Search results

The purpose of the article is to provide further evidence for the work environment hypothesis. According to the work environment hypothesis and as documented by empirical evidence, organizational factors play a crucial role in the development of workplace bullying. However, to better understand and prevent bullying at work and establish sustainable, responsible and ethical workplaces, it is crucial to understand which organizational factors are particularly important in the development of bullying and how these factors, independently and combined, act as precursors to bullying over time. One prominent theory that explains how organizational and individual factors interact is the affective events theory (AET).

In a two-wave, time-lagged study (N = 364), the authors apply AET to test and explain the interplay of organizational factors in the development of bullying at work.

The results revealed that supportive and fair leadership moderates the relationship between role stress and exposure to workplace bullying.

Knowledge of the buffering role of supportive and fair leadership practices is important when implementing organizational interventions aimed at preventing bullying at work.

Although previous studies have shown the general protecting effects of supportive leadership on exposure to bullying, the current study indicates that high level of supportive and fair leadership practices decreases the level of exposure to bullying, even when role ambiguity and role conflict are relatively high.

This paper aims to present directions for future research by linking the academic fields of workplace bullying and whistleblowing together. This article also suggests implications as to how to deal with the health consequences that can develop after such workplace experiences.

The paper describes empirical research on the link between whistleblowing and workplace bullying, and suggests how to deal with the health consequences that develop in relation to workplace bullying after whistleblowing.

Empirical research has documented the link between whistleblowing and workplace bullying and the devastating effects on health that may follow (e.g. depression and symptoms analogous to post traumatic stress). Implications for practice are as follows: first, to provide clear examples of unwanted workplace behavior; and second, to help clinicians to gain a balance between the client's need to re‐tell and the need for psychological treatment.

Future studies on workplace bullying are encouraged to be aware of the link to potential previous whistleblowing, and to study therapeutic interventions for employees exposed to bullying, and who also have reported wrongdoing at work.

The practical implications are to provide clear examples of unwanted workplace behavior, and to balance the need for re‐telling against the need for treatment for possible depression and trauma.

This paper provides valuable information for researchers, practitioners and clinicians in the field of workplace behavior in general and in the field of managerial psychology in particular.

Through state-of-the-art insights on whistleblowing in India, the purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of sociocultural dynamics in whistleblowing.

A review of literature on wrongdoing and whistleblowing in India revealed various aspects of the national context pertinent to different stages of the phenomenon. Thematic analysis of these dimensions, allowing for a nomothetic approach, resulted in identifying six sociocultural themes common across wrongdoing and whistleblowing.

Sociocultural dynamics impacting the emergence, persistence and recognition of wrongdoing, the decision to blow the whistle, engagement in whistleblowing and the outcomes of whistleblowing encompass social relationships, power distribution, materialistic considerations, sense of propriety and fairness, public/civic orientation and ideological leanings. These factors coexist with international influences, institutional framework, workplace ethos and individual orientation. The presence of wrongdoing and the trajectory of whistleblowing in India are affected by the aforementioned factors.

The paper is based on secondary data rather than empirical endeavours.

By underscoring the relevance of contextual dynamics, in particular sociocultural factors, in the whistleblowing process, the paper indicates an important basis for appropriate interventions to manage wrongdoing and encourage whistleblowing while protecting whistleblowers and ensuring attention to rectifying wrongdoing and sanctioning offenders.

Apart from providing a contemporary and comprehensive overview of whistleblowing in India, the paper uncovers the significance of sociocultural factors which have been overlooked so far in the substantive area. Moreover, a contextualised process model of whistleblowing is proposed based on the analysis. In subsuming temporality, context and outcomes for all stakeholders, the model displays complexity and causality, emphasising holism.