SAFEWORK SA COMMISSIONED RESEARCH GRANT

PREVENTION OF 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: [email protected] Address: GPO Box 2471, Adelaide SA 5001 AUSTRALIA Phone: +61 (0)8 8302 4537

1 SUMMARY 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, 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 -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 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.

2 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 , , , , emotional , , interpersonal conflict, antisocial behaviour, interpersonal , , counterproductive behaviour, exclusion, and (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 of reducing and preventing bullying at work within South Australian 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.

3 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 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

4 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, , 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.’

5 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.

ONET AWB Occupational Job title Workplace Bullying Requirements (SOC) & Harassment (974 occupations) (4772 workers)

Result of matching

209 occupations 3829 workers

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

6 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.

7 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) Bullying 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. 8 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.

9 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 . 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.

10 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.

11 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

12 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 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

13 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%

14 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%

15 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

Features of the Context n %† Example Quotes Pressure not to claim an 189 82.2% I have also [been] denied any appeal, which is entitlement available under our work agreement and given no Pressure or not to claim feedback as to my responses to the allegations. an entitlement (e.g., sick leave). Financial dispute 115 50.0% During the induction when I said this, the Business Dispute over salary, Manager put a line through that point on the form. reimbursement, bonuses and On later examination the box for ‘social club’ on the other expenses for the induction form had been ticked again, which means I complainant, documented in the may have been having social club fees taken from my SWSA case file documents. wages without my permission. Examples involved the On many occasions, I was not paid (until the complainant having their pay following fortnight, meaning I was without income withheld or being paid for two weeks at a time) and according to the Pay consistently late. , 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 61 26.5% I am now a victim for standing out and saying Removal or change to the victim’s enough is enough. The store manager and HR have normal work shift pattern. a lot to answer for constantly lying and making excuses to keep me off the roster, hoping I’ll leave no doubt.

† 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.

16 Table 8 Communication as an Organisational Risk Context for Workplace Bullying

Features of the Context n %† Example Quotes Having your opinion ignored 125 57.1% Over this period of time I have been offered four Occurred after the complainant different agreements to sign, each one removing some expressed their opinions, benefit offered in the one before. During this time I opposed to approaching wrote to the sub-committee dealing with this matter someone and being ignored and requested a meeting to discuss the issues but I before conversation begins. received no reply. Having information withheld 107 48.9% I found that nothing I did was right. I was continually Occurred when information was criticised or given the cold shoulder and not spoken to, withheld to the complainant. This information relevant to my job was not passed on to included lack of feedback on task me, I was accused of not wanting my job, not knowing orientation or misleading how to sell any more etc. information. Being ignored or excluded 107 48.9% [Bullies] continued a process of alienating [Target The complainant was ignored or Employee] and altered café records to ruin her excluded. This typically involved . being excluded from workplace activities or alienating the victim. Communication (general) 102 46.6% The [Union] did recognise that information may not Insufficient workplace have been communicated as effectively as it should communication or a break-down have been or as timely. communication. For the majority We could not understand him as it was difficult to hear of cases the complainant cited him. He continued to yell and swear at me and ended inadequate communication with up telling me to go home. When my husband picked colleagues and management in me up I was crying. I did not understand what he the work environment. wanted me to do. Being ignored or facing a hostile 66 30.1% After I had tried to complain about not being able to reaction when approaching the use a stool and asked for information in relation to my bully wages, [Manager] began to act very oddly. By this I The complainant was ignored or mean that when I said good morning and progressed faced a hostile reaction when into "how are you today", she would barely speak to they approached the bully and me and instead turned around and walked away. incorporated non-verbal actions, such as being glared at.

† 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.

17 Table 9 The Supervision Process as an Organisational Risk Context for Workplace Bullying

Features of the Context n %† Example Quotes Favouritism 121 60.2% I have solely been singled out in my region even Unfair treatment, or though my performance was better than others. My management allowed or past performance rating has been excellent and never distributed differential treatment below highly valued for my entire employment with in the workplace. In such cases, the company. the complainants often made At Manager Meetings in the morning in the board reference to ‘double standards’ room he would often publicly rank the managers... I or being ‘singled-out.’ 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 82 40.8% I have been receiving emails from [Manager] which practices (general) were full of negative feedback. There was never any Poor or inadequate management assistance in the form of coaching, mentoring or skills, styles and practices guidance from [Manager] on how to assist me in my referenced by the complainant or position. [Manager] visited Adelaide and his by SafeWork SA. managerial guidance was to buy a book, which he told me to read called "Who moved my cheese." Inappropriate use of legitimate 73 36.3% From this point [Manager] would regularly talk down power to me and warn me of where my position was. Manager exercised their Quote from manager: “You can have you invoice back legitimate power in an because you are going to do it for me for free because inappropriate way. These cases you are my employee and you have to do everything involved an authoritarian style of and anything I want and if I don't like it then you can management (see Altemeyer, "f*** off". 1988; Thau, Bennett, Mitchell, & Marrs, 2009) and/or distinct power imbalance in the formal organisational hierarchy. Inadequate training 69 34.3% A lack of training does not instil confidence in a person Inadequate training was provided to perform their role properly. I have been told to ask to workers during induction to questions if I don't understand something, but if I am complete their role demands. not aware of a procedure how can I ask about it. Lack of training was typically used I started work just doing basic work, mailing letters. as justification for poor work [Manager] asked [Bully] to show me how to complete performance 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.

18 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 95 32.1% He overloads people with work that means that it is Complainants exposed to an impossible to be absolutely across everything and to unmanageable . 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 60 20.3% These decisions affected my personal and professional from role credibility. She later removed me from the Reception Key responsibilities removed class and put on a path towards underperformance. from role, resulting in role As part of my performance management with eradication. 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 52 17.6% He tells me that he wants it up by December. I tell him to undertake role demands that this is not possible because too much will need to Insufficient time to complete role be done and that April would be a more reasonable demands. time-line. He sneers at this and asks me why I haven't done the photography yet? Being forced to work below 44 14.9% Initially employed as a preschool teacher. I assisted normal level of competence part time on a casual contract for 3 months at Forced to work below level of (location) site. Before long my hours and duties were competence, creating role increased – I felt uneasy even at this early stage as I conflict through incongruent was left with cleaning duties (including toilets, internal standards. mopping and vacuuming floors) whilst being sole carer of up to 8 children. Role ambiguity 26 8.8% [Target Employee] is being made to work in an area Unclear understanding of what that she does not feel that she has the the role required. required knowledge or passion to work effectively.

Role overload (multiple roles) 25 8.4% I politely explain to [Manager] that although I am Undertaking several different employed by him, I am paid to be a gallery manager roles at once. 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.

19 Features of the Context n %† Example Quotes Absence of position description 22 7.4% I’m ‘sometimes’ the 2IC of the Company. It depended Position description was absent on how [Manager] got on with different people on the or inadequate. 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

Features of the Context n %† Example Quotes Performance plan to manage 66 55.5% [Colleague] is aware that I am in a performance underperformance issues management process, however I firmly believe this Cases wherein the complainant never should have occurred and that I have been had been placed on the formal systematically bullied and harassed by [Manager]. plan to manage The document I received listed a number of criteria. underperformance issues. 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 53 44.5 The complainant alleged that she was bullied by a management processes supervisor whilst carrying out a role of Case Co- Themes such as setting and ordinator. Management refute these allegations and monitoring performance provided evidence that there were performance objectives, scheduling dates for issues with the complainant and that the Manager recurrent meetings, involvement was dealing with them appropriately. from human resources, and the threat of consequences should performance objectives not be met

† Figure represents within-context percentage.

20 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 . 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

21 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

22 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

23 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

24 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 , 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.

25 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 . 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 : 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.

26