INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
OF
BEHAVIOR, 8 (4), 439-460
ORGANIZATION
THEORY
AND
WINTER 2005
THE BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT
TYPES OF WORKPLACE BULLYING
Nikola Djurkovic, Darcy McCormack and Gian Casimir*
ABSTRACT. The relationships between different types of workplace bullying
and the reactions of victims were examined using six categories of bullying
(threat to professional status, destabilization, isolation, overwork, verbal taunts,
and violence) and three categories of reactions (assertiveness, avoidance, and
seeking formal help). Participants were 127 employed undergraduates.
Descriptive statistics and correlations were used to analyse the data. The
findings revealed that avoidance reactions were the most common, followed by
assertiveness and seeking formal help. As hypothesized, different types of
bullying were associated with different types of reactions. Several practical
implications derived from the findings were discussed suggesting that
prevention is better than intervention.
INTRODUCTION
Workplace bullying is regarded widely as unacceptable but remains
ubiquitous (Zapf & Gross, 2001). Dealing effectively with bullying thus
remains a major concern for organizations and individuals. The term
“workplace bullying” encapsulates a diverse array of both violent and
non-violent behaviors (Hoel, Rayner & Cooper, 1999) that have
substantial negative effects — both psychological and physical
(Djurkovic, McCormack & Casimir, 2004). The burgeoning literature on
--------------------* Nikola Djurkovic, Ph.D., School of Business, La Trobe University, Melbourne,
Australia, researches in the area of human resource management and
organizational behavior. Darcy McCormack, Ph.D., School of Business, La
Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, researches in the area of human
resource management and organizational behavior. Gian Casimir, Ph.D.,
Newcastle Graduate School of Business, University of Newcastle, Newcastle,
Australia, researches on leadership in organizations and organizational
behavior.
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
Copyright © 2005 by PrAcademics Press
440
DJURKOVIC, MCCORMACK & CASIMIR
workplace bullying and similar phenomena (e.g., workplace aggression
and workplace violence) provides useful insights as to the antecedents
and consequences of bullying. For example, it is well established that a
common response of victims is to contemplate leaving the organization
and/or to leave the organization (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Quine, 1999).
The reactions of victims to bullying have received only minimal
attention (Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003). The majority of the literature
on the relationship between bullying and the ways that victims are
affected by bullying has examined reactions in terms of the affective and
cognitive responses of victims (e.g., Ayoko, Callan & Hartel, 2003;
Djurkovic et al., 2004), rather than the behavioral responses of victims.
A review of the workplace bullying literature reveals that only a few
studies have examined the relationship between bullying and the
different behavioural reactions of victims. Although these studies have
provided useful insights into how victims react behaviorally to being
bullied, none of these studies has directly addressed the relationship
between different types of bullying and different types of reactions to
bullying. This paper will do so because the delineation of the
relationships between specific types of bullying and specific behavioral
responses allows for a more detailed analysis of how victims respond
behaviorally when bullied and has both theoretical and practical benefits.
The theoretical benefit of such a detailed analysis is that it allows for the
development of theories on bullying that recognise that different types of
bullying evoke different responses from victims rather than to assume
that different types of bullying have the same effect on victims. The
practical benefit is that the findings from this study might aid the
development of policies by shedding light on what victims do when
being bullied in different ways.
Defining Bullying
The attainment of precise definitions of psycho-social constructs is
an elusive goal as is clearly evident even in fields with long histories
such as leadership and culture. Not surprisingly then, providing a
singular, precise definition of workplace bullying has proved elusive.
There is, however, a consensus in the literature that bullying involves the
less favorable treatment of an individual by another or others in the
workplace, that the bullying behaviors are unwanted by the victim, and
that the behaviors are repeated over a period of time (e.g., Einarsen,
Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003). Levels of interpersonal affinity amongst
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
441
staff in an organization will always differ and influence both the quality
and the quantity of their interactions. These differences do not, by
themselves, constitute bullying because bullying requires interactions to
be perceived by the victim as being unfair and negative.
Numerous definitions of workplace bullying, comprising several
criteria, have been provided in the literature. Some of these criteria for
classifying behaviors as bullying require them to be: unwanted by the
victim; systematic and recurrent over an extended period of time;
difficult to defend against; aggressive and oppressive; an infringement of
the victim’s human rights; and used as a means of victimizing,
humiliating, undermining or threatening the victim (Einarsen, 1999;
Quine, 2001; Vartia, 2001).
People’s reactions to a situation are determined by the meaning they
give to the situation (Rentsch, 1990), which in turn influences their own
attitudes and behaviors as well as their interpretations of other people’s
attitudes and behaviors. In relation to bullying, this suggests that
negative affect will be evoked only if the victim perceives the scenario as
being unjust and hostile. It is the victim’s perspective therefore, rather
than that of the perpetrator, that determines ultimately whether or not
specific interactions are considered to be bullying (Hoel et al., 1999).
Types of Bullying
Various terms in the literature describe behaviors related closely to
bullying. For example, victimization, mobbing, harassment, emotional
abuse, workplace incivility and workplace violence are all terms used to
describe a range of behaviors that could well be subsumed under the
rubric of bullying. Although these terms differ slightly in the behaviors
they include, all of these terms characterize abusive workplace
interactions or relationships.
The literature contains several taxonomies of bullying behaviors
(e.g., Einarsen & Raknes, 1997; Leymann, 1990; Rayner & Hoel, 1997;
Zapf, Knorz & Kulla, 1996). Although there are different taxonomies for
bullying behaviors, they have considerable commonalities.
The
taxonomy developed by Rayner and Hoel (1997) was based on a review
of the bullying literature and incorporates the major themes addressed
within the other taxonomies. This taxonomy comprises five categories:
i) threat to professional status (e.g., open belittlement of the victim); ii)
442
DJURKOVIC, MCCORMACK & CASIMIR
threat to personal standing (e.g., teasing and intimidation); iii) isolation
(e.g., physically or socially isolating the victim); iv) overwork (e.g.,
setting impossible deadlines); and v) destabilization (e.g., repeatedly
mentioning blunders). The hypotheses will be developed using the five
categories of bullying behaviors developed by Rayner and Hoel (1997).
Reactions to Bullying
When a person is subjected to bullying, there are several avenues
potentially available to that person to address the problem. The
responses of victims to bullying have been construed generally in terms
of how the victims “cope” with the bullying. Coping can be considered
as the cognitive and behavioral responses in an attempt to reduce or
tolerate the demands created by a stressful situation (Folkman, 1982).
Just as taxonomies of bullying behaviors have been presented in the
literature, so too have taxonomies of victims’ reactions to bullying (e.g.,
Hogh & Dofradottir, 2001; Olafsson & Johannsdottir, 2004; Zapf &
Gross, 2001). Olafsson and Johannsdottir (2004) recently provided a
taxonomy for the reactions of bullying victims that comprises four
categories: i) seek help (e.g., ask colleagues for help); ii) avoidance (e.g.,
ask for a transfer); iii) assertiveness (e.g., answer back); and iv) do
nothing (e.g., wait and hope it stops). A problem with this taxonomy in
the context of the current study is that the “do nothing” component (i.e.,
ignore it and do nothing, wait and hope it stops, and not let it affect me)
and the “avoidance” component (i.e., take sick leave, quit my job, ask for
a transfer, and feel helpless) both contain cognitive items as well as
behavioral items.
Close inspection of Olafsson and Johannsdottir’s (2004) taxonomy
reveals arguably only three categories of behavioral reactions: i)
assertiveness; ii) avoidance; and iii) seek help. The rationale behind this
argument is that the two behavioral items of the “do nothing” component
are essentially types of avoidance. For example, the item “ignoring the
bullying and doing nothing” and the item “waiting for it to stop” are, for
all purposes, equivalent forms of passive avoidance. The argument that
the “do nothing” category can be subsumed into the “avoidance”
category is supported further by the findings that both of these categories
of reactions were associated with general bullying whereas the
assertiveness category and the seek help category were not associated
with general bullying (Olafsson & Johannsdottir, 2004). In the light of
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
443
the arguments just presented, the hypotheses will be developed using the
three categories of behavioral reactions mentioned above.
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Frequencies of Reactions to Bullying Behaviors
It is difficult to discern from the bullying literature the relative
frequencies of specific reactions to bullying because different studies
have used different items to measure similar reactions thereby precluding
direct comparisons. For example, Hoel and Cooper (2000) used the item
“confronted the bully” whereas Zapf and Gross (2001) used “talked to
the bullies”. Furthermore, closely related classifications have comprised
markedly different items. For example, Hogh and Dofradottir’s (2001)
“avoidance” comprised two items: i) “Do you try to think of something
else or do something you like?”; and ii) “Do you concentrate on aspects
of your work where there are no problems?”. In contrast, Olafsson and
Johannsdottir’s (2004) “avoidance” comprised four items: i) “Take sick
leave”; ii) “Quit my job”; iii) “Ask for a transfer within the company”;
and iv) “Feel helpless”. Finally, some studies (e.g., Hogh & Dofradottir,
2001) have not reported the frequencies of reactions because their focus
was on the relationships between reactions and other variables rather
than on the frequencies of reactions.
One way to lessen the problem of different items being used in
different studies is to consider reactions in terms of categories. Several
studies have shown that reactions that could be classified reasonably as
“assertiveness” (e.g., confronting the bully, talking with the bully) tend
to be used more frequently than reactions that could be classified as
“avoidance” or “seeking formal help” (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Hogh &
Dofradottir, 2001; UNISON, 1997, cited in Rayner, Hoel & Cooper,
2002; Zapf & Gross, 2001). The frequencies of seeking formal help
reactions have been found to be generally greater than avoidance
reactions (e.g., Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Hogh & Dofradottir, 2001;
UNISON, 1997, cited in Rayner et al., 2002; Zapf & Gross, 2001).
Based on the findings discussed above, the following hypotheses are
proposed:
Hypothesis 1a: More victims will use assertiveness reactions than either
avoidance or seeking formal help reactions.
444
DJURKOVIC, MCCORMACK & CASIMIR
Hypothesis 1b: More victims will use seeking formal help reactions than
avoidance reactions.
The Relationships between Reactions to Bullying and Types of
Bullying
It seems reasonable that different types of bullying will evoke
different reactions from victims. As stated earlier, the main objective of
this study is to examine the relationships between types of bullying and
types of reactions. The five categories of bullying identified by Rayner
and Hoel (1997) (i.e., threat to professional status, destabilization,
isolation, overwork, and threat to personal standing) and three categories
of reactions of victims to bullying (i.e., assertiveness, avoidance, and
seeking formal help) based on Olafsson and Johannsdottir (2004) will be
used to analyze the relationships between types of bullying and types of
reactions. It is recognized that, for any given situation, any or all
categories of reactions can be utilized to counter the effects of bullying
because each is potentially useful but has an accompanying cost to the
victim (e.g., escalating the conflict and continuance costs). The
discussion that follows, however, will provide a rationale that elucidates
the types of reactions that victims would be most likely to undertake in
response to various types of bullying behaviors.
All types of bullying occur presumably after the bully has calculated
the relevant effect/danger ratio (c.f., Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Lagerspetz,
1994) and deemed that the bullying can be enacted successfully. Threat
to professional status involves work-related behaviors aimed at
humiliating the victims, such as unjustified criticisms and intimidatory
use of discipline. When faced with such bullying, victims should be able
to defend themselves with objective work-related evidence. Given that
the criticisms are unjustified, it is reasonable to expect victims to deal
assertively (e.g., threaten to report the offender) with this type of
bullying and to also seek formal help: For example, by reporting the
incidents to Personnel and by providing corroborating evidence to
support their complaints. It is arguable also that if one is subjected
regularly to unjustified criticisms and intimidatory use of discipline, one
would minimize one’s encounters with the bully through reactions such
as steering clear of the bully, being absent from work, and ultimately
asking for a transfer. Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
445
Hypothesis 2a: Threat to professional status will be associated positively
with assertiveness reactions, avoidance reactions, and with seeking
formal help reactions.
Threats to personal standing (i.e., violence and/or verbal taunts)
occur presumably after the bully has ascertained that he/she holds a
physical and/or verbal advantage over the victim. It is plausible that
victims who experience threats to their personal standing are unlikely to
be assertive (e.g., by confronting the bully) because the bully in most
cases would arguably have calculated the effect/danger ratio correctly
and the victim is actually vulnerable. In fact, in such a scenario, the
victim would plausibly be more likely to both avoid the bully (e.g.,
absenteeism, or asking for a transfer) and seek formal help (e.g.,
complaining formally by reporting the bully to the line manager or to
Personnel). Based on this rationale, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
Hypothesis 2b: Threat to personal standing will be associated positively
with both avoidance reactions and seeking formal help reactions but
not with assertiveness reactions.
Isolation comprises unreasonable refusals (e.g., for leave, training, or
promotion), withholding necessary information, and ostracism. Victims
are likely to be assertive (e.g., confronting the offender) when faced with
isolation because isolation hinders their ability to perform their jobs
effectively and they have defensible grounds on which to challenge the
bully. The higher the level of isolation the more likely one would be to
deal with the isolation through formal channels (e.g., management)
because isolation impacts negatively upon job performance and there
would presumably be solid evidence that could be used against the bully.
It is likely also that with increasing levels of isolation victims would
attempt to minimize their encounters with the bully through reactions
such as steering clear of the bully, being absent from work, and
ultimately asking for a transfer. Based on these arguments, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2c: Isolation will be associated positively with assertiveness
reactions, avoidance reactions, and with seeking formal help
reactions.
Overwork is task-related and comprises placing undue pressure on
the victim and setting impossible deadlines for the victim. It could be
446
DJURKOVIC, MCCORMACK & CASIMIR
expected that victims who are subjected to overwork will engage in
assertive reactions (e.g., confronting the bully) because by doing so they
gain an opportunity to put forward their case and thereby hopefully
resolve their problems. Overwork implies that the bully has formal
authority over the victim and therefore the victims would also be likely
to voice their complaints to a third party that has formal authority over
the bully (e.g., senior management) or that can provide
information/advice (e.g., Personnel) useful for resolving the issue. It is
unlikely that a victim facing overwork will avoid the bully (e.g.,
absenteeism) because avoidance does not solve the problems associated
with overwork and may in fact compound the effects of overwork.
Based on these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2d: Overwork will be associated positively with both
assertiveness reactions and seeking formal help reactions but not
with avoidance reactions.
Destabilization comprises shifting goalposts without telling the
victims, removing areas of responsibility from the victims, undervaluing
their efforts, and demoralizing them. Victims would most probably react
assertively (e.g., by confronting the bully or by asking them to stop) to
destabilization because destabilization affects their job performance
directly.
Seeking formal help is also a plausible reaction to
destabilization because such bullying includes behaviors that involve the
abuse of formal authority by the bully and, as such, victims would be
likely to report the matter to other formal third parties. It is likely also
that, with increasing levels of destabilization, victims would attempt to
minimize their encounters with the bully by ignoring the bully or being
absent from work. Based on these arguments, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
Hypothesis 2e: Destabilization will be associated positively with
assertiveness reactions, avoidance reactions, and with seeking formal
help reactions.
METHOD
Participants
Data were collected from 127 (71 female, 56 male) university
students who had been employed on either a part-time or full-time basis
during the 12-month period preceding their participation in the study.
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
447
The average age of the participants was 22 years (s.d. = 6.3). The
majority (57%) of respondents indicated that they were employed in the
retail industry. Others were employed as laborers (21%), administrative
staff (17%), or worked in the hospitality industry (5%). Such a sample
has notable characteristics, including being relatively young and having
low-ranking roles, that render them particularly “at risk” of being bullied
(Djurkovic et al., 2004).
Materials
Workplace bullying was measured using Quine’s (1999) scale. A
five-point Likert scale (0 = not at all; 4 = frequently, if not always) was
used instead of the original dichotomous response format because the
Likert format is appropriate for parametric analyses. Based on the five
categories identified by Rayner and Hoel (1997), Quine (1999)
developed a workplace bullying scale comprising five sub-scales: i)
threat to professional status (i.e., professional status); ii) threat to
personal standing (i.e., personal standing); iii) destabilization; iv)
isolation; and v) overwork. The items used from each of these sub-scales
are presented in the appendix. Previous research (e.g., Djurkovic et al.,
2004; Quine, 1999, 2001) has demonstrated the factor structure,
reliability and validity of this scale.
Reactions to bullying were classified according to a three-category
taxonomy (i.e., assertiveness, avoidance, and seeking formal help) that is
presented in Table 3 along with the specific items comprising each
category. The items were obtained from Quine (1999) and categorized
according to Olafsson and Johannsdottir’s (2004) taxonomy, with one
alteration: The “do nothing” category was removed because this category
describes specific types of avoidance, as argued earlier. The frequency
with which victims employ specific reactions to bullying depends not
only on the amount of bullying experienced but also on other factors
such as the efficiency of third parties in dealing with formal complaints
and the bully’s responses to the reactions. Furthermore, this study was
interested primarily in whether victims undertook certain reactions rather
than in how often they employed the reactions. A response format
comprising “yes”, “no”, and “not applicable” was therefore used for the
reaction items.
Procedure
448
DJURKOVIC, MCCORMACK & CASIMIR
Questionnaires were distributed to all students in attendance at class
and those students who had been employed during the last 12 months
were invited to participate in this study. Participants were requested to
deposit their completed questionnaires into a designated box. It was not
possible to calculate the exact response rate given the qualifying
criterion. Based on the total enrolment list for the classes the response
rate was 18 per cent which, on the surface, appears low but it should be
noted that not all enrolled students attend classes and many who were in
attendance did not fulfil the employment criterion. The participants were
informed also that participation was voluntary and that responses would
remain anonymous. No reference was made to “bullying” or “victim” in
the questionnaire, thereby avoiding any biases arising from self-labelling.
RESULTS
The results are presented in four sections. The first section contains
the results of confirmatory factor analyses and internal reliability
analyses that were conducted on the bullying scales. The second section
contains the descriptive statistics for the variables measured in this study.
The third section contains the results of analyses that were conducted to
test the relationships between the various types of bullying and the
different reactions to bullying. The fourth section contains a summary of
the major findings relevant to the hypotheses.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
A principal component analysis was conducted using SPSS on each
of Quine’s (1999) five sub-scales of workplace bullying to examine their
proposed single-factor structures. Confirmatory factor analyses were
then conducted using structural equation modeling in the AMOS
software package to examine further the proposed single-factor structure
of the scales. Five fit indices were used to assess each scale’s factor
structure: i) the non-normed fit index (NNFI), which is an adjusted NFI
that accounts for model complexity when determining the proportional
improvement in fit provided by the hypothesized model relative to a null
model; ii) the comparative fit index (CFI), which is affected less by
sample size than is the NFI; iii) the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), which
indicates the proportion of the observed covariances that is explained by
the model-implied covariances; iv) the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index
(AGFI), which is an adjusted form of the GFI that takes into account
model complexity; and v) the Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR),
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
449
which indicates the amount by which the sample variances and
covariances differ from estimates obtained using the hypothesized
model. In order to demonstrate adequate model fit, the values for NNFI,
CFI, GFI and AGFI should all be greater than .9 while the value of the
RMSR should be less than .1 (Kline, 1998).
The results of the principal components analyses show that for all but
one of the five scales (i.e., Personal Standing), the respective items
loaded strongly onto their respective factors. Close inspection of the
Personal Standing scale revealed that this scale contained items that
address both physical aspects and verbal aspects of bullying. The items
of the Personal Standing scale were divided therefore into two
categories: i) Violence; and ii) Verbal Taunts. One of the items from the
Personal Standing scale (i.e., “verbal and/or non-verbal threats”)
addresses clearly both physical and verbal threats and was removed
therefore from further analyses. The Violence scale comprises two items
whilst the Verbal Taunts scale comprises four items. The appendix
contains the loadings of each item of the bullying sub-scales as per the
results of the principal components analyses.
The fit indices from the confirmatory factor analyses are presented in
Table 1. Fit indices are not provided for Violence, Isolation, or
Overwork because fit indices can be calculated only for factors that
comprise four or more items unless one resorts to using techniques such
as constraining certain variances (e.g., error variances) to be equal. The
results presented in Table 1 indicate satisfactory fit and therefore unidimensionality for Professional Status, Destabilization, and Verbal
Taunts. As shown in Table 1, the fit indices for Personal Standing are
unsatisfactory, which supports the findings obtained from the principal
components analysis.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated for each of the six
bullying scales to assess internal reliability. These are presented in
TABLE 1
Fit Indices for the Bullying Scalesa
Model
Professional Status
Destabilization
2
2.9
1.3
df
2
2
CFI
.99
1.00
NNFI
.98
1.03
GFI
.99
.99
AGFI RMSR
.94
.038
.98
.031
450
DJURKOVIC, MCCORMACK & CASIMIR
Personal Standing
Verbal Taunts
84.6
3.0
14
2
.77
.99
.65
.97
.81
.99
.62
.94
.109
.032
Note: a Fit indices are not provided for the Isolation, Overwork, and Violence
scales due to these scales having insufficient (i.e., < 4) items for
Confirmatory Factor Analyses Using Structural Equation Modeling.
parentheses on the diagonal in Table 2 and, according to Nunnally’s
(1978) .70 criterion, all but one of the scales show satisfactory internal
reliability: Destabilization’s alpha of .65 was marginally unsatisfactory.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 contains the means (standard deviations), correlations, and
internal reliabilities of the variables. Age correlated significantly and
positively with Seeking Formal Help: Older participants were more
likely to seek formal help than younger participants. Gender did not
correlate significantly with any of the variables, which is consistent with
previous findings on gender of the victim and frequency of bullying (e.g.,
Olafsson & Johannsdottir, 2004).
Occupation did not correlate significantly with any of the variables
except for Overwork. A one-way analysis of variance revealed a main
effect for occupation on Overwork {F (3, 123) = 4.2, p < .01)}. Levene’s
test indicated that the homogeneity of variance assumption was
supported {F (3, 123) = .29, p > .05)}. Least Significant Difference tests
TABLE 2
Means (S.D.), Correlations, and Internal Reliabilitiesb for the
Measured Variablesa
1. Age
2. Gender
3. Occupation
4. Professional
Status
5. Destabilization
6. Overwork
7. Isolation
8. Verbal Taunts
9. Violence
Mean S.D. 1
2
3 4 5
21.9 6.3
.14
.39 .00
1.1 0.8 -.06 -.03 .08 .74
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.1
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.5
.09
.16
.04
.08
.08
-.16
-.15
-.01
-.02
.16
.12
.23
.13
.10
.15
.68
.40
.58
.63
.32
.65
.44
.73
.56
.44
6
7
8
9
.77
.29 .71
.26 .48 .73
.20 .37 .47 .89
10 11
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
451
10. Assertiveness
11. Avoidance
12. Seeking
Formal Help
.12 .01 .03 .26 .13 .24 .22 .15 .18
.03 .08 .01 .27 .27 -.03 .28 .38 .34 .17
.24 .06 .15 .14 .16 .12 -.01 .13 .22 .36 .18
Notes: a Significance: r > .18, p < .05; r > .22, p < .01; r > .32, p < .001.
b
Cronbach’s alpha for each scale is presented in italics on the diagonal.
revealed that of the four occupational groups (i.e., administration,
hospitality, laborer, and retail), the administration group reported
significantly higher levels of Overwork than both the retail group (p <
.01) and the laborer group (p < .001). All other differences in Overwork
between the occupational groups were non-significant.
Table 3 shows that more victims reported using Avoidance reactions
than either Assertiveness reactions or Seeking Formal Help reactions.
Hypothesis 1a and Hypothesis 1b are therefore not supported. The most
common reaction was to ignore the offender whilst the least common
was to ask for a transfer. These findings are intuitively rational as
ignoring the offender can arguably be an initial or spontaneous reaction
whilst asking for a transfer would likely be a last resort or one that is at
least considered carefully given the costs associated generally with
relocating (c.f., continuance commitment; Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Previous research in the stress literature (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1991)
has indicated that coping by avoidance is one of the most common ways
of dealing with stressful situations.
Assertiveness reactions, whilst not reported as commonly as ignoring
the offender, were nevertheless reported often. For example, confronting
the bully was a common reaction as was asking the offender to stop. The
TABLE 3
Frequencies (%) of Reactions to Bullying
Victim Reactions
Yes
No
Not
Applicable
Assertiveness
Confront offender
Ask offender(s) to stop
Threaten to report offender
Avoidance
58 (50)
35 (32)
13 (12)
58 (50)
75 (68)
91 (88)
11
17
23
452
Ignore offender(s)
Absence from work
Ask for a transfer
Seeking Formal Help
Report offender to line manager
Report offender to Personnel
Report offender to Union
DJURKOVIC, MCCORMACK & CASIMIR
98 (87)
12 (9)
7 (7)
15 (13) 14
115 (91) 0
95 (93) 25
22 (22)
19 (18)
11 (11)
79 (79)
87 (82)
92 (91)
26
21
24
proportion of victims who reported using Assertiveness reactions in this
study is consistent with those in other studies (e.g., Hoel & Cooper,
2000; Rayner et al., 2002). The frequencies of Seeking Formal Help
reactions were lower than the two other categories of reactions. Previous
studies (e.g., Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Rayner et al., 2002) have reported
similar findings. It is not surprising that these reactions are the least
common, especially with some types and frequencies of bullying,
because one would expect a victim generally to seek formal help (e.g.,
report it to Personnel) only after other reactions (e.g., ignoring or
confronting the offender) have proven to be ineffective.
Bullying and Reactions
As shown in Table 2, Threat to Professional Status had significant
positive correlations with Assertiveness and Avoidance but did not
correlate significantly with Seeking Formal Help, thereby partially
supporting Hypothesis 2a. Verbal Taunts had a significant positive
correlation only with Avoidance whilst Violence had significant positive
correlations with Avoidance and Seeking Formal Help. These findings
support Hypothesis 2b with respect to Violence and support only
partially Hypothesis 2b with respect to Verbal Taunts. Isolation had a
significant positive correlation with Assertiveness and Avoidance but did
not correlate significantly with Seeking Formal Help, thereby supporting
Hypothesis 2c. Overwork had a significant positive correlation with
Assertiveness but did not correlate significantly with either Avoidance or
Seeking Formal Help, thereby partially supporting Hypothesis 2d.
Destabilization had a significant positive correlation with Avoidance but
did not correlate significantly with either Assertiveness or Seeking
Formal Help, thereby partially supporting Hypothesis 2e.
DISCUSSION
The findings of the current study revealed that more victims reported
employing avoidance behaviors than either assertive or seeking formal
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
453
help behaviors. Within the avoidance category, ignoring the offender
was found to be most common. Avoidance is often a successful tactic
for victims to employ: For example, transferring to another work group
within the organization and/or using long-term sick leave (Zapf et al.,
1996). Beyond this, the final possible avoidance reaction is to leave the
organization (Rayner, 1998; Zapf & Gross, 2001), which may carry
significant exit costs for both the victim and the organization.
Avoidance can be considered as a spontaneous and passive reaction
that is less taxing on the victim than the more active or confrontational
reactions of Assertiveness and Seeking Formal Help. Avoidance is used
often by victims when they feel unable to defend themselves (Hogh &
Dofradottir, 2001) and is one of the most common ways for people to
deal with stress (Folkman & Lazarus, 1991). It is notable that Overwork
was the only type of bullying that was not correlated significantly with
Avoidance. A possible explanation for this finding is that Overwork
involves bullying behaviors that place unreasonable work-related
demands on victims and thus victims cannot ignore the bully or be absent
from work as these reactions will not solve the problems created by
Overwork.
Assertiveness involves approaching the bully in a direct attempt to
stop the bullying. Assertiveness was correlated positively with Threat to
Professional Status, Overwork, and Isolation. These types of bullying
include behaviors that are predominantly work-related and, as such,
reduce directly the ability of the victims to perform their jobs, thereby
sanctioning the victims approaching the bullying. Consequently, an
effective way for victims to deal with such bullying would be to
approach the bully and ask him/her to justify his/her behavior or to
threaten to report the bully. Assertiveness was not correlated with
Destabilization, Verbal Taunts or Violence. In contrast to other types of
bullying that are directly work-related (i.e., Threat to Professional Status
and Isolation), Destabilization, Verbal Taunts and Violence are
predominantly personal attacks. This makes it more difficult for the
victims to approach the bully as to do so would require interpersonal
skills that some victims may not possess. Furthermore, approaching the
bully may exacerbate the situation. This argument applies especially to
Verbal Taunts and Violence.
Seeking Formal Help involves reporting the offender to a formal
authority (e.g., Personnel, Union). Violence was the only type of
454
DJURKOVIC, MCCORMACK & CASIMIR
bullying that was associated positively with Seeking Formal Help. A
possible explanation for this finding is that Violence is an extreme and
illegal type of bullying, thereby providing the victim with serious
grounds for lodging a formal complaint. In contrast, the other types of
bullying are arguably more subtle and more difficult to substantiate.
Furthermore, in comparison to violence, the other types of bullying are
generally considered less serious and the perception may be that formal
action is not warranted.
The primary contribution to the literature made by this study is the
demonstration that the type of behavioral reaction employed by victims
is associated with the type of bullying to which they are subjected. There
has been a tendency in the bullying literature to aggregate various types
of bullying and to then use this aggregated bullying dimension when
examining the relationships between bullying and other variables such as
negative affect (e.g., Djurkovic et al., 2004) and workplace conflict
(Ayoko et al., 2003). Future research designs should pay heed to the
finding that different types of bullying are associated with different
behavioral reactions of victims as doing so would facilitate a more
complete understanding of the bullying phenomenon.
It is likely that a bully will inflict a range of bullying behaviors on
any particular victim rather than rely solely on one type of bullying. To
test this proposition, an analysis of the data was conducted. In this
analysis, only those victims who reported being bullied by one
perpetrator were included and Violence was excluded because it is an
extreme and rare type of bullying. The analysis supported the
proposition as the results revealed that, of the 76 victims who reported
being bullied by one person, 28 (i.e., 37%) experienced all five of the
remaining types of bullying.
Even though this study did not examine the sequencing of different
reactions to bullying, the findings are inconsistent with the suggestion of
Zapf and Gross (2001) that victims tend to rely initially on problemsolving tactics and use avoidance or social support only if the problemsolving approach proves to be unsuccessful. The methodology employed
in the current study does not allow for a direct test of Zapf and Gross’s
(2001) suggestion; nevertheless, there is evidence from the current study
that is inconsistent with their suggestion. Specifically, of the 38 victims
who did not use Assertiveness or Seek Formal Help reactions, 32 (i.e.,
84%) used Avoidance, thereby indicating that for these 32 victims, who
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
455
represent 25 per cent of the total sample, Avoidance was their first and
only reaction to bullying.
Practical Implications of the Findings
The findings of this study have implications for practice. It is, in a
sense, alarming that avoidance is the most common response to bullying
and that none of the bullying types, with the exception of violence, was
associated with seeking formal help. One inference that can be drawn
from this set of findings is that the victims in this study had little
confidence that their management or other third parties (e.g., Personnel)
would resolve their bullying issues. This finding highlights the need for
management to receive training in the prevention of bullying and in how
to deal effectively with bullying. Strategies for the prevention of
bullying must include the creation of an anti-bullying culture by, for
example, conveying explicitly via formal statements and policies the
organization’s zero-tolerance for workplace bullying. An anti-bullying
culture can be created also by decisive action and appropriate penalties
(e.g., formal warning or dismissal) for non-compliance.
A major responsibility of management is to provide a safe and nonthreatening workplace for employees. In doing this, the emphasis should
be on prevention rather than on intervention. Some useful lessons on
how to deal with bullying may be learned from the way in which sexual
harassment has been addressed in many organizations. Factors such as
the increased attention given by the media to sexual harassment have
rendered this behavior salient to the public and this has arguably led to
sexual harassment being taken seriously in many organizations. It is
suggested here that greater public awareness of bullying and the serious
consequences that bullying holds for perpetrators is necessary but not
sufficient for effectively countering bullying.
Most importantly,
management need to display their commitment to combating bullying by
ensuring there are formal definitions of bullying as well as policies and
guidelines specific to bullying. Furthermore, management need to
inform all staff regarding the definitions of and policies on bullying, and
to inform them of the processes for lodging complaints. Management
must also deal expeditiously with any complaints and impose serious
penalties where appropriate. Negligence with respect to dealing with
bullying or not taking appropriate action when informed of bullying
would negatively impact the organization by signalling to employees that
456
DJURKOVIC, MCCORMACK & CASIMIR
management either tolerate bullying or are not serious about dealing with
bullying.
Avenues external to the organization must also be made available to
victims for lodging their bullying complaints. Previous research has
shown that the offender is most often someone who is in a managerial
position (e.g., Rayner et al., 2002). It may be the case that the relevant
internal party to whom the victim should report the bullying (e.g., the
victim’s manager) is in fact the bully or a close associate of the bully. In
such situations, the victim’s complaint may not be taken seriously or
investigated objectively because of a conflict of interest.
Limitations
A limitation of the current study is the nature of the sample. The
sample comprised university students who were predominantly young,
part-time employees and who presumably held low-level positions in
their organizational hierarchies. Their experiences of bullying and their
reactions to bullying provide valuable insights to the bullying
phenomenon. These findings, however, may not be generalizable to
different levels of organizations or to different types of employees.
Direct comparisons of the findings of this study with previous research
are rendered difficult because of differences in sample characteristics and
in measures of bullying and reactions. The samples in most other studies
comprised mainly full-time employees with mean ages ranging from 35
years to 44 years and, as discussed earlier, various measures of bullying
and reactions have been used by researchers.
The data collected for the current study were entirely self-reported.
A problem that may occur when using such a method is that validation is
difficult. Furthermore, all of the data were collected from a single
source. A possible consequence of this methodology is the accentuation
of the correlations examined. It would be useful to include a
supplementary source of data – for example, absenteeism data and
personnel records – to verify and corroborate the findings obtained from
the participants. It should be noted, however, that the perceptions of
victims are a cornerstone of bullying research because people react
according to their perceptions (e.g., Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hunt,
1991). Perceptions of organizational behavior are also vital for a better
understanding of organizational functioning (Peterson, 1985). Hence,
multi-rater data may arguably be inappropriate because bullying is in the
eye of the beholder.
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
457
The cross-sectional design of the study may also be considered to be
a limitation. A longitudinal design would provide further evidence on
the relationships between bullying and the reactions of victims. A
longitudinal approach would, for example, shed light on how victims
sequence various reactions and on how they adjust their reactions
according to situational factors such as the effectiveness of formal
intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
The major aim of this study was to examine whether different types
of bullying were associated with different reactions of victims and the
results demonstrated that this was the case. Aggregating either bullying
behaviours or the reactions of victims oversimplifies the relationship
between bullying and the reactions of victims and causes a loss of
information that obscures understanding of the nature of the relationship.
The disaggregation of both bullying and reactions of victims into
constituents is vital not only for theory development, in that the
relationships between specific bullying behaviors and the specific
reactions of victims can be examined more closely, but also for the
design of effective policies to counter this ubiquitous problem.
REFERENCES
Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2003). “Workplace
Conflict, Bullying, and Counterproductive Behaviors.” International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11: 283-301.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1994). “Sex Differences
in Covert Aggression among Adults.” Aggressive Behavior, 20: 2733.
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2004). “The Physical and
Psychological Effects of Workplace Bullying on Intention to Leave:
A Test of the Psychosomatic and Disability Hypotheses.”
International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 7: 469497.
458
DJURKOVIC, MCCORMACK & CASIMIR
Einarsen, S. (1999). “The Nature and Causes of Bullying at Work.”
International Journal of Manpower, 20: 16-27.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). “The Concept
of Bullying at Work: The European Tradition.” In S. Einarsen, H.
Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse
in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice
(pp. 3-30). London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2003). “Individual Effects of Exposure
to Bullying at Work.” In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L.
Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:
International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 127-144).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. (1997). “Harassment at Work and The
Victimization of Men.” Violence and Victims, 12: 247-263.
Folkman, S. (1982). “An Approach to the Measurement of Coping.”
Journal of Occupational Behavior, 3: 95-107.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. (1991). “Coping and Emotion.” In A. Monat
& R. S. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (3rd ed., pp.
207-227). New York: Columbia University Press.
Hackman, J., & Lawler, E. (1971). “Employee Reactions to Job
Characteristics.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 55: 259-286.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work.
Unpublished report, University of Manchester Institute of Science
and Technology, U.K.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). “Workplace Bullying.” In
C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 195-230).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Hogh, A., & Dofradottir, A. (2001). “Coping with Bullying in the
Workplace.” European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology. 10: 485-495.
Hunt, J. G. (1991). Leadership: A new synthesis. London: Sage.
Kline, R. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling. New York: The Guildford Press.
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
459
Leymann, H. (1990). “Mobbing and Psychological
Workplaces.” Violence and Victims, 5: 119-126.
Terror
at
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory,
research and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Olafsson, R., & Johannsdottir, H. (2004). “Coping with Bullying in the
Workplace: The Effect of Gender, Age and Type of Bullying.”
British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32: 319-333.
Peterson, M. F. (1985). “Experienced Acceptability: Measuring
Perceptions of Dysfunctional Leadership.” Group and Organization
Studies, 10: 447-477.
Quine, L. (1999). “Workplace Bullying in NHS Community Trust: Staff
Questionnaire Survey.” British Medical Journal, 318: 228-232.
Quine, L. (2001). “Workplace Bullying in Nurses.” Journal of Health
Psychology, 6: 73-84.
Rayner, C. (1998). “Workplace Bullying: Do Something!” Journal of
Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New Zealand, 14:
581-585.
Rayner, C., & Hoel, H. (1997). “A Summary Review of Literature
Relating to Workplace Bullying.” Journal of Community and
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? London: Taylor
& Francis.
Rentsch, J. R. (1990). “Climate and Culture: Interaction and Qualitative
Differences in Organizational Meanings.” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75: 668-681.
Vartia, M. (2001). “Consequences of Workplace Bullying with Respect
to the Well-Being of its Targets and the Observers of Bullying.”
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 27: 63-69.
460
DJURKOVIC, MCCORMACK & CASIMIR
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). “Conflict Escalation and Coping with
Workplace Bullying: A Replication and Extension.” European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10: 497-522.
Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). “On the Relationship between
Mobbing Factors and Job Content, Social Work Environment, and
Health Outcomes.” European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5: 215-237.
APPENDIX
The Bullying Scales
Loading
Threat to Professional Status
Persistent attempts to belittle and undermine your work.
Persistent and unjustified criticism and monitoring of your work.
Persistent attempts to humiliate you in front of your colleagues.
Intimidatory use of discipline or competence procedures.
Isolation
Withholding necessary information from you.
Freezing out, ignoring, or excluding you.
Unreasonable refusals for leave, training, or promotion.
Overwork
Undue pressure to produce work.
Setting of impossible deadlines.
Destabilization
Shifting of goal posts without telling you.
Constant undervaluing of your efforts.
Persistent attempts to demoralize you.
Removal of areas of responsibility without consultation.
Violence
Physical violence.
Violence to property.
Verbal Taunts
Undermining your personal integrity.
Destructive innuendo and sarcasm.
Making inappropriate jokes about you.
.84
.74
.75
.65
.83
.77
.79
.90
.90
.69
.81
.57
.73
.95
.95
.82
.63
.79
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF
WORKPLACE BULLYING
461
Persistent teasing.
.74