1

SAFEWORK SA COMMISSIONED RESEARCH GRANT

PREVENTION OF WORKPLACE BULLYING THROUGH RISK ASSESSMENT

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

Michelle R. Tuckey,1 Yiqiong Li,2 Peter Y. Chen,3, 4 Maureen F. Dollard,1

Sarven McLinton,1 Alex Rogers,1 and Annabelle M. Neall1

1 Asia Pacific Centre for Work Health and Safety, School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy,

University of South Australia

2 School of Management, University of South Australia

3 International Graduate School of Business, University of South Australia

4 Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Alabama

February 2015

Please direct correspondence to Dr Michelle Tuckey, Asia Pacific Centre for Work Health and Safety, School of

Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia.

Email: michelle.tuckey@unisa.edu.au

Address: GPO Box 2471, Adelaide SA 5001 AUSTRALIA

Phone: +61 (0)8 8302 4537

2

SUMMARY

Workplace bullying is a severe work health and safety hazard that is a major contributor to psychological

injuries at work. Unlike other forms of inappropriate workplace behaviour, which may be one-off events,

bullying involves repeated unreasonable treatment of a worker that creates a risk to health and safety. The

balance of evidence suggests that organisational factors (e.g., role ambiguity, job control) are more

important determinants of workplace bullying than individual target characteristics. Accordingly, a key

recommendation to prevent bullying is to improve psychosocial job factors at work. Generic, high-level

recommendations like these are, however, difficult to translate into practice.

In order to provide more detailed guidance to organisations regarding the risk management of bullying, this

project took a fresh approach to understanding the organisational risk factors. First, in Study 1 we

examined objective measures of job and organisational factors (such as the core tasks performed) that may

predict the likelihood of bullying at work. Data from a national database of job analysis ratings (the US

Occupational Information Network) were linked to ratings of bullying exposure and working conditions

from an Australian national database (the Australian Workplace Barometer). We found some evidence that

objectively-measurable occupation-specific activities and contexts are risk factors for workplace bullying,

and that these factors add to the prediction of bullying over and above traditional self-reported

psychosocial risk factors. However, in Study 1 the influence of occupational factors was actually very small

and only a few of the factors studied were significantly linked to bullying. Accordingly, the use of objective

indicators of job and work activities cannot yet be recommended as a way of monitoring the risk of

bullying.

Second, we integrated traditionally-studied bullying risk factors within their overlaying organisational

contexts to identify areas of organisational functioning that should be improved to prevent bullying at

work. Study 2 involved the analysis of 342 bullying complaints lodged by workers with SafeWork SA from

2010 to 2013. The results suggest that the supervisory process is the overarching context that poses the

risk (and perception) of bullying at work. We identified five domains of supervisor-employee interaction

that shaped the bullying experiences reported in 90% of the complaints examined in the project: general

supervision issues, performance management, role clarification, communication, and misuse of human

resource management (HRM) procedures and practices. Our research suggests that these five contexts

represent a crucial focal point for risk management efforts to reduce bullying at work. In particular

supervisors and managers should be systematically supported to: enhance their communication and

supervisory skills; increase their capacity to manage the performance of subordinates (including processes

that build on developing performance rather than focussing only on tackling poor performance); clearly

define role content and expectations; apply consistent human resource practices throughout the

organisation; and adopt fair performance management.

Future efforts should focus on translating the five organisational contexts identified in this project into

concrete, specific behavioural items that can form the basis of an easy-to-use and widely-applicable risk

audit tool. Such behaviours could also be used as the foundation of a behaviourally oriented bullying

prevention training program for frontline supervisors to reduce the risk of bullying at the source.

3

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Workplace bullying is a severe work health and safety hazard, which has become a major concern for

ethical, utilitarian, and humanitarian reasons, in addition to the obvious economic reasons faced by the

Australian Government and organisations nationally and globally. Bullying at work is very costly for society,

estimated at up to $36 billion annually in Australia (Productivity Commission, 2010). Workers experience a

range of psychological and physical health problems after they are bullied (e.g., Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012).

Alarmingly, up to 40% of bullied victims have contemplated or attempted suicide (Einarsen, Raknes, &

Mattthiesen, 1994).

Workplace bullying involves a pattern of negative acts directed at target worker(s) repeatedly and regularly

over time (Einarsen et al. 2003), creating a risk to health and safety (Safe Work Australia, 2013). Over the

past 20 years, a range of related concepts have been investigated including generalised harassment,

incivility, social undermining, mobbing, emotional abuse, victimisation, interpersonal conflict, antisocial

behaviour, interpersonal deviance, workplace aggression, counterproductive behaviour, exclusion, and

abusive supervision (see Aquino & Thau, 2009; Hershcovis, 2011).

Given the costs of these inappropriate workplace behaviours to both organisations and individuals (e.g.,

Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Samnani & Singh, 2012), a wealth of research has focussed on the antecedents.

Meta-analytic evidence from 90 mostly cross-sectional studies (Bowling & Beehr, 2006) supports the

conclusion that organisational factors (e.g., role stressors, organisational constraints, and job autonomy)

are more important determinants than individual target characteristics (e.g., negative affectivity and self-

esteem). However, there has been little effort towards understanding the underlying organisational

contexts in which these psychosocial factors are embedded. Such contextualisation could be the key to

moving responses to address workplace bullying from generic recommendations for improving psychosocial

factors (which are difficult to translate into practice) to prevention strategies with clear and specific

methods for implementation. Organisations need inherently practical and feasible strategies that embed

bullying prevention within daily operations to ensure long-term success.

1.2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

Using qualitative and quantitative approaches, our project focussed on the aetiology of workplace bullying

by investigating the root organisational causes of bullying, with the ultimate goal of reducing and

preventing bullying at work within South Australian workplaces and the workplace injuries that result.

The aim of the project was to identify characteristics and attributes of occupations and organisations that

enable, motivate, or trigger bullying at work. The aim was accomplished through two specific objectives:

1. Identify risk characteristics and attributes of occupations that are conducive to bullying by

examining the relationships between objective job characteristics and workplace bullying exposure,

based on two merged national databases: (1) the Australian Workplace Barometer (AWB) database,

and (2) the objective job analysis database derived from the Occupational Information Network

(O*NET) ─ Study 1;

2. Identify the features of key organisational contexts that pose the risk of workplace bullying, based

on extensive analysis of 342 bullying complaints lodged with SafeWork SA ─ Study 2.

4

PART 2: RATIONALE UNDERPINNING THE RESEARCH

Studies have shown that bullying is associated with a stressful and poorly organised work environment. The

work environment hypothesis has been a dominating theoretical framework in work and organisational

psychology to account for such a relationship, postulating that some job characteristics and work

environment factors – such as job demands, lack of autonomy, and leadership style – may enable or trigger

bullying to occur in workplaces (see Samnani & Singh 2012). More recent efforts have drawn on Karasek's

Demand-Control-Support theory to look at interactions between job demands, control, and support to

show that high levels of control and support can buffer the positive relationship between job demands and

bullying (Baillien, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2011; Tuckey, Dollard, Hosking, & Winefield, 2009).

Although existing bullying research has considered the above psychosocial factors as risk factors of bullying,

to date the underlying organisational contexts have not been explored. The known psychosocial

antecedents of bullying (such as role ambiguity or psychological demands) are shaped by organisational

contexts in which the work is performed and, crucially, in which the work performance is supervised. They

are experienced by employees in the form of specific events that take place in key organisational contexts,

often through interaction with the supervisor (indeed, supervisors are most commonly cited as alleged

bullies throughout the literature). Isolating these psychosocial factors from their environment limits an

accurate understanding of why and how bullying occurs, and restrains the preventative actions that can be

taken.

Moreover, the work environment explanation for bullying is founded on an organisational or group level of

analysis. Similarly, Karasek’s model is conceptualised on the job level. However, the majority of studies

have been carried out on an individual level of analysis (i.e., by examining trends across the responses of

many individual workers, without regard to the underlying organisational system) yielding unconvincing

results (Skogstad, Torsheim, & Einarsen, 2011). Lastly, existing studies have utilised individual employee

subjective assessments to constitute the picture of the work environment. A potential problem is that

significant differences between bullied and non-bullied employees in their perception of the work

environment may be due to negatively-biased evaluations by targeted employees (Agervold & Mikkelsen,

2004). In other words, employees’ experiences of workplace bullying might bias their capacity to provide a

fair evaluation of the work environment, leading to overestimation of the true relationship between

bullying and psychosocial work environment factors. These limitations hamper the reliability and validity of

existing research findings and interfere with the development of effective countermeasures founded in

psychosocial antecedents of bullying.

In this project we develop a more accurate and complete understanding of why and how bullying occurs at

work by integrating existing psychosocial antecedents within the underlying organisational contexts in

which they are generated and experienced, and in which they exert an impact on employees to produce

perceptions of bullying. An understanding of the root organisational causes of bullying is particularly

important with regard to practical implications: work conditions and processes can be designed to minimise

bullying risks at the source. To do this, we content-analysed workplace bullying complaint reports filed with

SafeWork SA by alleged workplace bullying victims, along with the full range of case materials including

follow-up reports prepared by SafeWork SA inspectors.

Our project also took a job-level focus. It utilised objective measures of job-related factors when examining

the relationships between job characteristics with workplace bullying based on merged O*NET-AWB

databases. Using a multi-level research design, we explored how well O*NET job characteristics predicted

workplace bullying above and beyond individual perceptions of the psychosocial job and work environment

(specifically, the psychosocial variables featured in Karasek’s Job Demands-Control-Support Model). Such a

5

job-level perspective, as aligned with the group-level conceptualisation of the work environment

hypothesis, allows for an explicit focus on risk characteristics and attributes associated with tasks, jobs, and

organisations that are not related to individual job incumbents’ perceptions of stimuli and relatively

unaffected by jobs holders’ cognitive and emotional reactions to these stimuli. As Sonnentag and Frese

(2003) argued, “it makes only sense to redesign jobs when strains can be attributed to objective stressors

and ─ not only to appraisal processes.” (p. 457). Only when the focus moves from employees’ perceptions

of the work to the nature of the job itself are researchers able to design intervention programs that can

potentially address the reduction or elimination of (objective, or inherent) job stressors to prevent job

strain at the very early stages and from the source of the problem, instead of adopting a reactive approach

to reduce the cognitive appraisal and negative impacts of stressors.

PART 3: STUDY 1

3.1 METHOD

3.1.1 PROCESS FOR LINKING O*NET AND AWB DATASETS VIA SOC

Each occupation requires different levels and contents of knowledge, skills, abilities, and educational

background; consists of a variety of work activities and tasks; and is performed in various work contexts.

Based on occupational analyses, O*NET was developed to capture these key distinguishing characteristics

of individual occupations and provides detailed occupational profiles using a standardised, measurable set

of variables called descriptors. In Study 1, data on job characteristics were obtained from O*NET 17.0, the

most current version of the O*NET available during the research phase. O*NET 17.0 contains 277

descriptors organised into six broad domains for 974 jobs/occupations, describing the features of the work

performed such as work activities, work context and tasks, and the attributes of the worker required

successfully to perform the job (abilities, skills, knowledge, and education). Ratings of each descriptor were

collected from three primary sources: job incumbents, occupational experts, and occupational analysts,

together providing objective measurement of work characteristics.

The AWB project, first implemented in 2009, was developed to provide science-driven evidence of

Australian working conditions and relationships with workplace health and productivity. The AWB survey

provides representative national data for Australian workers, with unique information regarding workplace

bullying and relationships with other psychosocial risk factors at work, including job demands, control,

support, and resources, as well as health and work outcomes (Dollard et al., 2012). Ethics approval for the

AWB research was obtained from the University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee prior

to the first wave of data collection.

In Study 1, we matched the O*NET ratings to individual cases from the AWB data based on O*NET Standard

Occupational Codes (SOCs) as the key identifier. An SOC was allocated to each AWB participant according

to three fields of data available in the AWB cases: 1) industry classification for the current job; 2) main

duties performed; and 3) string data regarding the name of the workplace. For the third field, a Google

search was conducted for each case, gathering information based on business names in order to guide the

allocation of an appropriate SOC. In the presence of sufficient information to do so, effort was taken to

allocate according to the most detailed level of SOC available in the taxonomy (see

http://www.onetcenter.org/taxonomy.html). For example, if the appropriate information was present, the

lowest level subgroup 11-3031.02 ‘Financial Managers: Branch or Department’ was identified rather than

its parent group 11-3031.00 ‘Financial Managers.’ In the event that insufficient information was available

between these three fields combined, an SOC was not assigned and the case was labelled as ‘missing.’

6

Some aspects of the matching process required decisions to be made on the coder’s judgment. A coding

process file was established in order to make the allocation strategy transparent, and a ‘training phase’ was

held with an additional researcher. After this a ‘testing phase’ was conducted, in which the second

researcher allocated SOC independently. This used a smaller pseudo-random sample of the dataset

consisting of 80 cases (one randomly-selected case from each of the 80 largest SOC groups in the dataset).

In an analysis of point-by-point agreement, a 95% agreement rate was reached with the second researcher,

which represents a very high level of agreement. In the remaining 5% of cases where the raters did not

agree (i.e., one rater suggested an alternative SOC or recorded the SOC as ‘missing’), an open discussion

was held in order to elucidate reasons underlying the coding decision. Each case was then resolved through

mutual agreement. In light of this process, the primary coder returned to the data file and revisited all

other cases with the same SOC as the 5% of cases that had initial disagreement. Any possible changes in

classification were made, conferring with the second researcher for agreement.

Of the original AWB dataset (N = 4777), an SOC was successfully allocated to 4704 cases. However, O*NET

data are not available for SOC classifications listed as ‘All Other,’ which reduced the number of usable cases

in the AWB database to 3829. Note also that self-employed workers from the AWB sample were excluded.

As a result of the matching process, the final dataset identified 209 unique SOCs (as overviewed in Figure

1). The average number of employees per occupation (i.e., the average cluster size) was 18.32. (For

example, the occupation ‘Manufacturing Production Technicians’ identified by the SOC 17-3029.09 is

represented by a cluster of 20 cases in the AWB dataset). More detailed information on industry

classifications, main duty groupings, and other aspects of the matching process is available from the

authors upon request.

Figure 1. Overview of the Process of Matching O*NET Database Ratings with AWB Measures.

Job title (SOC)

ONETOccupational Requirements

(974 occupations)

AWB Workplace Bullying

& Harassment

(4772 workers)

Result of matching

209 occupations 3829 workers

7

3.1.2 MEASUREMENT OF WORKPLACE BULLYING

In the AWB, workplace bullying is measured by first presenting a definition (from the General Nordic

Questionnaire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work [QPSNordic]; Lindström et al. 2000) that

emphasises the repeated nature of bullying:

To label something as bullying, the offensive behaviour has to occur repeatedly over a period of

time, and the person confronted has to experience difficulties defending him or herself. The

behaviour is not bullying if two parties of approximate equal ‘‘strength’’ are in conflict or the

incident is an isolated event.

Following the definition, participants are asked to respond to three questions:

1. Have you been subjected to bullying at the workplace during the last 6 months? (answer yes or no);

2. How often were you exposed to these bullying behaviours overall? (rated on a 5-point scale from 0

‘never’ to 4 ‘daily’); and

3. How long were you exposed to these bullying behaviours overall? (rated on a 5-point scale from 1

‘less than one month’ to 5 ‘more than two years’).

Bullying is also measured by an alternate method in the AWB. Participants are asked to rate their exposure

to a seven-item checklist of harassment behaviours (from Richman, Flaherty, & Rospenda, 1996) that may

not ordinarily be considered bullying but could escalate into a bullying situation. The items (e.g., ‘‘I have

experienced discomfort listening to sexual humour’’) are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 ‘very rarely/never’

to 5 ‘very often/always’.

3.1.3 ANALYSIS STRATEGY

Using the SOC code allocated to the AWB cases, the O*NET occupation data were merged into the AWB

dataset. All cases were used in the subsequent analyses, comprising employees who reported having been

a target of workplace bullying in the previous six months along with those who had not. From the variety of

O*NET variables available, we selected Generalised Work Activities (see O*NET 4A) and Work Context

(O*NET 4C) because they reflect the features regarding how a work is performed which may enable,

motivate, or trigger bullying at work.

First, Exploratory Factor Analysis and Pearson correlations were conducted in Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 in order to provide a rationale for the composition of the O*NET work

context variables for regression analysis. Then, using the program MPlus, multi-level regressions of AWB

workplace bullying (Level 1) on the O*NET work context predictors (Level 2) were conducted, with cases

clustered by SOC. Finally, to identify whether objective job characteristics predict workplace bullying

beyond subjective perceptions of job design features, we re-ran the multi-level regressions (for only those

O*NET factors that were significantly associated with AWB bullying exposure from the first set of analyses),

with the addition of job demand, control, and support variables (as rated in the AWB).

3.2 RESULTS

Step 1 deals with preparing the O*NET work activities and context data for multi-level analysis. Step 2

details the multi-level regression used to test which O*NET objective job characteristics predicted

workplace bullying. Step 3 summarises the results of adding job demand, control, and support variables

measured in the AWB into the multi-level regression to see how well O*NET job characteristics predict

workplace bullying above and beyond traditional psychosocial factors.

8

3.2.1 STEP 1 – COMPOSITE SCORES FOR O*NET PREDICTORS

Individual items under each 4-digit O*NET code were tallied to form the composite score. For example, the

first work context category at the 4-digit level “4.A.1.a” is entitled “Looking for and retrieving job-related

information” and is a composite formed from its two subordinate items: 4.A.1.a.1 “Getting information;”

and 4.A.1.a.2 “Monitoring processes, materials, or surroundings.” Two groupings (4.A.3.b and 4.C.2.c) were

split into separate composites in light of the results of Exploratory Factor Analysis. The resulting 24

predictors used in the study are presented in Table 1, along with their Pearson correlations with AWB

bullying and harassment variables.

Table 1

Pearson Correlations Between Objective O*NET Composites and AWB Workplace Bullying and Harassment

O*NET Composites Pearson Correlation

O*NET Generalised Work Activities (4A) Workplace Bullying

Harassment

4.A.1.a Looking for and retrieving job-related information .03* .05**

4.A.1.b Identifying and Evaluating job-relevant information ─ .06**

4.A.2.a Information and data processing .04* ─

4.A.2.b Reasoning and decision making ─ ─

4.A.3.a Performing physical and manual work activities ─ .06**

4.A.3.b(HO) Hands-on technical skills ─ ─

4.A.3.b(CR) Computer-related technical skills .04* ─

4.A.4.a Communicating and interacting ─ ─

4.A.4.b Coordinating, developing, managing, and advising ─ .04*

4.A.4.c Administering ─ ─

O*NET Work Context (4C)

4.C.1.a Communication ─ ─

4.C.1.b Role relationships ─ ─

4.C.1.c Responsibility for others ─ .07**

4.C.1.d Conflictual contact .05** .07**

4.C.2.a Work setting (harsh physical environment) -.05** ─

4.C.2.b Environmental conditions ─ .05**

4.C.2.c(MED) Medical job hazards .11** .10**

4.C.2.c(NON) Non-medical job hazards ─ .04**

4.C.2.d Body positioning ─ .04**

4.C.2.e Work attire ─ .08**

4.C.3.a Criticality of position ─ ─

4.C.3.b Routine versus challenging work ─ ─

4.C.3.c Competition ─ ─

4.C.3.d Pace ─ ─

Note: The en dash (─) signifies that the relationship did not reach statistical significance.

9

3.2.2 STEP 2 – MULTI-LEVEL REGRESSION OF AWB BULLYING ON O*NET COMPOSITE JOB

VARIABLES

The regressions employed a multi-level design, with cases (N = 3829) clustered by SOC (N = 209) to take

account of the fact that a number of workers shared the same occupation. Each of the 24 O*NET composite

variables was included individually in a regression model in order to identify the sole contribution of each in

predicting workplace bullying.

Only four of the 24 composites analysed emerged as significant predictors out of this process. The results

for the four significant composites are included in Table 2. (All 20 of the remaining O*NET predictors had a

statistically non-significant relationship with bullying exposure reported by AWB participants).

The intra-class correlation coefficient for workplace bullying was 1.8%, indicating that the percentage

variance in bullying exposure between occupational groupings is very low. In other words, almost all of the

variation in bullying exposure reported by AWB participants can be explained by variation within the

occupational groupings (e.g., due to organisational and individual factors), rather than to systematic

differences between occupations.

Table 2

Multi-Level Regression† of AWB Workplace Bullying on Objective O*NET Composite Variables

Significant O*NET Composite Variables Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. Sig.

4.A.3.b(CR) Computer-related technical skills .003 .001 2.267 p < .05

4.C.1.d Conflictual contact .003 .002 1.918 p < .05

4.C.2.a Work setting (harsh physical environment) -.001 <.001 -3.064 p < .01

4.C.2.c(MED) Medical job hazards .009 .002 4.198 p < .001

† Average cluster size was 18.32

The finding that four work context variables from the US O*NET database were significantly related to

Australian workers’ reports of bullying provides some support for the notion that objective job

characteristics can predict exposure to workplace bullying. Specifically, our analysis indicates that

employees at greater risk of workplace bullying are likely to be those working in occupations with

inherently greater: (a) exposure to medical hazards; (b) requirement for technical computer skills; or (c)

conflictual contact with others as an inherent feature of the work. Of interest, the O*NET jobs (by SOC)

ranked highest in these characteristics are:

Medical job hazards: data entry keyers; police, fire, and ambulance dispatchers; lab technicians;

legal secretaries; computer systems analysts.

Computer-related technical skills: nurses and hospital workers; dental assistants; general

practitioners; veterinarians; lab technicians.

Conflictual contact: correctional officers and jailers; police patrol officers; healthcare social

workers; police, fire, and ambulance dispatchers; subway operators.

A number of these professions are represented in the ranked list of the top ten occupations with the

highest levels of reported workplace bullying in the AWB, as shown in Table 3.

10

Conversely, those employees working in a harsh physical environment may be at a lower risk of workplace

bullying, possibly because these job are largely solitary (e.g., truck drivers and plumbers), or they work in a

family business (e.g., agricultural work).

Harsh physical environment: Agricultural equipment operators; construction equipment operators;

truck drivers; mobile heavy equipment mechanics; plumbers.

Table 3

The Ten Occupations with the Highest Prevalence Rates of Workplace Bullying in the AWB Database

Occupation (n ≥ 20) n Prevalence

1. Medical Secretaries 45 22.2%

2. Registered Nurses 106 20.8%

3. Medical and Health Services Managers 72 16.7%

4. Vocational Education Teachers, Postsecondary 59 15.3%

5. Computer Operators 40 15.0%

6. Personal Care Aides 122 14.8%

7. Child, Family, and School Social Workers 34 14.7%

8. Secondary School Teachers (Except Special and Career/Technical Education) 83 14.5%

9. Social and Community Service Managers 37 13.5%

10. Receptionists and Information Clerks 38 13.2%

Note. Occupations in the AWB with n < 20 participants are not shown.

3.2.3 STEP 3 – MULTI-LEVEL REGRESSION OF BULLYING ON O*NET COMPOSITES AND AWB

PSYCHOSOCIAL JOB DESIGN FACTORS

For the next set of analyses, we selected a number of psychosocial variables collected in the AWB that are

likely to be significantly related to workplace bullying: psychological demands, skill discretion, decision

authority, macro-decision latitude, and supervisor social support. These five variables and the four

significant O*NET composite factors identified in Step 2 (refer Table 2) were then included simultaneously

in a new multi-level regression in order to ascertain whether objective job characteristics can predict

workplace bullying above and beyond subjective ratings of traditional psychosocial antecedents of bullying

at work.

As shown in Table 4, with both sets of factors included, all of the subjective ratings of psychosocial variables

were significantly associated with reports of exposure to bullying (demands and skill discretion were

positively associated, and the remaining three negatively associated), whereas only two of the four O*NET

factors remained significant.

The model fit statistics for the analysis presented in Table 4 indicate acceptable fit (see the table note).

When the same analysis was conducted with the O*NET predictors omitted, the job demand, control, and

support variables remained significant predictors but, overall, the model had a poorer fit to the data. Said

another way, the model fit statistics were noticeably improved in the analysis that included the O*NET

predictors [Δχ2 (4) = 102.22, p < .001], suggesting that the four O*NET predictors together provide

important information about understanding the occurrence of bullying in organisations beyond traditional

psychosocial factor antecedents of bullying.

11

Table 4

Multi-Level Regression† of AWB Workplace Bullying on Objective O*NET Job Characteristics and Subjective

AWB Demand, Control, and Support Variables

Within Cluster (Level 1) – Psychosocial Job Design Factors Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. Sig.

Psychological demands .061 .010 5.852 p < .001

Skill discretion .041 .008 4.883 p < .001

Decision authority -.019 .008 -2.414 p < .05

Macro-decision latitude -.098 .038 -2.563 p < .01

Supervisor social support -.255 .050 -5.060 p < .001

Between Cluster (Level 2) – O*NET Composites

4.A.3.b(CR) Computer-related technical skills .002 .001 1.946 p < .05

4.C.1.d Conflictual contact -.002 .001 -1.510 n.s.

4.C.2.a Work setting .000 <.000 -0.415 n.s.

4.C.2.c(MED) Medical job hazards .007 .002 3.822 p < .001

† Average cluster size was 18.32. Model Fit: CFI .94; TLI 1.00; RMSEA .00; SRMR .01 (Within); SRMR .01 (Between); χ2

(9) = 359.56; χ2/df = 39.95.

PART 4: STUDY 2

4.1 METHOD

Prior to commencing Study 2, ethics approval for the research was obtained from the University of South

Australia Human Research Ethics Committee.

The following sections outline the sourcing, transcription, coding, and cleaning of workplace bullying case

files analysed in the present study. Pragmatic qualitative approach was employed, wherein data were

analysed for major themes using grounded theory analysis.

4.1.1 DATA ACQUISITION AND CODING PROCESS

Step 1 – Identifying the set of bullying complaint data from SafeWork SA

The Workplace Behaviours Unit at SafeWork SA was established in 2006. Between 2004 and 2013 (March),

1205 requests for investigation in alleged workplace bullying were opened with SafeWork South Australia.

The investigation process was altered in 2008 and 2010, and the information collected by investigation

subsequently changed.

We examined the quality of materials available in the files across the various years of investigation and,

accordingly, made the decision to utilise files from 2010 onwards. A total of 524 cases were opened

between January 2010 and March 2013. Of these, 55 files were still under investigation with SWSA. A

further 124 files were not available on site for transcription. Thus a total of 345 files were available,

transcribed and analysed in the current study.

12

Step 2 – Transcribing the data files

The selected cases were transcribed onsite electronically by an independent agency. During transcription

the data were also de-identified by removing all person and organisation names. These two steps were

crucial to maintain confidentiality of the sensitive data. In addition to the lodged bullying complaint form,

accompanying materials were transcribed. These materials included any additional evidence provided by

the complainant, email communications, and records and results of the investigation process from the

SafeWork SA investigator. Some cases had more than 180 pages of information; others contained as few as

10 pages.

Step 3 – Recording demographic information for each case

Demographic characteristics for each case, primarily those reported on the official bullying complaint form,

were recorded in a Microsoft Access database. These details included information such as gender of the

complainant; industry of work; and whether the complainant had left the organisation since lodging the

bullying complaint.

Step 4 – Generating the draft node structure

The Microsoft Word files were imported into the NVivo version 10 software and in the process converted to

a text format compatible with NVivo coding. The next step was to generate a draft coding structure that

captured the main themes across all available case materials. A framework for these nodes was generated

based on an initial review of 50 randomly selected cases, combined with information gathered from one-

hour interviews with inspectors from the Workplace Behaviours Unit at SafeWork SA. The framework

included overarching nodes that could be filled with detailed data (verbatim case information). Nodes were

created to cover the core organisational characteristics involved in the cases, structured into either

overarching nodes of a general theme or more specific sub-nodes. For example the node “misuse of HRM

procedures” was also comprised of the data coded in three more specific nodes; “pressure not to claim an

entitlement”; “financial dispute”, and; “rostering and scheduling”. Further information on the nodes for

these organisational characteristics can be found in 4.2.2.

Other nodes pertained to the results of the case (e.g. “no further action, employee has left organisation” or

“employer sanctioned or given an action plan for lack or policies and procedures”), as well as nodes

regarding the status of the target (e.g. “the target was on a performance management plan”), or the nature

of the bullying itself (e.g. “someone withholding information which affects your performance” or “hints or

signals from others that you should quit your job”).

Step 5 – Coding

The qualitative coding process was conducted by two researchers working closely. Segments of raw text

were allocated to appropriate nodes, with open discussion between researchers in the event of ambiguous

cases. Further, when the potential for a new node was identified, there was an open discussion on the

construct and definition until agreement was reached, after which the node was generated. New nodes

were flagged with a date stamp and then back-filled with information by revisiting previously coded cases

at the end of the coding process.

Step 6 – Revising the node structure

A tree map was generated using cluster analysis, with nodes clustered by the similarity of the words that

were coded. The two researchers used this map to revise overlapping nodes. Three pairs of nodes were

13

deemed to be measuring the same construct and thus one of each pair was redundant (e.g. “Bully was

spreading rumours about you” and “Bullying occurred through other people, such as talking behind backs”).

These six nodes were merged into three.

Step 7 – Checking inter-rater agreement

The researchers then revisited all data coded within the nodes most relevant to the study. Agreement

between researchers was achieved during the review of coded data, wherein each segment of coding was

treated in one or more of the following ways:

Deemed an appropriate fit for the construct of measurement and retained;

Deemed to be an appropriate fit for a different node, and coded elsewhere;

Extraneous information in the coded segment removed;

Coded segment removed due to inappropriate fit with the present node.

Step 8 – Confirming final node structure

After revision based on agreement, a second tree map was generated and clustered by word similarity. The

new tree map was reviewed for any remaining changes required and case classifications were updated

according to the final coding (e.g. a classification was created for “the victim was on a performance

management plan” node, with this new Performance Management classification coded as simply “yes” and

“no”). Last, two cases were removed from analysis as the complaints were outside of the jurisdiction of the

SafeWork SA investigation process, and one case was removed due to inaccuracy of the victim’s

employment status. The final data set of 342 usable cases was then available for analysis.

4.1.2 ANALYSIS STRATEGY

Analyses were conducted within the statistical program NVivo 10 which is used for qualitative analysis. The

analyses conducted were: word frequency for ‘word clouds’; cluster analysis for ‘tree-mapping’; and matrix

coding queries for relationships between node classifications and coding within nodes of interest. After

exporting the classifications into SPSS 21, a frequencies analysis was also conducted for percentage

breakdowns of cases in each classification of interest. The results of these analyses are detailed in the

following section.

4.2 RESULTS

4.2.1 DEMOGRAPHICS AND COMPLAINT OUTCOME STATISTICS

Table 5 summarises the gender and work status of complainants who lodged a complaint with SafeWork SA

from 2010-2013, along with the industries from which the complaints originated, and the final complaint

outcome as determined by the SafeWork SA investigation. As shown, female employees were over-

represented in the sample of bullying complaints compared with male employees with respect to the

composition of the South Australian labour force (wherein women comprise approximately 45.7% of the

workforce; see http://stat.abs.gov.au/). The three industries with highest number of bullying complaints in

the sample were health and community services, property and business services, and retail trade, which

together were represented in half (49.4%) of the complaints. The majority of employees remained

employed in the organisation at the time of the complaint, although a sizeable proportion had left the

organisation at the time of lodging the complaint or soon after.

Outcomes of the SafeWork SA investigation are also summarised in Table 5. The recommendation in three-

quarters of complaints was that further action by SafeWork SA was not required. The reasons underpinning

14

this recommendation were: (a) the complaint did not meet the definition of bullying outlined in the

Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act (1986) (including complaints about isolated events, those that

did not involve repeated exposure to unreasonable behaviour, complaints that could not be substantiated

beyond reasonable doubt, and those with insufficient evidence) (46.7% of these cases); (b) the complainant

having resigned their employment or been dismissed prior to the complaint being lodged with SafeWork SA

(50.2% of these cases); or (c) the employer had ceased trading (3.8% of these cases). This pattern of

findings highlight two areas that could be addressed to improve the way bullying complaints are handled:

(1) providing complainants, and employees who phone the SafeWork SA advice line, with more information

prior to lodging the complaint. Information could be presented regarding the nature of bullying, the role of

SafeWork SA in responding to bullying, the complaint investigation process, and the likely/possible

outcomes of the investigation; and (2) investigating cases where the complainant has left the employer, to

ascertain the potential risk of harm to other employees. This process would, of course, be subject to

available resources.

Table 5

Summary of Complaint Statistics

Complainant Gender n %

Male 137 40.1%

Female 198 57.9%

Unknown 7 2.0%

Complainant Industry

Health and community services 73 21.3%

Property and business services 49 14.4%

Retail trade 47 13.7%

Manufacturing 34 9.9%

Accommodation, cafes & restaurants 25 7.3%

Education 23 6.7%

Finance & insurance 18 5.3%

Personal & other services 18 5.3%

Construction 17 5.0%

Other 14 4.1%

Wholesale 10 3.0%

Cultural & recreational services 6 1.7%

Transport & storage 6 1.7%

Unknown 2 0.6%

Complainant Employment Status

Complainant still at the organisation at the time of complaint 186 54.4%

Complainant had exited the organisation at the time of the complaint 131 38.3%

Unknown 25 7.3%

15

Outcome of the SafeWork SA Investigation n %

No further action required by SafeWork SA 259 75.7%

Further action required 40 11.7%

Outcome of investigation unknown 25 7.3%

Complaint referred to Industrial Commission for further investigation 16 4.7%

Workplace bullying confirmed 2 0.6%

In 11.7% of all cases, employers were required to take further action, typically due to absent or inadequate

bullying or work health and safety policies. In those cases employers had to demonstrate and provide

evidence they had developed or redesigned competent policies to minimise the impact of workplace

bullying, thereby facilitating clear procedures for employees to take if they had a workplace bullying issue.

Above and beyond workplace policy, proactive employers sometimes provided refresher training on

workplace bullying to all members of staff.

Workplace bullying was confirmed in two cases (0.6%), at the same employer involving the same manager

as the alleged perpetrator. In these cases, SafeWork SA supported the employer’s assessment that action

was required to remedy the situation. The manager who perpetrated the alleged bullying was initially

suspended by the employer and, following the organisation’s internal investigation, was dismissed. A

consultant was then engaged to develop appropriate workplace bullying policies, procedures, and training

for all employees at the company. It is important to note that these two cases were not necessarily the only

cases that presented a health and safety risk. There may still be a risk of psychological or physical harm

even when the situation described in a complaint does not fit the definition of workplace bullying.

Finally, a minority of complaints were referred to the Industrial Commission of South Australia, due to

industrial issues beyond the scope of bullying (4.7% of all cases).

4.2.2 CONTENT ANALYSIS RESULTS – IDENTIFYING THE CORE ORGANISATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

ASSOCIATED WITH WORKPLACE BULLYING

Content analysis of the case materials revealed five distinct organisational contexts – or areas of

functioning – that together reportedly played a role in the bullying situations described in 90.0% of the 342

complaints. Table 6 shows the percentage of complaints in which each context was explicitly linked to the

bullying process within the complaint materials. Each of the risk contexts for workplace bullying is then

discussed in more detail.

Table 6

The Organisational Risk Contexts Identified in the Workplace Bullying Complaints Lodged with SafeWork SA

Risk Context n %

Misuse of HRM procedures 230 67.4%

Communication 219 64.1%

Supervision process 201 58.9%

Role clarification 181 52.2%

Performance management 119 34.8%

16

Context 1: Misuse of Human Resource Management Procedures (n = 230 cases, 67.4%)

Misuse of HRM procedures involved any disputes related to financial or rostering/scheduling issues. The

features of this context are summarised in Table 7.

Table 7

Misuse of Human Resource Management Policies and Procedures as an Organisational Risk Context for

Workplace Bullying

† Figure represents within-context percentage.

Context 2: Communication (n = 219 cases; 64.1%)

Communication incorporated general communication concerns, having information withheld, being ignored

or facing a hostile reaction, having your opinion ignored, or being ignored or excluded, as summarised in

Table 8.

Features of the Context n %† Example Quotes

Pressure not to claim an entitlement

Pressure or coercion not to claim an entitlement (e.g., sick leave).

189 82.2% I have also [been] denied any appeal, which is available under our work agreement and given no feedback as to my responses to the allegations.

Financial dispute

Dispute over salary, reimbursement, bonuses and other expenses for the complainant, documented in the SWSA case file documents. Examples involved the complainant having their pay withheld or being paid consistently late.

115 50.0% During the induction when I said this, the Business Manager put a line through that point on the form. On later examination the box for ‘social club’ on the induction form had been ticked again, which means I may have been having social club fees taken from my wages without my permission.

On many occasions, I was not paid (until the following fortnight, meaning I was without income for two weeks at a time) and according to the Pay Office, my forms did not reach them in time. I queried the Pay Office saying that I had certainly put them in on time and they advised me that they had not received them and that a note was on my file to say do not approve payment without the approval of [Manager].

Rostering & scheduling

Removal or change to the victim’s normal work shift pattern.

61 26.5% I am now a victim for standing out and saying enough is enough. The store manager and HR have a lot to answer for constantly lying and making excuses to keep me off the roster, hoping I’ll leave no doubt.

17

Table 8

Communication as an Organisational Risk Context for Workplace Bullying

Features of the Context n %† Example Quotes

Having your opinion ignored

Occurred after the complainant expressed their opinions, opposed to approaching someone and being ignored before conversation begins.

125 57.1% Over this period of time I have been offered four different agreements to sign, each one removing some benefit offered in the one before. During this time I wrote to the sub-committee dealing with this matter and requested a meeting to discuss the issues but I received no reply.

Having information withheld

Occurred when information was withheld to the complainant. This included lack of feedback on task orientation or misleading information.

107 48.9% I found that nothing I did was right. I was continually criticised or given the cold shoulder and not spoken to, information relevant to my job was not passed on to me, I was accused of not wanting my job, not knowing how to sell any more etc.

Being ignored or excluded

The complainant was ignored or excluded. This typically involved being excluded from workplace activities or alienating the victim.

107 48.9% [Bullies] continued a process of alienating [Target Employee] and altered café records to ruin her reputation.

Communication (general)

Insufficient workplace communication or a break-down communication. For the majority of cases the complainant cited inadequate communication with colleagues and management in the work environment.

102 46.6% The [Union] did recognise that information may not have been communicated as effectively as it should have been or as timely.

We could not understand him as it was difficult to hear him. He continued to yell and swear at me and ended up telling me to go home. When my husband picked me up I was crying. I did not understand what he wanted me to do.

Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when approaching the bully

The complainant was ignored or faced a hostile reaction when they approached the bully and incorporated non-verbal actions, such as being glared at.

66 30.1% After I had tried to complain about not being able to use a stool and asked for information in relation to my wages, [Manager] began to act very oddly. By this I mean that when I said good morning and progressed into "how are you today", she would barely speak to me and instead turned around and walked away.

† Figure represents within-context percentage.

Context 3: General Supervisory Skills and Actions (n = 201 cases; 58.9%)

While all of the organisational risk contexts centred around supervisor-employee interactions, there were a

number of cases in which supervisory skills and actions in general were described as underpinning the

bullying situation. These cases were coded in a general supervision context, which covered a diverse range

of poor management skills and practices, inadequate training being provided to workers, abuse of power by

managers, manager favouritism, and pressure from management not to claim something to which the

complainant feels entitled. These are summarised in Table 9.

18

Table 9

The Supervision Process as an Organisational Risk Context for Workplace Bullying

Features of the Context n %† Example Quotes

Favouritism

Unfair treatment, or management allowed or distributed differential treatment in the workplace. In such cases, the complainants often made reference to ‘double standards’ or being ‘singled-out.’

121 60.2% I have solely been singled out in my region even though my performance was better than others. My past performance rating has been excellent and never below highly valued for my entire employment with the company.

At Manager Meetings in the morning in the board room he would often publicly rank the managers... I feel it is unnecessary in a meeting where we should all have equal rank and should be treated equally.

He told me he would stop my personal phone calls and I said that in my opinion if he did that to me then it should apply to all staff members as all staff make and receive personal phone calls. B made me feel very intimidated and victimised, as I know that everyone else in the office takes personal phone calls and I have never heard him speak to them about it.

Poor management skills and practices (general)

Poor or inadequate management skills, styles and practices referenced by the complainant or by SafeWork SA.

82 40.8% I have been receiving emails from [Manager] which were full of negative feedback. There was never any assistance in the form of coaching, mentoring or guidance from [Manager] on how to assist me in my position. [Manager] visited Adelaide and his managerial guidance was to buy a book, which he told me to read called "Who moved my cheese."

Inappropriate use of legitimate power

Manager exercised their legitimate power in an inappropriate way. These cases involved an authoritarian style of management (see Altemeyer, 1988; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009) and/or distinct power imbalance in the formal organisational hierarchy.

73 36.3% From this point [Manager] would regularly talk down to me and warn me of where my position was.

Quote from manager: “You can have you invoice back because you are going to do it for me for free because you are my employee and you have to do everything and anything I want and if I don't like it then you can "f*** off".

Inadequate training

Inadequate training was provided to workers during induction to complete their role demands. Lack of training was typically used as justification for poor work performance

69 34.3% A lack of training does not instil confidence in a person to perform their role properly. I have been told to ask questions if I don't understand something, but if I am not aware of a procedure how can I ask about it.

I started work just doing basic work, mailing letters. [Manager] asked [Bully] to show me how to complete a ‘Form A’. He then left the office and [Bully] said “I can’t be f****d showing you how to do this, you can sit here and watch but I don’t give a shit if you do anything or not.”

† Figure represents within-context percentage.

19

Context 4: Role Clarification (n = 181 cases; 52.2%)

Role clarification, defined in a broad sense here, involved any instance in which the complainants or

accompanying evidence cited role-related issues as contributing to the bullying experience (see Table 10).

Table 10

Role Clarification as an Organisational Risk Context for Workplace Bullying

Features of the Context n %† Example Quotes

Role overload

Complainants exposed to an unmanageable workload.

95 32.1% He overloads people with work that means that it is impossible to be absolutely across everything and to get everything done.

Again I believe [Managers] failed in their duty of care because they were aware it was, in my opinion, too much work for us to do, we told them how stressed we were but they did nothing.

Key responsibilities are removed from role

Key responsibilities removed from role, resulting in role eradication.

60 20.3% These decisions affected my personal and professional credibility. She later removed me from the Reception class and put on a path towards underperformance.

As part of my performance management with manager [Manager], I expressed my concerns re campus-specific barriers that were in place denying me access to an ESL PD/teaching opportunity.

Unreasonable timelines provided to undertake role demands

Insufficient time to complete role demands.

52 17.6% He tells me that he wants it up by December. I tell him that this is not possible because too much will need to be done and that April would be a more reasonable time-line. He sneers at this and asks me why I haven't done the photography yet?

Being forced to work below normal level of competence

Forced to work below level of competence, creating role conflict through incongruent internal standards.

44 14.9% Initially employed as a preschool teacher. I assisted part time on a casual contract for 3 months at (location) site. Before long my hours and duties were increased – I felt uneasy even at this early stage as I was left with cleaning duties (including toilets, mopping and vacuuming floors) whilst being sole carer of up to 8 children.

Role ambiguity

Unclear understanding of what the role required.

26 8.8% [Target Employee] is being made to work in an area that she does not feel that she has the required knowledge or passion to work effectively.

Role overload (multiple roles)

Undertaking several different roles at once.

25 8.4% I politely explain to [Manager] that although I am employed by him, I am paid to be a gallery manager and although my job required me to take very basic shots of artwork when they arrive for use on the website, I am not employed as a professional photographer, so if he would like me to undertake any work of this kind, he must pay me for it. He snatches the paper I have in my hand away from me and yells at me to get out of his office.

20

Features of the Context n %† Example Quotes

Absence of position description

Position description was absent or inadequate.

22 7.4% I’m ‘sometimes’ the 2IC of the Company. It depended on how [Manager] got on with different people on the day. I’ve never had a position description. I am intuitive to know what has to be done.

† Figure represents within-context percentage.

Context 5: Performance Management (n = 119 cases; 34.8%)

In this risk context, the complainant stated that he or she was on a formal performance management plan,

intended to address issues of underperformance, or the accompanying materials illustrated evidence of

such a plan. A range of other performance management processes were also evident in some cases, as

summarised in Table 11.

Table 11

Performance Management as an Organisational Risk Context for Workplace Bullying

† Figure represents within-context percentage.

Features of the Context n %† Example Quotes

Performance plan to manage underperformance issues

Cases wherein the complainant had been placed on the formal plan to manage underperformance issues.

66 55.5% [Colleague] is aware that I am in a performance management process, however I firmly believe this never should have occurred and that I have been systematically bullied and harassed by [Manager].

The document I received listed a number of criteria. In part it treated me as though I had just left school while simultaneously requiring outcomes that were highly unlikely or not possible. All this was to be achieved in an unrealistic time frame. Termination was threatened if I did not meet all of the objectives.

General performance management processes

Themes such as setting and monitoring performance objectives, scheduling dates for recurrent meetings, involvement from human resources, and the threat of consequences should performance objectives not be met

53 44.5 The complainant alleged that she was bullied by a supervisor whilst carrying out a role of Case Co-ordinator. Management refute these allegations and provided evidence that there were performance issues with the complainant and that the Manager was dealing with them appropriately.

21

PART 5 DISCUSSION

5.1 OBJECTIVE WORK ACTIVITIES AS RISK FACTORS FOR BULLYING

The research conducted in this project offers a new approach to workplace psychosocial hazard

identification. The traditional approach used to determine antecedents of workplace bullying has most

often involved examining individual employees’ perceptions of potential psychosocial antecedents (e.g., job

demands and job control). To date, no research has been published in the peer-reviewed international

literature regarding independently-measured job characteristics and organisational contexts as predictors

of workplace bullying. The unique approach taken in this project was to treat work activities and contexts

as independently-measured attributes of occupations that may pose the risk of workplace bullying.

Based on the results, this project has provided some evidence that occupation-specific activities and

contexts represent reliable risk factors for workplace bullying, and that these properties of the job (which

are largely independent of the job incumbent) add to the prediction of bullying over and above self-

reported psychosocial risk factors. Specifically, we found that employees at risk of workplace bullying are

likely to be those working in occupations with inherently greater exposure to medical hazards (such as

disease and radiation); higher requirements for technical computer skills (including interacting with

computers and documenting/recording information); and more conflictual contact with others inherent in

the job role (including dealing with unpleasant or angry people as well as physically aggressive people).

Conversely, those employees working in a harsh physical environment are likely to be at a lower risk of

workplace bullying. These characteristics offer some clues as to why employees working in certain jobs are

at risk of bullying, beyond the traditionally-studied psychosocial antecedents.

What remains unclear is how these objective features of jobs might influence the development and

escalation of bullying situations in workplaces. Unlike physical safety risks (e.g., the risk of a fall due to the

need work at heights), there is not necessarily a direct and clear link between required work activities and

the resulting psychosocial hazards. For example, it’s not plausible to argue that exposure to disease and

infections (part of the O*NET medical job hazards category) directly causes a worker to be bullied.

A more plausible interpretation of the Study 1 data is that the objective job activities identified as being

associated with bullying exposure represent an abstraction of the underlying construction of occupations

and/or the associated psychological and social processes at play. For instance, working in medically

hazardous conditions and/or having to deal with conflictual contact on a regular basis may erode self-

regulation resources while also heightening tension at work, thereby lowering the threshold for aggression.

Alternatively, regular contact with angry and aggressive individuals (two of the O*NET conflictual contact

items) may change employees’ perceptions of behavioural norms, potentially facilitating more aggressive

ways of achieving work and personal goals. Another possibility is that the formal hierarchy in some

occupations that attract high scores on the four O*NET predictors (e.g., nursing, correctional services)

enables formal position power to be misused in the form of bullying.

In future research it may be possible to identify and utilise a set of objective indicators for organisational

psychosocial factors to garner reliable, objective, auditable leading indicators of bullying at work. However,

focussing solely on organisational psychosocial factors is unlikely to be sufficient given that few of the

objective work characteristics examined were significantly associated with bullying, combined with the very

small percentage of variation in bullying exposure that could be attributed to occupational factors.

Study 2, through an examination of real-life bullying complaints, provided a rare opportunity to investigate

how traditionally-studied psychosocial factors are experienced by individual employees in organisational

22

and work environment contexts. In the analysis, we integrated psychosocial factors within their overarching

organisational contexts, which represents a new approach to understanding the organisational and work

environment antecedents of bullying and potentially the best focal point for risk management efforts.

5.2 ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXTS AS RISK FACTORS FOR BULLYING

Study 2 used a qualitative approach to analyse 342 bullying complaints lodged by workers with SafeWork

SA from 2010 to 2013. Applying grounded theory, the investigation yielded five primary organisational

contexts that shaped the alleged targets’ bullying experiences.

In a departure from work by us (e.g., Tuckey et al., 2009) and others on psychosocial job design factors

linked to bullying, the results of Study 2 suggest that the supervisory process is the overarching context that

poses the risk of bullying and the perception of bullying at work. Surprisingly, while leadership style has

been studied in the workplace bullying literature (e.g., Nielsen, 2013), the process of executing supervisory

duties (including approving access to policies and procedures, managing performance, and clarifying roles)

is a nascent topic. Despite silence in the literature, policy-makers are aware of the importance of

differentiating effective management from bullying (e.g., Safe Work Australia’s national-level guidance

material published in 2013).

Our analysis of the official complaints indicates that the processes involved in employee supervision

represent the manager–worker interface that creates fertile soil for bullying, in particular when supervisors

communicate with employees to perform the functions of role clarification and performance management,

and when they enact human resource management procedures and processes that impact on employees.

The misuse of HRM procedures, such as fraudulent pay systems and arbitrary change of work rosters, was

evident in two-thirds of complaints. HRM is designed as a strategic tool to support employee welfare

and/or develop employee skills. Our findings reveal that when HRM practices are implemented in a

destructive way by line managers (that is, in a method that results in an employee being unable to claim an

entitlement, triggers a pay dispute, or creates difficulties with rostering), employees are likely to perceive

this behaviour as part of a pattern of bullying. Line managers have increasing involvement in HRM functions

within organisations, which is reflected in the cases we analysed where bullying complainants attributed

problems with HRM issues to their line manager. HRM should thus be a key focal point for reducing the risk

and perception of bullying at work.

Consistent with Bowling and Beehr’s (2006) meta-analysis, we found that when supervisors clarify roles and

tasks for workers, there are increased risks of bullying and its perception in half of all cases. The

complainants described how confusion regarding the responsibilities or expectations of their position

enabled another employee to bully them by shaping their workload and task allocation. Other role-related

issues reported by complainants were being given particularly demanding tasks without sufficient support

or time to complete them, eradication of responsibilities, and being forced to work below the current level

of competence.

The formal performance management process, particularly in response to perceived under-performance, is

another clear risk area for organisations. While performance management was explicitly raised in around a

third of complaints, this risk context has not yet featured in the literature.

General communication and supervisory actions were the other domains of organisational functioning that

emerged as a risk context for bullying. According to the complaints, communication typically refers to

information being withheld by colleagues and management or the complainant being excluded from

workplace conversations. In terms of supervision, favouritism, unfair treatment, and inappropriate use of

23

formal position power contributed to the bullying experience.

While causality cannot be assumed due to the exploratory nature of the research, the five organisational

contexts identified in Study 2 strongly suggest the need to improve employee-supervisor interactions in

order to prevent and minimise bullying at work and the perception of bullying in organisations. In particular

supervisors and managers should be systematically trained and supported to:

Treat workers fairly;

Enhance their communication and general supervisory skills;

Increase their capacity to manage fairly the performance of subordinates (including processes that

build on developing performance rather focussing only on tackling poor performance);

Clearly define role content and expectations; and

Apply consistent and fair human resource practices throughout the organisation.

PART 6: PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR BULLYING PREVENTION

The results of the research have important practical implications. In particular, the findings indicate that

organisations should direct proactive attention to monitoring and improving the key organisational

contexts in which bullying and its perception emerge: supervision, performance management, role

clarification, communication, and use of HRM procedures and practices. Hazard control measures and

prevention-focussed interventions are likely to be most effective in preventing bullying at work if directed

at these domains of organisational functioning. In particular, organisations should focus on assisting

managers to improve their supervisory behaviours when interacting with employees in the underlying risk

contexts, along with empowering workers during interactions related to the risk contexts and also in terms

of enabling them to have a voice and address issues connected to the contexts.

Appropriate supervisor behaviours related to role clarification include setting up clear goals upon

agreement by employees; clarifying and communicating roles, tasks, expectations, and standards of

performance in a specific and detailed way and on an ongoing basis; and discussing performance and

performance expectations regularly with employees. Role clarification is concerned with both results and

expected employee behaviours, which requires supervisors to describe both what needs to be done and

how things need to be done.

As for regular performance management review meetings and ongoing performance-related discussions

between supervisors and employees, supervisors should focus on finding ways to help employees improve

performance as an ultimate objective of performance management rather than criticising and punishing

performance flaws. Giving informal warning and support when a performance problem is still manageable

should help to prevent the perception of bullying that appears to arise from being on placed a performance

management plan. In this process, the health, safety, and welfare of workers should be balanced against

organisational production and operations targets.

As an important component of performance management, the process of providing performance feedback

should take place privately, on a regular basis, and from a credible source. More importantly, feedback

should be given in a constructive way. To be constructive, supervisors can provide contextual information

to allow employees to understand the importance and consequences of behaviours. It is helpful if

supervisors give praise first and then feedback on unwanted behaviours and results. Another useful

strategy is for supervisors to provide a description of employees’ behaviours to underpin evaluative

feedback. This strategy helps to avoids defensive reactions towards negative evaluation. Moreover, the

evaluation should be based on verifiable and accurate information, preferably from different sources such

24

as supervisors, peers, subordinates, self, and customers to make sure that the evaluation is generated in a

fair, objective, and justified manner. Last but not least, the feedback should have a future orientation,

focussing on what is expected to improve and how to improve.

Open, effective bi-directional communication is essential for managers to perform their supervisory duties

such as performance management and role clarity. Having employees' input is essential: supervisors need

to understand that communication is not something done to employees but done with employees.

Salient and readily observable HRM policies and procedures related to employees’ daily work routines and

activities helps to prevent their misuse. Taking employees’ evaluation of their supervisors into

consideration when evaluating the performance of frontline supervisors would also assists in preventing

inappropriate supervision and misuse of HRM procedures. Confidential survey and focus group interviews

can be conducted among employees by HRM professionals to identify areas for improvement in

supervision.

In addition to supporting supervisors to improve their interactions with workers, an equally important

strategy is to provide structural mechanisms to empower workers within the risk contexts in order to

protect them against the misuse of formal hierarchical power. One strategy is for workers to have

representation during interactions with supervisors in the risk contexts, such as when discussing the work

role and reviewing performance. Likewise, a clear and independent mechanism for workers to resolve

problems with HRM processes should be made available. Mechanisms of this nature should be a

fundamental inclusion of guidelines addressing the supervisory functions connected to risk of bullying.

PART 7: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This project examined fundamental characteristics of jobs and key organisational contexts as the root

organisational causes of workplace bullying. A wealth of research has focussed on the antecedents of

bullying and identified important psychosocial job design factors that are conducive to bullying. In this

project, we took a further step to contextualise these psychosocial factors within their underlying

organisational contexts. Through contextualisation, we have advanced understanding of why and how

workplace bullying occurs in three ways. Specifically, in terms of: (1) how risk characteristics of jobs and

organisations are embedded and developed in organisational contexts; (2) how risk characteristics of jobs

and organisations are experienced by employees, mainly through their interaction with supervisors in

specific events that take place in these organisational contexts; and (3) how such experiences are

interpreted by employees leading to the perception of bullying.

Our results suggest that the supervisory process is the overarching context that poses the risk of bullying

and the perception of bullying, especially the process of managing employees’ (under)performance and

clarifying roles and responsibilities with employees. This is a nascent topic within the literature and more

research is needed in this area. Moreover, while performance management systems have been reviewed

for their capacity to improve individual performance and contribute to the work environment, to date no

research has explored instances wherein employees perceive the process as a direct act of bullying, or

vehicle to exercise other various bullying acts. These gaps are somewhat perplexing, given that the

literature has demonstrated that managers are seen as the focal perpetrators of bullying.

Despite silence in the literature, policy-makers are aware of the importance of differentiating effective

management from bullying; ‘reasonable management action conducted in a reasonable manner’ is

specifically excluded from the definition of bullying in Safe Work Australia’s (2013) national-level guidance

material. This clause aligns with our finding that the supervisory process is the overarching organisational

25

context that poses a risk for bullying. The element of reasonable management actions is especially

important for the management of under-performing employees and when clarifying role expectations, two

of the organisational contexts identified in this project. Undertaking actions in a reasonable manner is

concerned with the ways in which supervisors perform and communicate the reasonable management

actions, which relates to the remaining contexts of communication and use of HRM procedures. However,

in practice, the judgment about "reasonable management action in a reasonable manner" is context-

sensitive and vulnerable to conflicting interpretations. To avoid ambiguity, there is a need for research that

translates the notion of "reasonable management action in a reasonable manner" into specific concrete

supervisory behaviours in each of the organisational contexts. The findings of such research could then

inform a behaviourally based risk audit tool and prevention program to reduce the risk of bullying by

improving supervisory behaviours, providing an urgently-needed set of practical tools to reduce the risk of

bullying at the source.

PART 8: REFERENCES

Agervold, M. & Mikkelsen, E.G. (2004). Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work environment an

individual stress reactions. Work and Stress, 18, 336-351.

Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “Authoritarian Personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, (Vol. 30, pp. 47-92). New York: Academic Press.

Aquino, K. & Thau, S. (2009). Workplace victimization: Aggression from the target’s perspective. Annual

Review of Psychology, 60, 717–741.

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). Towards a three way model of workplace

bullying: a qualitative study. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1−16.

Bowling, N.A. & Beehr, T.A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s perspective: A theoretical

model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 998-1012.

Dollard, M. F., Bailey, T. S., McLinton, S. S., Richards, P., McTernan, W. P., Taylor, A., & Bond, S. (2012).

Australian Workplace Barometer (AWB) results: Report on psychosocial safety climate and worker

health in Australia. Safework Australia. Available from:

http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/about/publications/pages/the-australian-workplace-

barometer-report

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C.L. (2003). The concept of bullying at work: The European

tradition. In S. Einarsen et al. (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International

perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3- 30). London: Taylor & Francis.

Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I., & Matthiesen, S.B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their

relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Work and Organizational

Psychologist, 4, 381-401.

Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!”: A call to reconcile constructs

within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 499-519.

Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign.

Administration Science Quarterly, 224, 285-307.

26

Lindström, K., Elo, A.-L., Skogstad, A., Dallner, M., Gamberale, F., Hottinen, V., Knardahl, S., Ørhede, E.,

(2000). User’s Guide for QPSNordic. General Nordic questionnaire for psychological and social factors

at work. TemaNord, 2000:603, Nordic Council of Minister, Copenhagen.

Nielsen, M.B. (2013). Bullying in work groups: the role of leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,

54, 127-136.

Nielsen, M. B. & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review.

Work & Stress, 26, 309-332.

Occupational Health and Safety Act 1986 (SA) (Austl.). Available from:

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/Occupational%20Health%20Safety%20and%20Welfare%20A

ct%201986.aspx

Richman, J.A., Flaherty, J.A., & Rospenda, K.M. (1996). Perceived workplace harassment experiences and

problem drinking among physicians: broadening the stress/alienation paradigm. Addiction 91, 391-

403.

Safe Work Australia. (2013). Guide for preventing and responding to workplace bullying. Available from:

http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/about/publications/pages/guide-workplace-bullying.

Samnani, A. & Singh, P. (2012). 20 years of workplace bullying research: A review of the antecedents and

consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 17, 581-589.

Skogstad, A., Torsheim, T., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Testing the work environment hypothesis of bullying on a

group level of analysis: Psychosocial factors as precursors of observed workplace bullying. Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 60, 475–495.

Sonnentag, S. & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski

(Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology (Vol. 12): Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp.

453-491). Hoboken: Wiley.

Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Mitchell, M. S., & Marrs, M. B. (2009). How management style moderates the

relationship between abusive supervision and workplace deviance: An uncertainty management

theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 79–92.

Tuckey, M.R., Dollard, M., Hosking, P.J., & Winefield, A.H. (2009). Workplace bullying: The role of

psychosocial work environment factors. International Journal of Stress Management, 16, 215-232.