Search results

This research examined some personal characteristics of victims of bullying in residential care for youth. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A total of 601 young people aged 11-21 from 22 residential facilities in Croatia completed an anonymous self-reported bullying questionnaire, the Big Five Personality Inventory, the Basic Empathy Scale and the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale.

The results demonstrated that male and female victims lacked self-esteem, presented with neurotic personality traits and were likely to believe that bullying was just part of life in residential care. Female victims also presented with lower levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness, while male victims were young and had a history of victimisation during their previous placement, in school and at the beginning of their current placements.

Victims in care might benefit from programmes addressing their low self-esteem, high neuroticism and attitudes approving of bullying. Male residential groups should not accommodate young boys together with older boys. New residents who have a history of victimisation during their previous placement and in school should be supervised more intensively but in a manner that does not increase their perception of being victimised.

The present study is the first work that examines individual characteristics of bullying victims in care institutions for young people. As such, the study offers some insights on how to protect residential care bullying victims.

Anti-bullying legislation has been adopted in every state to prevent the victimization of youth, but the focus on deterring and criminalizing individual behavior can obscure the contextual factors that contribute to aggression. This theoretical paper engages sociological literature to understand the impact of recent anti-bullying legislation on students’ experiences.

We discuss stigma and account-making theory to theorize the ways students become particularly vulnerable to victimization and may or may not be sufficiently protected under the law. We also engage criminological theories to understand how punishment may not be sufficient for preventing aggressive behavior but may instead lead students to employ strategies to avoid being caught or punished for their behaviors.

We argue that the majority of current anti-bullying definitions and protocols in use are ambiguous and insufficient in protecting vulnerable groups of students, particularly students with disabilities, overweight students, and LGBT +  students.

Our findings suggest that schools should seek to understand and alter the school-wide cultures and norms that permit aggressive behavior in the first place, in turn creating more inclusive school environments.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the direct and buffering effects of three workplace contextual factors – constructive leadership, perceived organizational support, and organizational anti‐bullying initiatives – on bullying and its relationships with relevant criteria. Further, the paper aims to investigate the effectiveness of organizational initiatives against bullying as perceived by targets and non‐targets.

Data were collected from 727 employees in nine New Zealand healthcare organizations. Of these, 133 employees were classified as bullied, as they had experienced at least two negative acts per week over the last six months.

Correlations revealed negative relationships between the three contextual work factors and bullying. Moderated regression showed that perceived organizational support buffered the relationship of bullying with self‐rated job performance, and that organizational initiatives against bullying buffered the relationship of bullying with both wellbeing and organizational commitment. Targets consistently gave lower ratings than non‐targets of the effectiveness of organizational initiatives to address bullying.

There is scant research on workplace factors that may reduce bullying and buffer its negative effects. This paper makes an original contribution in providing evidence of the importance of three contextual factors, and of buffering effects for perceived organizational support and organizational initiatives against bullying.

Bullying affects at least one-third of the workers through either direct exposure or witnessing, both of which lead to compromised health, and as a result, reduced organizational effectiveness or productivity. However, there is very little evidence that organisations provide effective protection from bullying, and in fact, the converse appears to the case. The purpose of this paper to explore the role of both individual and organisational power in the creation and maintenance of the problem. Such an approach moves away from the specific practice of identifying “bullying” that typically engages targets and perpetrators in a dance that is really just around the edges (Sullivan, 2008) of a larger problem; a culture that permits the abuse of power and ill-treatment of workers, in both practices and through organisational politics.

This paper elucidates key problems with organisational response as identified in the literature and critically examines weak organisational response to workplace bullying using the power theory, arguing that while overt approaches to addressing bullying appear to be underpinned by a simplistic, functionalist understanding of power, practices on the ground are better explained by more sophisticated “second-dimension” theorists.

There is a need for organisations to move beyond the current individualistic understanding of bullying towards a more nuanced understanding of how anti-bullying policies and procedures are themselves an exercise in institutional power protecting and reinforcing dominant power structures.

The literature from which this paper is drawn is limited to studies published in English.

The authors advocate a realistic assessment of the role of both individual and organisational power in the creation and maintenance of workplace bullying, as a way forward to plan appropriate intervention.

Workplace bullying is problematic for organisations at several levels, and therefore for society.

That power is relevant to workplace bullying has been apparent since the work of Brodsky in 1976 and Einarsen's early work, this paper builds on a the more nuanced work of McKay (2014), D'Cruz and Noronha (2009), Liefooghe and MacDavey's (2010) and Hutchinson et al. (2010), exploring the organisational response to the raising of bullying issues by individual employees as an exercise of power.

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between higher educational institution bullying policies and the subsequent cultural impact to determine the effectiveness of policy in ameliorating bullying within the university culture.

This study consisted of two separate but related case studies at two universities in different countries, focussing on university staff. The field work gathered data about existing anti-bullying policy, the extent to which it was part of the organisational culture for staff, and the levels of staff bullying experienced or seen within the organisation. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected.

The study found that despite one university having significant policy and the other having very little policy, the knowledge of policy in both universities was and subsequent experience of bullying for staff were very similar.

The findings indicate that anti-bullying policy alone appears to have a limited impact on organisational behaviour. This suggests that the entrenched and historical master/servant relations of academia enable such practices to continue. Policy implementation is insufficient and training and development to generate more inclusive, people-focussed management cultures is necessary to ameliorate bullying behaviour.

The paper draws on the experiences, critique and suggestions of the study participants to prepare a possible agenda for cultural change that human resource (HR) managers could develop in association with academic and professional managers within their institution.

The findings suggest that in any social setting or organisational structure where strong historical patterns of master/servant endure, the opportunity for bullying behaviours to grow and flourish is fertile and that policy statements alone may have little impact on curtailing such behaviour.

This study makes two contributions to existing knowledge. First, it provides evidence that anti-bullying policy is alone unlikely to have an effective impact on instances of bullying within the culture. Second, the case study contrast displays that unacceptable levels of bullying exist in two very different institutions in two very different cultures. Whilst one country has a war-torn history and the other exists in splendid isolation, the same patterns persist, indicating that universities have structured cultural issues that are difficult to change.

Purpose – This chapter explores the problem of school shootings as a source of anxiety and fear in schools. Such fear has generated calls for security in schools and has been a catalyst for the development and deployment of antiviolence policies in schools.

Methodology/approach – The chapter begins by examining the development of the Columbine Effect, which is a set of emotions surrounding youth social problems, particularly violence in schools. This Columbine Effect is then explored in relation to its role in the development of policies to mitigate the problem of school violence. These purposes are linked using a multilevel typology of school violence and their sources, created by Henry (2009).

Findings – The chapter explores the levels of violence addressed by six antiviolence policies: crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), zero tolerance, anti-bullying programming, emergency management planning, peer mediation, and school climate programming. The analysis indicates the level(s) of violence each type of policy is designed to address and identifies research evidence regarding the efficacy of each policy. The analysis also focuses on the unintended consequences of school antiviolence policies, especially those which reduce violence on one or more levels, while exacerbating the problem on other levels.

Research limitations/implications – The analytical approach was selective, rather than exhaustive. Nonetheless, the analysis has suggested a number of ironies concerning the unintended consequences of antiviolence programming in schools. This suggests the need for broader analysis in this area.

Practical implications – The analysis identifies a number of detrimental effects that have resulted from school violence policy initiatives ranging from the socialization of youth toward a society of control and authority. In addition, the chapter helps to clarify the (often negative) effects of hype about violence in schools.

Originality/value of chapter – Although not often connected, this chapter explores the intersection between the discourse of school violence (typically, a social problems framing concern) and the development of school antiviolence policies (typically, an applied social scientific concern).

The purpose of this paper is to examine the perspectives of human resource professionals (HRPs) and employee representatives (ERs) on the role of HRPs in managing workplace bullying.

Individual interviews were conducted with 12 HRPs and five ERs from a wide range of industries. Interview questions were open-ended and sought to gain insight on the views of the individual interviewees.

The findings address the role of HRPs in bullying scenarios and in the prevention of bullying. Regarding the role of HRPs in bullying, the responses of the participants suggest confusion and ambiguity, with a variety of roles being described ranging from a support-based role through to a protector of management. The participants also noted the importance of the HRP task of policy development, while a distrust of HRPs in bullying scenarios was mentioned. Regarding the effective management and prevention of bullying, the findings demonstrate that HRPs are viewed as having a central role through their particular responsibilities of creating and nurturing a positive organisational culture, as well as through engaging employees in the development of anti-bullying policies.

HRPs believe that they can contribute significantly to reducing workplace bullying through organisational culture (including educating staff and as role models of behaviour) and by engaging staff in the design of anti-bullying policies.

This paper contributes to the literature on workplace bullying by examining within the Australian context the perspectives of HRPs and ERs on how HRPs can prevent and manage workplace bullying.

This paper aims to investigate employee reports of workplace bullying in which participants argue that poor management of bullying led to a range of health problems, both physical and mental.

A constructivist approach is adopted to develop an understanding of individual experiences of bullying. Qualitative research interviews are used as the method of data collection and focus is on individual participants as the unit of analysis. Data are analyzed using thematic analysis in which both deductive and inductive themes are developed.

Findings suggest that lack of or poor workplace bullying policies impacts are used negatively on employee health. Specifically, analysis of employee reports suggest that the inability to successfully report bullying, or have bullying complaints taken seriously leads to ongoing implications for the individual.

Future research needs to focus further on examining reasons why some organizations do not develop and implement anti‐bullying policies, as well as further investigate the characteristics of bullying cultures so that effective interventions can be developed and health issues associated with bullying minimized.

This paper contributes to workplace health practice by providing insight into the risks that poor bullying management can have on the health of employees. It is proposed that such consequences could lead to an increase in litigations in the event that employees demonstrate that organizations have not provided a duty of care. Finally, the paper argues that organizations that do not attempt to prevent bullying may inadvertently contribute to the long‐term development of organizational cultures that tolerate harassment and abuse.

The chapter elaborates how organizational governance can optimally address workplace bullying, a synergy possible because organizational governance seeks to promote ethical functioning while workplace bullying is considered an unethical behavior. Through its suggestions, the chapter aims at furthering employee dignity and well-being, cohering with international calls for human rights at work.

A review of two literatures was conducted: (a) workplace bullying differentiated on the basis of its situatedness and level into internal bullying – of an interpersonal and depersonalized nature – and external bullying; and (b) organizational governance including its theoretical perspectives, especially the societal lens, and international, national, and firm codes.

Several organizational governance measures at institutional level – both international and national in scope – and at firm level are proposed to deal with varieties of workplace bullying encompassing primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Accordingly, a shift in organizational effectiveness from goal-based models to process-oriented frameworks so that economic and non-economic objectives are balanced, following the stakeholder approach, is advocated. The political dynamics involved in such an initiative are alluded to.

Application, drawing on secondary rather than primary data, is the essential thrust of the chapter, with recommendations anchored in organizational governance, particularly its societal perspective, conceptualized to address workplace bullying in a holistic manner.

First, despite the clear relevance of organizational governance to workplace bullying, the prospect of interventions from this standpoint has never been previously explored. Second, the term “varieties of workplace bullying” is propounded to capture the different types of emotional abuse at work known so far.

Purpose: Sexual minority youth are more likely than their heterosexual peers to consider and attempt suicide, in part due to victimization experienced within schools. While existing research suggests that rates of school victimization and suicidality among sexual minority students vary by school and community context, less is known about variation in these experiences at the state level.

Methodology: Using data from a large, representative sample of sexual minority and heterosexual youth (2017 Youth Risk Behavior States Data, n = 64,746 high school students in 22 states), multilevel models examine whether differences between sexual minority and heterosexual students in victimization and suicide risk vary by state-level policies.

Findings: Results suggest that disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual boys in bullying, suicide ideation, and suicide attempt are consistently smaller in states with high levels of overall policy support for LGBTQ equality and nondiscrimination in education laws. Sexual minority girls are more likely than heterosexual girls to be electronically bullied, particularly in states with lower levels of LGBTQ equality. Disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual girls in suicide ideation are lowest in high equality states, but state policies are not significantly associated with disparities in suicide attempt among girls.

Value: Overall, findings suggest that state-level policies supporting LGBTQ equality are associated with a reduced risk of suicide among sexual minority youth. This study speaks to the role of structural stigma in shaping exposure to minority stress and its consequences for sexual minority youth's well-being.