BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORKPLACE BULLYING
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATION THEORY AND BEHAVIOR, 8 (4), 439-460 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.
Copyright ? 2005 by PrAcademics Press
BEHAVIORAL REACTIONS OF VICTIMS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF WORKPLACE BULLYING
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) 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 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.
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:
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: