A Dissertation
entitled
Human Resource Professionals and Workplace Bullying: A Systems Approach to
Performance Improvement Intervention in Criminal Justice Agencies
by
Matthew E. Ritzman
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Curriculum and Instruction
______Berhane Teclehaimanot, Ph.D., Committee Chair
______Gregory Stone, Ph.D., Committee Member
______Lisa Kovach, Ph.D., Committee Member
______Robert Sullivan, Ph.D., Committee Member
______Dr. Patricia R. Komuniecki, Dean College of Graduate Studies
The University of Toledo
December 2014
Copyright 2014, Matthew E. Ritzman
This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of
Human Resource Professionals and Workplace Bullying: A Systems Approach to Performance Improvement Intervention in Criminal Justice Agencies
by
Matthew E. Ritzman
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Curriculum and Instruction
The University of Toledo December 2014
Workplace bullying is a significant problem carrying wide-ranging consequences in organizations of various sizes and in a variety of work environments. Research suggests ten to twenty percent of employees are exposed to workplace bullying annually.
A review of scholarly literature established workplace bullying as a problem impacting employee and organizational performance, with many researchers suggesting human resource professionals should be integral in addressing workplace bullying in organizations. This study utilized the central tenets of human performance technology, specifically systems theory, to focus on the organizational subsystem of human resources as it relates to preventing, identifying, and addressing workplace bullying.
There were three identified purposes to this study. The first purpose of the study was to provide a valid measure of workplace bullying reporting from the perspective of the human resource professional. The second purpose of the study was to take an occupation-specific approach to investigate if employees in correctional organizations report workplace bullying behavior to their organization through human resource professionals at a different rate than in other fields of employment. The third purpose of the study was to investigate if correctional organizations are utilizing performance
iii improvement interventions discussed in current scholarly literature to address workplace bullying.
Results indicated human resources professionals in this survey have a different perspective on workplace bullying as compared to those considered in the comparison study. Further, correctional organizations are not widely using performance improvement interventions to address workplace bullying. The Rasch Mathematical Model was used to evaluate the research instrument. The Rasch analysis suggested the research instrument could be revised for improved functionality.
iv
I would like to dedicate this study to my mother, Sharon. Her commitment to her children and encouragement to pursue our goals through education drove me to pursue this degree. I would not have been able to overcome the adversity and obstacles presented during the dissertation process without the example of perseverance she has provided throughout my life.
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of my colleagues, fellow students, friends, and family. I will forever be grateful to those people who provided me a sounding board for ideas, support through the set-backs, and sound advice throughout the dissertation process.
I must thank my brother, Glenn, for his consistent encouragement. I must also thank Dr. Terry Johnson with whom I spent countless hours of class and personal time working on our respective coursework and dissertations. I must also individually thank each member of my dissertation committee for their time, work, and encouragement.
To Dr. Berhane Teclehaimanot, for his helpful feedback and advice during this project, and throughout my graduate study. I am thankful he was willing to take me on as an advisee and provide direction to this project.
To Dr. Robert Sullivan, for his counsel, encouragement, and patience during my seven years of graduate study. Dr. Sullivan is a testament to what a professor and advisor should be. His effort and devotion to his students is unparalleled. I hope retirement is as good to you as you have been to your students.
To Dr. Lisa Kovach, for her expertise in psychology and workplace bullying. Her contribution to the development of this study was critical. Her encouragement during the most challenging periods of the dissertation process gave me the resolve to continue when I was not sure I could.
To Dr. Gregory Stone, for his time and expertise in research methodology. His critical thinking and pragmatic approach to research design gave this study direction. His support, calm, and encouragement were critical to the completion of this project.
vi Table of Contents
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements vi
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables xiv
List of Figures xv
I. Introduction 1
A. Introduction 1
B. Statement of the Problem 4
a. Research Instrument 4
b. Occupation-Specific Approach to Workplace Bullying Research 4
c. Performance Improvement Interventions 6
C. Purpose of the Study 4
D. Research Questions 9
E. Operational Definitions 9
F. Delimitation 12
II. Literature Review 13
A. Historical Background 13
a. History of Workplace Bullying Research 13
b. Different Terms Used to Describe Negative Workplace Behavior 15
c. Occupational Specific Approach to Workplace Bullying Research 16
d. Workplace Bullying Within Correctional Settings 18
B. Workplace Bullying Defined 20
vii a. Overview 20
b. Frequency 21
c. Duration of Exposure 23
d. Power Disparity 24
e. Intent and Perception 25
C. Workplace Bullying Tactics 26
a. Overview 26
b. Bullying Behaviors 27
c. Threats to the Target’s Professional Status 29
d. Overworking a Bullying Target 31
e. Isolation 31
f. Threats to the Target’s Personal Standing 32
g. Destabilization 32
D. Workplace Bullying and Performance 33
a. Overview 33
b. Personal Outcomes of Bullying Targets 34
c. Impact on Witnesses of Bullying Behavior 35
d. Individual Work Performance 36
e. Organizational Performance 37
E. Cost of Workplace Bullying 39
F. Prevalence of Workplace Bullying 41
a. Overview 41
b. Prevalence Rates 42
viii c. Research Methods 44
d. Self-Report Method 45
e. Operational Method 46
f. Reporting Time 47
g. Application in Literature 48
h. Application in Study 49
G. Workplace Bullying and Human Resources 51
a. Overview 51
b. Role of the Human Resource Professional 52
c. Perception in Addressing Workplace Bullying 54
H. Human Resources and Performance Improvement Interventions 56
a. Overview 56
b. Developing Understanding 57
c. Workplace Bullying Policy 57
d. Workplace Bullying Training 59
e. Recruiting and Selection 60
f. Performance Management 61
g. Communication 62
h. Addressing Personnel Issues 63
I. Human Performance Technology 64
a. Overview 64
b. Human Performance Technology Defined 65
c. Underlying Principles 67
ix i. Focus on Results 67
ii. Systems Theory 67
iii. Add Value 68
iv. Establishes Partnerships 68
III. Methodology 69
A. Overview 69
B. Significance of the Study 70
C. Conceptual Framework 72
D. Research Question 74
E. Research Design and Methods 74
a. Research Sample 74
b. Researcher’s Role 75
c. Research Instrument 75
d. Data Collection 78
F. Data Analysis 80
a. Research Question One 80
b. Research Question Two 81
c. Research Question Four 84
d. Rasch Model 85
e. Research Question Three 86
i. Separation 86
ii. Reliability 87
iii. Item Difficulty 87
x iv. Person Ability 88
v. Fit 88
vi. Overview 88
G. Timeline 89
IV. Data Analysis and Results 90 90
A. Survey Qualifying Question – Age 91
B. Survey Qualifying Question – Job Responsibilities 92
C. Research Question One 94
a. Work-related bullying 94
b. Person-related bullying 101
c. Physically intimidating bullying 109
D. Research Question Two 111
E. Research Question Four 114
a. Characteristics of Workplace Bullying Policies 115
b. Organizational Measures Against Workplace Bullying 123
c. Knowledge-Based Interventions to Address
Workplace Bullying 128
d. Policy Adoptions 132
F. Research Question Three 136
a. Negative Acts Questionnaire for HR Professionals –
Questions 1 through 22 136
i. Reliability and Separation 138
ii. Summary of Category Structure 138
xi iii. Reliability and Separation Recalculated 139
iv. Construct Key Form 141
v. Item Statistics 141
b. Negative Acts Questionnaire for HR Professionals –
Questions 28, 31, 32, 33, and 34 143
i. Reliability and Separation 143
ii. Summary of Category Structure 144
iii. Construct Key Form 145
iv. Item Statistics 146
V. Discussion 147
A. Research Questions 148
B. Summary of Methods 149
C. Summary and Discussion 150
a. Overview 150
b. Research Question 1 152
i. Work-related bullying 153
ii. Person-related bullying 156
iii. Physically intimidating bullying 158
c. Research Question 2 159
d. Research Question 3 163
i. Survey Items 1 through 22 164
ii. Survey Items 28, 31, 32, 33, and 34 167
e. Research Question 4 168
xii i. Addressing Workplace Bullying 170
ii. Workplace Bullying Policy 171
iii. Workplace Bullying Training 175
iv. Communication 178
v. Performance Management 179
vi. Evaluation of Interventions 180
D. Recommendations for Future Research 182
E. Limitations 184
F. Summary of Findings 185
G. Implications 186
References 188
Appendices
A. Survey Instrument 215
B. Required Training 221
C. Research Participation Approval Form 222
D. Research Participation Response 223
E. Research Participation Approval 224
F. Informed Consent 225
xiii List of Tables
Table 1 Factor loading and sub-factors of NAQ-R...... 83
Table 2 Einarsen et al. (2009) Mean Table...... 84
Table 3 Age of Participants...... 91
Table 4 Job Responsibilities...... 93
Table 5 Frequencies for Work-Related Bullying Items...... 100
Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for NAQ-R for HR Professionals...... 112
Table 7 Independent Samples T-Tests...... 113
Table 8 Characteristics of Workplace Bullying Policies...... 121
Table 9 Organizational Measures Against Workplace Bullying...... 127
Table 10 Knowledge Based Interventions Used to Address Bullying...... 131
Table 11 Summary of Policy Adoptions...... 135
Table 12 Frequencies for Work-Related Bullying Items...... 155
Table 13 Frequencies for Person-Related Bullying Items...... 157
Table 14 Frequencies for Physically Intimidating Bullying Items...... 159
xiv List of Figures
Figure 1 Person Reliability...... 137
Figure 2 Item Reliability...... 137
Figure 3 Summary of Category Structure...... 138
Figure 4 Summary of Category Structure – Collapsed Response Categories...... 139
Figure 5 Person Reliability – Recalculated...... 139
Figure 6 Item Reliability – Recalculated...... 140
Figure 7 Key Form...... 141
Figure 8 Item Statistics...... 142
Figure 9 Person Reliability...... 144
Figure 10 Item Reliability...... 144
Figure 11 Summary of Category Structure...... 145
Figure 12 Key Form...... 146
Figure 13 Item Statistics...... 146
xv Chapter One
Introduction
Bullying is a significant problem with wide-ranging consequence to individual and organizational performance in the modern workplace (Nielsen, Matthiesen &
Einarsen, 2010). Researchers have identified workplace bullying in organizations of various sizes and in many types of industries and work environments (Daniel, 2009;
Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009; Leonard, 2007; McIntosh, 2006). Estimates of the number of employees bullied in the workplace vary, with most studies reporting between ten and twenty percent of employees being exposed to workplace bullying on an annual basis (Einarson, Hoel, Zapf, and Cooper, 2003; Nielsen, Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2010).
While no universal definition of workplace bullying has been established in the literature, the phenomenon has been described as a pattern of hostile, aggressive, and negative interpersonal interaction that is frequent, persistent, intentional, with the presence of some real or perceived power disparity between the bully and target (Lutgen-
Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007; Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002; Samnani & Singh,
2012; Saunders, Huynh & Goodman-Delahunty, 2007). Bullies utilize a variety of verbal and non-verbal behaviors that may appear benign to other members of the organization, making recognition of the pattern of behavior difficult (Leymann, 1996; Lutgen-Sandvik,
2005; Lutgen-Sandvik et. al., 2007; Saunders et al., 2007; Zapf-Gross, 2001). Workplace bullying differs from other forms of negative behavior that may occur in single or random episodes, as workplace bullying manifests itself over an extended period of time (Nielsen et al., 2010). Bullies utilize persistent negative behaviors that aim to belittle, humiliate,
1 and isolate bullying targets; these behaviors have been found to have a significant negative impact (Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004; Dalton, 2007; Nielsen et al., 2010).
Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper (2003) suggested the cumulative effect of workplace bullying is more devastating than all other kinds of work-related stress combined. Bullying targets have reported becoming easily exhausted, upset, impatient, and experiencing feelings of isolation (Glaso, Matthiesen, Neilsen, & Einarsen, 2007).
Rodriguez-Munoz, Moreno-Jimenez, Vergel, & Hernandez (2010) reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder are prevalent among targets of workplace bullying. Targets of workplace bullying reported negative lifestyle changes including increase in smoking, alcohol, drug abuse, sleep disruption, and an increase in the use of sleep-inducing medications (Barlett & Barlett, 2011; Namie, 2003; Paice & Smith, 2009; Quine, 1999;
Vartia, 2001; Yildiz, 2007). Further, Yildirim (2009) reported targets of workplace bullying cited feeling a negative impact on their social interactions outside of work.
Workplace bullying takes a significant toll on an employee’s physical and mental health.
However, it also has a tremendous impact on individual work performance.
Targets of workplace bullying have reported decreased commitment to their job and organization, decreased job satisfaction, poor morale, and decreased productivity
(MacIntosh, 2005; Namie, 2003). Bullying targets report an increase in work errors, limited concentration, and lost time due to worry regarding the bullying situation
(MacIntosh, 2005; Namie, 2003). Bullying targets were found to have an increased rate of absenteeism (Namie, 2007). Additionally, they may miss deadlines, have a loss of creative potential (MacIntosh, 2005), and have an increased frequency of errors (Paice &
2 Smith, 2009). Workplace bullying has also been found to have a significant impact on organizational effectiveness and productivity.
The negative impact on bullying targets is clear; however, there is also a significant effect on organizations (Barlett & Bartlett, 2011). Workplace bullying has been found to decrease organizational morale, productivity, and work-quality of both bullied and non-bullied employees (Roscigno, Lopez & Hodson, 2009). In employment atmospheres where bullying is accepted, the organizational climate has been found to suffer, causing an atmosphere of fear and mistrust to permeate through the organization
(Namie, 2007). Vega and Comer (2005) suggested the collective effect of bullying at the organizational level is likely to have a negative effect on organizational performance.
Hoel and Einarson (2010) outlined a significant cost to employers as a result of bullying in the workplace. The authors cited productivity loss, costs of intervention by third parties, increased worker’s compensation claims, increase in use of sick leave, and legal liability as potential consequences of workplace bullying. Workplace bullying also disrupts productivity and incurs employee recruitment and retention costs (Keashly &
Jagatic, 2003). Several authors have cited an increase in employee turnover as a result of bullying (Gardner & Johnson, 2001; Hoel & Einarson, 2010; Keashly & Jagatic, 2003;
Namie, 2007). Gardner and Johnson (2001) also found that wrongful termination lawsuits relative to workplace bullying are a legal concern for organizations.
3 Statement of the Problem
Research Instrument
The literature has established workplace bullying as a significant problem impacting employee and organizational performance. Researchers have suggested that human resource professionals should be vital players in addressing workplace bullying situations (Boyd & Carden, 2010; Glendinning, 2001; Lewis & Rayner, 2003; Mathieson,
Hanson, & Burns, 2006; Namie & Namie, 2003; Salin, 2008). Human resource departments are generally responsible for hiring and terminating employees, training and development, and managing and addressing personnel issues (Cowan, 2012). However, the workplace bullying target’s perception of the phenomenon monopolizes workplace bullying research with little consideration paid to human resource professionals' perspectives and experience (Cowan, 2012; Salin, 2008; Salin, 2009).
The research establishes the central role human resource professionals play in implementing and applying anti-bullying policy and performance improvement interventions. However, no valid research instrument to measure reporting of bullying behavior to human resource professionals was located in the established literature. This study aims to address this problem by adapting a commonly used workplace bullying instrument – the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) – to provide a valid measure of reporting of bullying behaviors to human resource professionals.
Occupation Specific Approach to Workplace Bullying Research
A significant amount of workplace bullying research has focused on causes, symptoms and consequences of the phenomenon that can be generalized across a variety of occupations (Glaso, Bele, Nielsen & Einarsen, 2011). This general research has
4 advanced understanding of the topic. However, there are limitations to this approach.
Several authors have argued that generalized literature should also be complemented by research considering factors, issues, and concerns specific to particular working environments to develop more meaningful knowledge (De Croon, Blonk, De Zwart,
Frings-Dresen & Broersen, 2002; Glaso et al., 2011; McClenahan, Giles & Mallett, 2007;
Sparks & Cooper, 1999). Mikkelson & Einarsen (2001) reported research in specific employment fields can provide important information about specific aspects of workplace bullying. Van Hueton (2010) added “In the absence of discipline-specific information, relying on data derived from research with other professions can lead to untested assumptions about causes and about appropriate interventions” (p. 638). Glaso et al.
(2011) noted taking an occupation-specific approach to workplace bullying research can enhance our understanding of the phenomenon. Further, the authors noted this approach would assist in the development and management of performance improvement interventions designed to address such issues.
Pawlowski, Kaganer, & Cater (2007) said managers responsible for developing anti-bullying policies and intervention strategies can do so more effectively with concepts developed from employees’ everyday work activities. Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel & Vartia
(2003) explained that the nature of bullying varies across different sectors of employment because of differences in job characteristics such as the content of work duties and the varying levels of personal involvement and social interaction required of employees.
These situational differences could impact the types of interventions that effectively reduce and manage workplace bullying incidents in specific organizations (Glaso et al.,
2007).
5 The established research among employees in corrections suggests workplace bullying impacts stress level, mental health, and job satisfaction in this environment
(Vartia & Hyyti, 2002). However, there is a limited quantity of research analyzing workplace bullying within correctional organizations. This research study addressed this problem by taking an occupation-specific approach focused on the field of corrections.
Specifically, this study analyzed if workplace bullying is reported through official organizational channels at a different rate in corrections than in other fields of employment.
Performance Improvement Interventions
Workplace bullying not only does harm to individuals, but diminishes employee and organizational performance. Organizations benefit from being proactive in addressing workplace bullying. The literature established on the topic suggests that organizations address workplace bullying with performance improvement interventions involving human resource departments. Several interventions are recommended in current scholarly research including: policy to address workplace bullying, an avenue to report grievances, strict sanctions against workplace bullies, consideration of workplace bullying during recruiting and selection, continual training on the topic, and considering workplace bullying in performance management initiatives (Boyd & Carden, 2010;
Devonish, 2013; Glendinning, 2001; Vega & Comer, 2005; Wyatt, 2009). While many researchers have offered advice on addressing workplace bullying, little research has been published on interventions and measures actually being used by organizations to combat bullying in the workplace (Salin, 2008). This study addressed this problem by
6 assessing if corrections organizations are using the performance improvement interventions outlined in the literature to address workplace bullying.
Purpose of the Study
The information gathered in this study was used to specifically analyze workplace bullying as an individual and organizational performance problem. This study utilized the central tenets of Human Performance Technology to focus on the organizational system of human resources as it relates to preventing, identifying, and addressing workplace bullying. Human Performance Technology suggests taking a systems view of organizations. This is essential when addressing performance issues, as organizations are comprised of functionally related components that impact the performance of all of the other systems within the whole organization (ISPI, 2005).
There are three identified purposes of this study. While violence and aggressive physical behavior is more evident and easier for others to detect, workplace bullying is a systematic pattern of subtle mistreatment making it less noticeable to other members of the organization (Neuman & Baron, 1998). As a result, identification of this pattern of mistreatment may be difficult for targets, human resource practitioners, and organization administrators. Since human resource professionals maintain a central role in preventing, identifying, and addressing workplace bullying, the first purpose of the study was to provide a valid measure of workplace bullying observation from the perspective of the human resource professional. The researcher did this by adapting an established research instrument specifically to measure the experience of human resource professionals. The researcher also evaluated the adapted instrument to determine if it functions as a valid measure of observed workplace bullying in correctional facilities. The Negative Acts
7 Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) – an instrument consisting of twenty-two questions to determine if bullying has taken place – was revised to measure reporting to human resource professionals (Einarsen et al., 2009).
The second purpose of this study was to take an occupation-specific approach to investigate if employees in correctional organizations report workplace bullying behaviors to their organization, through human resource professionals, at a different rate than bullying has been found to take place in other fields. Harvey, Treadway, & Heames
(2007) found bullying is substantially more likely to take place if bullies feel the organizational climate permits or turns a blind eye to their behavior. The disregard or acceptance of workplace bullying can produce an organization-wide atmosphere of fear and mistrust (Namie, 2007). Further, bullying that takes place due to the organization’s leadership’s unwillingness or inability to address the behavior may lead to a toxic organizational culture (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). As such, the third purpose of this study was to investigate if correctional organizations are utilizing interventions to address workplace bullying similar to what is recommended in current scholarly research on the subjects of workplace bullying, human resources, human performance improvement, and training and development. By reviewing if interventions are being used to address workplace bullying, organizations will have a better understanding of any performance gaps that may exist.
Information obtained from this research study is valuable to leaders, administrators, managers, line staff, and human resource specialists. Further, consultants, like human performance technologists who are interested in addressing workplace bullying as a performance issue, may find this study valuable. Additionally, this study is
8 valuable to researchers and professionals who are working to address bullying in any context.
Research Questions
Based on the far-reaching negative effects of workplace bullying, this study poses the following research questions:
R1 - Do human resource professionals working in the field of corrections identify workplace bullying behaviors that are reported through official organizational channels?
R2 - Is there a statistically significant difference in workplace bullying (work-related bullying, person-related bullying or physically intimidating bullying) reported through official organizational channels in corrections organizations compared to the rate bullying has been reported in the general population as reported by Einarsen et al. (2009)?
R3 - Is the Revised Negative Acts Questionnaire for Human Resource Professionals a valid measure of reported workplace bullying in correctional facilities?
R4 - Do human resource professionals in the field of corrections believe their agency has employed performance improvement interventions to prevent, identify, and address workplace bullying similar to those recommended in current scholarly literature?
Operational Definitions
This section establishes definitions of the key terms used in this study.
Correctional Facility: A facility where inmates are housed while pending trial and/or after a conviction.
Human Performance Technology: A systematic approach to improving organizational productivity and capability using three essential processes: performance analysis, cause analysis, and intervention selection (ISPI, 2005). Human Performance Technology uses
9 methods and procedures and a strategy for solving problems related to performance with an overarching goal of leveraging human capital in the most efficient way possible to achieve results (ISPI, 2005; Pershing, 2008).
Human Resource Professional: An individual who carries out human resource functions like employee hiring, employee termination, employee misconduct investigation and discipline, training and development, and human resource policy application as a primary function of their employment (Cowan, 2012).
International Association of Correctional Training Personnel (IACTP): Established in
1974, IACTP is an international professional association of trainers, training administrators, and educators in the field of corrections. IACTP maintains a membership of approximately 170 including a mix of all disciplines within corrections and community corrections.
LinkedIn: A social networking website with over eighty-five millions members which maintains a professional directory of individuals, organizations, and companies.
Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R): The Negative Acts Questionnaire-
Revised (NAQ-R) is the English revised version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire
(NAQ) (Einarsen et al., 2009). The instrument consists of twenty-two questions and utilizes a threshold of four or more affirmative answers to determine if bullying has taken place.
Performance Gaps: The difference between current performance and desired performance
(Pershing, 2006).
Performance Improvement Intervention: A set of actions to improve performance in response to an identified performance gap (ISPI, 2005; Pershing, 2006; Pershing, 2008).
10 Person-related Bullying: Workplace bullying tactics measured by the NAQ-R research instrument including: Being ridiculed or humiliated about your work, responsibility removed and given menial tasks, rumors and gossip spread about you, being ignored and excluded, having insulting or offensive statements made about your attitudes and beliefs about work and your private life, hints that you should quit your job, constant reminders of your mistakes, practical jokes made by people that are adversaries, having claims made against you, being teased excessively (Einarsen et. al, 2009).
Physically Intimidating Bullying: Workplace bullying tactics measured by the NAQ-R research instrument including: being yelled at or being the recipient of intense anger, being threatened or being the recipient of physical abuse, someone intimidates you by blocking your space, shoving, or finger-pointing (Einarsen et. al, 2009).
Systems Theory: Suggests organizations are comprised of subsystems that are all connected in some way. Changes in one subsystem impact other subsystems within organizations (Pershing, 2006). The effectiveness of each separate unit is dependent on how it fits into the whole system and the effectiveness of the whole system is dependent on the way each unit functions (ISPI, 2005).
Work-related Bullying: Workplace bullying tactics measured by the NAQ-R research instrument include: someone withholding information which affects job performance, being offered work below your competence level, having your opinions ignored, being given tasks with irrational deadlines, over monitoring of your work, being pressured to not claim what you are entitled to as an employee (vacation or sick time), and having an excessive workload (Einarsen et al. 2009).
11 Workplace Bullying: Behaviors in the workplace that occur repeatedly and regularly over a period of time that offend, socially exclude, or adversely affect the work of an employee (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003). Workplace bullying is repeated and persistent non-physical mistreatment of a person that often follows a progressive pattern with the target eventually ends up in an inferior position (Einarsen et al., 2011; Namie and Namie, 2009). Workplace bullying differs from other disruptive behaviors in the workplace when actions toward the target are calculated, intentional, and persistent
(Vogelpohl, 2011).
Workplace Bullying Target: An employee on the receiving end of a pattern of systematic mistreatment from a bully in the workplace.
Delimitation
This study was confined to members of the International Association of
Correctional Training Personnel (IACTP) and/or members of the association’s LinkedIn group. Further, this study was confined to members of one of these groups currently employed in a position where their primary responsibility is carrying out human resource functions. Participants were required to be eighteen years old.
12 Chapter Two
Literature Review
This review of the literature embodies the following nine major sections: historical background, workplace bullying defined, workplace bullying tactics, workplace bullying and performance, cost of workplace bullying, prevalence of workplace bullying, workplace bullying and human resources, human resources and performance improvement interventions, and human performance technology. The review of the literature provides the reader with research studies supporting the historical aspect of workplace bullying to provide perspective to the present study.
Historical Background
History of Workplace Bullying Research
Heinz Leymann was one of the first researchers to study adult bullying (Namie &
Namie, 2009). Leymann (1990) was a psychologist by trade and is considered to be the pioneer researcher in the area of workplace mistreatment. Namie & Namie (2009) reported that his research began in the 1980s with his early work published in Sweden.
The authors described Leymann as “a clinician, a researcher, author of popular books, and the first public activist and uncompromising spokesperson for the movement he launched” (p. 202). Leymann chose to label hostile workplace behavior “mobbing” due to the presumption of physical aggression associated with the term bullying (Vogelpohl,
2011). Leymann defined “mobbing” as “hostile and unethical communication at work directed in a systematic way by one or a few individuals toward one individual who is unable to defend himself or herself” (Namie & Namie, 2009, p. 202). According to
13 Leymann, this pattern of behavior occurs at least once per week for at least a six month period of time.
The phrase “workplace bullying” was coined in Great Britain in the late 1980s by
Andrea Adams, a British Journalist who wrote the first popular book on the topic,
Bullying at Work: How to Confront and Overcome It (Namie, 2007; Namie & Namie,
2009). Namie and Namie (2009) described ongoing debate among researchers in the
1990s over which term, Leymann’s “mobbing” or “workplace bullying” was most appropriate. While many different terms have been used to describe bullying type behaviors in the workplace, a pattern of mistreatment in the workplace is primarily referred to as bullying in the United States, Great Britain, Ireland, Australia, New
Zealand, and Canada (Namie & Namie, 2009). For the purposes of this study, hostile and aggressive behaviors in the workplace will be referred to as bullying tactics.
Since workplace bullying research first began in the 1980s, a significant amount of research has been published on the topic (Samnani & Singh, 2012). In the last fifteen years, the myriad of severe negative outcomes as a result of workplace bullying and other forms of hostile interpersonal behavior have spurred increased public interest leading to an increase in research in the area (Hershcovis, 2011; Salin, 2003). As a result, the knowledge base in regard to workplace bullying has grown rather quickly (Einarsen et al., 2011; Hogh et al., 2011).
Although there is a large amount of professional research on the topic, there is a disparity between the large number of these studies conducted abroad as compared to the
United States, where research interest is still in its initial stages (Namie & Namie, 2009;
Roscigno, Lopez, & Hodson, 2009). International bullying research is also more concise
14 as there is consistency in terminology used to describe bullying behavior (Vogelpohl,
2011).
Different Terms Used to Describe Negative Workplace Behavior
Workplace bullying research is complicated by the wide array of terms used to describe the variety of negative behaviors in the workplace. These terms have many different definitions and descriptions. They include: workplace aggression (Farrell,
1997), horizontal violence (McKenna, Smith, Poole & Coverdale, 2003), harassment
(Brodsky, 1976), incivility (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001), bullying
(Lewis, 2001), and verbal abuse (Cox, 1987). Namie (2007) also reported the synonyms: psychological harassment, psychological violation, workplace aggression and emotional abuse, and lateral violence were cited in the literature.
Cowan (2012) outlined and compared the various terms used to describe aggressive behavior in the workplace. While they are sometimes used interchangeably, the terms vary in defining characteristics. The author describes mobbing as a term that focuses on a group of employees ganging up on one person; workplace bullying is usually limited to describing one-on-one abuse (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003).
The author describes employee emotional abuse as a term used only to describe non- physical abuse. This differs from bullying, as in rare situations workplace bullying can escalate to include physical acts (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997). The author also reports harassment differs from bullying as it generally implies the aggressive action isn’t persistent, intentional, escalating, etc. and these are important characteristics to identify a pattern of behavior as bullying. Andersson & Pearson (1999) describe workplace incivility as low intensity deviant acts such as rude and discourteous verbal and non-
15 verbal behaviors enacted toward a co-worker. Incivility differs from workplace bullying because there is no clear intent to target a particular individual.
Crawshaw (2009) claims the variety of definitions for similar negative behaviors in the workplace are a distraction. The author explains the variety of terms limit researchers and practitioners from effectively collaborating with one another. The author said “The absence of a shared descriptive language for the phenomenon is doubly perplexing for employers, legislators, and other members of society who seek to address this source of psychological pain in the workplace” (p. 263). Cowan (2012) supported
Crawshaw’s claim by adding, “The use of multiple labels adds to the confusion over what workplace bullying is and what it is not” (p. 380).
This confusion is also articulated in research relative to workplace bullying and human resources. Several authors have cited the multitude of terms used in academic research to describe negative behaviors in the workplace impact human resource professional’s interpretation of workplace bullying and how they address allegations of bullying in the workplace (Cowan, 2012; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2005; Keashly & Harvey,
2006).
Occupational Specific Approach to Workplace Bullying Research
Much workplace bullying research has been focused on causes, symptoms, and consequences of the phenomenon that can be generalized across a variety of occupations
(Glaso, Bele, Nielsen & Einarsen, 2011). General research has furthered our understanding of the topic. But, there are limitations to this approach. Several authors have argued the generalized literature should be complemented by research studies that consider factors, issues, and concerns specific to particular working environments to
16 develop more meaningful knowledge (De Croon, Blonk, De Zwart, Frings-Dresen &
Broersen, 2002; Glaso et al., 2011; McClenahan, Giles & Mallett, 2007; Sparks &
Cooper, 1999).
Mikkelson & Einarsen (2001) reported that specific research can provide important information to specific aspects of the phenomenon of workplace bullying including its causation. Van Hueton (2010) made similar claims. In a study of social workers, Van Hueton (2010) warned workplace bullying is a potentially costly problem that maybe common in fields of human service. To clarify, human services worker is a general term for people who maintain employment in setting such as: group homes and halfway houses; correctional settings; youth service agencies, and agencies that address alcoholism, drug abuse, family violence, and aging (“What is Human Services?”, 2012).
The author went on to say, “In the absence of discipline-specific information, relying on data derived from research with other professions can lead to untested assumptions about causes and about appropriate interventions” (p. 638).
Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel and Vartia (2003) reported the frequency and nature of workplace bullying is varied across different sectors of employment. This was attributed to variable job characteristics, differences in content of work tasks, and the frequency of social interaction required. Situational differences in different sectors and places of employment can affect interventions and policies utilized to alleviate and manage bullying incidents in organizations (Glaso et al., 2011). Beehr, Glazer, Nielson & Farmer
(2000) cited an increased effectiveness in intervention strategies developed from individual job and organizational characteristics rather than from general information.
Additionally, managers responsible for cultivating anti-bullying policies and
17 implementing intervention strategies can relate more closely to concepts grounded in their everyday activities (Pawlowski, Kaganer & Cater, 2007).
Taking an occupation-specific approach to workplace bullying research provides insight into the unique facets of the occupation being researched. Glaso et al. (2011) concluded taking an occupation-specific approach can enhance our understanding of the nature and prevalence of workplace bullying and how it may affect the health, well- being, and job satisfaction of employees in specific occupations and professions. The authors also insisted this approach would assist in the development and management of interventions designed to address such issues.
Workplace Bullying Within Correctional Settings
There is a limited quantity of research analyzing workplace bullying within correctional environments. Although, established research suggests workplace bullying impacts stress level, mental health, and job satisfaction in correctional employees (Vartia and Hyyti, 2002). The correctional environment presents a number of unique challenges.
Brewer & Whiteside (2012) attribute this to the routine aspects of working with inmates, as well as the masculine aggressive culture fostered within a correctional environment.
Brewer & Whiteside (2012) conducted a research study to measure the prevalence of workplace bullying in a British Prison. The authors conceptualized bullying as
“harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks” (Einarsen et al., 2003, p.15). The study did not require repetition of bullying activities for negative interactions to be considered workplace bullying, as most definitions suggest. Participants in the study reported substantial levels of workplace bullying; 79% of employees reported experiencing bullying behavior at least once during
18 the most recent six month period. Additionally, 67% of staff reported they had both experienced and witnessed workplace bullying within this timeframe. The authors found senior officers and management staff members were perceived to be primarily responsible for bullying in the workplace.
In a study of seventy organizations, Hoel and Cooper (2000) found workplace bullying to be prevalent in various work environments, including prisons. The authors reported that in the previous five years, 64% of staff had witnessed bullying and 31% had experienced bullying. Further, 34% of respondents in the prison service reported that bullying was a serious pressure in their work. This is consistent with research citing increased prevalence of bullying in professions that present an element of aggression, such as prisons (Hoel & Salin, 2003).
Vartia and Hyyti (2002) conducted a study to investigate gender differences in workplace bullying in a prison setting. The research sample was comprised of 773 males and 123 female correctional officers with a 64% response rate. In total, 20% of those who responded perceived they had been bullied. No statistically significant disparity was noted between the gender of those who reported they were bullied. Females were more likely to be bullied by co-workers; males were found to be bullied by co-workers and supervisors equally as often. Gender was found not to predict the effect on stress level, mental health, and job satisfaction as a result of experiencing bullying behavior. The authors identified unsatisfactory conditions of work, as well as poor social climate as predictors of bullying among both men and women. Next, the characteristics that define workplace bullying will be established.
19 Workplace Bullying Defined
Overview
Since workplace bullying research first began in the 1980s, the quantity of knowledge and research on the topic has increased significantly (Samnani & Singh, 2012;
Saunders, Huynh & Goodman-Delahunty, 2007). However, a challenging issue for researchers and practitioners remains the lack of a universal definition to capture the nuance of such complex patterns of behavior (Saunders et al., 2007). Further, variations in the primary components of definitions in previous studies have limited the opportunity for comparisons and the ability to draw correlations relative to research outcomes
(Saunders et al., 2007). While the literature has not followed one specific definition of workplace bullying there are several reoccurring themes in most definitions and descriptions (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011).
Workplace bullying is unique to other negative workplace behaviors as the negative acts directed toward the target are intentional, persistent, and occur over a prolonged period of time (Vogelpohl, 2011). Workplace bullying manifests itself in both verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2005; Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, &
Alberts, 2007; Saunders et al., 2007). Superficially, bullying behavior can appear non- aggressive to other members of the organization making it difficult for targets to protest
(Leymann, 1996; Lutgen-Sandvik et. al., 2007; Zapf-Gross, 2001).
Definitions used by researchers generally focus on these essential criteria to identify workplace bullying: frequency, persistence, intent, and power disparity (Lutgen-
Sandvik et al., 2007; Rayner et al., 2002; Samnani & Singh, 2012; Saunders et al., 2007).
Fox & Stallworth (2010) suggest that these definitional requirements establish bullying as
20 a regular and ongoing experience that may have more severe consequences than singular acts of mistreatment, whereas, incidents of workplace incivility for instance, may be singular or rare transgressions. However, these common themes do not reflect the input of a primary stakeholder in addressing workplace bullying, the human resource professional.
This section will outline the common themes of workplace bullying definitions as established in the literature. However, these themes do not reflect the input of human resource professionals (Cowan, 2012). This is significant as Cowan (2012) cited the definitional aspect of workplace bullying as a primary factor influencing how human resource professionals conceptualize cases of workplace bullying within their employment. Lutgen-Sandvik (2005) also acknowledged conflicting definitions of workplace bullying could affect how human resource professionals understand workplace bullying and they address allegations of bullying in the workplace. Next, the common themes of workplace bullying definitions as outlined in the literature will be established.
Frequency
Individual workplace bullying behaviors may not appear serious to outside observers. However, what makes these behaviors so damaging to the target is the frequency and duration of time the target is routinely exposed to them (Keashly, 2010).
Salin (2008) supports the concepts of repetition and persistence in workplace bullying by noting that bullying is usually an accumulation of many minor acts as part of a systematic pattern of mistreatment. Workplace bullying behaviors are consistent and extended forms of workplace mistreatment (Keashly, 2010).
21 Keashly & Neuman (2002) reported the frequency of exposure to bullying behaviors has been directly linked to negative individual effects on the target’s health, job attitudes and productivity. It is also important to consider frequency of exposure relative to the overall number of contacts with the bully (Keashly, 2010). For example, a bully may only direct a negative act toward a target once per week, but if this negative act is their only interaction every week, it is more significant. Interestingly, Harvey & Keashly
(2003) reported the frequency of exposure to bullying acts can be created or enhanced by the target reliving and reflecting on the experience.
There is no consensus among researchers concerning the frequency of bullying acts in a given period for a pattern of mistreatment to qualify as workplace bullying
(Einarsen et al., 2011). Researchers have prescribed various levels of frequency during which bullying behaviors must occur before this series of negative acts can be characterized as workplace bullying. Some researchers have defined a behavior as bullying if it occurs at least once per month (Salin, 2001). Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2001) reported two bullying acts should be required to classify a pattern of negative behavior as workplace bullying. Leymann (1996) proposed a standard of at least one bullying act per week over at least a six month period of time. Persistence of bullying behavior is almost always a commonly cited characteristic of workplace bullying.
Duration of Exposure
Persistence of bullying behavior has been identified in the literature as a defining component of bullying interactions as it distinguishes ordinary disagreements or random acts of incivility from prolonged periods of calculated mistreatment (Leymann, 1996).
Workplace bullying is not an isolated episode or event, but a systematic pattern of
22 persistent aggressive behavior (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010). A singular act of bullying behavior may be detrimental. However, it is the totality of the pattern of behavior that makes it so concerning (Leymann, 1990, 1996). Further, most research is consistent that a singular instance of workplace bullying behavior should not be considered bullying (Rayner & Cooper, 2006; Vartia, 1996). Lee & Brotheridge (2006) described bullying as ongoing and repetitive in nature.
Research is slightly varied in regard to the minimum duration of exposure to bullying behavior before the target’s experience qualifies as workplace bullying
(Saunders et al., 2007). Many studies categorize persistent negative behaviors as bullying if the behaviors are experienced for at least a six month period (Rayner et.al, 2002). This six month time period was first utilized by Leymann (1990). He explained this time- frame had been used to investigate other psychiatric disorders along with severe psychiatric and psychosomatic impairments that were not likely to result from brief exposure to social stressors (Cowan, 2009). Some researchers have also required the pattern of negative behaviors to be experienced for at least a one year period (Keashly &
Neuman, 2004; Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006). In situations of long-term workplace bullying, behaviors often progress from discreet to direct (Einarsen, 1999; Glomb, 2002).
Researchers have suggested this progression can leave the target weakened in their ability to defend themselves against the bully resulting in a power disparity between the target and bully (Richman, Rospenda, Flaherty & Freels, 2001; Zapf & Gross, 2001).
Power Disparity
Power disparity between the bully and target has been identified in the literature as a defining component of workplace bullying. Power disparity refers to the gap in
23 perceived power between the bullying target and perpetrator. The target perceives themselves as incapable of mitigating or stopping bullying behaviors which leads to a feeling of powerlessness in the situation (Nielsen et al., 2010). Einarsen & Skogstad
(1996) differentiates workplace bullying from normal conflict or disagreement when the person on the receiving end feels unable to defend him or herself effectively.
It is important to note the power imbalance can, but does not have to be, reflected in job title or position in organizational hierarchy (Cowie, Naylor, Rivers, Smith, &
Pereira, 2002). It is troubling to consider various studies suggest workplace bullying is more likely to be perpetrated by individuals in more senior positions (Cowie et al., 2002;
Hoel, Cooper and Faragher, 2001; UNISON, 1997). This position is also consistent with previous research in correctional settings. In a study of workplace bullying in a British
Prison, Brewer & Whiteside (2012) found that senior officers and management staff members were perceived to be primarily responsible for bullying in the workplace. This is particularly concerning as it sets potentially harmful precedent for promotion with organizations. With every step toward advancement, bullies may believe that by bullying others they will continue to elevate themselves (Dalton, 2007). While supervisors have power disparity over line-level employees prescribed by the organizational hierarchy, patterns of bullying behavior can come from virtually anyone in an organization.
Workplace bullying behavior can exist at any level of organizations; bullies can be superiors, subordinates, or co-workers (Davenport, Schwartz & Elliott, 1999). Salin
(2008) reports power disparity can come from informal structures like access to knowledge, expertise, or support by people with influence. Targets must perceive they are not able to defend themselves against the bully, to cope with the behavior they are
24 experiencing, or to change the situation (Saunders et al., 2007). Workplace bullying often follows a progressive pattern with the target arriving in an inferior position (Einarsen et al., 2011).
Workplace bullying has been described as an abusive relationship where bullies learn to gain power and strategically utilize mistreatment to control and do harm to others causing bullying targets to become progressively powerless and unable to defend themselves (Craig & Pepler, 2007; Ortega, Hogh, Pejtersen, & Olsen, 2009). Research has shown that power can develop when a bully knows potentially harmful personal information or vulnerability of the target and uses that knowledge to abuse the individual
(Craig & Pepler, 2007).
Intent and Perception
Intent by the bully to cause harm to the target has also been identified in the literature as a defining component of workplace bullying. Intent distinguishes workplace bullying from other disruptive behaviors as actions toward the target are calculated and intentional (Einarsen et al., 2003; Hoel & Cooper, 2001; Keashly & Jagatic, 2003;
Vogelpohl, 2011). Keashly and Jagatic (2003) cited intent as a key element of defining workplace bullying. However, Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper (2002) identified that it is difficult to include intent as a defining characteristic of workplace bullying as it is difficult to prove or verify (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Zapf et al., 2003). Similarly,
Van Heugten (2010) added the intent of the bully can be difficult to establish as most bullies are unlikely to admit they intended to do harm. Therefore, determination of intent is generally left to the perception of the target.
25 While the bully’s intent is significant, the target’s perception of the behavior is also important. Research is consistent that a negative work experience can only be conceptualized as workplace bullying when the target perceives the behavior as negative and inappropriate (Rayner & Keashly, 2004; Saunders et al., 2007). Workplace bullies utilize various tactics in pursuit of their goal. These tactics will be outlined in the next section.
Workplace Bullying Tactics
Overview
Research has identified an abundance of behaviors consistent with workplace bullying. However, the presence of these behaviors does not alone indicate negative interactions in a work environment stem from workplace bullying. As outlined previously: persistence of the behavior, frequency of the behavior, power imbalance, the intent of the person responsible and perception of the behavior by the target are key characteristics of classifying patterns of negative behavior as workplace bullying.
Further, identifying and addressing workplace bullying can be complicated due to the unique qualities and human element of individual cases (Cowan, 2012). Workplace bullying acts can range from subtle negative behaviors to blatant and intentional abuse
(Fox & Stallworth, 2005).
Workplace bullying includes systemic patterns of mistreatment from supervisor to subordinate, between co-workers, and even from subordinate to supervisor (Fox &
Stallworth, 2005). Bullying behaviors consistent with these different relationships vary.
The dynamic of a supervisor to subordinate bullying relationship is unique as the supervisor has authority established in the organizational hierarchy over the target, who is
26 also their subordinate. As a result, the bullying behaviors exhibited by a supervisor may be different than those present in situations where the bully and target are on the same hierarchal level within the organization.
There is no exhaustive list of bullying behaviors. Although, workplace bullying involves exposure to negative behaviors rooted in verbal hostility, purposeful obstruction of progress in the workplace, and being excluded socially from workplace peers (Nielsen
& Einarsen, 2012). These behaviors vary in scope and intensity and can range from inconspicuous acts like perpetuating gossip or withholding important information to blatant acts like insults or being told to leave the organization (Dhar, 2012; Fox &
Stallworth, 2005; Samnani & Singh, 2012).
Samnani & Singh (2012) explained bullying behaviors vary from acts related to work like assigning disproportionate amounts of work or excessively monitoring and criticizing work. However, personal acts like belittling a target, telling personal jokes, and being aggressive toward another employee also qualify. In this section, the behaviors commonly associated with workplace bullying established in the literature will be outlined and described.
Bullying Behaviors
The literature describes workplace bullying as a collective expression consisting of a variety of forms of mistreatment and negative behavior in the workplace (Fox &
Stallworth, 2005). McKenna, Smith, Poole & Coverdale (2003) reported workplace bullying is exhibited in many different variations of behaviors. However, psychological mistreatment is the most common and damaging form. The authors explained bullies rarely rely on one bullying tactic and usually don’t resort to violence as they know it
27 would likely lead to termination from their employment. Bullying can also manifest itself as a lack of action. This can include methods like withholding information and not informing a bullying target of meetings (Rayner & Keashly, 2005). Several authors have established categories of bullying behavior.
Rayner & Hoel (1997) and Einarsen (1999) each outlined five categories of bullying behavior. While both authors draw similar distinctions, they use different terminology. Rayner & Hoel (1997) define their five categories of bullying behavior as
(1) threats to the target’s professional status with behaviors like: public professional humiliation and accusations of poor performance or limited effort, (2) threats to the target’s personal standing through behaviors such as: insults, intimidation, and name calling, (3) isolation through things like: preventing access to professional opportunities, social or physical isolation, and withholding information, (4) overworking a bullying target with behaviors like setting impractical deadlines, disruptions, and undue pressure to complete work, (5) destabilization through behaviors such as refusing to give credit for work completed, assigning meaningless tasks, removing responsibility, constant reminding of mistakes, and setting targets up to fail.
Einarsen (1999) defined his five categories of bullying behavior as (1) work- related bullying including things like changing the bullying target’s work task or making their job more difficult, (2) isolating the target socially, (3) personally attacking the target through tactics like gossip or insulting comments, (4) verbal threats including verbal criticism, yelling, shouting, and other similar methods, and (5) physical assaults and threats. Next, various behaviors commonly associated with these categories of workplace bullying will be established.
28 Threats to the target’s professional status
Threats to the target’s professional status within the organization aim to undermine a target within the organizational culture. Bullies may pursue this end with acts of public professional humiliation and accusations of poor performance or limited effort (Cowan, 2012; Rayner & Hoel, 1997). Bullies may also utilize behaviors like perpetuating personal and professional gossip, illegitimate complaints about work quality, and taking credit for work performed by the target (Einarsen, 1999; Field, 1996;
Lewis, 2006; Samnani & Singh, 2012).
Lewis (2006) cited behaviors like interfering in the target’s work practices, persistently criticizing work, being sarcastic and dismissive, demeaning the target in an effort to destroy their confidence, and setting another person up for failure. Bullies may also belittle targets and insist they are not effective in their position and should leave the organization (Samnani & Singh, 2012). Rayner & Hoel (1997) identified similar behaviors such as: openly questioning an employee’s competence, belittling a target’s opinions, making negative comments about a target’s intelligence, and devaluing a target in reference to age, gender, race or appearance as methods to further threaten an employee’s professional status within the organization. Utilizing their position of authority, supervisors are afforded unique opportunities to bully targets.
Supervisors can bully subordinates by: abusing performance evaluations, inappropriately judging work quality, giving inappropriate and subjective criticism, blocking advancement and promotion, and offering criticism while excessive monitoring employees and their work (Randle, Stevenson, & Grayling, 2007; Rayner, 1997; Samnani
& Singh, 2012). Supervisors can also set unrealistic goals for employees in an attempt to
29 position them to fail in the job (Fox & Stallworth, 2006; Rayner, 1997). Field (1996) cited a manipulation of job specifications and responsibilities as a bullying tactic.
Supervisors may also remove important responsibilities from targets and delegate menial tasks in their place (Quine, 1999; Vartia, 2001). Targets of bullying have reported being intentionally assigned a disproportioned and excessive workload by superiors (Samnani
& Singh, 2012).
Lutgen-Sandvik (2003) warned that organizational policies can disguise bullying as a legitimate management approach by shading unilateral power of abusive supervisory employee evaluations and providing a covert means of terminating new employees who question abusive treatment. Roscigno, Lopez, & Hodson (2009) reported managers often subjectively evaluate employee productivity and performance due to an absence of clear and consistent organizational procedures and policies to guide them. Usually, organizations allow employees to counter disciplinary measures placed in their personnel file. However, these damaging evaluations are especially harmful to the target. Lutgen-
Sandvik (2003) noted communication researchers found the supervisor’s version of events is usually perceived as reality. However, involving human resource professionals as an objective third party has been suggested as a performance improvement intervention in the literature (Boyd & Carden, 2010).
Overworking a bullying target
Given their position of authority, supervisors can assign an unrealistic workload in an effort to overwhelm the target (Field, 1996; Jennifer, Cowie, & Ananiadou, 2003).
Rayner & Hoel (1997) identified bullying behaviors purposefully geared to overwork a bullying target such as setting impractical deadlines, presenting ambiguous expectations
30 as to always keep the target guessing what is expected of them, and placing undue pressure on the target to complete work. Further, the authors discussed the creation of unnecessary disruptions to distract the target from completing their work as an intentional method of workplace bullying. The authors also identify that these behaviors are experienced by the target more than other employees in the same position.
Isolation
Various isolation tactics have been cited in the literature as methods of workplace bullying. The literature has identified methods of bullying through both professional and social isolation. Several authors have cited professional exclusion and isolation behaviors such as not returning phone calls, memos, and emails as methods to further isolate individuals (Field, 1996; Gardner and Johnson, 2001). Bullies may attempt to limit a bullying target’s access to professional opportunities like specialized training or promotion (Rayner & Hoel, 1997). Similarly, bullies may attempt to withhold critical information from targets as a method of maintaining a power disparity, a defining characteristic of workplace bullying, over the target (Cowan, 2012; Samnani & Singh,
2012).
Bullies may also attempt to isolate the target socially limiting their access to colleagues and social circles within the organization (Einarsen, 1999; Rayner & Hoel,
1997). Samnani & Singh (2012) reported bullies may also ostracize and purposefully limit or eliminate communication with the target. Further, bullies may ignore or marginalize a target’s thoughts and opinions in the presence of others in the organization
(Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001).
31 Threats to the target’s personal standing
A bully can aim to threaten a target’s personal standing within the organization through behaviors such as: insults, intimidation, and name calling (Einarsen, 1999;
Rayner & Hoel, 1997). Similarly, indirect methods of bullying like initiating and disseminating gossip, lies, and false accusations can be used to further undermine a target of bullying (Agervold, 2007; Cowan, 2012; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001; Samnani &
Singh, 2012). This can be done with behaviors like social bantering, teasing, verbal abuse, belittling for personal and professional reasons, overt threats, harassment, aggressive e-mails or notes, overt aggression or violence, and assault toward the target
(Cowan, 2012; Field, 1996). Bullies may also aim outward displays of aggression like tantrums and hostile gestures toward the target (Rayner & Hoel, 1997).
Destabilization
Bullies may attempt to undermine an employee’s efforts to be successful within the organization (Cowan, 2012). Bullies attempt to do this by blaming the target for organizational shortfalls, and constantly criticizing the target (Field, 1996). Bullies may attempt to sabotage advancement or deny promotion without appropriate reason to do so
(Field, 1996; Rayner & Hoel, 1997). Bullies have been found to utilize behaviors such as: refusing to give deserved credit for work completed, assigning meaningless tasks, removing responsibility without justification, constantly reminding the target of their mistakes, and setting targets up for failure (Rayner & Hoel, 1997). Use of these tactics in a systematic way has a tremendous impact on performance. This impact will be discussed in the next section.
32 Workplace Bullying and Performance
Overview
As employee and organizational performance is a central theme of this study, this section will establish the impact workplace bullying has on these areas. The research has established workplace bullying as a threat to employees’ physical and psychological well-being, as well as their work performance. Established research has shown the consequences of bullying vary among individuals who experience the phenomenon
(Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Additionally, productivity of organizations has been found to be significantly impacted by workplace bullying. The research suggests the consequences of workplace bullying impact the performance of the entire organization, not just the bully and the target. This is because workplace bullying often results in an unhealthy and less productive work environment (Glendinning, 2001).
Workplace bullying can lead to a range of negative performance outcomes for both individuals and organizations. Bullying in the workplace threatens the deeply held belief that if you are committed to your job and work hard you will be rewarded (Lutgen-
Sandvik, 2008; Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012). Being a target of bullying can cause serious harm (Hutchinson, Vickers, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2006). Einarsen, et al. (2003) described the feelings of bullying targets. The authors explained targets often report feeling isolated, demoralized, and unable to defend themselves. Adams (1997) describes bullying as an undermining of the target’s self-confidence and self-esteem as they are devalued and demeaned by the bullying behavior.
33 Personal Outcomes of Bullying Targets
Research has established clear relationships between exposure to bullying at work and stress-related outcomes (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2002) and Quine (2003) reported exposure to workplace bullying correlated strongly with mental health complaints. Workplace bullying has a tremendous psychological impact on bullying targets including a general risk factor of: not maintaining mental health
(Niedhammer, David, & Degioanni, 2006), alcohol abuse (Richmond et al, 2001;
Rospenda, 2002), increased levels of anxiety and depression (Mikkelsen & Einarsen,
2002), and burnout (Einarsen, Matthiesen, & Skogstad, 1998).
Research has consistently reported a relatively strong correlation between exposure to workplace bullying and experience of symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996; Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2004; Nielsen
& Einarsen, 2012). In a study conducted by Rodriguez-Munoz, Moreno, Sanz, Vergei, &
Hernandez (2010), 42.6% of long-term bullying targets, who experienced bullying behaviors for at least six months, had symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Research has found bullying in the workplace can cause impairment of cognitive functioning, self-esteem, and emotional and physical health (Einarsen & Mikkelsen,
2003; Keashley & Harvey, 2005). Several authors have identified other potentially negative effects on a bullying target’s lifestyle. Research has reported targets of workplace bullying have cited an increase in smoking, alcohol consumption, drug use, increase in sleep disruption, and increase in the use of medication to induce sleep (Barlett
& Barlett, 2011; Namie, 2003; Paice & Smith, 2009; Quine, 1999; Vartia, 2001; Yildiz,
34 2007). Halberg & Strandmark (2006) found employees who are targets of bullying report feelings of anxiety, pain, fear, low self-esteem, depression, demoralization, stress, and feelings of vulnerability. An elevated stress level within an organization causes pressure, exhaustion and intimidation (Tutar, 2004). Bullying targets also reported becoming easily exhausted, upset, impatient, and having feelings of isolation (Glaso, Matthiesen, Neilsen,
& Einarsen, 2007).
Yildirim (2009) reported targets of workplace bullying reported feeling a negative impact on their social interactions outside of work. Workplace bullying has been found to negatively impact a bullying target’s family life and other interpersonal relationships (Jennifer, Cowie, & Anaiadou, 2003; Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, & Alberts,
2006). Being bullied at work can be considered a tremendous form of social stress
(Vartia, 2001). Bullying targets have reported suffering professionally, socially, and financially as a result of their experience (Hecker, 2007). Workplace bullying may also have an impact on a target’s future employment. Bullying targets have reported having difficulty finding subsequent employment after leaving an organization where they were bullied (Hecker, 2007).
Impact on Witnesses of Bullying Behavior
The research reflects that witnesses to workplace bullying may be affected almost as severely as the target (Mayhew, McCarthy, Chappell, Quinlan, Barker, & Sheehan,
2004). Witnesses of bullying behavior reported similar levels of anxiety as targets of bullying. Witnesses also reported experiencing increased stress, decreased job satisfaction and work production, commitment and loyalty to the organization as a result of witnessing such acts (Hoel and Cooper, 2000; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Brewer &
35 Whiteside (2012) reported that employees who have not witnessed workplace bullying reported experiencing lower levels of stress than those who did.
Vartia (2001) found witnesses of bullying developed fear of being the next target, had elevated levels of stress, and discussed their intent to leave the organization. Bullying causes other employees to experience feelings of helplessness and a lack of control.
Consequently, instead of objecting to the bullying behavior, employees frequently rally to support of the bully as a measure of self-preservation, reducing the possibility of the target forming supportive relationships in the workplace (Namie, 2000). Negative acts in the workplace can be so widespread in some organizations that the familiarity of such behaviors can prohibit people that experience negative acts frequently and systematically from labeling themselves as bullied or victimized (Giorgi & Majer, 2009).
Individual Work Performance
Workplace bullying has been found to take a significant toll on an employee’s physical health, mental health, and personal life. However, workplace bullying can also have tremendous impact on a target’s work performance. Research has identified various negative work-related outcomes as a result of workplace bullying.
Researchers have found bullying to be associated with intent to leave the organization (Djurkovic, McCormack, & Casimir, 2008), increased rates of absenteeism
(Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Namie, 2007), and decreased job satisfaction (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Targets of workplace bullying also have reported decreased commitment to their job and organization, poor morale, and lower performance and productivity. This is including but not limited to an increase in work errors, limited concentration, and lost time due to worry regarding the bullying situation (MacIntosh, 2005; Namie, 2003; Paice
36 & Smith, 2009). Additionally, targets may miss deadlines, and have a loss of creative potential (MacIntosh, 2005). Targets of bullying have also been found to use their time less effectively (Gardner & Johnson, 2001).
Randall (2001) describes the symptoms and feelings verbalized by targets of workplace bullying. The targets of workplace bullying in his study were very cautious in the workplace, and had a sense of fear regarding the next potential negative act from the bully. Randall (2001) further described targets as feeling victimized and unable to appropriately defend themselves. Bullying targets may become frustrated and angry with the bully. In addition, they may experience the same feelings toward the organization for failing to provide safeguards for employees or failing to respond appropriately to incidents of bullying (Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007).
Organizational Performance
Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy (2012) described workplace bullying as a systemic issue that develops from organizational practice and policy. Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik (2010) reported results of a nationally representative study of United States workers that suggested most bullying cases are the result of many organizational members including the bully, their cronies, and silent witnesses. Researchers have found that workplace bullying has negative consequences for witnesses of bullying (Einarsen et al., 1994;
Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Further, Hansen, Hogh, Persson, Karlson, Garde, & Orbaek
(2006) determined that workplace bullying had a negative effect on relationships with co- workers and supervisors. This suggests consequences of bullying reach further than just those who are targeted directly (Samnani & Singh, 2012).
37 Vega and Comer (2005) suggested the collective effects of bullying at the organizational-level are likely to have a negative effect on organizational performance.
Further, workplace bullying has been found to decrease organizational morale, productivity and work-quality of both the bullied and non-bullied employees within an organization (Roscigno, Lopez & Hodson, 2009). There is risk the negative influence of bullying could spread throughout an entire organization (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006).
Barlett & Bartlett (2011) said, “Often the negative impacts to those targeted by bullying behavior are unmistakably clear; however, there are many indirect impacts on others and on an organization” (p. 70). The acceptance or disregard of bullying can produce an organizational atmosphere of fear and mistrust which also affects the co- workers who witness the bullying acts (Namie, 2007). Employees may spend work time worrying about whether they will be the next target and are unlikely to challenge bullying as an accepted behavior for fear of retribution. Further, organizational acceptance of bullying behavior may lead employees to believe that experiencing undermining, abusive, and violent behavior in the workplace is normal (Vickers, 2010). Additionally, the reputation of organizations where bullying is accepted are severely damaged and the work environment can be made to feel like a war zone (Tracy et al., 2006).
Harvey, Treadway, & Heames (2007) found bullying is substantially more likely to take place if the bully feels the organizational climate permits, or at least turns a blind eye to, their behavior. Further, bullying that takes place due to the organization’s leadership’s unwillingness or inability to address the behavior may lead to a toxic organizational culture (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Giorgi & Majer (2009) warned that once a workplace has an established pattern of negative interaction it can be difficult, if
38 not impossible, to overcome. The authors further described workplace bullying as an organizational virus that can lead to a toxic work environment with the bully’s actions being in pursuit of their own self-interest, in many cases, at the expense of their employer’s goals and productivity.
Researchers have suggested that many conflicts in the workplace begin as disagreements relative to work content. However, if they are permitted to continue in the workplace, they escalate to harmful personal attacks (La Van & Martin, 2007; McGinley,
2008). Various studies have shown that targets of bullying consistently report unfavorable working conditions such as high levels of role conflict, poor leadership and supervisory behavior, lack of communication, and a generally negative social climate
(Coyne, Smith-Lee Chong, Seigne, & Randall, 2003; Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen,
1994; Rayner, 1997; Vartia, 1996; Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996). This causes the organization’s most talented to produce less than desired results, or even worse, to leave the organization. Workplace bullies also suppress productivity and innovative practice, as they often target an organization’s brightest and most talented employees (McCord &
Richardson, 2001). In the next section, literature relative to the cost of workplace bullying to organizations will be established.
Cost of Workplace Bullying
The cost of workplace bullying to organizations is difficult to quantify, though it is undoubtedly costly to both employees and organizations (Ellis, 2009). Hoel and
Einarson (2010) detailed a significant cost to employers as a result of bullying. The authors cited productivity loss, costs regarding interventions by third parties, increased turnover, increased use of sick leave, increase in worker’s compensation claims, and
39 potential legal liability as potential results of workplace bullying. Hoel & Cooper (2000) reported targets of workplace bullying are prone to absenteeism and take an average of seven days more sick leave yearly than employees who have not been bullied or witnessed bullying.
Djurkovic, McCormack, & Casimir (2008) found that bullying fosters intent among employees to leave their places of employment. Gardner and Johnson (2001) and
Namie (2007) report an increased employee turnover rate as a result of bullying. This leads to increased cost to the organization as they have to advertise positions to re-hire, interview, and train new employees. To further compound this issue, organizations lose the investment and talent that has developed in the resigned employee. Bullying disrupts productivity and incurs employee recruitment and retention costs (Keashly & Jagatic,
2003).
Bullying in the workplace is also costly to businesses as it causes productivity to decline (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). Organizations with higher reported incidents of workplace bullying showed increased employee turnover, lowered customer relationships, lowered creativity and productivity (Johnson, 2009; MacIntosh, 2005;
Namie, 2007). Pinkerfield (2006) estimates that bullying costs Great Britain’s yearly economy $3.3 billion, and close to nineteen million absentee work days per year. Travers
& Cooper (1993) found 30-55% of teacher workplace stress is fostered by bullying in the workplace. The authors also reported that forty million working days a year were lost as a result. In a qualitative study of social workers, Van Hueton (2010) cited a research participant who reported planning to take as much annual leave as was available to avoid reporting to work. After this annual leave was exhausted, the employee planned to quit.
40 Failure to address workplace bullying may lead to legal liability and potential financial damage to organizations. Gardner & Johnson (2001) found that wrongful termination lawsuits relative to workplace bullying are a legal concern for organizations.
Connolly (2006) reported organizations can be found liable for claims of workplace bullying. Taylor & Zeng (2011) assert this happens when an employer knew or had reasonable cause to have known, that the workplace was unsafe and did not intervene.
While Namie (2007) asserts, “It is unfortunate that many employment professionals inadvertently convey to complainants that incidents not meeting civil rights violation criteria do not deserve an organizational response” (p. 44). Von Bergen, Zavaletta, &
Soper (2006) reported legal implications of workplace mistreatment are in early stages.
However, legislators are making some progress in terms of potential legislation in the
United States. In the next section, the prevalence of workplace bullying will be established.
Prevalence of Workplace Bullying
Overview
The research is not definitive on the prevalence of workplace bullying. Research studies that have attempted to determine the actual pervasiveness of the phenomenon in the United States and internationally have produced varying results. Sperry (2009) attributes this partially to methodological deficiencies in the studies that have been conducted. Research has also suggested that the lack of a universal definition of workplace bullying and under-reporting of the behavior by targets may play a part in the variance of prevalence rates (La Van & Martin, 2007; Ortega, Hogh, Pejtersen, & Olsen,
2009).
41 Dehue, Bolman, Vollink, & Pouwelse (2012) reported the broad range of reported bullying prevalence rates could be attributed to the differences in measurement techniques used by different researchers. Research has outlined two prominent approaches to the measurement of bullying in the workplace: (1) the self-report method of perceived victimization and (2) the operational method of perceived exposure to specific bullying behaviors (Einarsen et al., 2003). Various research studies have identified a variance in percentage of respondents who report being bullied using the self- report method, as opposed to an operational method (Carbo & Hughes, 2010; Einarsen,
2000).
Prevalence Rates
Most studies have found between 10% and 20% of employees are bullied on an annual basis (Einarson, Hoel, Zapf, and Cooper, 2003). Nielsen et al. (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of eighty-six independent studies across several countries. The authors reported worldwide findings that show at least 10% to 20% of workers are exposed to workplace bullying. Further, the authors concluded that workplace bullying appears to be an extensive problem in the modern workplace. Given the significant negative consequences of workplace bullying established in the literature, the authors suggest employers, organizations, and governments develop and implement interventions to address the issue.
Hodson, Roscigno, & Lopez (2006) analyzed 149 organizations worldwide and concluded that 49% of organizations included in their study found bullying to be relatively common. Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts (2007) surveyed 403 adults in an online study using a convenience, rather than a representative sample. In this study, the
42 authors found the prevalence rate of workplace bullying to be 28%. Some studies have found that nearly 95% of employees have had some exposure to bullying behaviors in the workplace during a five year period of time (Fox & Stallworth, 2005). Lutgen-Sandvik, et al. (2007) conducted a study with a sample of 469 research participants and found 35-
50% of United States workers experience bullying behavior on at least a weekly basis during a six to twelve month time period. The authors further noted workers in the United
States reported twenty to fifty percent more negativity than workers in Scandinavian countries. The authors described their sample of United States workers as more likely to interpret actions as negative, and ten percent reported being bullied. The authors concluded that bullying behaviors are entrenched in the United States workplace culture.
The Workplace Bullying Institute & Zogby International (2007) sampled 7,740 adults working in the United States and found that of 37% of respondents, 12.6% reported currently being bullied and 24% reported being bullied previously. Namie &
Lutgen-Sandvik (2010) found 10% of workers in the United States experience persistent bullying behaviors in a given year. Additionally, the authors reported another 30% to
40% are bullied sometime during their career; an additional 10% witness bullying but are not direct targets. Other studies in the United States have found that nearly 50% of employees have experienced workplace bullying (Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts,
2007). An estimate of the prevalence of bullying in the United States from a scientific sample of Michigan residents found that one in six, or approximately 17% of workers, were targets of bullying (Keashly & Jagatic, 2000).
Research reviewed on the prevalence of workplace bullying among males and females produced conflicting results. The U.S. Hostile Workplace Survey, as cited in
43 Namie (2000), reported eighty-four percent of employees targeted for bullying were female. Smith, Singer, Hoel & Cooper (2003) reported statistics indicating women are at only a slightly higher risk of getting bullied at work than males. However, Zapf,
Einarsen, Hoel, and Vartia (2003) suggest the amount of men and women who are bullied in the workplace is generally similar in frequency. Namie (2007) reported woman-on- woman accounts for approximately half of all cases of workplace bullying.
Research Methods
Research has outlined two prominent approaches to the measurement of bullying in the workplace: (1) the self-report method of perceived victimization and (2) the operational method of perceived exposure to specific bullying behaviors (Einarsen et al.,
2003). Literature has also referred to the self-report method as the subjective method because it is based on the subjective perception of the research participant, while citing the operational method as the objective method as it is drawn from the frequency of bullying tactics experienced (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003). The distinction between utilization of the self-report method and the operational method has important theoretical and methodological implications as identification rates of workplace bullying vary widely depending on which of these research measurement methods is used (Carbo & Hughes,
2010; Nielsen et al., 2010). Next, both methods will be described, and research studies utilizing these two methods will be outlined.
Self-Report Method
When utilizing the self-report method of perceived victimization, research participants are generally asked a single question inquiring whether or not they have been bullied in the workplace (Nielsen et al., 2010). In their meta-analysis, Nielsen et al.
44 (2010) explain some studies have provided survey respondents a definition of workplace bullying prior to asking whether or not they have been bullied and ask respondents to provide their answer based on the definition (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; O'Moore,
Lynch, & Niamh, 2003). However, other research studies ask respondents to answer the question without a preceding definition (Lewis, 1999; Rayner, 1997). This may lead to skewed results as respondents definitions of workplace bullying may differ from what has been established in research.
Rayner, Hoel, and Cooper (2002) explained self-reporting the prevalence of bullying may cause underreporting of the behavior because of a fear of being perceived as weak or childish. The literature describes a lack of reporting of bullying by targets as they may decline the perceived role of “victim” as it may foster feelings of embarrassment, weakness, embarrassment, shame, and passivity (Einarsen, Raknes, &
Matthiesen, 1994; Rayner, Hoel, and Cooper, 2002). While, others underreport bullying due to fear and concern the bully would not face consequences or could retaliate against them (Dalton, 2007; Jefferson, 2008). Targets often describe fear of reporting bullying behavior would negatively affect their reputation within the organization, or their report would not be believed (Ellis, 2009; Kieseker & Marchant, 1999; Rayner et al., 2002;
Vega & Comer, 2005).
Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo (1999) described factors that may influence whether respondents will label their experiences as bullying when the self- report method is utilized. When survey respondents are not provided a definition of workplace bullying prior to answering the self-report question, they may not perceive their experience to be bullying because their experience does not align with their
45 subjective definition of bullying in the workplace. Liefooghe & MacKenzie-Davey
(2003) found that employees in their study used the term bullying in very different ways and associated with it a range of meanings. Similarly, Saunders, Huynh, & Goodman-
Delahunty (2007) reported research respondents’ lay definitions often exclude central elements of definitions established in research and include elements not part of established definitions. Bullying is then measured in broad and subjective terms with the respondents reporting incidences that do not qualify as bullying (Nielsen et al., 2010).
Operational Method
Carbo & Hughes (2010) described the operational method as a process by which research participants identify bullying behaviors they have experienced in the workplace, possibly how often they experienced the behavior, and the duration of time the behavior took place. The operational method of measuring workplace bullying was first used by
Leymann (1990). This method has been described as more objective than the self-report method because it does not require research subjects to label their experience as bullying; this decision resides with the researcher (Notelaers, Einarsen, De Witte & Vermunt,
2006). The literature identified two popular operational method research instruments.
Two different operational method research instruments have been widely utilized in workplace bullying research: the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) and the
Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT). To identify workplace bullying, both of these research instruments ask the respondent if they have experienced a number of the listed bullying behaviors for a determined frequency and/or duration. The Leymann
Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT) requires exposure to one of forty-five bullying acts on a weekly basis for more than six months to classify behavior as workplace
46 bullying. Whereas, using the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) a participant is labeled a target of workplace bullying if he/she has experienced one of the listed behaviors over the last six months on a regular basis. As the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror
(LIPT) utilizes a more strict standard than the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ), lower frequencies of workplace bullying have been reported (Carbo & Hughes, 2010).
Neilson et al. (2010) reported operational method inventories such as the Negative
Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) or the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT) are limited as they only assess the frequency and duration of bullying behavior. Both instruments omit the measure of power imbalance between the target and bully, which is an identifying trait of workplace bullying. Consequently, as these instruments are widely used in operational method studies, they may produce higher estimates of workplace bullying than self-report method studies because the perceived power disparity is not considered.
Reporting Time
Researchers investigating the incidence of workplace bullying have tested various durations of time between incidence and report to analyze bullying behavior. However, some researchers have asked targets to identify only behavior that has taken place in the previous six or twelve month period (Einarsen et al., 2011; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001;
Salin, 2001). And, some researchers measure open-ended time periods, such as throughout a person’s entire career (Leymann, 1990). In their meta-analysis, Neilson et al. (2010) reviewed 102 workplace bullying studies and found reporting periods ranged from a determined specified time period to experience of bullying behavior throughout a person’s entire career. However, the majority of the studies the authors reviewed asked
47 respondents to report bullying behavior they have experience in the most recent six to twelve month period.
Application in Literature
Neilson et al. (2010) reviewed 102 workplace bullying studies. Of these studies, thirty-four utilized the operational method, twenty-one used the self-report method without providing respondents a definition of workplace bullying, and forty-seven used the self-report method and provided respondents a definition of workplace bullying. Of the studies utilizing the operational method, 47% used a version of Negative Acts
Questionnaire (NAQ) and 32% used a variation of the Leymann Inventory of
Psychological Terror (LIPT).
Various research studies have identified a variance in percentage of respondents who report being bullied using the self-report method as opposed to an operational method (Carbo & Hughes, 2010; Einarsen, 2000). Rayner, Hoel & Cooper (2002) used an operational method utilizing a modified Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) instrument, in conjunction with the self-report method. The authors found less than half of those who experienced negative behaviors associated with workplace bullying as identified using the operational method labeled themselves as targets of bullying utilizing the self-report method. Mikkelson & Einarsen (2001) conducted a research study to determine whether reports of workplace bullying would vary when the self-report method is utilized as opposed to an operational method. The authors found between two and four percent of employees self-reported workplace bullying. However, between eight and twenty-five percent were classified as targets of bullying as identified using an operation method, namely the NAQ instrument. Agervold & Mikkelson (2004) found a larger variance, with
48 only 1.6 percent of responding participants self-reporting with thirteen percent of responding participants defined as workplace bullying targets as identified by the operational method. Hoel and Cooper (2000) reported 38% of the respondents had experienced at least one bullying act weekly or daily during the last six month period.
But, only 10.6% reported being victims of bullying when the self-report method was used. Nielsen et al. (2010) found people are less likely to report bullying in the workplace when the self-report method is utilized as opposed to the operational method.
Application in This Study
The overall purpose of this study was to focus on the organizational system of human resources as it relates to addressing workplace bullying. This study utilized the work of Einarsen et al. (2009) as a reflection of workplace bullying prevalence in the general population. The population means reported by the authors was compared to the response means among human resource professionals in this study to determine statistical significance. While the methodology of the study is described in further detail in Chapter
Three, the study by Einarsen et al. (2009) will be reviewed in this section.
Einarsen et al. (2009) investigated the survey instrument to be adapted for use in this study, the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R). The NAQ-R is used widely in research internationally in a variety of industries to identify specific types workplace bullying. A copyright is held by the Bergen Bullying Research Group
(Einarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen, & Hellesoy, 1994). The authors circulated 12,350 NAQ-R questionnaires to employees in seventy organizations within private, public, and voluntary employers across Great Britain. The authors received 5,288 responses, a response rate of almost forty-three percent. Of the respondents, 2,764 or fifty-two percent
49 of respondents were male and 2,508 or almost fifty-eight percent of respondents were females. Almost eighty-five percent of respondents worked full-time with fifteen percent classified as part-time employees. Around two-thirds of respondents had been in their present job for four years or more.
The authors investigated the psychometric properties, factor structure, and validity of the survey instrument. The instrument measures direct and indirect aspects of bullying. The NAQ-R has twenty-two survey items measuring exposure to bullying within the last six months. The response options are: never, now and then, monthly, weekly and daily. Criterion validity was determined by comparing the scores from the
NAQ-R to a single-item measure of perceived victimization of workplace bullying. This showed high correlations with the total NAQ-R and the scores on the three factors previously established (Einarsen et al., 2009).
The NAQ-R contains items that can be categorized as work-related bullying, person-related bullying, or physically intimidating bullying. Definitions of these terms can be found in the operational definitions section of Chapter One. The authors found the instrument has a high internal stability within these three categories. Though, the instrument can also be used as a single category measure (Einarsen et al., 2009). The authors reported work-related bullying had an average conditional probability of ten percent; mean of these items was reported as 13.78 (SD = 5.2). Person-related bullying had an average conditional probability of thirteen percent; mean of these items was reported as 14.51 (SD = 5.04). Physically intimidating bullying had an average conditional probability of three percent; mean of these items was reported as 3.88 (SD =
1.85). The mean of these subscales was the comparison group for this study of human
50 resource professionals. In this study, the sample population of human resource professionals reported on their experience of bullying behaviors reported to them, not how often they have experienced the behaviors directly.
Einarsen et al. (2009) found the NAQ-R to be a reliable and valid measure of exposure to workplace bullying. Further, the authors described the instrument as simple, short, and comprehensible. The authors also found that the NAQ-R may also be used as a one or two factor measurement of work-related and person-related bullying. The authors reported that the NAQ-R discriminates well regarding the severity and nature the sample population’s workplace bullying experience. The authors concluded by establishing the survey instrument’s limitations and suggesting the instrument should be tested in other settings.
Workplace Bullying and Human Resources
Overview
This study utilized the central tenets of Human Performance Technology to analyze workplace bullying as a problem that has the potential to impact individual and organizational performance. Human Performance Technology suggests that taking a systems view of organizations is essential when addressing performance issues, as organizations are comprised of functionally related components that impact all other systems within the organization (ISPI, 2005). Using this principle, this study focused on the organizational system of human resources. Human Performance Technology and systems theory will be described in greater detail later in this chapter. This section will establish the literature published on the role of human resource departments and human resource professionals in preventing, identifying, and addressing workplace bullying.
51 The concept of human resources implies employees are resources that can add economic value to their organization if developed (Lawler, 2005). The responsibility of human resource departments vary by organization due to organizational size, differences in workforce, industry, and organizational values (Bernardin, 2012). In the next section, specific duties of human resource professionals will be outlined. In some organizations, the human resource department handles all of these responsibilities. In contrast, in some organizations, human resource departments may share these responsibilities with management or other departments within the agency (Noe et al., 2011).
Role of the Human Resource Professional
Human resource professionals are responsible for a wide array of duties that have a substantial impact on the success of an organization (Lawler, 2005). These duties fall into different categories that are varied and at times difficult. Human resource professionals may be responsible for hiring and terminating employees, processing payroll, training and developing employees, and managing or addressing personnel issues
(Bernardin, 2012; Cowan, 2012). Organizations may delegate human resource professionals to specialize in specific areas of the human resource function. Other organizations may maintain human resource professionals who have a generalist role and complete all or some of the duties as needed (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart & Wright, 2011).
Human resource professionals generally have a responsibility to participate in recruiting and selection of employees. Similarly, human resource professionals may be responsible for posting employment advertisements, reviewing and grading resumes, scheduling and participating in interviews, and testing for skills relative to the position
(Noe et al., 2011). Human resource professionals could have input into making hiring
52 decisions. Once an employee is selected and hired, human resource professionals are usually responsible for completing required paperwork with the new employee and managing employee orientation procedures (Noe et al., 2011).
Human resource professionals can be responsible for compensation and administering payroll. To this end, human resource professionals are responsible for entering employee data in a payroll system, drafting contracts, and processing employee benefits (Noe et al., 2011). Further, human resource professionals may be responsible for processing time sheets, vacation time, sick leave, calculating overtime, shift differential, and other anomalies in agency payroll (Bernardin, 2012). Human resource professionals could also gauge if compensation standards are fair and comparable with industry standards to draw and keep employees in the organization.
Human resource professionals can spend a significant amount of time managing performance improvement of both the organization and employees. This could include assessing training needs, preparing training for employees, arranging and paying for trainings outside of the agency, and ensuring employees are in compliance with agency training standards (Lawler, 2005). Further, human resource professionals may be responsible for presenting training to employees or contacting qualified professionals outside of the agency to prepare training for employees (Bernardin, 2012). This responsibility should also include carrying out evaluation of trainings to ensure quality
(Pershing, 2006). Human resource professionals may also be responsible for other employee performance issues like participating in or managing employee discipline processes (Noe et al., 2011).
53 Human resource professionals will likely be involved in writing organizational policy (Bernardin, 2012). Since organizational policy is in place for almost all functions of an organization, human resource professionals will likely need to seek information and opinions regarding contents of new or revised policy from other organizational stakeholders prior to drafting the policy (Noe et al., 2011). After the human resource professional has drafted the policy, another primary responsibility of human resource professionals is communicating the policy to employees of the organization (Lawler,
2005).
Human resource professionals have a significant impact on communication to and from employees. Human resource professionals manage official communication initiatives going to employees through things like email, official briefings, and newsletters (Noe et al., 2011). Human resource professionals can also be responsible for managing communication from employees through workplace evaluation initiatives like employee satisfaction surveys, exit interviews with employees leaving the organization, and evaluation of training initiatives (Lawler, 2005).
Perceptions of Human Resource Professionals in Addressing Workplace Bullying
Many human resource duties have substantial bearing on organizational response to workplace bullying. As such, human resource professionals working in functional human resource positions are likely to have far-reaching involvement in workplace bullying situations (Boyd & Carden, 2010; Cowan, 2012; Ferris, 2004; Lewis & Rayner,
2003). Human resource professionals should look for ethical guidelines within and outside of the organization to develop a comprehensive and strategic approach to preventing and addressing workplace bulling (Boyd & Carden, 2010).
54 Human resource professionals describe addressing workplace bullying claims as one of the most challenging aspects of their employment, as addressing bullying requires balancing the needs of various organizational members in opposing roles (Harrington,
Rayner & Warren, 2012). The complication of this role is reflected in perceptions of employees reported in the literature. Targets of workplace bullying frequently perceive human resource practitioners’ application of workplace bullying policy to be inconsistent, unfair, and erratic (Harrington, Rayner & Warren, 2012; Rayner, 2009; Tracy, Lutgen-
Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006).
Workplace bullying not only does harm to individuals, but diminishes employee and organizational performance. Organizations benefit from being proactive in addressing workplace bullying. While many researchers have offered advice on how to address the phenomenon, little research has been published to consider if organizations are following the recommendations made in research, or investigated the effectiveness of these interventions if they are being used (Salin, 2008). This section provided a general overview of the role of human resource professionals in addressing workplace bullying.
In the next section, the specific actions or performance improvement interventions being carried out by HR professionals outlined in scholarly research will be established.
Human Resources and Performance Improvement Interventions
Overview
Workplace bullying fosters negative consequences at all levels of organizations.
As cited previously in this chapter, targets and witnesses of bullying behavior can experience a variety of emotional, physical, and behavioral issues. As workplace bullying impacts individual and organizational performance, and undermines the mission of the
55 organization, it is important for organizations to take steps to address the phenomenon.
Several authors make suggestions regarding performance improvement interventions to address workplace bullying. However, there has been little research to investigate if organizations are utilizing the recommendations made in scholarly research (O'Driscoll et al., 2011; Salin, 2008). Further, most established research has focused on outcomes of ineffective intervention strategies like blaming the target, accepting negative behaviors, and justifying the negative behavior as a result of personality conflict (Ferris, 2004).
A purpose of this study was to gauge if correctional organizations are utilizing interventions cited in literature to address workplace bullying. The cited literature outlines several human resource interventions that occur consistently in the literature.
These reoccurring interventions include: ensuring employees have knowledge of workplace bullying, considering workplace bullying during recruiting and selection, developing a workplace bullying policy, establishing an avenue for employees to report complaints, strict sanctions against workplace bullies, continual training on the topic and applicable policy, including workplace bullying in performance management initiatives
(Baillien, Neyens, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2009; Boyd & Carden, 2010; Devonish,
2013; Glendinning, 2001; Quine, 2001; Vega & Comer, 2005; Wyatt, 2009).
Developing Understanding
To effectively utilize interventions to address workplace bullying, a preliminary step for human resource professionals is to establish and maintain an understanding of the tactics of workplace bullying, the qualifications for a pattern of behavior to be considered bullying, and how the phenomenon can negatively impact both individuals and organizations (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011). Human resource professionals and management
56 should maintain a clear understanding of the processes in place to address workplace bullying when it is identified. This knowledge and understanding will allow human resource professionals to work strategically within their organizations to address workplace bullying more effectively (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011). However, it is important for all employees in the organization to have a thorough understanding of workplace bullying.
Awareness and knowledge of bullying at all levels within an organization helps reduce recognition time and prevent bullying situations from escalating (Salin, 2008). As line-level employees are likely to be the ones who witness workplace bullying, it is important for this group of employees to have an understanding of the phenomenon.
Further, organizations need to ensure that all organizational members understand what they should do if they experience or witness bullying in the workplace (Bartlett &
Bartlett, 2011).
Workplace Bullying Policy
To prevent, identify, and address workplace bullying, researchers and practitioners have recommended the introduction of specific organizational anti-bullying policies (Hubert, 2003; Mathieson et al., 2006; Richards & Daley, 2003; Salin, 2008;
Vartia et al., 2003). However, there is little research on the perspective of human resource professionals in enacting workplace bullying policy (Salin, 2008). Through general research, we know workplace bullying policy establishes the values, principles, and practices of an organization (Boyd & Carden, 2010). Further, policy serves as an important resource to prevent workplace bullying and address incidents if they have taken place (Boyd & Carden, 2010). As Salin (2003) warned, the absence of workplace
57 bullying policy may project the impression the organization accepts or condones such behavior. Vartia et al. (2003) stress anti-bullying policies are important for the targets of bullying. However, the authors also emphasize that these policies provide managers and human resource professionals with guidelines to address bullying. Policy provides these stakeholders a roadmap to address accusations appropriately and consistently.
Researchers seem to agree on principles that should be addressed in a workplace bullying policy. This includes maintaining a clear commitment to an absence of bullying in the workplace, and incorporating a definition of the identifying characteristics of bullying (Boyd & Carden, 2010; Salin, 2008). Further, workplace bullying policy should include potential repercussions for non-compliance, from verbal or written reprimand up to potential termination of employment (Boyd & Carden, 2010). Richards and Daley
(2003) highlighted the importance of defining the responsibility of the various stakeholders involved and explaining the procedure for making and investigating formal complaints of bullying.
LaVan & Martin (2007) assert workplace bullying policy should be applied consistently and enforced across the spectrum of the organization. Additionally, a non- retaliation policy should be in place to protect employees who report a perceived workplace bullying infraction (Society of Human Resource Management, n.d.).
Workplace bullying policy should be reviewed and monitored regularly to ensure effectiveness and make certain the policy is being communicated in an effective manner to staff members (Khan & Khan, 2012). Finally, workplace bullying training and awareness programs should ensure understanding of workplace bullying policy and
58 outline the characteristics of bullying in the workplace to employees (Boyd & Carden,
2010).
Workplace Bullying Training
The literature describes educating employees through training as an important performance improvement intervention to address bullying in the workplace (Ayoko et al., 2003; Hannabuss, 1998; Harvey et al., 2006; Harvey et al., 2007; Khan & Khan,
2012; McKay et al., 2008; Meglich-Sespico et al., 2007; Mellish, 2001; Saunders et al.,
2007). Further, training is becoming a more pressing priority for human resource development professionals in pursuit of organizational efforts to eliminate harmful behavior in the workplace (McGuire & Bagher, 2010). Hoel et al. (2006) suggested that training could be an initial step in the long-term organizational change process that may be necessary to decrease bullying in the workplace.
Lewis (2006) suggests workplace bullying is a learned pattern of interpersonal interaction and behavior. Training provides a means to deliver knowledge and facilitate learning among employees and affords human resource professionals the opportunity to shape the narrative of interpersonal employee relations. Rayner et al. (2002) suggest individuals can approach reducing their use of bullying as a learning process. Altman
(2010) suggested the goal of training should be to reduce the prevalence of workplace bullying in the organization. The author suggests that meaningful learning about workplace bullying can produce a new conceptualization of the phenomenon which may produce different choices to reduce negative interactions in the workplace.
Training efforts should aim to establish behavioral boundaries centered upon professionalism, communication, and cooperation. Training should present clear
59 guidelines to employees of what is unacceptable behavior in the workplace (Khan &
Khan, 2012). Vega & Comer (2005) suggest training staff members to support employees who have been targets of workplace bullying. This training should support expressing compassion for targets, and communicating policy and procedure for reporting such incidents. Training should also provide management with knowledge and skills to identify and address bullying and other interpersonal conflicts (Salin, 2008).
Novak (1998) suggests evaluation of training interventions should include assessment of the learner’s knowledge to ensure understanding of the topic after the training is complete. Hoel et al. (2006) suggest evaluation of training should include pre and post training measurement of workplace bullying prevalence. Hoel et al. also suggested reviewing data on changes in frequency of grievances and complaints, absenteeism, employee turnover within the organization as part of the performance improvement intervention evaluation process.
Recruiting and Selection
Recruiting and selection are human resource functions that can be used to proactively address workplace bullying by preventing the introduction of individuals predisposed to perpetrate bullying into the organization (Brotheridge, 2013). Sutton
(2007) suggests screening potential employees for positive characteristics such as: empathy, kindness, humility, and the ability to work in teams. Brotheridge (2013) suggests screening out potential candidates for personal characteristics who have been linked to bullying. Wyatt (2009) explained that recruitment and selection processes should focus on workplace bullying as a critical organizational issue to be addressed and prevented. When employees are interviewed, human resource professionals are provided
60 an opportunity to communicate expectations regarding personal behavior in the workplace (Boyd & Carden, 2010). This could include communicating to prospective employees the expectation of consideration and respect (Vega & Comer, 2005).
Glendinning (2001) suggests using background and reference information to gauge if there has been a history of negative interpersonal behavior.
Performance Management
Institutional bullying occurs when bullying becomes accepted as a part of organizational culture. This is usually after the organization tolerates, ignores, or encourages workplace bullying behavior (Liefooghe & Davey, 2010; Dalton, 2007). One of the most important factors in mitigating bullying in the workplace is promoting the perception that the organization is promoting a workplace free of bullying behavior
(Caponecchia & Wyatt, 2009). To encourage this result, human resource professionals should be involved in ensuring employee behavior is aligned with ethical practices. If bullying behavior yields a positive reward for individuals or others who have observed this behavior, these individuals learn to engage in bullying (Brotheridge, 2013).
Organizations can inadvertently offer positive responses to bullying behaviors through promotion and positive recognition (Krell, 2010; Namie, 2007). Salin (2003) asserts organizations should ensure they do not promote or reward employees who have achieved in the workplace by harming, mistreating, and manipulating other employees.
Organizational policy and procedure should be in place to guide employee evaluation practices. This prevents managers from subjectively evaluating employee productivity and performance (Roscigno, Lopez, & Hodson, 2009). Inappropriate use of
61 performance evaluations can include: excessive monitoring of work, judging work subjectively, offering unfair criticism, and blocking individuals from promotion through poor performance evaluations (Randle, Stevenson, & Grayling, 2007; Rayner, 1997).
These forms of bullying are enriched by the positional power of the individual evaluating the target (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011). Human resource professionals and other staff members responsible for performance evaluations should ensure that organizational workplace bullying goals are tied to employee performance evaluation (Boyd & Carden,
2010).
Communication
One of the most important factors in mitigating workplace bullying is promoting the perception that organizations are fostering a workplace free of bullying (Caponecchia
& Wyatt, 2009). It is important for human resource professionals to continually assess the level of bullying and to monitor bullying in the workplace (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011).
Organizations should seek out information through human resource departments from workers, management, customers and clients, and exit interviews (Boyd & Carden,
2010).
Communication avenues should be open within organizations to discuss incidents of workplace bullying (Business & Legal Reports, Inc., 2008). Organizations could also conduct open forums for employees to communicate their experiences in the workplace and provide human resource professionals an avenue to share organizational policy and procedure (Boyd & Carden, 2010). Mathieson et al. (2006) suggest monitoring the work environment and staff as an important factor in the prevention of workplace bullying.
This can be done through informal recurring employee surveys to gauge the climate
62 within the organization (Salin, 2008). These surveys can provide useful information that can be reported anonymously.
Addressing Personnel Issues
Workplace bullying targets often report seeking out human resource professionals for assistance in addressing bullying situations (Lewis & Rayner, 2003). However, a national United Kingdom Department of Health sponsored survey found that a primary antecedent of workplace bullying is a lack of faith in human resources to address workplace bullying in a constructive and supportive manner when a complaint is made
(Woodrow & Guest, 2012). Further, workplace bullying targets who report incidents against their supervisor frequently describe human resource professional’s actions as in opposition to established organizational policy (Sheehan, Barker, & McCarthy, 2004). To prevent this perception, all reports of workplace bullying should receive a quick, confidential, and thorough investigation with assistance provided to targets of bullying
(Khan & Khan, 2012).
Some of the duties included in addressing personnel issues could be: addressing employee disputes, serving as a liaison for the employee and the organization, and writing and carrying out organizational policy and procedure (Bohlander & Snell;
Cowan, 2012; Lewis & Rayner, 2003). A primary function of the human resource professionals in addressing workplace bullying is the delivery of policy to address the phenomenon (Rayner and Lewis, 2011). However, human resource practitioners must ensure they are carrying out the established policy as written. In the next section, Human
Performance Technology will be discussed.
63 Human Performance Technology
Overview
The central goal of Human Performance Technology is individual and organizational performance improvement (Pershing, 2006). Human Performance
Technology can be utilized to identify the gap between current performance and desired performance and identify performance improvement interventions to close the identified gap. Pershing (2006) describes an intervention as an action taken to improve performance. Rothwell (1996) noted that HPT utilizes a variety of performance improvement interventions to achieve organizational goals. While training is used as a solution for many performance problems, HPT states that training is not always the answer and suggests an assortment of other solutions, known as interventions, should be used to address identified performance problems (Brown, 2008).
Human Performance Technology suggests taking a systems view of organizations.
This is essential when addressing performance issues, as organizations are comprised of functionally related components that impact the performance of all of the other systems within the whole organization (ISPI, 2005). To this end, this study utilized the principles of Human Performance Technology to focus on the organizational system of human resources as it relates to preventing, identifying, and addressing workplace bullying.
After prolonged exposure to repeated negative actions in the workplace with an inability to defend themselves effectively, bullying targets become increasingly vulnerable (Keashly, 1998). The developed power imbalance highlights the importance of prevention and early intervention when workplace bullying is identified (Keashly, 2010).
Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy (2012) suggested that a majority of the typical ways of
64 responding to workplace bullying fail to alter the situation and can even intensify the target’s troubles. Therefore, exploring and addressing workplace bullying with a comprehensive set of performance improvement interventions to address the phenomenon through the entire organization is important to overcoming workplace bullying from an organizational perspective.
Human Performance Technology Defined
The International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) defines Human
Performance Technology as “a systematic approach to improving productivity and competence. It uses a set of methods and procedures, and a strategy for solving problems related to the performance of people” (ISPI, 2005). Specifically, HPT is a process of selection, analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation of performance improvement programs to influence performance in organizations.
HPT is the systematic use of three essential processes: performance analysis, cause analysis, and intervention selection (ISPI, 2005). An overarching goal of HPT is
“the leveraging of human capital in the most efficient manner to achieve targeted, valued results” (Pershing, 2008, p. xviii). Pershing (2008) describes human capital as, “the sum total of all knowledge, experience, and performance capability an organization possesses that can be applied to create wealth” (p. xviii). Relative to this study, leveraging human capital in the most efficient way possible is imperative in efforts to optimize individual and organizational performance by addressing workplace bullying.
As HPT utilizes a variety of disciplines and interventions to improve performance, it can be effective in a wide-range of organizations. The goal of HPT interventions is to improve or provide the knowledge, skills, motivation, and
65 environmental support for workers to do their job in the most effective and efficient way possible (Fuller & Farrington, 1999). As Pershing (2008) noted, HPT is increasingly being used in social settings like health organizations in developing nations, community substance abuse programs, public education programs, and improving quality of life through health organizations. Pershing (2008) further noted Human Performance
Technology can be utilized to improve performance in all sections of society including business, public, and non-profit organizations.
Evaluation is a critical component used to determine the value of a performance improvement intervention (Pershing, 2008). Evaluation should be a constant process throughout a performance improvement initiative. Further, evaluation should be conducted following the completion of a performance improvement initiative (ISPI,
2005). Pershing (2008) describes two types of evaluation: formative and summative.
Formative evaluation should be done throughout a project’s design and development.
Summative evaluation should be used to gauge the effectiveness of a completed performance improvement initiative.
Underlying Principles
Pershing (2008) outlines the underlying principles for performance improvement professionals. The author suggested that HPT practitioners: focus on results, take a systems viewpoint, add value to organizations, and establish partnerships with clients.
Next, these principles will be described individually.
Focus on Results. A principle of HPT is to achieve intended and valued results
(Pershing, 2008). Clients should be asked to be involved in this process, and the success of HPT should be measured in improvement relative to the client’s desired outcome
66 (ISPI, 2005). Results should be tangible, measureable, impact the organization in a positive way, and align with the organization’s values and mission (Pershing, 2008).
Further, results of a performance improvement intervention should be measured to gauge if performance has improved (ISPI, 2005).
Systems Theory. Human Performance Technology takes a systems view of organizations and aims to consider all aspects of the organization when analyzing performance issues (Pershing, 2008). Taking a systems view is imperative as organizations are complex systems that impact the performance of all of the individuals that work in them (ISPI, 2005). Pershing (2006) suggests organizations are comprised of subsystems that are all connected in some way with a change in one subsystem impacting other subsystems within organizations. Specifically, in this study, the focus was on the organizational system of human resources as it relates to addressing workplace bullying.
Organizations are comprised of an interconnected complex of functionally related components. While all of the parts of a system are separate, they must work together toward a common goal. The effectiveness of each separate unit is dependent on how it fits into the whole system and the effectiveness of the whole system is dependent on the way each unit functions (ISPI, 2005). Systems theory suggests when changes are made to one organizational subsystem, other organizational subsystems can experience changes as well (Johnson, 2013).
Add Value. Pershing (2008) suggested that performance improvement initiatives should add tangible value to the organizations they serve. The success of HPT is measured related to the achievement of organization’s desired outcome (ISPI, 2005).
Recipients of performance improvement interventions should be asked to determine if
67 value has been added to their organization (ISPI, 2005). Clients should be offered a performance improvement process that will help them understand the potential results of their choices, set appropriate methods of measurement, and identify barriers to improvement (ISPI, 2005).
Establishes Partnerships. Performance improvement professionals work in a collaborative effort with clients and other stakeholders (ISPI, 2005). This includes sharing in decisions, steps in the performance improvement process, and implementation
(ISPI, 2005). The effectiveness of performance improvement interventions is increased when the most experienced, educated, and involved parties are engaged in the development of performance improvement interventions (Pershing, 2008). Further, partnering with stakeholders, managers, and administrators increases the effectiveness of human performance interventions, as it is conducive to buy-in and investment from those parties (Pershing, 2008).
68 Chapter Three
Methodology
This chapter is divided into six major sections: overview, significance of the study, conceptual framework, research questions, research design and methods, and data analysis. In these sections, the research process used in this study will be outlined and explained. Further, the process of validation of the proposed survey instrument, as well as the additional statistical analysis will be established.
Overview
The research reviewed has established human resource professionals as important organizational stakeholders responsible for addressing workplace bullying. However, the workplace bullying target’s perception dominates workplace bullying research with little consideration paid to human resource professional’s perspective and experience (Cowan,
2012; Salin, 2008; Salin, 2009). To address this lack of knowledge, this study applied the principles of Human Performance Technology to analyze the central role human resource professionals play relative to workplace bullying. Further, this study utilized an occupation specific approach to research to provide expanded knowledge of workplace bullying specific to correctional settings.
This was a descriptive research study. In descriptive research, information is collected without changing the environment. In descriptive studies where the researcher interacts with the research participants, surveys or interviews can be used to collect data
(Creswell, 2008). In this study, a participant survey was the primary research method.
Survey research is useful when measuring attitudes, opinions, self-reported behaviors, and characteristics of a population (Creswell, 2008). The objective of survey research is
69 to learn about a larger population by surveying a smaller section of that population, called a sample (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005).
As the data was collected in a single interaction with the research participants, this was a cross-sectional research study (Creswell, 2008). Cross-sectional survey design is the most popular form of survey design. It gives the researcher the ability to collect data at a single point in time relative to the participants’ current attitudes, opinions, or practices (Creswell, 2008; Leedy & Ormrod, 2009; You, 2010).
Significance of the Study
Understanding the objectives outlined in this study is significant for several reasons. First, workplace bullying has been established in the literature as routine in many work environments (Hodson, Roscigno, & Lopez, 2006). While estimates of the number of employees bullied on the job vary greatly, most studies find between ten and twenty percent of employees are bullied on an annual basis (Einarson, Hoel, Zapf, &
Cooper, 2003). Some studies have found that nearly ninety-five percent of employees have had some exposure to bullying behaviors in the workplace during a five year period of time (Fox & Stallworth, 2005). Namie & Lutgen-Sandvik (2010) found ten percent of workers in the United States experience persistent bullying behaviors in a given year with another thirty to forty percent being bullied sometime during their career with ten percent of employees witnessing bullying. While the established research has found workplace bullying to be routine, it is significant to measure how often this phenomenon is actually reported through official organizational channels to effectively address the pattern of behavior with effective performance improvement interventions.
70 Second, it is important to take an occupation specific approach to workplace bullying research as those responsible for developing anti-bullying policies and intervention strategies can do so more effectively with concepts developed from employees everyday work activities (Pawlowski, Kaganer, & Cater, 2007). Zapf,
Einarsen, Hoel & Vartia (2003) discussed the nature of bullying varies across different sectors of employment because of differences in job characteristics such as the content of work duties and the varying levels of personal involvement and social interaction required of employees. These situational differences could impact the type of interventions that effectively reduce and manage workplace bullying incidents in specific organizations (Glaso et al., 2007). This study took an occupation specific approach to workplace bullying research by focusing on employees of correctional organizations.
Third, workplace bullying has a tremendous impact on an employee’s physical and mental health. Workplace bullying targets may experience: depression and general risk factors for not maintaining mental health (Niedhammer, David, & Degioanni, 2006); post-traumatic stress disorder (Leyman and Gustafsson, 1996); and alcohol abuse
(Richmond et al, 2001; Rospenda, 2002). Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder are prevalent among targets of bullying (Rodriguez-Munoz et al., 2010). Workplace bullying may also impact lifestyle choices with targets reporting an increase in smoking, alcohol, and drug use/abuse, increase in sleep disruption, and increase in the use of sleep-inducing medications (Barlett & Barlett, 2011; Namie, 2003; Paice & Smith, 2009; Quine, 1999;
Vartia, 2001; Yildiz, 2007). Bullying targets reported becoming easily exhausted, upset, impatient, and having feelings of isolation (Glaso, Matthiesen, Neilsen, & Einarsen,
71 2007). Targets of workplace bullying also reported a negative impact on their social interactions with friends and family outside of work (Yildirim, 2009).
Fourth, workplace bullying has a tremendous impact on employee work performance. Targets of workplace bullying report decreased commitment to their job and organization, a decrease in job satisfaction, poor morale, and lower performance and productivity. This includes an increase in work errors, limited concentration, and lost time due to worry regarding the bullying situation (MacIntosh, 2005; Namie, 2003).
Bullying targets were found to have an increased rate of absenteeism, an increase in missed deadlines, an increased frequency of errors, and a loss of creative potential
(MacIntosh, 2005; Namie, 2007; Paice & Smith, 2009).
Fifth, workplace bullying impacts organizational effectiveness and productivity in a variety of ways. Workplace bullies suppress productivity and innovative practice as they often target an organization’s brightest and most talented employees (McCord &
Richardson, 2001). This causes these talented people to produce less than typical results, or even worse, leave the organization. Workplace bullying has an impact on the bullying target’s work performance, thus undermining the employer’s business interests (Namie,
2007). In the next section, the conceptual framework that guided this study will be established.
Conceptual Framework
The information gathered in this study was used to analyze workplace bullying as an individual and organizational performance issue through the paradigm of systems theory. This study analyzed if workplace bullying is reported at higher rates in corrections than the phenomenon has been found to take place in other fields of
72 employment through comparison to a study of the general population. Further, this study took steps to validate a research instrument to provide human resource professionals a tool to measure reporting prevalence of the phenomenon. Finally, this study analyzed how organizations are addressing workplace bullying as a performance problem by measuring if these organizations are utilizing the performance improvement interventions recommended in current scholarly literature.
Taking a systems view is imperative to addressing performance issues as organizations are complex systems that impact the performance of all of the individuals that work in them (ISPI, 2005). In this study, the subsystem identified for analysis is human resources. Taking a systems view to addressing performance issues is important as organizations are comprised of subsystems that are all connected in some way. As such, a change in one subsystem will impact other subsystems within organizations
(Pershing, 2006). A systems approach is useful when recommending or implementing organizational changes designed to improve performance as any changes will also impact other organizational components (Johnson, 2013).
Systems theory promotes identifying the subsystems that make up the total organization and recognizing a change in one area will impact other areas (ISPI, 2005).
While training is assumed to be the solution for most performance issues, systems theory suggests training is not always the answer (Brown, 2008; Johnson, 2013). Further, systems theory suggests organizations often jump to training when a broader examination of organizational performance issues could suggest an assortment of other solutions could be used to address identified performance problems (Johnson, 2013). In the next section, the research questions developed for use in this study will be established.
73 Research Questions
Based on the far-reaching negative effects of workplace bullying this study poses the following research questions:
Research Question 1 - Do human resource professionals working in the field of corrections identify workplace bullying behaviors that are reported through official organizational channels?
Research Question 2 - Is there a statistically significant difference in workplace bullying
(work-related bullying, person-related bullying or physically intimidating bullying) reported through official organizational channels in corrections organizations compared to the rate bullying has been reported in the general population as reported by Einarsen et al. (2009)?
Research Question 3 - Is the Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for Human Resource
Professionals a valid measure of reported workplace bullying in correctional facilities?
Research Question 4 - Do human resource professionals in the field of corrections believe their agency has employed performance improvement interventions to prevent, identify, and address workplace bullying similar to those recommended in current scholarly literature?
Research Design and Methods
Research Sample
The research sample population for this study was members of the International
Association of Correctional Training Personnel (IACTP) and/or members of the IACTP’s
LinkedIn group. Established in 1974, IACTP is an international professional association of trainers, training administrators, and educators in the field of corrections
74 ("International association of," ). IACTP maintains a membership of approximately 170 including a mix of all disciplines within corrections and community corrections. At the time of data collection, the IACTP LinkedIn group contained approximately 680 members. Though, the amount of members fluctuates if members leave or join the group.
The organization’s LinkedIn group is characterized as a professional group and was created on May 24, 2012.
Researcher’s Role
The researcher sought approval from the University of Toledo’s Human Subjects
Research and Review Committee (HSRRC) prior to conducting the research. The researcher followed established protocols, including the successful completion of the
Human Subjects Research Training and Education course required by The University of
Toledo. Potential participants in the research study acknowledged an electronic letter of consent prior to completing the research instrument explaining their participation is voluntary, confidential, anonymous, and has no impact on their relationship with the
University of Toledo. This letter is found in Appendix F.
Official approval to conduct this research was also sought by requesting written approval from the International Association of Correctional Training Personnel (IACTP).
After approval was obtained from these entities, the researcher followed established protocol in regard to informed consent, distribution, and data collection.
Research Instrument
After a review of the workplace bullying literature in different sectors of employment, the investigator determined there was a need to provide a research instrument to specifically measure reporting of workplace bullying to human resource
75 professionals. To this end, the researcher revised an existing instrument, the Negative
Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R). The Bergen Bullying Research Group holds a copyright on the NAQ-R. The authors are no longer responding to requests to use the research instrument. However, it is noted the instrument is free to use for non- commercial research projects ("Bergen bullying research," 2009). The revised instrument used in this study was titled the Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for Human
Resource Professionals. The instrument is found in Appendix A. Next, the NAQ-R will be described and reviewed with similarities and differences to the instrument developed for use in this study noted.
The Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R) is the English revised version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) (Einarsen et al., 2009). Many inventories and scales measuring exposure to workplace bullying and harassment have been introduced. However, The Negative Acts Questionnaire is one of the few inventories used widely in workplace bullying research over an extended period of time; its psychometric quality has been thoroughly investigated (Einarsen & Raknes, 1997;
Einarsen et al., 2009). The instrument consists of 22 questions and utilizes a threshold of four or more affirmative answers to determine if workplace bullying has taken place.
The questionnaire does not use the words “bullying” or “harassment.” Rather, it asks participants to identify if they have experienced bullying behaviors (Einarsen & Hoel,
2001; Nielson et al., 2008; Vogelpohl, 2011). This is the central difference between the
NAQ-R and the NAQ-R for Human Resource Professionals. The instrument used in study has been altered to ask respondents employed in human resource positions the
76 workplace bullying behaviors measured by the NAQ-R have been reported to them in the context of their position, not if they have experienced the behaviors directly.
The twenty-two items included in the NAQ-R ask respondents if they have experienced a specific bullying behavior in the last six months. Respondents selected from the five following categories: “Never”, “Now and then”, “Monthly”, “Weekly”, and
“Daily”. The Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for Human Resource Professionals also used the six month time frame, and five aforementioned categories. The research items are drafted in behavioral terms and identify direct and indirect bullying with bullying categorized as the following: work-related bullying, person-related bullying, and physical intimidation of an employee in the workplace (Einarsen, 2009). Descriptions of these categories can be found in the operational definitions section of Chapter One.
The validity of a measurement instrument can vary depending on the purpose for which it is being used. The validity of a research instrument is specific to the situation
(Leedy & Ormrod, 2009). The purpose of validation is to evaluate the functioning of the research instrument. The instrument validation aims to ensure the research instrument truly measures what it is intended (Leedy & Ormrod, 2009). Further, the instrument validation process aims to review and modify the research instrument as necessary to collect the most useful data.
Feedback from subject matter experts is an important part of research instrument design. Several subject matter experts in particular areas can be asked to scrutinize a research instrument and provide their informed opinion as to the instrument’s validity
(Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). While no approach can guarantee the validity of a research
77 instrument, this approach is important to developing content validity in a research instrument (Creswell, 2008; Leedy & Ormrod, 2010).
The Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for Human Resource Professionals instrument was evaluated by subject matter experts including two instructional and performance technology professors, a research and measurement professor, and a psychology professor who is also a bullying subject matter expert. These subject matter experts were asked to review the research instrument to ensure it was the most appropriate instrument for the study. Further, they were asked to review each individual survey item to ensure each item was constructed appropriately. They were also asked to review the language and scale used to ensure it was most appropriate for the survey.
Suggestions from the subject matter experts were considered for revision to the instrument prior to disseminating the instrument to potential survey respondents.
Data Collection
This research study was submitted for approval to the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) at the University of Toledo following the dissertation proposal defense. After receiving Institutional Review Board approval, the research instrument was activated utilizing an internet-based questionnaire development application – Survey Monkey – as the method to administer the survey.
Each potential participant on the IACTP list-serv was forwarded the informed consent form approved by the University of Toledo’s Institutional Review Board via email. Similarly, a link to a PDF version of the approved informed consent form including a link to complete the survey was posted on the IACTP LinkedIn group page.
The survey was initially planned to be open for twenty-one (21) days. After twenty-one
78 (21) days, the survey had garnered forty-eight (48) responses. The data collection period was extended for an additional fourteen (14) days in an effort to gather additional responses. At the end of the combined thirty-five (35) day period, the survey garnered a total of eighty-two (82) responses.
Electronic mailings reminding potential participants of the study were sent every seven (7) days the survey was open to potential participants. The researcher requested that an IACTP administrator, or his or her designee, send the informed consent form with a link to complete the survey to each potential participant on the IACTP list-serv.
Similarly, the researcher requested that an IACTP administrator post a link to a PDF version of the informed consent form on the IACTP LinkedIn group page. After seven (7) days of the data collection period, the researcher received approval from the dissertation committee chair, as well as the IACTP President to allow the researcher to utilize the list- serv and LinkedIn group to send the informed consent form directly to research participants to ensure timeliness and accuracy. Further, during the fourteen (14) day data collection period extension, members of the IACTP LinkedIn group were sent the informed consent via LinkedIn Message, similar to an email, offering them participation in the survey.
The informed consent form was utilized to inform IACTP members of the purpose of the study, description of research procedure, potential risks and benefits, confidentiality, to ensure their participation was voluntary, and to provide them contact information for the researcher to inquire of any questions. The informed consent form explained that confidentiality and anonymity would be preserved for all participants in the study. Potential participants were informed about the study and asked to participate
79 by clicking on the link provided, or copying and pasting the link into their internet browser. The form specified that by doing this and beginning the survey, research participants were acknowledging they were at least eighteen (18) years old, they had read and accepted the information outlined in the informed consent form, and were giving their consent to participate in the research.
Respondents were asked to maintain anonymity. Neither the researcher, nor the
IACTP, know who participated in the survey and who did not. After participants completed the survey online, all answers were recorded and stored by Survey Monkey.
The data remained confidential and accessible by only the researcher. When the deadline was reached and the survey was closed, the data were exported from Survey Monkey into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and were stored on the researcher’s personal computer.
The survey was then deactivated and the online data were deleted.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data analysis was used to address the research questions established for use in this study. In research questions one and four, tables were created using
Microsoft Excel to report the frequencies and percentages from each item of the survey instrument individually. In research question three, the data from the research instrument was quantitatively analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software application for
Windows. Next, the process of data analysis for each of the research questions will be established.
Research Question One. Do human resource professionals working in the field of corrections identify workplace bullying behaviors that are reported through official organizational channels?
80 The researcher gathered the perceptions of human resource professionals in the research sample using the Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for Human Resource
Professionals survey instrument. Respondents to the revised instrument were asked to select behaviors that have been reported to them in the last six month time frame. Survey respondents were given five categories to choose from: “Never”, “Now and then”, “Monthly”, “Weekly”, and “Daily”.
Using Microsoft Excel, tables were used to report the frequencies and percentages from each item of the survey instrument individually. The researcher sequenced the questions within their category (work-related bullying, person-related bullying, or physically intimidating bullying) when reporting results.
Research Question Two. Is there a statistically significant difference in workplace bullying (work-related bullying, person-related bullying or physically intimidating bullying) reported through official organizational channels in corrections organizations compared to the rate bullying has been reported in the general population as reported by Einarsen et al. (2009)?
The NAQ-R contains items that can be categorized as work-related bullying, person-related bullying, or physically intimidating bullying respectively; definitions of these terms can be found in the operational definitions section of Chapter One. The authors found the instrument has a high internal stability within these three categories.
Though, the instrument can also be used as a single or double category measure (Einarsen et al., 2009). The means reported in Einarsen et al. study were the comparison group for this study of human resource professionals. However, in this study, the sample population
81 of human resource professionals will be reporting on their experience of behaviors being reported to them, not how often they have experienced the behaviors directly.
The first factor structure – work-related bullying – outlines seven workplace bullying tactics. Work-related bullying survey items include measurement of: having opinions ignored, having information withheld, being given tasks with irrational deadlines, excessive monitoring of work, pressure to not claim work benefits, having an unacceptable workload, and demoted in your present job. These behaviors are measured using survey items 1, 3, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21. Einarsen, et al. (2009) reported the average conditional probability of work-related bullying as ten percent. The mean of work-related bullying items was reported by the authors as 13.78 (SD = 5.2). This was used for comparison to the mean of responses gathered in this study.
The second factor structure – person-related bullying – has twelve items and describes exposure to bullying tactics such as: being humiliated, being given less responsibility in job and trivial-unpleasant tasks, being gossiped about, being ignored- excluded, being insulted, hints made toward the target to quit their job, reminders of your mistakes, being ignored or facing hostility, persistent criticism, practical jokes, allegations made against you, and being the subject of excessive teasing. These behaviors are measured using survey items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 20. Einarsen, et al. (2009) reported the average conditional probability of person-related bullying as thirteen percent. The mean of work-related bullying items was reported by the authors as
14.51 (SD = 5.04). This was used for comparison to the mean of responses gathered in this study.
82 The third factor structure – physically intimidating bullying – consisted of three survey items and describes workplace bullying tactics such as: being shouted at, having your personal space invaded, and being threatened with physical abuse. These behaviors are measured using survey items 8, 9, and 22. Einarsen et al. (2009) reported the average conditional probability of physically intimidating bullying as three percent. The mean of physically intimidating bullying items was reported by the authors as 3.88 (SD = 1.85).
Table 1 categorizes the items, factors loadings, and correlations of the NAQ-R (Einarsen, et al., 2009).
83 This study aimed to determine the difference in the prevalence workplace bullying has been found to take place as compared to how often it is reported through official organizational channels. To do this, the researcher used Einarsen’s et al. (2009) work as a baseline of workplace bullying prevalence. An independent sample t-test was used to compare the established population mean reported by Einarsen et al. (2009) to the mean of the data collected among human resource professionals in this study.
Table 2.
Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers (2009) p. 37.
Further, tables were used to report the differences in sample means and population means. The researcher sequenced the questions within their category – work-related bullying, person-related bullying, or physically intimidating bullying – when reporting the results.
Research Question Four. Do human resource professionals in the field of corrections believe their agency has employed performance improvement interventions to prevent, identify, and address workplace bullying similar to those recommended in current scholarly literature?
Additional questions were added to the survey instrument to determine if the human resource professionals surveyed felt their agency was utilizing performance improvement interventions established in current research as best practices. These
84 interventions were outlined in Chapter Two of this writing. Nineteen questions were added to the instrument to inquire of correctional organizations use of human performance improvement interventions to address workplace bullying.
Using Microsoft Excel, tables were used to report the frequencies and percentages from each item added to the survey instrument individually. Items to address this research question are numbered twenty-three through forty-one. The Rasch Mathematical Model was used to address Research Question Three. In the next section, this model will be outlined.
Rasch Model
The Rasch model was used in this study for data analysis in the research instrument validation process. The Rasch model has had a significant impact on psychometrics, item response theory (IRT), and scale validation since its publication in
Rasch (1960). The Rasch model is generally considered to date back to 1960 when
Rasch’s book on probabilistic models for intelligence and attainment tests was published
(Kreiner, 2007). Bond and Fox (2007) reported Rasch calibrated scales have “major impacts in measuring educational outcomes, psychological variables, medical rehabilitation, and standard-settings” (p. 5). Rasch analysis can be applied in education, psychology, and many other fields across the human sciences and is helpful in understanding whether a research instrument is an effective means for data collection
(Fink, 2007; You, 2010).
When using the Rasch model, the survey items included in a research instrument become the operational definition of the variable that will be measured (Wright & Stone,
1979). The Rasch model utilizes a single item construct, or inherent latent trait
85 dimension, useful for measurement and examination of singular research items
(Hambleton, 1989; Snyder & Sheehan, 1992; Weiss & Yoes, 1991). Further, as Bond &
Fox (2007) noted useful measurement examines one trait at a time. Item analysis in the
Rasch model serve two purposes. The first is to provide calibrating equations relating total scores on survey instruments to estimates of the value of the latent trait variable underlying the responses (Kreiner, 2007). The second is scale validation. Items in Rasch models are characterized by several properties (Kreiner, 2007).
Research Question Three. Is the Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for
Human Resource Professionals a valid measure of reported workplace bullying in correctional facilities?
The following questions guided the researcher in answering research question three (You, 2010).
1. How well does the data collected match the RASCH model expectations?
2. Does the scale used in the Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for Human
Resource Professionals instrument produce invariant-interval level measures?
3. Are item/person fit statistics in the conventional acceptable range? If not, what
could produce item/person infit? What revisions would improve the Negative
Acts Questionnaire – Revised for Human Resource Professionals instrument?
In this study, a software program, Winsteps™ was used and control and data files were created in order to analyze the data. Rasch statistics include: separation, reliability, item difficulty, person ability, and fit. These statistics allowed the researcher to further assess the instrument for performance and possible revision. Next, these statistics will be described.
86 Separation. Separation is the ratio of the person or item adjusted standard deviation (SDadj) to the root mean square standard error (RMSE) (Fink, 2007; You,
2010). Separation is a measure of the spread of estimates. The greater the separation, the better the instrument is able to distinguish persons and items (Fink, 2007; Linacre, 2009).
Separation reliability is a ratio of adjusted variance, or true variance to the observed variance (Fox & Jones, 1998).
Reliability. Reliability determines the stability of the instrument when replicated
(Linacre, 1996). “Rasch is not influenced by sample variance and thus provides a sample- free test characteristic reporting the precision of ability of any person whose response pattern fits the model” (Fink, 2007, p.69). Using the Rasch model, reliability is defined as the proportion of true variance. True variance is the variance enduring after deduction for measurement error (You, 2010; Wright, 1996). The Rasch model provides person reliability and item reliability indexes to assist in determining if there is enough items spread along the continuum and enough spread of ability among respondents (Bond &
Fox, 2007; Fink, 2007; You, 2010; Wright & Master, 1982).
Item Difficulty. Item difficulty is an estimate of a survey item’s fundamental difficulty. This is calculated using the total number of respondents in a sample who responded to the survey item (Bond & Fox, 2007). Item difficulty is expressed in log odd units referred to as logits. The higher the difficulty of the survey item, the fewer survey respondents will support the statement of the survey item (You, 2010). A logit is a unit of measurement to express relative differences between respondent ability estimates and item difficulty. This linear value plots item difficulty on an equal interval scale absent of observed ability mean and variance of the standardized sample (Wright & Stone, 1979).
87 The position of the item on the latent dimension represents the location half of survey respondents with ability equal to the item’s difficulty responded to the item (Fink, 2007;
Snyder & Sheehan, 1992).
Person Ability. Rasch predicts the more capable a person, the more likely they are to be successful with any survey item (Wright & Stone, 1979). Further, the less difficult the research item, the more likely any person is to answer it correctly (Wright &
Stone, 1979). Rasch analyzes survey item validity, while also considering the validity of the pattern of responses (Wright & Stone, 1979). Rasch provides information on misfitting respondents or response patterns that should not be regarded as valid; this allows for increased quality control of data collected (Fink, 2007).
Fit. Item fit examines the pattern of a survey item for all respondents. Person fit examines a pattern of a particular person for all survey items (Fink, 2007). The
WINSTEPS® program provides an infit information weighted mean square fit (mnsq) statistic to determine whether items and survey respondents conform to the specifications of: unidimensionality, construct validity, or clarity of scale (You, 2010). Infit and outfit weighted mean square fit have expected values of 1.0; outfit weighted mean square fit is influenced by unexpected behavior in respondent or item outliers (You, 2010). Fit statistics are useful in determining whether item estimations can be held as meaningful quantitative summaries of the observations (Bond & Fox, 2007).
Overview. The Rasch model is useful in estimating item difficulties and plotting those measures along a linear representation defined by the instrument items; results of the instrument’s precision, accuracy, and sensitivity give the researcher the ability to appropriately modify the instrument if necessary (Fink, 2007). The Rasch model converts
88 raw scores from ordinal data to log odds ratios on a common interval scale for statistical analysis (You, 2007). Given a respondent’s estimated ability (퐵v) and item difficulty
(D1), the linear transformation provides an exposition of how well each item functions within the research instrument (Fink, 2007). The Rasch mathematical model can be expressed as follows:
P {Xvt = 1|(Bv),(D1)} = exp (Bv - D1)/[1+exp (Bv - D1)]
Timeline
The data collection and analysis were conducted during the 2014 summer and fall semesters.
89 Chapter Four
Data Analysis and Results
The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of the Negative Acts
Questionnaire – Revised for Human Resource Professionals used in this study. There were three identified purposes to this study. The first purpose of the study was to provide a valid measure of workplace bullying observation from the perspective of the human resource professional. The second purpose of this study was to take an occupation specific approach to investigate if employees in correctional organizations report workplace bullying behavior to their organization through human resource professionals at a different rate than in other fields of employment established in the population. The third purpose of this study was to investigate if correctional organizations are utilizing interventions to address workplace bullying similar to what is recommended in current scholarly research.
Based on the far-reaching negative effects of workplace bullying this study poses the following research questions:
Research Question 1 - Do human resource professionals working in the field of corrections identify workplace bullying behaviors that are reported through official organizational channels?
Research Question 2 - Is there a statistically significant difference in workplace bullying
(work-related bullying, person-related bullying or physically intimidating bullying) reported through official organizational channels in corrections organizations compared to the rate bullying has been reported in the general population as reported by Einarsen et al. (2009)?
90 Research Question 3 - Is the Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for Human Resource
Professionals a valid measure of reported workplace bullying in correctional facilities?
Research Question 4 - Do human resource professionals in the field of corrections believe their agency has employed performance improvement interventions to prevent, identify, and address workplace bullying similar to those recommended in current scholarly literature?
A quantitative approach was used to answer these research questions.
Survey Qualifying Question – Age
In the first survey item, respondents were asked to verify they were over the age of eighteen years old, a requirement to participate in the study. All respondents who answered the question indicated they were over the age of eighteen years old. However, one respondent did not provide an answer to the question. This response was removed from the data set and not considered in the calculation of the survey results. A total of eighty-two respondents were asked this question with eighty-one respondents answering in the affirmative.
Table 3
Age of Participants
Are you eighteen (18) years of age or older? Age Frequency Frequency Percent Yes 81 100% No 0 0% Total 81 100% Table 3 notes that all respondents who provided a response to this question indicated they were over the age of eighteen. One respondent did not answer the question and their response was not included in the data set.
91 Survey Qualifying Question – Job Responsibilities
In order to participate in the survey, respondents were asked: “In your current position within your organization please select the following job responsibilities that make up your job description. Check all that apply.” Respondents were required to select at least one relevant job responsibility in order to participate in the survey. Further, they were given the option to select “I do not perform any of the tasks listed”. If they selected this option, they were sent to the thank you page and were not permitted to participate in the survey. A total of five respondents – 6.1% of the sample – selected this option and were not asked to answer any subsequent survey items. Further, an additional eight respondents – 9.7% of the sample – did not answer this question and their responses were not included in the data set.
Based on the responses to the two survey qualifying questions, fourteen respondents – 17% of the sample – were not factored into the data analysis. These fourteen respondents were included as part of the missing system calculations in the data analysis.
92 Table 4 Job Responsibilities N Percent Training Employees 55 74.3% Training Managers 42 56.8% Evaluating Training Initiatives 39 52.7% Employee Recruitment and Selection 25 33.8% Employee Termination 18 24.3% Policy Writing 36 48.6% Policy Application 42 56.8% Communicating Policy to Employees 47 63.5% Involvement in the Employee Discipline Process 31 41.9% Investigating Reports of Workplace Bullying 27 36.5% Responding to findings of Workplace Bullying 23 31.1% Circulating, grading, or coding surveys to gauge the 14 18.9% organizational climate Circulating, grading, or coding employee and management interviews to gauge the 13 17.6% organizational climate Responding to Employee Grievances and/or 29 39.2% Complaints Evaluating Employee Performance 42 56.8% Writing Employee Performance Evaluations 44 59.5% Communicating Performance Standards to 36 48.6% Employees Conducting Exit Interviews with Employees Leaving 16 21.6% the Organization Providing Assistance to Employees who Report being 23 31.1% Targets of Workplace Mistreatment Other Human Resource Functions That Are Not Listed - Please Specify 6 8.1%
I Do Not Perform Any of the Tasks Listed 5 6.8%
Note. N=74. 8 respondents did not answer this question and their responses were not included in the data set. 1 respondent was removed after not answering Question 1. 5 respondents did not identify relevant work experience and their responses were removed.
Table 4 summarizes the job responsibilities that are held by the subjects in the sample. The first number in each row represents the number of respondents in the sample
93 who answered in the respective category (total N = 74), and the percentages are taken from the number of respondents eligible to participate in the survey. The most common responsibilities are to: training employees (n = 55, 74.3%), communicating policy to employees (n = 47, 63.5%), write employee performance evaluations (n = 44, 59.5%), training managers (n = 42, 56.8%), policy application (n = 42, 56.8%), and evaluating employees (n = 42, 56.8%). Specifically related to bullying, 36.5% (n = 27) stated that they had responsibilities for investigating bullying reports, and 31.1% (n = 23) stated that they had responsibilities for responding to workplace bullying.
Research Question One. Do human resource professionals working in the field of corrections identify workplace bullying behaviors that are reported through official organizational channels?
To answer this research question, twenty-two survey questions were separated into three groupings as suggested by Einarsen et al. (2009). These question groupings utilize seven questions measuring “work-related bullying,” thirteen questions measuring
“person-related bullying,” and three questions measuring “physically intimidating bullying”. The survey instrument is presented in Appendix A.
Work-related bullying. The first factor structure - work-related bullying - outlines seven workplace bullying tactics. These tactics were outlined and explained in
Chapter 3 of this writing. Einarsen et al. (2009) reported the average conditional probability of work-related bullying as ten percent. The mean of work-related bullying items was reported by the authors as 13.78 (SD = 5.2).
94 Question 1.
1. Co-workers or superiors withheld information that affected their performance
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 13 15.9 25.0 25.0 Now and Then 29 35.4 55.8 80.8 Monthly 3 3.7 5.8 86.5 Weekly 6 7.3 11.5 98.1 Daily 1 1.2 1.9 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 1. Thirteen respondents – a valid 25% of the sample – determined they never had someone report information was withheld that impacted their performance. Another twenty-nine respondents – a valid 55.8% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Three respondents – a valid 5.8% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Withholding of information was reported to seven respondents – a valid 13.4% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 3.
3. Being ordered to do work below what is in their job description Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 19 23.2 36.5 36.5 Now and Then 23 28.0 44.2 80.8 Monthly 5 6.1 9.6 90.4 Weekly 4 4.9 7.7 98.1 Daily 1 1.2 1.9 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
95 Question 3. Nineteen respondents – a valid 36.5% of the sample – determined they never had someone report being ordered to do work below what is in their job description. Another twenty-three respondents – a valid 44.2% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Five respondents – a valid 9.6% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Withholding of information was reported to five respondents – a valid 9.6% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 14.
14. Having their opinions and views ignored Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 12 14.6 23.1 23.1 Now and Then 21 25.6 40.4 63.5 Monthly 11 13.4 21.2 84.6 Weekly 5 6.1 9.6 94.2 Daily 3 3.7 5.8 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 14. Twelve respondents – a valid 23.1% of the sample – determined they never had someone report being ordered to do work below what is in their job description.
Another twenty-one respondents – a valid 40.4% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Eleven respondents – a valid 21.2% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Withholding of information was reported to eight respondents – a valid 15.4% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
96 Question 16.
16. Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 29 35.4 56.9 56.9 Now and Then 13 15.9 25.5 82.4 Monthly 4 4.9 7.8 90.2 Weekly 3 3.7 5.9 96.1 Daily 2 2.4 3.9 100.0 Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 16. Twenty-nine respondents – a valid 56.9% of the sample – determined they never had someone report being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines. Another thirteen respondents – a valid 25.5% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Four respondents – a valid 7.8% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines was reported to five respondents – a valid
9.8% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 18.
18. Excessive monitoring of their work Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 21 25.6 40.4 40.4 Now and Then 18 22.0 34.6 75.0 Monthly 2 2.4 3.8 78.8 Weekly 4 4.9 7.7 86.5 Daily 7 8.5 13.5 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
97 Question 18. Twenty-one respondents – a valid 40.4% of the sample – determined they never had someone report excessive monitoring of their work. Another eighteen respondents – a valid 34.6% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then.
Two respondents – a valid 3.8% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Excessive monitoring of their work was reported to eleven respondents – a valid 21.2% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 19.
19. Pressure not to claim something which by right they are entitled. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 30 36.6 57.7 57.7 Now and Then 12 14.6 23.1 80.8 Monthly 3 3.7 5.8 86.5 Weekly 2 2.4 3.8 90.4 Daily 5 6.1 9.6 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 19. Thirty respondents – a valid 57.7% of the sample – determined they never had someone report pressure not to claim something which by right they are entitled.
Another twelve respondents – a valid 23.1% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Three respondents – a valid 5.8% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Pressure not to claim something which by right they are entitled was reported to seven respondents – a valid 13.4% of the sample
– on a weekly or daily basis.
98 Question 21.
21. Being exposed to an unmanageable workload Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 19 23.2 36.5 36.5 Now and Then 20 24.4 38.5 75.0 Monthly 3 3.7 5.8 80.8 Weekly 5 6.1 9.6 90.4 Daily 5 6.1 9.6 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 21. Nineteen respondents – a valid 36.5% of the sample – determined they never had someone report being exposed to an unmanageable workload. Another twenty respondents – a valid 38.5% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then.
Three respondents – a valid 5.8% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Being exposed to an unmanageable workload was reported to ten respondents – a valid 19.2% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
99 Overview of Work-Related Bullying Items
Table 5 Frequencies for Work- Related Bullying Items Now & Never Then Monthly Weekly Daily 1. Co-workers or superiors withheld information that 13 29 3 6 1 effected their performance 25.0% 55.8% 5.8% 11.5% 1.9% 3. Being ordered to do work below what is in their job 19 23 5 4 1 description 36.5% 44.2% 9.6% 7.7% 1.9% 14. Having their opinions and 12 21 11 5 3 views ignored 23.1% 40.4% 21.2% 9.6% 5.8% 16. Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible 29 13 4 3 2 targets or deadlines 56.9% 25.5% 7.8% 5.9% 3.9% 18. Excessive monitoring of 21 18 2 4 7 their work 40.4% 34.6% 3.8% 7.7% 13.5% 19. Pressure not to claim something which by right they 30 12 3 2 5 are entitled. 57.7% 23.1% 5.8% 3.8% 9.6% 21. Being exposed to an 19 20 3 5 5 unmanageable workload 36.5% 38.5% 5.8% 9.6% 9.6% Note. N=53. Percentages are based on non-missing observations.
Table 5 displays the results for the items tied to work-related bullying.
The first number in each row represents the number of respondents in the sample who answered in the respective category (total N = 53), and the percentages are taken from the number of non-missing responses to each question.
100 Person-related bullying. The second factor structure - person-related bullying – outlines twelve workplace bullying tactics. These tactics were outlined and explained in
Chapter 3 of this writing. These behaviors were measured using survey questions 2, 4, 5,
6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 20. Einarsen, et al., (2009) reported the average conditional probability of person-related bullying as thirteen percent. The mean of work- related bullying items was reported by the authors as 14.51 (SD = 5.04);
Question 2.
2. Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with their work
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 22 26.8 42.3 42.3 Now and Then 20 24.4 38.5 80.8 Monthly 4 4.9 7.7 88.5 Weekly 5 6.1 9.6 98.1 Daily 1 1.2 1.9 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 2. Twenty-two respondents – a valid 42.3% of the sample – determined they never had someone report being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with their work.
Another twenty respondents – a valid 38.5% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Four respondents – a valid 7.7% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Being exposed to an unmanageable workload was reported to six respondents – a valid 11.5% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
101 Question 4.
4. Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 21 25.6 40.4 40.4 Now and Then 20 24.4 38.5 78.8 Monthly 8 9.8 15.4 94.2 Weekly 2 2.4 3.8 98.1 Daily 1 1.2 1.9 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 4. Twenty-one respondents – a valid 40.4% of the sample – determined they never had someone report having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks. Another twenty respondents – a valid 38.5% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Eight respondents – a valid
15.4% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis.
The tactic was reported to only three respondents – a valid 5.7% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 5.
5. Having gossip and rumors spread about them Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 11 13.4 21.2 21.2 Now and Then 22 26.8 42.3 63.5 Monthly 10 12.2 19.2 82.7 Weekly 5 6.1 9.6 92.3 Daily 4 4.9 7.7 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
102 Question 5. Eleven respondents – a valid 21.2% of the sample – determined they never had someone report having gossip and rumors spread about them. Another twenty-two respondents – a valid 42.3% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then.
Ten respondents – a valid 19.2% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Having gossip and rumors spread about them was reported to nine respondents – a valid 17.3% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 6.
6. Being ignored, excluded or being isolated from others Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 13 15.9 25.0 25.0 Now and Then 23 28.0 44.2 69.2 Monthly 7 8.5 13.5 82.7 Weekly 3 3.7 5.8 88.5 Daily 6 7.3 11.5 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 6. Thirteen respondents – a valid 25% of the sample – determined they never had someone report being ignored, excluded or being isolated from others. Another twenty-three respondents – a valid 44.2% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Seven respondents – a valid 13.5% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Being ignored, excluded or being isolated from others was reported to nine respondents – a valid 17.3% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
103 Question 7.
7. Having insulting or offensive remarks made about their personal habits and background, attitudes or private life Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 19 23.2 37.3 37.3 Now and Then 20 24.4 39.2 76.5 Monthly 4 4.9 7.8 84.3 Weekly 5 6.1 9.8 94.1 Daily 3 3.7 5.9 100.0 Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 7. Nineteen respondents – a valid 37.3% of the sample – determined they never had someone report being ignored, excluded or being isolated from others. Another twenty respondents – a valid 39.2% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Four respondents – a valid 7.8% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Being ignored, excluded or being isolated from others was reported to eight respondents – a valid 15.7% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 10.
10. Hints or signals from others they should quit their job Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 29 35.4 55.8 55.8 Now and Then 15 18.3 28.8 84.6 Monthly 5 6.1 9.6 94.2 Weekly 2 2.4 3.8 98.1 Daily 1 1.2 1.9 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
104 Question 10. Twenty-nine respondents – a valid 55.8% of the sample – determined they never had someone report receiving hints or signals from others they should quit their job. Another fifteen respondents – a valid 28.8% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Five respondents – a valid 9.6% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Receiving hints or signals from others they should quit their job was reported to only three respondents – a valid 5.7% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 11.
11. Repeated reminders of their errors or mistakes Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 14 17.1 26.9 26.9 Now and Then 22 26.8 42.3 69.2 Monthly 6 7.3 11.5 80.8 Weekly 7 8.5 13.5 94.2 Daily 3 3.7 5.8 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 11. Fourteen respondents – a valid 26.9% of the sample – determined they never had someone report receiving hints or signals from others they should quit their job. Another twenty-two respondents – a valid 42.3% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Six respondents – a valid 11.5% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Repeated reminders of errors or mistakes was reported to ten respondents – a valid 19.3% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
105 Question 12.
12. Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when they approach Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 22 26.8 42.3 42.3 Now and Then 17 20.7 32.7 75.0 Monthly 7 8.5 13.5 88.5 Weekly 4 4.9 7.7 96.2 Daily 2 2.4 3.8 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 12. Twenty-two respondents – a valid 42.3% of the sample – determined they never had someone report being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when they approach.
Another seventeen respondents – a valid 32.7% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Seven respondents – a valid 13.5% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when they approach was reported to six respondents – a valid 11.5% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 13.
13. Persistent criticism of their work and effort Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 17 20.7 32.7 32.7 Now and Then 19 23.2 36.5 69.2 Monthly 8 9.8 15.4 84.6 Weekly 7 8.5 13.5 98.1 Daily 1 1.2 1.9 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
106 Question 13. Seventeen respondents – a valid 32.7% of the sample – determined they never had someone report persistent criticism of their work and effort. Another nineteen respondents – a valid 36.5% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then.
Eight respondents – a valid 15.4% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Facing persistent criticism of their work and effort was reported to eight respondents – a valid 15.4% of the sample – on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 15.
15. Practical jokes carried out by people they don't get along with Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 32 39.0 61.5 61.5 Now and Then 18 22.0 34.6 96.2 Monthly 1 1.2 1.9 98.1 Daily 1 1.2 1.9 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 15. Thirty-two respondents – a valid 61.5% of the sample – determined they never had someone report having practical jokes carried out by people they don’t get along with. Another eighteen respondents – a valid 34.6% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. One respondent – a valid 1.9% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Only one respondent – a valid 1.9% of the sample – reported practical jokes carried out by people they don’t get along with was reported to them on a weekly or daily basis.
107 Question 17.
17. Having allegations made against them Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 20 24.4 38.5 38.5 Now and Then 25 30.5 48.1 86.5 Monthly 4 4.9 7.7 94.2 Weekly 2 2.4 3.8 98.1 Daily 1 1.2 1.9 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 17. Twenty respondents – a valid 38.5% of the sample – determined they never had someone report having allegations made against them. Another twenty-five respondents – a valid 48.1% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then.
Four respondents – a valid 7.7% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Only three respondents – a valid 4.7% of the sample – reported having allegations made against them was reported to them on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 20.
20. Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 24 29.3 46.2 46.2 Now and Then 23 28.0 44.2 90.4 Monthly 2 2.4 3.8 94.2 Weekly 2 2.4 3.8 98.1 Daily 1 1.2 1.9 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
108 Question 20. Twenty-four respondents – a valid 46.2% of the sample – determined they never had someone report being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm. Another twenty-three respondents – a valid 44.2% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Two respondents – a valid 3.8% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Only three respondents – a valid 4.7% of the sample – reported being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm on a weekly or daily basis.
Physically intimidating bullying. The third factor structure – physically intimidating bullying – outlines three workplace bullying tactics. These tactics were outlined and explained in Chapter 3 of this writing. These behaviors were measured using survey items 8, 9, and 22. Einarsen et al. (2009) reported the average conditional probability of physically intimidating bullying as three percent. The mean of physically intimidating bullying items was reported by the authors as 3.88 (SD = 1.85).
Question 8.
8. Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger (or rage) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 15 18.3 29.4 29.4 Now and Then 30 36.6 58.8 88.2 Monthly 4 4.9 7.8 96.1 Weekly 1 1.2 2.0 98.0 Daily 1 1.2 2.0 100.0 Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 8. Fifteen respondents – a valid 29.4% of the sample – determined they never had someone report being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger or rage.
109 Another thirty respondents – a valid 58.8% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. Four respondents – a valid 7.8% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. Only two respondents – a valid 4% of the sample
– reported being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger or rage on a weekly or daily basis.
Question 9.
9. Intimidating behavior such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 34 41.5 66.7 66.7 Now and Then 13 15.9 25.5 92.2 Monthly 1 1.2 2.0 94.1 Daily 3 3.7 5.9 100.0 Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 9. Thirty-four respondents – a valid 66.7% of the sample – determined they never had someone report intimidating behavior such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way. Another thirteen respondents – a valid
25.5% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. One respondent – a valid 2.0% of the sample – reported it was reported to them more often, on a monthly basis. No respondents reported this tactic was reported to them on a weekly basis and only three respondents – a valid 5.9% of the sample – reported intimidating behavior such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way was reported to them on a daily basis.
110 Question 22.
22. Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 42 51.2 80.8 80.8 Now and Then 10 12.2 19.2 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 22. Forty-two respondents – a valid 80.8% of the sample – determined they never had someone report threats of violence, physical abuse, or actual abuse. Another ten respondents – a valid 19.8% of the sample – noted it was reported to them now and then. No respondents reported this tactic was reported to them on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis.
Research Question Two. Is there a statistically significant difference in workplace bullying (work-related bullying, person-related bullying or physically intimidating bullying) reported through official organizational channels in corrections organizations compared to the rate bullying has been reported in the general population as reported by Einarsen et al. (2009)?
The Einarsen et al. (2009) study surveyed a large number of people (n=5,288) regarding their direct experience of workplace bullying. Their results were compared to the sample of respondents in this study. However, respondents in this study selected frequencies of how often workplace bullying tactics were reported to them through official organizational channels in the last six month time period. The following are the summary of the percentages of respondents that reported workplace bullying.
111 Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for NAQ-R for HR Professionals Scale and Subscales
Std. Min Max Mean Dev. Alpha Total NAQ-R for HR Scale 5 94 41.7 17.223 0.954 Work Related Bullying 5 32 14.038 6.358 0.886 Person Related Bullying 13 52 23.673 9.492 0.933
Physically Intimidated Bullying 2 11 4.538 1.754 0.604
As reported in Table 2, Einarsen, Hoel, and Notalaers (2009, p. 36) demonstrated the reliability and construct validity of the NAQ-R scale. This table is presented in
Chapter 3 of this writing. Following their method, the items in the first three tables were combined additively into three separate subscales. Table 6 provides summary statistics and reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) for the scale as a whole as well as the individual subscales. Scores on the total scale ranged from 5 to 94 with a mean of 41.7 (SD =
17.223). The reliability was high (α = .954).
The work-related bullying subscale ranged from 5 to 32 with a mean of 14.038
(SD = 6.358). The reliability was also strong (α = .886). The person-related bullying subscale ranged from 13 to 52 with a mean of 23.673 (SD = 9.492). The reliability was again high (α = .933). The last subscale, physically intimidating bullying, ranged from 2 to 11 with a mean of 4.538 (SD = 1.754). The reliability was rather low (α = .604). This is likely due to the relative infrequency of physical bullying and the small sample size.
112 Table 7 Independent Samples T-Tests
Einarson Sample et al. 2009 (N = 53) (N = 5,288) SE Mean Mean M SD M SD Diff. Diff. t df p NAQ-R Scale Total 41.7 17.22 31.88 10.15 9.837 2.39 4.11 51 <.001 Work- Related Bullying 14.04 6.36 14.51 5.04 0.470 0.86 0.53 51 0.58 Person- Related Bullying 23.67 9.49 13.78 5.2 9.890 1.32 7.48 51 <.001 Physically- Intimidated Bullying 4.54 1.75 3.88 1.85 0.660 0.244 2.7 52 0.009
Einarsen et al. (2009, p. 36) report summary statistics for their sample of 5,288 subjects. Table 7 reports results from independent samples t-tests to determine if there are statistically significant differences between the sample population reported in the
Einarsen et al. study as compared to the current sample of human resources professionals.
The table presents results using Welch’s method to adjust for unequal variances due to the very different sample sizes.
The results show that most of the results are indeed statistically significant. The difference in means for the scale as a whole was 9.837 (SE = 2.39), which was significant, t(51) = 4.11, p < .001. The person-related bullying scale yielded a significant difference in means of 9.89, SE = 1.32, t(51) = 7.48, p < .001. The physical intimidation subscale difference in means was smaller, Mdiff = .660, SE = .244, but it was large
113 enough to be significant, t(52) = 2.7, p = .009. However, the work-related bullying subscale did not yield a statistically significant result, Mdiff = -.470, SE = .86, t(51) =
.53, p = .58.
These results suggest that the human resources professionals in this survey have a different perspective on workplace bullying compared to those considered in the Einarsen et al. study.
Research Question Four. Do human resource professionals in the field of corrections believe their agency has employed performance improvement interventions to prevent, identify, and address workplace bullying similar to those recommended in current scholarly literature?
To answer this research question, nineteen questions were added to the NAQ-R research instrument to inquire if respondents felt their correctional organizations used human performance improvement interventions similar to those cited in current scholarly literature to address workplace bullying. These questions were drafted by the researcher and turn away from the original NAQ-R instrument to measure more specific bullying interventions used by each respondent’s organization. The answers to these questions are detailed in this section with results reported in tables.
Specifically, these questions were grouped into four categories: policy adoptions; frequency of knowledge based interventions to address workplace bullying; organizational measures against workplace bullying; and characteristics of workplace bullying policies. These categories were used to group the questions into the same scale of measurement.
114 Characteristics of Workplace Bullying Policies. In this grouping of questions, responses to survey items designed to measure characteristics of workplace bullying policies are reported. If policies and procedure have been implemented, questions in this section aimed to gather a more detailed view of organizational policy and procedure.
Question 23.
23. Who is primarily responsible for handling your organization’s response to workplace bullying? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Human Resources 21 25.6 40.4 40.4 Management 26 31.7 50.0 90.4 Legal Counsel 2 2.4 3.8 94.2 Other 3 3.7 5.8 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 23. Twenty-one respondents – a valid 40.4% of the sample – reported human resources is primarily responsible for handling their organization’s response to workplace bullying. Twenty-six respondents – a valid 50% of the sample – reported management was responsible for this task with two respondents – a valid 3.8% of the sample – reporting legal counsel would address this issue. Three respondents – a valid 5.8% of the sample – reported someone other than these parties was responsible for this task.
115 Question 24.
24. How does your organization respond to alleged perpetrators of bullying? Cum. Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Internal Investigation 41 50.0 78.8 78.8 Written Warning 1 1.2 1.9 80.8 Performance Improvement 3 3.7 5.8 86.5 Plan Other (please specify) 7 8.5 13.5 100.0 Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 24. Forty-one respondents – a valid 78.8% of the sample – reported their organization responds to alleged perpetrators of bullying with an internal investigation with discipline up to and including termination. One respondent – a valid 1.9% of the sample – reported their organization uses a written warning in response to alleged perpetrators of bullying. Three respondents – a valid 5.8% of the sample – reported their organization utilizes a performance improvement plan. Seven respondents – a valid
13.5% of the sample reported some other method was used in response to bullying allegations. Of respondents who answered “other”, two respondents specified “all of the above”, one respondent reported “incomplete internal investigations almost always resulting in unsubstantiated claims”, one respondent reported “I don’t know”, one respondent reported “never experienced it”, one respondent reported “they do nothing”, and one respondent reported “it depends who is being bullied”.
116 Question 25.
25. In your organization, workplace bullying is considered in recruiting and selection of new employees? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Both B and C 27 32.9 51.9 51.9 No 9 11.0 17.3 69.2 Yes, our organization comm. to prospective 2 2.4 3.8 73.1 employees Yes, our organization uses background & 14 17.1 26.9 100.0 reference info. Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 25. Twenty-seven respondents – a valid 51.9% of the sample – reported their organization both communicates to prospective employees the expectation of consideration and respect in the workplace and uses background and reference information to understand if there has been a history of negative interpersonal interactions in the workplace. Nine respondents – a valid 17.3% of the sample – reported their organization does not consider workplace bullying in recruiting and selection of new employees. Two respondents – a valid 3.8% of the sample – reported their organization communicates to prospective employees the expectation of consideration and respect in the workplace. While fourteen respondents – a valid 26.9% of the sample – reported their organization uses background and reference information to understand if there has been a history of negative interpersonal interactions in the workplace.
117 Question 26.
26. Your organization has a formal (written and documented) workplace bullying policy? Valid Cum. Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid No, and we have no plans to put a workplace bullying policy in 16 19.5 30.8 30.8 place No, but we plan to put one in 4 4.9 7.7 38.5 place in the next 12 months Yes, our workplace bullying policy is part of another 25 30.5 48.1 86.5 workplace policy Yes, we have a separate 7 8.5 13.5 100.0 workplace bullying policy Total 52 63.4 100.0 Missing System 30 36.6 Total 82 100.0
Question 26. Sixteen respondents – a valid 30.8% of the sample – reported their organization does not have a workplace bullying policy and they have no plans to put one in place. Four respondents – a valid 7.7% of the sample – reported their organization does not have a workplace bullying policy but they plan to put one in place in the next 12 months. Twenty-five respondents – a valid 48.1% of the sample – reported they have a workplace bullying policy, but it is a part of another workplace policy. While seven respondents – a valid 13.5% of the sample – reported their organization has a separate workplace bullying policy.
118 Question 27.
27. How is your organization’s workplace bullying policy communicated to employees? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid In the Employee Handbook 24 29.3 47.1 47.1 or Employee Orientation Through Training 12 14.6 23.5 70.6 During Staff Meetings 2 2.4 3.9 74.5 Workplace Bullying Policy is Not Communicated to 13 15.9 25.5 100.0 Employees or No Policy has been Established Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 27. Twenty-four respondents – a valid 47.1% of the sample – reported their organization communicated their workplace bullying policy to employees through the employee handbook or in employee orientation. Twelve respondents – a valid 23.5% of the sample – reported their organization communicates workplace bullying policy to employees through training. Two respondents – a valid 3.9% of the sample – reported their organization communicates workplace bullying policy to employees during staff meetings. While thirteen respondents – a valid 25.5% of the sample – reported their organization either does not communicate their policy to staff members or a policy has not been established.
119 Question 39.
39. Your organization has an established process for investigation of workplace bullying
Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid No, and we have no plans to put 15 18.3 29.4 29.4 one in place No, but we plan to put one in 1 1.2 2.0 31.4 place in the next 12 months Yes, it is part of another established process for 32 39.0 62.7 94.1 investigation Yes, we have a separate workplace bullying 3 3.7 5.9 100.0 investigation process Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 39. Fifteen respondents – a valid 29.4% of the sample – reported their organization does not have an established process for investigation of workplace bullying and has no plans to put one in place. One respondent – a valid 2.0% of the sample – reported their organization does not have established process for investigation of workplace bullying but they plan to put one in place in the next 12 months. Thirty-two respondents – a valid 62.7% of the sample – reported their organization has an established process for investigation of workplace bullying as part of another established process for investigation. And, three respondents – a valid 5.9% of the sample – reported their organization has a separate workplace bullying investigation process.
120 Table 8
Characteristics of Workplace Bullying Policies
N Percent 23. Who is primarily responsible for handling your organization’s response to workplace bullying? Human Resources 21 40.4% Management 26 50.0% Legal Counsel 2 3.8% Other 5.8% 3
24. How does your organization respond to alleged perpetrators of bullying?
Internal Investigation with Discipline up to 41 78.8% Termination Written Warning 1 1.9% Performance Improvement Plan 3 5.8% Other (please specify) 13.5% 7
25. In your organization, workplace bullying is considered in recruiting and selection of new employees?
No 9 17.3% Yes, our organization communicates to prospective employees the expectation of 2 3.8% consideration and respect Yes, our organization uses background and 14 26.9% reference information Both B and C 51.9% 27
26. Your organization has a formal (written and documented) workplace bullying policy? No, and we have no plans to put a workplace 16 30.8% bullying policy in place No, but we plan to put one in place in the next 4 7.7% 12 months Yes, our workplace bullying policy is part of 25 48.1% another workplace policy Yes, we have a separate workplace bullying 7 13.5% policy
121 Table 8 – Continued Characteristics of Workplace Bullying Policies
27. How is your organization’s workplace bullying policy communicated to employees?
In the Employee Handbook or Employee 24 47.1% Orientation Through Training 12 23.5% During Staff Meetings 2 3.9% Workplace Bullying Policy is Not Communicated to Employees or No Policy has been Established 13 25.5%
39. Your organization has an established process for investigation of workplace bullying
No, and we have no plans to put one in place 15 29.4% No, but we plan to put one in place in the next 1 2.0% 12 months Yes, it is part of another established process 32 62.7% for investigation Yes, we have a separate workplace bullying 3 5.9% investigation process Note. N=53. Percentages are based on non-missing observations.
Table 8 shows that, in most organizations, it is human resources (n = 21, 40.4%) or management (n = 26, 50%) who are responsible for handling bullying responses. By far the most common response to a bullying complaint is an internal investigation with disciplinary action (n = 41, 78.8%). All but nine subjects (17.3%) stated that workplace bullying is considered to some extent when recruiting and selecting new employees. A majority of respondents reported their workplace has a formal workplace bullying policy that is part of another workplace policy (n = 25, 48.1%). 30.8% (n = 16) stated that they did not have any policy in place nor planned to implement one. Bullying policies were most commonly passed to employees through an employee handbook or orientation
122 (n = 24, 47.1%). Though, 25.5% (n = 13) stated policies were not communicated or not established. In terms of investigating claims of bullying, a majority (n = 32, 62.7%) stated that bullying claims fit into a larger process for investigation. Most of the remaining responses (n = 15, 29.4%) stated that there was no plan for investigating allegations.
Organizational Measures Against Workplace Bullying. In this grouping, survey items were designed to gauge if organizational measures have been implemented to address workplace bullying. Further, if these measures have been implemented, questions in this section aimed to gauge if respondents felt these measures were being utilized. Respondents answered these questions on a four-point scale consisting of the responses: strongly agree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree.
Question 28.
28. Workplace bullying policy is applied consistently and enforced across the spectrum of your organization Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 6 7.3 12.0 12.0 Disagree 24 29.3 48.0 60.0 Agree 13 15.9 26.0 86.0 Strongly agree 7 8.5 14.0 100.0 Total 50 61.0 100.0 Missing System 32 39.0 Total 82 100.0
Question 28. When asked if workplace bullying policy is applied consistently and enforced across the spectrum of their organization: six respondents – a valid 12% of the sample – selected “strongly disagree”. Twenty-four respondents – a valid 48% of the sample selected “disagree”. Thirteen (13) respondents – a valid 26% of the sample
123 selected “agree”. Seven respondents – a valid 14% of the sample – selected “strongly agree.”
Question 31.
31. In your organization, organizational workplace bullying goals are tied to employee performance evaluations Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly disagree 15 18.3 29.4 29.4 Disagree 25 30.5 49.0 78.4 Agree 9 11.0 17.6 96.1 Strongly agree 2 2.4 3.9 100.0 Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 31. When asked if organizational workplace bullying goals are tied to employee performance evaluations in their organization fifteen respondents – a valid 29.4% of the sample – selected “strongly disagree”. Twenty-five respondents – a valid 49% of the sample selected “disagree”. Nine respondents – a valid 17.6% of the sample selected
“agree”. Two respondents – a valid 3.9% of the sample selected “strongly agree.”
124 Question 32.
32. Your organization seeks out information relative to workplace bullying through interviews with current employees and management Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 14 17.1 27.5 27.5 Disagree 23 28.0 45.1 72.5 Agree 11 13.4 21.6 94.1 Strongly agree 3 3.7 5.9 100.0 Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 32. When asked if their organization seeks out information relative to workplace bullying through interviews with current employees and management: fourteen respondents – a valid 27.5% of the sample – selected “strongly disagree”.
Twenty-three respondents – a valid 45.1% of the sample selected “disagree”. Eleven respondents – a valid 21.6% of the sample selected “agree”. Three respondents – a valid
5.9% of the sample selected “strongly agree.”
Question 33.
33. Your organization seeks out information relative to workplace bullying through exit interviews from employees leaving the organization Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 12 14.6 24.0 24.0 Disagree 17 20.7 34.0 58.0 Agree 21 25.6 42.0 100.0 Total 50 61.0 100.0 Missing System 32 39.0 Total 82 100.0
125 Question 33. When asked if their organization seeks out information relative to workplace bullying through exit interviews from employees leaving the organization twelve respondents – a valid 24% of the sample – selected “strongly disagree”. Seventeen respondents – a valid 34% of the sample selected “disagree”. Twenty-one respondents – a valid 42% of the sample selected “agree”. No respondents selected “strongly agree.”
Question 34.
34. In your organization, all reports of workplace bullying receive a quick, confidential, and thorough investigation with assistance provided to targets of bullying. Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 8 9.8 15.7 15.7 Disagree 15 18.3 29.4 45.1 Agree 23 28.0 45.1 90.2 Strongly agree 5 6.1 9.8 100.0 Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 34. Respondents were asked if in their organization, all reports of workplace bullying receive a quick, confidential, and thorough investigation with assistance provided to targets of bullying. Eight respondents – a valid 15.7% of the sample – selected “strongly disagree”. Fifteen respondents – a valid 29.4% of the sample selected
“disagree”. Twenty-three respondents – a valid 45.1% of the sample selected “agree”.
Five respondents – a valid 9.8% of the sample – selected “strongly agree.”
126 Table 9 Organizational Measures Against Workplace Bullying Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 28. Workplace bullying policy 6 24 13 7 is applied consistently and enforced across the spectrum 12.0% 48.0% 26.0% 14.0% of your organization
15 25 9 2 31. In your organization, workplace bullying goals 29.4% 49.0% 17.6% 3.9% are tied to employee performance evaluations
14 23 11 3 32. Your organization seeks out information relative to workplace 27.5% 45.1% 21.6% 5.9% bullying through interviews with current employees and management
12 17 21 0 33. Your organization seeks out information relative to workplace 24.0% 34.0% 42.0% 0.0% bullying through exit interviews from employees leaving the organization
34. In your organization, all reports of 8 15 23 5 workplace bullying receive a quick, confidential, and thorough investigation 15.7% 29.4% 45.1% 9.8% with assistance provided to targets of bullying Note. N=53. Percentages are based on non-missing observations.
Table 9 summarizes questions about bullying policy that were answered on a four-point scale consisting of the responses: strongly agree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree. Several respondents disagreed that workplace-bullying policy is applied and enforced consistently across the organization (n = 13, 26%), and seven respondents
127 strongly disagreed (n = 7, 14%). There was also a tendency to disagree that organizations seek out information on bullying from employees (n = 21, 42%). In addition, 45.1%
(n = 23) of respondents disagreed that all reports received a quick, confidential, and thorough investigation. An additional 9.8% (n = 5) strongly disagreed.
Knowledge Based Interventions to Address Workplace Bullying. The survey items detailed in Table 8 look at the frequency in which the respondents in the study report their organization utilizes knowledge based interventions. Specifically, surveys to gauge organization climate and training interventions to address workplace bullying.
Respondents answered these questions on a four-point scale consisting of the responses: never, bi-annually, annually, and multiple times annually.
Question 30.
30. Your organization uses anonymous surveys to gauge the climate within the organization Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 30 36.6 60.0 60.0 Bi- 6 7.3 12.0 72.0 Annually Annually 14 17.1 28.0 100.0 Total 50 61.0 100.0 Missing System 32 39.0 Total 82 100.0
Question 30. When asked if their organization uses anonymous surveys to gauge the climate within their organization thirty respondents – a valid 60% of the sample – selected “never”. Six respondents – a valid 12% of the sample selected “bi-annually”.
Fourteen (14) respondents – a valid 28% of the sample selected “annually”. No respondents answered “multiple times annually”.
128 Question 35.
35. Workplace bullying prevention and/or awareness training is provided to all staff members in your organization? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Never 25 30.5 50.0 50.0 Bi-Annually 2 2.4 4.0 54.0 Annually 22 26.8 44.0 98.0 Multiple Times 1 1.2 2.0 100.0 Annually Total 50 61.0 100.0 Missing System 32 39.0 Total 82 100.0
Question 35. When asked if workplace bullying prevention and/or awareness training is provided to all staff members in your organization: twenty-five respondents – a valid
50% of the sample – selected “never”. Two respondents – a valid 4% of the sample selected “bi-annually”. Twenty-two respondents – a valid 44% of the sample selected
“annually”. One respondent – a valid 2% of the sample selected “multiple times annually.”
Question 36.
36. Specialized training is provided specifically to human resource professionals in your organization Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 29 35.4 59.2 59.2 Bi- 2 2.4 4.1 63.3 Annually Annually 18 22.0 36.7 100.0 Total 49 59.8 100.0 Missing System 33 40.2 Total 82 100.0
129 Question 36. When asked if specialized training is provided specifically to human resource professionals to provide them knowledge and skills to identify and address bullying and other interpersonal conflicts twenty-nine respondents – a valid 59.2% of the sample – selected “never”. Two respondents – a valid 4.1% of the sample selected “bi- annually”. Eighteen respondents – a valid 36.7% of the sample selected “annually”. No respondents selected “multiple times annually”.
Question 37.
37. Specialized training is provided specifically to management in your organization Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Never 30 36.6 60.0 60.0 Bi- 2 2.4 4.0 64.0 Annually Annually 18 22.0 36.0 100.0 Total 50 61.0 100.0 Missing System 32 39.0 Total 82 100.0
Question 37. When asked if specialized training is provided specifically to management in to provide them knowledge and skills to identify and address bullying and other interpersonal conflicts. Thirty respondents – a valid 60% of the sample – selected
“never”. Two respondents – a valid 4% of the sample selected “bi-annually”. Eighteen respondents – a valid 36% of the sample selected “annually”. No respondents selected
“multiple times annually”.
130 Table 10 Knowledge Based Interventions Used to Address Bullying Multiple Bi- Times Never Annually Annually Annually 30. Your organization uses 30 6 14 0 anonymous surveys to gauge 60.0% 12.0% 28.0% 0.0% the climate within the organization
35. Workplace bullying prevention 25 2 22 1 and/or awareness training is provided to all staff members in your 50.0% 4.0% 44.0% 2.0% organization.
36. Specialized training is provided 29 2 18 0 specifically to human resource 59.2% 4.1% 36.7% 0.0% professionals in your organization to provide them knowledge and skills to
identify and address
37. Specialized training is provided 30 2 18 0 specifically to management in your 60.0% 4.0% 36.0% 0.0% organization to provide them knowledge and skills to identify and
address bullying and other
Note. N=53. Percentages are based on non- missing observations.
The survey items detailed in Table 10 look at the frequency in which the organizations take steps to address workplace bullying. By far the most common answers were “never” and “annually.” 60% (n = 30) stated that their organization never uses anonymous surveys, and 28% (n = 14) stated that they did so annually. 50% (n = 25) stated that training was never provided to staff, and 44% (n = 22) stated that it was offered once per year. 59.2% (n = 29) stated that specialized training to identify and address bullying is never provided to human resource professionals in the organization,
131 and 36.7% (n = 18) said that such training was provided annually. 60% (n = 30) said specialized training was never offered to management, and 36% (n = 18) said it was offered annually.
Policy Adoptions. In this grouping of questions, responses to survey items were designed to measure performance improvement interventions that utilize organizational policy adoptions to address bullying in the workplace. Respondents answered these questions with the responses: Yes, No, or I Don’t Know. In question 38, respondents were also given the option to choose: my organization does not have workplace bullying training.
Question 29.
29. A non-retaliation policy is in place for employees who report a perceived workplace bullying infraction Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 30 36.6 58.8 58.8 No 9 11.0 17.6 76.5 I Don’t 12 14.6 23.5 100.0 Know Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 29. When asked if a non-retaliation policy is in place for employees who report a perceived workplace bullying infraction thirty respondents – a valid 58.8% of the sample – selected “Yes”. Nine respondents – a valid 17.6% of the sample – selected
“No”. Twelve (12) respondents – a valid 23.5% of the sample – selected “I don’t know”.
132 Question 38.
38. Evaluation of workplace bullying training interventions is used in your organization to assess the learner’s knowledge and ensure understanding of the topic after the training is complete Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid Yes 10 12.2 20.4 20.4 No 14 17.1 28.6 49.0 I Don’t know 14 17.1 28.6 77.6 My organization does not have workplace bullying 11 13.4 22.4 100.0 training Total 49 59.8 100.0 Missing System 33 40.2 Total 82 100.0
Question 38. When asked if workplace bullying training interventions are evaluated in their organization to assess the learner’s knowledge and ensure understanding of the topic after the training is complete ten respondents – a valid 20.4% of the sample – selected
“Yes”. Fourteen respondents – a valid 28.6% of the sample selected “No”. Fourteen respondents – a valid 28.6% of the sample selected “I don’t know”. Eleven respondents – a valid 22.4% of respondents – selected “my organization does not have workplace bullying training”.
133 Question 40.
40. Your organization reviews data on changes in frequency of: grievances and complaints, absenteeism, and employee turnover within the organization Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 28 34.1 54.9 54.9 No 10 12.2 19.6 74.5 I Don’t 13 15.9 25.5 100.0 Know Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 40. When asked if their organization reviews data on changes in frequency of: grievances and complaints, absenteeism, and employee turnover within the organization twenty-eight respondents – a valid 54.9% of the sample – selected “Yes”. Ten respondents – a valid 19.6% of the sample selected “No”. Thirteen respondents – a valid
25.5% of the sample selected “I don’t know”.
Question 41.
41. The number of workplace bullying cases reported is statistically recorded by your organization Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Yes 8 9.8 15.7 15.7 No 20 24.4 39.2 54.9 I Don’t 23 28.0 45.1 100.0 Know Total 51 62.2 100.0 Missing System 31 37.8 Total 82 100.0
Question 41. When asked if the number of workplace bullying cases reported is statistically recorded by their organization: eight respondents – a valid 15.7% of the
134 sample – selected “Yes”; twenty respondents – a valid 39.2% of the sample selected
“No”; twenty-three respondents – a valid 45.1% of the sample selected “I don’t know”.
Summary of Policy Adoptions.
Table 11 Summary of Policy Adoptions No I Don't Workplace Yes No Know Training 29. A non-retaliation policy is in place for 30 9 12 NA employees who report a perceived workplace 58.8 17.6 23.5 - bullying infraction
38.Evaluation of workplace bullying training 10 14 14 11 interventions is used to assess the learner’s 20.4 28.6 28.6 22.4 knowledge to ensure understanding of the topic
40. Your organization reviews data on 28 10 13 NA changes in frequency of: grievances and 54.9 19.6 25.5 - complaints, absenteeism, and employee turnover within the organization
41. The number of workplace bullying cases 8 20 23 NA reported is statistically recorded 15.7 39.2 45.1 - Note. N=53. Percentages are based on non-missing observations.
Table 11 considers specific policy adoptions.
Items in this domain measured performance improvement interventions classified as policy adoptions that address bullying in the workplace. When analyzing respondents who answered in the affirmative, 58.8% (n = 30) of the valid sample reported that a non- retaliation policy is in place for employees who report a perceived infraction. Only 20.4%
(n = 10) utilize evaluations to measure comprehension of bullying policy. While 54.9%
(n = 28) collect and consider data on frequency of grievances, complaints, absenteeism,
135 and employee turnover. Only 15.7% (n = 8) specifically collect data on workplace bullying incidences.
Research Question Three. Is the Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for
Human Resource Professionals a valid measure of reported workplace bullying in correctional facilities?
Overview
The Rasch Mathematical Model was used for the data analysis procedure conducted to answer this research question. A software program, Winsteps™, was used to analyze the data from control and data files. Rasch analysis includes: separation, reliability, item difficulty, person ability, and fit. These statistics were considered to further assess the instrument for performance and potential revision.
The Negative Acts Questionnaire for HR Professionals used in this study utilized several rating scales of measurement. However, the Rasch analysis was only used to analyze the survey items measured by the two rating scales determined appropriate for the model. These scales were appropriate as there was a progressive value among the responses. Separate control files were created to represent both rating scales that could be analyzed using the Rasch model.
Negative Acts Questionnaire for HR Professionals – Question 1 through 22
The Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for Human Resource Professionals research instrument asked respondents how often workplace bullying tactics were reported to them in the context of their position. In questions 1 through 22, respondents were given the response choices: never, now and then, monthly, weekly, and daily.
136 Reliability and Separation. To develop a more thorough understanding of functionality of the survey instrument, the statistical summary tables of both the person responses and survey items were produced. Rasch model expectations suggest between
0.7 and 1.0 for both person and item reliability is ideal; the closer the statistic is to 1.0, the stronger the reliability. As the survey was originally constructed, the person reliability registered 0.93 with a separation of 3.56. This is demonstrated in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1
Person Reliability
The item reliability was 0.92 with separation of 3.38. The overall test reliability was 0.96.
This is demonstrated in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2
Item Reliability
Summary of Category Structure. After initial summary statistics were analyzed, the scale items were then reviewed. The Rasch model suggests there should be an
137 approximate difference of 1.6 and 1.8 between scale items, with a consistent distance between response categories. As the survey was initially constructed, the differences between items were 2.18, 1.17, 0.85, and 1.33 respectively, as reflected in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3
Summary of Category Structure
The difference between response categories was calculated based on the statistics under the heading “category measure”. The difference between response 3 (monthly) and
4 (weekly) is 0.85 well under the Rasch model expectation of difference between 1.6 and
1.8. Further, there was not consistent distance between response categories. This suggests respondents did not perceive a clear difference between these response categories.
When response categories 3 (monthly) and 4 (weekly) were collapsed into one new response category (weekly) the difference between scale items improves to 2.32,
2.11, and 2.02 respectively, as reflected in Figure 4 below. Collapsing these response categories provides for consistent differences between response categories. This suggests respondents can now perceive a clear difference between the response categories.
138 Figure 4
Summary of Category Structure – Collapsed Response Categories
Reliability and Separation Recalculated. After collapsing response categories 3
(monthly) and 4 (weekly), summary statistics were re-calculated to determine changes in reliability and separation. The person reliability remained 0.93. The separation changed to 3.76 from the original 3.56. This larger separation of people suggests the revised scale is more likely to represent the population. This is demonstrated in Figure 5 below.
Figure 5
Person Reliability – Recalculated
The item reliability remained 0.92; the separation changed to 3.30 from the original 3.38.
The overall test reliability remained 0.96. This is demonstrated in Figure 6 below.
139 Figure 6
Item Reliability – Recalculated
Construct key form. The construct key form reflects item construct validity
(Linacre, 2009). As shown in Figure 7 below, the construct key form reflects the survey items as they were originally constructed. The items are ordered from the least likely for respondents to endorse at the top of the key form, to the most likely item for respondents to endorse at the bottom of the key form. As the key form reflects, respondents were most likely to endorse survey item 6 (“Being ignored, excluded or being isolated from others”), and least likely to endorse survey item 22 (“Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse”).
140 Figure 7
Key form
Item Statistics. Fit statistics reflect the degree the observed responses match the
Rasch model expectations. An item fit statistic examines the pattern of a survey item for all respondents; a person fit statistic examines a pattern of a particular person for all survey items (Fink, 2007). Fit statistics are useful in determining whether item estimations can be held as meaningful quantitative summaries of the observations (Bond
& Fox, 2007). The Rasch Model expects items that are difficult, or more difficult to endorse, will be less frequent. Whereas, easier items, or items that are easier to endorse, will be more frequent (You, 2010).
The outfit mean square statistics or MNSQ are accepted in the range of 0.6 to 1.5.
Survey items with MNSQ beyond this range should be investigated for revision. MNSQ below 0.6 suggests question redundancy while MNSQ above 1.5 suggests the survey item
141 causes error. Survey items that do not fit the Rasch model expectations require further investigation to determine if they measure what they were designed to measure.
Figure 8
Item Statistics
Survey item 22 (“Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse”) had the highest score with an infit MNSQ of 1.47 and an outfit MNSQ of 2.21. This suggests respondents may have misunderstood the survey item or it is not reported to them in their position.
Survey item 9 (“Intimidating behavior such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way”) had an infit MNSQ of 1.52 and an outfit MNSQ of 1.86. Again, this suggests respondents may have misunderstood the survey item or this bullying tactic is not reported to them in their position.
142 Survey item 5 (“Having gossip and rumors spread about them”) was the only survey item with an infit MNSQ and an outfit MNSQ below the Rasch model expectation of 0.6. This suggests the survey item may be redundant or produce similar information as other items, or the item is too easy for respondents to endorse.
Removing any of the survey items (5, 9, and 22) with a fit statistics outside of the
Rasch model expectations individually each lowered the reliability of the survey.
Therefore, future research using this survey instrument should consider revising these survey items, but not removing them from the survey entirely. Suggestions for revision of these items is made in Chapter 5 of this writing under the heading Research Question 3.
Negative Acts Questionnaire for HR Professionals – Questions 28, 31, 32, 33, and 34
In this grouping of questions, survey items were designed to gauge if organizational measures had been implemented to address workplace bullying. If these measures had been implemented, these survey items gauged if respondents felt these measures were being utilized by their organization appropriately. These survey items were all answered on a four-point scale with the choice of responses being: strongly agree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree.
Reliability and Separation. Rasch model expectations suggest both person and item reliability between 0.7 and 1.0 is ideal. As this set of questions was originally constructed, the person reliability registered 0.83 with a separation of 2.22; this is demonstrated in Figure 9 below. While the reliability falls within the Rasch expectations cited above, item reliability is lower than the other rating scale analyzed in this study.
143 Figure 9
Person Reliability
The item reliability was 0.84 with separation of 2.30. The overall test reliability was 0.86.
This is demonstrated in Figure 10 below.
Figure 10
Item Reliability
Summary of Category Structure. The Rasch model suggests there should be approximate difference of 1.6 and 1.8 between scale items, with a consistent distance between response categories. As the survey was initially constructed, the difference between these items was 3.28, 3.47, and 2.99 respectively, as reflected in Figure 11.
144 Figure 11
Summary of Category Structure
While the difference between items is outside of the Rasch model expectations which suggest a difference between categories of between 1.6 and 1.8, the scale progresses from negative to positive and has even distance between response options as the Rasch model suggests. Further, this suggests respondents perceived a clear difference between response options and did not perceive the response options as interchangeable.
Construct key form. The construct key form reflects the survey items as they were originally constructed. The items are ordered from the least likely for respondents to endorse at the top of the key form, to the most likely item for respondents to endorse at the bottom of the key form. As shown in Figure 12 below, the key form reflects the more ability a respondent presents, the more likely that respondent will answer “strongly agree” to questions 28, 31, 32, 33, and 34. As the key form reflects, respondents were most likely to endorse survey item 28 (“Workplace bullying policy is applied consistently and enforced across the spectrum of your organization”), and least likely to endorse survey item 31 (“In your organization, organizational workplace bullying goals are tied to employee performance evaluations”).
145 Figure 12
Key form
Item Statistics. The Rasch model expectation suggests the infit and outfit mean square statistics or MNSQ are accepted in the range of 0.6 to 1.5. As reflected in Figure
13 questions 28, 31, 32, 33, and 34 have infit and outfit mean square statistics between
0.6 and 1.5. These statistics are within the Rasch Model expectation and no revision is necessary.
Figure 13
Item Statistics
146 Chapter Five
Discussion
Workplace bullying is a significant problem in organizations of various sizes and in a variety of work environments carrying wide-ranging consequences (Daniel, 2009;
Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009; Leonard, 2007; McIntosh, 2006). While estimates of the number of employees bullied vary, most studies report ten to twenty percent of employees are exposed to workplace bullying annually (Einarson et al., 2003; Nielsen,
Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2010). The literature has established workplace bullying as a significant problem impacting employee and organizational performance with many researchers suggesting human resource professionals should be an integral part of addressing workplace bullying in organizations (Boyd & Carden, 2010; Glendinning,
2001; Lewis & Rayner, 2003; Mathieson, Hanson, & Burns, 2006; Namie & Namie,
2003; Salin, 2008).
This study utilized the central tenets of Human Performance Technology, specifically systems theory, to focus on the organizational subsystem of human resources as it relates to preventing, identifying, and addressing workplace bullying. Utilizing systems theory is vital when addressing performance issues, as organizations are comprised of functionally related systems that impact the performance of all of the other systems within the whole organization (ISPI, 2005).
There were three identified purposes to this study. Human resource professionals play a central role in implementing and applying anti-bullying policy and performance improvement interventions. However, no valid research instrument has been developed to measure the frequency of bullying behavior is reported. The first purpose of the study
147 was to provide a valid measure of workplace bullying observation from the perspective of the human resource professional.
The second purpose of this study was to take an occupation specific approach to investigate if employees in correctional organizations report workplace bullying behavior to their organization through human resource professionals at a different rate than in other fields of employment established in the population norm.
The third purpose of this study was to investigate if correctional organizations are utilizing interventions to address workplace bullying similar to what is recommended in current scholarly research on the subjects of workplace bullying, human resources, human performance improvement, and training and development.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
Research Question 1: Do human resource professionals working in the field of corrections identify workplace bullying behaviors that are reported through official organizational channels?
Research Question 2: Is there a statistically significant difference in workplace bullying (work-related bullying, person-related bullying or physically intimidating bullying) reported through official organizational channels in corrections organizations compared to the rate bullying has been reported in the general population as reported by
Einarsen et al. (2009)?
Research Question 3: Is the Negative Acts Questionnaire Revised for Human
Resource Professionals a valid measure of reported workplace bullying in correctional facilities?
148 Research Question 4: Do human resource professionals in the field of corrections believe their agency has employed performance improvement interventions to prevent, identify, and address workplace bullying similar to those recommended in current scholarly literature?
Summary of Methods
A quantitative approach was used to answer these research questions.
Research Question 1: The researcher gathered the perceptions of human resource professionals in the research sample using the Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for
Human Resource Professionals survey instrument. Frequency tables were used to report the frequencies and percentages from each item of the survey instrument individually.
Research Question 2: The researcher used Einarsen’s et al. (2009) work as a baseline population norm of workplace bullying prevalence. The established population norm was compared to the data collected in this study. An independent sample t-test was used to compare the research sample means to population means as established by
Einarsen et al. (2009). Tables were used to report the differences in sample means and population means.
Research Question 3: The Rasch Mathematical Model was used for data analysis in the research instrument validation process conducted to answer this research question.
A software program, Winsteps™, was used and a control and date file was created in order to analyze the data. Rasch statistics include: separation, reliability, item difficulty, person ability, and fit. These statistics were considered to allow the researcher to further assess the instrument for performance and revision.
149 Research Question 4: Nineteen questions were added to the survey instrument to determine if the human resource professionals surveyed felt their agency utilized performance improvement interventions recommended in the reviewed research.
Frequency tables were used to report frequencies and percentages from each item added to the survey instrument individually.
Summary and Discussion
Overview
Human Performance Technology suggests taking a systems view of organizations.
This is essential when addressing performance issues, as organizations are comprised of functionally related components that impact the performance of all of the other systems within the whole organization (ISPI, 2005). To this end, this study utilized the principles of Human Performance Technology to focus on the organizational system of human resources as it relates to preventing, identifying, and addressing workplace bullying.
The International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI) defines Human
Performance Technology as “a systematic approach to improving productivity and competence. It uses a set of methods and procedures, and a strategy for solving problems related to the performance of people” (ISPI, 2005). Specifically, HPT is a process of selection, analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation of performance improvement programs to influence performance in organizations.
In this study, the researcher utilized a systems view of performance. Systems theory as part of Human Performance Technology suggests organizations are comprised of subsystems that are all connected in some way. This suggests that a change in one subsystem will impact other subsystems in the organization (Pershing, 2006; Pershing,
150 2008). While all of the parts of a system are separate, they must work together toward a common goal. The effectiveness of each separate unit is dependent on how it fits into the whole system, and the effectiveness of the whole system is dependent on the way each unit functions (ISPI, 2005). HPT suggests that when changes are made to one organizational subsystem, other organizational subsystems can experience changes as well (Johnson, 2013).
An overarching goal of HPT is “the leveraging of human capital in the most efficient manner to achieve targeted, valued results” (Pershing, 2008, p. xviii). Relative to this study, leveraging “human capital” in the most efficient way possible is imperative in efforts to optimize individual and organizational performance when addressing workplace bullying. As HPT utilizes a variety of disciplines and interventions to improve performance, it can be effective in a wide-range of organizations. The goal of HPT interventions is to improve or provide the knowledge, skills, motivation, and environmental support for workers to do their job in the most effective and efficient way possible (Fuller & Farrington, 1999). As Pershing (2008) noted, HPT is increasingly being used in social settings like reproductive health in developing nations, community substance abuse programs, public education, and improving quality of life in healthcare organizations. Pershing (2008) further noted Human Performance Technology can be utilized to improve performance in all sections of society including business, public, and non-profit organizations. In this section, the specific findings from each research question will be discussed.
151 Research Question 1
RQ1: Do human resource professionals working in the field of corrections identify workplace bullying behaviors that are reported through official organizational channels?
A significant amount of workplace bullying research has focused on causes, symptoms, and consequences of the phenomenon that can be generalized across a variety of occupations (Glaso, Bele, Nielsen & Einarsen, 2011). While this generalized approach has furthered our understanding of the topic, several authors have suggested generalized literature should be complemented by research studies that consider factors, issues, and concerns specific to particular working environments to develop more meaningful knowledge (De Croon, Blonk, De Zwart, Frings-Dresen & Broersen, 2002; Glaso et al.,
2011; McClenahan, Giles & Mallett, 2007; Sparks & Cooper, 1999). Glaso et al. (2011) explained taking an occupation-specific approach to workplace bullying research can enhance our understanding and assist in the development and management of performance improvement interventions designed to address the phenomenon. Further,
Beehr et al. (2000) reported increased effectiveness in intervention strategies that have been developed from individual job and organizational characteristics rather than from general information.
Taking an occupation-specific approach to workplace bullying research provides insight into the unique facets of the occupation being researched (Glaso et al., 2011; Zapf et al., 2003). Further, the research reported the frequency and nature of workplace bullying is varied across different sectors of employment (Zapf et al., 2003). The findings
152 of this study provide a snapshot of workplace bullying behaviors reported to human resource professionals in the field of corrections.
The research reflects prevalence of experiencing and witnessing bullying in the workplace. The research is not definitive on the prevalence of workplace bullying.
However, research studies that have attempted to determine the actual pervasiveness of the phenomenon in the United States and internationally have produced varying results.
Most studies have found between 10% and 20% of employees are bullied on an annual basis (Einarson, Hoel, Zapf, and Cooper, 2003).
Only a small amount of research specific to correctional environments was located. Hoel & Cooper (2000) found workplace bullying to be prevalent in various work environments, including prisons. The authors found 64% of staff had witnessed bullying and 31% had experienced bullying in the most recent five year period. Vartia & Hyyti
(2002) reported 20% of prison employees who responded perceived they had been bullied. While this information is useful, no research was located reflecting the prevalence of reporting workplace bullying behaviors.
To answer this research question, twenty-two (22) survey questions were separated into three groupings as suggested by Einarsen et al. (2009). These question groupings utilize seven questions (1, 3, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21) to measure work-related bullying, thirteen questions (2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 20) to measure person-related bullying, and three questions (8, 9, and 22) to measure physically intimidating bullying.
Work-related bullying. Work-related bullying was measured with seven survey items 1, 3, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21. The modal response was “now and then” for survey
153 item 1 – “Co-workers or superiors withheld information that affected their performance”
(n = 29, 55.8%), survey item 3 – “Being ordered to do work below what is in their job description” (n = 23, 44.2%), survey item 14 – “Having their opinions and views ignored”, and survey item 21 – “Being exposed to an unmanageable workload” (n = 20,
38.5%). Very few respondents reported these things occurring weekly or daily. The modal response was “never” for: survey item 16 – Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines, survey item 18 – Excessive monitoring of their work, and survey item 19 – Pressure not to claim something which by right they are entitled.
The most common daily occurring items were survey item 18 (n = 7, 13.5%), survey item 19 (n = 5, 9.6%), and survey item 21 (n = 5, 9.6%). It is interesting to consider why these workplace bullying tactics were reported more often on a “daily” basis. One possible explanation for this is that survey items 18, 19, and 21 are tactics that would primarily be directed from a supervisor to subordinate. In survey item 18, employees on the same hierarchical level are unlikely to monitor each other’s work. In survey item 19, employees would most likely be pressured not to take something like vacation time, or sick leave, by their supervisor. In survey item 21, employee’s workload would be assigned by their superior. This may not suggest employees are experiencing these behaviors more often on a “daily” basis. However, it could suggest that employees report bullying tactics directed from their supervisor to human resource personnel, while they may report bullying tactics from co-workers at the same hierarchal level to their direct supervisor.
154 Table 12 Frequencies for Work- Related Bullying Items Now & Never Then Monthly Weekly Daily 1. Co-workers or superiors withheld information that 13 29 3 6 1 effected their performance 25.0% 55.8% 5.8% 11.5% 1.9% 3. Being ordered to do work below what is in their job 19 23 5 4 1 description 36.5% 44.2% 9.6% 7.7% 1.9% 14. Having their opinions and 12 21 11 5 3 views ignored 23.1% 40.4% 21.2% 9.6% 5.8% 16. Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible 29 13 4 3 2 targets or deadlines 56.9% 25.5% 7.8% 5.9% 3.9% 18. Excessive monitoring of 21 18 2 4 7 their work 13.5 40.4% 34.6% 3.8% 7.7% % 19. Pressure not to claim something which by right they 30 12 3 2 5 are entitled. 57.7% 23.1% 5.8% 3.8% 9.6% 21. Being exposed to an 19 20 3 5 5 unmanageable workload 36.5% 38.5% 5.8% 9.6% 9.6% Note. N=53. Percentages are based on non-missing observations.
The first number in each row represents the number of respondents in the sample who answered in the respective category (total N = 53), and the percentages are taken from the number of non-missing responses to each question.
155 Person-related bullying. Person-related bullying was measured with twelve survey items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 20. Outside of survey item 4
(“Having key areas of responsibility removed”) all of these survey items measure workplace bullying tactics that would appear to be used in both superior toward subordinate bullying situations, and in situations where the bully and target are on the same hierarchal level.
In this grouping of questions, four survey items had more than one respondent reporting the item occurred “daily.” This includes survey item 5 (“Having gossip and rumors spread about them”) (n = 4, 7.7%), survey item 6 (“Being ignored, excluded or being isolated from others”) (n = 6, 11.5%), survey item 7 (“Having insulting or offensive remarks made about their personal habits”) (n = 3, 5.9%), survey item 11
(“Receiving repeated reminders of errors or mistakes) (n = 3, 5.8%), and survey item 12
(“facing a hostile reaction when approaching others) (n = 2, 3.8%). The modal responses to these survey items again leaned toward the “never” and “now and then” categories. It is interesting to consider how respondents quantify the “now and then” response. This is the only response option without a direct quantifiable value. For instance, “never” infers the tactic is never reported, while “monthly”, “weekly”, and “daily” infer these behaviors are reported at least one time during those time periods. These results suggest respondents are more comfortable selecting a response that does not force them to quantify how often the behavior is reported to them. Or, they feel the tactics are reported, but not enough to quantify monthly occurrence. Focus groups with human resource professionals may be useful to determine the interpretation of the rating scale.
156 Table 13 Frequencies for Person-Related Bullying Items Now and Never Then Monthly Weekly Daily 2. Being humiliated or ridiculed in 22 20 4 5 1 connection with their work 42.3% 38.5% 7.7% 9.6% 1.9% 4. Having key areas of responsibility 21 20 8 2 1 removed 40.4% 38.5% 15.4% 3.8% 1.9% 5. Having gossip and rumors 11 22 10 5 4 spread about them 21.2% 42.3% 19.2% 9.6% 7.7% 6. Being ignored, excluded 13 23 7 3 6 or being isolated from others 25.0% 44.2% 13.5% 5.8% 11.5% 7. Having insulting or offensive remarks made about their 19 20 4 5 3 personal habits 37.3% 39.2% 7.8% 9.8% 5.9% 10. Hints or signals from others 29 15 5 2 1 they should quit their job 55.8% 28.8% 9.6% 3.8% 1.9% 11. Repeated reminders of their 14 22 6 7 3 errors or mistakes 26.9% 42.3% 11.5% 13.5% 5.8% 12. Being ignored or facing a 22 17 7 4 2 hostile reaction 42.3% 32.7% 13.5% 7.7% 3.8% 13. Persistent criticism of 17 19 8 7 1 their work and effort 32.7% 36.5% 15.4% 13.5% 1.9% 15. Practical jokes carried out by 32 18 1 0 1 people they don't get along with 61.5% 34.6% 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 17. Having allegations made 20 25 4 2 1 against them 38.5% 48.1% 7.7% 3.8% 1.9%
20. Being the subject of excessive 24 23 2 2 1 teasing and sarcasm 46.2% 44.2% 3.8% 3.8% 1.9% Note. N=53. Percentages are based on non-missing observations.
157 Table 13 summarizes the person-related bullying items. The first number in each row represents the number of respondents in the sample who answered in the respective category (total N = 53), and the percentages are taken from the number of non-missing responses to each question.
Physically intimidating bullying. Physically intimidating bullying was measured with three survey items 8, 9, and 22. These items happened the least frequently of all three survey item groupings with the modal response always being “never.” Nobody in the sample reported cases of threats of physical violence or abuse more than “now and then.” There was one report of shouting and spontaneous anger and three reports (5.9%) of intimidating behavior occurring “daily”. Physical intimidating bullying was not commonly reported to those surveyed. This was not surprising as physically intimidating bullying is also not reported at a high rate in the research. In their study, Einarsen et al.
(2009) reported the average conditional probability of respondents reporting physically intimidating bullying behavior as three percent.
When considering why violence is not often found to be a tactic of workplace bullies, it is important to remember workplace bullying is a systematic pattern of subtle mistreatment which purposefully makes it less noticeable to other members of the organization and not a singular act or outburst (McKenna et al., 2003; Neuman & Baron,
1998). Further, violence and aggressive physical behavior is more evident and easier for others to detect and potentially prove in an investigation. McKenna et al. (2003) reminded that workplace bullies rarely rely on one bullying tactic and usually don’t resort to violence as they are aware it would likely lead to termination from their employment.
158
Table 14 Frequencies for Physically Now & Intimidating Bullying Items Never Then Monthly Weekly Daily 8. Being shouted at or being the 15 30 4 1 1 target of spontaneous anger 29.4% 58.8% 7.8% 2.0% 2.0% 9. Intimidating behavior such as finger-pointing, invasion of 34 13 1 0 3 personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way 66.7% 25.5% 2.0% 0.0% 5.9%
22. Threats of violence or physical 42 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 abuse or actual abuse
80.8% 19.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Note. N=53. Percentages are based on non- missing observations.
Table 14 summarizes results for questions tapping physically intimidating bullying tactics. The first number in each row represents the number of respondents in the sample who answered in the respective category (total N = 53), and the percentages are taken from the number of non-missing responses to each question.
Research Question 2
RQ2. Is there a statistically significant difference in workplace bullying (work- related bullying, person-related bullying or physically intimidating bullying) reported through official organizational channels in corrections organizations compared to the rate bullying has been reported in the general population as reported by Einarsen et al.
(2009)?
159 To answer this research question, an independent sample t-test was used to compare the research sample means to the population means as established by
Einarsen et al. (2009). The results show that most of the differences between responses in this study and the Einarsen et al. (2009) study were statistically significant. The NAQ-R contained items categorized as work-related bullying, person-related bullying, or physically intimidating bullying respectively. Einarsen et al. (2009) found the NAQ-R instrument has a high internal stability within these three categories, although the instrument can also be used as a single or even double category measure. In evaluation of the differences between responses in this study and the Einarsen et al. study, responses will be evaluated within these categories.
The work-related bullying subscale (survey items 1, 3, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21) responses in this study produced a mean of 14.038 (SD = 6.358). Einarsen et al. (2009) reported a mean of 13.78 (SD = 5.2) relative to these items in their study. The work- related bullying subscale did not yield a statistically significant result.
These results suggest work-related bullying tactics were reported at a similar rate to human resource professionals in this study as they were found to take place in the
Einarsen et al. study. As discussed relative to research question 1, most of these survey items measure workplace bullying tactics you would expect in a superior and subordinate bullying situation. It is worth further effort to investigate why these behaviors are reported at a similar rate, when statistically significant differences were found relative to the person-related and physically intimidating bullying subscales.
The person-related bullying subscale (survey items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
17, and 20) responses in this study produced a mean of 23.673 (SD = 9.492). Einarsen et
160 al. (2009) reported a mean of 14.51 (SD = 5.04) relative to these items in their study. The person-related bullying scale in this study yielded a significant difference in means of
9.89, SE = 1.32, t(51) = 7.48, p < .001, as compared to the Einarsen et al. (2009) study.
The physically intimidating bullying subscale (survey items 8, 9, and 22) responses in this study produced a mean of 4.538 (SD = 1.754). Einarsen et al. (2009) reported a mean of 3.88 (SD = 1.85) relative to these items in their study. The physical intimidation subscale difference in means was smaller than in the person-related bullying subscale, Mdiff = .660, SE = .244, but it was large enough to be significant, t(52) = 2.7, p = .009, as compared to the Einarsen et al. (2009) study.
These results suggest that the human resources professionals in this survey have a different perspective on workplace bullying compared to those considered in the Einarsen et al. study. Specifically, in two of the three question groupings – person-related bullying and physically intimidating bullying – statistically significant differences were found.
There are several reasons these differences in reporting may exist.
The differences in reporting in this study as compared to the Einarsen et al. (2009) study may suggest human resource professionals are more likely to accurately report their experience. However, workplace bullying targets may potentially under-report their direct experience of bullying behavior. This would be in-line with concerns relative to reporting directly cited in the literature. Several authors express concern regarding established prevalence rates directly citing under-reporting of the behavior by targets as a cause of variance of prevalence rates (La Van & Martin, 2007; Ortega, Hogh, Pejtersen,
& Olsen, 2009). Additionally, the literature describes a lack of reporting among targets to avoid the perceived role of “victim”, as researchers explain it may foster feelings of
161 weakness, embarrassment, shame, and passivity (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994;
Rayner, Hoel, and Cooper, 2002). Additionally targets may under-report bullying due to fear and concern the bully would not face consequences or could retaliate against them
(Dalton, 2007; Jefferson, 2008). This fear of retaliation should be addressed by the organization and will be addressed in research question 4. Further, targets often describe fear of reporting bullying behavior would negatively impact their reputation within the organization (Ellis, 2009; Kieseker & Marchant, 1999; Rayner et al., 2002; Vega &
Comer, 2005).
The differences in reporting in this study as compared to the Einarsen et al. (2009) study may also suggest reporting of bullying tactics to human resource professionals is skewed. Interestingly, workplace bullies could report mistreatment through official channels in order to further discredit, isolate, and undermine a target. In the future, researchers could review workplace bullying investigations, interview or conduct focus groups with human resource professionals and targets to determine if this is valid.
The differences in reporting in this study as compared to the Einarsen et al. (2009) study may suggest an increase of awareness and knowledge relative to workplace bullying. As Einarsen et al. collected their data approximately five years ago, awareness and education relative to workplace bullying has increased. This may have caused increased reporting of the phenomenon. As Salin (2008) reported, awareness and knowledge of bullying at all levels within an organization helps reduce recognition time, increases reporting, and prevents bullying situations from escalating. It is interesting to consider that increased education, awareness, and use of performance improvement
162 interventions to address workplace bullying may actually increase rates of bullying in research as employees may now be more apt to recognize and report tactics.
The differences in reporting in this study as compared to the Einarsen et al. (2009) study may also be attributed to the difference in survey methods. To participate in the study, respondents were required to identify human resource functions that make up their job description to ensure they were appropriate for participation in the study. Appropriate respondents then selected frequencies of how often workplace bullying tactics were reported to them through official organizational channels in the last six month time period. Whereas, respondents in the Einarsen et al. (2009) study were asked to directly report how often they personally experienced workplace bullying tactics.
The Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised for Human Resources Professionals produced an effective starting point for gauging reporting to human resource professionals as compared to actual prevalence workplace bullying tactics were found to take place. The instrument should be further piloted with a group of human resource professional subject matter experts to increase content validity. Research Question 3 utilized the Rasch model to further assess the research instrument.
Research Question 3
RQ3: Is the Negative Acts Questionnaire Revised for Human Resource
Professionals a valid measure of reported workplace bullying in correctional facilities?
No valid research instrument to measure reporting of bullying behavior to human resource professionals was located in the established literature. This study aimed to adapt a commonly used workplace bullying instrument – the Negative Acts Questionnaire
Revised (NAQ-R) – to provide a valid measure of reporting of bullying behaviors to
163 human resource professionals. The Rasch Mathematical Model was used for data analysis in this research question to evaluate the research instrument. The Rasch statistics separation, reliability, item difficulty, person ability, and fit were utilized to allow the researcher to further assess the instrument for performance and revision. The Rasch analysis included consideration of separation, reliability, item difficulty, person ability, and fit to determine if the statistics aligned with the Rasch model expectations.
The Negative Acts Questionnaire Revised for Human Resource Professionals used in this study utilized several rating scales of measurement. Two rating scales were determined appropriate for the model as there was a progression among the responses.
For survey items 1 through 22, when respondents were given the response choices: never, now and then, monthly, weekly, and daily. In survey items 28, 31, 32, 33, and 34, respondents were given the response choices: strongly agree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree.
Survey Items 1 through 22. Initial summary statistics allowed for scale items to be reviewed. As the scale was constructed, the difference between response 3 (monthly) and 4 (weekly) was 0.85, suggesting that respondents did not perceive a clear difference between these response categories. As a result, these response categories were collapsed into one category, “weekly.” This provided an improved differentiation between responses, which suggests respondents could perceive a clear difference between choices.
Subsequent data collection and Rasch analysis of the revised rating scale should be conducted to gauge validity and potential for additional revision.
The key form showed that respondents in this study were most likely to endorse survey item 6 (“Being ignored, excluded or being isolated from others”). The common
164 identification of this tactic is not surprising, as these tactics may be utilized in the presence or absence of the target. For example, targets can be excluded or isolated by not being invited to events, or ignored by having an opinion or thought marginalized. Further, bullies may utilize these tactics – ignoring, excluding, or isolating – knowing that proving use during an official investigation would be difficult. These tactics also present themselves in the literature. Einarsen et al. (2003) explained that targets often report feeling isolated, demoralized, and unable to defend themselves from the bully. Several authors have cited professional exclusion and isolation behaviors as methods to isolate targets (Field, 1996; Gardner & Johnson, 2001).
The key form showed that respondents in this study were least likely to endorse survey item 22 (“Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse”). The lack of identification of these behaviors is similar to what is reported in the cited research. As
McKenna et al. (2003) reported, bullies in the workplace usually don’t resort to violence as they know it would likely lead to termination from their employment. Further, acts of violence or physical abuse could be easier to prove during an investigation. While the research suggests that acts of violence are less likely to occur which would lead to fewer respondents reporting these behaviors, it is also important to consider the structure of the survey item. This was done using fit statistics.
Fit statistics reflect the degree to which the observed responses match the Rasch model expectations. Fit statistics are useful in determining whether item estimations can be held as meaningful quantitative summaries of the observations (Bond & Fox, 2007).
Survey items that do not fit the Rasch model expectations require further investigation to determine if they measure what they were designed to measure. The outfit mean square
165 statistics or MNSQ are accepted in the range of 0.6 to 1.5; survey items with MNSQ beyond this range should be investigated for revision. MNSQ below 0.6 suggests question redundancy while MNSQ above 1.5 suggests the survey item causes error.
Survey item 22 (“Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse”) had the highest score with an infit MNSQ of 1.47 and an outfit MNSQ of 2.21. This suggests respondents may have misunderstood the survey item, or the tactic is not reported to them in their position. Review of this survey item revealed the item is double-barreled which may lead to measurement error. Survey respondents may perceive that they need to have threats of violence, threats of physical abuse, and actual abuse collectively reported to them to answer in the affirmative, while other participants may perceive they only need one of three. The survey item should be separated into two separate questions to separately measure reporting of threats of violence or physical abuse and reporting of actual abuse.
Survey item 9 (“Intimidating behavior such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way”) had an infit MNSQ of 1.52 and an outfit MNSQ of 1.86. This suggests that respondents may have misunderstood the survey item or that this bullying tactic is not reported to them in their position. Respondents may perceive the examples provided (“finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way”) not as examples, but as necessity to rate the behavior reported. Further, some of these examples involve physical contact and some do not.
Respondents may have different perceptions of the term “intimidating”, potentially leading to measurement error. The survey item should be revised for clarity.
166 Survey item 5 (“Having gossip and rumors spread about them”) was the only survey item with an infit MNSQ and an outfit MNSQ below the Rasch model expectation of 0.6. This suggests the survey item may be redundant or produce similar information as other items. The survey item may be too easy for respondents to endorse. While survey item 5 was the only item producing infit MNSQ and outfit MNSQ outside of the Rasch model expectation, the infit MNSQ of 0.57 and MNSQ outfit of 0.55 is slightly outside of the model expectation. Review of this survey item revealed the item is double-barreled which may lead to measurement error. Respondents may not be able to determine the difference between “gossip” and “rumors” to determine if both behaviors were reported.
Removing any of the survey items (5, 9, and 22) with a fit statistic outside of the
Rasch model expectations individually lowered the reliability of the survey. Therefore, future research using this survey instrument should consider revising these survey items, but not removing them from the survey entirely.
Survey Items 28, 31, 32, 33, and 34. Rasch model expectations suggest both person and item reliability between 0.7 and 1.0 is ideal. As this set of questions was originally constructed, the person reliability registered 0.83 with a separation of 2.22. The item reliability was 0.84 with separation of 2.30. The overall test reliability was 0.86.
The Rasch model suggests there should be an approximate difference of 1.6 and 1.8 between scale items, with a consistent distance between response categories. As the survey was initially constructed, the difference between these items was outside of these parameters. However, while the difference between items is outside of the Rasch model expectations, the scale progresses from negative to positive and has even distance between response options as the Rasch model suggests. This suggests respondents
167 perceived a clear difference between response options and did not perceive the response options as interchangeable.
The key form showed that respondents in this study were most likely to endorse survey item 28 (“Workplace bullying policy is applied consistently and enforced across the spectrum of your organization”). This finding is in contrast to published research where workplace bullying targets frequently report perceiving human resource practitioners’ application of workplace bullying policy to be inconsistent, unfair, and erratic (Harrington, Rayner & Warren, 2012; Rayner, 2009; Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, &
Alberts, 2006). The key form also showed respondents were least likely to endorse question 31 (“In your organization, organizational workplace bullying goals are tied to employee performance evaluations”). Questions 28, 31, 32, 33, and 34 produced infit and outfit mean square statistics within the Rasch Model expectation and no revision was necessary.
Research Question 4
RQ4: Do human resource professionals in the field of corrections believe their agency has employed performance improvement interventions to prevent, identify, and address workplace bullying similar to those recommended in current scholarly literature?
This question again applied principles of human performance technology. While training is used to address many performance problems, HPT suggests training is not always the answer, suggesting an assortment of other solutions, known as performance improvement interventions, should be used to address identified performance problems
(Brown, 2008). This research question investigated the performance improvement interventions being utilized to address workplace bullying in correctional organizations.
168 Several researchers suggest specific performance improvement interventions to address workplace bullying. However, there has been little research to investigate if organizations are actually utilizing the recommendations made in scholarly research
(O'Driscoll et al., 2011; Salin, 2008). Further, most research has focused on ineffective strategies to address bullying such as: blaming the bullying target, accepting negative behaviors, and justifying the negative behavior as a result of personality conflict (Ferris,
2004).
After prolonged exposure to workplace bullying tactics with an inability to defend themselves effectively, bullying targets become increasingly vulnerable (Keashly, 1998).
The developed power imbalance highlights the importance of prevention and early intervention when workplace bullying is identified (Keashly, 2010). Lutgen-Sandvik &
Tracy (2012) suggested that a majority of the typical ways of responding to workplace bullying fail to alter the situation and can even intensify the negative impact of the phenomenon. The potential damage to both individuals experiencing and/or witnessing workplace bullying, and to organizations where the pattern of behavior is taking place, highlights the importance of addressing the phenomenon with a comprehensive set of performance improvement interventions.
The cited literature outlines several human resource interventions that occur consistently, including: ensuring employees have knowledge of workplace bullying, considering workplace bullying during recruiting and selection, developing a workplace bullying policy, establishing an avenue for employees to report complaints, strict sanctions against workplace bullies, continual training on the topic and applicable policy, including workplace bullying in performance management initiatives (Baillien, Neyens,
169 De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2009; Boyd & Carden, 2010; Devonish, 2013; Glendinning,
2001; Quine, 2001; Vega & Comer, 2005; Wyatt, 2009).
A purpose of this study was to gauge if correctional organizations are utilizing these performance improvement interventions. Drawing from the recommendations in research, nineteen additional questions were drafted by the researcher and added to the
NAQ-R research instrument. These questions aimed to ascertain whether respondents felt their correctional organizations used human performance improvement interventions similar to those cited in current scholarly literature.
Addressing Workplace Bullying. Survey item 39 (“Your organization has an established process for investigation of workplace bullying”) found most respondents
(62.7%) reported their organization has an established process for investigation of workplace bullying as part of another established process for investigation. While this may seem encouraging, it is concerning that only (5.9%) of respondents reported their organization has a separate policy for workplace bullying investigations and over a quarter (29.4%) of respondents reported their organization does not have an established process for investigation. Given the unique identifying characteristics of workplace bullying – a pattern of behavior that occurs repeatedly and regularly over a period of time that is calculated, intentional, and persistent – organizations should move toward a separate process to investigate reports of workplace bullying. Additionally, all claims of workplace bullying should receive a thorough investigation.
Survey item 34 (“In your organization, all reports of workplace bullying receive a quick, confidential, and thorough investigation with assistance provided to targets of bullying”) found that 45.1% of the sample selected “agree” and 9.8% of the sample
170 selected “strongly agree.” This means more than half of respondents felt their organization’s investigation procedure is in-line with what is recommended in literature.
However, about 45% of respondents selected “disagree” or “strongly disagree”. This is congruent with the literature that suggests workplace bullying targets report incidents against their supervisor frequently describe human resource professionals’ actions as in opposition to established organizational policy (Sheehan, Barker, & McCarthy, 2004). To prevent this perception, all reports of workplace bullying should receive a quick, confidential, and thorough investigation with assistance provided to targets of bullying
(Khan & Khan, 2012).
Organizations should strive for an organizational culture that rejects negative interpersonal interactions and does not promote bullying in the workplace. Further, organizations should be holding employees who bully other employees accountable for their actions. Survey item 24 (“How does your organization respond to alleged perpetrators of bullying?”) found that most respondents in the sample (78.8%) reported alleged perpetrators of bullying with an internal investigation with discipline up to and including termination. This would suggest that these organizations are in-line with this goal and setting a standard that this behavior is not acceptable. Organizations should look to establish policy to set standards and guidelines for identifying and addressing workplace bullying.
Workplace Bullying Policy. While there is minimal research from the perspective of human resource professionals in enacting workplace bullying policy, general workplace bullying research suggests that workplace bullying policies establish the values, principles, and practices of an organization (Boyd & Carden, 2010). While
171 there is a difference in terminology, researchers seem to agree on the principles that should be addressed in a workplace bullying policy. These include maintaining a clear commitment to an absence of bullying in the workplace and a definition of the identifying characteristics of bullying (Boyd & Carden, 2010; Salin, 2008). Policy should also serve as an important resource to consistently address incidents if they have taken place (Boyd
& Carden, 2010).
Survey item 26 (“Your organization has a formal (written and documented) workplace bullying policy?”) found that almost half of respondents (48.1%) reported their organization has a workplace bullying policy, but it is a part of another workplace policy. Only 13.5% of the sample reported their organization has a separate workplace bullying policy. While it is positive that over 60% of respondents believe they have some policy in place to address workplace bullying, it maybe concerning that only 13.5% of those surveyed have a separate policy to specifically address bullying. In this vein, researchers and practitioners have suggested implementation of specific organizational anti-bullying policies to prevent, identify, and address workplace bullying (Hubert, 2003;
Mathieson et al., 2006; Richards & Daley, 2003; Salin, 2008; Vartia et al., 2003).
Almost a third of respondents (30.8%) reported their organization does not have a workplace bullying policy and they have no plans to put one in place. Although 7.7% of the sample reported their organization does not have a workplace bullying policy, but they plans to put one in place in the next 12 months. This means over 38% of the respondents’ organizations do not have a policy in place to address workplace bullying at the present time. This is concerning as Salin (2003) warned, the absence of workplace bullying policy may project the impression that the organization accepts or condones
172 such behavior. Further, these organizations have placed organizational representatives responsible for addressing workplace bullying at a handicap as policies that address workplace bullying provide management and human resource professionals guidelines to address bullying in an appropriate and consistent manner (Vartia et al., 2003).
While the presence of workplace bullying policy is important, communicating the policy to employees in an effective manner should also be a priority for organizations
(Khan & Khan, 2012). Survey item 27 (“How is your organization’s workplace bullying policy communicated to employees?”) found that most organizations (47.1%) in the study communicate their workplace bullying policy to employees through the employee handbook or in employee orientation. Almost a quarter of the sample (23.5%) reported their organization communicates workplace bullying policy to employees through training. This is in line with the suggestion of Vega & Comer (2005) to utilize training to communicate workplace bullying policy and procedure. Only a small amount (3.9%) of the sample communicates workplace bullying policy to employees during staff meetings.
While it cannot be determined for certain why this is, staff meetings are usually conducted with smaller subsets of the employee population, such as in specific departments. As such, carrying out this type of intervention in staff meetings would make auditing and quality assurance throughout a large organization more challenging.
It is a concern that a quarter of the sample (25.5%) reported that their organization either does not communicate their policy to staff members or a policy has not been established. Again, as Salin (2003) warned, the absence of workplace bullying policy may project the impression the organization accepts or condones such behavior.
However, it is also interesting to consider that responses to survey item 26 indicated over
173 38% of the respondents reported their organizations do not have a policy in place to address workplace bullying at the present time; a difference of almost 13%. It is curious that more respondents did not answer in the affirmative to survey item 27, as it also included organizations that have workplace bullying policy, but do not communicate it to their employees. This may suggest respondents did not understand the intent of one or both of the survey items.
LaVan & Martin (2007) assert that workplace bullying policy should be applied consistently and enforced across the spectrum of the organization. Consistent application and enforcement of workplace bullying policy shows employees that the organization takes prevention of negative interpersonal behavior seriously. However, this is not an easy undertaking. Human resource professionals describe addressing workplace bullying claims as one of the most challenging aspects of their employment, requiring balancing the needs of various organizational members in opposing roles (Harrington, Rayner &
Warren, 2012). The difficulty of this role is reflected in perceptions of employees reported in the literature. Targets of workplace bullying frequently reported perceiving human resource practitioners’ application of workplace bullying policy to be inconsistent, unfair, and erratic (Harrington, Rayner & Warren, 2012; Rayner, 2009; Tracy, Lutgen-
Sandvik, & Alberts, 2006). Survey item 28 (“Workplace bullying policy is applied consistently and enforced across the spectrum of your organization”) found results in line with established research, with 12% of respondents choosing “strongly disagree” and
48% of respondents choosing “disagree”. This means that 60% of respondents do not think workplace bullying policy is applied or enforced consistently.
174 A non-retaliation policy should also be in place to protect employees who report experiencing or witnessing workplace bullying infractions (Society of Human Resource
Management, n.d.). Survey item 29 (“A non-retaliation policy is in place for employees who report a perceived workplace bullying infraction”) found that the majority of respondents in this study (58%) reported their organization maintains a non-retaliation policy. While it is encouraging that a large majority of organizations represented have a non-retaliation policy in place, it is concerning that 17.6% of the sample reported their organization did not have a policy in place. Further, almost a quarter of respondents
(23.5%) were not aware if a non-retaliation was in place or not.
As almost 20% of organization represented in this study do not have a non- retaliation policy in place, organizations should take action to ensure they are protecting employees who report experiencing or witnessing workplace bullying. Additionally, as almost a quarter of respondents were not aware if a non-retaliation was in place, there is a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed by organizations to make employees aware of such a policy. Non-retaliation policies could increase workplace bullying reporting as both targets and witnesses may be concerned they will be retaliated against for reporting such behavior.
Workplace Bullying Training. Many researchers describe educating employees through training as a performance improvement intervention that is central to addressing bullying in the workplace (Ayoko et al., 2003; Hannabuss, 1998; Harvey et al., 2006;
Harvey et al., 2007; Khan & Khan, 2012; McKay et al., 2008; Meglich-Sespico et al.,
2007; Mellish, 2001; Saunders et al., 2007). Training provides a means to deliver knowledge and facilitate learning among employees. Further, training affords human
175 resource professionals the opportunity to shape the narrative of appropriate and acceptable forms of interpersonal employee interaction. As training has been established in the literature as an important intervention to address workplace bullying, the researcher added five questions to the survey instrument to gauge the use and quality of training interventions.
Survey item 29 (“Workplace bullying prevention and/or awareness training is provided to all staff members in your organization?”) produced results outside of the recommendation for workplace bullying staff training reported in literature. Half of all respondents (50%) reported workplace bullying prevention and/or awareness training is
“never” provided to all staff members. An additional 44% of respondents reported workplace bullying training is offered “annually” with only a combined 6% of respondents reporting workplace bullying training is done more than once annually.
As Altman (2010) suggested, the goal of training should be to reduce the prevalence of workplace bullying in the organizations. There should be concern that organizations in corrections are not presenting training to employees as meaningful learning that can produce a new conceptualization potentially altering choices to reduce negative interaction in the workplace (Altman, 2010). Further, awareness and knowledge of bullying at all levels within an organization helps to reduce recognition time and to prevent bullying situations from escalating (Salin, 2008). Organizations that do not provide training to their employees are failing to empower their staff to address negative interpersonal interventions where they begin.
Survey item 23 (Who is primarily responsible for handling your organization’s response to workplace bullying?”) found that half of respondents (50%) reported that
176 management handled their organization’s response to workplace bullying. Additionally, most remaining respondents (40.4%) identified human resources as the responsible party.
The other two choices, legal counsel (3.8%) and someone other than these parties (5.8%) produced negligible results. To effectively utilize interventions to address workplace bullying, a preliminary step for human resource professionals and management is to establish and maintain an understanding of tactics, qualifications for a pattern of behavior to be considered bullying, and how the phenomenon can negatively impact both individuals and organizations (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011).
Survey item 36 (“Specialized training is provided specifically to human resource professionals in your organization to provide them knowledge and skills to identify and address bullying and other interpersonal conflicts”) and survey item 37 (“Specialized training is provided specifically to management in your organization to provide them knowledge and skills to identify and address bullying and other interpersonal conflicts”) turned specifically toward strategies organizations are utilizing to prepare human resource professionals and management to address workplace bullying. This is imperative as these parties are key players in addressing workplace bullying.
Almost sixty percent of respondents (59.2%) reported specialized training is
“never” provided specifically to human resource professionals. Almost forty percent of respondents (36.7%) reported this training is provided annually with less than five percent (4.1%) reporting it is provided more than once per year. Survey item 37 produced almost identical results as the responses to survey item #36, with one additional respondent reporting specialized training is provided annually to management. This does not come as a surprise, as survey item 29 found half of all respondents (50%) reported
177 workplace bullying prevention and/or awareness training is “never” provided to all staff members.
Failure of organizations to train managers and human resource professionals is prohibiting these professionals from working strategically within their organization to address workplace bullying effectively (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011). Hoel et al. (2006) suggested training could be an initial step in the long-term organizational change process that may be necessary to decrease bullying in the workplace. As the research suggests, this lack of training is preventing these professionals from obtaining the knowledge and skills to identify and address bullying and other interpersonal conflicts (Salin, 2008).
Communication. Communication avenues should be open within organizations to discuss incidents of workplace bullying (Business and Legal Reports, Inc., 2008). The research provides various interventions to provide for adequate communication relative to workplace bullying, including: conducting open forums for employees to voice concerns, seeking out information through human resource departments from exit interviews, co- workers, managers, and customers and clients (Boyd & Carden, 2010). Additionally, this can be done through informal and regular employee surveys to anonymously gauge the climate within the organization (Salin, 2008). Three questions were designed to gauge if information was sought by human resource departments as suggested in the literature.
Survey item 30 (“Your organization uses anonymous surveys to gauge the climate within the organization”) found that most respondents (60%) reported this is “never” done in their organization, with the remaining respondents (40%) reporting it is done at least once per year. Survey item 32 (“Your organization seeks out information relative to workplace bullying through interviews with current employees and management.”) found
178 that almost half of all survey respondents (45.1%) selected “disagree” with another quarter of respondents (27.5%) selecting “strongly disagree”. Similarly, in survey item 33
(“Your organization seeks out information relative to workplace bullying through exit interviews from employees leaving the organization.”) almost sixty percent (58%) of respondents selected either “disagree” or “strongly disagree”. Responses to each of these survey items indicate that respondents overwhelmingly do not report their organizations are using these interventions. This suggests that organizations are either not aware of these interventions or they do not believe these interventions would be an effective method to mitigate workplace bullying.
Performance Management. Salin (2003) asserts organizations should take measures to ensure they do not hire, promote, or reward employees who have moved ahead in the workplace by harming, mistreating, and manipulating other employees. To do this, organizations should ensure their goals relative to mitigating workplace bullying and other harmful interpersonal behaviors are tied to the hiring and evaluation process.
Survey item 31 (“In your organization, organizational workplace bullying goals are tied to employee performance evaluations”) found almost 80% of respondents selected either “disagree” or “strongly disagree”. Such a polarized response suggests organizations are behind the curve in considering workplace bullying in performance evaluations. To remedy this issue, Boyd & Carden (2010) suggest human resource professionals and other staff members responsible for performance evaluations should ensure organizational workplace bullying goals are tied to employee performance evaluation.
179 Survey item 25 (“In your organization, workplace bullying is considered in recruiting and selection of new employees?”) found that most respondents (82.7%) reported that their organization communicates to prospective employees the expectation of consideration and respect in the workplace and/or uses background and reference information to understand if there has been a history of negative interpersonal interactions in the workplace. This suggests that most organizations represented are utilizing practices similar to what is recommended in the literature to proactively address workplace bullying by preventing the introduction of individuals predisposed to perpetrate bullying into the organization (Brotheridge, 2013). These responses suggest that recruitment and selection processes are focused on workplace bullying as a critical organizational issue to be addressed and prevented. The research suggests that this intervention, in conjunction with other interventions, can remediate workplace bullying from organizations. However, to determine the effectiveness of implemented interventions, organizations should constantly be utilizing evaluation methods.
Evaluation of Interventions. Evaluation should be a constant process to determine the value and effectiveness of performance improvement interventions (ISPI,
2005; Pershing, 2008). Specifically, evaluation of training interventions should include assessment of the learner’s knowledge to ensure understanding of the topic after the training is complete (Novak, 1998; Hoel et al, 2006). Survey item 38 (“Evaluation of workplace bullying training interventions is used in your organization to assess the learner’s knowledge to ensure understanding of the topic after the training is complete.”) found that only 20.4% of respondents reported their organization evaluates their workplace bullying training intervention. This lack of evaluation implies that
180 organizations utilizing workplace bullying training often cannot be certain if the training is effective or meets the organization’s objectives.
It is also interesting to consider that in survey item 29, half of all respondents
(50%) reported workplace bullying prevention and/or awareness training is “never” provided to all staff members. However, in this survey item, only 22.4% of respondents selected “my organization does not have workplace bullying training”. This may suggest respondents did not understand the survey item completely.
An applied practical evaluation of workplace bullying performance improvement interventions is monitoring the frequency of cases reported through official channels. One of the most important factors in mitigating workplace bullying is promoting the perception that organizations are promoting an environment free of bullying
(Caponecchia & Wyatt, 2009). Survey item 41 (“The number of workplace bullying cases reported is statistically recorded by your organization”) found that the majority of respondents (45.1%) selected “I don’t know” with only 15.7% of respondents selecting
“Yes” and the remaining 39.2% of respondents selecting “No”. These results are not congruent with the literature, which suggests that it is important for human resource professionals to continually assess the level of bullying and monitoring bullying in the workplace (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011).
Another applied practical evaluation of workplace bullying performance improvement interventions is measuring the reduction in the negative outcomes of workplace bullying. Hoel et al. (2006) suggested reviewing data on changes in frequency of grievances and complaints, absenteeism, and employee turnover within the organization as part of the performance improvement intervention evaluation process.
181 Survey item 40 (“Your organization reviews data on changes in frequency of: grievances and complaints, absenteeism, and employee turnover within the organization.”) found that the majority of respondents (54%) responded “Yes” with almost twenty percent
(19.6%) responding “No”, and a quarter of respondents (25.5%) reporting “I don’t know”. While reduction in these things may indicate that performance improvement interventions are successful, increases may indicate that more harmful interpersonal behaviors are taking place. Regardless, these statistics are important to track within individual organizations. Again, this suggests organizations are either not aware of these interventions, or they do not believe these interventions would be an effective method to mitigate workplace bullying.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study concentrated on workplace bullying behaviors reported to human resource professionals working in correctional settings. Suggestions for future research include the following:
• Replicate this study utilizing a wider sample of human resource professionals
working in the field of corrections in order to increase the sample size.
• Future research should gauge if workplace bullying tactics are reported through
official channels to other organizational representatives including supervisors,
managers, and labor union officials. This may provide a broader view of reporting
of the phenomenon.
• Utilize systems theory to analyze other organizational subsystems to gain
enhanced understanding on their role in addressing workplace bullying.
182 • This study gauged the perceptions of human resource professionals receiving reports of workplace bullying tactics. Future studies should gauge perceptions of reporting from the perspective of the workplace bullying target making the report.
• Future studies should utilize qualitative research methods to gather more detailed personal experiences of both human resource professionals and workplace bullying targets relative to reporting of the phenomenon.
• A future study should be conducted in other areas of the criminal justice system including but not limited to law enforcement agencies and courts.
• A future study should explore the use of performance improvement interventions to address workplace bullying in other employment industries. The results should be compared to the use of these interventions found in this study to gauge statistical significance.
• This study determined if performance improvement interventions were being used. Future studies should measure the substance and quality of these performance improvement interventions to establish evidence-based practices.
• Future studies should utilize Rasch analysis to evaluate the changes suggested to the Negative Acts Questionnaire Revised for Human Resource Professionals drawn from the analysis conducted in this study.
• Future studies should continually measure the use of additional performance improvement interventions not cited in this study. This should include interventions recommended in future scholarly literature.
183 Limitations
A potential limitation in this study is that the assessment was limited to respondents’ self-report of their own experience. It has been established in organizational and human resource management literature that self-report of behaviors do not necessarily correspond with the actual behavior experienced (O'Driscoll et al., 2011). In order to participate in the survey, respondents were asked: “In your current position within your organization please select the following job responsibilities that make up your job description. Check all that apply.” Respondents were required to select at least one relevant job responsibility identified through the literature review as a function of human resource professionals in order to participate in the survey. Further, they were given the option to select “I do not perform any of the tasks listed”. If they selected this option, they were not permitted to participate in the survey. This could be a potential deficit of the study, as participants were not asked directly if they were employed as a human resource professional, the targeted audience for the study. Participants may perform one or more of these duties without being employed as a human resource professional. Further, the researcher was unable to verify whether or not participants were actually employed in these positions.
This study utilized a research sample of members of the International Association of Correctional Training Personnel (IACTP) or a member of the association’s LinkedIn group who are also employed in human resource positions in the field of corrections. The perceptions of these individuals may not be the general perceptions of all employees in these positions. There were also potential respondents who may have chosen not to
184 participate due to a lack of interest in the topic, which could have impacted the validity of the study.
A limitation of the Revised Negative Acts Questionnaire for Human Resource
Professionals as a workplace bullying research instrument is the assessment of frequencies of behaviors as reported by survey respondents. It does not inquire of the severity of the experienced behaviors, or how the target reported the behavior impacted them. Further, the Revised Negative Acts Questionnaire for Human Resource
Professionals only assesses the frequency and duration of bullying behavior reported through official organizational channels. The instrument omits the measure of power imbalance between the target and bully, which is an identifying trait of workplace bullying.
Conclusions
The findings of the study suggest human resources professionals surveyed have a different perspective on workplace bullying compared to those considered in the Einarsen et al. study. Specifically, responses to the survey instrument as a whole, and in two of the three question groupings – person-related bullying and physically intimidating bullying – provided statistically significant differences. In both categories, workplace bullying was reported more often to human resource professionals than it was found to take place in the Einarsen et al. study.
Interpretation of the Rasch Mathematical Model measures used for data analysis suggested that the survey instrument could be revised to improve functionality.
Specifically, response 3 (monthly) and 4 (weekly) could be collapsed into one category,
“weekly”. This change provided an improved differentiation between responses which
185 suggests respondents could perceive a clear difference between choices. Three survey items (5, 9, and 22) should be revised to ensure that respondents understand the item.
However, removing these items from the instrument would lower survey reliability.
Differences were found when comparing performance improvement interventions recommended in current scholarly literature with interventions actually being utilized to address workplace bullying in correctional organizations. Organizations represented in the study are not widely using these performance improvement interventions.
Specifically, very few organizations had: a separate policy to address workplace bullying, workplace bullying training for all staff, workplace bullying training specifically for managers and human resource professionals, or evaluation measures in place to gauge effectiveness of interventions.
Implications
Workplace bullying is a significant problem impacting employee and organizational performance. Further, experiencing or witnessing the phenomenon has a tremendous negative impact on the involved parties. Organizations should strive to provide a safe, efficient, and effective process for employees to report workplace bullying. Further, organizations should utilize human performance technology (HPT) to develop, maintain, and enhance appropriate interventions to address the phenomenon.
Utilizing systems theory, this study provides a greater understanding of reporting of workplace bullying tactics from the perspective of human resource professionals in the field of corrections. This study also provides a view of the current use of performance improvement interventions designed to address the phenomenon in corrections. This study provides a valid survey instrument to gauge both reporting of the phenomenon to
186 human resource professionals and the use of the performance improvement outlined in current scholarly literature.
Given the potential for pervasive harmful outcomes for organizations, individuals, and society as a whole, an immediate focus must be placed on the most effective ways to prevent, identify, and address bullying taking place in all forms, contexts, and environments. To accomplish this objective, industry leaders, researchers, and law- makers must continue to bring this phenomenon to the forefront of social consciousness.
187 References
Adams, A. (1997). Bullying at work—how to confront and overcome it. London: Virago
Press.
Agervold, M., & Mikkelsen, E.G. (2004). Relationships between bullying, psychosocial
work environment and individual stress reactions. Work and Stress, 18, 336-351.
Altman, B. A. (2010). Workplace Bullying: Application of Novak’s (1998) Learning
Theory and Implications for Training. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 22(1), 21 - 32.
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility
in the workplace. The Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.
Aquino, K., & Bradfield, M. (2000). Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role
of situational factors and victim characteristics. Organizational Science, 11, 525-
537.
Aquino, K., & Lamertz, K. (2004). A relational model of workplace victimization: Social
roles and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 1023–1034.
Ashforth, B. E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47(7), 755–778.
Agervold, M. & Mikkelson,G. (2004) “Relationships between Bullying, Psychosocial
Work Environment and Individual Stress Reactions,” Work & Stress Volume 18,
No. 4 (2004): 345.
Ayoko, O.B., Callan, V.J. and Hartel, C.E.J. (2003), “Workplace conflict, bullying, and
Counterproductive behaviors”, The International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 283-301.
188 Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job autonomy and workload as
antecedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek's Job Demand
Control Model for targets and perpetrators. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 84, 191–208.
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.
Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace Bullying: An Integrative Literature
Review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(1), 69-84.
Beehr, T. A., Glazer, S., Nielson, N. L. & Farmer, S. J. (2000). Work and non-work
predictors of employees’ retirement ages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57,
206–225.
Bennett, J., Crewe, B. and Wahidin, A. (2008), Understanding Prison Staff, Willan
Publishing, Collompton.
Bernardin, H. (2012). Human resource management. (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual,
ideological, and empirical issues. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.),
Counterproductive behavior. Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 65-81).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bohlander, G., & Snell, S. (2007). Managing human resources (14th ed.). Mason, OH:
Thompson.
189 Bond, T. G. & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement
in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Botha, C. J., Herbst, I. M., & Buys, A. (2011). The perception of postgraduate students
with regard to workplace bullying. Journal of US-China Public Administration,
8(10), 1173-1195.
Bowling, N.A. and Beehr, T.A. (2006), “Workplace harassment from the victim’s
perspective: a theoretical model and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 998-1012.
Boyd, R., & Carden, L. (2010). Workplace bullying: An ethical context applying duty
and outcome based approaches to human resource functions. Southern Journal of
Business and Ethics, 2, 144-155.
Brewer, G. & Whiteside, E. (2012) Workplace bullying and stress within the prison
service. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 4(2), 76-85.
Boddy, C. R. (2011). Corporate Psychopaths, Bullying and Unfair Supervision in the
Workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 367 - 379.
Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Business and Legal Reports, Inc. (2008). Study spotlights workplace bullying. Society of
Human Resource Management. Retrieved from
http:www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/StateandLocalResources/Pages/StudySpotlights
WorkplaceBullying
Carbo, J., & Hughes, A. (2010). Workplace bullying: Developing a human rights
definition from the perspective and experiences of targets. Working USA: The
journal of labor and society, 13(3), 387-403.
190 Chamberlain, L. J., Crowley, M., Tope, D., & Hodson, R. (2005, August). Sexual
harassment in context: Organizational and occupational foundations of abuse.
Paper presented at American Sociological Association annual meetings,
Washington, DC.
Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H. & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the
workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6,
64-80.
Coyne, I., Smith-Lee Chong, P., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2003). Self and peer
nominations of bullying: An analysis of incident rates, individual differences, and
perceptions of the work environment. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 12, 209– 228.
Cowan, R. L. (2012). It’s Complicated: Defining Workplace Bullying From the Human
Resource Professional’s Perspective. Management Communication Quarterly,
26(3), 377-403.
Cox, H. C. (1987). Verbal abuse in nursing: Report of a study. Nursing Management,
18(11), 47-50.
Craig, W.M., & Pepler, D. (2007). Understanding bullying: From research to practice.
Canadian Psychology, 48, 86-93.
Crawshaw, L. (2009). Workplace Bullying? Mobbing? Harassment? Distraction by a
Thousand Definitions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
61(3), 263-267.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
191 Cross, F.B. & Miller, R.L. (2009). West’s Legal Environment of Business (7th ed.)
Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. ed.).
Dalton, C.M. (2007). The bully down the hall. Business Horizons, 50, 89-91.
Davenport, N., Schwartz, R., & Elliott, G. P. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the
workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing.
De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity and workplace
bullying among targets and perpetrators: Moderation by employability. Work and
Stress, 23, 206–224.
De Croon, E. , Blonk, R., De Zwart, B., Frings-Dresen, M. & Broersen, J. (2002). Job
stress, fatigue, and job dissatisfaction in Dutch lorry drivers: Towards an
occupation specific model of job demands and control. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 59(6), 356–361.
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., Vollink, T., & Pouwelse, M. (2012). Coping With Bullying at
Work and Health Related Problems. International Journal of Stress Management,
19(3), 175-197.
Devonish, D. (2013). Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviors: The
mediating role of psychological well-being. Employee Relations, 35(6), 630-647.
Dhar, R. L. (2012). Why do they bully? Bullying behavior and it’s implication on the
bullied. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 27(2), 79-99.
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2008). Workplace bullying and intention
to leave: The moderating effect of perceived organizational support. Human
Resource Management Journal, 18, 405–422.
192 Dunn, K. (2000). Bullying in the workplace often goes unnoticed. Workforce, 79 (4),
28-29.
Einarsen, S. (1999) The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of
Manpower, 20, 16 – 27.
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian
approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379-401.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A
definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18 (3), 207 – 216.
Einarsen, S., & Hoel, H. (2001). The negative acts questionnaire: Development,
validation and revision of a measure of bullying at work. Paper presented at the
10th European congress on work and organizational psychology. Prague.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and
harassment at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the
Negative Acts Questionnaire –Revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24-44.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2003). Bullying and emotional
abuse in the workplace. London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., Matthiesen, S. B., & Skogstad, A. (1998). Bullying, burnout and well-being
among assistant nurses. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, 14 (6),
563-568.
Einarsen, S. & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2003) “Individual effects of exposure to bullying at
work”, in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, G. L. (eds), Bullying and
Emotional Abuse in the Workplace, London, Taylor Francis, pp. 127–44.
193 Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B.I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization
of men. Violence and Victims, 12(3), 247-263.
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 Psychology, 4, 381–401.
Einarsen, S. & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public
and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5(2), 185–201.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and
harassment at work: The European tradition, in S. Einarsen (Ed.), Bullying and
harassment in the workplace: developments in theory, research, and practice,
Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis, pp. 3–40.
Ellis, A. (2009). Bullying in the workplace—An acceptable cost? Retrieved
February 25, 2013, from http://www.workplacebullying.co.uk/aethesis.html
Escartí, J., Salin, D., Rodríguez-Carballeira, & lvaro. (2011). Conceptualizations of
Workplace Bullying. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10(4), 157-165.
Farrel, M. V. (2007). The target of the bully and the effects of PTSD. Midwifery
Today, Inc.
Farrell, G. A. (1997). Aggression in clinical settings: Nurses’ views. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 25, 501-507.
Ferris, P. (2004). A preliminary typology of organizational response to allegations of
workplace bully: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. British Journal of
Guidance & Counseling, 32, 389–395.
194 Field, T. (1996). Bully in sight. Wantage, Oxfordshire: Wessex Press.
Fielding, N. G. (2012). Triangulation and Mixed Methods Designs: Data Integration with
New Research Technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124-136.
Fink, M. (2007). Peer interaction in university-level distance education. (Doctoral
Dissertation). Retrieved from: http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd.
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between
bullying and racism in the US workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66,
438–456.
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2006). How effective is an apology in resolving workplace
bullying disputes? Dispute Resolution Journal 61(2), 54-63.
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2010). The battered apple: An application of stressor-
emotion control/support theory to teachers' experience of violence and bullying.
Human Relations, 63, 927–954.
Gardner, S. & Johnson, P. R. (2001). The leaner, meaner workplace: Strategies for
handling bullies at work. Employment Relations Today, 28(2), 23-36.
Giorgi, G., & Majer, V. (2009). Mobbing virus organizzativo. [Mobbing organizational
virus] Firenze: Giuntios organizzazioni speciali.
Glaso, L., Bele, E., Nielson, M. B., Einarsen, S. (2011). Bus drivers’ exposure to bullying
at work: An occupation-specific approach. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
52(5), 484-493.
Glaso, L., Matthiesen, S. B., Neilsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Do targets of
workplace bullying portray a general victim personality profile? Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 48, 313-319.
195 Glendinning, P. (2001). Workplace bullying: Curing the cancer of the American
workplace. Public Personnel Management, 30, 269-286.
Gossett, L. M., & Kilker, J. (2006). My job sucks: Examining counter institutional web
sites as locations for organizational member voice, dissent, and resistance.
Management Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 63-90.
Gouveia, C.G. (2007). From laissez-faire to fair play: Workplace violence Psychological
harassment. University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review, 65, 137-166.
Guest, D. & Woodrow, C. (2012). When good HR gets bad results: Exploring the
challenges of HR implementation in the case of workplace bullying. Working
Paper: Department of Management, King’s College, London.
Halberg, L. R. M. & Strandmark, M. K. (2006). Health consequences of workplace
bullying experiences from the perspective of employees in the public service
sector. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health, and Well Being,
1(2), 109-119.
Hale, J. A. (2007). The performance consultant's field book, tools and techniques for
improving organizations and people. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer & Co.
Hannabuss, S. (1998). ‘‘Bullying at work’’, Library Management, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 304-10.
Harvey, M. G., Heames, J. T., Richey, R. G., & Leonard, N. (2006). Bullying: From the
playground to the boardroom. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
12 (4), 1 – 11.
196 Harvey, S. & Keashly, L. (2003). Rumination: A psychological mechanism for
transmitting and maintaining the effect of emotional abuse at work.
Proceedings of the American Society for Business and the Behavioral Sciences,
10, 593-601.
Hua-Fu, H. (2005), The patterns of masculinity in prison, Critical Criminology, Vol. 13,
pp. 1-16.
Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). “Incivility, social undermining, bullying…oh my!”: A call to
reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 499-519.
Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E. G., & Hansen, A. M. (2011). Individual consequences of
workplace bullying/mobbing. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), Workplace bullying: Developments in theory, research and practice
(pp. 107–128). London, UK and New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Hodson, R., Roscigno, V. J., & Lopez, S. H. (2006). Chaos and the Abuse of Power:
Workplace Bullying in Organizational and Interactional Context. Work and
Occupations, 33(4), 382-416.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Manchester:
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Psychology (UMIST).
Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Shortcomings of anti-bullying regulations: The case of
Sweden. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(1),
30-50.
197 Hoel, H., Giga, S. I., & Faragher, B. (2006). Destructive interpersonal conflict in the
workplace: The effectiveness of management interventions. British Occupational
Health Research Foundation and Manchester Business School, The University of
Manchester, Retrieved from www.bohrf.org.uk/content/comprojs.html#conflict
Hoel, H. & Salin, D. (2003), “Organizational antecedents of workplace bullying”, in
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Bullying and Emotional
Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice,
Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 203-218.
Hoel, H., Sheehan, M., Cooper, C.L. and Einarsen, S. (2011), “Organizational effects of
workplace bullying”, in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds),
Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace. Developments in Theory, Research,
and Practice, 2nd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 129-148.
Hubert, A. (2003). To prevent and overcome undesirable interaction: A systematic
approach model. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying
and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and
practice (pp. 299 –311). London: Taylor & Francis.
Hutchinson, M., Vickers, M., Jackson, D. & Wilkes, L. (2006). Workplace bullying in
nursing: Towards a more critical organizational perspective. Nursing Inquiry,
13(2) 118-126.
International association of correctional training personnel. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.iactp.org/
198 Jackson, D., Clare, J. and Mannix, J. (2002), “Who would want to be a nurse? Violence
in the workplace – a factor in recruitment and retention”, Journal of Nursing
Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 13-20.
Jennifer, D., Cowie, H., & Ananiadou, K. (2003). Perceptions and experience of
workplace bullying in five different working populations. Aggressive Behavior,
29, 489-496.
Johnson, S. L. (2009). International perspectives on workplace bullying among nurses: A
review. International Nursing Review, 56, 34-40.
Johnson, T.L. (2013). Eyewitness Testimony, False Confession, and Human Performance
Technology: An Examination of Wrongful Convictions. (Doctoral Dissertation).
Retrieved from: http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd.
Keashly, L. (2010). A researcher speaks to ombudsmen about workplace bullying.
Journal of the International Ombudsman Association, 3(2), 10-23.
Keashley, L. & Harvey, S. (2005). Emotional abuse in the workplace. In S. Fox & P. E.
Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive behavior: Investigations of actors and targets.
(pp. 201-235). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2006). Workplace emotional abuse. In E. K. Kelloway, J.
Barling, & J. Hurrell Jr. (Eds.), Handbook of workplace violence (pp. 95-120).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2000). The nature, extent, and impact of emotional abuse in
the workplace: Results of a paper. Paper presented at The Academy of
Management Conference, Toronto, Canada.
199 Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on
workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace. International perspectives in
research and practice. London: Taylor and Francis.
Khan, A. & Khan, R. (2012). Understanding and managing workplace bullying.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 44(2), 85-89.
Kieseker, R., & Marchant, T. (1999). Workplace bullying in Australia: A review of
current conceptualizations and existing research. Australian Journal of
Management and Organizational Behavior, (2), 61-75.
Krell, E. (2010). How to conduct an ethics audit. HR Magazine, April 2010, pp, 48-49
Introduction to the human resources discipline of ethics and sustainability. (n.d.)
Retrieved on November 27, 2013 from
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/ethics/Pages/EthicsIntro.aspx
LaVan, H., & Martin, W.M. (2007). Bullying in the U.S. workplace: Normative and
process‐oriented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 147‐165.
Lawler, E. (2005). From Human Resource Management to Organizational Effectiveness,
Human Resource Management, 44, 165-169.
Lee, R. T., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2006). When prey turns predatory: workplace bullying
as a predictor of counter aggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 352-377.
Leedy, P. & Ormrod, J. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th edition).
Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
200 Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and
Victims, 5, 119–126.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165–184.
Leymann, H., & Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at work and the development of
post-traumatic stress disorders. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5, 251–275.
Lewis, D. (1999). Workplace bullying – interim findings of a study in further and higher
education in Wales. International Journal of Manpower, 20(1/2), 106–118.
Lewis, M.A. (2001). Bullying in nursing. Nursing Standard, 15 (45), 39-42.
Lewis, M. A. (2006). Nurse bullying: organizational considerations in the maintenance
and perpetration of health care bullying cultures. Journal of Nursing
Management, 14(1), 52-58.
Lewis, D., & Rayner, C. (2003). Bullying and human resource management: A wolf in
sheep’s clothing? In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in
research and practice (370-382). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Lewis, D., Sheehan, M., & Davies, M. (2008). Uncovering workplace bullying. Journal
of Workplace Rights, 13, 281-301.
Liefooghe, A., & Davey, K.M. (2010). The language and organization of bullying at
work. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32, 71-95.
201 Lind, K., Glaso, L., Pallesen, S., & Einarsen, S. (2009). Personality profiles among
targets and non-targets of workplace bullying. European Psychologist, 14(3),
231—237.
Lines, D. (2008). The bullies: Understanding bullies and bullying. London: Jessica
Kingsley.
Lu, Y., Wu, Y., Hsieh, C., Lin, C., Hwang, S., Cheng, K., & Lue, Y. (2013).
Measurement precision of the disability for back pain scale-by applying Rasch
analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11(119).
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2003). The communicative cycle of employee emotional abuse:
Generation and regeneration of workplace mistreatment. Management
Communication Quarterly, 16(4), 471-501.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2005). Water smoothing stones: Subordinate resistance to workplace
bullying (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Abstract
International, 66/04, 1214.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and . . . : Quitting and other forms of resistance
to workplace bullying. Communication Monographs, 73(4), 406-433.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2008). Intensive remedial identity work: responses to workplace
bullying. Organization, 15(1), 97-119.
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the
American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree, and impact. Journal of
Management Studies, 44, 837–862.
202 Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Tracy, S. J. (2012). Answering Five Key Questions About
Workplace Bullying: How Communication Scholarship Provides Thought
Leadership for Transforming Abuse at Work. Management Communication
Quarterly, 26(1), 3-47.
MacIntosh, J. (2005). Experiences of workplace bullying in a rural area. Issues in Mental
Health Nursing, 26, 893-910.
MacIntosh, J., O'Donnell, S., Wuest, J., & Merritt-Gray, M. (2011). How workplace
bullying changes how women promote their health. International Journal of
Workplace Health Management, 4, 48–66.
Magley, V. J., Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & DeNardo, M. (1999). Outcomes of self-
labeling sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 390–402.
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2 configurations among victims of
bullying at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10
(4), 467–484.
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2004). Psychiatric distress and symptoms of PTSD
among victims of bullying at work. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling.
32 (3), 335-356.
Mathieson, S., Hanson, M., & Burns, J. (2006). Reducing the risk of harassment in your
organization. In M. O’Moore, J. Lynch, & M. Smith (Eds.), The way forward:
Proceeding from the 5th international on bullying and harassment in the
workplace (129-131). Dublin, Ireland: Trinity College
203 Mayhew, E. McCarthy, P., Chappell, D. Quinlan, M., Barker, M. and Sheehan, M. (2004)
Measuring the extent of impact from occupational violence and bullying on
traumatized workers, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 16,
pp. 117-134.
McCarthy, S. (1995). Bullying at Work. Probation Journal, 42(1), 24-25.
McClenahan, C. A., Giles, M. L. & Mallett, J. (2007). The importance of context
specificity in work stress research: A test of the Demand-Control-Support model
in academics. Work & Stress, 21(1), 85–95.
McGinley, A.C. (2008). Creating masculine identities: Bullying, and harassment
“Because of Sex.” University of Colorado Law Review, 79, 1152-1170.
McGuire, D. & Bagher, M. (2010), Diversity training in organizations: an introduction,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 493-505.
McKay, R., Arnold, D. H., Fratzl, J., & Thomas, R. (2008). Workplace bullying in
academia: a Canadian study. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,
20 (2), 77 – 100.
McKenna, B. G., Smith, N. A., Poole, S. J. & Coverdale, J. H. (2003). Horizontal
violence: Experience of registered nurses in their first year of practice. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 42, 90-96.
McMillan, I. (1995), “Losing control”, Nursing Times, Vol. 91 No. 15, pp. 40-43.
Meglich-Sespico, P., Faley, R. H., & Knapp, D. E. (2007). Relief and redress for targets
of workplace bullying. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19 (1),
31 – 43.
204 Mellish, T. (2001). Bullying is a trade union issue. In N. Tehrani (Ed.), Building a culture
of respect: Managing bullying at work (pp. 201 – 220). London: Taylor &
Francis.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: prevalence and
Health correlates. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,10,
393-413.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Relationship between exposure to bullying at
work and psychological and psychosomatic health complaints: The role of state
negative affectivity and generalized self-efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 43, 397-405.
Moreno-Jimenez, B., Rodriguez-Munoz, A., Pastor, J. C., Sanz-Vergel, A. I., &
Garrosa, E.(2009). The moderating effects of psychological detachment and
thoughts of revenge in workplace bullying. Personality and Individual
Differences, 46 (3), 359-364.
Namie, G. (2007). The challenge of workplace bullying. Employment Relations Today,
34(2), 43 - 51.
Namie, G. (2007), US Workplace Bullying Survey, Workplace Bullying and Trauma
Institute, Bellingham, WA, available at: www.workplacebullying.org/
Namie, G., & Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2010). Active and passive accomplices: The
communal character of workplace bullying. International Journal of
Communication, 4, 343-373.
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2003). The bully at work: What you can do to stop the hurt and
reclaim your dignity on the job. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
205 Namie, G. & Namie, R. (2004). Workplace bullying: How to address America’s silent
epidemic. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8, 315–334.
Namie, G. & Namie, R. (2009). U.S. Workplace Bullying. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 202-219.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:
Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets.
Journal of Management, 24, 391–419
Niedhammer, I., David, S., & Degioanni, S. (2006). Association between workplace
bullying and depressive symptoms in the French working population. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 61, 251–259.
Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying:
A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work,
Health & Organizations, 26(4), 309-332.
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological
moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 955–979.
Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. (2011). Fundamentals of Human
Resource Management. (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Notelaers, G., Einarsen, S., De Witte, H., &Vermunt, J. (2006).Measuring exposure to
bullying at work: The validity and advantages of the latent class cluster approach.
Work & Stress, 20(4), 289-302.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as
facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
206 O'Driscoll, M. P., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Bentley, T., Catley, B. E., Gardner, D. H., &
Trenberth, L. (2011). Workplace bullying in New Zealand: A survey of employee
perceptions and attitudes. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49(4),
390-408.
O’Moore, M., Lynch, J., & Niamh, N. D. (2003). The rates and relative risks of
workplace bullying in Ireland, a country of high economic growth. International
Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4(1), 82–95.
Olender-Russo, L. (2009). Creating a culture of regard: An antidote for workplace
bullying. Creative Nursing, 15, 75-81.
Ortega, A., Hogh, A., Petersen, J.H., & Olsen, O. (2009). Prevalence of workplace
bullying and risk groups: A representative population study. Int. Arch.
Occupational Environmental Health, 82, 417-426.
Paice, E., & Smith, D. (2009). Bullying of trainee doctors is a patient safety issue.
Clinical Teacher, 6, 13-17.
Pawlowski, S. D., Kaganer, E. A. & Cater, J. J. (2007). Focusing the research agenda on
burnout in IT: Social representations of burnout in the profession. European
Journal of Information System, 16(5), 612–627.
Peyton, P. R. (2003). Dignity at work: Eliminate bullying and create a positive working
environment. East Sussex: Brunner-Routledge.
Pershing, J. L. (2006). Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles,
Practice and Potential. Los Angeles, CA: Pfeiffer.
Pinkerfield, H. (2006). Beat the bullies. Human Resources, 84(11), 77—79.
207 Quine L. (1999). Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: Staff questionnaire
survey. British Medical Journal, 318, 228-232.
Quine, L. (2001).Workplace bullying in nurses, Journal of Health Psychology, 6(1),
73- 84.
Quine, L. (2003). Workplace bullying, psychological distress, and job satisfaction in
junior doctors. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Ethics, 12, pp. 91–101.
Randall, J. (2001). Bullying in adulthood: Assessing the bullies and their victims. New
York: Brunner-Routledge.
Randle, J., Stevenson, K., & Grayling, I. (2007). Reducing organizations. Nursing
Standard, 21(22), 49-56.
Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 7, 199-208.
Rayner, C. (2009). Workplace Bullying and Harassment, London: UNISON.
Rayner, C. H. & Hoel, H. (1997). A summary review of literature relating to workplace
bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 181-191.
Rayner, C. H., Hoel, H., & Cooper C. L, (2002). Workplace Bullying: What We Know,
Who Is To Blame, and What We Can Do? London: Taylor and Francis.
Rayner, C & Keashly, L. (2005) Workplace bullying. In Spector, P. & Fox, S. (eds).
Counterproductive workplace behavior: An integration of both actor and
recipient perspectives on causes and consequences. (pp. 271-296) Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
208 Rayner, C. & Lewis, D. (2011). “Managing workplace bullying: the role of policies in
bullying and harassment in the workplace”, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and
C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace:
Developments in Theory, Research and Practice, 2nd ed., London: Taylor &
Francis.
Richards, J., & Daley, H. (2003). Bullying policy: Development, implementation and
monitoring. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and
emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and
practice (247 – 258). London: Taylor & Francis.
Richmann, J. A., Rospenda, K. M., Flaherty, J. A., & Freels, S. (2001). Workplace
harassment, active coping, and alcohol-related outcomes. Journal of Substance
Abuse, 13, 347–366.
Rodriguez-Munoz, A., Moreno-Jimenez, B., Vergel, A. I. S, & Hernandez, E. G. (2010).
Posttraumatic symptoms among victims of workplace bullying: Exploring gender
differences and shattered assumptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40,
2616-2635.
Rodriguez-Carballeira, A., Escartin, J., Visauta, B., Porrua, C., & Martin-Pena, J. (2010).
Categorization and hierarchy of workplace bullying strategies: A Delphi survey.
Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 297–308.
Roscigno, V.J., Lopez, S.H., & Hodson, R. (2009). Supervisory bullying, status
inequalities and organizational context. Social Forces, 87, 1561-1589.
209 Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a
comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal
of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 425-441.
Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling,
motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment.
Human Relations, 56, 1213–1232.
Salin, D. (2008). The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource
management: Measures adopted and underlying organizational factors.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(3), 221-231.
Salin, D. (2009). Organizational responses to workplace harassment: an exploratory
study. Personnel Review, 38:1, 26–44.
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 Behavior, 17(6), 581-589.
Saunders, P., Huynh, A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2007). Defining workplace bullying
behavior professional lay definitions of workplace bullying. International Journal
of Law and Psychiatry, 30 (4–5), 340–354.
Schmidt, T., & Roscigno, V. J. (2005, April). The process of workplace sexual
harassment. Paper presented at the Southern Sociological Society meetings,
Atlanta, GA.
Seigne, E., Coyne, I., Randall, P., & Parker, J. (2007). Personality traits of bullies as a
contributory factor in workplace bullying: An exploratory study. International
Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 10, 118-132.
210 Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M., & Hetland, H. (2007). The
destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 12 (1), 80 – 92.
Smith, P. K., Singer, M., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C.L. (May 2003). Victimization there any
links? British Journal of Psychology, 94, 2, 175-188.
Society of Human Resource Management. (n.d.). Workplace bully Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/Samples/Policies/Pages/CMS_018350.aspx
Sparks, K. & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Occupational differences in the work-strain
relationship: Towards the use of situation-specific models. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 219–229.
Sperry, L. (2009). Workplace mobbing and bullying. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 61(3), 165-168.
Strandmark, M. & Hallberg, L. (2007). The origin of workplace bullying: Experiences
from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector. Journal of
Nursing Management, 14, 1–10.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
Journal, 43 (2), 178 – 190.
Tepper, B. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and
interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86
(2), 197- 215.
Tepper, B.J., & Henle, C.A. (2011). A case for recognizing distinctions among constructs
that capture interpersonal mistreatment in work organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32, 487–498.
211 Thobaben, M. (2011). Bullying in the Nursing Profession. Home Health Care
Management & Practice, 23(6), 477-479.
Tracy, S. J., Lutgen - Sandvik, P. & Alberts, J. K. (2006). Nightmares, demons and
slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management
Communication Quarterly, 20, 148-85.
Travers, C. & Cooper, C. (1993). Occupational stress among UK teachers. Work and
Stress, 7, 203-219.
Tuckey, M. R., Dollard, M. F., Hosking, P. J., & Winefield, A. H. (2009). Workplace
Bullying. International Journal of Stress Management, 16(3), 215-232.
Van Heugten, K. (2010). Bullying of Social Workers: Outcomes of a Grounded Study
into Impacts and Interventions. British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 638-655.
Vartia, M. (2001). Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of
its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment & Health, 27(1), 63-69.
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying-psychological work environment and
organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5, 203–214.
Vartia, M. & Hyyti, J. (2002), Gender differences in workplace bullying among prison
officers, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11,
pp. 113-126.
212 Vartia, M., Korppoo, L., Fallenius, S., & Mattila, M.-J. (2003). Workplace bullying:
The role of occupational health services. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, &
C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International
perspectives in research and practice (285 – 298). London: Taylor & Francis.
Vega, G., & Comer, D. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can
break your spirit: Bullying in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 58,
101-110.
Vogelpohl, D. A. (2011). New graduate nurses perception of the workplace: Have they
experienced hostility?. (Doctoral dissertation), Available from Ohio Link.
(toledo1301938365)Retrieved from
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=toledo1301938365
Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and
consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60,
127-162.
Woodcraft, J. (2001). Workplace bullying within a prison context, Prison Service
Journal, Vol. 133, pp. 43-46.
Workplace Bullying Institute & Zogby International. (2007). The U.S. workplace bullying
survey. Bellingham, WA: Author.
Yildirim, D. (2009). Bullying among nurses and its effects. International Nursing
Review, 56, 504-511.
You, Y. (2010). A study of faculty members perceived utilization of best practices in
distance learning course design and delivery and the role of instructional
designers. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from: http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd.
213 Zapf, D. (1999). Organizational, work group related and personal causes of
mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 70–85.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims and
perpetrators. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying
and emotional abuse in the workplace. International perspectives in research and
practice (pp. 165-184). London: Taylor & Francis.
Zapf, D. & Gross, C. (2001).Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A
replication and extension. European Journal of Work Organizational Psychology,
10(4), 497-522.
Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in
the workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying
and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and
practice (pp. 103–126). London: Taylor & Francis.
Zapf, D., Escartin, J., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2011). Empirical findings on
prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,
Zapf, D. & Cooper, C.L. (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace:
Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). (pp. 75-105)
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors
and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 215-237.
214 Appendix A
Survey Instrument
Negative Acts Questionnaire – Revised For Human Resources Professionals
The following behaviors are often seen as examples of negative behavior in the workplace.
Over the last six months, how often have the following negative acts been reported to you by an employee of your organization?
Please circle the number that best corresponds with your experience over the last six months:
1 2 3 4 5 Never Now and then Monthly Weekly Daily
1) Co-workers or superiors withheld information that effected their performance 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
2) Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with their work 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
3) Being ordered to do work below what is in their job description 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
4) Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 trivial or unpleasant tasks
5) Having gossip and rumors spread about them 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
6) Being ignored, excluded or being isolated from others 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
7) Having insulting or offensive remarks made about their personal 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 habits and background, attitudes or private life
8) Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger (or rage) 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
9) Intimidating behavior such as finger-pointing, invasion of 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way
10) Hints or signals from others they should quit their job 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
11) Repeated reminders of their errors or mistakes 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
12) Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when they approach 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
215 13) Persistent criticism of their work and effort 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
14) Having their opinions and views ignored 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
15) Practical jokes carried out by people they don't get along with 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
16) Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
17) Having allegations made against them 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
18) Excessive monitoring of their work 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
19) Pressure not to claim something which by right they are entitled. Examples - sick leave, holiday entitlement, travel expenses, 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 credit for work, idea, or accomplishment
20) Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
21) Being exposed to an unmanageable workload 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
22) Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
NAQ – Negative Acts Questionnaire © Einarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen og Hellesøy, 1994; Hoel, 1999
23) Who is primarily responsible for handling your organization’s response to workplace bullying?
A. Human Resources B. Management C. Legal Counsel D. Other
24) How does your organization respond to alleged perpetrators of bullying?
A. Internal Investigation with Discipline up to Termination B. Written Warning C. Performance Improvement Plan D. Other
216 25) In your organization, workplace bullying is considered in recruiting and selection of new employees?
A. No B. Yes, our organization communicates to prospective employees the expectation of consideration and respect in the workplace C. Yes, our organization uses background and reference information to understand if there has been a history of negative interpersonal interactions in the workplace D. Both B and C
26) Your organization has a formal (written and documented) workplace bullying policy?
A. No, and we have no plans to put a workplace bullying policy in place B. No, but we plan to put one in place in the next 12 months C. Yes, our workplace bullying policy is part of another workplace policy D. Yes, we have a separate workplace bullying policy
27) How is your organization’s workplace bullying policy communicated to employees?
A – In the Employee Handbook or Employee Orientation B – Through Training C – During Staff Meetings D – Workplace Bullying Policy is Not Communicated to Employees or No Policy has been Established
28) Workplace bullying policy is applied consistently and enforced across the spectrum of your organization
A. Strongly disagree B. Disagree C. Agree D. Strongly agree
29) A non-retaliation policy is in place for employees who report a perceived workplace bullying infraction
A. Yes B. No C. I Don’t Know
217 30) Your organization uses anonymous surveys to gauge the climate within the organization
A. Never B. Bi-Annually C. Annually D. Multiple Times Annually
31) In your organization, organizational workplace bullying goals are tied to employee performance evaluations
A. Strongly disagree B. Disagree C. Agree D. Strongly agree
32) Your organization seeks out information relative to workplace bullying through interviews with current employees and management
A. Strongly disagree B. Disagree C. Agree D. Strongly agree
33) Your organization seeks out information relative to workplace bullying through exit interviews from employees leaving the organization
A. Strongly disagree B. Disagree C. Agree D. Strongly agree
34) In your organization, all reports of workplace bullying receive a quick, confidential, and thorough investigation with assistance provided to targets of bullying
A. Strongly disagree B. Disagree C. Agree D. Strongly agree
218 35) Workplace bullying prevention and/or awareness training is provided to all staff members in your organization?
A. Never B. Bi-Annually C. Annually D. Multiple Times Annually
36) Specialized training is provided specifically to human resource professionals in your organization to provide them knowledge and skills to identify and address bullying and other interpersonal conflicts
A. Never B. Bi-Annually C. Annually D. Multiple Times Annually
37) Specialized training is provided specifically to management in your organization to provide them knowledge and skills to identify and address bullying and other interpersonal conflicts
A. Never B. Bi-Annually C. Annually D. Multiple Times Annually
38) Evaluation of workplace bullying training interventions is used in your organization to assess the learner’s knowledge to ensure understanding of the topic after the training is complete.
A. Yes B. No C. I don’t know D. My organization does not have workplace bullying training
39) Your organization has an established process for investigation of workplace bullying
A - No, and we have no plans to put one in place B - No, but we plan to put one in place in the next 12 months C - Yes, it is part of another established process for investigation D - Yes, we have a separate workplace bullying investigation process
219 40) Your organization reviews data on changes in frequency of: grievances and complaints, absenteeism, and employee turnover within the organization
A. Yes B. No C. I Don’t Know
41) The number of workplace bullying cases reported is statistically recorded by your organization
A. Yes B. No C. I Don’t Know
220 Appendix B
Required Training
The researcher has successfully completed the human subject research training via the UT-CITI (Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative) training website. This training must be completed before an individual can be approved as a member of the research team by The University of Toledo. The basic course was completed on May 14,
2013 and is valid until May 13, 2016. The researcher was assigned user identification
#3502781 and completion report #10281502.
221 Appendix C
Research Participation Approval Form
The International Association of Correctional Training Personnel (IACTP) will participate in the doctoral research being conducted by Dr. Berhane Teclehaimanot and
Matthew E. Ritzman of The University of Toledo. The Association will circulate a link to an online survey to members of the International Association of Correctional Training
Personnel (IACTP) who are correspondents of the Association’s listserv, as well as members of IACTP’s LinkedIn group.
Signature ______Printed Name______Title______
Your Contact Information including email address and phone number:
(The researcher will use the above named individual for future contact relating to this research)
Please return this completed form to: Matthew E. Ritzman Email: [email protected] Phone: Removed for privacy.
222 Appendix D
Research Participation Response
223 Appendix E
Research Participation Approval
224 Appendix F
Informed Consent
ADULT RESEARCH SUBJECT - INFORMED CONSENT FORM Human Resource Professionals and Workplace Bullying: A System’s Approach to Performance Improvement Intervention in Criminal Justice Agencies
Principal Investigator: Berhane Teclehaimanot Professor of Educational Technology, Phone Number Removed. Matthew Ritzman Doctoral Candidate, Phone Number Removed.
Purpose: You are invited to participate in the research project entitled, Human Resource Professionals and Workplace Bullying: A System’s Approach to Performance Improvement Intervention in Criminal Justice Agencies, which is being conducted at the University of Toledo under the direction of Dr. Berhane Teclehaimanot, PhD, and Matthew Ritzman, M.Ed. The purpose of this study is to provide expanded knowledge of workplace bullying in corrections agencies. This study will utilize the central tenets of Human Performance Technology to focus on the organizational system of human resources as it relates to preventing, identifying, and addressing workplace bullying. The research will utilize surveys to include the perceptions of human resource professionals working in corrections. The researcher will analyze the surveys to evaluate an adapted research instrument, measure the use of performance improvement interventions in the workplace, and compare the rates of bullying behaviors reported to human resource professionals as opposed to the rates bullying has been found to take place in an established population norm.
Description of Procedures: This research study will take place in various locations throughout the United States. The researcher will be using a survey instrument that will be administered through the Internet. In the survey instrument, you will be asked to identify behaviors that have been reported to you and identify strategies your employer is using to address negative behavior in the workplace. The survey should take participants no longer than fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes to complete and will be completed in one (1) session. The surveys will be voluntary and anonymous, with answers not being identified with individual participants.
After you have completed your participation, the research team will debrief you about the data, theory and research area under study and answer any questions you may have about the research.
225 Potential Risks: There are minimal risks to participation in this study. Answers to the survey may make you feel upset or anxious. If at any point you feel uncomfortable with your participation, or answering any of the survey questions, you may stop at any time.
Potential Benefits: The only direct benefit to you if you participate in this research may be that you will learn about how research studies are conducted and may learn more about workplace bullying. Others may benefit by learning about the results of this research.
Confidentiality: The researchers will make every effort to prevent anyone who is not on the research team from knowing that you provided this information, or what that information is. The consent forms with signatures will be kept separate from responses, which will not include names and which will be presented to others only when combined with other responses. Although we will make every effort to protect your confidentiality, there is a low risk that this might be breached.
Voluntary Participation: Your refusal to participate in this study will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled and will not affect your relationship with your employer, the International Association of Correctional Training Personnel (IACTP), the IACTP LinkedIn Group, LinkedIn, or The University of Toledo. In addition, you may discontinue participation at any time without any penalty or loss of benefits.
Contact Information: Before you decide to accept this invitation to take part in this study, you may ask any questions that you might have. If you have any questions at any time before, during or after your participation or experience any physical or psychological distress as a result of this research you should contact a member of the research team – Berhane Teclehaimanot, Professor of Educational Technology, Phone Number Removed or Matthew Ritzman, Phone Number Removed.
If you have questions beyond those answered by the research team or your rights as a research subject or research-related injuries, the Chairperson of the SBE Institutional Review Board may be contacted through the Office of Research on the main campus at (419) 530-2844.
Before you consent to participate in the study, please ask any questions on any aspect of this study that is unclear to you. You may take the necessary time to think it over, but please be aware that there is a deadline to submit a completed survey.
226 By clicking on the link below, or copy and pasting the link in your browser and beginning the survey, you are stating you are at least eighteen (18) years old, and you have read and accept the information above, and are giving your consent to participate in this research.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5SS5WLL
227