Nikola Djurkovic, Darcy McCormack, Helge Hoel and Denise Salin
The purpose of this paper is to examine the perspectives of human resource professionals (HRPs) and employee representatives (ERs) on the role of HRPs in managing workplace…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the perspectives of human resource professionals (HRPs) and employee representatives (ERs) on the role of HRPs in managing workplace bullying.
Design/methodology/approach
Individual interviews were conducted with 12 HRPs and five ERs from a wide range of industries. Interview questions were open-ended and sought to gain insight on the views of the individual interviewees.
Findings
The findings address the role of HRPs in bullying scenarios and in the prevention of bullying. Regarding the role of HRPs in bullying, the responses of the participants suggest confusion and ambiguity, with a variety of roles being described ranging from a support-based role through to a protector of management. The participants also noted the importance of the HRP task of policy development, while a distrust of HRPs in bullying scenarios was mentioned. Regarding the effective management and prevention of bullying, the findings demonstrate that HRPs are viewed as having a central role through their particular responsibilities of creating and nurturing a positive organisational culture, as well as through engaging employees in the development of anti-bullying policies.
Practical implications
HRPs believe that they can contribute significantly to reducing workplace bullying through organisational culture (including educating staff and as role models of behaviour) and by engaging staff in the design of anti-bullying policies.
Originality/value
This paper contributes to the literature on workplace bullying by examining within the Australian context the perspectives of HRPs and ERs on how HRPs can prevent and manage workplace bullying.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to argue that bullying is a gendered, rather than gender‐neutral, phenomenon.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to argue that bullying is a gendered, rather than gender‐neutral, phenomenon.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper reviews empirical findings on gender and bullying and identifies and discusses theoretical frameworks that can provide explanations for identified gender differences.
Findings
The paper shows that there are gender differences not only in reported prevalence rates and forms of bullying, but that gender also matters for the way targets and third parties make sense of and respond to bullying. It is shown that gendered conceptions of power, gender role socialisation theory and social identity theory are all relevant for explaining reported gender differences.
Research limitations/implications
The theoretical frameworks that have been selected should not be seen as exhaustive, but rather as useful examples. The authors encourage researchers in the field of bullying to pursue cross‐disciplinary research and actively apply existing theoretical frameworks to integrate their findings more firmly in existing research on related themes.
Practical implications
The finding that bullying is gendered rather than gender‐neutral has implications above all for the way managers, organisational representatives and policy‐makers should address and prevent workplace bullying.
Originality/value
The paper questions the prevailing notion that bullying is gender‐neutral and demonstrates the importance of gender in the experience of workplace bullying. It further identifies gaps in research and puts forward an agenda for future research in this area.
Details
Keywords
Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf and Cary L Cooper
This chapter explores the relationship between workplace bullying and occupational stress. Initially the concept of bullying and its defining features are introduced. Following a…
Abstract
This chapter explores the relationship between workplace bullying and occupational stress. Initially the concept of bullying and its defining features are introduced. Following a brief discussion of bullying and the stress process, an examination of possible stressors as antecedents of bullying is undertaken. Drawing on the empirical evidence available, individual and organizational effects and outcomes of bullying are described. Attention is also paid to the relationship between bullying and the coping process. It is concluded that, despite the fact that evidence is often sparse, a substantial body of research emerged within less than a decade, providing sufficient evidence to suggest that bullying is an important psychosocial hazard in the workplace with very substantial negative implications for individuals and organizations alike. Some methodological concerns are discussed and implications for future research highlighted.
Arpana Rai and Upasna A. Agarwal
During the past 26 years, there has been a phenomenal growth in the literature on workplace bullying. The purpose of this paper is to review and synthesize the extant empirical…
Abstract
Purpose
During the past 26 years, there has been a phenomenal growth in the literature on workplace bullying. The purpose of this paper is to review and synthesize the extant empirical studies on underlying and intervening mechanisms in antecedents–bullying and bullying–outcomes relationships.
Design/methodology/approach
In total, 53 studies on mediators and moderators in antecedents–bullying and bullying–outcomes relationships (2001-2016) were selected from academic databases (Google Scholar, Research Gate, Emerald Insight, Science Direct, etc.)
Findings
The review suggests that while a reasonable number of studies examine the role of mediators and moderators in bullying–outcomes relationships, such efforts are meager in antecedents–bullying relationships. The paper concludes by proposing some potential variables that can explain the underlying mechanisms in the bullying phenomenon and alleviate/aggravate the antecedents–bullying–outcomes relationships.
Originality/value
To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first review on mediators and moderators of workplace bullying.
Details
Keywords
Patrick John Bruce, Victor Hrymak, Carol Bruce and Joseph Byrne
The purpose of this study is to provide evidence to support an emerging theory that interpersonal conflict is the primary cause of workplace stress among a self-selected sample of…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide evidence to support an emerging theory that interpersonal conflict is the primary cause of workplace stress among a self-selected sample of Irish construction managers.
Design/methodology/approach
Eighteen construction managers working in Ireland were recruited for this study. Using semi-structured interviews and interpretative phenomenological analysis as the research methodology, the causes of their workplace stress were investigated.
Findings
Participants reported that the principal cause of their workplace stress was high levels of interpersonal conflict between colleagues. The effects of this interpersonal conflict included avoidance behaviour, ill health, absences from the workplace and loss of productivity issues. Deadlines, penalty clauses, lack of appreciation, cliques, costs, communication, temporary contracts and delays were also reported stressors.
Research limitations/implications
A limitation of the study is the small sample of 18 construction managers and the limited geographical area.
Social implications
The social implications of this study could be to clearly identify that interpersonal conflict may be under reported in the construction industry, and there is a possibility that it is being misclassified as other workplace behaviours such as bullying, harassment and workplace violence. If this is so, this could aid future researchers in addressing this challenging workplace behaviour.
Originality/value
The current consensus in the literature is that the three main causes of workplace stress are bullying, harassment and violence. However, the role and importance of interpersonal conflict as reported in this study, with the exception of North America and China, is not reflected in the wider health and safety research literature. In addition, interpersonal conflict and its reluctance to be reported is largely absent from construction safety research. The findings of this study may be explained if the workplace stress research community is currently misclassifying interpersonal conflict as a manifestation of bullying, harassment or violence. If this is the case, interpersonal conflict needs further research. This is to establish if this cause of construction-related workplace stress needs to be reconsidered as a standalone phenomenon in the wider family of challenging workplace behaviours.