Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)


Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/casp.850

Recognition of Workplace Bullying: A Qualitative


Study of Women Targets in the Public Sector
SIAN E. LEWIS*
Psychological Health Sheffield, Fulwood House, Old Fulwood Road, Sheffield, UK

ABSTRACT
Workplace bullying is increasingly acknowledged as a major workplace stressor in the UK and Europe. However, identification and recognition of workplace bullying remain problematic, among targets and within organisations. This paper reports a qualitative study which explored experiences of
bullying among ten British women targets, all public sector professionals. Data were collected using
in-depth interviews and analysed using grounded theory methods. Findings showed how these
targets struggled to identify and cope with bullying. Major themes or processes identified from
targets accounts included: minimising interpersonal difficulties; preserving self; maintaining
commitments to professional and organisational values and cultures; sickness explanations; and
naming the problem. This research has implications for the development of coping strategies by
targets and organisations, and raises questions about the type of support needed to facilitate recognition of workplace bullying. Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: workplace bullying; womens employment; womens health; grounded theory; public
sector

INTRODUCTION
Workplace bullying has received increased research attention in the UK and Europe in
recent years, (see Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2002; Orford & Beasely, 1997; Peyton,
2003; Rayner & Hoel, 1997; Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2001; Zapf & Einarsen, 2001).
Within the UK, it has been recognised as a major source of stress at work by trades unions
(Labour Research Department, 1997) and employers (Ishmael & Alemoru, 1999) and has
been found to have affected the majority of employees in Great Britain, directly (as
targets) or indirectly (as observers) (Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001; Rayner et al.,
2001). Bullying impacts negatively on targets mental and physical health with welldocumented psychological effects including symptoms consistent with stress (Mikkelsen
& Einarsen, 2001), anxiety (Leymann, 1990; Niedl, 1996), post-traumatic stress disorder
and depression (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Hjelt-Back, 1994a; Groeblinghoff & Becker,
1996; Leymann & Gustaffson, 1996; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002).
* Correspondence to: Sian E. Lewis, St Lukes Hospice, Little Common Lane, Abbey Lane, Sheffield S11 9NE,
UK. E-mail: sian.lewis@sct.nhs.uk

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Accepted 29 August 2005

120

S. E. Lewis

There is no one agreed and comprehensive research definition of workplace bullying


(Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999; Rayner & Hoel, 1997; Rayner et al., 2001), suggesting
that it is complex and variable. Measures of workplace bullying, in terms of objectively
identified variables, have also seen limited success, failing to capture the diversity of
experiences (Rayner, Sheehan, & Barker, 1999). Identifying and labelling bullying is
highly problematic (Niedl, 1995, cited in Hoel et al., 1999) for researchers and also in
practice for observers and targets within organisations. Rather, the questions of what is
identified as bullying, by whom and how, are central issues in developing the construct
of workplace bullying, which need further clarification (Hoel, et al., 1999). These issues
may be better considered as issues of process, or as problems of identifying complex patterns of interaction rather than of identifying discreet behaviours or types of behaviour.
Bullying is a subtle and complex process that is difficult to identify (Adams, 1992; Bennett, 1997). Various factors that contribute to this difficulty have been identified. ThomasPeter (1997) has argued that criteria for acceptable and unacceptable behaviour are often
unwritten assumptions, while the ways in which individuals and organisations interpret
behaviours have important implications for support and help. Moreover, Niedl (1995,
1996) has argued that perceptions are central to and are part of complex processes of
bullying at organisational and individual levels, and such perceptions may vary across
contexts, individuals and organisations as well as throughout the process of workplace
bullying. How problems are perceived may impact directly on the social resources
available to targets of bullying, and in turn on how they make sense of their experiences.
For example, within organisations managers may attribute problems to targets personal
characteristics, while targets lose sources of social support as bullying progresses and
struggle to maintain self-esteem (Lewis & Orford, 2005).
The term workplace bullying itself is not neutral and has different meanings and uses,
which are likely to be variable and shift across contexts, time and persons, for example
between targets, bullies, and observers, as well as between organisational personnel and
researchers. Its use impacts upon behaviours within and beyond the workplace, as well as
affecting perceptions of those behaviours (Liefooghe & Olafsson, 1999). For example, for
managers, employers and colleagues, naming problems as workplace bullying may reflect
detrimentally upon their own organisational positions; conversely for targets, naming
experiences as bullying seems to be a complex process which may challenge their perceptions of their work organisations (Lewis & Orford, 2005).
The ways in which targets perceive, appraise and respond to stressors at work, such as
workplace bullying, also have implications for their coping strategies and responses and
for the impacts of such stressors upon them (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002; Niedl, 1996;
Zapf, Knortz, & Kulla 1996). Zapf and Gross (2001) have shown that targets do try to
respond constructively to bullying before finally withdrawing from their employing organisations, and that these responses are far more complex than simple fight or flight
responses. But it is difficult to identify more effective coping strategies for targets until
more is known about bullying processes and responses more generally, in particular
how targets come to recognise bullying during episodes and how this impacts upon their
coping.
Previous studies of workplace bullying have compared bullying among men and
women. Frequency, forms and effects of workplace bullying differ between men and
women (Rayner & Cooper, 1997): women report more frequent workplace bullying
(Bjorkqvist et al., 1994a) and greater psychological effects (Niedl, 1996), and women
and men may use different forms of interpersonal aggression (Bjorkqvist, Osterman &
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

Recognition of workplace bullying

121

Lagerspetz, 1994b). However the question of how women targets come to perceive and
recognise others behaviours as bullying, has not been addressed and may help explain
some of these reported differences. Elsewhere research has identified gender issues which
may impact on recognition of bullying by women targets, including gender differences in
perceptions of power and in definitions of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour within
organisations (Nicolson, 1996). Definitions of bullying may marginalise some employees
accounts (Liefooghe & Olafsson, 1999; Liefooghe & Mckenzie Davey, 2001), including
those of women, while other evidence suggests that in practice women targets are likely to
self-doubt and to be blamed by others for their difficulties (Lewis & Orford, 2005).
One major limitation in research on workplace bullying has been access to participants.
Researchers in workplace bullying have generally accessed volunteers who identify themselves as targets of bullying, but volunteers are only accessed at the point at which they
have themselves identified bullying as a problem. Within qualitative research in particular,
access has been to volunteers identified through helplines and snow-balling (see Adams,
1992; Field, 1996; Hoel et al., 1999; Lewis & Orford, 2005; Zapf, Knortz & Kulla, 1996.).
The research reported here used a similar group of self-identified targets, and addresses the
question of how such targets/volunteers come to identify their problems as bullying.
Targets perceptions and subjectivity are important in recognising and understanding
workplace bullying (Einarsen, 1996; Hoel et al., 1999; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001),
while experiences of bullying may differ between men and women. Processes of recognition of bullying have implications for targets coping resources and help-seeking behaviours, as well as implications for research aimed at understanding the social processes
involved in, and the construct of, workplace bullying. How targets come to identify others
behaviours as workplace bullying has implications for how they respond to bullies and
also to others around them, both within and outside the workplace (Lewis & Orford,
2005). The present article examines the processes through which women targets
come to recognise interpersonal behaviours as bullying, including what resources they
draw upon, how else they might understand their difficulties, how naming problems as
bullying impacts upon targets and how processes of recognition vary throughout episodes
of bullying.

DESIGN AND METHODS


Grounded theory methods were used, consistent with the aims of this research to describe,
explain and understand the lived experiences of participants (Charmaz, 1990), and then to
develop theoretical knowledge based upon and rooted in those experiences and perspectives (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The study aimed to investigate female targets subjective
experiences of workplace bullying. (See also Lewis & Orford, 2005).
Sampling
All participants were women volunteers who perceived themselves as targets of workplace
bullying. The definition of workplace bullying used here was that: A person is bullied or
harassed when he or she feels repeatedly subject to negative acts in the workplace, acts
that the victim may find it difficult to defend themselves against, (Einarsen, Raknes, &
Matthiesen 1994, p. 383). In order to focus on participants whose experiences had persisted for a significant length of time, bullying was also defined as lasting at least 6 months
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

122
Table 1.

S. E. Lewis
Participant characteristics

Participant Sample

Age
range

Occupation

Outcome

Bully

P1
P2
P3
P4

b
b
a
b

50s
50s
50s
40s

Schools administrator
Counsellor, NHS
Enrolled nurse
Researcher

Sideways move
Moved post
Dismissed
Stayed in post

P5
P6
P7
P8
P9

a
a
a
b
b

40s
40s
50s
30s
50s

Teacher, special needs


Deputy headteacher
Teacher
Researcher
University lecturer

Moved post
Demotion
Early retirement
Sideways move
Stayed in post

P10

40s

Police officer

Sick leave

Female manager
Male manager
Female ward sister
1 male 1 female
junior assistants
Male and female heads
Female head
Male head
Female manager
Male and female
managers
Male manager

(Leymann, 1992, cited in Hoel et al., 1999). Rather than impose a more detailed definition
of bullying on participants, and given that the aim was to identify participants who perceived themselves as targets of bullying, participants own assessment of the fact that they
had been targets of bullying was accepted. However, the methodology employed also
involved a lengthy interview which included detailed accounts of events and the definition
given above was strongly adhered to; participants who had not been bullied in terms of this
definition would have been excluded, but in practice all met these criteria.
Participants were recruited from two sources, as samples (a) and (b), Table 1.
Sample (a) were contacted through a national UK voluntary, workplace bullying telephone advice line. Their use of this helpline suggested they understood themselves to have
experienced workplace bullying.
The helpline co-ordinator initially identified potential participants from the helpline
database, to maintain confidentiality. To maximise sample diversity, the researcher (the
author) developed guidelines for the phoneline co-ordinator, based on demographic data
available to him on the database, for inclusion of professionals and non-professionals to
maximise variability of employment, and of women of different marital status. In addition,
the researcher requested that potential participants were located in geographical regions
that were practically accessible from the research base.
Twenty-five potential participants were identified in order to aim to reach a sample of 5
10 participants. The helpline co-ordinator forwarded recruitment packs to them, prepared
by the researcher, and containing: information about the study, a brief questionnaire asking for personal and demographic information, a consent form and a pre-paid envelope.
Fourteen questionnaires were returned, with 12 respondents interested in taking part. The
researcher made preliminary telephone calls, often surprisingly lengthy, to these respondents to provide further information and answer queries. Five respondents were then interviewed (with drop-outs for personal reasons, difficulty in making contact, and
geographical locationsee below).
Sample (b): The preliminary telephone discussions with sample (a) questionnaire
respondents suggested that for some accessing the helpline was a last resort, and Sample
(b) was developed in order to access participants who had not used the helpline, aiming to
increase potential variability of participants help-seeking behaviours and support.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

Recognition of workplace bullying

123

Sample (b) was opportunistic, based on personal contacts of the researcher, using snowballing techniques. On learning about the study, 3 participants (hearing directly from the
researcher) and 2 participants (hearing from a contact of the researcher) expressed interest. They were given further information, by telephone or letter, and asked whether the
researcher could contact them. All 5 volunteered for this sample and were interviewed.
All participants were identified early in the research project to meet practical and time
constraints. These inevitably limited the extent and diversity of sampling in this project.
There were likely limitations on the different situations and incidents that this research
could explore in practice. For sample (a), the helpline co-ordinator selected individuals
whom he felt were more likely to be able to respond and articulate their experiences.
For sample (b), participants recruited through personal contacts of the researcher were
likely to be of the same social and educational background (white British, middle-class,
university educated). But the two samples were considered sufficient to provide diversity.
Sampling did not and could not aim to include all possible variations, and rather aimed at
gathering sufficiently diverse data to explain what might happen in some given situations
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Participant characteristics
Although sampling aimed to include professionals and non-professionals, and single, married or co-habiting women (see above, sampling), in practice all 10 participants from both
samples were professionals and married. Ages ranged from 30s to 50s. Further, all were
employed within public sectors, where high levels of bullying are reported (Einarsen &
Skogstad, 1996), including UK education and health services (Quine, 1999; Savva &
Alexandrou 1998) where 9 participants were employed. See Table 1.
Data collection
Participants were interviewed once. Interviews lasted between 1.53 hours and were conducted by the female researcher; 7 at participants homes, 2 at participants workplaces in
private offices and 1 by telephone (due to personal circumstances). Interviews were audiotaped then transcribed verbatim by the researcher.
Interviews were retrospective to participants experiences of bullying. A semi-structured interview guide was used as a flexible tool to facilitate participants in giving their
own narratives or accounts of their experiences and recalling and reflecting on their
experiences. It was developed from readings of research literature, further informed by
preliminary telephone contacts with sample (a) respondents (above), and further developed in practice as data collection and preliminary data analysis proceeded (see Charmaz,
1995; Oakley, 1981). Prompts and questions focused on gaining information (e.g., outlining incidents of bullying), reflecting back to participants and exploring emotional
responses (see Charmaz, 1990).
In practice, this guide provided the researcher with questions or prompts which could be
used as appropriate within interviews, rather than providing a fixed format for interviews.
The guide also enabled the researcher to identify and track the content of interviews as
they progressed, and to note down gaps and later refer back to areas not yet covered or
gaps in narratives, in particular since participants used very different forms of accounts,
for example in whether they gave chronologically coherent narratives, in the emotional
content of their account, and its length. In all interviews the researcher used questions
and comments with a more positive emphasis to gain a more constructive closure, given
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

124

S. E. Lewis

the potentially distressing nature of accounts. Participants also had contact details for the
researcher following the interview.
Reflexivity
The researcher conducted the interviews and data analysis. Her motivations for the
research are acknowledged here in order to promote transparency (Henwood & Pidgeon,
1992, 1995) and included: research interests in womens employment experiences and in
relationships between power and mental health for women; and clinical experience of how
bullying impacts on targets and their families. The aim of this research was to gain knowledge of participants understanding of their own situations (Charmaz, 1995), and enhancing researcher reflexivity was one way of increasing her awareness of how findings might
be informed by her own assumptions and perspectives. The researcher used memos to
reflect upon her readings of data and of research literature, and how these changed over
time (Charmaz, 1995), for example recording reflections on the interview process after
each interview, and documenting interpretative processes throughout data analysis. She
also explained and discussed the process of data analysis in depth with a male colleague
experienced in qualitative research, who was not directly involved in the data analysis and
who facilitated her reflection upon her assumptions and values through questioning her
approaches and findings in progress.
Data analysis
Systematic grounded theory coding procedures (Charmaz, 1990, 1995; Strauss & Corbin,
1998) were used. Initial open coding was descriptive, detailed (line by line) and wide ranging, and stayed close to the data. Open codes were active and specific to processes in the
data (Charmaz, 1995), often using participants own words, for example in describing
initially difficult interpersonal behaviours as trivial. Initially, codes were recorded in
the margins of interview transcripts, and then as coding proceeded notes were made on
memo cards. As more data were analysed or re-read, open codes were re-used and overlaps between codes were noticed; some codes were re-specified to reflect data more accurately and this was the start of more focused coding. Throughout, coding was an iterative
process; data were repeatedly read to take account of variability within material and codes
often re-worked, as they were compared across and within transcripts for fit with the data
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
On-going and active reflection on codes, for example in notes and diagrams, enabled
development of more conceptual thinking and analysis. New interpretations, questions
and ideas were recorded on memos, and dated in order to trace the developing analysis.
Reflection involved continuous readings and re-readings of data and readings of the
research literature. Higher level interpretative themes and ideas gradually emerged from
this process of making sense of the data, leading to further questions and interrogation of
the data by the researcher. Emerging concepts and theory were explained to, and questioned by, a colleague not directly involved in the data analysis, thus helping avoid blind
acceptance (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 292) of assumptions and concepts.
As a form of validation, to test and develop emerging concepts and ideas and to stay
rooted in the detail of accounts, data were re-read in order to add to or identify exceptions
to concepts, and earlier and new interpretations compared. Through this process the analysis was made more specific, for example specifying links between processes and conditions or contexts. This sometimes meant going back to and questioning earlier ideas and
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

Recognition of workplace bullying

125

interpretations and reworking conceptual analyses. For example, based on readings of literature and reflections on earlier codes, denial of bullying was identified at one stage as a
process used by both organisations and targets; but denial appeared less accurate when
further questions were asked about participants responses: what did denial meanwas
it an accurate description of participants subjective experiences? Re-reading of the data
suggested that participants were faced with ambiguous behaviours, and minimising interpersonal difficulties appeared a more accurate label for their responses, specifically to
trivial behaviours coded in accounts of the early stages of bullying.

RESULTS
This section describes some major processes of participants recognition of workplace
bullying. These included minimising interpersonal difficulties; preserving self; maintaining commitments to professional and organisational values and cultures; sickness explanations; and naming the problem. These were not linear or sequential processes, but ongoing and complex responses to changing circumstances, in particular given that bullying
appeared to escalate over time. See Lewis & Orford, 2005 for a fuller discussion of social
processes in workplace bullying.
Excerpts and examples from interviews are used to illustrate themes, with participants
identified by number, see Table 1, and any personal identifiers changed in order to preserve anonymity.
Minimising interpersonal difficulties
Participants described how they initially minimised problems in others behaviours as trivial. Such behaviours were personally directed at individual targets but appeared subtle
and ambiguous. They included for example: talking over the target at meetings and questioning her qualifications and her right to voice an opinion (Participant 9); moving furniture she used in her work (Participant 2); and removing information she needed for her
work (Participant 1).
Such behaviours were a real source of daily stress but participants did not identify them
as serious enough to challenge nor seek support. Minimising the significance of these
behaviours to oneself and to others was an initial coping strategy, at an individual level;
only in retrospect did participants recognise a pattern of behaviours as bullying. But minimisation might itself be a barrier to recognising the seriousness of patterns of repeated
behaviours. For example Participant 3, a nurse, was repeatedly and personally criticised
by her ward sister, and Participant 2s working conditions were changed repeatedly and
detrimentally by her manager:
It was trivial, it was childish, it was nonsensical, to me it was immaterial. (Participant 3).
Id got to answer the phone because he was not going to, again trivia, absolute trivia... Shifting
the chair out of my room which was comfortable to some hard rock thing that was a back creaser,
lots and lots of things that were very much indicative of making my life more and more uncomfortable. (Participant 2).

Preserving self
Participants described high levels of commitment to maintaining standards at work, and
these were linked to their own feelings of competence and success. Participants feared that
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

126

S. E. Lewis

admitting problems at work, in particular difficulties in interpersonal relationships, might


undermine their sense of their own competence. They reported that subtle and ambiguous
incidents were difficult to identify as specific difficulties to others; on the other hand,
apparent competence and success at work was an important resource for maintaining
social identity and self-esteem. Participant 4 believed that a core facet of her social identity, being a successful professional woman, would have been risked by disclosure of
workplace problems:
I had this need to show that I was this very successful working class woman whod made good. So
I couldnt drop the face . . . And also I felt, how can I explain it to anybody, because it was so, in
some ways so surreptitious, there was nothing to actually pin down. (Participant 4).

Participants described difficult interpersonal behaviours which they experienced as personal attacks and which did threaten their self-esteem; but they believed that identifying
these behaviours as problems would threaten perceptions of their competence, by themselves and others. Thus they sought to cope alone, without identifying problems to others,
but then reflected that they had not coped effectively. Participant 1 saw herself both as
responsible for resolving difficulties and as struggling to survive in her post:
I felt I ought to cope with it myself I suppose . . . if Ive got a problem at work I should go on
dealing with it . . . I didnt think I did cope with it very well, in that I just gritted my teeth and
suffered it and carried on through until some kind of accident got me out of it. (Participant 1).

Participants faced conflicting demands, individually and organisationally, which may


underlie such tensions. For example Participant 8 was a university researcher on a
short-term contract; facing job insecurity she wished to show commitment to her manager
and organisation and so avoided identifying or challenging difficult behaviour from her
manager. Retrospectively and like Participant 1, she also believed that she herself had
failed to cope, precisely because she had been unable to acknowledge difficulties even
to herself:
I was desperate to keep it jovial, and didnt get to the root of things . . . And thats me, I find it
quite difficult to acknowledge to people Im finding things difficult at all. (Participant 8).

Maintaining commitments to professional and organisational values and cultures


Among participants, difficulties in workplace relationships threatened personal commitments to and perceptions of professional and organisational values and cultures. All participants were professionals within public sector service organisations. They reflected on,
and identified contradictions between values underlying professional practice towards service users and values underlying management practice towards themselves.
Participant 2, a workplace counsellor in the health service, noted:
Its very disappointing when it [bullying] comes from people in a similar profession with qualifications to suggest that they have compassion, all the things that one would hope from somebody
in that position, so again it shook a few myths. (Participant 2).

This was often a difficult process, involving loss of trust in their organisations and managers, as well as loss of a sense of identity, belonging and valued participation at work.
Participant 1 noted:
Thats the other thing I found amazing. Cos I worked for the [special educational needs] service,
and were supposed to be terribly sympathetic and supportive and thats the bloody last thing.
(Participant 1).
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

Recognition of workplace bullying

127

Recognition that difficulties might constitute bullying threatened perceptions of organisations. Nine of the ten participants were bullied by managers (see Table 1) and recognising bullying involved re-evaluating their expectations of management and power
relations within their organisations. Problems were then located at an organisational level.
For example, Participants 5, 6 and 7, all teachers, reflected on the abuse of power by more
senior personnel, and their own relative powerlessness. They perceived the operation of
power within their schools as corrupt, with headteachers able to use organisational power
for personal ends, accessing greater power through school governors, and able to block
complaints about their own behaviour.
The Head and a colleague and the Chairman of the Governorsit was like a clique, it was all
rotten. (Participant 6).

Questioning organisational values was distressing, and personally directed attacks


within organisations fundamentally threatened individuals understandings of the world
of work and the self within it. For example Participant 3, a nurse, had drawn attention
to low care standards on her ward. Her managers consequently condoned bullying which
resulted in her dismissal, and she described her on-going struggle to recognise their role.
That realisation threatened her personal beliefs, and she had struggled to maintain some
sense of personal integrity:
I could never have believed that management would aid and abet a bully and liar because they
knew that she were lying and in order to protect her they lied themselves . . . It would have been
much kinder if theyd blindfolded me and shot me at dawn, cos they took away everything that I
ever morally believed in. Everything that Id given. (Participant 3).

Sickness explanations
Bullying did impact on health and all participants in this study reported mental and/or
physical symptoms of illness and stress. Health professionals validated these symptoms but were not necessarily able to recognise them as the effects of bullying, at least
not immediately, though they may also have a vital potential role in enabling targets of
bullying to understand their difficulties. For example, Participant 6s GP was pivotal in
helping her to recognise that her problems were located in her workplace; however, this
was a long process, which included referral to a psychiatrist, and mental and physical
pathologies were exhaustively explored as an explanation, before her job was finally identified as the cause of her ill-health:
We thought there was something physically wrong because I was so ill, I was physically ill, and
when I went through all the tests the doctor said: theres nothing wrong with you, you either retire
or . . . change jobs. (Participant 6).

Sickness explanations were used both by participants and others within and outside the
workplace, including by health professionals, to explain the difficulties participants were
experiencing at work. Illness was an available, powerful and accessible explanation for
participants difficulties at work, based on their apparent symptoms and pathologising
them as individuals. Participants were seen by others and themselves as failing to function
as individuals, rather than identifying difficulties within the wider context of the workplace. Participants who experienced symptoms were likely to take up explanations
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

128

S. E. Lewis

offered by others in terms of their individual ill-health. For example, two participants took
up explanations which attributed problems to their reproductive biology. Participant 8,
returning to work after maternity leave, accepted colleagues explanations of her difficulties as post-natal depression:
I think I was a bit naive and, Id just come back from maternity leave, and put it all down to that,
and thinking oh its me, its something in me, Im not functioning right, Ive got post natal depression sort of thing. (Participant 8).

Such explanations shifted attention away from her managers behaviours and were
personally damaging. They reflected, rather than identified, power relations in the
workplace and might be understood as a further cycle of personal attack, even reproduced
outside the workplace. Participant 5 was similarly undermined, in this instance by her
G.P., who explained her problems as menopausal; she felt disempowered and unable to
actively challenge him:
He [G.P.] turned round to me as I left the room: I suggest you take your HRT and he said it in
such a contemptuous way . . . I just burst into tears, because I was in this terrible state anyway.
(Participant 5).

Naming the problem


It was difficult to make sense of changed experiences, and a powerful response was selfblame, for example in failing to cope more effectively. Consistent with this, participants
reported that bullying behaviour threatened their work performance, their sense of competence and their self-esteem.
Participants accounts suggested that apparently trivial though personally threatening
behaviours were difficult to make sense of, recognise or to validate as problems. Nor could
they predict how initially trivial behaviours might develop and escalate. Bullying
behaviours were inconsistent with some expectations of adult behaviour. As threatening
behaviours grew more serious, participants were left in a state of shock:
I just didnt think it [workplace bullying] was something that occurred and when youre a grown
mature woman you know it comes as a bit of a shock really. (Participant 6).
There was a lot of disbelief, which probably contributed to me not actually doing a great deal to
kind of stop it. (Participant 1).

Participant 6 gained information about bullying by chance, when given an article about
bullying by a friend. She was subsequently able to develop a new understanding of her
problems; naming her experiences bullying was the start of her recovery and impacted
directly upon her sense of self:
I just thought possibly I was incompetent, how did I get this far, and what was happening to my
life? . . . Yeah I just couldnt understand what was happening at all. When I read that first article
it just jumped out at me, thats whats the matter, possibly thats why then I got the strength.
(Participant 6).

Attributing difficulties to behaviours of others in the workplace was part of recovery.


But barriers to earlier recognition of significant experiences in episodes of bullying, might
lead to practical difficulties in gaining institutional support later. For example Participant 7
had viewed problems as interpersonal difficulties which could be more easily resolved,
and had not recorded earlier incidents.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

Recognition of workplace bullying

129

One of the first things they said in the Industrial Tribunal: When you say that this started, why
didnt you keep a diary about it? And that was their immediate thing. But when you first are in
that situation, you dont think its bullying, you think theres been a disagreement or a misunderstanding. And you wouldnt dream of immediately getting out a diary and writing a blow by blow
account and dating it and signing it. (Participant 7).

DISCUSSION
Analysis of participants accounts identified some processes in perceiving and recognising
interpersonal difficulties as workplace bullying, and difficulties in and barriers to such
recognition. Some, such as minimising interpersonal difficulties, may have appeared helpful coping strategies, in particular in initial stages of bullying when others apparently trivial behaviours were problematic. Participants were also likely to take responsibility for
unresolved difficulties in their interpersonal relationships, which threatened their sense of
competence. As bullying escalated, they were increasingly unable to make sense of their
experiences, and were left feeling confused and shocked. Bullying impacted upon their
mental and physical health, and lay and professional explanations of their difficulties as
sickness or pathology reinforced feelings of self-blame and inadequacy at work.
For participants, recognising difficulties as workplace bullying was difficult and distressing, and involved them recognising abuse of power within workplaces. Some participants
described how they struggled to maintain their personal commitments to organisational
values, even as these were challenged by bullying. Accessing information about bullying
enabled them to develop new perspectives on their experiences, to validate their problems
and to recognise others behaviours as bullying, and ultimately provided an externally
located explanation for their individual distress.
The present results suggest that the ambiguity of bullying behaviours may constitute a
barrier to targets recognition of bullying, which may be delayed beyond earlier stages
when prevention may be easier. This is consistent with other research suggesting that bullying is a subtle and gradually evolving process (Adams, 1992; Spurgeon, 1997), rather
than an either or phenomenon (Zapf & Einarsen, 2001), and that bullying behaviours may
be viewed as relatively normal (Crawford, 1997).
The present research also indicates that participants worked to maintain their commitments to and beliefs in workplace practices and values, and that these constituted personal
and organisational barriers to their recognition of workplace bullying. Such commitments
may have mirrored key personal values and aspects of personal and social identity, and
helped them to maintain a coherent sense of self (Lewis & Orford, 2005). Such commitments may also have enabled participants in coping with complex work demands, in particular within the public sector (Hinshelwood & Skogstad, 2000), but prevented them
recognising shifts in and abuse of power (Einarsen, 2000; Lewis & Orford, 2005; Zapf
& Gross, 2001). It seems that perceptions of bullying among targets, as well as others,
reflect organisational values, practices and demands (Adams, 1992; Archer, 1999; Einarsen, 1999; Einarsen, Raknes et al. 1994; Spurgeon, 1997; Vartia, 1996). Further research
questions include the meanings and use of power in organisations as perceived by targets,
for example within non-threatening work relationships as well as within bullying relationships, especially since abuse of power is a key element in definitions of bullying (see
Liefooghe & Mackenzie Davey, 2001).
Participants accounts indicated that they tended to take responsibility for difficulties
and to self-blame. As bullying progressed and as participants gained information about
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

130

S. E. Lewis

workplace bullying, they were more likely to recognise and name their experiences, and
shift from self-blame to locating difficulties in others and within their organisation. Failures by others in the workplace to acknowledge bullying have been shown to have direct
negative effects on targets self-perceptions and may well contribute to targets tendency
to self-blame rather than to challenge management or organisational practices (Kelly,
1999; Lewis & Orford, 2005; Leymann & Gustaffson, 1996; Mikkelsen & Einarsen,
2002; Rayner & Hoel, 1997). While individuals typically blame others for negative events
(Jones & Davis, 1965), it seems targets of bullying do self-blame initially and consider
themselves as less responsible for their experiences over time (Kile 1990, cited in Hoel
et al., 1999). Further research questions include the relationship between recognition of
bullying and coping processes in individuals, particularly how labelling difficulties as bullying may shift targets attributions and implications for their psychological and physical
health.
Some participants reported that they had attributed problems to their ill-health
during bullying episodes though, as found elsewhere, they retrospectively perceived their
poor health as due to bullying (Kile, 1990, cited in Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001).
The present findings suggest that lay as well as professional diagnoses can be
reproduced within the workplace, by targets and others, supporting targets tendency to
self-blame, undermining targets as pathological and contributing to a secondary cycle
of victimisation (see Groeblinghoff & Becker, 1996; Leymann & Gustaffson, 1996).
Moreover, women may be particularly vulnerable to popular, pathological constructions
of their reproductive health (Lee, 1998; Lewis & Nicolson, 1998; Lewis & Orford, 2005;
Stoppard, 2000); for example, two women participants in the present study took up explanations of difficulties at work in terms of post-natal depression or the menopause. Health
professionals involved in validating and treating the health effects of bullying, need to
understand these in relation to patients social experiences, for example rather than focusing on traditional symptom histories instead use narrative or systemic perspectives
(Launer, 2002).
Participants in the present study reported how experiences of bullying challenged their
sense of self and their assumptions about the world, specifically the world of work.
Though not clinically assessed, this is consistent with some definitions of trauma
(Groeblinghoff & Becker, 1996; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Lebowitz & Newman, 1996;
Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002a). Clinical symptoms of anxiety, trauma and depression
are common among targets of bullying (Adams, 1992; Bjorkqvist et al., 1994a; Einarsen
& Raknes, 1997; Leymann, 1990, 1996; Leymann & Gustaffson, 1996; Niedl, 1996;
Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002a, 2002b) and one emerging question is how far naming
experiences as bullying may be useful in enabling targets to specify experiences,
reconstruct their values, and regain a sense of self-worth.
The findings of the present study emphasise that bullying may be better understood as
an organisational problem, rather than one which can be explained in terms of individual
characteristics of either the target or the bully (Hoel et al., 2001; Lewis & Orford, 2005;
Peyton, 2003). Indeed, some participants regarded their organisations as promoting rather
than merely facilitating bullying, and as ultimately responsible for bullying (see Liefooghe & Mackenzie Davey, 2001). Clearly, organisations need to be more active in identifying and coping with bullying (see Einarsen et al., 2002); greater awareness of
workplace bullying and more accessible information might enable more effective recognition of its occurrence. Human resources professionals need to develop policies and practices focused at organisational rather than merely individual or interpersonal levels; for
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

Recognition of workplace bullying

131

example in considering the impact of increased work pressures and of individualised


appraisal systems (Liefooghe & Mackenzie Davey, 2001); this may be facilitated through
assessing the often hidden organisational costs of bullying practices, including increased
staff turnover and reduced commitment (Lewis & Orford, 2005; Niedl, 1996). Employers
also need to understand the complexity of bullying and the varied responses of individuals
(Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001; Peyton, 2003; Rayner et al., 2001). Organisational and
community psychologists may have a role in providing training and information about
forms, impacts and costs of bullying for employers, trades unions and health professionals
(see Quine, 1999; Mellish, 2001)
But participants reports also indicated that recognition of bullying posed risks to their
own perceptions of their professional identities and competencies. The present results also
suggest that targets may only recognise bullying when it has escalated and power has
increasingly shifted towards the bully. At this stage, targets uses of constructive problem-solving strategies are likely to be ineffective and leaving the workgroup or even
organisation may be the only viable option. In practice, targets are likely to be expelled
and blamed (Lewis & Orford, 2005; Zapf & Gross, 2001). Though management can
potentially help ensure support, equal working conditions and acknowledge the responsibility of the organisation, this is rare. Applied psychologists can provide support for targets, enabling them and employers to recognise bullying as an organisational phenomenon
(Leymann & Gustaffson, 1996), and enhancing coping resources at organisational and
individual levels. The present results indicate that this is helpful early in bullying episodes
and might for example be better achieved through provision of information to employees
in general, before they recognise themselves as targets.
One possible limitation of the present study is the predominant context of bullying
being hierarchical relationships, with nine of the ten participants bullied by their line manager, though this is consistent with other research in the UK (Rayner, 1997). Participants
were also all professionals within the public sector, seven within education. Impact of professional or organisational status was not directly considered and different understandings, experiences and meanings of interpersonal conflicts including bullying might be
identified in the private sector and among less skilled groups (Liefooghe & Mackenzie
Davey, 2001).
Questions of what is or is not bullying remain problematic. The present study might be
extended to samples other than targets in organisations, such as managers, colleagues and
even bullies themselves, to investigate how they understand and label interpersonal conflicts as bullying. However, wider scope of access within organisations is a major practical
problem, often related to issues of organisational power and politics (Hoel et al., 1999;
Bjorkqvist et al., 1994a).
We used self-identified targets to investigate the processes through which they identified bullying, and we found that identification in the earlier stages is particularly problematic. Research volunteers may be those who have experienced more severe bullying, and
further research might focus on more specific identification of targets early stage coping
strategies, for example with participants who have prevented or avoided the escalation of
bullying, though this presents practical problems of access. The present findings regarding
participants difficulties in identifying bullying also suggest that research which has relied
mainly on self-reports may have underestimated the prevalence of bullying. These findings indicate that recognition of bullying may depend on the stage in the episode, or the
particular nature of interactions and the organisational culture in which these are
embedded.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

132

S. E. Lewis

For female participants in the present study, commitments to organisational values


within the public sector seem to have acted as barriers to recognising abuse of power.
Gendered organisational values and practices may influence perceptions of bullying
among targets and others. All female participants were employed within sectors of high
female employment (including health and education); in a different context, Archer
(1999) found that bullying was accepted as part of the white male dominated culture of
the fire service. Further questions include whether processes of recognition of bullying
differ between male and female targets within the same organisations and whether gender
differences in individuals attitudes and approaches to work influence perceptions of bullying (see Vartia & Hyyti, 2002).
This paper has identified some processes through which bullying may remain a hidden
problem, in particular in work cultures which encourage individuals to take on responsibility for interpersonal relationships, emphasising individual accountability and reinforcing self-blame. Self-reports and individuals experiences and perceptions of bullying
are inevitably subjective (Einarsen, 1996), but targets labelling of bullying may be particularly significant in cultures where employers deny or avoid the existence of workplace
bullying, in part enabling continuation of such behaviours (Hoel et al., 1999).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to all the participants for their efforts and input to the research on which this paper
is based. Thanks also to Professor Jim Orford for his significant contributions, and also to
Dr. Tim Field, Dr. Paul Kelly and Dr David Buckley, and to anonymous reviewers for their
comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

REFERENCES
Adams, A. (1992). Bullying at work. How to confront and overcome it. London: Virago Press.
Archer, D. (1999). Exploring bullying culture in a paramilitary organisation. International Journal
of Manpower, 20, 94105.
Bennett, E. (1997). Commentary II. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 245
247.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994a). Aggression among University Employees.
Aggressive Behaviour, 20, 2733.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994b). Sex differences in covert aggression
among adults. Aggressive Behaviour 20, 2733.
Charmaz, K. (1990). Discovering chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science and
Medicine, 30, 11611172.
Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded Theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langenhove, (Eds.),
Rethinking methods in psychology. London: Sage.
Crawford, N. (1997). Bullying at work. A psychoanalytic perspective. Journal of Community and
Applied Social Psychology, 7, 219225.
Einarsen, S. (1996). Bullying and harassment at work: Epidemiological and psychological aspects.
PhD thesis, Department of Psychological Science, University of Bergen. Cited in Hoel, H.,
Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L., (1999). Workplace bullying. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson
(Eds.), International review of industrial and organisational psychology (Vol. 14). London:
Wiley.
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower,
20, 1627.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

Recognition of workplace bullying

133

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach.
Aggression and Violent Behaviour: A Review Journal, 4, 371401.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf., D., & Cooper, C.L. (2002). Bullying and emotional abuse in the
workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. London: CRC Press.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men.
Violence and Victims, 12, 247263.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S.B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their
relationship to work environment quality. An exploratory study. European Work and
Organisational Psychologist, 4, 381401.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Epidemiological findings of bullying. European Journal of
Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 185201.
Field, T. (1996). Bully in sight. Wantage: Success Unlimited.
Groeblinghoff, G., & Becker, M. (1996). A case study of mobbing and the clinical treatment of
mobbing victims. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 277294.
Henwood, K. L., & Pidgeon, N. F. (1992). Qualitative research and psychological theorising. British
Journal of Psychology, 83, 97111.
Henwood, K. L., & Pidgeon, N. F. (1995). Remaking the link: qualitative research and feminist
standpoint theory. Feminism and psychology, 5, 730.
Hinshelwood, R. D., & Skogstad, W. (2000). The dynamics of health care institutions. In R.D.
Hinshelwood, & W. Skogstad (Eds.), Observing organisations: Anxiety, defence and culture in
healthcare. London: Routledge.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace Bullying. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T.
Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology (Vol. 14).
London: Wiley.
Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The impact
of organisational status. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 10, 443
465.
Ishmael, A., & Alemoru, B. (1999). Harassment, bullying and violence at work. A practical guide to
combating employee abuse. London: The Industrial Society.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions. London: Free Press.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person
perception. In I.L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2). New
York: Academic Press.
Kelly, P. (1999). Bullying in the workplace: Towards a theoretical model of the experience of being
bullied at work. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Birmingham.
Kile, S. M. (1990). Helsefarleg Leiarskap: Ein Eksplorerande Studie. Rapport til Norges
Almenvitenskapelige Forskiningsrad, Bergen. Cited in Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L.
(1999). Workplace bullying. In C. L. Cooper, & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of
industrial and organisational psychology (Vol. 14). London: Wiley.
Labour Research Department. (1997). Stress, bullying and violenceA trade union action guide.
London: LRD Publications Limited.
Launer, J. (2002). Narrative-based primary care: A practical guide. Oxford: Radcliffe.
Lebowitz, L., & Newman, E. (1996). The role of cognitive-affective themes in the assessment and
treatment of trauma reactions. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3, 196207.
Lewis, S. E., & Nicolson, P. (1998). Talking about early motherhood: Recognising loss and
reconstructing depression. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 16, 177197.
Lewis, S. E., & Orford, J. (2005). Womens experiences of adult workplace bullying: A process
model of changes in social relationships. Journal of Applied Social and Community Psychology,
15, 2947.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror in workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5,
119126.
Leymann, H. (1992). Psyiatriska problem vid vuxenmobbning. En rickstackande undersokning med
2.438 intervjuer. Delrapport 2. Stockholm: Arbetarskyddstyrelsen. Cited in Hoel, H., Rayner, C.,
& Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.),
International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, (Vol. 14). London: Wiley.
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work
and Organisational Psychology, 5, 165184.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

134

S. E. Lewis

Leymann, H., & Gustaffson, A. (1996). Mobbing at work and the development of posttraumatic stress disorder. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 251
275.
Liefooghe, A. P. D., & Olafsson, R. (1999). Scientists and amateurs: Mapping the bullying
domain. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 3949.
Liefooghe, A. P. D., & Mackenzie Davey, K. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of
the organisation. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 10, 375392.
Matthiesen, S.B., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI2 configurations among victims of bullying at work.
European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 10, 467484.
Mellish, T. (2001). Bullying is a trade union issue. In N. Tehrani (Ed.), Building a culture of respect:
Managing bullying at work. London: Taylor and Francis.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and health
correlates. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 10, 393413.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002a). Basic assumptions and symptoms of post-traumatic stress
among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology,
11, 87111.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002b). Relationship between exposure to bullying at work and
psychosomatic and psychological health complaints: The role of state negativity affectivity and
generalized self-efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 397405.
Nicolson, P. (1996). Gender, power and organisation. A psychological perspective. London:
Routledge
Niedl, K. (1995). Mobbing/ Bullying am Arbeitsplatz. Munich: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Cited in Hoel,
H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. In C. L. Cooper, & I.T. Robertson
(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, (Vol. 14). London:
Wiley.
Niedl, K. (1996). Mobbing and well-being: Economic and personnel development implications.
European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 239249.
Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.) Doing feminist
research. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Orford, J., & Beasely, G. (1997). Editors Preface. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 7, 173175.
Peyton, P.R. (2003). Dignity at work. London: Brunner-Routledge.
Quine, L. (1999). Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: Staff questionnaire survey. British
Medical Journal, 318, 228232.
Rayner, C. (1997). The incidence of workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 7, 199208.
Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. (1997). Workplace bullying: Myth or reality-can we afford to ignore it?
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 18, 211214.
Rayner, C., & Hoel, H. (1997). A summary of literature relating to workplace bullying. Journal of
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 181191.
Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (2001). Workplace bullying. London: Taylor & Francis.
Rayner, C., Sheehan, M., & Barker, M. (1999). Theoretical approaches to the study of bullying at
work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 1115.
Savva, C. & Alexandrou, A. (1998). The impact of bullying in further and higher education. Paper
presented at the Bullying at Work research and update conference, Staffordshire University,
Stafford, UK, July.
Spurgeon, A. (1997). Commentary I. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 241
244.
Stoppard, J. (2000). Understanding Depression. Feminist social constructionist approaches.
London: Routledge.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. London: Sage.
Thomas-Peter, B. A. (1997). Personal standards in professional relationships: Limiting interpersonal
harassment. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 233239.
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullyingpsychological work environment and organisational
climate. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 5, 203214.
Vartia, M., & Hyyti, J. (2002). Gender differences in workplace bullying among prison officers.
European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 11, 113126.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

Recognition of workplace bullying

135

Zapf, D., Knortz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors and job
content, social work environment and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and
Organisational Psychology, 5, 215237.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in the workplace: Recent trends in research and practice
an introduction. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 10, 369373.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication
and extension. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 10, 497522.

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 16: 119135 (2006)

Potrebbero piacerti anche