining nonvoluntary relationshipswith disliked partners: an investigation into the use ofdistancing behaviors. Human Communication Research,26, pp. 458488.

Hess, J. (2006). Distancing from problematic coworkers.In Harden Fritz, J. and Omdahl, B. (eds), ProblematicRelationships in the Workplace. New York, NY: PeterLang Publishing Inc., pp. 205232.

Hoel, H. and Cooper, C. (2000). Destructive Conflict andBullying at Work. Manchester: School of Management,UMIST.

Hoel, H. and Cooper, C. (2001). Origins of bullying: theo-retical frameworks for explaining workplace bullying. InTehrani, N. (ed.), Building A Culture of Respect: Manag-ing Bullying at Work. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 320.

Hoel, H. and Einarsen, S. (2010). Shortcomings of antibul-lying regulations: the case of Sweden. European Journalof Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, pp. 3050.

Hoel, H., Sheehan, M., Cooper, C. and Einarsen, S. (2011).Organisational effects of workplace bullying. In Einarsen,S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (eds), Bullying andHarassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory,Research, and Practice, 2nd edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress, pp. 129148.

Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (2002). Workplace bully-ing and stress. Historical and Current Perspectives onStress and Health, 2, pp. 293333.

Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E. and Hansen, A. (2011). Individualconsequences of workplace bullying/mobbing. In Ein-arsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (eds), Bully-ing and Harassment in the Workplace: Developmentsin Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edn. Boca Raton,FL: CRC Press, pp. 107128.

Hubert, A. and van Veldhoven, M. (2001). Risk sectors forundesirable behaviour and mobbing. European Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, 10, pp. 415424.

Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M., Jackson, D. and Wilkes, L.(2006a). Like wolves in a pack: stories of predatoryalliances of bullies in nursing. Journal of Managementand Organisation, 12, pp. 235251.

Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M., Jackson, D. and Wilkes, L.(2006b). Workplace bullying in nursing: towards a morecritical organisational perspective. Nursing Inquiry, 13,pp. 118126.

Ishiyama, F.I. (2012). A new psychoeducational approach toaddressing and preventing prejudice and discrimination ina multicultural society: Anti-discrimination ResponseTraining based on an active witnessing model. Journal ofTohoku Psychological Association, in press.

Jenkins, M. (2011). Practice note: is mediation suitable forcomplaints of workplace bullying? Conflict ResolutionQuarterly, 29, pp. 2538.

Kanner, A., Coyne, J., Schaefer, C. and Lazarus, R. (1981).Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: dailyhassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal ofBehavioral Medicine, 4, pp. 139.

Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude,and mentalstrain: implications for job redesign. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 24, pp. 285308.

Katz, J. (1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the lockerroom: the mentors in violence prevention project.Harvard Educational Review, 65, pp. 163174.

Keashly, L. and Harvey, S. (2006). Workplace emotionalabuse. In Kelloway, E., Barling, J. and Hurrell Jr, J. (eds),



Handbook of Workplace Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, pp. 95120.

Keashly, L. and Jagatic, K. (2011). North Americanperspectives on hostile behaviors and bullying at work.In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (eds),Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Develop-ments in Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd edn. BocaRaton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 4171.

Keashly, L. and Neuman, J. (2009). Building constructivecommunication climate: the U.S. Department of VeteransAffairs Workplace Stress and Aggression Project. InLutgen-Sandvik, P. and Sypher, B. (eds), The DestructiveSide of Organizational Communication: Processes,Consequences and Constructive Ways of Organizing. NewYork, NY: Routledge/LEA, pp. 339362.

Kivimaki, M., Elovainio, M. and Vahtera, J. (2000). Work-place bullying and sickness absence in hospital staff.Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57, pp. 656660.

La Van, H. and Martin, M. (2008). Bullying in the U.S.workplace: normative and process-oriented ethicalapproaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, pp. 147165.

Lamertz, K. and Aquino, K. (2004). Social power, socialstatus and perceptual similarity of workplace victimiza-tion: a social network analysis of stratification. HumanRelations, 57, pp. 795822.

Lee, F. (1997). When the going gets tough, do the tough askfor help? Help seeking and power motivation in organiza-tions. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 72, pp. 336363.

Lee, R. and Brotheridge, C. (2006). When prey turnspredatory: workplace bullying as a predictor ofcounteraggression/bullying, coping and well-being. Euro-pean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15,pp. 352377.

Lewis, D. (2004). Bullying at work: the impact of shameamong university and college lecturers. British Journal ofGuidance & Counselling, 32, pp. 281299.

Lewis, D. and Gunn, R. (2007). Workplace bullying in thepublic sector: understanding the racial dimension. PublicAdministration, 83, pp. 641665.

Lewis, S. and Orford, J. (2005). Womens experiencesof workplace bullying: changes in social relationships.Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15,pp. 2947.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development ofmobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organ-izational Psychology, 5, pp. 165184.

Leymann, H. and Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at workand the development of post-traumatic stress disorders.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 5, pp. 251275.

Lim, S., Cortina, L. and Magley, V. (2008). Personaland workgroup incivility: impact on work and healthoutcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, pp. 95107.

Lind, K., Glas, L., Pallesen, S. and Einarsen, S. (2009).Personality profiles among targets and nontargets of work-place bullying. European Psychologist, 14, pp. 231237.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and . . . quittingand other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Com-munication Monographs, 73, pp. 406433.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2008). Intensive remedial identity work:responses to workplace bullying trauma and stigmatiza-tion. Organization, 15, pp. 97119.

Magley, V., Hulin

workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: a review

Documents