Problem of Workplace Bullying - Essay Example

THE PROBLEM OF WORKPLACE BULLYING Critically evaluate the role that structured questionnaires play in research on workplace bullying. Within thepast several decades, wide-ranging transformations have occurred in the work environment in many Western countries. The said changes were also mirrored in the risks that employees were exposed to at work and in the conceptualisations of what were seen as a 'good working environment.' More and more prominence was placed on the psychosocial work environment and on violence prevention. For instance, the prevention of harassment and interpersonal hostility in the workplace is becoming increasingly significant to both managers and organisational researchers (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf and Cooper 2003; Neuman and Baron 1998). Interest in the prevention of harassment and interpersonal hostility in the workplace is largely triggered by the reality that an increasing quantity of research investigations point to extreme adverse consequences associated with such phenomena. For example, interpersonal hostility may have deleterious effects on both the job satisfaction and well-being of victims (Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001; Tepper 2000; Ashforth 1997; Einarsen and Raknes 1997). What is more, interpersonal hostility may also lead to high costs for organisations, in the form of increased absenteeism and higher turnover of personnel, decreased commitment and productivity, and negative publicity (Hoel, Einarsen and Cooper 2003; Tepper 2000). For society as a whole, this may lead to lower productivity, early retirements and increased health costs. As a consequence, many nations have adopted or are planning to adopt laws promoting dignity at work or banning different forms of work harassment. Workplace violence and bullying has been identified as a vital concern by trade unions in Britain and in many countries for several years now. As it is, many reports have vividly demonstrated the pain, psychological distress, physical illness and career damage suffered by victims of bullying, however, academic research began only recently. The most developed research comes from Scandinavia (Vartia 1996; Niedl 1996), where there is strong public awareness; government funded research, and established anti-bullying legislation. Bullying presents significant methodological problems for researchers. A crucial difficulty is that of definition as no clear agreement exists on what constitutes adult bullying. Although physical bullying is seldom reported, the workplace presents opportunities for a wide range of menacing schemes and devices. Five classifications of bullying behaviour have been provided (Rayner & Hoel 1997) -- threat to professional status (belittling opinion, public professional humiliation, accusation of lack of effort); threat to personal standing (name calling, insults, teasing); isolation (preventing access to opportunities such as training, withholding information); overwork (undue pressure to produce work, impossible deadlines, unnecessary disruptions); and destabilisation (failure to give credit when due, meaningless tasks, removal of responsibility, shifting of goal posts). There have been three main approaches to research into workplace bullying. The first has been qualitative and individualistic in perspective, identifying a role for the individual in terms of vulnerability to bullying or a propensity to bully (Crawford 1997; Lockhart 1997; Randall 1997) and explaining the dynamics of bully-victim relationships. The second approach is descriptive and epidemiological and is usually based on self report. These studies document the prevalence of workplace bullying, the types experienced, age and sex differences, who is told, what action is taken, etc. The third approach is influenced by theories and constructs in organisational psychology and has focused on the interaction between the individual and the organisation and how aspects of the organisational structure and climate of the workplace may encourage the development of a bullying culture (Rayner 1997). For researchers who opt to employ the qualitative method of study, a common method is the use of structured questionnaires. A structured questionnaire is one in which the questions asked are precisely decided in advance. When used as an interviewing method, the questions are asked exactly as they are written, in the same sequence, using the same style, for all interviews. Nonetheless, the structured questionnaire can sometimes be left a bit open for the interviewer to amend to suit a specific context. The list of questions that make up a structured questionnaire may be open ended or close ended, depending on how the questions are framed and asked An open-ended question is one in which possible responses are not supplied in advance. Each respondent's statements should be recorded as fully as possible and in the respondent's own words. Open-ended questions are very useful for exploring sensitive issues and investigating topics concerning beliefs, attitudes, and practices. On the other hand, a close-ended question usually provides a set of responses or options from which a respondent indicates his/her choice. Where the study topic concerns factual issues, or is a familiar one with a limited range of responses, close-ended questions are particularly useful. The structured questionnaire method can be used to study various aspects of bullying behavior involving everyone in the workplace. The approach is suitable to use where the study's objective is to: Estimate the prevalence of existing beliefs or attitudes as a means of confirming data obtained with either unstructured interview or other qualitative methods. Find out more information to complement or follow up a previous exploratory study. The purpose of this may be to check the validity of previously collected data or observations to enrich the overall results of a study. Compare responses in subgroups of a large population, such as knowledge about different drugs, the type of drugs used, how much they cost, and so on. Advantages/Disadvantages of Written Questionnaires and How they can affect Research on Workplace Bullying Structured questionnaires perform a considerable function when doing research and especially when studying workplace violence and bullying. Basically, questionnaires are easy to analyse, and most statistical analysis software can easily process them. They are cost effective when compared to face-to-face interviews, mostly because of the costs associated with travel time (Bachrack & Scoble 1967; Hochstim & Athanasopoulos 1970; Moser & Kalton 1971). This is especially true for studies involving large sample sizes and large geographic areas (Clausen & Ford 1947; Goode & Hatt 1962). Written questionnaires become even more cost effective as the number of research questions increase. Likewise, questionnaires are familiar to most people (Berdie, Anderson & Niebuhr, 1986). Nearly everyone has had some experience completing questionnaires and they generally do not make people apprehensive. They are less intrusive than telephone or face-to-face surveys. In addition, when respondents receive a questionnaire in the mail, they are free to complete it on their own time-table (Cahalan, 1951; Jahoda, et al. 1962). Unlike other research methods, the respondent is not interrupted by the research instrument. A downside though is the fact that questionnaires are simply not appropriate for some people. For example, a written survey to a group of poorly educated people might not work obviously because of reading skill problems. More frequently, some people are turned off by written questionnaires because of misuse. Benefits/Criticisms The gains of using structured questionnaires in a survey method include its ability to obtain access to a larger sample size which correspondingly means that the outcomes are more representative. The low cost of paper and pencil questionnaires are likewise significant benefits for researchers with limited amount of resources. Further, an advantage of questionnaire survey method is that it can leave scope for participants to be honest and frank in their willingness to share information and experiences because of the confidential nature, not to mention the advantage of being filled out at a time convenient for participants and allows them to reflect upon the questions rather than feeling pressured to immediately answer like what happens in interviews or focus groups. Employing structured questionnaires can also be an easier method for ensuring a systematised set of data results, which do not require hours of coding and grouping. Hence, it has the added benefit of enabling systematic analysis of results using statistical methods. In like manner, structured questionnaires can also allow researchers to test hypothesis through both open ended and closed ended questions, as well as allow multiple item scales and/or multiple questions. This can mean that interviewer bias is not an issue, for instance, the way a researcher asks questions or the researcher's appearance. There are also disadvantages with a survey method. One of the concerns regarding the use of questionnaires is the assumption that the answers provided by respondents cannot be taken at face value as accurately representing their views, (except insofar as reliability can be tested through statistical tests of consistency). Language, it is assumed, is unambiguous and benign, without reference to the implications of gender, class, race and ethnicity In addition, questions are limited to variables which the researcher considers important, which often means that things that are not known are ignored. Connections might be made between variables that may not be related or significant. In his study of 'top-down' bullying by managers, McCarthy (1996) explained that he used a questionnaire in his research not as a systematic, scientific research instrument but to provide a preliminary profile. He further stressed that he encountered several problems in attempting to study the phenomenon of bullying managerial behaviours within a scientific framework. It was also argued that the problem with an 'objective, scientifically correct methodology' is that it would 'over-control the data to the point of screening out bullying managerial behaviours - in effect blaming the victims' (McCarthy 1996, p. 54). Thus he felt that there were ethical issues that might arise through attributing significance to the findings of such a study. McCarthy argued that "the danger is that narrowly applied scientific objectivity may covertly normalise and legitimate socio-economic violence that has effects at the margins which are not envisaged." Summing up, the good things about using questionnaires in studying workplace violence are - that they are very cost effective when compared to face-to-face interviews. This is especially true for studies involving large sample sizes and large geographic areas. Written questionnaires become even more cost effective as the number of research questions increases. Also, questionnaires are easy to analyse. Data entry and tabulation for nearly all surveys can be easily done with many computer software packages and questionnaires are familiar to most people. Nearly everyone has had some experience completing questionnaires and they generally do not make people apprehensive. Further, questionnaires reduce bias. There is uniform question presentation and no middle-man bias. The researcher's own opinions will not influence the respondent to answer questions in a certain manner. There are no verbal or visual clues to influence the respondent. Questionnaires are less intrusive than telephone or face-to-face surveys. When a respondent receives a questionnaire in the mail, he/she is free to complete the questionnaire on his/her own time-table. Unlike other research methods, the respondent is not interrupted by the research instrument. It has been contended that the most common criticism of surveys cover three categories -- philosophy, technique and politics. The philosophically-based criticism includes the assertion that surveys (De Vaus 1995, p. 7): can't adequately establish casual connections between variables; are incapable of getting at the meaningful aspects of social action; look at particular aspects of people's beliefs and actions without looking at the context in which they occur; assume that human action is determined by external forces and neglect the role of human consciousness, goals, intentions and values as important sources of action; do not involve imagination or creative thinking; is empiricist and does not provide theoretical value; can't be used to measure some things. On the other hand, criticisms based on technique, assert that they are: too restricted because they rely on highly structured questionnaires; too statistical and reduce interesting questions to totally incomprehensible numbers (De Vaus 1995, p. 8-9). One significant issue, overlooked by many research studies in this field is the sample size. Very often, for survey methodology the sample size is simply too small. Apart from the issue of reliability and validity it raises issues of ethics. The questionnaire, as a measure of adult bullying, has three types: Leymann (1990) devised and administered the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT). This type of questionnaire is composed of 45 items representing various mobbing actions, such as attacking a person's possibilities of communication, attacking a person's social relationships, attacking a person's social reputation, attacking the quality of a person's occupational and life situation, attacking a person's health. At the same time, Leymann discovered elements which he referred as negative communication, humiliating behaviour, isolating behaviour, frequent changes of task to punish someone, and violence or threat of violence. Based on the factor analysis of the LIPT questionnaire, Niedl (1995) identified seven factors -- attacking a person's integrity, isolation, direct and indirect critique, sanction by certain tasks, threats, sexual encroachment, and attacking a person's private sphere. Einarsen and Raknes (1997) developed the Negative Act Questionnaire (NAQ) in the inquiry about harassment in the workplace. The questionnaire consists of 22 items, each written in behavioural terms with no reference to the term 'harassment'. The NAQ was derived from two distinct sources of information - literature studies and accounts given by victims of long lasting harassment. The scale gauges how often the respondent during the last six months has been subjected to a range of negative acts and potentially harassing behaviours. Einarsen and Raknes found that aggression and harassment are significant problems in organisational settings since strong correlations were found between exposure to harassment and dissatisfaction with co-worker interaction. Factor analysis of the NAQ by Niedl (1995) gave out the following factors: attacking the private person, social isolation, work-related measures, and physical violence. Bjrkqvist et al (1994) developed the Work Harassment Scale (WHS) to study aggression among university employees. The is made up of 24 items. Participants are assessed on a 5-point scale how often they have been exposed to 24 types of degrading and oppressing activities by their colleagues during the last six months. Items include: 'being unduly criticised', 'being shouted at loudly', 'being isolated', 'lies about you told to others'. Participants also indicate whether the aggressor is male or female. High WHS scores in this study were related to subjectively experienced depression, anxiety and aggressiveness. A factor analysis led to the elaboration of two sub-scales of covert or disguised aggression. These are referred to as rational-appearing aggression and social manipulation. Women claimed that they had experienced work harassment more often than did men. Almost 70% of men claimed that they had never, or almost never, been exposed to harassment; the same was true for only 45% of women. Bjrkqvist and his research team proposed that gender differences might be explained by the gender imbalance in workplace hierarchies, in that men are more likely to be in superior positions than are women; so in these roles, they might be expected to experience less risk associated with aggression. References Ashforth, B. 1997. Petty tyranny in organizations: a preliminary examination of antecedents and consequences. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14 (2), pp. 216-240. Einarsen, S. and Hoel, H. 2001. The Negative Acts Questionnaire: Development, Validation and Revision of a Measure of Bullying at Work. Presented at the Tenth European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology: Globalization - Opportunities and Threats. Prague, Czech Republic. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. 2003. The concept of bullying at work: the European tradition. In Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, Eds. S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, C. Cooper. London: Taylor & Francis Neuman, J. and Baron, R. 1998. Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24 (3), pp. 391-419. Niedl, K. 1995. Mobbing/bullying am Arbeitsplatz. Eine empirische Analyse zum Phnomen sowie zu personalwirtschaftlich relevanten Effekten von systematischen Feindligkeiten. Doctoral Dissertation. Rainer Hampp Verlag, Mnchen. Tepper, B. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 43 (2), pp. 178-190. McCarthy, P. 1996, When the mask slips: Inappropriate coercion in organisations undergoing restructuring. In McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M. and W. Wilkie (ed) Bullying from backyard to boardroom. Alexandria: Millennium Books DeVaus, D.A. 1995. Surveys in social research, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards Einarsen, S. and Raknes, B. 1997. Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of men. Violence and Victims. 12 (3), pp. 247-263. Einarsen, S. and Skogstad, A. 1996. Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and private organisations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 5(2), pp. 185-201. Einarsen, S., Matthiesen S. and Skogstad, A. 1998. Bullying, burnout and well-being among assistant nurses. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety: Australia and New Zealand. 14 (6), pp. 563-568. Bjrkqvist, K., sterman, K. and Hjelt-Bck, M. 1994. Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behaviour. 20 (3), pp. 173-184. Leymann, H. 1996. The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology. 5(20), pp. 165-184. Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I. and Matthiesen, S. 1994. Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: an exploratory study. European Work and Organizational Psychologist. 4 (4), pp. 381-401. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. 2003. The concept of bullying at work: the European tradition. In Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis Niedl, K. 1995. Mobbing/bullying am Arbeitsplatz. Eine empirische Analyse zum Phnomen sowie zu personalwirtschaftlich relevanten Effekten von systematischen Feindligkeiten. Doctoral Dissertation. Rainer Hampp Verlag, Mnchen. Vartia, M. 1996. The sources of bullying: psychological work environment and organisational climate. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology. 5(2), pp. 203-214. Read More