Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine relationships between perceived bullying, work engagement and work performance among Estonian academics. Specifically, it details what forms of bullying affect work engagement and performance. Moreover, the study explores the relationship between engagement and performance among bullied academics.
Design/methodology/approach
A total of 864 faculty members from nine Estonian universities participated in an e-mail survey in Spring 2014. Bullying was measured using the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R22), and work engagement was assessed using the nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Respondents’ perceived performance and productivity were measured on a ten-point rating scale. Structural equation modelling was used to analyse the relationship between bullying, engagement and performance.
Findings
Perceived bullying – especially “professional understating” – decreased work engagement and work performance among Estonian academics. The decrease in performance preceded the decrease in engagement or vice versa. The decrease in engagement was followed by lowered performance.
Research limitations/implications
A longitudinal study is needed to prove the specific one-way effect of (decreased) performance (because of perceived bullying) on engagement.
Practical implications
Preventing bullying and further increasing engagement and performance among Estonian academics requires getting out of policy of professional understating.
Social implications
The authors need to determine why Estonian academics experience professional understating, which includes being ordered to perform tasks below one’s level of competence and having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks.
Originality/value
The present results prove that it is possible to differentiate between specific forms of bullying in a specific context and further reveal those factors specifically that affect work performance and work engagement. Among Estonian academics – revealed in this study – “professional understating” seems to be such a factor.
Keywords
Citation
Meriläinen, M., Kõiv, K. and Honkanen, A. (2019), "Bullying effects on performance and engagement among academics", Employee Relations, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1205-1223. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-11-2017-0264
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2019, Matti Meriläinen, Kristi Kõiv and Anu Honkanen
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to examine relationships between workplace bullying, work engagement and work performance among Estonian academics. Identifying bullying in daily life is not easy at all. In similar situations, one person may feel bullied, whereas another may not. In addition, conceptions related to bullying vary across different working contexts and professions, as well as between countries, because of cultural differences. Regardless, the prevalence of workplace bullying is undeniable in higher education at all levels, among students, academics, general staff and administrators, and across all disciplines (Henning et al., 2017; Sinkkonen et al., 2014).
Nielsen and Einarsen (2018, p. 73) define workplace bullying as “situations where an employee repeatedly and over a prolonged time period is exposed to harassing behavior from one or more colleagues (including subordinates and leaders) and where the targeted person is unable to defend him−/herself against this systematic mistreatment”. The various negative consequences of workplace bullying at an individual level, such as psychological, psychosomatic and behavioural effects, chronic diseases, and increased absenteeism, which can lead to dismissal or resignation, are widely known (see e.g. Nielsen et al., 2015).
In addition, workplace bullying affects work engagement and work performance (see e.g. Rai and Agarwal, 2016; Samnani and Singh, 2012). From the viewpoint of employee relations, the nature of workplace bullying is twofold. First, poor relations between employees (i.e. the organisational and social cultures and dynamics of the workplace) may be an antecedent (cause) of the bullying (see e.g. McKay et al., 2008). Second, we know that bullying affects (consequences) employee relations (Hauge et al., 2007), and further performance (Devonish, 2013; Obicci, 2015; Samnani et al., 2013; Schat and Frone, 2011) and engagement (Goodboy et al., 2017; Park and Ono, 2017).
Intrinsic job characteristics, such as interpersonal work relationships (e.g. conflicts, social support and leadership style), career development (e.g. job insecurity and opportunities for promotion), organisational factors (e.g. organisational structure and office politics) and the home–work interface (e.g. blurred boundaries between working hours and leisure time) are typical features that bring on bullying and decrease employee relations (Hauge et al., 2007).
It is noteworthy that the previously mentioned characteristics are related to horizontal as well as to vertical relations in the workplace. In organisations like universities, the bully may be a co-worker as well, and bullying is an inter-employee problem (Meriläinen et al., 2016). Besides, universities are a typical example of organisations in which task-oriented expertise, autonomy and individualism are emphasised, and that is why the specific nature of academic bullying is difficult to define (Agervold, 2007). According to Meriläinen et al. (2016), especially among academics, bullying may manifest as “sophisticated, psychologically emphasized, inappropriate behaviour which is difficult to label as bullying”, if at all. These specific characteristics make it more difficult to define specific forms of bullying and further to reveal relations between certain forms of bullying and certain forms of consequences among academics.
For example, we know that person-related bullying, in general, predicts employees’ work performance (Yahaya et al., 2012). However, we do not know so much about what kind of bullying (form) especially affects work engagement and performance, nor how workplace bullying influences the relationship between engagement and performance. Besides, there is a lack of detailed information concerning effects such as (decreased) engagement as a possible mediator (because of perceived bullying) in the bullying–performance relationship, and (decreased) performance as a possible mediator (because of perceived bullying) in the bullying–engagement relationship.
In this study, we examine relationships between perceived bullying, work engagement and work performance among Estonian academics. In addition, our focus is on the details of what forms of bullying affect work engagement and performance. Moreover, we explore the nature and direction of relationship between engagement and performance among academics who experience workplace bullying.
The results are exploitable at individual and at organisational level. Besides decreasing psychological, psychosomatic and behavioural effects (Nielsen et al., 2015), reducing bullying increases engagement, motivation and performance at an individual level (Trepanier et al., 2013). At organisation’s level, employees’ intentions to leave the organisation (e.g. Berthelsen et al., 2011; Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012; Hollis, 2015) or the whole profession (Laschinger and Fida, 2014), or even the risk of expulsion from working life altogether, decrease (Glambek et al., 2015). All this decrease organisation’s ability to function optimally, through loss of productivity, not to mention the costs of civil action, even a possible civil trial, and possible intervention programmes (Branch et al., 2013).
Effects of bullying on work engagement
Work engagement is a positive feeling, a sense of fulfilment and a sense of work that promotes mental health. The key factors of work engagement are a strong dedication to work, enthusiasm and pride in work, and participation and experiencing work success (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2002). The significance of engagement is obvious, and the benefits are remarkable at individual and at community level.
Engagement is also characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption. Vigour refers to an employee’s high levels of energy and mental resilience. It also captures the perseverance and desire to invest in work and even handle possible difficulties. Dedication is a matter of high professionalism, enthusiasm and experiencing meaningful work. It also refers to strong involvement and feelings of significance, inspiration, pride and challenge in one’s work. Absorption describes a complete focus and concentration on work. It is a state in which work becomes so involving and inspiring that one loses their sense of time and finds it difficult to detach from work (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Workplace bullying affects work engagement, directly but also indirectly (Einarsen et al., 2018; Goodboy et al., 2017; Park and Ono, 2017; Rai and Agarwal, 2017; Rodríguez-Muñoz et al., 2009; Trepanier et al., 2013). Bullying decreases engagement through an employee’s unsatisfied needs for autonomy (i.e. perceiving oneself to be the original source of one’s own volitional behaviour), competence (i.e. being effective at required tasks and experiencing opportunities to display one’s capabilities) and relatedness (i.e. forming personal connections with others in social contexts) (Trepanier et al., 2013). These three basic psychological needs are based on the self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2010). According to this, autonomous (intrinsic) motivation promotes employees’ high-quality performance and wellness. In this sense, engagement serves as a mediator in the bullying–performance relationship. All this demands social-contextual conditions that support the three previously mentioned basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness. That is to say, if the working climate (e.g. job characteristics, types of justice, managerial styles and types of leadership) fulfil these needs, it also promotes autonomous motivation, and further effective performance and wellness (Deci et al., 2017; Hauge et al., 2007).
Park and Ono (2017) have revealed that motivational mechanisms, such as feelings of security or job satisfaction, act as mediators in the bullying–engagement relationship. They have shown that exposure to workplace bullying decreases work engagement and increases health problems because of employees’ high level of perceived job insecurity. In other words, perceived job insecurity mediates the effects of bullying on engagement. However, in this study, a direct relationship between bullying and engagement was not determined. In addition, Goodboy et al. (2017) have revealed that workplace bullying decreases engagement (i.e. vigour, dedication and absorption), indirectly mediated by intrinsic motivation.
In addition, personal disappointments mediate the effects of bullying on engagement. Rai and Agarwal (2017, p. 47) call these kinds of disappointments psychological contract violations. They refer to bullying experiences that may cause person-related disappointments and further negative feelings related to the working environment. Besides unmet expectations, loss of trust in one’s employer decreases work engagement and performance and further employee’s subsequent contribution to firm (Robinson, 1996).
A typical form of bullying that may cause a psychological contract violation among university personnel is “professional understating” (Ahmad et al., 2017; Rai and Agarwal, 2017). Experiences of “being ordered to perform tasks below one’s level of competence” and “having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks” are typical examples of the previously mentioned broken promises, based on explicit or implicit beliefs about commitments made in the working society (see also Meriläinen and Kõiv, 2018).
This previous finding is meaningful especially in relation to human resource management, because disappointments may be a sign of broken promises between the employee and the organisation or its agents, typically supervisors. As Rai and Agarwal (2017) note, the (explicit and implicit) beliefs about promises and commitments made in the exchange relationship may be transactional (e.g. obligations about pay or benefits) or relational (e.g. personal support from the manager, or the quality of subordinate–supervisor relationships). Simply avoiding broken promises and disappointments increases engagement among academics.
To our knowledge, a direct relationship between bullying and engagement is confirmed only in a few studies. Glasø, Bele, Nielsen and Einarsen (2011) have revealed a negative relation between exposure to bullying and job engagement and job satisfaction among bus drivers. Respectively, the relation was positive between bullying and intention to leave. Besides, it was shown that job engagement and job satisfaction mediated the effects of bullying on the intention to quit. In addition, Rodríguez-Muñoz et al. (2009) have shown a partly direct causal relationship between workplace bullying and engagement. In their model, the effect of bullying (Time 1) was seen later (Time 2) as a decrease in dedication (a dimension of engagement) among white- and blue-collar workers, as well as management.
In summary, previous research has focussed on the factors that mediate the effects of perceived bullying on employees’ work engagement. In particular, lowered feelings of autonomy, competence and relatedness because of workplace bullying seem to decrease engagement. Similarly, perceived job insecurity decreases engagement and increases health problems. In addition, personal disappointments, because of broken promises (psychological contract violations) between the employee and the organisation, mediate the effects of bullying on engagement. However, there is relatively little empirical evidence of a direct effect of bullying on engagement, let alone of the specific forms of bullying that decrease employees’ engagement directly.
So far, bullying has been measured as a one-dimensional or three-dimensional (personal bullying, work-related bullying and physical intimidating) phenomenon (Einarsen et al., 2009). In this study, to understand bullying as a factor leading to decreased engagement directly, we adopt a five-dimensional theoretical model of bullying (Meriläinen and Kõiv, 2017). In this model, first, person-related bullying is understood as person-related insults such as “repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes” and ‘being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach”. Second, work-related blaming is usually related to experiences like “being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work” and “excessive monitoring of your work”. Third, professional understating is “being ordered to do work below your level of competence” or “having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks”. Fourth, unreasonable work-related demands consist of “being given tasks with unreasonable deadlines” and “being exposed to an unmanageable workload”. Fifth, work-related malpractices refer to situations in which “you have recognised that somebody is intentionally delaying their work” and “you have found out that somebody is purposely wasting resources (e.g. working time) doing something other than what belongs in their own work)”. Therefore, we present the first hypothesis as follows:
A (direct) negative relationship exists between five first-order bullying factors (“person-related insulting”, “work-related blaming”, “professional understating”, “unreasonable work-related demands” and “work-related malpractices”) and perceived work engagement (see Figure 1).
Relationship between bullying and performance
Individual work performance is a multi-dimensional and dynamic concept that includes both a process aspect (i.e. behavioural) and an outcome aspect. The behavioural aspect refers to what people do at work – the action itself (i.e. goal-oriented behaviour) –while the outcome aspect refers to the result of the individual’s behaviour (e.g. productivity) (Sonnentag et al., 2008).
Performance can also be divided into task-specific and context-specific categories. Task performance is characterised as job specific, predicted mainly by ability and the related in-role behaviour and partly by the formal job description. On the other hand, contextual performance is comparable for almost all jobs, predicted by motivation and personality, defined as extra-role behaviour, considered discretionary and often not recognised by formal reward systems or indirectly by the management. Task-specific performance typically covers the requirements set by the employment contract, while contextual performance includes behaviours that may not contribute to the productivity of the organisation, per se, but that support the organisational, social and psychological work environment (Sonnentag et al., 2008).
The negative effects of workplace bullying on work performance are demonstrated in several studies (Obicci, 2015; Samnani et al., 2013; Schat and Frone, 2011; Yahaya et al., 2012) (see also Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012). According to Devonish (2013), different work-related stress theories and models, such as job demands-control-support and the social psychology of organisations models, have been discussed in the literature on bullying (as a kind of stressor) and its effect on performance. These theories and models describe and explain how various job-related demands and stressors (e.g. role conflict, interpersonal conflict and social stressors) in the work environment influence employee health and performance behaviours. Devonish (2013) also refers to Spector and Fox (2002), whose emotion-centred model posits that a number of organisational conditions, including various categories of job stressors, can influence individual performance outcomes through their influence on emotions or affective-based variables.
Misattributions of bullying behaviour have also been explored in the investigation of the relationship between bullying and performance (Samnani et al., 2013). Typically, targets’ attributions are vital to the explanation of the relationship between workplace bullying and key dimensions of performance. It is important to determine how bullying is experienced individually (different attributions) to understand the differential effects on the targets’ work performance. In addition, the overall impact of workplace bullying on individuals’ lives should be considered (see Ahmad and Sheehan, 2017), as well as differences in the coping mechanisms used to deal with the impact (Van den Brande et al., 2016) and the role of the cultural and societal differences at workplaces (Ahmad et al., 2017).
The above-mentioned features of contextual performance (Sonnentag et al., 2008) are closely related to the effects of perceived bullying, such as depression, lowered work motivation, decreased ability to concentrate, poor productivity, lack of commitment to work and poor relationships with managers and colleagues (Yildirim, 2009). Interestingly, Nielsen and Einarsen (2012) did not find a significant relationship between workplace bullying and performance (r=−0.12; p>0.05) in their meta-analysis of previous works on bullying outcomes (based only on three previous studies).
Interestingly, bullying effects are noted on employees’ contextual performance, such as organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and interpersonal counterproductive work behaviour (CWB), but not on task performance (Devonish, 2013). Task performance represents in-role job behaviours directly related to the performance of one’s assignments or tasks, whereas OCBs represent extra-role job behaviours that are intended to benefit either individual members (e.g. OCB-I) or the organisation as a whole (e.g. OCB-O). CWBs refer to negative workplace behaviours that are intended to harm individual members or the entire organisation. In this sense, bullying generates undesirable behaviours among employees (see also Branch et al., 2013) and even malpractices among academics (Bennett and Robinson, 2000).
Yahaya et al. (2012, pp. 19-20) investigated the impact of (personal- and task-related) workplace harassment on work performance, and they found a significant positive link between performance and personal harassment (r=0.514), as well as between performance and personal bullying (r=0.469). Traditional forms of bullying, such as belittling and ongoing criticism of work, are known to have a direct impact on the employee, and thus work performance.
According to Devonish (2013), workplace bullying as a form of social stressor that influences the psychosocial work environment is likely to have indirect effects on employee performance via affective-based variables, but it is possible that it also has direct effects on performance behaviours (see also Rowe and Fitness, 2018). In addition, Schaufeli et al. (2002) have highlighted the importance of negative emotions, such as anxiety, turmoil and powerlessness, on a teacher’s work performance, even if the cause is not within the classroom. If not addressed, this may lead to problems in daily teaching within the university or school, and subsequently in learning outcomes. Ultimately, these problems can result in financial losses to the organisation and the employee themselves, especially if the employee leaves the job because of bullying (Yahaya et al., 2012, pp. 25-27). Based on previous findings concerning the relationship between workplace bullying and work performance, we set a second hypothesis as follows:
A negative relationship exists between five first-order bullying factors (“person-related insulting”, “work-related blaming”, “professional understating”, “unreasonable work-related demands” and “work-related malpractices”) and perceived work performance (see Figure 1).
Relationship between engagement and performance
The linkage between engagement and performance is well known, but there is no consensus on the causality. Increased engagement is typically understood as an explanation for better performance, or engagement is considered to mediate between working environment factors and employees’ performance (Kim et al., 2012). As mentioned earlier, work-related stressors (e.g. bullying) are factors that influence engagement and further, performance. In such cases, engagement is a mediator that passes the effects of bullying onto performance. As far as we know, there is no study that addresses the effects of perceived bullying on performance and further on engagement. Moreover, it has not been carried out in a university setting.
We know that engaged employees perform better than non-engaged, and they exhibit better in-role and extra-role performance (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). According to Bakker and Bal (2010), work engagement also predicts higher performance among new teachers, especially those who are highly conscientious. It is assumed that work engagement can be improved by creating engagement-evoking working environments through work (re)design approaches (Bakker et al., 2012). Autonomy, performance, feedback and opportunities for development are essential job resource factors that enhance employees’ work engagement. On the other hand, if organisations fail in their work (re)design approach – if employees feel professionally understated – engagement decreases (Bakker and Bal, 2010).
Bakker and Demerouti (2008) proposed that job resources and personal resources, independently or together, predict work engagement. When (job and personal) resources positively affect engagement, they, in turn, have a positive impact on job performance. This idea is based on the premise that engagement and performance create (job and personal) resources, which foster engagement again over time and create a positive gain spiral. On the other hand, Devonish (2013) has shown that bullying affects both employees’ OCB and interpersonal CWB. Thus, bullying is as a factor that influences employees’ (in-role) working and performance at a personal level and their (extra-role) behaviour at a workplace level, and subsequently their engagement.
The positive consequences of engagement in work affect an individual’s health, performance, work-related attitudes and behaviours (Simbula et al., 2011, p. 300). On the other hand, in a study on workplace bullying in universities, McKay et al. (2008) noticed that bullying experiences (e.g. stress, frustration, anger, asthma and anxiety) and feelings of tiredness and irritability affect employees’ performance and quality of work. Completed workload and quality of work diminish, and the intention to quit increases. At the same time, the effects of bullying on loss of engagement manifest as a change in view about the job, reduced interest in work, sleep disorders, changes in flexibility while handling people, and challenges and changes in concentration. In other words, loss of engagement decreases employee performance and vice versa. Based on previous theoretical aspects, we set our third hypothesis as follows:
A positive relationship exists between perceived work performance and work engagement among bullied university personnel (see Figure 1).
Method
For data collection, a private e-mail with a link to the questionnaire was sent to all the staff members across nine large-scale public universities (N=3,756) in the Spring of 2014.
Participants
The data gathering covered all Estonian universities under public law. Private professional higher education institutions and state professional higher education institutions were not included in the sample. The whole sample consists of 2,141 women (57 per cent) and 1,615 men (43 per cent). In total, 864 Estonian university members answered the questionnaire, and the response rate was 23 per cent. In total, 67 per cent of the respondents were women (nWOMEN=575) and 33 per cent men (nMEN=289). Even the representation of male and female respondents in the data is in relation to the sample; the over-representation of female must be kept in mind when generalising the results.
Respondents’ ages ranged from 21 to 80 years (M=44.37; SD=12.4), and their tenure at the universities varied between 1 and 52 years (M=13.94; SD=11.34). A total of 54 (6.3 per cent) respondents were 65 years or older. More than two-thirds (68 per cent) of the respondents were 30–55 years old (n30–50=585) and had been working at the university for 12 years, on average. More than one-fifth (21.5 per cent) of the Estonian respondents had open-ended working contracts, whereas almost four-fifths (78.5 per cent) had fixed-term contracts.
Data collection
Data were collected using a questionnaire. A private e-mail was sent to all the staff members across nine large-scale public universities (N=3,756) in the Spring of 2014. Apart from fields for background information, the questionnaire carried items on bullying experiences and their possible consequences, respondents’ perceptions of their work environment, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, job self-efficacy, work engagement, and well-being and general satisfaction with life. The questionnaire comprised a total of 158 items, including both Likert-type and open-ended questions. In this analysis, we focussed on the data related to bullying experiences, performance and engagement.
Measures
Experiences of bullying and/or inappropriate behaviour were measured using the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R). NAQ-R comprises 22 items that are “indicators of inappropriate behaviours that one may experience, but should not normally, let alone regularly experience at work” (Einarsen et al., 2009). Our questionnaire included eight additional statements to cover specific forms of bullying: sexual harassment (Fitzgerald et al., 1995), cyber bullying (O’Moore, 2012) and work-related malpractices (Bennett and Robinson, 2000) among university personnel. These forms of bullying are missing from most of the questionnaires used in recent decades, including the original NAQ-R22.
Work engagement was measured with the help of the nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Hakanen, 2009). Perceived work performance was measured using the following statement: “Rate your present performance and productivity on a scale of 1–10 (1=very poor; 10=very good)”. We realised that measuring work performance with a single-item measure is problematic in terms of predictive validity (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012). However, as Wanous et al. (1997) argue, there are also several justifications for using a single-item measure (SI). They refer to constructs such as expectancy values and overall job satisfaction, for which measurement with an SI has been acceptable (p. 247).
In the present study, measuring work performance is somehow a facet of both the previously mentioned phenomena. The personal conception of work performance is narrow enough to measure with an SI. As in job satisfaction research, measuring work performance using an SI describes and reveals an employee’s thoughts related to their work performance. Besides, we wanted to measure performance with one item as unambiguously as possible, not to mention making the overall questionnaire shorter and more meaningful to answer.
Data analysis
The factor structure used in this study was analysed beforehand in two steps. First, the nature of bullying among academics was analysed with the help of exploratory factor analysis (Hurley et al., 1997), presented in detail in another article (Meriläinen et al., 2018). Second, the revealed structure was confirmed with the help of confirmatory factor analysis (Kline, 2011), presented in another article (Meriläinen and Kõiv, 2017). Both earlier published analyses are repeated in following chapters. Statistical descriptions of the confirmatory model are presented in Table I.
At the exploratory stage, the items were estimated using principal axis factoring (PAF). Prior to real factor analysis, the correlation matrix and inter-item correlations covering all items measuring bullying experiences were checked (r>0.30). Later, four items were excluded because of communality or factor loading (<0.30). The remaining 26 items were consolidated into four factors: “Personal insults, negative work-related remarks, and ostracism”, “Malpractice related to work tasks and work overload”, “Work-related threats of violence and humiliation”, and “Professional understating”. The statistical parameters proved that the model was acceptable (Pattern Matrix (PAF): K–M–O measure of sampling adequacy=0.93; Bartlett’s test of sphericity (325)=11,872.217, p<0.00). The convergent validity of the factors was satisfactory; Cronbach’s α varied between 0.74 and 0.91.
The correlation between the factors (0.33–0.57) was predictable when using the direct oblimin-rotation model, which extracted (12 iterations) a more explicit model, instead of the orthogonal (varimax) one. At the same time, categorised open-ended answers confirmed the revealed factor structure and affirmed the models’ discriminant validity. The qualitative approach revealed five categories: “Personal insults, negative work-related remarks, and ostracism” (f=173), “Malpractices related to work tasks and work overload” (f=77), “Work-related threats of violence and humiliation” (f=114), “Professional demotion” (f=27) and “Some other indefinable comments” related to sexual harassment, cyber bullying, or benefits to which one was entitled (f=52).
At the confirmatory stage, a five-factor model was affirmed, and the construct validity of the model was estimated with the help of structural equation modelling. Based on the exploratory model, it was reasonable to assume that the factor “Malpractice related to work tasks and work overload” covered two dimensions: malpractices and work overload. A confirmed model of five separate bullying factors covered “personal insults”, “work-related blame” (like humiliation), “professional understating”, “unreasonable work-related demands” and “work-related malpractice”.
This factor structure was confirmed with an MLR estimation procedure. This is an Mplus option for estimating maximum likelihood with potentially robust standard errors (MLR). The factor loadings of every single item were tested to determine whether their relations with the expected underlying factors were significant. After this, the contents of the items loaded onto each factor were reassessed if they diverged from the hypothesis.
Global fit statistics indicate the overall fit of the model to the data. In this case, the statistical parameters indicated a satisfactory (global) model fit to the model of five separate bullying factors: χ2(25)=37.958, p=0.047; comparative fit index=0.99; Tucker–Lewis index=0.98; root mean square error of approximation=0.025; standardised root mean square residual=0.028; and normed fit index (NFI)=0.97. The goodness of fit was estimated with an χ2-test. Because the χ2 value was close to significant (χ2(25)=37.958, p=0.047), obviously because of the large sample size, we also estimated the NFI=1−(χ2 test of model fit: χ2 test of model fit for the baseline model).
Two items were loaded for each latent first-order factor. The reliability estimate of the items’ internal consistency was moderate. Cronbach’s α varied between 0.62 and 0.76 (“personal insults” α=0.72 (95% CI: 0.68–0.75); “work-related blame” α=0.62 (95% CI: 0.57–0.67); “professional understating” α=0.76 (95% CI: 0.73–0.79); “unreasonable work-related demands” α=0.60 (95% CI: 0.54–0.65); and “work-related malpractice” α=0.76 (95% CI: 0.73–0.79)). Because factors consisted of only two items, Spearman–Brown reliability estimates were also reported. These estimates were also moderate, as the coefficients varied between 0.62 and 0.78.
The factor determinacies, which can range from 0 to 1 and represent the correlation between the estimated and true factor scores, were satisfactory: “personal insults”=0.91; “work-related blame”=0.89; “professional understating”=0.91; “unreasonable work-related demands”=0.87; and “work-related malpractice”=0.90. The correlations between factors varied between 0.37 and 0.89. As in NAQ-R22, the comparatively high correlation (0.89) between “personal insulting” and “work-related blame” is a sign of the overlap between personal and work-related bullying.
Because of the minimum number of items per factor, the local fit analysis that specifies the item-level reliability (i.e. residual statistics) was also conducted (Kline, 2011, p. 171). Absolute correlation residuals <0.10 indicated that the model properly explained the corresponding sample correlation. Further analysis of the correlation residuals for pairs of bullying items included in the model also indicated a moderate (local) model fit at the variable level. Only 2 item pairs out of 45 pairs exceeded the correlation residual value greater than 0.10.
In addition, the overall relationships between perceived forms of bullying and work engagement and work performance, as well as between engagement and performance, were analysed using structural equation modelling (Figure 2). For this, the summed score for engagement was calculated for each respondent (0–54). Perceived work performance varied between 1 and 10 (1=very poor; 10=very good).
In this case, the statistical parameters also indicated a satisfactory (global) model fit for the model of five separate bullying factors: χ2(35)=60.158, p=0.005; comparative fit index=0.98; Tucker–Lewis index=0.97; root mean square error of approximation=0.029; standardised root mean square residual=0.027; and NFI=0.96. The goodness of fit was estimated using a χ2-test. Because the χ2 value was close to significant (χ2(35)=60.158, p=0.005), obviously because of the large sample size, we also estimated the NFI=1−(χ2 test of model fit: χ2 test of model fit for the baseline model) (see Table I).
The means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha values and correlations between the variables are presented in Table II.
Results
The relationship between perceived bullying and work engagement
The relationship between perceived bullying, performance, and engagement among Estonian academics is presented in Figure 2. The first hypothesis – a negative relationship between five first-order bullying factors (“person-related insulting”, “work-related blaming”, “professional understating”, “unreasonable work-related demands” and “work-related malpractices”) and work engagement – was confirmed partly, because a negative relationship was found between perceived “professional understating” and work engagement (−0.18, p<0.01), but not between other first-order bullying factors and engagement. This is a signal that especially feelings of “professional understating” decrease work engagement among Estonian academics. In daily academic life, experiences like “being ordered to do work below your level of competence” or “having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks” affect employee engagement and ruin vertical trust between employees and employers, but also horizontal trust between employees.
The relationship between perceived bullying and work performance
The second hypothesis – a negative relationship between five first-order bullying factors and work performance – was also confirmed only for one bullying factor. A negative relationship was observed between “professional understating” and work performance (−0.26, p<0.01).
The relationship between work performance and work engagement among bullied academics
With regard to the third hypothesis, a positive relationship was revealed between work performance and work engagement among academics in Estonia (0.31, p<0.000) (Figure 2).
Additionally, we tested whether the relationship between performance and engagement could be reciprocal among bullied academics. The one-way effect of (decreased) performance (because of perceived bullying) on engagement was statistically acceptable (0.31, p<0.000), and the effect of (decreased) engagement (because of perceived bullying) on performance was acceptable, as well (0.31, p<0.000).
After this, to reveal the nature of the relationships between bullying, engagement and performance, possible mediator effects were also tested. First, we tested whether engagement acts as a mediator in the bullying–performance relationship, and second, we tested whether performance acts as a mediator in the bullying–engagement relationship. Please note that, in these models, bullying affects only engagement (B → E → P) or performance (B → P → E), not both simultaneously. The further analysis confirmed both explanations: there was a one-way path from bullying to engagement and further to performance (0.34, p<0.000), as well as from bullying to performance and further to perceived engagement (0.34, p<0.000). Both models were statistically acceptable.
Specifically, the analysis of one-way effects from performance to engagement, and vice versa from engagement to performance, revealed neither indirect effects between bullying and performance nor between bullying and engagement. Direct effects indicate that bullying, and especially professional understating, first affects an employee’s work-related performance and subsequently their work-related engagement (Figure 2). However, because of the cross-sectional setting, a further longitudinal study is needed to prove the specific one-way effect of (decreased) performance (because of perceived bullying) on engagement.
Discussion
We examined the relationships between perceived bullying, work engagement and work performance among Estonian academics. Specifically, work engagement and work performance were explored in relation to five sub-dimensions of bullying: person-related insulting, work-related blaming, professional understating, unreasonable work-related demands and work-related malpractices (Meriläinen and Kõiv, 2017).
Along with confirmation of the first hypothesis (H1), a negative relationship was revealed between perceived “professional understating” and work engagement. A similar relation was revealed between “professional understating” and work performance (H2). However, departing from our first and second hypotheses, there were no direct relations between other first-order bullying factors and work engagement, nor between other first-order bullying factors and performance. While the other forms of bullying influenced both engagement and performance indirectly by perceived “professional understating”, this is a signal that, in particular, feelings of “professional understating”, as a specific form of bullying, decrease engagement and performance among Estonian academics (see also Ahmad et al., 2017; Rai and Agarwal, 2017).
The third hypothesis (H3) conclusively proved the positive relationship between perceived work performance and work engagement among Estonian academics. The results showed that bullying decreases both engagement and performance. Further, decreased work performance reduces engagement and, vice versa, decreased engagement reduces performance (see McKay et al., 2008). Experiences of “professional understating” that decrease performance and engagement among Estonian academics are captured in the form of two problems: “being ordered to perform tasks below one’s level of competence” and “having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks”.
The present results show that, besides working environment (Meriläinen and Kõiv, 2018) and work-related well-being (Nielsen et al., 2015), workplace bullying is related to work engagement and work performance, and no doubt further to productivity at a community level (see Balducci et al., 2011; Bartlett and Bartlett, 2011; Giorgi, 2012; Samnami and Singh, 2012; Trepanier et al., 2013).
Besides individuals’ well-being, workplace bullying increases employees’ absenteeism and intentions to leave the organisation (e.g. Berthelsen et al., 2011; Glasø, Vie, Holmdal and Einarsen, 2011; Hollis, 2015; McCormack et al., 2009; Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012; Hollis, 2015) or the whole profession (Laschinger and Fida, 2014), and raises the risk of expulsion from working life altogether (Glambek et al., 2015). All this affects an organisation’s ability to function optimally, through loss of productivity, not to mention the costs of civil action and even possible civil trial, and possible intervention programmes (Branch et al., 2013).
Even these results are only indicative, as it appears that the one-way effect of (decreased) performance (because of perceived bullying) on engagement is more probable than the effect of (decreased) engagement on performance. We argue that bullying affects employees’ work performance almost immediately, and if it remains unaddressed, it affects work engagement. This is why a longitudinal study is needed on the effects of workplace bullying on work engagement and performance.
As stated, bullying may first decrease employees’ performance, leading to a breakdown in their task performance, as well as their contextual behaviour. It may also lead to CWB, which is negative and harmful to individual members or the entire organisation (Devonish, 2013). Moreover, there is a risk that as bullied employees’ productivity declines, they will become bullies themselves and promote the bullying culture. If this (invisible) effect of bullying on performance is not addressed, it is likely to result in engagement problems at an individual level, apart from other forms of adverse effects, not to mention effects on a community level.
Along with these results, we suppose that it is easier to approach this phenomenon in forthcoming research in other contexts and, importantly, we expect that this will help us (leaders) to recognise what prevailing practices at our own workplace may bring on bullying experiences and further reduce performance and engagement. Recognising these practices requires that we become aware of how we ourselves behave among other employees. In particular, it requires leaders to become aware that their role in allowing or preventing bullying at the workplace is related to their leadership style. However, co-workers are also required to become aware of what is suitable behaviour and what is not.
Further research is needed to understand the origin and reasons for Estonian academics’ feelings of “professional understating”. It may be a sign of certain cultural aspects embedded firmly in leadership styles (Aasland et al., 2010; Hoel et al., 2010). Alternatively, it may be a sign of collegial interaction that promotes undesirable behaviour and indirectly contributes to bullying at the university. Older Estonian managers, as well as older faculty personnel, may have different views of what is appropriate organisational behaviour (see Alas et al., 2006).
One of the limitations of this study is that the data are based on a self-reported survey instrument. To prevent the results from being skewed in any way, we used an MLR procedure during data analysis. However, in the future, we recommend the use of a longitudinal setting to explore the overall relationships between bullying, performance and (types of) engagement and to prove the specific one-way effect of (decreased) performance (because of perceived bullying) on engagement.
In addition, to determine where and why feelings of “professional understating” originate, we suggest using multi-methodological step-by-step data gathering. This is essential to identify whether bullying is rooted in a certain cultural and temporal context (Rai and Agarwal, 2016).
Despite the limitations above, the present results are based on a relatively representative sample of Estonian academics. In fact, the total of 864 respondents accounts for almost one-quarter (23 per cent) of all Estonian university members. Moreover, the gender distribution of the respondents, as well as the variations in age, tenure, working contract and nature of work, improves the reliability of the data and the results.
As a practical implication, if we want to prevent bullying and further increase engagement and performance among Estonian academe, we have to get out of policy of professional understating. In addition to legislative proposals for action, we suggest the formulation of clear guidelines on how to address workplace bullying wherever it exists (TTK – The Centre for Occupational Safety, 2018). Every employee should know what to do and how to get help in case of bullying. This is a challenge for HR departments, but especially it is a challenge for improving the leadership practices in Estonian universities. It should be remembered that greater communication and civil interactions between all faculty members is an expectation of every member of the Estonian university system, as well as elsewhere. There is also a need for legislative guidelines in the case of bullying within Estonian universities, and in other workplaces as well. For example, Finnish law concerning occupational health obliges an employer to intervene in bullying incidents (Finlex, 2017), whereas there is not yet a special law against bullying in Estonia or an employment law that stipulates prevention and intervention responsibilities (see also Eurofound, 2015).
As a social implication, we need to determine why Estonian academics experience professional understating, which includes being ordered to perform tasks below one’s level of competence and having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks.
Theoretically, the present results prove that it is possible to differentiate between specific forms of bullying in a specific context and further reveal relations between these forms of bullying and work engagement and performance. This indicates a need for future research in several other contexts. Recognising prevailing practices at the workplace that may bring on bullying experiences is crucial if we want to prevent bullying and maintain employees’ work engagement and performance.
Figures
Model fit and information criteria for the factor models
| Model of the five first-order bullying factors among Estonian academics (see Meriläinen and Kõiv, 2017) | Model of the overall relationship between bullying, performance and engagement among Estonian academics (Figure 2) | |
|---|---|---|
| Model fit | ||
| χ2 | χ2(25)=37.958, p=0.047 | χ2(35)=60.158, p=0.005 |
| Comparative fit index | CFI=0.99 | CFI=0.98 |
| Tucker–Lewis index | TLI=0.98 | TLI=0.97 |
| Root mean square error of approximation | Estimate RMSEA=0.025 | Estimate RMSEA=0.029 |
| 90% CI: 0.003–0.040 | 90% CI: 0.016–0.041 | |
| Probability RMSEA⩽0.05–0.998 | Probability RMSEA⩽0.05–0.998 | |
| Standardised root mean square residual | SRMR=0.028 | SRMR=0.027 |
| Normed fit index (NFI) | 1−(37.958: 1,308.836)=0.97 | 1−(60.158: 1,620.139)=0.96 |
| Scaling correction factor for MLR | 1.996 | 1.751 |
| Information criteria | ||
| Akaike | AIC=13,042.456 | AIC=22,203.377 |
| Bayesian | BIC=13,231.887 | BIC=22,463.845 |
| Sample-size-adjusted BIC (n*=(n+2)/24) | Adjusted BIC=13,104.859 | Adjusted BIC=22,289.182 |
Notes: n=842. According to Bentler–Bonett’s test variance, ⩾0.90 of the data are acceptable (Bentler and Bonett, 1980), whereas Hu and Bentler (1999) recommend that the cut-off criteria for the NFI should be⩾0.95
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s α values and correlations among variables
| Variable | M | SD | Cronbach’s α | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Person-related insulting | 1.30 | 0.52 | 0.72 | – | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.47 | 0.46 | −0.10 | −0.20 |
| 2. Work-related blaming | 1.18 | 0.39 | 0.62 | – | 0.46 | 0.35 | 0.28 | −0.10 | −0.16 | |
| 3. Professional understating | 1.35 | 0.63 | 0.76 | – | 0.35 | 0.38 | −0.22 | −0.22 | ||
| 4. Unreasonable work-related demands | 1.55 | 0.68 | 0.60 | – | 0.52 | −0.07* | −0.09 | |||
| 5. Work-related malpractices | 1.38 | 0.60 | 0.77 | – | −0.11 | −0.15 | ||||
| 6. Work performance (1–10) | 7.82 | 1.37 | – | – | 0.34 | |||||
| 7. Work engagement (0–54) | 37.4 | 10.86 | 0.92 | – |
Notes: n=842. *,**Correlation is significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively (two-tailed)
References
Aasland, M.S., Skogstad, A., Notelaers, G., Nielsen, M.B. and Einarsen, S. (2010), “The prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 438-452.
Agervold, M. (2007), “Bullying at work: ‘a discussion of definitions and prevalence, based on an empirical study’”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 161-172, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00585.x.
Ahmad, S. and Sheehan, M.J. (2017), “Understanding the lived experience of bullying in Australian workplaces: an interpretative phenomenological analysis”, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 74-98.
Ahmad, S., Kalim, R. and Kaleem, A. (2017), “Academics’ perceptions of bullying at work: insights from Pakistan”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 204-220.
Alas, R., Ennulo, J. and Türnpuu, L. (2006), “Managerial values in the institutional context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 269-278.
Bakker, A.B. and Bal, P.M. (2010), “Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among starting teachers”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 189-206.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career Development International, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Brummelhuis, L.L. (2012), “Work engagement, performance, and active learning: the role of conscientiousness”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 555-564.
Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2011), “Workplace bullying and its relation with work characteristics, personality, and post-traumatic stress symptoms: an integrated model”, Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 499-513.
Bartlett, J.E. and Bartlett, M.E. (2011), “Workplace bullying: an integrative literature review”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Bennett, R. and Robinson, S. (2000), “Development of a measure of workplace deviance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 349-360.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Berthelsen, M., Skogstad, A., Lau, B. and Einarsen, S. (2011), “Do they stay or do they go? A longitudinal study of intentions to leave and exclusion from working life among targets of workplace bullying”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 178-193, doi: 10.1108/01437721111130198.
Branch, S., Ramsay, S. and Barker, M. (2013), “Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: a review”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 280-299.
Deci, E.L., Olafsen, A.H. and Ryan, R.M. (2017), “Self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 4, pp. 19-43, doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 (accessed 5 September 2017).
Devonish, D. (2013), “Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviors: the mediating role of psychological well-being”, Employee Relations, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 630-647.
Diamantopoulos, A., Sarstedt, M., Fuchs, C., Wilczynski, P. and Kaiser, S. (2012), “Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 434-449, doi: 10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. and Notelaers, G. (2009), “Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised”, Work & Stress, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 24-44.
Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., Rørvik, E., Lande, Å.B. and Nielsen, M.B. (2018), “Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: a moderated mediation analysis”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 549-570.
Eurofound (2015), “Violence and harassment in European workplaces: extent, impacts and policies”, Eurofound, Dublin.
Finlex (2017), “yöturvallisuuslaki [The Law on Work Safety] 23.8.2002/738, 18§ and 28§”, available at: www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2002/20020738 (accessed 30 December 2017).
Fitzgerald, L., Gelfand, M. and Drasgow, F. (1995), “Measuring sexual harassment: theoretical and psychometric advances”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 425-445.
Giorgi, G. (2012), “Workplace bullying in academia creates a negative work environment: an Italian study”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 261-275.
Glambek, M., Skogstad, A. and Einarsen, S. (2015), “Take it or leave: a five-year prospective study of workplace bullying and indicators of expulsion in working life”, Industrial Health, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 160-170, doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2014-0195.
Glasø, L., Bele, E., Nielsen, M.B. and Einarsen, S. (2011), “Bus drivers’ exposure to bullying at work: an occupation-specific approach”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 484-493, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00895.x.
Glasø, L., Vie, T.L., Holmdal, G.R. and Einarsen, S. (2011), “An application of affective events theory to workplace bullying: the role of emotions, trait anxiety, and trait anger”, European Psychologist, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 198-208, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000026
Goodboy, A.K., Martin, M.M. and Bolkan, S. (2017), “Workplace bullying and work engagement: a self-determination model”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, pp. 1-23, doi: 10.1177/0886260517717492.
Hakanen, J. (2009), “Työn imun arviointimenetelmä. Työn imu -menetelmän käyttäminen, validointi ja viitetiedot Suomessa (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale)”, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki.
Hauge, L., Skogstad, A. and Einarsen, S. (2007), “Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: results of a large representative study”, Work & Stress, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 220-242.
Henning, M.A., Zhou, C., Adams, P., Moir, F., Hobson, J., Hallett, C. and Webster, C.S. (2017), “Workplace harassment among staff in higher education: a systematic review”, Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 521-539, doi: 10.1007/s12564-017-9499-0.
Hoel, H., Glasø, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C.L. and Einarsen, S. (2010), “Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 453-468, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00664.x.
Hollis, L.P. (2015), “Bully University? The cost of workplace bullying and employee disengagement in American higher education”, SAGE Open, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1177/2158244015589997.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hurley, A., Scandura, T., Schriesheim, C., Brannick, M., Seers, A., Vandenberg, R. and Williams, L. (1997), “Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: guidelines, issues, and alternatives”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 667-683.
Kim, W., Kolb, J.A. and Kim, T. (2012), “The relationship between work engagement and performance: a review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 248-276.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Laschinger, H.K.S. and Fida, R. (2014), “A time-lagged analysis of the effect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover intentions”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 739-753, doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.804646.
McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N. and Yang, L. (2009), “Workplace bullying and intention to leave among schoolteachers in China: the mediating effect of affective commitment”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 2106-2127, doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00518.x.
McKay, R., Huberman Arnold, D., Fratzl, J. and Thomas, R. (2008), “Workplace bullying in academia: a Canadian study”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 77-100.
Meriläinen, M. and Kõiv, K. (2017), “Theoretical dimensions of bullying and inappropriate behaviour among faculty members”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 378-392.
Meriläinen, M. and Kõiv, K. (2018), “Bullying and an unfavourable working environment”, International Journal of Workplace Health Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 159-176, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-11-2016-0082
Meriläinen, M., Käyhkö, K., Kõiv, K. and Sinkkonen, H.-M. (2018), “Academic bullying and inappropriate behaviour among faculty personnel in Estonia and Finland”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 241-261.
Meriläinen, M., Sinkkonen, H.-M., Puhakka, H. and Käyhkö, K. (2016), “Bullying and inappropriate behaviour among faculty personnel”, Policy Futures in Education, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 617-634.
Nielsen, M. and Einarsen, S. (2012), “Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: a meta-analytic review”, Work & Stress, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 309-332.
Nielsen, M. and Einarsen, S. (2018), “What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: an overview of the literature and agenda for future research”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 42, pp. 71-83.
Nielsen, M., Tangen, T., Idsoe, T., Matthiesen, S. and Magerøy, N. (2015), “Post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of bullying at work and at school: a literature review and meta-analysis”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 17-24, doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.001.
Obicci, P.A. (2015), “Effect of workplace bullying on employee performance in the public sector”, Asian Journal of Management Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 43-55.
O’Moore, M. (2012), “Cyber-bullying: the situation in Ireland”, Pastoral Care in Education, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
Park, J.H. and Ono, M. (2017), “Effects of workplace bullying on work engagement and health: the mediating role of job insecurity”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 28 No. 22, pp. 3202-3225.
Rai, A. and Agarwal, U.A. (2016), “Workplace bullying: a review and future research directions”, South Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 27-56.
Rai, A. and Agarwal, U.A. (2017), “Linking workplace bullying and work engagement: the mediating role of psychological contract violation”, South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 42-71.
Robinson, S.L. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psychological contract”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 574-599, doi: 10.2307/2393868.
Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., Baillien, E., De Witte, H., Moreno-Jiménez, B. and Pastor, J.C. (2009), “Cross-lagged relationships between workplace bullying, job satisfaction and engagement: two longitudinal studies”, Work & Stress, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 225-243, doi: 10.1080/02678370903227357.
Rowe, A. and Fitness, J. (2018), “Understanding the role of negative emotions in adult learning and achievement: a social functional perspective”, Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.3390/bs8020027.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2010), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78, doi: 10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68.
Samnani, A.-K. and Singh, P. (2012), “20 years of workplace bullying research: a review of the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 581-589, doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.08.004.
Samnani, A.-K., Singh, P. and Ezzedeen, S. (2013), “Workplace bullying and employee performance: an attributional model”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 337-359.
Schat, A.C.H. and Frone, M.R. (2011), “Exposure to psychological aggression at work and job performance: the mediating role of job attitudes and personal health”, Work & Stress, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 23-40, doi: 10.1080/02678373.2011.563133.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gontzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, The Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.
Simbula, S., Guglielmi, D. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2011), “A three-wave study of job resources, self-efficacy, and work engagement among Italian schoolteachers”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 285-304.
Sinkkonen, H.-M., Puhakka, H. and Meriläinen, M. (2014), “Bullying at a university: students’ experiences of bullying”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 153-165, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.649726.
Sonnentag, S., Volmer, J. and Spychala, A. (2008), “Job performance”, in Barling, J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior: Micro Perspectives, Vol. 1, Sage, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 427-447.
Spector, P.E. and Fox, S. (2002), “An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 269-292.
Trepanier, S.-G., Fernet, C. and Austin, S. (2013), “Workplace bullying and psychological health at work: the mediating role of satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness”, Work & Stress, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 123-140.
TTK – The Centre for Occupational Safety (2018), “Harassment and inappropriate treatment”, available at: https://ttk.fi/en (accessed 30 December 2018).
Van den Brande, W., Baillien, E., DeWitte, H., Vander Elst, T. and Godderis, L. (2016), “The role of work stressors, coping strategies and coping resources in the process of workplace bullying: a systematic review and development of a comprehensive model”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 61-71.
Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E. and Hudy, M.J. (1997), “Overall job satisfaction: how good are single-item measures?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 247-252.
Yahaya, A., Ing, T.C., Lee, G.M., Yahaya, N., Boon, Y., Hashim, S. and Taat, S. (2012), “The impact of workplace bullying on work performance”, Archives Des Sciences, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 18-28.
Yildirim, D. (2009), “Bullying among nurses and its effects”, International Nursing Review, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 504-511.
Further reading
Meriläinen, M., Nissinen, P. and Kõiv, K. (2019), “Intention to leave among bullied university personnel”, International Journal of Educational Management (in press).