Search results

1 – 3 of 3
Per page
102050
Citations:
Loading...
Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 9 August 2022

Eva Zedlacher and Allison Snowden

Organizational practitioners must often interpret accounts of workplace bullying. However, they are frequently reluctant to confirm the target's account and often fail to set…

515

Abstract

Purpose

Organizational practitioners must often interpret accounts of workplace bullying. However, they are frequently reluctant to confirm the target's account and often fail to set effective intervention measures. Building on novel approaches in attribution theory, this study explores how causal explanations and blame pattern shape the labelling of a complaint and the subsequent recommended intervention measures.

Design/methodology/approach

187 Austrian human resource professionals, employee representatives and other practitioners were confronted with a fictional workplace bullying complaint including conflicting actors' accounts and diverse possible internal, relational and external causes. Since the prior low performance of a target might affect blame attributions, the previous performance ratings of the target were manipulated. Data were analysed via qualitative content analysis.

Findings

When respondents reject the complaint, they predominately identify single internal causes and blame the target, and/or trivialize the complaint as “normal conflict”. Both low and high performance of the target trigger (single) internal blame. When the complaint is supported, deontic statements and blame attributions against the perpetrator prevail; however, blame placed on the perpetrator is often discounted via multi-blame attributions towards supervisors, colleagues and the target. Structural causes were rarely mentioned. Relational attributions are infrequent and often used to trivialize the complaint. Irrespective of the attributional blame patterns, most third parties recommend “reconciliatory measures” (e.g. mediation) between the actors.

Practical implications

Trainings to temper single internal blaming and raise awareness of organizational intervention measures are essential.

Originality/value

This is the first study to investigate workplace bullying blaming patterns and organizational responses in detail.

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 11 July 2018

Denise Salin, Renee Cowan, Oluwakemi Adewumi, Eleni Apospori, Jaime Bochantin, Premilla D’Cruz, Nikola Djurkovic, Katarzyna Durniat, Jordi Escartín, Jing Guo, Idil Išik, Sabine T. Koeszegi, Darcy McCormack, Silvia Inés Monserrat and Eva Zedlacher

The purpose of this paper is to analyze cross-national and cross-cultural similarities and differences in perceptions and conceptualizations of workplace bullying among human…

4592

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyze cross-national and cross-cultural similarities and differences in perceptions and conceptualizations of workplace bullying among human resource professionals (HRPs). Particular emphasis was given to what kind of behaviors are considered as bullying in different countries and what criteria interviewees use to decide whether a particular behavior is bullying or not.

Design/methodology/approach

HRPs in 13 different countries/regions (n=199), spanning all continents and all GLOBE cultural clusters (House et al., 2004), were interviewed and a qualitative content analysis was carried out.

Findings

Whereas interviewees across the different countries largely saw personal harassment and physical intimidation as bullying, work-related negative acts and social exclusion were construed very differently in the different countries. Repetition, negative effects on the target, intention to harm, and lack of a business case were decision criteria typically used by interviewees across the globe – other criteria varied by country.

Practical implications

The results help HRPs working in multinational organizations understand different perceptions of negative acts.

Originality/value

The findings point to the importance of cultural factors, such as power distance and performance orientation, and other contextual factors, such as economy and legislation for understanding varying conceptualizations of bullying.

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 5 September 2022

Saima Ahmad, Talat Islam, Premilla D'Cruz and Ernesto Noronha

Adapting a positive business ethics framework, the purpose of this paper is to offer a new perspective to manage bullying at work. Specifically, this paper reports an empirical…

2186

Abstract

Purpose

Adapting a positive business ethics framework, the purpose of this paper is to offer a new perspective to manage bullying at work. Specifically, this paper reports an empirical study which examines how the good work of servant leadership may lower employees’ exposure to workplace bullying, with compassion as a mediator and social cynicism beliefs (SCBs) as a moderator.

Design/methodology/approach

Survey data were gathered from 337 essential health professionals working in various public and private health-care organisations in Pakistan. Structural equation modelling was used to test the research model.

Findings

This study found that perceived servant leadership helps in lessening employee exposure to workplace bullying by strengthening their compassion. However, SCBs moderate the mediating role of compassion in employees’ perceptions of the servant leadership–bullying relationship.

Research limitations/implications

This study has implications in developing models of leadership to build employees’ empathetic resources to combat workplace bullying. The authors found that servant leadership and workplace compassion, embodying positive, ethical and sustainable attributes, play a crucial role in managing bullying at work by promoting relational dignity.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that examines the relationships between employee perceptions of servant leadership, workplace bullying and employee compassion while considering SCBs as a boundary condition.

Details

International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 34 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1044-4068

Keywords

1 – 3 of 3
Per page
102050