Search results

In this paper the authors argue that organizational climate and workplace bullying are connected, intertwined and affect each other. More precisely, the focus of the present study is how a hostile climate at work is related to workplace bullying. A hostile work climate is defined as an affective organizational climate permeated by distrust, suspicion and antagonism. The authors tested four hypotheses about the reciprocal effects and possible gender differences.

The study is based on a longitudinal probability sample of the Swedish workforce (n = 1,095). Controlling for age, the authors used structural equation modelling and cross-lagged structural regression models to assess the reciprocal effects of a hostile work climate on workplace bullying. Gender was added as a moderator to test two of the hypotheses.

The results showed a strong reciprocal effect, meaning there were significant associations between a hostile work climate and subsequent bullying, β = 0.12, p = 0.007, and between baseline bullying and a subsequent hostile work climate, β = 0.15, p = 0.002. The forward association between a hostile work climate and bullying depended on gender, β = −0.23, p < 0.001.

The findings point to a possible vicious circle where a hostile work climate increases the risk of bullying, which in turn risks creating an even more hostile work climate. Furthermore, the findings point to gender differences in bullying, showing that the effect of a hostile work climate on workplace bullying was stronger for men.

Drawing on the resource-based view, the purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which the level of the organization’s human resource management (HRM) practices, perceived financial resources and organizational size predict the existence of a well-developed ethical infrastructure against workplace bullying.

The human resource (HR) managers or the main health and safety representatives (HSRs) in 216 Norwegian municipalities responded to an electronic survey, representing some 50 percent of the municipalities.

The level of high-quality HRM practice predicted the existence of an ethical infrastructure against workplace bullying, particularly informal systems represented by a strong conflict management climate. Perceived financial resources did not predict the existence of such ethical infrastructure. Organizational size predicted the existence of policies and having training against bullying.

This study informs practitioners about organizational resources associated with organization having a well-developed ethical infrastructure against workplace bullying. A high level of high-quality HRM practices seems to be more important for the existence of a well-developed ethical infrastructure against workplace bullying compared to financial resources and organizational size, at least as perceived by HR managers and HSRs.

This study provides empirical evidence for the importance of having a high level of high-quality HRM practices as predictors of the existence of ethical infrastructure to tackle workplace bullying. An essential finding is that the existence of such an infrastructure is not dependent on distal resources, such as organizational size and perceived financial resources.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze cross-national and cross-cultural similarities and differences in perceptions and conceptualizations of workplace bullying among human resource professionals (HRPs). Particular emphasis was given to what kind of behaviors are considered as bullying in different countries and what criteria interviewees use to decide whether a particular behavior is bullying or not.

HRPs in 13 different countries/regions (n=199), spanning all continents and all GLOBE cultural clusters (House et al., 2004), were interviewed and a qualitative content analysis was carried out.

Whereas interviewees across the different countries largely saw personal harassment and physical intimidation as bullying, work-related negative acts and social exclusion were construed very differently in the different countries. Repetition, negative effects on the target, intention to harm, and lack of a business case were decision criteria typically used by interviewees across the globe – other criteria varied by country.

The results help HRPs working in multinational organizations understand different perceptions of negative acts.

The findings point to the importance of cultural factors, such as power distance and performance orientation, and other contextual factors, such as economy and legislation for understanding varying conceptualizations of bullying.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that bullying is a gendered, rather than gender‐neutral, phenomenon.

The paper reviews empirical findings on gender and bullying and identifies and discusses theoretical frameworks that can provide explanations for identified gender differences.

The paper shows that there are gender differences not only in reported prevalence rates and forms of bullying, but that gender also matters for the way targets and third parties make sense of and respond to bullying. It is shown that gendered conceptions of power, gender role socialisation theory and social identity theory are all relevant for explaining reported gender differences.

The theoretical frameworks that have been selected should not be seen as exhaustive, but rather as useful examples. The authors encourage researchers in the field of bullying to pursue cross‐disciplinary research and actively apply existing theoretical frameworks to integrate their findings more firmly in existing research on related themes.

The finding that bullying is gendered rather than gender‐neutral has implications above all for the way managers, organisational representatives and policy‐makers should address and prevent workplace bullying.

The paper questions the prevailing notion that bullying is gender‐neutral and demonstrates the importance of gender in the experience of workplace bullying. It further identifies gaps in research and puts forward an agenda for future research in this area.

The aim of this paper is to explore what kind of measures personnel managers have taken to intervene in workplace harassment and to explore how organisational characteristics and the characteristics of the personnel manager affect the choice of response strategies.

The study was exploratory and used a survey design. A web‐based questionnaire was sent to the personnel managers of all Finnish municipalities and data on organisational responses and organisational characteristics were collected.

The study showed that the organisations surveyed relied heavily on reconciliatory measures for responding to workplace harassment and that punitive measures were seldom used. Findings indicated that personnel manager gender, size of municipality, use of “sophisticated” human resource management practices and having provided information and training to increase awareness about harassment all influence the organisational responses chosen.

Only the effects of organisational and personnel manager characteristics on organisational responses were analysed. Future studies need to include perpetrator characteristics and harassment severity.

The study informs both practitioners and policy makers about the measures that have been taken and that can be taken in order to stop harassment. It also questions the effectiveness of written anti‐harassment policies for influencing organisational responses to harassment and draws attention to the role of gendered perceptions of harassment for choice of response strategy.

This paper fills a gap in harassment research by reporting on the use of different response strategies and by providing initial insights into factors affecting choice of responses.

During the past 26 years, there has been a phenomenal growth in the literature on workplace bullying. The purpose of this paper is to review and synthesize the extant empirical studies on underlying and intervening mechanisms in antecedents–bullying and bullying–outcomes relationships.

In total, 53 studies on mediators and moderators in antecedents–bullying and bullying–outcomes relationships (2001-2016) were selected from academic databases (Google Scholar, Research Gate, Emerald Insight, Science Direct, etc.)

The review suggests that while a reasonable number of studies examine the role of mediators and moderators in bullying–outcomes relationships, such efforts are meager in antecedents–bullying relationships. The paper concludes by proposing some potential variables that can explain the underlying mechanisms in the bullying phenomenon and alleviate/aggravate the antecedents–bullying–outcomes relationships.

To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first review on mediators and moderators of workplace bullying.

This study tested whether person-job fit (PJ-fit), person-group fit (PG-fit) and person-organization fit (PO-fit) relate to exposure to and enactment of workplace bullying (WB), mediated by strain and conflict.

Data from 1,077 employees were analysed using multiple mediator structural equation modelling (Mplus 8.0).

PJ-fit, PG-fit and PO-fit all related to WB. PG-fit accounted for most explained variance. PJ-fit, PG-fit and PO-fit related to bullying through strain; only PG-fit also related to bullying through conflict.

PE-fit is valuable to parsimoniously investigate WB's multi-causal nature; and strain and conflict partially explain the associations. Future research may shed more light on the direction of these effects.

So far, scholars assumed that job design prevents WB (work-environment hypothesis). This study revealed that prevention should also focus on the fit between employee and group/organization.

WB has high societal costs. The authors introduce a new angle to WB prevention. To counteract WB, practitioners should also look at PJ-fit, PG-fit and PO-fit. This is not only important for recruitment, but also for tenured employees (e.g. because of changes in employees' needs, the job, the group or the organization).

This study was the first to investigate the multi-causal nature of both WB exposure and enactment, by applying the lens of PE-fit, and testing explanatory mechanisms.