Imbalance between Employees and the Organisational Context: A Catalyst for Workplace Bullying Behaviours in Both Targets and Perpetrators
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Theoretical Approaches—The Three-Way Model
1.2. Theoretical Approaches—Job Demands and Resources Model
1.3. Theoretical Approaches Combined—The Dimensions of Imbalances Created by Organisations Triggering WB
1.3.1. Organisational Focus
1.3.2. Organisational Atmosphere
1.3.3. Organisational Hierarchy
1.3.4. Research Hypotheses
2. Method
2.1. Participants
2.2. Measures
2.3. Procedure
- -
- If participants reported one behaviour once a week or almost daily, they were labelled as having high perpetration or target experiences (=3).
- -
- If participants reported one behaviour once a month, they were labelled as having medium perpetration or target experiences (=2).
- -
- If participants reported one behaviour now and then, they were labelled as having low perpetration or target experiences (=1).
- -
- Participants were labelled uninvolved if they did not report any behaviour (=4).
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. Correspondence Analysis on Hypothesis
3.3. Correspondence Analysis of WB Experiences
- -
- Target not a perpetrator—if they reported being subject to high, medium, or low bullying but did not report being involved in WB perpetration.
- -
- Perpetrator not a target—if they reported bullying others but were not bullied by others.
- -
- Target perpetrator—if they reported being subject to bullying and bullying others.
- -
- Uninvolved—if they reported that they were not involved in any WB experiences.
4. Discussion
4.1. Limitations and Future Research
4.2. Theoretical and Practical Implications
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ashforth, B.E.; Gioia, D.A.; Robinson, S.L.; Treviño, L.K. Introduction to special topic forum: Reviewing organisational corruption. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33, 670–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kessler, S.R.; Spector, P.E.; Chang, C.-H.; Parr, A.D. Organisational violence and aggression: Development of the three-factor Violence Climate Survey. Work Stress 2008, 22, 108–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skogstad, A.; Torsheim, T.; Einarsen, S.; Hauge, L.J. Testing the work environment hypothesis of bullying on a group level of analysis: Psychosocial factors as precursors of observed workplace bullying. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 2011, 60, 475–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Einarsen, S.; Hoel, H.; Zapf, D.; Cooper, C.L. (Eds.) Workplace Bullying: Developments in Theory, Research and Practice; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Salin, D. Organisational responses to workplace harassment. Pers. Rev. 2009, 38, 26–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samnani, A.; Singh, P. 20 Years of workplace bullying research: A review of the antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2012, 17, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuckey, M.; Dollard, M.; Hosking, P.; Winefield, A. Workplace bullying: The role of psychosocial work environment factors. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2009, 16, 215–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. The job demands–resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baillien, E.; Rodriguez-Muñoz, A.; Van den Broeck, A.; De Witte, H. Do demands and resources affect victim’s and perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying? A two-wave cross-lagged study. Work Stress 2011, 25, 128–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balducci, C.; Cecchin, M.; Fraccaroli, F. The impact of role stressors on workplace bullying in both victims and perpetrators, controlling for personal vulnerability factors: A longitudinal analysis. Work Stress 2012, 26, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özer, G.; Escartín, J. The making and breaking of workplace bullying perpetration: A systematic review on the antecedents, moderators, mediators, outcomes of perpetration and suggestions for organisations. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2023, 69, 101823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, P.M.; Cooper, C.L. Occupational stress: Toward a more integrated framework. In Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001; Volume 2, pp. 93–114. [Google Scholar]
- Baillien, E.; Neyens, I.; De Witte, H.; De Cuyper, N. A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three-way model. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 19, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkowitz, L. The frustration-aggression hypothesis: An examination and reformulation. Psychol. Bull. 1989, 106, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Felson, R.B.; Tedeschi, J.T. Aggression and Violence: Social Interactionists’ Perspectives; American Psychological Association: Worcester, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Salanova, M.; Agut, S.; Peiró, J.M. Linking organisational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediating role of service climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 1217–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B. The Job Demands–Resources model: Challenges for future research. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2011, 37, 974–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B.; Van Rhenen, W. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30, 893–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xanthopoulou, D.; Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Schaufeli, W.B. The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2007, 14, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Bakker, A.B.; Van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M.; Xanthopoulou, D. Beyond the Demand-Control model: Thriving on high job demands and resources. J. Pers. Psychol. 2010, 9, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruursema, K.; Kessler, S.R.; Spector, P.E. Bored employees misbehaving: The relationship between boredom and counterproductive work behavior. Work Stress 2011, 5, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karasek, R.A. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Adm. Sci. Q. 1979, 24, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijman, T.F.; Mulder, G. Psychological aspects of workload. In Handbook of Work and Organisational Psychology, 2nd ed.; Drenth, P.J., Thierry, H., de Wolff, C.J., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 5–33. [Google Scholar]
- Van den Broeck, A.; Baillien, E.; De Witte, H. Workplace bullying: A perspective from the job demands-resources model. Scand. J. Ind. Psychol. 2011, 37, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceja, L.; Escartín, J.; Rodríguez-Carballeira, A. Organisational contexts that foster positive behaviour and well-being: A comparison between family-owned firms and non-family businesses. Rev. De Psicol. Soc. 2012, 27, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parzefall, M.R.; Salin, D. Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A social exchange perspective. Hum. Relat. 2010, 63, 761–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VanOudenhoven, J.P. Do organisations reflect national cultures? A 10-nation study. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2001, 25, 89–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gioia, D.A.; Schultz, M.; Corley, K.G. Organisational identity, image, and adaptative instability. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 25, 63–81. [Google Scholar]
- Stiles, D.R. Pictorial representation. In Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research; Cassell, C., Symon, G., Eds.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004; pp. 127–139. [Google Scholar]
- Escartín, J.; Sora, B.; Rodríguez-Muñoz, A.; Rodríguez-Carballeira, A. Adaptación y validación de la versión Española de la escala de conductas negativas en el trabajo realizadas por acosadores: NAQ-Perpetrators. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ. 2012, 28, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escartín, J.; Rodríguez-Carballeira, A.; Gómez-Benito, J.; Zapf, D. Development and validation of the workplace bullying scale “EAPA-T. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2010, 10, 519–539. [Google Scholar]
- Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leymann, H. The content and development of mobbing at work. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 1996, 5, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van de Velden, M.; van den Heuvel, W.; Galy, H.; Groenen, P.J. Retrieving a contingency table from a correspondence analysis solution. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020, 283, 541–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-del-Río, E.; Ramos-Villagrasa, P.J.; Escartín, J. The incremental effect of Dark personality over the Big Five in workplace bullying: Evidence from perpetrators and targets. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 168, 110291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, D.; Mallery, P. IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step. In Routledge eBooks; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rayner, C.; Cooper, C.L. The black hole in “bullying at work research”. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 2003, 4, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Sanz-Vergel, A. Job Demands–Resources Theory: Ten years later. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2023, 10, 25–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özer, G.; Griep, Y.; Escartín, J. The relationship between organisational environment and perpetrators’ physical and psychological State: A three-wave of longitudinal study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenkins, M.F.; Zapf, D.; Winefield, H.; Sarris, A. bullying allegations from the accused bully’s perspective. Br. J. Manag. 2011, 23, 489–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vranjes, I.; Elst, T.V.; Griep, Y.; De Witte, H.; Baillien, E. What goes around comes around: How perpetrators of workplace bullying become targets themselves. Group Organ. Manag. 2022, 48, 1135–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Neill, R.E.; Vandenberghe, C.; Stroink, M.L. Implicit reciprocity norms between employees and their employers: A psychological contract perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30, 203–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience; Harper & Row: Manhattan, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life; Basic Books; Hachette: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Glambek, M.; Skogstad, A.; Einarsen, S.V. Do the bullies survive? A five-year, three-wave prospective study of indicators of expulsion in working life among perpetrators of workplace bullying. Ind. Health 1997, 54, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Özer, G.; Griep, Y.; Escartín, J. A matter of health? A 24-week daily and weekly diary study on workplace bullying perpetrators’ psychological and physical health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salin, D.; Hoel, H. Organisational causes of workplace bullying. In Workplace Bullying: Development in Theory, Research and Practice; Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., Cooper, C., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Salin, D. Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Hum. Relat. 2003, 56, 1213–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escartín, J.; Dollard, M.; Zapf, D.; Kozlowski, S. Multilevel emotional exhaustion: Psychosocial safety climate and workplace bullying as higher level contextual and individual explanatory factors. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2021, 30, 742–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baseline Characteristics | n | % | n | % | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Supervisor | ||||
Males | 404 | 38.7 | Not a supervisor | 872 | 83.5 |
Females | 640 | 61.3 | Supervisor | 172 | 16.5 |
Sector | Civil Status | ||||
Education | 257 | 24.6 | Single | 431 | 41.3 |
Industry | 96 | 9.2 | Married/Living together | 523 | 50.1 |
Trade | 151 | 14.5 | Separated/divorced | 80 | 7.7 |
Services | 540 | 51.7 | Widowed | 10 | 1.0 |
Education | Income | ||||
No studies | 14 | 1.3 | Equal or less than €10k | 221 | 21.2 |
Basic | 123 | 11.8 | €10,001–€20,000 | 338 | 32.4 |
Secondary | 409 | 39.2 | €20,001–€30,000 | 303 | 29.0 |
Diploma | 211 | 20.2 | €30,001–€40,000 | 117 | 11.2 |
Undergraduate | 219 | 21.0 | €40,001–€50,000 | 32 | 3.1 |
Postgraduate | 68 | 6.5 | More than €50,000 | 33 | 3.2 |
Contract | |||||
No permanent contract | 304 | 29.1 | |||
Permanent contract | 740 | 70.9 |
Organisational Dimensions | Continuum | Example Adjectives |
---|---|---|
1. Organisational Focus | Task-Focused | Exploitative, obsolete, statistical |
Balanced Focus | Organised, participative, supportive | |
Employee-Focused | Unstructured, disorganised, chaotic | |
2. Organisational Atmosphere | Hostile or Negative | Controlling, manipulative, inhumane |
Balanced or Positive | Amiable, respectful, empathetic | |
Too Informal | Overwhelmed, unmotivated, suffocating | |
3. Organisational Hierarchy | Too Much | Authoritarian, inefficient, dictatorial |
Balanced Hierarchy | Hierarchical, cheerful, coherent | |
Too Little | Uncoordinated, little prepared, unclear |
Variables | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Age | 35.43 | 10.91 | - | ||||
2 | Gender | 1.61 | 0.49 | 0.06 | - | |||
3 | Supervisor | 1.16 | 0.37 | 0.10 ** | −0.08 * | - | ||
4 | WB Target Score | 0.24 | 0.41 | −0.07 * | −0.04 | 0.01 | - | |
5 | WB Perpetration Score | 0.22 | 0.39 | −0.06 | −0.08 * | −0.00 | 0.52 ** | - |
WB Perpetration Level | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WB Target Level | No WBP | Low WBP | Medium WBP | High WBP | Total | No WBP | Low WBP | Medium WBP | High WBP | Total |
No WBT | 295 | 131 | 7 | 12 | 445 | 28.3% | 12.5% | 0.7% | 1.1% | 42.6% |
Low WBT | 173 | 228 | 19 | 15 | 435 | 16.6% | 21.8% | 1.8% | 1.4% | 41.7% |
Medium WBT | 12 | 43 | 17 | 4 | 76 | 1.1% | 4.1% | 1.6% | 0.4% | 7.3% |
High WBT | 26 | 28 | 21 | 13 | 88 | 2.5% | 2.7% | 2.0% | 1.2% | 8.4% |
Total | 506 | 430 | 64 | 44 | 1044 | 48.5% | 41.2% | 6.1% | 4.2% | 100.0% |
Categories | N | % |
---|---|---|
Target not a perpetrator | 211 | 20.2 |
Target perpetrator | 388 | 37.2 |
Perpetrator not a target | 150 | 14.4 |
Uninvolved | 295 | 28.3 |
Total | 1044 | 100.0 |
WB Categories | Task Focus | Balanced Focus | Employee Focus | Total | Task Focus | Balanced Focus | Employee Focus | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Target not a perpetrator | 55 | 66 | 29 | 150 | 7.3% | 8.8% | 3.9% | 20.0% |
Target perpetrator | 112 | 107 | 75 | 294 | 15.0% | 14.3% | 10.0% | 39.3% |
Perpetrator not a target | 30 | 54 | 17 | 101 | 4.0% | 7.2% | 2.3% | 13.5% |
Uninvolved | 52 | 125 | 27 | 204 | 6.9% | 16.7% | 3.6% | 27.2% |
Total | 249 | 352 | 148 | 749 | 33.2% | 47.0% | 19.8% | 100.0% |
WB Categories | Negative A | Balanced A | Too Informal A | Total | Negative A | Balanced A | Too Informal A | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Target not a perpetrator | 40 | 78 | 28 | 146 | 5.5% | 10.6% | 3.8% | 19.9% |
Target perpetrator | 98 | 132 | 60 | 290 | 13.4% | 18.0% | 8.2% | 39.6% |
Perpetrator not a target | 17 | 65 | 16 | 98 | 2.3% | 8.9% | 2.2% | 13.4% |
Uninvolved | 24 | 153 | 22 | 199 | 3.3% | 20.9% | 3.0% | 27.1% |
Total | 179 | 428 | 126 | 733 | 24.4% | 58.4% | 17.2% | 100.0% |
WB Categories | Too Little H | Balanced H | Too High H | Total | Too Little H | Balanced H | Too High H | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Target not a perpetrator | 25 | 79 | 44 | 148 | 3.4% | 10.8% | 6.0% | 20.2% |
Target perpetrator | 68 | 124 | 96 | 288 | 9.3% | 16.9% | 13.1% | 39.3% |
Perpetrator not a target | 16 | 61 | 22 | 99 | 2.2% | 8.3% | 3.0% | 13.5% |
Uninvolved | 17 | 143 | 38 | 198 | 2.3% | 19.5% | 5.2% | 27.0% |
Total | 126 | 407 | 200 | 733 | 17.2% | 55.5% | 27% | 100.0% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Özer, G.; Escartín, J. Imbalance between Employees and the Organisational Context: A Catalyst for Workplace Bullying Behaviours in Both Targets and Perpetrators. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090751
Özer G, Escartín J. Imbalance between Employees and the Organisational Context: A Catalyst for Workplace Bullying Behaviours in Both Targets and Perpetrators. Behavioral Sciences. 2024; 14(9):751. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090751
Chicago/Turabian StyleÖzer, Gülüm, and Jordi Escartín. 2024. "Imbalance between Employees and the Organisational Context: A Catalyst for Workplace Bullying Behaviours in Both Targets and Perpetrators" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 9: 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090751