Analysis of Workplace Bullying - Essay Example

"The quality of an organisation can never exceed the quality of the minds that make it up." - Harold R. McAlindon (1999) The Little Book of Big Ideas Workplace bullying and harassment has been an important topic of research in industrialised societies since the 1980s (Einarson & Matheison, 2004; Giga & Hoel, 2004). Bullying, emotional abuse and workplace harassment are a critical social issue that has a prominent position within public discourse, and influences professional, scientific and political communities. Workplace interpersonal hostility can dramatically impact on employee job satisfaction and well being, for victims, bullies and bystanders (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001). Further, workplace bullying can incur high costs for organisations due to increases in employee absenteeism, high turnover over personnel, and decreased employee motivation and productivity, and perhaps even poor publicity for the organisation (Hoel, Einarsen & Cooper, 2003). Subsequently, effects in the wider community can include lower production, early retirements and an increase in the costs of health care services. Globally, nations are implementing laws to promote dignity within the workplace, and to ban a range of forms of workplace harassment (Giga & Hoel, 2004). However, actual research of how best to ascertain the presence and degree of workplace bullying within an organisation remains contentious. This paper will explore the suitability of using survey instruments to understand the organisational context of workplace bullying. First the background of workplace bullying shall be outlined. Second a literature review of survey instruments used shall be presented, with a focus on the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ). Strengths and weaknesses of the survey instrument shall also be identified. The conclusion will resolve the question of survey question suitability, and also provide recommendations for future research. Background of workplace bullying There are various forms of workplace bullying that can be broadly categorized into two main types: 1) work-related and 2) person-related. Work-related bullying is indicated by constant criticism, not being provided with information, and excessive monitoring. Person-related bullying can include being subject to insults, teasing, false allegations, rumors, social exclusion, humiliation and or intimidation (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001; Knott, 2004). Bullying, whether in the workplace or elsewhere, is about power in social relationships, or more specifically, power differences (Hoel & Cooper, 2000). Within the workplace, bullying may also be referred to as mobbing, workplace aggression, petty tyranny or victimization (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield & Allen, 1999). Ultimately, workplace bullying is repetitive, persists over time, and results in a hostile work environment (Hoel & Cooper, 2000). The antecedents to workplace bullying vary across organisations and departments within organisations, however, studies point to the values of the organisational culture, the representation of these values in policies, and the roles, and task demands of employees as primary factors (Hoel & Cooper, 2000). The direct consequence of workplace bullying has been shown to be increased stress and negative responses from some employees (Giga & Hoel, 2004). Conceptual issues of how to define and measure workplace bullying in order to understand it are dominant research areas currently (Knott, 2004). Studies show that a failure to address issues of workplace bullying places organisations at risk of increasing costs due to sick leave, compensation and a tarnished public image (Hoel & Cooper, 2000). Literature suggests a focus on the psychosocial aspects of the workplace as potential antecedents and prevention variables (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, 2003). There is a current emphasis on the use of survey instruments to identify and measure bullying within the workplace adequately account for the organisational context. However there is a lack of literature exploring the efficiency of survey instruments to understand the organisational context of workplace bullying. Background of Survey Instruments Survey instruments are a popular research tool in psychology, sociology, human resources, education and other disciplines (Neill, 2004). The strengths of a survey are their ease of administration, and can be printed as a hard copy, used within an interview context, or be presented over the Internet. Importantly, surveys allow self-report of the respondent for cognitive and psychosocial variables that could not easily be measured otherwise (i.e., attitudes, beliefs, values, perceived behaviours) (Neill, 2004). They also allow a positivist approach to the research process in that a hypothesis can be tested, and as they allow collection of data they contribute to inductive reasoning and critique. However, surveys do have their limitations, namely that they tend to be retrospective, increase the likelihood of subjective bias, the length can decrease accuracy yet many questions enhance reliability and validity (Neill, 2004). Also, a well-constructed survey requires pilot testing and statistical checks that take time, and may limit sample options (Neill, 2004). As well, it is often necessary that the survey be provided in the respondent's first language so as to control for misinterpretation of questions, once again this may limit the sample. Background of Workplace Bullying Survey Instruments The purpose of the survey in measuring workplace bullying is to gather quantitative data such as job satisfaction, organisational identification, intention to leave employment, and workplace bullying prevalence (Barker, Cameron, McCarthy, Sheehan, Mayhey, & Manning, 2002). Currently, there is no standard measure of bullying within the workplace (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001). However, one survey that is used extensively is the Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ) (Einarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen, 1994), recently revised as the NAQ-R (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001). The NAQ was designed to measure employee perceptions of their exposure to bullying and victimization (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001). The survey has questions constructed in behavioural terms so that there is no direct reference to the term bullying, until at the end of the survey within the context of an open question to disclose personal experiences. The reliability and construct validity of the NAQ are satisfactory, and it has high internal consistency, ranging from .87 to .93 (Cronbach's alpha). The NAQ also has reported correlations with measures of job-satisfaction (r = -.24 to r = -.44), with measures of psychological health and well being (r = -.31 to -.52), and with measures of psychosomatic complaints (r = . 32) (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001). Griffith University in Queensland, Australia, conducted a Work Environment Study using the NAQ-R. On completion of the questionnaire, some respondents also participated in a face-to-face interview so that more in-depth knowledge about the nature of bullying within the workplace could be obtained (Barker et al., 2002). Results indicated high rates of absenteeism, unproductive work roles and tasks and extended lengths of time being used to carry out tasks. It was also determined that many staffs were unaware that other staff perceived their behaviour as bullying. It also appeared that the core values of the University were not salient in their objection to bullying as an acceptable behaviour. Policies regarding recruitment and personal assessment did not adequately emphasise people management skills. High workloads were not being investigated as a priority issue, and there were a lack of communication strategies to raise awareness of workplace bullying and to provide contacts for available support. Additionally, it was indicated that the role of Head of Schools needed to be re-clarified, and appointment require demonstrated leadership, support and people management. The results show that the NAQ was able to measure contextual variables of the organisation, such as university values and policies, roles of senior employees, and aspects of work requirements. However, only the roles of the Heads of Schools were commented upon in the report, so it is unknown if other senior roles provided leadership that was not conducive to bullying. Within a university environment there are numerous leadership roles, such as lecturer, primary investigator, Administration manager and tutorial coordinator. It seems unlikely that these roles did not also experience tendencies of not providing support to staff or lack of people management skills. Also, specific aspects of an employee's role that were unsatisfactory were not identified. Salin (2003) points out that role conflict has been associated with workplace bullying, in that employees perceive a contradiction in their role expectations and demands. Also, role ambiguity has been associated with workplace bullying, when the employee is uncertain about their role expectations and demands. Both of these variables have been found to increase the likelihood of the employee perceiving himself or herself as victimized by a demanding supervisor (Salin, 2003). Another study of workplace bullying, using the NAQ-R, investigated 300 participants across 5 organisations in the United Kingdom (Giga & Hoel, 2004). Within a focus group each participant individually reviewed the list of negative acts from the NAQ-R, and indicated the degree of difficulty they would have dealing with the behaviours. They were also encouraged to list behaviours that they perceived as negative but were not on the NAQ-R list. Results indicated that participants overall found person-related comments the most difficult to deal with, with humiliation, social exclusion and personal allegations and constant criticism being rated the highest. High workloads and time pressures were frequently indicated as organisational factors that were conducive to bullying. It was concluded that the NAQ-R is able to determine organisational areas where bullying may be an issue, if bullying is salient. The study by Giga and Hoel suggests that a large sample may be required to adequately measure organisational contextual variables conducive to workplace bullying. However, the survey did prove useful across a variety of organisations, including police forces, the NHS Trust and central government departments. The study's primary limitation is that it does not offer insight into the participant's perceptions of their organisational cultures, and so there is a lack of support for the NAQ-R's ability to extend understanding of the norms of their wok environments (Salin, 2003). Some organisations are reliant on jokes and banter as a form of "tough management" to test new member ability to conform to shared workplace norms (Salin, 2003). A more recent study of workplace bullying using the NAQ investigated staff of Correctional Services in South Australia (Knott, 2004). The exploratory case study found that 42.8% of respondents indicated that they experienced some form of bullying. The most frequently reported negative acts were: offensive language (M = 2.33, SD = 1.59), withholding information (M = 2.03, SD = 1.21), opinions ignored (M =1.90, SD = 1.00), gossip & rumors (M = 1.81, SD = 1.04), being humiliated (M = 1.71, SD = 1.06), being insulted (M = 1.71, SD = 1.09), being reminded of errors (M =1.64, SD = .95), and having their responsibility removed (M = 1.65, SD = 1.05). Overwhelmingly 68.4% of participants indicated that they took part in some form of bullying towards their colleagues. Knott concluded that her results could contribute positively to interventions within the workplace, and also needed to consider the impact on employee self-esteem. The results of Knott focused predominantly on the person-related experiences of the participants. This may be due to the nature of the work, wherein correctional employees are typically employed as guards. Due to the nature of their work it may be that person-related variables are more salient. Overall, as over half the sample indicated that they participated in bullying behaviours within the workplace, and over two-thirds reported that they were also victimized, it can be assumed that bullying is an organisational norm within the correction services of South Australia. There are numerous limitations to the NAQ and NAQ-R as an instrument to extend understanding of the organisational context of workplace bullying. Importantly, it appears that while the instrument can provide a broad insight into organisational practices, such as values and culture, roles of executives and job satisfaction, it does lack specificity into these areas. Hence, it would be beneficial if survey instruments were to continue to be used that they be fine tuned to increase their sensitivity to a wider range of variables, such as role expectation and role ambiguity (Giga & Hoel, 2004; Salin, 2003). As there is only one open question, the survey lacks the balance of qualitative input that could provide fuller details, and a more in-depth insight into bullying and victimization experiences (Salin, 2003). Currently, very few studies incorporate a qualitative component, or rely on a qualitative design to investigate workplace bullying (Salin, 2003). Hence, there is limited availability of true subjective responses, as participants must generalize their response to one of four "anchors" (i.e. 0 = not at all difficult to 3 = very difficult). Additionally, it is difficult from the predominantly quantitative nature of the NAQ to determine specific patterns and occurrences of escalation. Also, the cross-sectional nature of the data does hinder the ability to differentiate antecedents and consequences of workplace bullying (Salin, 2003). Also, the NAQ-R doe not enquire into demographic variables such as age, gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status to add to possible antecedents. As well, it is not convenient to provide broad ratings of severity of individual perceptions of negative behaviour, as in the real world these vary considerably across organisations and demographic groups, and within departments (Giga & Hoel, 2004). As such, it may be more useful to design a survey that uses a longer scale to increase its sensitivity, and to provide more realistic response options for participants. There are also numerous strengths of the NAQ-R. Notably is that the survey does incorporate both qualitative and quantitative data, although only slightly. As the Griffith Work Environment Study found, the incorporation of a one-to-one interview greatly enhanced insight into the nature of the bullying that was occurring throughout their work environment, and provided much more scope for participants to explore their experiences and perceptions. Another advantage of the NAQ and NAQ-R is that the survey does not explicitly enquire into bullying or victimization, and so decreases the likelihood of respondent bias, especially in the way of demand characteristics. This could be a factor in the survey having high internal constancy and validity (Neill, 2004). The survey also allows for large amounts of data to be collected easily, and so lends itself to be generalized well (Salin, 2003). As such, it is can be used across cultures, as well as across organisations. Currently, the developers of the NAQ-R are collecting data globally o consolidate into norm-data and enable better comparison of results cross-culturally, and across industries (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001). In conclusion, survey instruments such as the NAQ and NAQ-R can provide better understanding of the organisational context of workplace bullying. This is due in part to its combination of qualitative and quantitative design, and also to its good reliability and validity ratings. As well, the survey tends not to skew results by not directly referring to bullying or victimization behaviours in its questions, apart from the final open question. It can be responded to by a side range of industries and across departments of an organisation. And the surveys can provide insight into contextual organisational variables such as organisational culture, job satisfaction, and perceptions of leadership of senior employees. However, the surveys do not provide in-depth insights into the subjective experiences of participants due to its dominant quantitative design. Also, the limited choices in responses tend to rate participants severity of experience in a generic manner. It is recommended that future research studies focus review of the cross-cultural, age and gender differences of the surveys to contribute to normative data benchmarks. Overall, the NAQ and NAQ-R are valid and reliable research tools that allow investigation of workplace bullying to better understand not only organisational variables, but also how to design more sensitive and insightful instruments. It is anticipated that this present paper will contribute to the collaborative effort of research studies to wards better understanding of workplace bullying. References Barker, M., Cameron, H., McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M., Mayhey, C. & Manning, D. (2002) The Griffith Work Environment Study Project, Retrieved April 24th, 2006 from www.griffith.edu.au/equity/doc/wesp_report.doc Einarsen, S. & Hoel, H. (2001) The negative acts questionnaire: Development, validation and revision of a measure of bullying at work. Paper presented at the 10th. European Congress on Work and Organisational Psychology, Prague. 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), Taylor & Francis. Einarsen, S. & Matthiesen, S. B. (2004) Victimisation from bullying at work: We need to understand the process, Occupational Health Psychologist, 1 (1), 4. Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., Matthiesen, B. (1994) Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study, European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 4(4), 381-401. Giga, S. I. & Hoel, H. (2004) Development of a framework for assessing risks relating to workplace bullying, Proceedings from the 4th International Conference on Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace, Bergen, Norway Hoel, H. & Cooper, C. L. (2000) Victims of workplace bullying, In H. Kemshall & J. Pritchard (Eds) Good practice in working with victims of violence, (pp.101-118), Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Hoel, H. Einarsen, S. & Cooper, C. L. (2003) Organisational effects of bullying, 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. 145-161), Taylor and Francis. Knott, V. (2004) Moving forward: From issues of prevalence and definition towards a focus on intervention and evaluation, incorporating an exploration of social- cognitive models of behaviour change, Proceedings from the 4th International Conference on Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace, Bergen, Norway. Mikkelsen, E. G. & Einarsen, S. (2001) Bullying in Danish worklife: Prevalence and health correlates, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, pp. 393-414. Neill, J. (2004) How to choose tools, instruments, & questionnaires for intervention research & evaluation, Retrieved April 14th, 2006 from http://www.wilderdom.com/tools/ToolsHowChoose.html Salin, D. (2003 Workplace bullying among business professionals. Report No. 117, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration Read More