Morten Birkeland Nielsen

Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review

Abstract This paper reports results from two meta-analyses of the potential individual-level outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying. After introducing a theoretical framework for the possible relationships between bullying and outcomes, Study 1 summarizes 137 cross-sectional effect sizes from 66 independent samples (N=77,721). The findings show that exposure to bullying is associated with both job-related and health- and well-being-related outcomes, such as mental and physical health problems, symptoms of post-traumatic stress, burnout, increased intentions to leave, and reduced job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Non-significant or weak associations were established for absenteeism, performance, self-perceptions, and sleep. Study 2 examines longitudinal relationships between bullying and mental health and absenteeism, respectively. Based on prospective associations from 13 samples (N=62,916), workplace bullying influenced mental health problems over time, while baseline mental health problems were associated with a similar increased risk of subsequent reports of exposure to bullying. The long-term effect of exposure to bullying on absenteeism was rather weak. To summarize, the two meta-analyses provide robust evidence for the detrimental effects of workplace bullying that are in line with the theoretical framework presented. The findings have implications for the development of strategies against bullying. Directions for future research are discussed.

The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta‐analysis

The aim of this study was to investigate how different measurement methods and sampling techniques contribute to the observed variation in prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A total of 102 prevalence estimates of bullying from 86 independent samples (N=130,973) were accumulated and compared by means of meta-analysis. At an average, the statistically independents samples provided an estimate of 14.6%. Yet, the findings show that methodological moderators influence the estimated rates. As for measurement method, a rate of 11.3% was found for studies investigating self-labelled victimization from bullying based on a given definition of the concept, whereas a rate of 14.8% was found for behavioural measure studies, and 18.1% for self-labelling studies without a given definition. A difference of 8.7% points was found between randomly sampled and non-randomly sampled studies. When controlling for geographical differences, the findings show that geographical factors also influence findings on bullying. Hence, findings from different studies on workplace bullying cannot be compared without taking moderator variables into account.

Prevalence of workplace bullying in Norway: Comparisons across time and estimation methods

This study investigates the prevalence of exposure to workplace bullying in a representative sample of 2539 Norwegian employees utilizing different measurement and estimation methods. The prevalence of workplace bullying varied from 2 to 14.3% depending on method of measurement and estimation. Latent class cluster analysis is concluded to give the most reliable estimate (6.8%). Compared to a similar Norwegian study published in 1996, the prevalence of self-reported victimization from bullying is considerably reduced; from 8.6% in the early 1990s to 4.6% in 2005. In the 1996 study, 4.6% labelled themselves as victims of severe bullying, the corresponding number being 2% in 2005.

The Prevalence of Destructive Leadership Behaviour

This study investigates the prevalence of the four types of destructive leadership behaviour in the destructive and constructive leadership behaviour model, in a representative sample of the Norwegian workforce. The study employs two estimation methods: the operational classification method (OCM) and latent class cluster (LCC) analysis. The total prevalence of destructive leadership behaviour varied from 33.5% (OCM) to 61% (LCC), indicating that destructive leadership is not an anomaly. Destructive leadership comes in many shapes and forms, with passive forms prevailing over more active ones. The results showed that laissez-faire leadership behaviour was the most prevalent destructive leadership behaviour, followed by supportive–disloyal leadership and derailed leadership, while tyrannical leadership behaviour was the least prevalent destructive leadership behaviour. Furthermore, many leaders display constructive as well as destructive behaviours, indicating that leadership is not either constructive or destructive. The study contributes to a broader theoretical perspective on what must be seen as typical behaviour among leaders.

Sense of coherence as a protective mechanism among targets of workplace bullying

The present study investigated sense of coherence (SOC) as a protective factor among targets of workplace bullying. A hypothesis that strong SOC lessens the relationship between exposure to bullying and symptoms of posttraumatic stress was tested in a cross-sectional sample of 221 self-labeled targets of workplace bullying. The findings showed that SOC offers most protective benefits to targets exposed to low levels of bullying, whereas the benefits of SOC diminish as bullying becomes more severe. The results support previous findings that workplace bullying is a traumatic experience for those exposed to it, regardless of the targets available coping resources.

Longitudinal relationships between workplace bullying and psychological distress

OBJECTIVES The aims of this study were to examine reciprocal longitudinal associations between exposure to workplace bullying and symptoms of psychological distress and to investigate how self-labeled victimization from bullying explains the effects of bullying on health. METHODS Logistic regression analysis was employed to examine the longitudinal relationships between workplace bullying and psychological distress in a representative cohort sample of 1775 Norwegian employees. The time-lag between baseline and follow-up was two years. Exposure to bullying behavior was measured with the revised version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire. Perceived victimization from bullying was measured by a single self-labeling question. Psychological distress was measured with the 25-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist. All variables were measured at both baseline and follow-up. RESULTS After adjustment for psychological distress at baseline, exposure to bullying behavior [odds ratio (OR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.07-2.62) was found to predict subsequent psychological distress. This effect of bullying behaviors disappeared when victimization from bullying (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.17-5.22) was entered into the regression. Both psychological distress (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.64-3.80) and victimization (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.42-4.81) at baseline were associated with increased risks of being a target of bullying behaviors at follow-up. Psychological distress (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.39-4.52) and bullying behaviors (OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.39-4.52) at follow-up were associated with victimization. CONCLUSION The mutual relationship between bullying and psychological distress indicates a vicious circle where bullying and distress reinforce their own negative effects. This highlights the importance of early interventions to stop workplace bullying and provide treatment options to employees with psychological distress.

Measuring Exposure to Workplace Bullying

This chapter aims at summarising some descriptive empirical fi ndings of bullying in the workplace. We will start with the frequency and the duration of bullying. This is followed by an examination of the number, gender, and status of bullies and victims; the distribution of bullying across industries and occupations; and the use of various categories of bullying. The empirical basis of this chapter is restricted to studies carried out in Europe (see Table 3.3, Appendix, for an overview of the included studies). The phenomenon of bullying, which includes being exposed to persistent insults or offensive remarks, persistent criticism, and personal or even physical abuse, has been labelled “mobbing at work” in some Scandinavian and German countries (Leymann, 1996) and “bullying at work” in many Englishspeaking countries (Liefooghe and Olafsson, 1999). Typically, a victim is CONTENTS

Workplace bullying and subsequent health problems

BACKGROUND Cross-sectional studies demonstrate that exposure to bullying in the workplace is positively correlated with self-reported health problems. However, these studies do not provide a basis to draw conclusions on the extent to which bullying leads to increased health problems or whether health problems increase the risk of being bullied. To provide better indications of a causal relationship, knowledge from prospective studies on the association between bullying in the workplace and health outcomes is therefore summarised. MATERIAL AND METHOD We conducted a systematic literature review of original articles from central literature databases on longitudinal associations between bullying in the workplace and health. Average associations between bullying and health outcomes are calculated using meta-analysis. RESULTS A consistent finding across the studies is that exposure to bullying is significantly positively related to mental health problems (OR =1.68; 95% KI 1.35-2.09) and somatic symptoms (OR = 1.77; 95% KI 1.41-2.22) over time. Mental health problems are also associated with subsequent exposure to bullying (OR = 1.74; 95% KI 1.44-2.12). INTERPRETATION Bullying is positively related to mental health problems and somatic symptoms. The association between mental health problems and subsequent bullying indicates a self-reinforcing process between mental health and bullying. The methodological quality of the studies that were conducted is relatively sound. However, based on the existing knowledge base there are no grounds for conclusions regarding an unambiguous causal relationship between bullying and health.

Bullying in work groups: The impact of leadership

The aim of this study is to examine whether and how laissez-faire, transformational, and authentic leadership styles are related to the occurrence of bullying in work groups. It is hypothesized that the investigated leadership styles have direct associations, as well as indirect associations through group cohesion and safety perceptions, with indicators of bullying among subordinates. Using a cross-sectional survey design, the variables were assessed in a randomly selected sample comprising 594 seafarers from two Norwegian shipping companies. Laissez-faire leadership was associated with an increased risk of exposure to bullying behavior, self-labeled victimization from bullying, and perpetrated bullying. Transformational leadership and authentic leadership were related to decreased risk of exposure to bullying behavior. Authentic leadership contributed to the variance in bullying beyond laissez-faire and transformational leadership. Analyses of indirect effects showed that the association between transformational leadership and bullying was fully mediated through safety perceptions, whereas a partial indirect association through safety perceptions was found for authentic leadership. This study makes a significant contribution to the literature by providing evidence for how leadership styles predict workplace bullying. The findings highlight the importance of recruiting, developing, and training leaders who promote both positive psychological capacities and positive perceptions among their subordinates.

Is workplace bullying related to the personality traits of victims? A two-year prospective study

The main aims of this two-wave prospective study were to (1) present different theoretical mechanisms for relationships between bullying and personality characteristics, (2) determine forward and reverse long-term associations between victimization from bullying and personality traits included in the five-factor model and (3) establish whether these personality traits contribute to the variance in bullying, beyond work environment factors in the form of role conflict and role ambiguity. The prospective sample comprised 3066 Norwegian employees. The time lag between the two measurement points was two years. Neuroticism significantly predicted subsequent bullying in analyses of direct associations between personality traits and victimization. When adjusting for role conflict and role ambiguity, conscientiousness emerged as the only significant predictor of later victimization from bullying. In tests of reverse associations, victimization from bullying at baseline was significantly related to agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness at follow-up. Taken together, the study findings indicate that personality traits may function as both predictors and outcomes of workplace bullying.