Suchergebnisse

This article summarizes the literature explaining workplace bullying and focuses on organizational antecedents of bullying. In order to understand better the logic behind bullying, a model discussing different explanations is put forward. Thus, explanations for and factors associated with bullying are classified into three groups, enabling structures or necessary antecedents (e.g. perceived power imbalances, low perceived costs, and dissatisfaction and frustration), motivating structures or incentives (e.g. internal competition, reward systems and expected benefits), and precipitating processes or triggering circumstances (e.g. downsizing and restructuring, organizational changes, changes in the composition of the work group). The article concludes that bullying is often an interaction between structures and processes from all three groupings.

PurposeIn this paper the authors argue that organizational climate and workplace bullying are connected, intertwined and affect each other. More precisely, the focus of the present study is how a hostile climate at work is related to workplace bullying. A hostile work climate is defined as an affective organizational climate permeated by distrust, suspicion and antagonism. The authors tested four hypotheses about the reciprocal effects and possible gender differences.Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on a longitudinal probability sample of the Swedish workforce (n = 1,095). Controlling for age, the authors used structural equation modelling and cross-lagged structural regression models to assess the reciprocal effects of a hostile work climate on workplace bullying. Gender was added as a moderator to test two of the hypotheses.FindingsThe results showed a strong reciprocal effect, meaning there were significant associations between a hostile work climate and subsequent bullying, β = 0.12, p = 0.007, and between baseline bullying and a subsequent hostile work climate, β = 0.15, p = 0.002. The forward association between a hostile work climate and bullying depended on gender, β = −0.23, p < 0.001.Originality/valueThe findings point to a possible vicious circle where a hostile work climate increases the risk of bullying, which in turn risks creating an even more hostile work climate. Furthermore, the findings point to gender differences in bullying, showing that the effect of a hostile work climate on workplace bullying was stronger for men.

The aim of this article is to introduce a social exchange perspective to the study of workplace bullying. Much of the existing research on bullying has had a strong empirical focus, leaving the concept relatively under-theoretized. By applying the social exchange theory based concepts of justice, psychological contract breach, and perceived organizational support, we aim to shed light on a number of aspects of bullying that to date have remained poorly understood. First, drawing on the concepts of justice and contract breach, we highlight the perceptual and subjective element in workplace bullying. Second, the concepts of justice and contract breach allow us to provide insights into how bullying is experienced and the mechanisms through which bullying leads to negative outcomes for both targets and bystanders. Third, the concept of perceived organizational support highlights the importance of appropriate and timely responses to workplace bullying. Finally, we discuss implications for both research and practice.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to argue that bullying is a gendered, rather than gender‐neutral, phenomenon.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reviews empirical findings on gender and bullying and identifies and discusses theoretical frameworks that can provide explanations for identified gender differences.FindingsThe paper shows that there are gender differences not only in reported prevalence rates and forms of bullying, but that gender also matters for the way targets and third parties make sense of and respond to bullying. It is shown that gendered conceptions of power, gender role socialisation theory and social identity theory are all relevant for explaining reported gender differences.Research limitations/implicationsThe theoretical frameworks that have been selected should not be seen as exhaustive, but rather as useful examples. The authors encourage researchers in the field of bullying to pursue cross‐disciplinary research and actively apply existing theoretical frameworks to integrate their findings more firmly in existing research on related themes.Practical implicationsThe finding that bullying is gendered rather than gender‐neutral has implications above all for the way managers, organisational representatives and policy‐makers should address and prevent workplace bullying.Originality/valueThe paper questions the prevailing notion that bullying is gender‐neutral and demonstrates the importance of gender in the experience of workplace bullying. It further identifies gaps in research and puts forward an agenda for future research in this area.

The aim of this article is to examine target responses to workplace mistreatment and to analyze factors that affect the degree of discrepancy between actual and 'ideal' (i.e. desired) responses. Two-hundred and seventeen faculty members at a major research university in North America reported their actual and ideal responses to mistreatment. The most common responses involved passive and social support-seeking strategies. Respondents generally wished they could have been more assertive. The size of the discrepancy between actual and ideal responses to mistreatment was predicted by the perceived severity of the behavior, the coping strategy chosen and a difference in organizational status and gender between the perpetrator and the target of mistreatment. While our findings show that status differences were associated with a larger discrepancy regardless of the direction of the status differences, our results indicate that the mechanisms behind the discrepancy differed. Despite being a relatively high status population, faculty at a prestigious university responded more passively to mistreatment than desired, primarily due to situational constraints. Because the reasons for this discrepancy were often structural (i.e. based on organizational or social status structures), this research highlights the need for organizations to address mistreatment proactively, even in the absence of formal complaints.