Workplace bullying or bad behaviour in Australian organisations:

Prevalence and employers’ and employees’ perceptions and

Interpretations of the phenomenon

Dianna-Lee Daniels

Bachelor of Social Science (Psychology)

Student ID: 0952192

Supervisor: Dr Bruce Findlay

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

Postgraduate Diploma of Psychology,

Swinburne University of Technology.

October 14, 2005

(word count = 11,085)

ii

Table of contents

Page No:

Declaration

vi

Acknowledgements

vii

Abstract

ix

Introduction

Overview

Workplace Bullying: Prior Research

Conceptulisation and Definition of Workplace Bullying

Prevalence of Workplace Bullying

Who Bullies Who?

Individual or Group Bullying

Measurements of Workplace Bullying

Attribution Theory

Impact of Workplace Bullying

The Present Study

Aims and Hypotheses

1

1

3

5

7

9

10

12

15

16

17

19

iii

Method

Participants

Measures

Procedure

21

21

22

26

Results

Overview

Prevalence of Workplace Bullying

Who Bullies Who?

Individual or Group Bullying

Types of Behaviours

Factor Analysis of the NAQ-R

What Causes Workplace Bullying?

Perceptions and Interpretation of Workplace Bullying Situations

27

27

27

30

30

31

34

36

38

Discussion

Overview of Aims and Findings

Prevalence of Workplace Bullying

Who Bullies Who?

Individual or Group Bullying

Types of Workplace Bullying Behaviour

43

43

46

49

51

52

iv

What Causes Workplace Bullying?

Perceptions and Interpretations of Workplace Bullying

Methodological Considerations

Limitations of the Present Study and Directions for Future Research

Conclusion

54

55

57

58

61

References

63

Tables

1. Prevalence of Workplace Bullying

2. Prevalence of NAQ-R Items Experienced by Employees and

Employers

3. Maximum Likelihood Varimax Rotation of Two Factor Solution for

NAQ-R Items

4. Percentage of Participants Reporting each Factor that Contributed to

their Experience of workplace bullying

5. Means and Standard Deviations of the Respondents’ Judgments of the

Bully and Non-Bully Actors’ Organisational Skills

6. Means and Standard Deviations of the Respondents’ Judgments of the

Bully Actors’ Skills Based on the Respondents’ Judgments of the Bully

Actors’ Behaviour

29

32

35

37

41

42

v

Appendices

A. Table 7: Means and Standard Deviations of the Participants’ Perception

of the Communication, Interpersonal and Management Skills Displayed

in the Nine Vignettes According to Prior Exposure to Bullying

Behaviour and Organisational Status

B. Copy of Questionnaire

73

78

vi

Declaration

I declare that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgement any

material previously submitted for a degree in any University, College of Advanced

Education, or other educational institution; and that to the best of my knowledge

and belief, it does not contain any material previously published or written by

another person except where due reference is made in the text.

I further declare that the ethical principles and procedures specified in the

Swinburne University of Technology School of Behavioural and Social Sciences

Human Research Ethics Committee document have been adhered to in the

preparation of this report.

Dianna-Lee Daniels

14th October 2005

Introduction

Overview

The purpose of this study was to explore the prevalence of workplace

bullying in an Australian context and to examine the judgments and interpretations

people make concerning workplace bullying behaviour. The most widely

accepted definition of workplace bullying involves exposure to negative behaviour

that is systematic, persistent and repeated over a period of time, directed at one or

more people and where the target of the negative behaviour feels unable to defend

him/herself (Einarsen, 2000; Leymann, 1996).

Internationally, numerous studies and surveys have been conducted to

investigate the phenomenon of workplace bullying, highlighting its complexity.

The studies and surveys have focused on three main areas of interest: the

conceptual and operational definition, as well as the categories of behaviours

consistent with workplace bullying; the prevalence and forms of workplace

bullying; and the impact of workplace bullying on the individual, dyads,

organisations and society as a whole (e.g., Archer, 1999; Einarsen 2000; Hoel,

Cooper & Faragher, 2001; Jennifer, Cowie & Ananiadou, 2003; Lewis, 1999;

Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001; Olafsson & Johannsdotter, 2004; Rayner, 1997;

Salin, 2001; Zapf, 1999). In addition, a range of books have been recently

published, aimed at assisting organisations and human resource professionals to

address the complex issue of workplace bullying (e.g., Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf

2

& Cooper, 2003; McCarthy, Rylance, Bennett & Zimmerman, 2001;

Peyton, 2003; Rayner, Hoel & Cooper, 2002; Tehrani, 2001). These authors

provide details of intervention and prevention methods and also emphasise

the need to develop comprehensive guidelines, policies and procedures to

tackle workplace bullying. Moreover, a number of conferences and

symposiums on workplace bullying have been held globally to review and

discuss the phenomenon of workplace bullying (McCarthy et al.). To date,

the research conducted internationally on workplace bullying indicates the

relative importance of this issue in the workplace. In Australia, the number

of studies published has been small and has focused on specific industries,

such as nursing, construction and universities (McCarthy et al.).

The aim of the present study was to extend current research by

investigating the prevalence of workplace bullying within an Australian

context and to examine individuals’ perceptions, attitudes and understanding

of workplace bullying within their organisation. The present study provides

further evidence to support the importance of obtaining both an ‘objective’

and a ‘subjective’ account of workplace bullying.

The thesis begins with a brief summary of the emergence of

workplace bullying as an important phenomenon in today’s workplace. The

construct of workplace bullying is then introduced, followed by a review of

previous findings of workplace bullying. The current study which examined

3

responses from a broad range of Australian workers of their experience of

potential bullying is introduced, using two popular instruments. This is

followed by an examination of individuals’ attributions of workplace

bullying and their judgments and interpretations of workplace bullying

situations in relation to the perceived communication, interpersonal and

management skills of the bully and non-bully actor(s) in nine vignettes. The

thesis concludes with a description of the prevalence of workplace bullying

in the present sample, a discussion of respondents’ interpretations of the

behaviours in the vignettes and a consideration of the implications of the

findings.

Workplace Bullying: Prior Research

Bullying behaviour is more likely to be associated in the public mind

with schoolyard bullying than workplace bullying (Smith, 1997).

Internationally, bullying among children and sexual harassment in the

workplace have received substantial interest by both the public and

researchers in the last 30 years, while workplace bullying and/or aggressive

behaviour involving supervisors, managers and co-workers is a fairly new

phenomenon in the arena of workplace abuse (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996;

Keashly, 1998; Rayner & Hoel, 1997; Zapf & Einarsen, 2001).

4

Over the past decade, research into workplace bullying has gradually

emerged and, similar to schoolyard bullying and sexual harassment, has

been recognised as a pervasive and widespread problem in most

organisations (Einarsen 2000; Hoel, Rayner & Cooper, 1999; Keashly,

1998; Salin, 2001; Zapf, 1999). Workplace bullying has attracted more

media attention in recent years, emphasising the negative and often

destructive impact it has on the employee and employer relationship

(Cowie, Naylor, Rivers, Smith & Pereira, 2002; Einarsen, 1999; Einarsen,

Matthiesen & Skogstad, 1998; Rayner 2000; Zapf & Einarsen, 2001).

To date, most research into workplace bullying falls into three broad

categories: studies investigating the conceptual and operational definitions,

as well as the categories of behaviours consistent with workplace bullying

(e.g., Keashly, 1998; Lewis & Orford, 2005; Liefooghe & Olafsson, 1999;

Rayner, 1997; Salin, 2001); studies investigating the prevalence and forms

of bullying (e.g., Einarsen, 1999; Einarsen, Raknes & Matthiesen, 1994;

Hoel et al., 2001; Jennifer et al., 2003; Olafsson & Johannsdotter, 2004;

Varita, 1996; Zapf, 1999); and studies examining the impact of workplace

bullying on the individual, dyads, organisations and society as a whole (e.g.,

Adams, 1997; Hoel, Faragher & Cooper, 2004; Mikkelsen & Einarsen,

2001).

5

Conceptualisation and Definition of Workplace Bullying

Definitions of workplace bullying are complicated by the growing

awareness of the dissimilarity of the experience in terms of its nature, its

causal factors and the issues of ‘objectivity’ versus ‘subjectivity’ in defining

the phenomenon (e.g., Einarsen, 2000; Hoel et al., 1999). To assist in

understanding the complexity of the phenomenon, research on schoolyard

bullying has indicated several descriptive factors that contribute to bullying

behaviour, such as persistency, frequency, imbalance of power and the

intention to harm (Olweus, 1993; Smith, 2003).

Comparable with schoolyard bullying, workplace bullying is

commonly used to describe all situations in which one or more people over

a period of time perceive themselves as being systematically, persistently

and repeatedly subjected to negative acts in the workplace and are in a

situation where they are unable to defend themselves (Einarsen, 2000; Salin,

2001). In this context, serious conflict or disagreements between two

people of similar status or isolated episodes of negative acts in the

workplace are not considered to be workplace bullying (Einarsen &

Skogstad, 1996).

Adding to the complexity of workplace bullying is its label.

Workplace bullying is termed as ‘mobbing’ in Scandinavian and German

6

speaking countries (Einarsen, 2000; Leymann, 1990; Zapf & Einarsen,

2001), ‘bullying’ and ‘workplace harassment’ in the United Kingdom (UK;

Adams, 1992; Rayner, 1997), ‘workplace aggression’ and ‘emotional abuse’

in America (Keashly 1998) and ‘psychological abuse’ in Australia (Mann,

1996). Each of these terms varies slightly depending on the research

perspective taken for each study. For the purpose of the present study, the

term used will be ‘workplace bullying’ which incorporates each of the

above terms.

Furthermore, different perspectives on workplace bullying produce

varying results. The UK view of workplace bullying tends to focus on the

bully who typically is the supervisor who mistreats subordinates (Hoel et al.,

2001; Rayner, 1997). Hoel and her colleagues found that the majority of

perpetrators of workplace bullying (74.7%) tended to have a superior status

to the target and Rayner found that 71% of the perpetrators of workplace

bullying were in managerial positions. In contrast, the focus of workplace

bullying in Scandinavian countries tends to be the victim and the role of the

organisation (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996). Einarsen and Skogstad’s

Norwegian study found both co-workers (54%) and supervisors (54%) to be

perpetrators of workplace bullying. Leymann’s (1996) research attributed

responsibility for workplace bullying to the organisation, and Einarsen and

his colleagues’ (1994) study of Norwegian workers found work conditions

contributed to workplace bullying. These findings suggest that workplace

7

bullying may be a leadership and organisational problem, as well as an

interpersonal problem within organisations.

Prevalence of Workplace Bullying

Research has indicated that workplace bullying does exist in

organisations internationally; however, studies have found a disparity

between prevalence rates. Large scale studies and surveys across countries

indicate: 8.6% of the Norwegian working population experienced workplace

bullying over a six-month period (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996); 3.5% of the

Swedish working population experienced workplace bullying over a six

month period (Leymann, 1996); 8.8% of Finnish business professionals

were bullied occasionally which was reduced to 1.6% when frequency was

at least weekly (Salin, 2001); 10.6% of workers from the UK reported being

bullied over a six month period rising to 24.7% for within a five year period

(Hoel et al., 2001); and 33.7% of employees from Portugal, Spain and the

UK had experienced bullying behaviours on a regular basis (Jennifer et al.,

2003).

Studies focusing on specific working populations indicate: 3% of

Danish hospital staff and 4.1% of Danish manufacturing staff had been

bullied now and then and 14% of Danish students were identified as victims

of bullying over a six month period (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001); 17% of

8

Icelandic workers had experienced general bullying and 18.7% experienced

work-related bullying over a 12 month period (Olafsson & Johannsdotter,

2004); 18% of Welsh further and higher education employees experienced

workplace bullying (Lewis, 1999); 88% of Danish manufacturing workers

reported being exposed to workplace bullying now and then (Mikkelsen &

Einarsen, 2002); and 53% of UK part-time students had been bullied at

some time in their working lives (Rayner, 1997). These large variations in

prevalence rates may be influenced by the differing definitions of workplace

behaviours, differing measurements used for assessment and the differing

time periods assessed (Hoel et al., 2001; Salin, 2001).

In addition, what is apparent from previous research is that

workplace bullying appears to be less widespread in Scandinavian countries

(Norway, Sweden and Finland) than in other countries (UK and Iceland)

(Hoel et al., 2001; Olafsson & Johannsdotter, 2004; Rayner 1997).

Einarsen’s (2000) review of research into this phenomenon suggested that

the lower prevalence rates in Scandinavian countries was due to

Scandinavian countries being very similar both culturally and economically,

characterised by low power distance, feminine values, placing a high value

on the individual’s wellbeing and having a negative attitude towards any

sign of power abuse. Power distance is defined as the difference in

interpersonal power or influence between two persons as perceived by the

less powerful of the two, such as a subordinate’s perspective of a superior.

9

Low power distance indicates a relatively small difference in power and

status between two people in formal and informal positions. Feminine

values prescribe employees not to be aggressive, dominating and assertive

in social relationships (Einarsen, 2000). One aim of the present study was

to investigate the prevalence of workplace bullying in Australian

organisations and given that perceived power inequality between the

perpetrator and the target is a central aspect of the experience of being

bullied, it was argued that there would be a higher level of reported

exposure to workplace bullying in Australia than in Scandinavian countries.

Who Bullies Who?

Research into schoolyard bullying suggests that bullying and

harassment imply a difference in actual and perceived power and strength

between the perpetrator and the target (Olweus, 1993). Power differentials

are fundamental in distinguishing between bullying and conflict (Einarsen,

1999). Bullying occurs when one party is disadvantaged in terms of their

ability to respond to the other’s actions. In contrast, conflict exists when

both parties are equally capable of defending themselves (Einarsen). An

employee’s level of responsibility within an organisation, their access to

resources and their ability to influence others may affect their ability to

respond to perceived bullying or bad behaviour (Keashly, Neuman &

Burnazi, 2004).

10

In general, those with higher organisational status (managers and

supervisors) tend to have more control over resources and decision making

than their subordinates and are more likely to control work-related outcomes

and interpersonal relationships within the workplace (Keashly & Harvey, in

press). When the perpetrator of bullying behaviour is a superior (manager

or supervisor), the imbalance of power makes it difficult for the target to

defend themselves (Einarsen 2000). The majority of research to date

indicates that the main perpetrators of workplace bullying behaviour tend to

be those with higher power or organisational status (superiors) than lower

power or organisational status (subordinates) (Hoel et al., 2001; Mikkelsen

& Einarsen, 2001; Power, Dyson & Wozniak, 1997; Rayner, 1997). Thus,

within an Australian context, it was anticipated that those in superior

positions would be more likely to be identified as the perpetrators of

workplace bullying than those in subordinate positions.

Individual or Group Bullying

Leymann (1996) proposed that workplace bullying was a process

whereby an individual is singled out and victimised by another over a period

of time with the intent to harm. Contrary to Leymann’s view, in two studies

of workplace bullying conducted in the UK, the majority of respondents

indicated they had experienced group bullying, which involved a shared

experience of workplace bullying (Hoel et al., 2001; Rayner 1997).

11

Rayner’s study into the incidence of workplace bullying at Staffordshire

University found that 81% of the 1,137 participants had reportedly shared

their experience with others and only 19% had experienced bullying alone.

Similarly, Hoel and her colleagues (2001), who explored epidemiological

features of bullying by means of a large scale, nationwide survey across 70

UK organisations, found that of those who had reported being targets of

bullying, 54% had shared their experience with other co-workers or

colleagues and 14.9% of cases with the entire workgroup.

Rayner (1997) compared her findings with that of sexual harassment

and suggested a different dynamic is at work when considering workplace

bullying to be targeting groups rather than an individual. Rayner proposed

that Festinger’s (1962) Cognitive Dissonance Theory was a possible

explanation for the shift from individual to group experience of workplace

bullying. Cognitive Dissonance Theory proposed that if others are observed

as accepting behaviours, such as workplace bullying, then the individual

who is observing the behaviour may attempt to change their attitude or

perception of the behaviour accordingly.

Hoel and her colleagues (2001) findings led them to propose that the

term ‘bullying’ as an umbrella term encompassing more than one

phenomenon, such as ‘perceived victimisation’ and ‘group intimidation’,

rather than addressing a single phenomenon. Einarsen and Hoel (2001) also

12

found that workplace bullying encompassed more than one category, that of

‘personal’ bullying and ‘work-related’ bullying. To explore whether or not

workplace bullying is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, the present study

examined the extent to which workplace bullying was perceived by those

experiencing the behaviour as an individual or group experience. On the

basis of the Hoel et al. and Rayner studies, it was expected that bullying

behaviour would be experienced by a group of individuals rather than solely

by the individual.

Measurements of Workplace Bullying

Research to date has focused on what constitutes negative acts or

bullying behaviour in the workplace in an attempt to quantify the

phenomenon to provide a scientific operational definition from which to

work. As noted previously, when comparing different studies on workplace

bullying, there are several different factors that make such comparisons

difficult. Different researchers have used different definitions of bullying

and different strategies for measuring workplace bullying have been

employed (Salin, 2001).

In some studies, respondents have been asked to indicate how

frequently they have been exposed to a list of negative acts or behaviours

over a period of time, typically six or 12 months, and the indication of

13

exposure experienced, usually weekly, is then classified as having

experienced bullying behaviour (e.g., Hoel et al., 2001; Keashly et al., 2004;

Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001). Leymann (1996) has worked extensively in

the area of workplace bullying and devised the most widely accepted

operational criterion of workplace bullying: a person must experience at

least one bullying behaviour per week for a period of six-months. An

example of this measure is the Workplace Aggression Research

Questionnaire (WARQ; Neuman & Keashly, 2004) which contains 60

aggressive behaviours and requires respondents to indicate the frequency

with which they had experienced each of the aggressive behaviours and then

identify the source of the behaviour over a 12 month period.

The benefit of using a list of behaviours is that it can be considered

more “objective” since the respondents do not need to make a judgment of

whether or not they have been bullied. On the other hand, not all possible

behaviours are included within the list and rich information could be lost

(Salin, 2001). In relation to the individual items included in such an

inventory, they are not necessarily of equal severity. Some people may not

perceive the behaviour as bullying and others may have long-lasting effects

although the behaviours may only have occurred infrequently. A further

criticism of this type of method is that in order to be considered a bullying

behaviour, a specific behaviour must be experienced frequently, usually

weekly (Leymann, 1996). No consideration is made for those who

14

experience a variety of different behaviours regularly but not necessarily

weekly (Salin, 2001).

Other studies have relied on respondents reading a short definition of

workplace bullying and requesting that they judge whether or not they have

been exposed to such bullying behaviour (e.g., Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996).

The benefit of using this form of measure is that respondents clearly

indicate whether or not they have been bullied in the workplace. A

disadvantage of this method is that the definition may not fully cover the

respondents’ experience of workplace bullying behaviours and may result in

a negative response being recorded, i.e., not bullied (Salin, 2001).

An example of a measure that incorporates both an inventory of

negative acts and a global definition of workplace bullying is the Negative

Acts Questionnaire - Revised (NAQ-R; Einarsen & Hoel, 2001), an English

version of the Norwegian Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ; Einarsen,

Raknes, Mattiesen & Hellesøy, 1994) that measures self-reported exposure

to workplace bullying according to Leymann’s (1996) criteria. In order to

get a comprehensive understanding of the forms and perceptions of bullying

experiences in an Australian context, both strategies for measuring

workplace bullying have been used in the present study.

15

Attribution Theory

Due to the subjective nature of bullying, the way in which people

experience workplace bullying behaviour can vary and it is of utmost

importance when examining workplace bullying that how a person

perceives or interprets the bullying behaviour is sought (Rayner et al.,

2002). Attribution theory (e.g., Kelley, 1972) provides a meaningful

framework for investigating how people interpret behaviour and focuses on

the processes by which people make judgments and assign causes to their

own behaviour and that of others to restore a sense of predictability and

control over the environment (Rayner et al., 2002; Taylor, Peplau & Sears,

2000).

Attribution theory is often used to predict behavioural and emotional

responses to stressful events. For example, for negative experiences, such

as being exposed to bullying behaviour, people are more likely to attribute

the cause of the behaviour to the perpetrator of the behaviour; and for

positive experiences, people tend to attribute the cause to themselves

(Kelsey, Kearney, Plax, Allen & Ritter. 2004; Taylor et al., 2000; Zapf,

1999). However, should the behaviour persist over time, the target of the

behaviour may come to believe that they are indeed the cause of the

behaviour and internalise what is going on (Taylor et al., 2000).

16

Kelsey and her colleagues’ (2004) study into students’ attributions of

teacher misbehaviours found that students were more likely to attribute their

teacher’s misbehaviours to internal or dispositional causes. The present

study explored the causes participants attributed to the workplace bullying

they had experienced. It was expected that those respondents exposed to

workplace bullying would attribute the cause of the bullying behaviour to

the internal or dispositional traits of the ‘bully’, rather than themselves.

Impact of Workplace Bullying

Research has shown that workplace bullying can have serious

consequences both for the health of those concerned (e.g., Einarsen et al.,

1998; Einarsen & Raknes, 1997; Tehrani, 1996) and their job satisfaction

(Einarsen & Raknes), as well as affecting organisations with higher

absenteeism, higher intent to leave the organisation, higher turnover and

earlier retirements (Leymann1996; Rayner 1997; Tehrani, 1996). Although

research to date has highlighted the importance of examining workplace

bullying and its negative and sometimes destructive impact on all those

concerned, the present study did not examine the impact of workplace

bullying, but concentrated instead on establishing its prevalence in

Australian workplaces, and respondents’ interpretation of negative

behaviour as bullying or not.

17

The Present Study

Australia is a multicultural country, that is, the population is made

up of a diverse range of cultures from around the world (Hugo, 2002). Most

work settings today are fairly diverse in nature, and as such, employees

bring to the workplace their own social and cultural norms, perceptions and

expectations of how to be treated by others based on their upbringing,

socialisation, cultural diversity and prior experiences. Organisations, like

schools, bring together a diverse range of people, some of whom will bring

with them to the workplace more aggressive and violent behaviours than

others (Tattum & Tattum, 1996). These people will have learnt that in order

to get their own way they may need to engage in undesirable behaviours,

such as intimidation, manipulation and exerting their informal and formal

power, which fall within the scope of workplace bullying (Tattum &

Tattum).

While research overseas has examined and confronted workplace

bullying extensively, research in Australia on workplace bullying has been

limited (McCarthy, Sheehan & Kearns, 1995; Rayner, Sheehan & Barker,

1999). Research to date has indicated the difficulty of labeling or defining

workplace bullying purely as an abstract phenomenon and has highlighted

the need to consider the subjectivity of all parties involved (Salin, 2001).

18

That is, what one may perceive as workplace bullying, another may perceive

as just poor management or lack of communication or interpersonal skills.

Moreover, as the construct of workplace bullying becomes more

accepted, the methodologies used to research the phenomenon need to be

expanded beyond that of quantitative measures, such as inventories of

behaviours and definitions, to include qualitative measures, such as

interviews, focus groups and vignettes (Rayner, Sheehan & Barker, 1999).

It was beyond the scope of the present study to examine the culture of a

variety of workplaces by way of interviews or focus groups and therefore

vignettes were chosen as a convenient means of obtaining people’s opinions

of workplace bullying situations, the first study to do so, of those reviewed.

Nine vignettes were developed for the present study based on a

variety of case studies and experiences which incorporated the systematic,

persistent and repetitive nature of workplace bullying with the intent to

harm the target of the behaviour (e.g., Keashly & Harvey, in press;

Lockhart, 1997; Rayner, 1997; Rayner et al., 2002). It may be that when

confronted with a workplace bullying situation, people may not be able to

distinguish between that of workplace bullying and/or inappropriate

behaviour and the vignettes allow an opportunity to consider situations with

which the respondents may not be personally familiar.

19

Aims and Hypotheses. The first aim of the present study was to

explore the prevalence of workplace bullying within the Australian

workplace and to test the following hypotheses. In exploring the existence

of workplace bullying in the Australian workplace and in accordance with

Einarsen’s (2000) review of workplace bullying, it was predicted that the

prevalence of workplace bullying in the Australian workplace would be

higher than that identified in Scandinavian countries. As suggested by

Einarsen & Skogstad (1996), Hoel et al. (2001) and Rayner (1997), it was

predicted that managers and supervisors would be more likely to engage in

workplace bullying than co-workers or subordinates. The third hypothesis

examined the extent by which workplace bullying is perceived by those

experiencing the behaviour as an individual or group experience. Similar to

previous research (e.g., Hoel et al.; Rayner 1997), it was expected that

bullying behaviour would be experienced by a group of individuals rather

than solely by the individual. In line with previous research (Einarsen &

Hoel, 2001), it was anticipated that the negative acts experienced in the

Australian workplace would fall into two categories, that of work-related

bullying and personal bullying. The fifth hypothesis related to the causes

participants attributed to the workplace bullying they had experienced.

Similar to the study of Kelsey and her colleagues (2004), it was expected

that those respondents exposed to workplace bullying would attribute the

20

cause of the bullying behaviour to the internal or dispositional traits of the

bully, rather than their own behaviour.

The second aim of the present study was to explore how workplace

bullying was perceived and construed by recipients based on nine

hypothetical scenarios of workplace bullying. The following hypotheses

were explored. By examining the individual’s judgment and interpretation

of workplace bullying and the organisational skills of the actors in the

scenarios, it was predicted that those who had prior exposure to workplace

bullying would be more likely to group a variety of organisational skills

(communication, interpersonal and management) under the label of

workplace bullying than those who had no prior exposure to workplace

bullying. It was further expected that those with lower levels of

responsibility within their organisations (e.g., subordinates) would be more

likely to group a variety of organisational skills (communication,

interpersonal and management) under the label of workplace bullying than

those with higher levels of responsibility (e.g., supervisors and managers).

Finally, individuals’ judgments and interpretations of the behaviour

displayed by the two main actors (bully and non-bully) in each of the nine

scenarios were considered and it was expected that those who interpret the

bully actor’s behaviour as workplace bullying would be more likely to judge

the bully actor’s organisational skills (communication, interpersonal and

21

management) less favourably than those who judged the behaviour not to be

workplace bullying, but inappropriate behaviour instead.

Method

Participants

The total sample of 151 participants was recruited from the private

(58%) and public (37%) sectors of industry in the Melbourne metropolitan

area covering occupations including professionals (20%), government and

police (14%), retail (14%), hospitality (11%), administration and clerical

(9%), health and pharmaceutical (6%), IT, data and telecommunications

(5%), trade (3%) and various other occupations (11%). Eighty-nine

participants were female (59%), 53 participants were male (35%) and nine

participants choose not to disclosure their gender (6%). A good balance of

ages was achieved with 27% of the sample aged less than 20 years of age,

18% aged between 20 and 29 years, 18% aged between 30 and 39 years,

25% aged between 40 and 49 years, 11% aged between 50 and 59 years and

1% over 60 yeas of age. As many as 94% of the sample were employed in

full-time, part-time or casual employment, of whom 47% were in a position

of responsibility within their organisation. While 44% of the respondents

had completed secondary school, 56% had completed tertiary education.

22

Measures

The questionnaire consisted of four parts. Part One measured

exposure to occasional and persistent aggressive behaviour in the workplace

using the Workplace Aggression Research Questionnaire (WAR-Q;

Neuman & Keashly, 2004). The WAR-Q is a 60-item multidimensional

scale which asked participants to record the frequency by which each of the

behaviours listed had occurred to them over the past 12 months using a

seven-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 = once, 3 = a few times, 4 = several

times, 5 = monthly, 6 = weekly and 7 = daily) and to indicate the actor

primarily responsible for the behaviour using a six-point Likert scale (1 =

not applicable, 2 = supervisor, 3 = co-worker, 4 = subordinate, 5 = customer

and 6 = other). Participants were given an opportunity to add any additional

behaviours not covered by the 60 statements. Additional items on the

WAR-Q include items concerning to what degree all of the behaviours

bothered them, attributions for the behaviour and how participants felt

towards their work. An overall indicator for aggressive behaviour was

calculated from the mean frequency across all items. According to Neuman

and Keashly (2004) the WAR-Q has good internal consistency.

Part Two measured self-reported exposure to bullying behaviour in

the workplace according to the operational criteria proposed by Leymann

(1996), i.e., “weekly exposure to at least one negative act for at least six

23

months”, using the Negative Acts Questionnaire - Revised (NAQ-R;

Einarsen & Hoel, 2001). The NAQ-R is an English version of the

Norwegian Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ; Einarsen, Raknes,

Matthiesen & Hellesøy, 1994; Einarsen & Raknes, 1997) and consists of 29

items which measure how often in a six-month period participants had been

subjected to various negative acts, which, when occurring on a frequent

basis, might be experienced as bullying. All items in the NAQ-R are

described in behavioural terms with no reference to the term ‘bullying’.

Participants were asked how often over the last six months they had been

subjected to the negative acts using a five-point Likert scale (1 = never, 2 =

now and then, 3 = monthly, 4 = weekly and 5 = daily). Three items which

related to sexual, physical and racial abuse in the workplace were not

included in the analysis: item 2 “unwanted sexual attention”, item 12

“threats of violence or physical abuse”, item 23 “offensive remarks or

behaviour with reference to your race or ethnicity” since they are clearly

understood to be unacceptable and perpetrators of this type of abuse face

legal action (Mann, 1996). Scores ranged between a minimum of 26 and a

maximum of 130. A total score of the NAQ-R was calculated with higher

scores representing a greater exposure to negative acts in the workplace.

Following these scales, self-reported workplace bullying was

measured by means of a global definition of bullying based on Einarsen and

Skogstad (1996, p.191):

24

A situation where one or several individuals persistently over

a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving

end of negative actions from one or several persons, in a

situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in

defending him or herself against these actions. We will not

refer to a one-off incident as bullying.

The definition was immediately followed by the question: “using the

above definition, please state whether you have been bullied at work over

the past six months” and responses were recorded using six response

categories (no; yes, very rarely; yes, now and then; yes, several times per

month; yes, several times per week; and yes, almost daily). Those who

reported that they had been bullied at work over the past six months were

asked to respond to a number of single-item questions and to indicate the

duration of the exposure to workplace bullying, the number of male and

female perpetrators, the organisational status of the perpetrator(s), how

many were bullied and asked if they had witnessed bullying within the past

6 months within their workplace. Participants were also asked to indicate

whether or not they had observed or witnessed others being bullied in the

workplace during the past five years, independently of their current

experience of bullying. Einarsen and Hoel (2001) reported good internal

consistency of the NAQ-R using Cronbach’s Alpha of .91. Einarsen and

25

Hoel reported two factors in this scale, work-related bullying and personal

bullying, with Cronbach’s Alpha of .81 and .87 respectively.

Part Three measured Australian employer and employee attitudes

and perceptions towards negative and inappropriate behaviour in the

workplace and explored whether or not Australian employees and

employers understand the distinction between bullying behaviour and poor

or inappropriate behaviour. For this purpose, a pilot study was developed

consisting of nine vignettes. Feedback received from the pilot study was

incorporated into the final version of the vignettes: giving the main

characters in each vignette names for easy identification, recoding the skills

labels and the behaviour label, and modifying the questions participants

were asked. Participants were asked to read nine vignettes and to rate each

of the actors’ communication, interpersonal and management skills using a

five-point Likert scale (1 = very poor to 5 = very good) and to rate how they

perceived the actors’ behaviour using a five-point Likert scale (1= bullying,

to 5 = appropriate behaviour). The separate scores for each of the skills

were grouped together to create a total skill score for each actor, ranging

between 3 and 15, with low scores indicating poor skills.

Part Four comprised demographic questions obtained in order to

provide general information for the purpose of describing the sample used in

the study. A copy of the questionnaire is included as Appendix B.

26

Procedure

The questionnaire was initially designed as a web-based

questionnaire and a number of companies in the Melbourne metropolitan

area were approached to participate in the study. The organisations were

from a broad range of industries, including legal, engineering, information

technology, financial services, management consulting, health and

construction. The Human Resource Manager or Company Director of each

organisation was contacted to gain permission for the web-based

questionnaire to be distributed to their employees for voluntary

participation. Once approval had been obtained from the Swinburne

University of Technology Ethics Committee to proceed with the

questionnaire, data collection commenced. To increase the sample size, the

web-based questionnaire was transcribed into a paper and pencil

questionnaire and made available to first year psychology students at

Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne.

Recruitment of participants from the web-based questionnaire

occurred after they received an email briefly requesting participation in a 4th

year thesis interested in workplace behaviour, and those interested were

asked to participate in the questionnaire via a hyperlink. Recruitment of

participants from Swinburne University of Technology was via the Research

Experience Program, whereby participants gain course credit for

27

responding. The researcher invited voluntary participation and advised the

participants all data received would be automatically collected and stored at

Swinburne University of Technology and would be non-identifiable and

confidential. The completion of the questionnaire was taken to be voluntary

consent from the participant to participate in the study. The questionnaire

was posted on the Internet by way of a software program called “Surveyor”.

The final, usable sample represented 69% of the responses from those who

had begun the questionnaire.

Results

Overview

The survey data was downloaded from the Swinburne Surveyor

website and collected from paper and pencil questionnaires. The survey

data was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) version 12. Screening procedures were then performed with the

variables and the few missing values were replaced with the mean of the

remaining scale items for that respondent (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).

Prevalence of Workplace Bullying

Preliminary analysis revealed a total of 30.8% of the participants

self-reported they had been bullied within a six-month period,

28

independently of the frequency of their exposure. To assess in more detail

the prevalence of workplace bullying, two measures were used: the NAQ-R

(Einarsen & Hoel, 2001), an English version of the NAQ (Einarsen et al.,

1994), a Norwegian questionnaire which looks at negative acts in the

workplace over a six month period; and the WARQ (Neuman & Keashly,

2004), an American questionnaire that looks at aggressive behaviour in the

workplace over a 12 month period.

In order to compare the frequency and duration of workplace

bullying across the WARQ and NAQ-R, the frequency categories were

recoded to create four new workplace bullying groups: none experienced;

experienced but not weekly; experienced between one and five behaviours

weekly; and experienced more than six behaviours weekly or daily. The last

two categories represent Leymann’s (1996) defining criteria for workplace

bullying as experiencing at least one bullying behaviour weekly. The

prevalence of workplace bullying in the total sample is shown in Table 1.

As shown in Table 1, for the present sample, the prevalence of

workplace bullying for both the WARQ and NAQ-R were relatively similar

across all four categories which suggests that both questionnaires would be

suitable tools for further research into workplace bullying within the

Australian workforce. The reliability for both questionnaires overall was

29

very high: for the NAQ-R the Cronbach Alpha was .92 and for the WARQ

the Cronbach Alpha was .94.

Table 1

Prevalence of Workplace Bullying (N=151)

NAQ

6 months

WARQ

12 months

Workplace Bullying Behaviours % (n) % (n)

None experienced 18.1 (27) 3.3 (5)

Experienced but not weekly 59.1 (88) 72.8 (110)

Experienced between one and five weekly 16.8 (25) 17.9 (27)

Experienced more than six weekly or daily 6.0 (9) 6.0 (9)

Using Leymann’s (1996) operational criteria of experiencing at least

one bullying behaviour per week, during the previous six-month period a

total of 22.8% of participants indicated they had experienced workplace

bullying and during the previous 12 months a total of 23.9% of participants

indicated they had experienced workplace bullying behaviour. For

occasional exposure to workplace bullying which was less than weekly,

during the previous six-month period 59.1% of participants indicated they

had experienced workplace bullying and during the previous 12 months

30

72.8% had experienced workplace bullying. In response to witnessed

bullying in the workplace, 83% of participants indicated they had witnessed

workplace bullying during the previous six-month period.

Who Bullies Who?

To explore who the respondents thought had engaged in workplace

bullying, respondents were asked to respond to a single item regarding “who

bullied you”. A total of 73.9% reported they had been bullied by a person in

a senior role, such as a supervisor, line manager or senior manager and 50%

reported they had been bullied by their colleagues. The sum of these two

figures is over 100% which reflects the fact that some participants were

bullied by two or more people in different categories. There was no

indication in this sample that subordinates had engaged in workplace

bullying activities.

Individual or Group Bullying

In response to a single item asking participants to indicate how many

people in the workplace had experienced the workplace bullying, of the

participants who had identified that they had been bullied in the previous

six-month period, 41.3% reported they had been bullied individually, 52.5%

reported the workplace bullying was a shared experience with other

31

colleagues and 6.5% reported the entire workgroup had experienced the

bullying.

Types of Workplace Bullying

A more detailed view of the type of behaviours experienced as

workplace bullying was sought. As indicated earlier, for the present sample

the results for the WARQ and NAQ-R were relatively similar and as the

NAQ-R is a shorter and easier questionnaire to interpret, it was used to

interpret the type of workplace bullying experienced. Participants were

asked to state how frequently they had experienced each of the 29 negative

acts during the previous six months. An overview of the prevalence of the

negative acts for the present sample is shown in Table 2.

As indicated in Table 2, the most common workplace bullying

behaviours experienced on a weekly basis were ‘being ordered to do work

below your level of competence’ and ‘being ignored or facing a hostile

reaction when you approach’. Workplace bullying behaviours experienced

less frequently, but more commonly, involved ‘withholding information’,

‘opinions and views ignored by others’, ‘being ordered to do work below

your level of competence’, ‘unmanageable workload’, ‘being humiliated or

ridiculed in connection with your work’ and ‘unreasonable or impossible

targets or deadlines’.

32

Table 2

Prevalence of NAQ-R Items Experienced by Employees and Employers (N = 151)

During the last 6 months, how often have you been subjected to the following negative acts in the workplace?

Never

(%)

Now and then

(%)

Monthly

(%)

Weekly/Daily*

(%)

1. Someone withholding information which affects your performance 58.0 34.7 4.7 2.7

3. Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work 69.3 26.7 2.7 1.3

4. Being ordered to do work below your level of competence 59.3 28.7 5.3 6.6

5. Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks

68.7 23.3 4.0 4.0

6. Spreading of gossip and rumours about you 81.3 14.0 0.7 4.0

7. Being ignored, excluded or being ‘sent to Coventry’ 79.2 16.8 1.3 2.6

8. Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person (i.e. habits and background), your attitudes or your private life

82.0 13.3 0.7 4.0

9. Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger (or rage) 69.3 22.0 5.3 3.4

10. Intimidating behaviour such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way

84.0 11.3 3.3 1.4

11. Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job 85.3 12.0 1.3 1.3

13. Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes 71.3 22.7 2.7 3.4

14. Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach 77.3 14.0 2.7 6.0

Note: Response categories “about weekly” and “about daily” have been merged together to make one category. Items 3, 12 and 23 removed from analysis.

33

Table 2 (Cont)

During the last 6 months, how often have you been subjected to the following negative acts in the workplace?

Never

(%)

Now and then

(%)

Monthly

(%)

Weekly/Daily*

(%)

15. Persistent criticism of your work and effort 77.3 17.3 - 5.4

16. Having your opinions and views ignored 58.7 34.0 2.7 4.7

17. Insulting messages, telephone calls or e-mails 95.3 4.7 - -

18. Practical jokes carried out by people you don’t get on with 94.7 4.7 - 0.7

19. Systematically being required to carry out tasks which clearly fall outside your job descriptions, e.g. private errands

83.3 10.0 4.0 2.7

20. Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines 66.7 22.7 8.0 2.7

21. Having allegations made against you 85.9 10.1 2.0 2.0

22. Excessive monitoring of your work 72.0 21.3 2.0 4.7

24. Pressure not to claim something which by right you are entitled to (e.g. sick leave, holiday entitlement, travel expenses)

72.7 21.3 2.7 3.3

25. Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm 86.7 10.0 2.7 0.7

26. Threats of making your life difficult, e.g. over-time, night work, unpopular tasks

86.7 8.0 2.0 3.4

27. Attempts to find fault with your work 72.7 17.3 4.7 5.4

28. Being exposed to an unmanageable workload 66.0 23.3 6.0 4.6

29. Being moved or transferred against your will 90.7 6.7 1.3 1.4

Note: Response categories “about weekly” and “about daily” have been merged together to make one category. Items 3, 12 and 23 removed from analysis.

34

Factor Analysis of the NAQ-R

The behaviours experienced by the participants in the present sample

appeared to be more concerned with work-related issues than personal

issues and the 29 items of the NAQ-R were subjected to principle

component factor analysis to explore if two categories of workplace

bullying exist in the present sample. Prior to performing the principle

component factor analysis the suitability of data for factor analysis was

assessed. The sample size (n = 151) falls within the recommended sample

size for factor analysis, there is a ratio of at least 5 cases for each item (29

items) and inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of

many coefficients of .3 and above (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin value was .79 exceeding the recommended .6 (Kaiser 1970,

1974) and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical

significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

Principle component analysis revealed the presence of seven

components with eigenvalues exceeding one and an inspection of the scree

plot revealed a clear break after the second factor. Using Cattell’s (1966)

scree test, it was decided to retain two factors for further investigation. To

aid the interpretation of these two factors, maximum likelihood analysis

using varimax rotation was performed. The factor loadings for each of the

negative act items that loaded on the two factors are shown in Table 3.

35

Table 3

Maximum Likelihood Varimax Rotation of Two Factor Solution for NAQ-R Items

Item Factor 1

Work Related Bullying

Factor 2 Personal Bullying

27 Attempts to find fault with your work .73

22 Excessive monitoring of work .71

13 Repeated reminders of errors or mistakes .68

15 Persistent criticism if your work and effort .65

3 Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work .63

5 Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks

.59

16 Having your opinions and views ignored .57

4 Being ordered to do work below your level of competence .57

1 Someone withholding information which affects your performance .56

28 Being exposed to an unmanageable workload .51

19 Systematically being required to carry out tasks which clearly fall outside your job description, eg: private errands

.48

20 Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines .45

6 Spreading of gossip or rumours about you .88

8 Having insulting remarks made about your person .83

10 Intimidating behaviour such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way

.64

25 Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm .63

26 Threats of making your life difficult, eg: over-time, night work, unpopular tasks

.59

21 Having allegations made against you .59

9 Being shouted at or being the target for spontaneous anger (or rage) .51

14 Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach .50

11 Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job .48

18 Practical jokes carried out by people you do not get on with .48

7 Being ignored, excluded or being sent to Coventry .48

29 Being moved or transferred against your will .43

% of variance shared 20.8% 19.8%

36

As indicated in Table 3, the rotated solution revealed the presence of

simple structure with two factors showing a number of strong loadings, with

all items loading substantially on only one of two factors. The two factor

solution explained a total of 40.6% of the variance.

The first factor contributed 20.8% and was labeled “work-related

bullying”. It consisted of 12 items measuring exposure to behaviours such

as finding fault with work, excessive monitoring, humiliation and ridicule,

opinions and views ignored, withholding information and unmanageable

workloads. The second factor labeled “personal bullying” contributed 19.8

% and consisted of 12 items describing exposure to behaviours such as

gossip, insulting remarks, intimidating behaviour, being ignored and

excessive teasing. The interpretation of the two factors was consistent with

previous research on the NAQ-R scale, with work related bullying items

loading strongly on factor 1 and personal bullying items loading strongly on

factor 2 (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001). The reliability of the two factors was

good with a Cronbach’s alpha of .89 for work-related bullying and .89 for

personal bullying.

What Causes Workplace Bullying?

To examine participants’ perception of what factors may have

contributed to their experience of workplace bullying over the previous 12

months, participants were asked to respond to 14 single item questions. The

37

percentage of participants reporting that each factor had contributed to their

experience of workplace bullying is shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Percentage of Participants Reporting each Factor that Contributed to their

Experience of Workplace Bullying (N=151)

Factors contributing to experiences reported % (n)

Personality traits of others 64.9 (96)

Your job level 60.7 (88)

Your age 47.6 (68)

Office politics 43.0 (61)

Your own behaviour 37.2 (54)

Work-related stress 36.1 (52)

Your gender 31.9 (46)

Your health, illness or disability 9.1 (13)

Your ethnic group 8.4 (12)

Your race 7.0 (10)

Your religion 4.9 (7)

Your political beliefs 4.2 (6)

Your sexual orientation 3.5 (5)

Your union affiliation 2.1 (3)

38

As shown in Table 4, over the previous 12 months the main factor

that contributed to the participants’ experience of workplace bullying was

the ‘personality traits of others’. Other factors that were considered

important for the present sample were the participants’ job level, their age,

office politics, the participants’ own behaviour, work-related stress and their

gender.

Perceptions and Interpretations of Workplace bullying Situations

In order to explore how different people judge different behaviour,

responses to the nine vignettes were recoded. First, to investigate the

influence of past experience on the perception and interpretation of the

behaviours outlined in the nine vignettes, the sample was split into two new

groups: those who had self-reported prior exposure to workplace bullying

(Bullied); and those who had not self-reported prior exposure to workplace

bullying (Not Bullied).

Second, to examine the influence of level of responsibility or

organisational status on the perception and interpretation of the behaviours

outlined in the nine vignettes, the sample was categorised into those who

held a level of responsibility within their organisation, such as supervisors,

team leaders, managers, executives and partners/owners (Superior); and

those who did not have such responsibility in their job (Subordinates).

39

Prior to computing a series of t-tests on the sample, the data was

checked for any violation of assumptions. For the present study each of the

assumptions were met. The relationships between the ‘Bullied’ and ‘Not

Bullied’ and the ‘Superior’ and ‘Subordinate’ categories on the perceived

communication, interpersonal and management skills of the actors outlined

in the nine vignettes were computed.

Using independent sample t-tests and a Bonferroni correction

reducing the significance level to p<.005 to allow for the large number of

tests, there were no significant differences between the ‘Bullied’ and ‘Not

Bullied’ and the ‘Superior’ and ‘Subordinate’ categories when rating the

skills of the actors involved in the nine vignettes. That is, for the present

sample, neither prior exposure to workplace bullying nor level of

responsibility within an organisation appeared to influence the participants’

judgment of or interpretation of the actors’ skill level. Given the large

number of means and their non-significance, means and standard deviations

are shown in Appendix A.

In order to further examine respondents’ judgments and

interpretation of behaviours in a given situation, the behaviours of the two

main actors in each of the nine vignettes were considered. One displayed

behaviour that is consistent with the global definition of workplace bullying,

where the behaviour is systematic, persistent and repetitive over time and

40

harmful to another, labeled bully actor; and the other was a recipient of the

behaviour, labeled non-bully actor. Respondents were asked to rate the

actor’s communication, interpersonal and management skills. The separate

scores for each of the skills were aggregated to create a total organisational

skill score for each actor, ranging between 3 and 15, with low scores

indicating poor skill level.

A series of repeated measures t-tests with Bonferroni correction

(p<.005) were conducted to evaluate whether there was a significant

difference in respondents’ judgments of the bully and non-bully actors’

organisational skills (an aggregation of communication, interpersonal and

management). The means and standard deviations are reported in Table 5.

As shown in Table 5, in every vignette there was a statistically

significant difference in the mean scores of the perceived level of skills for

both the bully and non-bully actor(s), minimum t(142) = 7.84, p<.001. That

is, for the present sample, as expected, respondents consistently rated the

bully actors’ skills as poorer than those of the non-bully actors.

41

Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations of the Respondents’ Judgments of the Bully

and Non-Bully Actors’ Organisational Skills (N = 145)

Bully Actor Non-bully Actor

Skills M † (SD) M † (SD)

Vignette 1 4.25*** (1.44) 7.23 (2.01)

Vignette 2 4.18*** (1.79) 10.84 (2.58)

Vignette 3 5.45*** (1.90) 10.71 (2.62)

Vignette 4 4.75*** (2.00) 9.63 (2.65)

Vignette 5 4.43*** (2.15) 10.31 (2.41)

Vignette 6 4.88*** (2.27) 9.56 (2.68)

Vignette 7 5.66*** (2.37) 10.99 (2.32)

Vignette 8 6.06*** (2.18) 8.41 (2.52)

Vignette 9 5.23*** (1.95) 9.25 (2.48)

Note: *** = p<.005, † = smaller means indicate poorer skills

Next, independent-sample t-tests were computed to compare

whether there was a significant difference in respondents’ judgments of the

bully actors’ skills (communication, interpersonal and management)

according to whether the behaviour of the bully actor was rated as bullying

42

behaviour or as inappropriate or negative behaviour. The means and

standard deviations are reported in Table 6.

Table 6

Means and Standard Deviations of the Respondents’ Judgments of the Bully Actors’

Skills Based on the Respondents’ Judgments of the Bully Actors’ Behaviour (N =

145)

Perceived Bully Actors Behaviours

Bullying Inappropriate

Skills M † (SD) M † (SD)

Vignette 1 – Brett 3.55** (.99) 4.66 (1.48)

Vignette 2 – Rebecca 3.46** (.88) 4.54 (1.75)

Vignette 3 – Sarah 4.46* (1.60) 5.50 (1.72)

Vignette 4 – Steve 4.11** (1.51) 5.33 (1.93)

Vignette 5 – Monica 4.79* (1.98) 5.87 (1.85)

Vignette 6 – Martin 3.96** (1.47) 5.40 (1.76)

Vignette 7 – Dina 4.16** (1.62) 5.60 (1.92)

Vignette 8 – Jo 4.52** (1.76) 6.14 (1.59)

Vignette 9 – Team 4.33* (1.48) 5.34 (1.68)

Note: * = p<.05, **=p<.001, † = smaller means indicate poorer skills

43

As shown in Table 6, for each of the nine vignettes there was a

statistically significant difference in the mean scores of the perceived level

of skills displayed by the bully actor dependent on whether the respondent

judged the behaviour to be bullying or inappropriate/negative behaviour,

minimum t(135) = -3.17, p<.05. That is, as expected, participants tended to

make judgments of the bully actors' skills as poorer if they also

characterised the behaviour as bullying rather than as inappropriate

behaviour.

The reliability of the nine responses to the vignette items asking

whether the bully actors’ behaviour was bullying or inappropriate behaviour

was good with a Cronbach alpha of .73.

Discussion

Overview of Aims and Findings

The general aim of the present study was to explore the prevalence

of workplace bullying within the Australian workplace compared to other

countries. The study also aimed to determine who were the main

perpetrators of workplace bullying; whether the experience was that of an

individual or shared experience; whether the phenomenon of workplace

bullying was a unitary or multi-factorial phenomenon; and to indicate to

what workplace bullying was attributed. A further goal of the study was to

44

explore how workplace bullying is perceived and construed by recipients

based on hypothetical scenarios.

The results of the present study support the existence of workplace

bullying within an Australian context. As predicted, the prevalence of

workplace bullying in the Australian workplace was higher than that

identified in Scandinavian countries (e.g., Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996;

Leymann, 1996; Salin, 2001).

The second hypothesis, regarding who were the main perpetrators of

workplace bullying, was also supported. As predicted, managers and

supervisors were identified as more likely to engage in workplace bullying

than co-workers or subordinates (e.g., Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Hoel et

al., 2001; Rayner, 1997).

The hypothesis regarding the extent to which workplace bullying

was perceived by those experiencing the behaviour as an individual or group

experience was also supported. As predicted, supporting previous research

(e.g., Hoel et al., 2001; Rayner 1997), workplace bullying was more often

experienced as happening to a group of individuals rather than solely to the

individual.

The fourth hypothesis regarding workplace bullying as a single or

multi-dimensional phenomenon was also supported. As predicted, in line

45

with previous research using the NAQ (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001), the

negative acts experienced in the Australian workplace could be

conceptualised as two factors, that of work-related bullying and personal

bullying.

The hypothesis regarding what causal factors participants tend to

attribute workplace bullying to was also supported. As predicted,

respondents tended to attribute workplace bullying to the personality of the

bully rather than their own behaviour.

The final aim of the present study was to explore how behaviour was

perceived and construed by recipients based on hypothetical scenarios of

workplace bullying. The results revealed partial support for the three

hypotheses in relation to the respondents’ prior exposure to workplace

bullying, their organisational status and judgment of organisational skills

(communication, interpersonal and management) of the actors.

There was no significant evidence that prior exposure to workplace

bullying or the respondent’s organisational status influenced their

perception and interpretation of the behaviours displayed in each of the nine

vignettes. However, the results did reveal a pattern where respondents were

consistently able to distinguish between the behaviours of the bully actor

and the non-bully actor which influenced their rating of the actors’

46

organisational skills. That is, respondents clearly tended to rate the

organisational skills (communication, interpersonal and management) of the

bully actors in a more negative light when compared to the non-bully actors.

Finally, regarding respondents’ judgments and interpretations of the

bully actor behaviour as workplace bullying was supported. As predicted,

those who interpreted the bully actor’s behaviour as workplace bullying

tended to judge the bully actor’s organisation skills (communication,

interpersonal and management) less favourably than those who judged the

behaviour not to be workplace bullying, but inappropriate behaviour instead.

Prevalence of Workplace Bullying

It was found that workplace bullying does exist within an Australian

context and results indicated a higher prevalence than that reported from

Scandinavian countries (e.g., Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Leymann, 1996;

Salin, 2001). Similar to previous research (e.g., Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996;

Cowie et al., 2002; Lewis & Orford, 2005; Hoel et al., 2001), the present

study confirms that workplace bullying is a major social problem in

Australia, and given the high percentages reported in the present study it is

possible to conclude that a majority of people in the Australian workforce

have at some time experienced workplace bullying either directly or

indirectly as a witness or an observer. A possible reason for the high

47

prevalence rate could be the increased media coverage of workplace

bullying within Australia and its impact on the individuals concerned.

Einarsen’s (2000) review of workplace bullying suggested that the

low prevalence rates in Scandinavian countries was due to power inequality

between the perpetrator and the target, whereby Scandinavian countries

have low power-distance, feminine values and more negative attitudes

towards any form of abuse compared to other countries such as America.

Research into power inequality could not be found using an Australian

context. Thus, further research into the area of power inequality within an

Australian context would be beneficial in identifying the economic and

cultural aspects influencing individuals’ perceptions of workplace bullying.

In addition to power inequality, extensive research has been

undertaken in Scandinavian countries since the 1980s into the phenomenon

of workplace bullying which has enabled Scandinavian governments and

organisations to implement legislation and early intervention programs to

combat and reduce it (Einarsen, 2000). McCarthy et al. (2001) provide a

detailed outline of the emergence of workplace bullying in Australia,

however, the phenomenon still appears to be fairly unacknowledged and

misunderstood. Apart from recent legislation proposed in South Australia,

workplace bullying is still not recognised as a prevailing issue in the

Australian workplace (Sunday Mail, 2005).

48

The high number of respondents who indicated that they had either

experienced or witnessed workplace bullying, coupled with the high

response rate for those who indicated that they had experienced workplace

bullying occasionally, indicates that such workplace bullying is relatively

common in organisational settings in Australia. According to Einarsen &

Skogstad (1996) workplace bullying takes the form of an escalating process.

In the beginning workplace bullying is experienced now and then, and as the

conflict escalates the frequency of the workplace bullying increases and

eventually the target of the workplace bullying may be exposed to weekly or

daily abuse. Whilst the present study did not investigate when the

behaviour had commenced and for how long the behaviour had been

experienced, according to Einarsen and Skogstad, those who have

experienced bullying behaviour now and then may be at risk of feeling

victimised due to workplace bullying in the future should the behaviour

continue unchecked. Further research into the duration of workplace

bullying within an Australian context would be beneficial in identifying

whether or not an escalating process results in increased levels of workplace

bullying.

Furthermore, the high response to witnessing workplace bullying

rather than experiencing it may indicate that bullying is difficult to quantify

using people’s perceptions alone, in part because people tend to deny or

minimize abuse as a way to survive in an abusive environment (Einarsen &

49

Skogstad, 1996; Randall 1992). Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2001) suggested

that for people to admit to being exposed to workplace bullying behaviour is

to admit to weakness and inadequate coping. Thus, the prevalence of

workplace bullying, if assessed on the subjective awareness of the

respondent alone, may encourage an underreporting of the phenomenon due

to the negative connotations of workplace bullying. To counteract for

underreporting, an objective measure of workplace bullying should be

employed (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001). Further examination of the

differences between experiencing and witnessing workplace bullying would

enable a more definite understanding of the phenomenon of workplace

bullying.

Who Bullies Who?

Similar to the study of Hoel et al. (2001), in the present study the

majority of perpetrators of workplace bullying were reported to be managers

and supervisors. This finding provides further support to the notion that

power imbalance between the perpetrator and target forms part of workplace

bullying. Interestingly however, and similar to Einarsen and Skogstad

(1996), the present study also found a substantial minority of perpetrators

were identified as colleagues or co-workers. A possible explanation for the

high percentage of colleagues or co-workers identified as perpetrators could

be that as participants in the present sample were recruited from all levels of

50

the organisation, the responses of supervisors and above were captured. Not

only are managers better able to label their experience as workplace

bullying, due to a greater level of knowledge and interest in the area, but

organisational restructuring, with downsizing as an integral part of the

change process, increases the level of competition evident in higher

management levels, which in turn may escalate into behaviour that can be

labeled as workplace bullying (Hoel et al., 2001).

Archer’s (1999) study of workplace bullying in the Fire Service in

the UK, the USA and Eire found that where the work group is heavily

dependent on the socialisation processes of acceptance, normalisation,

indoctrination and the preservation of hierarchy, a form of bullying in

groups exists. Thus, for employees belonging to a group or organisation,

the organisation’s culture will ensure that people are socialised into

adopting behaviour they may otherwise not engage in, and that were

traditionally adopted by supervisors and managers.

Furthermore, Hoel et al. (2001) suggested that in an organisation

undergoing considerable change, and one in which employees are

experiencing high levels of pressure, employees are more likely to be at

breaking point, thereby increasing the likelihood of workplace bullying

taking place. Whilst the influence of organisational factors was not

explored in the present study, the increasing awareness of colleagues or co-

51

workers as perpetrators participating in workplace bullying suggests a need

for the difference between collegial bullying and leadership bullying to be

explored in future research (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996).

Individual or Group Bullying

In support of Rayner (1997) and Hoel et al. (2001), the present study

found that workplace bullying tended to be experienced as a group rather

than solely by the individual. According to Rayner, where a group is

experiencing workplace bullying, this can be explained by Festinger’s

(1962) cognitive dissonance theory, where people are motivated to change

their attitudes and perceptions of workplace bullying if they observe others

putting up with the workplace bullying. That is, the notion of an

organisation’s unique culture plays a role in influencing workplace bullying

(Archer, 1999; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001). Exploring the influence of

organisational culture on workplace bullying was beyond the scope of the

present study and further research drawing on parallel disciplines in Human

Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour on the role of

organisational culture and employees’ motivations behind their attitudes and

perceptions of workplace bullying would enhance the understanding of why

people engage in, or put up with, workplace bullying.

52

Alternatively, Hoel et al. (1999) suggested that individuals convince

themselves that they share their experiences with others because of the

feelings of shame and guilt surrounding the experience. In agreement with

Hoel et al., the present findings suggest that rather than researching

workplace bullying as an individual experience, research should be

expanded to include that of group workplace bullying which encompasses a

different dynamic process than that of individual workplace bullying.

Types of Workplace Bullying Behaviour

In line with previous research using the NAQ (Einarsen & Hoel,

2001), the present study found that the negative acts experienced in the

Australian workplace fell into two factors, those of work-related bullying

and personal bullying. These findings provide further support that

workplace bullying should be considered a multi-dimensional phenomenon

(Hoel et al., 2001). Most of the workplace bullying behaviours identified in

the present study were categorised as work-related bullying which may

support the theoretical notion that suggests bullying behaviour is the

outcome of poorly managed and escalated conflicts (Einarsen et al., 1994;

Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996).

A closer look at the results revealed the most common workplace

bullying experienced in the present study was being ordered to work below

53

one’s level of competence. As suggested by Mikkelsen and Einarsen

(2001), self-reported victims often report being exposed to this type of

workplace bullying. In the present study, being ordered to work below their

level of competence does not necessarily imply that the respondent is being

bullied, but rather may reflect distinct features of the sample used. A large

proportion of the present sample had either completed or was in the process

of completing further education and as such can be considered fairly highly

educated. According to Mikkelsen and Einarsen, the higher the education of

an employee, the higher the risk that some of the employees’ tasks will be

below their level of competence or that they will believe that their abilities

are above that of the job they were performing.

It is worthy of note that workplace bullying behaviours identified as

occurring less frequently, but by more respondents, were behaviours that

represented work-related bullying, including someone withholding

information, having opinions and views ignored, being humiliated and

ridiculed, given unreasonable tasks or deadlines, having key areas of

responsibility removed and being exposed to unmanageable workloads,

rather than personal bullying. These findings indicate that efforts could be

made to reduce these behaviours with early intervention programs and more

stringent training programs to improve communication, interpersonal and

management skills.

54

What Causes Workplace Bullying?

While it is difficult to prove cause and effect with regard to

workplace bullying (Zapf, 1999), the results of the present study found that

those respondents exposed to workplace bullying tended to attribute the

cause of the bullying behaviour to the personality traits of the perpetrator,

rather than their own behaviour. Zapf’s study, which investigated causes of

mobbing/bullying at work in Germany, found that whilst there are a

multitude of possible causes, people tended to blame other people for an

action rather than attribute the situation to other factors. According to

Attribution theory, when experiencing a negative experience, such as

workplace bullying, a fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977) is often

adopted whereby the target of such behaviour will frequently attribute the

behaviour to the internal dispositions of the other person.

Research has indicated that negative incidents tend to be initially

attributed to other people and situations, but should the negative behaviour

continue to persist over time without sufficient support from others, the

target of the behaviour may come to believe that they themselves are the

cause of the workplace bullying and internalise what is going on (Lewis &

Orford, 2005).

55

Equally as important to the respondents in the present study when

attributing a possible cause to workplace bullying, was the respondent’s job

level. A possible explanation could be the notion of power imbalance

previously discussed whereby those in subordinate roles within an

organisation perceive themselves as less able to control or influence

workplace behaviour (Keashly et al., 2004). Future research into the role of

organisational status and the causes of workplace bullying would be

beneficial in examining how people attribute their experience of workplace

bullying.

Perceptions and Interpretations of Workplace Bullying

The present study gives an indication of individuals’ perceptions and

interpretations of hypothetical situations in the workplace in Australia

organisations. A new measure was developed, based on workplace bullying

experiences between two or more people taken from a variety of case

studies. The findings of the present study were interesting as, contrary to

expectations, there was no significant evidence to suggest that prior

exposure to workplace bullying or the respondent’s organisational status

influenced their perception and interpretation of the behaviours displayed in

each of the nine scenarios. However, respondents were consistently able to

distinguish between the behaviour of the bully actor and the behaviour of

the non-bully actor as reflected by their rating of the actors’ organisational

56

skills. Similar to Salin (2001), these findings imply that there may be a

reluctance to use the label ‘workplace bullying’, and future research to

explore this reluctance would provide a richer understanding of workplace

bullying.

Finally, when the behaviour of the bully actor in each of the

hypothetical scenarios was considered, those respondents who interpreted

the bully actor’s behaviour as workplace bullying tended to judge the bully

actor’s organisational skills (communication, interpersonal and

management) less favourably than those who judged the behaviour not to be

workplace bullying, but inappropriate behaviour instead. These findings

suggest that perceptions of organisational skills influence people’s

judgments and interpretation when considering a bullying situation. In

addition, these findings, taken together with the reluctance in the present

sample to label behaviour as workplace bullying, suggesting that people

would rather cite poor communication, interpersonal and management skills

instead, provides evidence that workplace bullying is a complex

phenomenon, with a large subjective component. Further research into

reasons why people are reluctant to label negative or inappropriate

behaviour in the workplace as bullying would provide a deeper

understanding of people’s perceptions and interpretations of workplace

behaviour.

57

Methodological Considerations

In the present study, exposure to workplace bullying was measured

using two methods: inventories of workplace bullying items from which

respondents indicated whether or not the behaviour had been experienced

during a predefined time period; and, subsequently, a precise global

definition of workplace bullying based on which participants were asked to

self-report whether or not they perceived themselves as victims of

workplace bullying according to the definition.

Assessing workplace bullying using both methods enabled at least

some of the problems usually associated with self-reporting to be avoided.

First, while it is acknowledged that not all behaviours associated with

workplace bullying can be contained within a list, providing a list of

negative acts gave respondents an opportunity to identify whether or not

they had experienced workplace bullying and to rate the perceived impact of

each exposure without forcing them to make a judgment or forcing them to

self-label themselves as bullied which may have connotations of failure and

weakness (Salin, 2001). Second, offering a global definition of workplace

bullying and asking respondents to indicate whether they have experienced

such behaviour, has the advantage of giving the respondents a clear

understanding of what they are responding to, thus yielding specific

responses.

58

Limitations of the Present Study and Directions for Future Research

Although the present study had a good sample size and a moderate

range of workplaces and occupations, its reach was not as broad as had been

hoped. The main reason was that several of the organisations approached

were not prepared to participate. Consequently, the respondents in this

study do not represent a good cross section of the Australian workforce,

with many professions not represented in the study. It would therefore be

useful for future researchers to obtain a more diverse sample comprising a

broader range of organisations and occupations.

However, the results did yield some valuable information in relation

to estimates of the prevalence of workplace bullying in the Australian

workforce. First, results confirmed that workplace bullying is more

prevalent in Australia than in Scandinavian countries. Further research into

the area of power inequality within an Australian context would be

beneficial in identifying the economic and cultural aspects influencing

individuals’ perceptions of workplace bullying.

Second, considering the escalating process reported in workplace

bullying (Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996), the extremely high percentage of

those experiencing workplace bullying ‘now and then’ and the high rate of

those witnessing workplace bullying, leads to the conclusion that should

59

such behaviour continue to be encountered the respondents may eventually

become victims of workplace bullying. More empirical research into the

duration of workplace bullying would be beneficial in identifying whether

or not an escalating process results in increased levels of workplace bullying

within an Australian context.

Third, although workplace bullying is traditionally thought of as a

power imbalance from an organisational status perspective, the role of

colleagues or co-workers is also evident in the present study which implies

that different processes may be taking place. The increasing awareness of

colleagues or co-workers as perpetrators participating in workplace bullying

suggests a need for the difference between collegial bullying and leadership

bullying to be explored in future research.

Fourth, workplace bullying was experienced more as a group

experience than an individual one which shifts the focus of research away

from individual bullying to group bullying and implies that a different

bullying process may be at work. Interestingly, most of the behaviours

experienced by the present sample were categorised as work-related

bullying and these findings suggest that if these behaviours could be

addressed using more stringent organisational training programs, together

with the promotion of more acceptable behaviours in the workplace, perhaps

the occurrence of workplace bullying could be reduced or prevented.

60

Finally, using the vignettes to explore individuals’ perceptions and

their interpretation of workplace bullying provided an opportunity to gain a

valuable insight into what respondents perceived workplace bullying to be

without having to conduct focus groups or qualitative interviews. In

addition, the vignettes provided an opportunity to gauge if respondents were

able to distinguish between workplace bullying or bad behaviour and the

impact perceived organisational skills had on such behaviour. Although

vignettes may be criticised as not necessarily being within the respondents

own experience, this very fact allows a wider range of behaviours to be

judged. The results of the present study, which indicated that respondents

were consistent across scenarios in judging whether the behaviour was

labeled as bullying, suggest that this methodology is successful. Future

research should aim for an even more diverse series of examples.

Exploring the influence of organisational culture on workplace

bullying was beyond the scope of the present study and further research into

organisational culture and employees’ motivations behind their attitudes and

perceptions of workplace bullying would enhance the understanding of why

people engage in workplace bullying.

As illustrated by the present study, workplace bullying is a public

issue, as it occurs in the Australian workplace, and steps should be taken to

protect people and prevent, or at least reduce, workplace bullying. A place

61

to start would be to review legislation, policies and procedures, and

introduce early intervention programs, which have been successfully

implemented in other countries, to combat and reduce workplace bullying in

Australian organisations (Einarsen, 2000; McCarthy et al., 1995).

Conclusion

The present study provided empirical evidence that workplace

bullying is a complex phenomenon which cannot be satisfactory examined

using quantitative objective measures of inventories and definitions alone.

Complementary subjective approaches, which employ the use of qualitative

data, should be adopted for future research in order to provide a deeper

understanding of the phenomenon of workplace bullying and its impact on

the Australian workforce.

The current study contributes to the discussion on workplace

bullying by studying the experience in an Australian context and extends

research to explore the judgments people make when confronted with

workplace bullying. Comparisons with previous studies showed that

workplace bullying is a major workplace issue in Australia.

The results of the present study indicate that respondents are

consistent in recognising behaviour as negative, but are inconsistent when

having to label the behaviour as workplace bullying. However, when

62

respondents did label the behaviour as workplace bullying, they judged the

behaviour as more negative. Thus, while respondents were able to

distinguish between bullying and bad behaviour in the workplace, there was

a reluctance to do so. It was also interesting to note that a high proportion

of workplace bullying experienced by the present sample was identified as

work-related. Consequently, assisting employees and employers in better

understanding workplace bullying may greatly reduce, and perhaps prevent,

workplace bullying from occurring in the workplace.

Of particular importance in the present study was the relatively high

number of respondents who reported that they had either experienced or

witnessed workplace bullying within their workplace. These findings

provide tangible evidence that workplace bullying is an important public

issue and steps must be taken to protect people from this form of abuse and

reduce the prevalence of workplace bullying within Australian

organisations.

63

References

Adams, A. (1997). Bullying at work. Journal of Community & Applied

Social Science, 7, 177-180.

Archer, D. (1999). Exploring “bullying” culture in the para-military

organisation. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 94-105.

Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi

square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16

(Series B), 296-298.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). Factor Analysis. In J. Pallant SPSS Survival Manual:

A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS, chapter 14,

Sydney: Allen & Unwin

Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, P. K. & Pereira, B. (2002).

Measuring workplace bullying. Aggressive Violent Behaviour, 7, 35-

51.

Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and cause 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 Behaviour, 5, 379-

401.

64

Einarsen, S. & Hoel, H. (2001, May). The Negative Acts Questionnaire:

Development, validation and revision of a measure of bullying at

work. Paper presented at the 9th European Congress of Work and

Organisational Psychology, Prague, Czechoslovakia.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. Zapf, D. & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2003). Bullying and

emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in

research and practice. 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 – Australia and New Zealand, 14, 563-568.

Einarsen, S. & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the

victimisation f men. Violence and Victims, 12, 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

Psychologist, 4, 381-401.

Einarsen, S. & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological

findings in public and private organisations. European Journal of

Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 185-201.

65

Festinger, L. (1962). Attitudes and Attitudes change. In S. E. Taylor, L. A.

Peplau & D. O. Sears (Eds.). Social Psychology, 10th Edition, Chapter

5, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hoel, H., Cooper, C. & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in

Great Britain: The impact of organizational status. European Journal

of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 443-465.

Hoel, H., Faragher, B. & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to

health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally

damaging. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32, 367-387.

Hoel, H., Rayner, C. & Cooper, C. (1999). Workplace bullying.

International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology,

14, 195-239.

Hugo, G. (2002). A centenary article: A century of population change in

Australia. Retrieved September 23, 2005 from

http://www.abs.gov.au.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/.

Jennifer, D., Cowie, H. & Ananiadou, K. (2003). Perceptions and

experience of workplace bullying in five different working

populations. Aggressive Behaviour, 29, 489-496.

Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-

415.

66

Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-

36.

Keashly, L. L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and

empirical evidence. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1, 85-117.

Keashly, L. L. & Harvey, S. (in press). Emotional Abuse at Work. In E. K.

Kelloway, J. Barling & J. Hurrell (Eds.). Handbook of workplace

violence. Sage Publications.

Keashly, L. L., Neuman, J. H. & Burnazi, L. (2004, April). Persistent

Hostility at work: What really hurts? In S. M. Burroughs & M. L.

Gruys (Chairs), Bullying in the workplace: Foundations, forms, and

future directions. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Kelley, H.H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E.

Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. S. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.).

Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behaviour, pp. 1–26.

Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Kelsey, D. M., Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Allen, T. H. & Ritter, K. J. (2004).

College students’ attributions of teacher misbehaviours.

Communication Education, 53, 40-55.

67

Lewis, D. (1999). Workplace bullying: interim findings of a study in further

and higher education in Wales. International Journal of Manpower,

20, 106-119.

Lewis, S. E. & Orford, J. (2005). Women’s experience of workplace

bullying: Changes in social relationships. Journal of Community &

Applied Social Psychology, 15, 29-47.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work.

European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 165-

184.

Liefooghe, A. P. D. & Olafsson, R. (1999). Scientists and amateurs:

mapping the bullying domain. International Journal of Manpower,

20, 39 – 49.

Lockhart, K. (1997). Experience from a staff support service. Journal of

Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7, 193-198.

Mann, R. (1996). Psychological abuse in the workplace. In P. McCarthy,

M. Sheehan, & W. Wilke (Eds.). Bullying: From backyard to

boardroom, Chapter 7. Alexandria: Millennium Books.

McCarthy, P., Rylance, J., Bennett, R. & Zimmerman, H. (Eds.). (2001).

Bullying: from backyard to boardroom. 2nd Edition. The Federation

Press: NSW.

68

McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M. & Kearns, D. (1995). Managerial styles and

their effects on employees' health and well-being in organisations

undergoing restructuring. Unpublished paper, School of

Organisational Behaviour and Human Resource Management,

Faculty of Commerce and Administration, Griffith University,

Queensland.

Mikkelsen, E. G. & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life:

Prevalence and health correlates. European Journal of Work and

Organisational Psychology, 10, 393-413.

Mikkelsen, E. G. & Einarsen, S. (2002). Relationships 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.

Neuman, J. H. & Keashly, L. (2004, April). Development of the Workplace

Aggression Research Questionnaire (WAR-Q): Preliminary data

from the Workplace Stress and Aggression Project. In R. J. Bennett

& C. D. Crossley (Chairs), Theoretical advancements in the study of

anti-social behavior at work. Symposium conducted at the meeting

of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

Chicago, IL.

69

Olafsson, R. F. & Johannsdottir, H. L. (2004). Coping with bullying in the

workplace: The effect of gender, age and type of bullying. British

Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32, 319-333.

Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term

outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorph (Eds.). Social

withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Peyton, P. R. (2003). Dignity at work: Eliminating bullying and creates a

positive working environment. Brunner-Routledge: East Sussex.

Power, K. G., Dyson, G. P. & Wozniak, E. (1997). Bullying among Scottish

young offenders: inmates; self-reported attitudes and behaviour.

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7, 209-218.

Randall, P. (1992). Adult bullying: Perpetrators and victims. Routledge:

London and New York.

Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of

Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 249-255.

Rayner, C. (2000). Building a business case for tackling bullying: Beyond a

basic cost-benefit approach. In M. Sheehan, S Ramsay and J. Patrick

(Eds.). Transcending Boundaries: Integrating people, processes and

systems. Brisbane: School of Management, Griffith University.

70

Rayner, C. & Hoel, H. (1997). A summary review of literature relating to

workplace bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social

Psychology, 7, 181-191.

Rayner, C., Hoel, H. & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Workplace bullying: What we

know, who is to blame, and what can we do? Taylor & Francis,

London.

Rayner, C., Sheehan, M. & Barker, M. (1999). Theoretical approaches to the

study of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20,

11-15.

Ross , L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings:

Distortions in the Attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.).

Advances in experimental social psychology, pp.174-222. New

York: Academic Press.

Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business

professionals: A comparison of two different strategies of measuring

bullying. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 10, 425-441.

Smith, P. K. (1997). Bullying in life-span perspective: What can studies of

school bullying and workplace bullying learn from each other?

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 7, 249-255.

71

Smith, P. K. (2003). Victimization in the school and the workplace: Are

there any links? British Journal of Psychology, 94, 175-189.

Sunday Mail. (2005, August 14). SA starts new workplace bullying laws.

Sunday Mail.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. (3rd

Ed.). Chapter 11, Harpers Collins: New York.

Tattum, D. & Tattum, E. (1996). Bullying: A whole school response. In P.

McCarthy, M. Sheehan, & W. Wilke (Eds.). Bullying: From

backyard to boardroom, Chapter 2. Alexandria: Millennium Books.

Taylor, S. E., Peplau, A. A. & Sears, D. O. (2000). Social Psychology (10th

Ed.). Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Tehrani, N. (2001). Building a culture of respect: Managing bullying at

work. Taylor & Francis: London.

Tehrani, N. (Ed.). (1996). The psychology of harassment. Counselling

Psychology Quarterly, 9, 101 - 118.

72

Vartia, M. (1991). Bullying at workplaces. In S. Lethinene, J. Rantanen, P.

Juuyi, A. Koskela, K. Lindstrom, P. Rehnstrom, & J. Saari (Eds.).

Towards the 21st Century: Work in the 1990s: Proceedings from the

International Symposium on Future Trends in the Changing Working

Life. Helsinki: Institute of Occupational Health.

Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, workgroup related and personal causes of

mobbing/bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20,

70-85.

Zapf, D. & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in the workplace: Recent trends in

research and practice: An introduction. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 10, 369-373.

73

Appendix A:

Table 7

Means and Standard Deviations of the Participants’ Perception of the Communication,

Interpersonal and Management Skills Displayed in the Nine Vignettes According to

Prior Exposure to Workplace Bullying and Organisational Status (N = 145)

Participant Self-Report as: Participant Organisational Status

Bullied Not Bullied Superior Subordinate

Skills M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Vignette 1 - Brett (Bully)

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

Vignette 1 - Zoe

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

1.52

1.25

1.36

2.32

2.59

2.62

(.73)

(.49)

(.65)

(.71)

(.87)

(.95)

1.55

1.36

1.40

2.03

2.40

2.80

(.66)

(.56)

(.57)

(.73)

(.80)

(.86)

1.64

1.36

1.48

2.00

2.47

2.76

(.69)

(.58)

(.64)

(.68)

(.79)

(.82)

1.45

1.27

1.24

2.21

2.42

2.58

(.66)

(.48)

(.47)

(.81)

(.88)

(.98)

Vignette 2 - Bill

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

Vignette 2 – Bec (Bully)

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

3.77

3.55

3.32

1.50

1.59

1.59

(1.14)

(1.21)

(1.14)

(.93)

(.87)

(.90)

3.93

3.60

3.38

1.27

1.24

1.45

(.83)

(.93)

(.86)

(.53)

(.43)

(.69)

3.88

3.55

2.41

1.44

1.37

1.59

(.97)

(1.07)

(.95)

(.78)

(.65)

(.86)

3.86

3.58

3.29

1.26

1.32

1.39

(.91)

(.98)

(.96)

(.56)

(.59)

(.63)

Note: ** = p<.005

74

Table 7 (cont) Participant Self-Report as: Participant Organisational Status

Bullied Not Bullied Superior Subordinate

Skills M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Vignette 3 - Annabelle

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

Vignette 3 – Sarah (Bully)

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

4.00

3.77

3.59

2.16

1.93

1.70

(.92)

(.89)

(.90)

(.86)

(.85)

(.77)

3.61

3.57

3.23

1.99

1.85

1.47

(1.12)

(.98)

(1.01)

(.79)

(.73)

(.63)

3.88

3.81

3.39

2.17

1.93

1.60

(.96)

(.78)

(.90)

(.88)

(.74)

(.70)

3.50

3.39

3.27

1.89

1.82

1.48

(1.17)

(1.08)

(.108)

(.70)

(.80)

(.66)

Vignette 4 - Tim

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

Vignette 4 – Steve (Bully)

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

3.36

3.30

3.32

1.61

1.55

1.64

(1.01)

(1.03)

(1.03)

(.78)

(.73)

(.97)

3.21

3.05

3.19

1.57

1.59

1.54

(1.02)

(.98)

(.99)

(.86)

(.84)

(.78)

3.35

3.15

3.41

1.67

1.65

1.72

(1.01)

(.97)

(.96)

(.88)

(.89)

(.98)

3.21

3.11

2.98

1.52

1.55

1.44

(1.02)

(1.03)

(1.02)

(.79)

(.75)

(.66)

Note: ** = p<.005

75

Table 7 (cont) Participant Self-Report as: Participant Organisational Status

Bullied Not Bullied Superior Subordinate

Skills M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Vignette 5 - Akira

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

Vignette 5 – Monica (Bully)

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

3.80

3.70

3.45

1.75

1.57

1.64

(.89)

(.82)

(.98)

(.84)

(.79)

(.81)

3.41

3.38

3.30

1.91

1.68

2.00

(.92)

(.89)

(.79)

(.87)

(.75)

(.87)

3.59

3.55

3.45

1.85

1.60

2.00

(.95)

(.91)

(.83)

(.90)

(.72)

(87)

3.43

3.38

3.20

1.86

1.65

1.76

(.95)

(.91)

(.88)

(.84)

(.81)

(.86)

Vignette 6 – Martin (Bully)

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

Vignette 6 - Sabine

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

1.59

1.66

1.52

3.30

3.30

3.25

(.82)

(.94)

(.82)

(1.02)

(1.09)

(.97)

1.69

1.60

1.63

3.22

3.21

3.03

(.84)

(.83)

(.88)

(1.03)

(.95)

(.89)

1.71

1.60

1.69

3.35

3.43

3.31

(.84)

(.87)

(.87)

(1.05)

(.98)

(.90)

1.56

1.58

1.42

3.18

3.06

2.92

(.79)

(.81)

(.79)

(.96)

(.94)

(.87)

Note: ** = p<.005

76

Table 7 (cont)

Participant Self-Report as: Participant Organisational Status

Bullied Not Bullied Superior Subordinate

Skills M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Vignette 7 - Anne

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

Vignette 7 – Dina (Bully)

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

3.88

3.74

3.79

2.19

2.12

1.93

(.91)

(.96)

(.97)

(.96)

(.93)

(.96)

3.77

3.58

3.46

1.96

1.76

1.68

(.77)

(.80)

(.81)

(.98)

(.81)

(.79)

3.87

3.76

3.73

2.12

1.99

1.83

(.78)

(.77)

(.83)

(1.09)

(.99)

(.96)

3.73

3.47

3.36

1.92

1.76

1.73

(.85)

(.92)

(.89)

(.83)

(.68)

(.74)

Vignette 8 - Chloe

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

Vignette 8 – Jo (Bully)

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

2.95

2.93

2.86

2.21

2.09

2.00

(1.07)

(.99)

(1.01)

(1.04)

(.95)

(.95)

2.89

2.78

2.57

2.01

1.94

1.98

(.96)

(.89)

(.89)

(.75)

(.70)

(.86)

2.93

2.77

2.75

2.17

2.08

2.21

(1.00)

(.91)

(.93)

(.84)

(.82)

(.96)

2.89

2.89

2.56

1.95

1.91

1.74

(1.03)

(.95)

(.93)

(.83)

(.74)

(.71)

Note: ** = p<.005

77

Table 7 (cont) Participant Self-Report as: Participant Organisational Status

Bullied Not Bullied Superior Subordinate

Skills M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Vignette 9 – Nicholas

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

Vignette 9 – Team (Bully)

Communication

Interpersonal

Management

3.35

3.51

3.28

1.77

1.81

1.91

(.95)

(.80)

(.93)

(.81)

(.93)

(.87)

2.90

2.97

2.68

1.71

1.63

1.74

(.92)

(.91)

(.92)

(.69)

(.60)

(.71)

3.13

3.24

3.23

1.64

1.64

1.83

(1.02)

(.92)

(.97)

(.73)

(.77)

(.83)

2.92

3.02

2.91

1.85

1.76

1.79

(.85)

(.89)

(.87)

(.71)

(.66)

(.69)

Note: ** = p<.005

78

Appendix B: Copy of the questionnaire

Research Title: "Bullying or bad behaviour: An Australian perspective on the phenomena of workplace emotional and psychological abuse."

Investigators: Ms Dianna-Lee Daniels Supervisor: Dr Bruce Findlay I am conducting a study to explore the prevalence of workplace bullying within an Australian context and to investigate both employer and employee attitudes and perceptions toward workplace bullying and inappropriate behaviours in the workplace and how employers and employees differentiate between workplace bullying and bad behaviour. To conduct this study I require a minimum of 100 people to complete a four-part questionnaire relating to behaviour experienced in the workplace. The questionnaire will take approximately 40 minutes to complete. Your responses to the questionnaire will be completely anonymous and confidential and results of the study may be published in an academic or management journal, but only as group data, not as the results of any individual. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your initial agreement to participate does not stop you from discontinuing and you are free to withdraw at any time. The submission of your questionnaire will be taken as consent for your data to be used in the study. Although unlikely, the questionnaire may raise some concerns for you. If you would like to discuss these with a counsellor, please ring the Swinburne Centre for Psychological Services on 9214 8653 or Lifeline on 131114. If you have questions about this study, please contact Dianna-Lee Daniels on 9866 2650 / dianna.duncan@bigpond.com.au or Dr Findlay 9214-8093 / bfindlay@groupwise.swin.edu.au If you have any queries which the researchers were unable to satisfy, please contact: The Chair, SBS Research Ethics Committee, School of Behavioural Sciences, Mail H24, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122 If you have a complaint, please write to The Chair, Human Research Ethics Committee, PO Box 218, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122

79

Part I: Workplace Aggression Research Questionnaire (WAR-Q;

Neuman & Keashly, 2004)

Part I-A: Workplace Behaviour Inventory

We are interested in learning whether or not you have experienced certain kinds of behaviours in your workplace over the past 12 months. For each of the items listed in column A, please indicate how often you have been subjected to such behaviour (column B) and who was most responsible for doing this to you (column C). For example, as demonstrated in the SAMPLE ITEM:

If a Co-worker has subjected you to bad jokes on a weekly basis, you would darken the circle for “weekly” in column B and then fill in the circle for “Co-worker” in column C. If more than one person has engaged in a behaviour towards you, just indicate the relationship of the one person who was most responsible for that particular behaviour. Please do NOT darken more than one circle in columns B or C.

For who was most responsible for doing this to you, please use the following definitions:

SUPERIOR: A direct supervisor or any other individual in the organization who holds a higher-level position than yours.

CO-WORKER: A person with whom you work who holds a position that is neither superior nor subordinate to yours.

SUBORDINATE: A person who reports to you or an individual who holds a lower-level position than yours.

CUSTOMER: An individual for whom your organization provides a product or service (e.g., customer, patient, client)

OTHER: Any other individual not covered in the above-referenced categories.

NOT APPLICABLE: Select this option if you have never experienced that particular behaviour at work.

80

A Have you been subjected to any of the behaviours listed below in the past 12 months? Only consider those behaviours that have occurred in your workplace.

B How often have you been subjected to this behaviour in your workplace over the past 12 months?

C Who was most responsible for doing this to you?

Note: The behaviours listed below represent actions that vary dramatically in terms of their intensity, seriousness, and consequences. As a result, there are instances where very dissimilar items may be grouped together.

Never

Once

A Few Times

Several Times

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

Not Applicable

Superior

Co-Worker

Subordinate

Customer

Other

1. Subjected to bad jokes SAMPLE ITEM 2. Been glared at in a hostile manner

3. Been excluded from work-related social gatherings

4. Had others storm out of the work area when you entered

5. Had others consistently arrive late for meetings that you called

6. Been sworn at in a hostile manner

7. Been subjected to negative comments about your religious beliefs

8. Been given the “silent treatment”

9. Not been given the praise for which you felt entitled

10. Been treated in a rude and/or disrespectful manner

11. Had your personal property defaced, damaged, or stolen

12. Had others fail to take action to protect you from harm

13. Been subjected to negative comments about a disability

14. Been subjected to obscene or hostile gestures

15. Had others refuse your requests for assistance

16. Had others fail to deny false rumors about you

17. Been given little or no feedback about your performance

18. Had others delay action on matters that were important to you

19. Been yelled at or shouted at in a hostile manner

20. Been subjected to negative comments about your intelligence or competence

21. Had others consistently fail to return your telephone calls and/or respond to your memos or e-mail

22. Had your contributions ignored by others

81

A

Have you been subjected to any of the behaviours listed below in the past 12 months? Only consider those behaviours that have occurred in your workplace.

B How often have you been subjected to this behaviour in your workplace over the past 12 months?

C Who was most responsible for doing this to you?

Note: The behaviours listed below represent actions that vary dramatically in terms of their intensity, seriousness, and consequences. As a result, there are instances where very dissimilar items may be grouped together.

Never

Once

A Few Times

Several Times

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

Not Applicable

Superior

Co-Worker

Subordinate

Customer

Other

23. Had someone interfere with your work activities

24. Been subjected to mean pranks

25. Been lied to

26. Had others fail to give you information that you really needed

27. Been subjected to threats and/or harassment for "blowing the whistle" about activities at work

28. Had others fail to warn you about impending dangers

29. Been denied a raise or promotion without being given a valid reason

30. Had signs or notes left that embarrassed you

31. Been subjected to derogatory name calling

32. Been blamed for other peoples' mistakes

33. Been the target of rumors or gossip

34. Shown little empathy/sympathy when you were having a tough time

35. Had co-workers fail to defend your plans or ideas to others

36. Been given unreasonable workloads or deadlines—more than others

37. Had others destroy or needlessly take resources that you needed to do your job

38. Been accused of deliberately making an error

39. Been subjected to unwanted attempts to touch, fondle, kiss, or grab you

40. Been subjected to threats to reveal private or embarrassing information about you to others

82

41. Been subjected to temper tantrums when disagreeing with someone

A

Have you been subjected to any of the behaviours listed below in the past 12 months? Only consider those behaviours that have occurred in your workplace.

B How often have you been subjected to this behaviour in your workplace over the past 12 months?

C Who was most responsible for doing this to you?

Note: The behaviours listed below represent actions that vary dramatically in terms of their intensity, seriousness, and consequences. As a result, there are instances where very dissimilar items may be grouped together.

Never

Once

A Few Times

Several Times

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

Not Applicable

Superior

Co-Worker

Subordinate

Customer

Other

42. Been prevented from expressing yourself (e.g., interrupted when speaking)

43. Had attempts made to turn other employees against you

44. Had someone flaunt his/her status or treat you in a condescending manner

45. Been subjected to excessively harsh criticism about your work

46. Had someone else take credit for your work or ideas

47. Been kicked, bitten, or spat on

48. Been criticized for non-work (personal) life and activities

49. Been subjected to negative comments about your sexual orientation

50. Been subjected to racist remarks

51. Been reprimanded or "put down" in front of others

52. Had someone hit you with an object

53. Been subjected to ethnic or racial jokes or slurs

54. Been told how to spend your personal time when not at work

55. Been subjected to unwanted terms of endearment

56. Been subjected to suggestive and/or offensive stories

57. Been subjected to sexist remarks

58. Been threatened with physical harm

59. Been pushed, shoved, thrown, or bumped into with unnecessary force

60. Been raped or sexually assaulted

83

61. Been assaulted with a weapon or other dangerous object

In the spaces provided below, please list any “other” behaviours that you have experience and then Darken the circles to the right indicating the extent to which each has occurred and who was responsible.

62. Other:

63. Other:

64. Other:

65. Overall, how much have the behaviours listed above bothered you? Not at all A Little Moderately Quite a bit 66. Is there any additional information that you would like to provide?

84

Part I-B: Your response to, and assessment of, the behaviours listed above:

During the past 12 months, did you:

Yes

No

67. Report any of these experiences to a superior or union official?

68. Confront the person(s) involved in any of these behaviours?

69. File a formal complaint or grievance about any of these experiences?

Which of the following factors do you think may have contributed to any or all of the experiences you reported in the first section?

Yes

No

70. Your gender?

71. Your race?

72. Your ethnic group?

73. Your age?

74. Your religion?

75. Your political beliefs?

76. Your health, illness, or disability?

77. Your sexual orientation?

78. Your job level?

79. Your own behaviour?

80. The personality traits of others?

81. Office politics?

82. Your union affiliation?

83. Work-related stress

84. Other (please specify):

Part I-C: STRESS

Neither strongly Disagree Strongly Don’t Disagree Disagree nor Agree Agree Agree know 85. I feel tense and stressed on my job.

86. Work is a source of stress for me.

85

Part II: Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R; Einarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen & Hellesøy, 1994; Einarsen & Hoel, 2001) The following behaviours are often seen as examples of negative behaviour in the workplace. Over the last six months, how often have you been subjected to the following negative acts at work? 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. Someone withholding information which affects your performance 1 2 3 4 5

2. Unwanted sexual attention 1 2 3 4 5

3. Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work 1 2 3 4 5

4. Being ordered to do work below your level of competence 1 2 3 4 5

5. Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks

1 2 3 4 5

6. Spreading of gossip and rumours about you 1 2 3 4 5

7. Being ignored, excluded or being ‘sent to Coventry’ 1 2 3 4 5

8. Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person (i.e. habits and background), your attitudes or your private life

1 2 3 4 5

9. Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger (or rage) 1 2 3 4 5

10. Intimidating behaviour such as finger-pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way

1 2 3 4 5

11. Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job 1 2 3 4 5

12. Threats of violence or physical abuse 1 2 3 4 5

13. Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes 1 2 3 4 5

14. Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach 1 2 3 4 5

15. Persistent criticism of your work and effort 1 2 3 4 5

16. Having your opinions and views ignored 1 2 3 4 5

17. Insulting messages, telephone calls or e-mails 1 2 3 4 5

18. Practical jokes carried out by people you don’t get on with 1 2 3 4 5

19. Systematically being required to carry out tasks which clearly fall outside your job descriptions, e.g. private errands

1 2 3 4 5

20. Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or deadlines 1 2 3 4 5

21. Having allegations made against you 1 2 3 4 5

22. Excessive monitoring of your work 1 2 3 4 5

86

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

23. Offensive remarks or behaviour with reference to your race or ethnicity 1 2 3 4 5

24. Pressure not to claim something which by right you are entitled to (e.g. sick leave, holiday entitlement, travel expenses)

1 2 3 4 5

25. Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm 1 2 3 4 5

26. Threats of making your life difficult, e.g. over-time, night work, unpopular tasks

1 2 3 4 5

27. Attempts to find fault with your work 1 2 3 4 5

28. Being exposed to an unmanageable workload 1 2 3 4 5

29. Being moved or transferred against your will 1 2 3 4 5

We define bullying as:

a situation where one or several individuals persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in defending him or herself against these actions. We will not refer to a one-off incident as bullying.

30. Using the above definition, please state whether you

have been bullied at work over the last six months?

No (Continue to question 36) Yes, very rarely Yes, now and then Yes, several times per month Yes, several times per week

Yes, almost daily 31. When did the bullying start?

Within the last 6 months Between 6 and 12 months ago Between 1 and 2 years ago More than two years ago 32. How many persons bullied you?

Number of men: ………. Number of women ………. 33. Who bullied you? (You may tick more than one

category) Supervisor, line-manager/s, senior manager/s Colleagues/s Subordinate/s Client/s, customer/s, student/s

34. How many were bullied?

Only you You and several other work colleagues Everyone in your workgroup

35.Have you observed or witnessed bullying taking

place at your workplace over the last 6 months?

No, never Yes, but Yes, now and then Yes, often

36. Have you ever been bullied at work over the last

5 years?

Yes No 37.Have you ever witnessed bullying at work over

the last five years?

Yes No

Part III: Nine Hypothetical vignettes

87

Please read the following vignette and respond what do you think about the behaviour of the players by

circling the most appropriate response.

For example, in scenario one, if you perceive Brett to display very poor communication

skills, circle 1; poor communication skills, circle 2; good communication skills, circle 4;

very good communication skills circle 5; and if unsure, please circle 3.

1. Brett was always picking holes in Zoe’s work. Zoe tried so hard to get things right and completed

on time, but Brett was always changing his mind and taking it out on Zoe. What should only take

two drafts usually took six before Brett was happy. Zoe had worked with Brett for three years and

had grown used to his working style and his constant ridicule not to mention the poor performance

reviews he usually received. Recently, however, whenever Zoe saw Brett approaching with that

look on his face, his heart begins to race, his mouth goes dry and he freezes.

What do you think about BRETT’s behaviour in the above scenario?

Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour

1 2 3 4 5

What do you think about ZOE’s behaviour in the above scenario? Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5 Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour 1 2 3 4 5

88

2. Bill entered the common room to hear Rebecca in a rage about something that he had apparently

done. Bill heard Rebecca say “where is that little shit hiding”, but when Rebecca realised that Bill

was standing in the common room, she lowered her voice, turned away and left the room. Bill

followed Rebecca and, as he often had in the past, asked if he had done something to upset her,

which provoked a stream of abuse and criticism about his work. Bill had had enough of her

yelling at him for her own inadequacies and mistakes.

What do you think about BILL’s behaviour in the above scenario? Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour

1 2 3 4 5

What do you think about REBECCA’s behaviour in the above scenario?

Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5 Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour 1 2 3 4 5

89

3. Annabelle had worked with the organisation as a part-time consultant for a few years and received

nothing but praise and encouragement which was reflected in recent performance review. During

the past year, several staff had left the organisation and workloads had become almost impossible

to manage. Annabelle had told Sarah, her Director, several times over the past six months of her

concerns about the extra workload and was told to ‘just pull her weight’ and be a ‘team player’.

About two weeks ago, Annabelle was advised she was to head up the division, a position she felt

she could not manage on a part-time basis. Sarah told her she should be glad of the promotion and

to get on with it. Annabelle could not manage the excessive workload on a part-time basis and her

health had started to suffer.

What do you think about ANNABELLE’s behaviour in the above scenario? Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate

Behaviour

1 2 3 4 5

What do you think about SARAH’s behaviour in the above scenario?

Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour 1 2 3 4 5

90

4. Tim knew no-one would understand how he dreaded going to work each day. Tim’s boss,

Steve, was the type of boss that made things happen and everyone thought he was a great guy

doing a great job. Tim thought the job he had taken on as a Personal Assistant, over two years

ago, was one in which he could prove that he was more than an admin assistant. Tim thought he

was doing a good job until Steve told him that he was ‘too efficient’ and needed to ‘chill out’.

These discussions always ended in Steve getting angry and yelling at Tim. Steve would then

leave his office and complain loudly about Tim’s inefficiency. Tim asked Steve what he meant

by ‘too efficient’, ‘chill out’ and ‘inefficiency’ and Steve just laughed and walk away. In public

Steve was charming, but behind closed doors Tim had become terrified of him. What could

Tim do, no one would believe him.

What do you think about TIM’s behaviour in the above scenario?

Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour

1 2 3 4 5

What do you think about STEVE’s behaviour in the above scenario?

Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour 1 2 3 4 5

91

5. We worked in a very social and enjoyable environment and Akira enjoyed coming into the office

every day. That was until Monica, a colleague, came on board. Over a relatively short period of

time, the workplace became secretive and you had to watch your back. Friday night drinks,

organised by Monica, were now only attended by a select few. The non-attendance at the office

social events did not really impact on Akira until she realised she was the only one who had not

been invited to the past four social events. Monica avoided Akira’s requests to be included in the

social events and when questioned was told Monica had not received my requests.

What do you think about AKIRA’s behaviour in the above scenario? Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5 Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour

1 2 3 4 5

What do you think about MONICA’s behaviour in the above scenario? Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour 1 2 3 4 5

92

6. Sabine is a teacher who used to love her job, loved watching the kids getting to grips with new

knowledge and enjoyed the company of her colleagues. All that changed about six months ago

when Martin took over as the head of school. The last few months have been sheer hell. At first,

Martin was charming and inquisitive about how Sabine ran her classes. Martin then started to

pick on Sabine and small things became big problems. Sabine had tried to talk to Martin about

her concerns, but decided that she had had enough when Martin became really angry with her in

the teacher’s lounge in front of everyone. Sabine just couldn’t take it any longer and her doctor

told her to take sick leave, certifying that she was suffering from severe stress.

What do you think about MARTIN’s behaviour in the above scenario?

Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5 Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour

1 2 3 4 5

What do you think about SABINE’s behaviour in the above scenario?

Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour 1 2 3 4 5

93

7. During the recent re-structure, Anne’s boss had received a ‘golden’ handshake and Anne had been

told a new Manager would be appointed soon and she was to assist the other Account Managers

with their duties. That was seven months ago. Anne had approached Dina in HR several times

with her concerns about her diminished responsibilities and the increased time spent providing

administrative support to the other Account Managers. Anne felt she had become a ‘dogs-body’.

Anne was told in no uncertain terms that if she was not happy, she knew what she could do.

Anne loved her job as an Account Manager, but felt her competency and skills had started to

disappear.

What do you think about ANNE’s behaviour in the above scenario?

Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5 Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour

1 2 3 4 5

What do you think about DINA’s behaviour in the above scenario?

Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour 1 2 3 4 5

94

8. Chloe was dreading the Marketing meeting today. Yet again she had not been able to complete

her marketing statistics on time and Jo, the Marketing Manager, said that she was tired of Chloe

being late with the figures all the time. Jo was not bashful in coming forward and Chloe just did

not want to be blasted in front of the other case managers yet again. Chloe felt that Jo gave others

extra time and was picking on Chloe. Jo did not listen to Chloe and insisted Chloe was lazy.

Chloe had told Jo that Betty, the account assistant, had refused to give her the stats on time.

What do you think about CHLOE’s behaviour in the above scenario? Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour

1 2 3 4 5

What do you think about JO’s behaviour in the above scenario?

Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5 Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour

1 2 3 4 5

95

9. Ted, the CEO, had transferred Nicholas onto the Dollinger account after his recent success on

the Bedwell account. The Dollinger team had initially welcomed Nicholas’s input as a member

of the team, but recently Nicholas was becoming frustrated. Nicholas’s input was ignored and

he could see some glaring mistakes that could be easily rectified. Nicholas could not

understand why his colleagues did not want to hear his ideas. The last straw came for Nicholas

when he arrived at work at 8.00 am today to see the Dollinger team in a meeting with Ted.

Nicholas had not been advised of the meeting.

What do you think about NICHOLAS’s behaviour in the above scenario?

Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5 Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour

1 2 3 4 5

What do you think about the DOLLINGER TEAM MEMBERS’ behaviour in the above scenario? Very Poor Poor Unsure Good Very Good Communication Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Interpersonal Skills 1 2 3 4 5

Management Skills

1 2 3 4 5

Bullying Inappropriate Negative Unsure Appropriate Behaviour 1 2 3 4 5

96

PART IV: Demographic Information (darken only one oval for each item). 1. Gender: Female Male

2. Your age: Less than 20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 + 3. What is your marital status?

Single/never married Living together Married Divorced/separated Widow/er 4. What is your race/ethnic background?

Australian (non Aboriginal) Torres Strait / Aboriginal New Zealand Pacific Islander Asian European Country: _____________________ North American South American South African Other: ____________________ 5. Where are you currently living? _____________ 6. What is the highest level of education completed?

Secondary Education: Year 10 Secondary Education: Year 11 Secondary Education: Year 12 (VCE) Certificate Advanced Diploma/Diploma Undergraduate Degree Graduate Diploma/Graduate Certificate Post Graduate Degree Other: _____________________ 7. Indicate the size of the city or town in which your primary

workplace is located. The population is:

Less than 5,000 Between 5,000 - 10,000 Between 10,000 - 50,000 Greater than 50,000

8. What is your current employment status?

Full-time Full-time homemaker Part-time Retired Casual Student Self-employed Unemployed

9. In which organisation do you work?

Private None Public 10. What is your job category/industry?

Administrative / Clerical Education Government Pharmaceutical Chemical Transport Telecommunications Manufacturing Retail Military IT/Data Media Travel Hospitality Health Professional Technician Trade Voluntary Work Other:_______________ 11. What is the level of your supervisory responsibility?

None Manager Supervisor Executive Team leader Partner/Owner 12. What is the Department/Division size:

Fewer than 50 employees 250-999 employees 50-249 employees 1,000 or more employees

13. How long have you been working at your present job/role

within the organisation?

Less than 6 months 11-15 years 6 months to 1 year 16-20 years 1-5 years 21-25 years 6-10 years Over 25 years 14. How diverse, in terms of ethnic or racial background of

employees, is your workplace?

Not at all diverse Slightly diverse Moderately diverse Very diverse 15. How would you describe the ratio of men to women in your

workplace?

All women Mostly women All men Mostly men About equal