Master of Arts Integrated Studies
Transcript of Master of Arts Integrated Studies
Master of Arts – Integrated Studies
UNRAVELLING THE MYSTERIES OF A HUMAN CONTAGION:
WORKPLACE BULLYING – UNPLUGGED
By
DANA PYNN
Integrated Studies Final Project Essay (MAIS 700)
submitted to Dr. Angela Specht
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts – Integrated Studies
Athabasca, Alberta
April, 2016
Master of Arts – Integrated Studies
ABSTRACT
Workplace bullying is a pervasive phenomenon. In order to foster and sustain a
respectful workplace, it is important to raise awareness about potential causes and impacts
of workplace bullying. Utilizing research from various scholars, this article integrates
findings from the literature utilizing a perspectival interdisciplinary approach that
includes psychology, social psychology, human resources and work/labour industry
disciplines. Findings from this research closely defines workplace bullying, illustrates
novel causes and consequences of it, highlights the prevalence of it, and discusses
possible strategies for diminishing it. The investigation considers predominant theories,
concepts and themes relating to workplace bullying which ultimately serves to provide
insightful analysis into this complex topic, and contributes to our understanding of the
significance of effective leadership. The paper concludes by providing pragmatic
suggestions for eradicating workplace bullying, noting that strong leadership is key.
3
"Most organisations have a serial bully. It never ceases to amaze me how one person's
divisive dysfunctional behaviour can permeate the entire organisation like a cancer.”
(Field, 2016)
Introduction
Bullying is not just something that happens on the playground; it is also a
palpable and penetrating occurrence in the workplace. Workplace bullying can have
devastating effects. It can significantly affect a person’s ability to participate with
dignity in the workplace, and may generate a culture where employees are prevented
from reaching their full potential. Aside from a demoralizing array of emotional and
physical effects, bullying may also inhibit employees from achieving their maximum
productivity while simultaneously rendering an employer vulnerable to claims of
human rights violations. So why, given all of the negative effects imposed on the
victim and the organization, does workplace bullying continue to be such a prevalent
entity? Is it unrecognizable? Are remedies unfathomable? Are the right people
being held accountable? Because of the complexity and proliferation of literature
associated with workplace bullying, an interdisciplinary examination of it is
warranted to understand why it continues to flourish. Exploration of the topic that
not only defines it, but also unravels possible origins of it, highlights venomous
consequences of it, and illuminates themes, concepts and theories related to it reveals
that strong leadership is the primary antidote to workplace bullying.
Rationale
Members of society must learn to live and work together effectively. One of the
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) current
4
themes is “Learning to Live Together.” The UNESCO website explains: At a time of
increasing global challenges and threats, such as inequality, exclusion, violence and
sectarianism worsened by local tensions and conflicts which undermine humanity’s
cohesion, learning to live together among all members of the global community
becomes more topical than ever before (Bokova, 2016). Since a major part of life is
work, a key aspect of learning how to live together is learning how to work together.
With the exception of family, relationships shaped by colleagues at work represent the
most important social network for adults. A person’s self-regard is largely dependent
upon how he/she is treated by managers and fellow employees.
Society is encouraged to embrace the tenets of global citizenship and to acquire
a social conscience, and it is more important than ever to attain aptitudes such as
personal integrity, social responsibility, and cultural literacy. Workplace bullying is a
widespread event that occurs within a wide range of establishments. When it occurs
rampantly within educational institutions, the primary source for delivering and
acquiring the aforementioned skills, it becomes particularly worthy of examination. As
an employee of a post-secondary institute, I have had occasion to question why bullying
might continue to exist.
Research Method and Relevant Disciplines
Textual analysis in the form of grounded theory, historical research, and
empirical data is used throughout this examination. The field of psychology and social
psychology not only help to define workplace bullying, but they perhaps most
poignantly illuminate the affective consequences of this topic. However, providing
definitions, discussing the idea of intent, and noting the relationship between power
5
structures and governance are similarly informed by the fields of management,
leadership and human resources, which also offers strategies and methods that human
resource professionals can implement to help individuals and organizations mitigate the
challenges associated with workplace bullying. The disciplines of management, labour
and industrial relations contribute by suggesting possible causes for workplace bullying,
highlighting popular themes and concepts, and offering theory-based explanations on
the topic. Hoel & Beal (2006) assert that the most substantial contributions on bullying
research comes from the psychology and social psychology domains, but note that an
interdisciplinary approach that includes industrial relations can significantly enhance the
exploration and contribute to the understanding of what comprises workplace bullying.
Prevalence
Research from the disciplines studied confirms workplace bullying is a
ubiquitous situation. One study reports that 97% of respondents experienced bullying in
the workplace within the past five years (Fox & Stallworth, 2005, p. 452). Another
source states “that nearly 95% of employees have had some exposure to general
bullying behaviors in the workplace over a 5 year period” (Samnani & Singh, 2012, p.
582). In a recent sample of 1,137 English students at an American university, 50%
reported they were currently being bullied at work. Furthermore, a study of
mistreatment at work involving 59 workers revealed that 100% who responded to the
questionnaire reported exposure to bullying at their current workplaces (Rayner, 1997
as cited in Parkins, Fishbein, & Ritchey, 2006, p. 2555). Workplace bullying occurs
with alarming frequency.
6
What Workplace Bullying Is
Scholars from various disciplines have distinct definitions for workplace
bullying, and defining this hazard is an important first step in combatting it. The
disciplines within this investigation concur about a few main characteristics: bullying is
persistent, low intensity, recurrent behaviour directed toward an individual. While
research indicates that it happens more frequently for those in a position of inferiority,
this sense of inferiority may be real (i.e. lower rank) or perceived (i.e. lateral rank but
less experience or seniority). Bullying occurs with surprising frequency between
coworkers who are equal in rank and even by employees who are subordinate.
Management and leadership scholars explain that bullying at work means harassing,
offending, socially excluding or negatively affecting someone's work tasks. They
maintain that in order for a bullying label to hold true, it has to occur repeatedly and
regularly (e.g. weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six months) (Einarsen,
Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003; Salin, 2003; Samnani & Singh, 2012). Not surprisingly,
psychologists focus on more acerbic aspects of bullying including “verbal aggression
(e.g., swearing), disrespect (e.g., interruption, public humiliation), and isolation (e.g.,
from important work activities)” rather than frequency and duration (Lim & Cortina,
2005, p. 483). The field of labour and industry note four critical components that are
commonly acknowledged features of workplace bullying across the literature:
frequency and duration, powerlessness of victim, methodical, and aggressive behaviour
(Buttigieg, Bryant, Hanley, & Liu, 2011). For the purpose of this examination, the
definition of workplace bullying is limited to behaviour rather than characteristics of the
7
individuals involved. This is partly because personal characteristics of the bully can be
perplexing. For example, a source from the field of psychology states:
…that bullies are arrogant and yet there is a sense of low self-worth and
vulnerability underneath; they are so tough externally yet seem driven by fear;
they feel persecuted yet demand respect; they are cold and emotionally numb yet
hypersensitive; and they seem so antisocial and rejecting and yet are desperate
for contact and intimacy (Walker & Bright, 2009, pp. 27-28).
Examining the profile of the workplace bully and his/her intended targets is an approach
that would augment the research, but determined to be somewhat irrelevant for this
analysis. Workplace bullying is explained in varying degrees of severity and can be
extremely difficult to prove. It can be concluded that effects of workplace bullying are
individualized – it can be emotional, intellectual, or even physical.
What Workplace Bullying is Not
It is equally important to define what does not constitute workplace bullying and
to make the distinction between prudent disciplinary actions and workplace bullying.
Clarification of the topic redirects the focus from the individual(s) involved to
constructs within an organization that are responsible for its endurance. For example,
as explained from the realm of human resources, standard acceptable practices in the
workplace may include one-off instances of being given menial tasks, or being expected
to meet tight deadlines, or even being excluded from social events. However, these
acts become problematic when they are purposely and frequently employed over a
period of time (Sali, 2003). Canada Occupational Health and Safety likewise provide
insight as to acceptable workplace behaviour. They explain that “exercising managerial
8
authority” should not be mistaken for bullying. For example, unfavorable decisions
relating to the job or workload, feedback and instruction, performance
appraisals/evaluation and even disciplinary actions are all reasonable supervisory
actions (Government of Canada, 2016). With strong leadership, these actions can be
undertaken in a non-offensive manner. A source from labour and industrial relations
explain that bullying and harassing behaviour does not include “expressing differences
of opinion, offering constructive feedback, guidance, or advice about work-related
behaviour (WorkSafeBC, Discussion Paper: Workplace bullying and harassment, 2016).
One of the main challenges of workplace bullying is distinguishing between reasonable
and unreasonable conduct since sometimes ‘managerial authority’ is deployed as a
device to conceal bullying. It is prohibitively challenging for subordinates to allege a
claim of bullying in asymmetrical work relationships. An interdisciplinary look at
workplace bullying definitions provides a comprehensive context for investigation and
removes the emphasis from the perpetrator and victim.
Intent
Some researchers emphasize that the concept of intent must occur within the
definition. For example, from the field of psychology, bullying is defined as “…verbal,
or psychological intimidation that is intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to the
victim” (Baldry & Farrington, 2000, as cited in Parkins, et al., 2006, p. 2554). The
Government of Canada agrees with the inclusion of intent and explain that workplace
bullying is intended to degrade, intimidate, offend or humiliate (Government of Canada,
2016). However, there is divergence among the disciplines regarding intent. One
9
source from human relations explains that it is not so much about what and how it is
done, but rather more about how often and how long it lasts. Salin (2003) defines
workplace bullying specifically as “repeated and persistent negative acts towards one or
more individual(s), which involve a perceived power imbalance, creating a hostile work
environment (p. 1215). A source from a management journal concedes that the idea of
intent may be unclear. They define workplace bullying as “low intensity deviant
behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for
mutual respect” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). An interesting example
demonstrating lack of intent can be found among Dalhousie University’s women hockey
players whose complaint regarding hazing transformed into an administratively
activated bullying situation. Although no clear intent to bully was manifest, victims
nonetheless felt bullied by university officials and their policies (Taber, 2013).
Although the inclusion of intent remains debatable among the disciplines, strong leaders
are able to redirect, eliminate, or at least reduce behaviour that is expressly intended to
degrade or humiliate. Creating awareness about bullying and initiating targeted specific
actions (such as training and workshops) would go a long way to alleviating its
destructive effects.
Complexity of Social Interactions
The social psychology and management disciplines agree that bullying occurs
more frequently in organizations that embody complex social interactions. For
example, Harvey et al. (2007) explain that there is a direct correlation between a
heightened social complexity of organizations and the occurrence of bullying. Their
research has revealed that evolving social/cultural norms may create a fertile
10
atmosphere for offensive behavior to flourish (p. 2577). Likewise, Andersson and
Pearson (1999) explain that the requirement for civility becomes more intense when the
interactions among people increase in both complexity and frequency (p. 452). One
study concludes that bullying is more prevalent in the public sector (e.g. prisons,
schools) and less prevalent in retailing or manufacturing industries (Hoel & Cooper,
Origins of bullying: theoretical frameworks for explaining workplace bullying, 2001).
Organizations with multidimensional communication appear more likely to yield
workplace bullying, yet this need not be the case if the workplace atmosphere
encourages involvement and fosters healthy communication.
Concept-Based Explanations of Workplace bullying
One source cites the concept of individualism as a primary cause for workplace
bullying. Lutgen-Sandvik et al. (2007) explain “employees will typically value their
individual achievement over that of others (e.g. subordinates, colleagues), which may
lead them to engage in bullying behaviors in order to weaken their competitors (e.g.,
coworkers)” (as cited in Samnani & Singh, 2012, p. 585). On the other hand, leadership
researchers theorize that the concept of tolerance is to blame. One scholar explains that
“if the tolerance for bullying increases, the accepted norms of civil behavior gives way
to incivility” (Einarsen, 1999 as cited in Harvey, Treadway & Heames, 2007, p. 2577).
Researchers from the psychology domain concur with leadership scholars suggesting
that managers develop a means for identifying and addressing behaviour that may seen
threatening to others. They maintain that an insightful investigation would include an
examination of the environmental and organizational climate, the innate characteristics
of the bully as well as the disposition of the victim, and witnesses of the bullying act in
11
determining the range of tolerance cultivated within the organization (Harvey,
Treadway, & Heames, 2007, p. 2594). Likewise, management scholars emphasize that
administrators play a significant role in shaping employee behavior because they
“communicate intolerance of employees’ disrespectful behaviors via ethical standards,
establish expectations for appropriate behaviors, and discourage inappropriate actions”
(Lee & Jensen, 2014, p. 418). These disciplinary perspectives offer unique yet
complementary insight to the concepts of individualism and tolerance and the pivotal
role that managers play in propagating their existence in the workplace.
Theory-Based Explanations of Workplace bullying
The social learning theory posits that “[m]ost human behavior is learned
observationally through modeling from observing others, one forms an idea of new
behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide
for action” (Social Learning Theory (Bandura), 2016). Samnani & Singh (2012) suggest
that behavioral modeling and imitation of workplace bullying can perpetuate it (p. 585).
Therefore, it is imperative that managers model the type of behaviour they expect from
their employees.
The social identity theory speculates that “individuals will identify themselves
as belonging to an ‘in-group’ based on some discernable characteristic...[and]
individuals attempt to differentiate their group positively against the ‘out-group’” (as
cited in Buttigieg, Bryant, Hanley, & Liu, 2011, p. 121). Managers who employ
inclusive strategies ensure that there is no “in-group” or “out-group.” These theories,
though disimilar, offer interdisciplinary viewpoints that may help to understand possible
causes of workplace bullying. Buttigieg et al. (2011) explain that power is a key issue
12
in bullying and social identity theory might help explain the source of the power
excercised by perpetrators (p. 134). The perspectives indicate that power structures are
a prominent feature in explanations based on established theories.
Themes across the Literature
Perhaps one of the most salient themes inherent with workplace bullying is that
of power inequality. Empirical research overwhelming confirms that a person with
higher authority often performs workplace bullying. One survey reported that 63% of
respondents were harassed by a person in authority (Dowden, 2016, p. 5). In another
survey, 73% of respondents reported that their perpetrator’s rank was higher (Carden &
Boyd, 2013, p. 58). According to Canada Safety Council, over 72% of bullies are bosses
(Canada Safety Council, 2016). Both the human resources and industrial relations
disciplines note the connection between bullying and power structures. They assert that
powerlessness makes people vulnerable to bullying (Hodson et al., 2003; Salin, 2003).
Buttigieg, et al. (2011) support this idea, and explain that “power imbalances, whether
hierarchically pre-determined or perceived, have also been linked to bullying
behaviours” (p. 120). Although bullying also occurs laterally (i.e. between colleagues)
evidence shows that perpetrators more often have higher status. This proportionality
makes it very difficult to report; managerial complicity thwarts efforts to eradicate
workplace bullying. Everyone is responsible for his/her own behaviour, but research
commands managers to adopt a reflective demeanor applicable to their own practices as
it applies to workplace bullying. Managers need to ask themselves how bullying could
possibly exist under their purview.
13
Workplace environment is another theme associated with workplace bullying.
For example, one source from the business discipline explains that specific conditions
within workplaces may have the capacity to encourage bullying behaviours. The article
states that “…toxic organisational cultures, prioritizing of profit above ethics,
organisational stressors, deviant role models or leaders, and excessive workloads” are
linked with bullying (Appelbaum & Shapiro, 2006, p. 15). Likewise, Liegooghe &
Davey (2001) explain that from a post-structural perspective, workplace bullying is “a
by-product of workplace environments and processes” (p. 385). Leaders should be
cognizant that tentative conditions or even changes in the workplace may yield
seemingly unrelated behaviour such as workplace bullying. Management experts
concur and cite “employee diversity, reengineering, downsizing, budget cuts, increased
pressures for productivity, autocratic work environments, and the use of part-time
employees as causes for the increase in uncivil and aggressive workplace behaviors”
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 453). Sinkkonen et al. (2014) discuss examples related
to workplace environment at the university level. They explain that when resources
become limited, competition increases. Furthermore, the authors suggest that
“bullying may also be reinforced in faculties where the academic culture emphasizes the
freedom and autonomy of the work of professors, lecturers and researchers” (p. 155).
Unfortunately, workplace bullying takes place with alarming frequency at contemporary
Canadian universities. For example, a behavioural contract from one Canadian
university illustrates more of an inclination to protect the reputation of the university
than to protect the rights of a rape victim through its demand for silence. This “gag
order,” explains Crabb (2016), “treats survivors and perpetrators as equals in the
14
‘incident,’ and it treats the person who reports (…) assault in a disciplinary manner” (p.
1). Managers concerned about workplace bullying should consider the role of the
workplace milieu as explained by researchers, and exercise vigilance with respect to
intimidating behaviours that are caused by environmental factors rather than personality
traits of the perpetrator or victim.
Escalation and intensification of incivility are other themes intrinsic among the
disciplines. Surprisingly, bullying begets bullying. As explained by management
scholars Andersson & Pearson (1999), “the most commonly employed means of
releasing negative affect is to reciprocate with further unfairness…thus potentially
resulting in a cycle of injustice” (p. 460). To make matters worse, repeated workplace
bullying can potentially escalate to workplace violence, overt aggression or blatant
discrimination (p. 454). Social psychologists explain that because the relationship
between personality and bullying, and between personality and discrimination are
virtually the same, influenced by identical personality factors, the very real possibility
for escalation exists (Parkins, Fishbein, & Ritchey, 2006, p. 2556). Management
experts argue that workplace incivility left unchecked can spiral into aggressive acts
including bullying. It may begin innocently with one party’s perception of an incivility,
leading to reciprocation, followed by counter incivility, followed by escalated behaviour
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Established sociological research from the 1960s has
shown that when dealing with human nature, there is a positive norm of reciprocity that
stipulates that people should help those who have helped them, and that people should
not harm those who help them (Gouldner, 1960). Extending on this premise, social
psychologists Helm et al. (1972) found that a “negative” norm of reciprocity also exists.
15
They found that unprovoked actions warrant counter aggression for revenge. Finally,
leadership scholars explain that “because individuals in the working world are
dependent on the actions into passive aggressive behavior of so many others, one
person’s spiral into PA behaviors can initiate a rippling flow of negative behaviors that
poison any work interface, creating local to global repercussions” (Johnson & Klee,
2007, p. 141). The investigation into the themes most prevalent in the literature provide
a comprehensive description of potential grounds for workplace bullying to continue to
exist.
Suggestions and Solutions
While labour and industry experts insist that training, development of a positive
organizational climate and involvement of employees, as well as clear policies stating
the unacceptability of bullying behaviour is a practical solution to workplace bullying,
not all scholars agree (Buttigieg, Bryant, Hanley, & Liu, 2011, p. 133). For example, a
study from the field of psychology reports that “school anti-bullying policies per se are
not good indicators of bullying behaviour. In fact, the more detailed the anti-bullying
policy, the higher the rate of relational bullying” (Woods & Wolke, 2003, p. 398). It
appears that more pragmatic approaches may be necessary.
Proximity of supervisor offices has been cited by more than one discipline as a
factor that should be considered by leaders committed to battling workplace bullying.
For example, from the field of Science, scholars report that “physical distance between
a supervisor and a newcomer could moderate the relationship between newcomer affect
and newcomers’ approach-avoidance behavior. Physical distance may make it more
difficult to seek feedback but render avoidance behavior” (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005,
16
p. 295). Similarly, the leadership discipline contends that “managers shape employees’
behaviors and experiences in the workplace due, in part, to their physical proximity and
direct, frequent communication with employees. This proximity and communication
suggests “employees’ rude behaviors may be generally influenced by their manager,
who spends a large amount of time in personal contact with employees” (Bass, From
transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision, 1990, p. 22).
Effective leaders offer repeated opportunities for contact and connection with their
employees. This can be accomplished by casual walk-arounds or even by scheduled
opportunities for meeting over a cup of coffee. Leaders should not underestimate the
power of interaction and physical proximity when considering factors associated with
diminishing workplace bullying.
Transformational Leadership
The overwhelming majority of the disciplinary literature on workplace bullying
suggest that strong leadership is vital to its demise. One study found that “inclusive
leadership, characterized by openness, accessibility, and availability, increases
psychological safety” in the workplace (Carmeli, Palmon, & Ziv, 2010, p. 258).
Workplace bullying represents the antithesis to psychological safety. Distinguished
authorities on the topic of workplace bullying assert that there is a strong correlation
between leadership and bullying (Hoel, Glaso, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2010;
Einarsen et al., 2003). Furthermore, leadership experts contend that “along with
physical working conditions, organizational culture/climate, and policies and
procedures, leadership serves as a critical organizational/social determinant of
interpersonal aggression in the workplace” (as cited in Lee & Jensen, 2014, p. 419).
17
The type of leadership that best fosters employee inclusivity and involvement is
transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Hoel, et al., 2010; Johnson & Klee,
2007; Lee & Jensen, 2014). Management scholars state that transformational leadership
is most effective in terms of actively seeking constructive participation in workplace
matters (Johnson & Klee, 2007). Transformational leadership, explain Bass & Avolio
(1990), “involves transforming and motivating employees by articulating an ideal
vision of an organization, offering a role model consistent with that vision, and
encouraging workers to transcend their own self-interest for the greater good of their
unit and organization” (as cited in Lee & Jensen, 2014, p. 420). The disciplines concur
that one of the best ways to combat workplace bullying is by enacting leadership that
fosters communal goals, that involves employees and that welcomes participation
through involvement and interaction. Furthermore, the ideals of transformational
leadership coincide with goals of global citizenship and social responsibility. The type
of guidance afforded by strong leadership is fundamental to eradicating workplace
bullying and redirects the culpability away from the employees involved to the
management structures that condone or condemn it.
Conclusions
Workplaces thrive when their employees feel they are valued. Robust
leadership is required to direct employees to work together amicably. Transformational
leaders contend with fewer incidences workplace bullying because of the positive and
inclusive atmosphere their management style radiates; that said, in order to foster and
sustain a respectful workplace, it is also important to raise awareness about what
actually comprises workplace bullying and the potential causes and impacts of it. Reio
18
& Ghosh (2009) explain “the rising problem of workplace incivility warrants immediate
attention because uncivil workplace behavior can affect the entire organization
negatively by poisoning workers’ psychological and physical wellbeing, learning
motivation, and productivity” (p. 242). Furthermore, organizations have a lot to gain by
understanding the factors that result in a lack of workplace respect. They also have a lot
to lose when destructive behaviour escalates and spreads among their employees
(Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 468). As caustic organizational impacts of workplace
bullying are measured in terms of cost, productivity, reputation, legal issues, and
organizational culture among other things, it is a threat that should not be taken lightly
by organizations; it should be dealt with fully and absolutely by administration.
Effective leaders influence employees to work together harmoniously by encouraging
participation, modeling constructive behaviour, making themselves more accessible,
and setting a positive environmental tenor.
Future Directions
One of the biggest challenges associated with this topic is finding a safe and
nonthreatening way to report workplace bullying. It behooves the various disciplines to
extend their scholarship toward the challenge of incorporating innocuous reporting
mechanisms. As explained by Bjorkqvist (1994), “since employees are economically
dependent on their work, they are very reluctant to identify others by name, especially
superior colleagues” (p. 182). Furthermore, because workplace bullying is so subtle in
nature, employees are tentative about taking action. Likewise, managers and
department heads hesitate to admit that it takes place at their workplace because they
see it as a reflection of their own leadership abilities (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, &
19
HjeltBack, 1994). This examination confirms that improvement in leadership is
fundamental to combatting this unfortunate, yet ubiquitous condition.
A good starting point for managers to address this problem is to ascertain the
degree to which bullying actually occurs under their domain. Establishing inclusive
task groups could follow up this identification of bullying and action plans to extend the
dialogue further, and to brainstorm strategies for improvement. Depending on the
severity of the problem, managers and employees could commit to attending conflict
resolution workshops and obtaining leadership training, particularly if the problem is
found to be pervasive in a given workplace. Furthermore, managers could allocate
time and resources toward training about what to do if employees feel they are being
bullied. It is a matter of dedicating themselves and mandating for others attention to the
situation. Ongoing professional development related to the principles of
transformational leadership will assist managers and supervisors in recognizing
precursors to workplace bullying, will contribute to their understanding of their role in
perpetuating it, and will augment their resources and strategies to alleviate it.
Workplace bullying is an entity that should be remedied lest its destructive effects
continue to permeate throughout the fabric of society.
20
Bibliography
Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.
Appelbaum, S., & Shapiro, B. (2006). Diagnosis and remedies for deviant workplace behaviors.
Journal of American Academy of Business, 14-20.
Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.
Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among university
employees. Aggressive Behavior, 173-184.
Bokova, I. (2016, 02 01). UNESCO. Retrieved from Learning to Live Together:
http://en.unesco.org/themes/learning-live-together
Buttigieg, D., Bryant, M., Hanley, G., & Liu, J. (2011). The Causes and Consequences of
Workplace Bullying and Discrimination: Results from an exploratory study. Labour &
Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work, 22:1-2, 117-141.
Canada Safety Council. (2016, 03 21). Bullying in the workplace. Retrieved from Canada Safety
Council: Canada's voice and resource for safety:
https://canadasafetycouncil.org/workplace-safety/bullying-workplace
Carden, L., & Boyd, R. (2013). Workplace bullying: Utilizing a risk management framework to
address bullying in the workplace. Southern Journal of Business & Ethics, 58-67.
Carmeli, A., Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive Leadership and Employee involvement in
creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity
Research Journal, 22:3, 250-260.
Crabb, J. (2016, 04 05). 'Behavioural contract' for sex assault victims a mistake:
Brandon U president. Retrieved from CTV News Winnipeg:
http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/behavioural-contract-for-sex-assault-victims-
amistake-brandon-u-president-1.2846306
21
Dowden, C. (2016, 03 02). Civility Matters! An evidence-based review on how to cultivate a
respectful federal public service. Retrieved from Association of Professional Executives
of the Public Service of Canada (APEX):
http://www.apex.gc.ca/uploads/key%20priorities/white%20papers/civility%20report%2
0-%20eng.pdf
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor and
Francis.
Field, T. (2016, 03 21). Retrieved from Bully OnLine:
http://bullyonline.org/old/workbully/quotes.html
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, 25, 161-178.
Government of Canada. (2016, 03 15). Bullying in the Workplace. Retrieved from Canadian
Centre for Occupational Health and Safety:
https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psychosocial/bullying.html
Harvey, M., Treadway, D., & Heames, J. (2007). The occurrence of bullying in global
organizations: A model and issues associated with social/emotional contagion. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 2576-2599.
Hinds, P., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams:
The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous
communications. Organization Science, 290-307.
Hodson, R., Roscigno, V., & Lopez, S. (2006). Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives
and industrial relations: Towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach.
British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44 (2), 239-262.
22
Hoel, H., & Beale, D. (2006). Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and industrial
relations: towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach. British Journal of
Industrial Relations, 44(2), 239-62.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (2001). Origins of bullying: theoretical frameworks for explaining
workplace bullying. In H.Tehrani, Building a Culture of Respect: Managing Bullying at
Work (pp. 3-19). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Hoel, H., Glaso, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Leadership styles as
predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of
Management, 453-468.
Johnson, N. J., & Klee, T. (2007). Passive-Aggressive Behavior and Leadership Styles in
Organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, (14) 2, 130-142.
Kelloway, E., Sivanathan, H., Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005). Poor Leadership. In J. Barling,
E. Kelloway, & M. Frone, Handbook of Workplace Stress (pp. 89-112). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Lee, J., & Jensen, J. (2014). The effects of active constructive and passive corrective leadership
on workplace incivility and the mediating role of fairness perceptions. Group &
Organization Management, 39 (4), 416-443.
Lim, S., & Cortina, L. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: the interface and
impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 483-
96.
Parkins, I., Fishbein, H., & Ritchey, P. (2006). The influence of personality on workplace
bullying and discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2554-2557.
Reio, T. J., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility: Implications
for Human Resource Development Research and Practice. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 237-264.
23
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and
precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56
(10), 1213-1232.
Samnani, A.K., & Singh, P. (2012). 20 Years of workplace bulyying research: A review of the
antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 581-589.
Sinkkonen, H.M., Puhakka, H., & Merilainen, M. (2014). Bullying at a university: Students'
experiences of bullying. Studies in Higher Education, 39:1, 153-165.
Social Learning Theory (Bandura). (2016, March 30). Retrieved from Learning-
theories.com:
http://www.learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html
Taber, J. (2013, 03 01). The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from Hazing probe left
Dalhousie women's hockey players feeling 'bullied':
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hazing-probe-
leftdalhousiewomens-hockey-players-feeling-bullied/article9237797/
Walker, J., & Bright, J. (2009). False inflated self-esteem and violence: A systematic review and
cognitive model. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 20, 1-32.
Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2003). Does the content of anti-bullying policies inform us about the
prevalence of direct and relational bullying behaviour in primary schools? Educational
Psychology 23, 381-402.
WorkSafeBC. (2016, 03 20). Discussion Paper: Workplace bullying and harassment. Retrieved
from
http://www2.worksafebc.com/pdfs/Bullying/BK137.pdf?_ga=1.96754207.1618620021.
1457998167.