Workplace bullying among Indian managers

58

Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2017

Workplace bullying among Indian managers: prevalence, sources and bystanders’ reactions Arpana Rai* and Upasna A. Agarwal Gilbreth Hall, NITIE, Vihar Lake, Mumbai 400087, India Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: The present study examines the prevalence of bullying, sources of bullying and bystanders’ reactions to bullying amongst Indian managers. Data gathered from 205 managers using behavioural and self-labelling approaches of measuring workplace bullying suggest that like managers in the west, Indians experience high instances of bullying. In terms of direction of bullying, it was found that downward bullying predominates as most of the bullying acts were directed from superiors. The study also highlights bystanders’ reactions to bullying indicating that majority had preferred silence when they witnessed bullying. The findings of the study highlight a number of key avenues for future research that will help to extend the current workplace bullying literature. Keywords: workplace bullying; Indian managers; prevalence; sources; bystanders’ reactions. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Rai, A. and Agarwal, U.A. (2017) ‘Workplace bullying among Indian managers: prevalence, sources and bystanders’ reactions’, Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.58–81. Biographical notes: Arpana Rai is a PhD scholar in the Department of HRM and OB at National Institute of Industrial Engineering NITIE, Mumbai. Upasna A. Agarwal is an Assistant Professor in the Department of HRM and OB at National Institute of Industrial Engineering NITIE, Mumbai.

1

Introduction

A major issue facing organisations worldwide today is the occurrence of bullying amongst employees (Saunders et al., 2007). Workplace bullying is a form of interpersonal aggression (Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2010) and is defined as a situation in which an employee feels constantly and persistently subjected to negative behaviours by others at work (Einarsen et al., 2011). Bullying behaviours can be expressed in many ways, such as excessive workloads, persistent monitoring of work, personal jokes, gossip (subtle behaviours), violence, aggression, insults and threats (explicit and identifiable

Copyright © 2017 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Workplace bullying among Indian managers

59

behaviours) (Parzefall and Salin, 2010; Stouten et al., 2010). As opposed to many other concepts describing interpersonal aggression, like incivility, abusive supervision, social undermining and interpersonal conflict (Hershcovis, 2011), workplace bullying is not an either or phenomenon, but rather a gradually evolving process (Einarsen, 2000) in which negative acts become more intense and frequent over time, leaving the target in an inferior position (Einarsen et al., 2011). While bullying can take many forms, it appears to have three specific features: persistency (frequency and duration), power disparity and hostility (Einarsen et al., 2011; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). A growing body of empirical evidence has established workplace bullying as a serious social stressor in contemporary working life (Hoel et al., 1999), a social problem with detrimental implications for those exposed, as well as for organisations and society at large (Einarsen et al., 2011). It has been found that bullying is a “more crippling and devastating problem for employees than all other kinds of work-related stress put together” [Einarsen et al., (2003), p.3]. The extant bullying literature clearly suggests that bullying creates dysfunctional workplace behaviour; and is costly in financial and human terms. Bullying has been estimated to cost organisations billions of dollars (Macik-Frey et al., 2007). For instance, annual cost of bullying to organisations in the UK is £13.75 billion (Giga et al., 2008). Direct negative consequences for employees and organisations include job dissatisfaction, disengagement, psychological distress, decreased employee performance, increased intention to leave, job insecurity, burnout, among the indirect negative consequences include negative publicity, potential loss of trade and customers, a reduced pool of job applicants, and damaged reputation (Hansen et al., 2014; Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012; Trépanier et al., 2013, 2015). In light of the substantial costs to individuals and organisations (Kelloway et al., 2009), workplace bullying has attracted increased research attention (Einarsen et al., 2011; Schat and Kelloway, 2005) and continues to be an area of concern for both researchers and organisational practitioners. A large number of studies investigating the prevalence of bullying within different countries and different occupational groups have been conducted (Einarsen et al., 2009). Research suggests that bullying is a very widespread problem in contemporary working life (Nielsen et al., 2009; Zapf et al., 2011). It has been estimated that about 15% of workers on a global basis are targets of systematic bullying behaviours, whereas 11% perceive themselves as victims of bullying (Nielsen et al., 2010; Zapf et al., 2011). However, estimated rates of bullying vary across studies depending on the measures used, with the two most common measurements being inventory-based checklists of negative behaviours and self-identified bullying (Carter et al., 2013; Nielsen et al., 2010; Petrović et al., 2014; Way et al., 2013). Besides, measurement methods, cultural characteristics as well as societal changes may contribute to variations in the prevalence rates (Nielsen, 2009). Reviews of scientific studies report that most findings in extant studies – most of which were conducted in Western organisations – were not replicable in other nations (Bhagat and McQuaid, 1982). Thus, generalisation of findings on the prevalence of bullying based on data collected from Western countries is questionable (Jacobson et al., 2013; Jennifer et al., 2010; Sidle, 2010), particularly in societies like India that have a totally different cultural framework and are undergoing profound transitions in institutional rules, social norms, and values. Given that the context of the study affects the bullying prevalence, the present study aims to ascertain the prevalence of bullying in a new cultural context-India.

60

A. Rai and U.A. Agarwal

The process of workplace bullying covers three crucial actors – those who are harmed (targets/victims), those who cause harm (bullies) and others who are present during the entire process (bystanders). Most of the bullying literature has concentrated on targets/victims – with the focus on finding out the prevalence of bullying by estimating the number of targets/victims as well as negative effects on targets/victims. Perpetrators and bystanders of the bullying process have not received enough attention (Namie and Lutgen-Sandvik, 2010). Bullying is mainly identified as a top-down process, in which the target usually is in an inferior hierarchical position than the perpetrator (Giorgi, 2012). Immediate supervisors/managers have been identified as the main perpetrators in bullying cases (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Bystander role in the bullying process is still unclear (Mulder et al., 2016). Albeit, limited body of research suggests that bystanders can take various positions in the bullying process, ranging from helping the victim to helping the bully (Keashly and Jagatic, 2011; Lutgen-Sandvik and Fletcher, 2013; Paull et al., 2012). They can act as a change agent in the bullying situation as their behaviour can be harnessed for target support and opposing bullying behaviours in the workplace (Mulder et al., 2008, 2010). For a thorough understanding of bullying dynamics, sources of bullying and bystanders’ reactions towards bullying should also be analysed in addition to investigating the prevalence of bullying. Bullying can be examined as a cultural phenomenon (Lewis, 2003) as the cultural context significantly influence its prevalence, sources as well as employee’s perceptions and responses to the events of bullying (Johns, 2006; Escartín et al., 2011; Power et al., 2013; Radford et al., 1991). Given the significant role of the context in shaping perceptual constructs (like bullying), scholars have for long alluded the need to develop a contextually-sensitive understanding of bullying (Giorgi et al., 2015; Jennifer et al., 2010; Sidle, 2010). One of the most cited frameworks to understand the behaviour of people across cultures was proposed by Hofstede (2001). Hofstede (2001) argues that eastern and Western societies differ among six cultural dimensions: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity, long- versus short-term orientation and indulgence versus restraint (Hofstede et al., 2010). Research suggests the most evident differences between Asian and Western European/Anglo countries relate to individualism versus collectivism and power distance, both of which have profound influences on perceptual variables (Hofstede, 1991; Erdogan and Liden, 2006; Lam et al., 2002; Thomas and Au, 2002). As per extant bullying literature, certain dimensions of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural framework (e.g., power distance and collectivism) may play a crucial role in the increased prevalence and tolerance of bullying (Einarsen, 2000; Jacobson et al., 2013; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). India is a collectivistic culture with a high power distance index score of 77 on Hofstede’s scale (Hofstede Center, 2014). For the present study, we draw on Hofstede’s two cultural dimensions – power distance and collectivism to examine the prevalence, sources, and bystanders’ reactions towards workplace bullying. Power distance is the “degree to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” [Hofstede et al., (2010), p.2011]. Collectivism refers to the societies or cultures in which the interest of groups prevails over the interests of the individual (Hofstede et al., 2010). Collectivism emphasises on “collective goals, collective rights, interdependence, affiliation with the larger collective, cooperation, and harmony” [Kulkarni et al., (2010), p.95]. These two dimensions define how individuals


61

relate to others-power distance defines the relation between employees at different hierarchical levels and collectivism defines the relation between group members (Samnani, 2013). High power distance orientation favours organisational functioning that is characterised by extensive supervisory control, authoritative leadership, privilege for superiors and inequality in power regardless of legitimacy (Hofstede, 2001). In such cultures, the prevalence of bullying is found to be high (Power et al., 2013) and bullying in the form of power abuse may be very common (Einarsen, 2000). In high power-collectivistic cultures like India, maintaining interpersonal harmony and avoiding conflict especially with superiors is a norm (Cortina and Wasti, 2005). In such a cultural setting, finding out the behaviour of an employee when his colleague is being bullied by his supervisor may add interesting findings to the bullying literature. Though workplace bullying is an extensively studied phenomenon in Western nations, the phenomenon has not received sufficient academic attention in the Indian context (D’Cruz and Rayner, 2013). Specifically, in India, D’Cruz and Rayner (2013) and D’Cruz and Noronha (2011) have examined the prevalence, sources and bystanders’ reactions towards bullying. However, their studies are centred on ITES-BPO sector employees, which is not an enough representation of other Indian employees. With this background, a study examining the prevalence, sources as well as bystanders’ reactions to workplace bullying covering managerial employees working in different organisations may significantly contribute to a thorough understanding of bullying dynamics in Indian organisations. Therefore, in line with the preceding discussion, the present study has been conducted with three objectives: Objective1

To find out the prevalence of workplace bullying in Indian organisations.

Objective 2 To find out the sources of bullying in Indian organisations. Objective 3 To find out the bystanders’ reactions towards bullying in Indian organisations. The paper is structured as follows. The study begins with an examination of ‘The Indian context’ of the study followed by ‘Literature review’. The review covers: definition and features of bullying, approaches to measure workplace bullying; sources of bullying and bystanders’ reactions to bullying. The ‘Methods’ and ‘Results’ sections present details about the study sample, the measures used in the study and the data analysis performed. The final section discusses the main findings, the implications of the results for both theory and practice, the limitations of the research and the directions for future research.

2

The Indian context

Examining workplace bullying in the Indian context can be significant given the Indian socio-culture framework and increasing westernisation. The hierarchical nature of Indian society is linked to the issue of power which constitutes a critical feature of workplace bullying (D’Cruz and Rayner, 2013; Einarsen et al., 2011; Kakar and Kakar, 2007). The major theme of recorded Indian history is the exploitation of the weak by the strong, i.e., the misuse of power. The concept of Hinduism and caste system have given birth to and nurtured the hierarchical nature of the Indian society. Although hierarchy in social

62


systems is a universal phenomenon, the extent to which “Indians are disposed to structure all relationships hierarchically is phenomenal’” [Sinha and Sinha, (1990), p.707]. In addition to power distance, embedded between individualism-collectivism, relational orientation (favouritism and nepotism), particularism, acquiescence, and absence of egalitarianism (Béteille, 2006; Bond, 2004; Hofstede, 1980; Sinha, 2009; Triandis, 1994), the Indian society directly or indirectly provides fertile ground for the onset as well as tolerance of workplace bullying. An overview of the history of Indian culture reveals that the Indian social system categorised Indian society into four main castes (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra), as a consequence of which people developed the concept of in-groups (family members and individuals of the same caste) and out-groups (non-family members and individuals from other castes) (Sinha, 2009). There was a strong affinity between people belonging to the same caste, and often key positions would be given to the members of in-groups. Thus, the caste system has ended up promoting favouritism and nepotism in the Indian society (Sinha, 1990; Zhu et al., 2006). This relational orientation of the Indian society characterised by personalised and identity-based interactions is evident even today in Indian organisations, leading to interpersonal and intergroup conflicts as its natural outcomes and resulting into perceptions of workplace bullying (Kakar and Kakar, 2007; Sinha, 2009). Further, the in-group concept or the joint family system of Indians and human code of conduct has socialised them to show deference to age and status (Sinha and Sinha, 1990). The Indian social network developed around mutual obligations favouring acquiescence has promoted paternalism within Indian organisations (Sinha, 1990). The members of in-groups or those who enjoy with the superior favours paternalism while for others the restricted autonomy and absence of egalitarianism forces them to depict covert or overt aggression manifested in the form of inappropriate behaviours. Moreover, in a patriarchal male-dominated society like India, bullying in workplaces in more accepted than in cultures that are matriarchal in orientation (Bond, 2004). Indian culture also favours particularism where the people treat based on who the other person is (i.e., social standing, family or are known to be associated with some particular group) and in this type of culture the tolerance of society towards bullying behaviour is found to be high (Triandis, 1994). Many researchers have written about Indian culture and collectivism in Indian organisations (Khanna and Karandikar, 2013; Jain, 2014; Mehta, 2014; Sharma et al., 2013). All these typical characteristics of Indian society may be related to the onset as well as tolerance of workplace bullying. Further, the changing corporate culture in Indian firms marked by increased workplace pressure and highly competitive work environments also favour bullying within Indian organisations. The increased globalisation has resulted in enhanced internal and external competition within organisations. The rapid transitions in Indian organisations along with the workforce’s inability to adjust to these changes have increased the intensity of negative workplace behaviours.

3

Literature review

Workplace bullying was described by the Swedish researcher Heinz Leymann for the first time in 1984 and he is considered as the pioneer in the field. His initial interest in school


63

bullying subsequently expanded to include bullying at work when he recognised similar dynamics in adult patients. Leymann (1996) defined workplace bullying as hostile and unethical communication directed in a systematic way towards an individual on a very frequent basis (i.e., at least once a week) and over a long period of time (i.e., at least six months). Sheehan et al. (1990), Cox (1991), Adams (1992) and Einarsen et al. (1994) are few other earlier researchers who were involved with studying workplace bullying. With the publication of the book ‘Bullying at Work: How to Confront It and Overcome It’ (Adams, 1992), the interest in the issue quickly gained momentum (Hoel, 2013). Currently, although scholars from Scandinavia and the UK continue to lead in this area, bullying research now includes scholars and professionals from different nations as well. Although several definitions have been developed (Keashly and Jagatic, 2003), the current study aligns with the ‘European perspective’ which defines bullying as: “Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks. In order for the label bullying to be applied to a particular activity, interaction or process, it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g., weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six months). Bullying is an escalating process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts. A conflict cannot be called bullying if the incident is an isolated event or if two parties of approximately equal ‘strength’ are in conflict.” [Einarsen et al., (2011), p.15]

There are three key distinguishing features of bullying: persistency (escalating nature of the phenomenon), power disparities and hostility. First, the negative acts must occur on a regular basis, generally once a week and must occur over a certain period of time, generally at least six months. The negative behaviour involved is usually the kind of behaviour that is common to everybody in everyday working life, but it becomes bullying when it is systematically repeated over a certain period of time. Bullying constitutes evolving and often escalating hostile workplace relationships rather than discrete and disconnected events and is associated with repetition (frequency), duration (over a period of time) and patterning (of a variety of behaviours involved) as its most salient features (Einarsen et al., 2003). Second, a power imbalance must exist between the perpetrator and the target whereby the target finds it increasingly difficult to defend himself or herself. Third, the negative acts must be systematic and planned, suggesting the presence of negative intent of the perpetrator (Einarsen et al., 2011). Bullying behaviours have been differentiated into three categories: work-related bullying (withholding information, ordered to do work below level of competence, unreasonable deadlines, excessive monitoring, unmanageable workload), person-related bullying (humiliated in connection with work, repeated reminders of errors, insulting or offensive remarks, persistent criticism) and physically intimidating bullying (being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger, threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse) (see Einarsen et al., 2009). The following section presents with the extant literature on approaches for measuring the prevalence of workplace bullying, sources of bullying and bystanders’ reactions to workplace bullying.

64


3.1 Approaches for measuring workplace bullying Workplace bullying is a global problem and quite widespread around the world (Giorgi, 2012). The prevalence rate of workplace bullying differs across studies, depending on the measures used and context of the study (Nielsen et al., 2010). Although many different methods have been used, most have either assessed a

the respondents’ perception of being exposed to a range of specific bullying behaviour (behavioural experience method)

b

the respondents’ overall feeling of being victimised by bullying (self-labelling method)

c

a combination of the two methods (Carter et al., 2013; Cowie et al., 2002; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001; Petrović et al., 2014; Salin, 2001; Way et al., 2013). These two approaches have been discussed below:

3.1.1 Operational approach/behavioural experience method Behavioural experience method is an objective approach for measuring workplace bullying. The method takes the nature, frequency, and duration of the unwanted behaviours into consideration. Around 27 different inventories have been used to assess bullying or phenomenon similar to bullying behaviours. However, the most common and most widely used instrument for measuring bullying is negative acts questionnaire-revised, NAQ-R (Einarsen et al., 2009). The NAQ-R consists of 22 easy to read and understandable items measuring how often during the previous six months respondents have been subjected to various negative acts, which when occurring on a regular basis may be considered as bullying. The questionnaire does not contain any reference to the term bullying in order to avoid possible bias introduced by respondents such as their level of awareness about the phenomenon or being oversensitive. The scale emphasises experiences within the last six months, as using such a relatively short time-frame ensures the measurement of repeated and ongoing experiences, whilst simultaneously making responses less vulnerable to recall problems, memory biases and distortions (Einarsen et al., 2009). The behavioural experience method mainly investigates the persistency of different negative behaviours without taking the victimisation aspect into consideration.

3.1.2 Self-labelling approach/ self-identified bullying When applying this method, respondents are offered a theoretical definition of bullying and are asked whether or not they have experiences in the organisation that correspond to the presented definition (e.g., Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996; O’Moore et al., 2003). This method does not offer any insight into the nature and content of the behaviours involved. By using this method one only gets to know whether the respondents perceive themselves as victims of bullying, whereas information on how the bullying took place is ignored. The self-labelling method includes a cognitive evaluation of whether the respondents feel victimised by the bullying (Einarsen et al., 2011). Since individuals may have different personal thresholds for labelling themselves as bullied, the self-labelling method is a very subjective approach in which personality, emotional factors, cognitive factors, and misperceptions may figure out as potential biases (Einarsen et al., 2011).


65

These two methods assess workplace bullying from two different viewpoints: the former method assesses targets of bullying behaviour, whereas the latter method assesses self-labelled victims of bullying (Nielsen et al., 2010). “A target of bullying is an employee who experiences exposure to systematic and persistent bullying behaviours at the workplace. A victim of bullying, on the other hand, is a person exposed to equivalent systematic and persistent bullying behavior and who, in addition, perceives her- or himself as being victimized by this treatment” [Einarsen et al., (2011), p.166]. Nielsen et al. (2009) claimed that all victims are targets of bullying, but all targets are not necessarily victims, i.e., many targets exist who do not label themselves as victims. Researchers suggest the use of both the approaches while investigating workplace bullying (Einarsen et al., 2003; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001; Nielsen et al., 2010; Salin, 2001). This is because by combining both the approaches, the cross fit obtained would provide complete information about the respondent’s exposure to persistent bullying behaviour as well as their perception of being victimised by this behaviour (Einarsen et al., 2011). As per Petrović et al. (2014) researchers should combine both the methods, especially when examining bullying in the countries where the concept has not been thoroughly investigated yet. This is because a combined approach provides grounds for fuller insight into the perception of specific behaviours as workplace bullying. Thus, the present study was conducted using both the approaches.

3.2 Sources of bullying In terms of the sources of bullying, literature suggests that it can occur at all levels of an organisation. The majority of the research has focused on downwards bullying (as perpetrated by managers against subordinates); to a lesser extent on horizontal bullying (one colleague bullying another); and more recently on upwards bullying (a subordinate bullying a person in a managerial position) and cross-co level bullying (colleague joins manager in bullying subordinate) (D’Cruz and Rayner, 2013; Einarsen et al., 2003). The consistent findings of several UK surveys suggest that bullying in about three out of four cases is a downward process directed by someone in a managerial or supervisory position at a subordinate (Beale and Hoel, 2010; Hoel and Cooper, 2000; Rayner et al., 2002). Supervisor or managers have been identified as abusers in 60 % to 80 % of bullying cases (Carter et al., 2013; Hoel and Cooper, 2000; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Namie, 2003). However, in the Scandinavian studies, bullying from colleagues was more commonly reported than bullying from superiors (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002). Both Rayner and Keashly (2005) and Zapf and Einarsen (2005) ascertained that, with the exception of Scandinavian studies (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002), most studies have consistently found superiors to be involved in majority of all bullying cases (Carter et al., 2013; Cowie et al., 2002; Hoel and Cooper, 2000; Hoel et al., 2001; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Namie, 2003). Thus, in line with these studies, the present study also aims to find out the source of workplace bullying in Indian organisations.

3.3 Bystanders’ reactions to bullying Research on bystander/onlooker/witness in a bullying situation is relatively non-existent with only a few studies that serve as exceptions (Mulder et al., 2008, 2010, 2016; Paull

66


et al., 2012; Van Heugten, 2013). The term bystander is used to “delineate a role which is greater than simply witness or observer, and to imply a choice, or choices, on the part of the individual” [Paull et al., (2010), p.3]. Bystanders are important constituents of the bullying scenario as research suggests that they are also negatively affected by the bullying as targets of bullying; may experience stress, lower motivation, low job satisfaction and low commitment (Einarsen and Mikkelsen, 2003; Hoel et al., 2003) and are the prime source of social support to the targets and help them in coping with the bullying situation (Mulder et al., 2008, 2010; Paull et al., 2010). A bystander can involve in different types of behaviours in the bullying situation like – assisting the bully, reinforcing the bully, defending the victim, or staying outside bullying situations. Based on their roles in the bullying situations, different types of bystander profiles have been identified. Twemlow et al. (2004) have highlighted four types of bystander profiles: bully bystanders (who become involved in the bullying behaviour), avoidant bystanders (who deny any responsibility for the situation), victim bystanders (who become victimised in the process of bullying) and helpful bystanders (who attempt to defuse the situation). Alternatively, Van Heugten (2010) has highlighted three types of bystander profiles: allies of the bully (who help bully), passive bystanders (who does not get involve in the situation) and hesitant supporters (who covertly support the victim). Thus, in line with these two studies, the present study also aims to find out the behaviours of bystanders in the bullying scenario in Indian organisations.

4

Methodology

Due to sensitive nature of workplace bullying, online surveys and e-mails have been frequently used by researchers in this domain to collect data (Ayoko et al., 2003; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Park and Ono, 2016; Salin, 2001). Likewise, in this research also, data were collected by means of an anonymous self-reported questionnaire, distributed through e-mail to 500 Indian managers employed in different sectors (see Table 1). The sampling criteria were adults having a minimum of graduation degree and employed in any organisation from the last six months. A total of 205 respondents completed the questionnaires, yielding an overall response rate of 41% which is above the 30% cutoff prescribed by previous researchers (Cavana et al., 2001). The questionnaire comprised of a socio-demographic component, measures of workplace bullying (NAQ-R and a definition of bullying), one questions about sources of bullying (seniors, co-workers or juniors) and another related to bystanders’ reactions to bullying. The mean age of the respondents was 26.6 years (SD = 3). Of the respondents 68.8% were male and 31.2% were female. The average organisational tenure was 3.2 years (SD = 2.1). The study covered all-junior level (44.9%), middle level (40.5%) and senior level (14.6%) managerial employees. The respondents were employed in different Indian organisations across IT (67.3%); banking (5.9%); manufacturing (16.1%); FMCG (2.0%); and others (8.8%). The sample characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Workplace bullying among Indian managers Table 1

67

Profile of respondents (N = 205)

Variables

N

Percent

Age

26.6 ± 3

Gender

Female

64

31.2

Male

141

68.8

Organisational tenure Organisational level

Industry sector

3.2 ± 2.1 Junior level

92

44.9

Middle level

83

40.5

Higher level

30

14.6

IT

138

67.3

Banking

12

5.9

Manufacturing

33

16.1

FMCG

4

2.0

Others (telecom, banks, SCM, pharma, automobiles)

18

8.8

4.1 Survey instruments Workplace bullying was measured using both the behavioural labelling methods (NAQ-R) and self-labelling method (definition of workplace bullying).

4.1.1 Operationally-defined bullying NAQ-R Workplace bullying was measured with NAQ-R (Einarsen et al., 2009). The NAQ-R was selected for its established reliability and use in a number of previous bullying studies (Carter et al., 2013; Hoel and Cooper, 2000; Hoel et al., 2001; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001; Petrović et al., 2014; Salin, 2001). NAQ-R has demonstrated high internal consistency in different studies with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.81 to 0.92 (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001; Petrović et al., 2014). The Cronbach’s alpha for NAQ-R in present study was 0.92. The NAQ-R consists of 22 items that describe various behaviours which may be perceived as bullying if they occur on a regular basis. All items are formulated in behavioural terms, with no reference to the term bullying. The NAQ-R contains three types of bullying behaviours: work-related (e.g., being given tasks with unreasonable deadlines), person-related (e.g. being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with work) and physically intimidating (e.g., being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger). The respondents were asked how often they had been exposed to the negative workplace behaviours at their present place of work during the last six months. Response categories were coded from 1 to 5 with the alternatives ‘never’, ‘now and then’, ‘monthly’, ‘weekly’ and ‘daily’. The operational criteria put forward by Leymann (1996): “respondents are labeled as targets when they experience at least one negative act from the NAQ-R list on a daily or

68


weekly basis for a duration of six months” (Leymann, 1996; Nielsen, 2009) was used to identify the targets of bullying.

4.1.2 Self-identified bullying-definition of bullying Second, a definition of bullying at work was introduced to respondents, who then indicated whether or not they considered themselves as victims of bullying at work (based on their past six months experiences) according to this definition as well as the frequency with which they experienced being bullied at work. Bullying was defined as: “Bullying takes place when one or more persons systematically and over time feel that they have been subjected to negative treatment on the part of one or more persons, in a situation in which the person(s) exposed to the treatment have difficulty in defending themselves against them. It is not bullying when two equally strong opponents are in conflict with each other.” [Einarsen and Skogstad, (1996), pp.190–191]

This single question has been shown to be a valid measure of exposure to bullying at work (Nielsen et al., 2009). Response categories were: no; yes, rarely; yes, now and then; yes, about once a week; yes, many times a week. The operational criteria put forward by Leymann (1996): “respondents are labeled as victims when they report facing bullying once a week or many times a week for a duration of 6 months” (Leymann, 1996; Nielsen, 2009) was used to identify the victims of bullying.

4.1.3 Sources of bullying The research was then continued to find out the sources of bullying in Indian organisations. For this, one question was framed: What is the source of bullying with response alternatives as: a

superior(s) (downward bullying)

b

co-worker(s) (horizontal bullying)

c

junior(s) (upward bullying).

4.1.4 Bystanders’ reactions to bullying The next aspect studied was bystanders’ reactions to bullying. For this, one question was framed: When my supervisor bullies me with response alternatives as: a

my co-worker(s) remain silent

b

my co-worker(s) support me covertly

c

my co-worker(s) support me overtly

d

my co-worker(s) support my supervisor.

4.2

Analytical approach

Using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-20), the basic descriptive statistics about bullying prevalence, sources and bystanders’ reactions were calculated.


5

69

Results

The study revealed the following findings:

5.1 Prevalence of bullying The results of the study revealed that when the operational criteria were used, a total of 44% respondents reported facing at least one of the 22 negative acts on a weekly/daily basis or more in the past six months and were categorised as targets of workplace bullying (Table 2). Table 2 represents the frequencies of each item in the NAQ-R. However, 8.7% of the respondents in the same sample self-identified themselves as victims of workplace bullying as per the provided definition (Table 3). Table 2

Item wise analysis of responses to NAQ-R

During the last 6 months, how often have you been subjected to the S. no. following negative acts in the workplace?

Never (%)

Now and then (%)

Monthly (%)

Weekly/ daily* (%)

1

Someone withholding information which affects your performance

34.1

24.9

22.4

18.6

2

Being humiliated and ridiculed in connection with your work

68.3

15.6

8.8

7.3

3

Being ordered to do work below your level of competence

29.8

31.7

23.4

15.1

4

Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant task

33.2

35.1

21

10.7

5

Spreading of gossips and rumours about you

54.6

27.3

9.3

8.8

6

Being ignored or excluded

54.1

21

17.6

7.3

7

Having insulting and offensive remarks made about your attitudes or your private life

71.2

18.5

5.9

4.4

8

Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger

57.1

23.9

11.7

7.5

9

Intimidating behaviour such as finger pointing, invasion of personal space, shoving, blocking your ways

79.5

9.3

7.3

3.9

10

Hint or signals from others that you should quit the job

74.1

15.1

6.8

4

11

Repeated reminders of your errors and mistakes

47.3

26.8

19

6.9

12

Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach

62.4

20

10.7

6.9

13

Persistent criticism of your errors and mistakes

62.4

22

9.3

6.3

Note: * Response categories ‘weekly’ and ‘daily’ have been merged together to make one category.

70


Table 2

Item wise analysis of responses to NAQ-R (continued)

During the last 6 months, how often have you been subjected to the S. no. following negative acts in the workplace?

Never (%)

Now and then (%)

Monthly (%)

Weekly/ daily* (%)

14

Having your opinion ignored

31.7

36.6

19.5

12.2

15

Practical jokes carried out by people you do not get along with or make fun of your personal characteristics

65.4

18.5

11.2

4.9

16

Being given task with unreasonable deadlines

35.6

30.7

21

12.7

17

Having allegations made against you

67.8

18

8.8

5.4

18

Excessive monitoring of your work

39.5

25.4

17.1

18

19

Pressure not to claim something to which by right you are entitled (e.g., sick leave, holiday, entitlement)

55.6

27.3

10.7

6.4

20

Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm

79

11.7

4.9

4.4

21

Being exposed to an unmanageable workload

42.9

26.3

13.2

17.6

22

Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse

94.6

2.4

2.4

0.6

Frequency of people who choose at least one item

44

Note: * Response categories ‘weekly’ and ‘daily’ have been merged together to make one category. Table 3

Self-labelled victims of workplace bullying

Bullying takes place when one or more persons systematically and over time feel that they have been subjected to negative treatment on the part of one or more persons, in a situation in which the person(s) exposed to the treatment have difficulty in defending themselves against them. According to this definition of bullying, have you been subjected to it at the organisation during the last 6 months: Responses

Frequency (%)

No

44

Yes, rarely

31

Yes, now and then

16.3

Yes, about once a week

6.3

Yes, many times a week

2.4

5.2 Sources of bullying The results of the study revealed that the most frequent source of bullying behaviour was superiors (78%), followed by co-workers (8%) and subordinates (4%) (Table 4).

Workplace bullying among Indian managers Table 4

71

Sources of bullying

What is the source of bullying

Supervisor

Co-worker

Junior

78

8

4

Bully the most (%)

5.3 Bystanders’ reaction to bullying The results of the study revealed that the majority of the respondents reported that their co-workers remain silent over the bullying acts (60%), followed by co-workers supported them but covertly (25%), co-workers supported them overtly (12%) and co-workers supported the bully (3%) (Table 5). Table 5

6

Bystanders’ reactions to bullying

When my supervisor bullies me

Percent (%)

My co-worker(s) remain silent

60

My co-worker(s) supports me covertly

25

My co-worker(s) supports me overtly

12

My co-worker(s) supports the supervisor

3

Discussion

As per the objectives of the study, the results of the study revealed prevalence, sources and bystanders’ reactions to workplace bullying in Indian organisations. The results of the study revealed a high prevalence of workplace bullying among Indian managers. In the present study, 44% of the respondents were classified as targets of workplace bullying, while 8.7% of the respondents in the same sample were classified as victims. These findings are consistent with the Western findings, which suggest that bullying prevalence based on the number of negative acts is always higher than bullying prevalence based on self-identification as victim (Agervold, 2007; Carter et al., 2013; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Nielsen et al., 2010; Petrović et al., 2014; Way et al., 2013). In a recent meta-analysis by Nielsen et al. (2010), the behavioural experience method led to a prevalence rate of 14.7% bullying, whilst the self-labelling method led to a prevalence rate of only 10.6%. Several other international studies have also shown the same pattern of differences between operationally-defined and self-identified bullying prevalence (Giorgi et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2010; Niedhammer et al., 2006; Salin, 2001; Zapf et al., 2011). Using a predefined list of negative acts indicate a higher frequency of bullying as it is easy to rate oneself bullied based on the predefined list of negative acts rather than to label oneself bullied, which is more subjective (Einarsen et al., 2011). Moreover, the self-labelling approach produces a rather conservative estimate, while applying simple cut-off scores to the behavioural experience approach is considered to produce a liberal estimate (Nielsen et al., 2010). These findings are in line with a recent study by D’Cruz and Rayner (2013) and popular surveys (e.g., ASSOCHAM, 2012; Job Portal Career builder, 2014) that have ascertained high prevalence of bullying in Indian organisations (42%–55%).

72


The prevalence of bullying reported in the present study is higher than European studies (e.g., behavioural approach: 24.1% and self-labelling approach: 8.8%, Salin, 2003), but in line with the USA studies [e.g., behavioural approach: 46.8% and self-labelling approach: 9.4% (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007)]. As suggested by Einarsen (2000), putting workplace bullying findings on Hofstede’s cultural maps (Hofstede, 2001) can help in explaining differences among countries. The differences in the prevalence of bullying may be attributed to national culture. Bullying appears to be more widespread in the cultures that are characterised by high power distance orientation like Asian nations (India) and the USA, than in Scandinavian nations that are characterised by low power distance (Einarsen, 2000; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001; Salin, 2001). India is a high power distance culture (Hofstede, 1980). Power distance gives managers power and control over subordinates. Informal and non-routine behaviour of people in power and authority (Sinha, 1990) are accepted as a part and parcel of organisational realities (Sinha and Sinha, 1990). Such organisations are more prone to unethical behaviours as managers have not to justify their behaviours to their subordinates or to higher management, which insulates them from being exposed or reprimanded for their wrong doings (Khatri and Tsang, 2003) and the unethical behaviour goes undetected (Ghosh, 2011). This all may be related to the high prevalence of bullying in Indian organisations. Downward bullying was found to be the most prevalent form of bullying in Indian organisations although incidences of horizontal and upward bullying were also reported. These findings are in line with the studies that have found that superiors are involved in 50%–70% of all bullying cases (Cowie et al., 2000; Hoel et al., 2001; Rayner and Keashly, 2005; Zapf and Einarsen, 2005). These results are in accordance with several studies from the UK, but contradict the findings from Scandinavian nations. This again may be attributed to the high power distance culture as in culture where distance between superiors and subordinates is larger (Hofstede, 1980), predatory bullying manifested in the form of power abuse (downward bullying) may well be the most prevalent kind of bullying as opposed to Scandinavian cases of bullying which seem mainly to be dispute related (social dispute/conflict) (Einarsen, 2000). The typical characteristics of high power distance culture like centralised decision-making, extensive supervisory control and authoritative leadership (Hofstede, 2001) may be the prime reasons for the high prevalence of downward bullying. Regarding bystanders’ reactions to bullying, it was revealed that employees were aware that their colleagues were being bullied by their supervisors suggesting that bullying is not a workplace secret. The findings of present study revealed that majority of respondents (60%) preferred to remain silent over bullying acts (avoidant bystanders, Twemlow et al. 2004), few supported the target both covertly (25%) and overtly (12%) (helpful bystanders, Twemlow et al., 2004), and few (3%) even supported the bully (bully bystanders, Twemlow et al., 2004). Several reasons may be attributed to bystanders silence over acts of workplace bullying. Firstly, there may be certain motives of employees for silence over acts of mistreatment in the organisation. Employees from high power-distance orientation and collectivistic cultural beliefs are more likely to foster and practice silence in their organisations (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). Employees from high power distance culture tend to take hierarchical inequalities for granted and are less likely to voice their concerns to their superiors in order to avoid direct conflicts with those in power (Hofstede, 1991). For collectivists, protecting relationships with those in power is far more important than retaliating in response to violations of fairness norms (Hofstede, 1991). Employee silence especially defensive silence and relational silence


73

can be an expected part of employee behaviour in Indian organisations due to high power distance norms (insecurity or fear) and collectivistic norms (a need for affiliation and dependency) (Jain, 2015). Besides, defensive and relational silence, employees may remain silent because of a lack of self-confidence (diffident silence); or a deep felt acceptance of organisational circumstances (ineffectual silence) or they might have disengaged themselves from work (disengaged Silence) (Brinsfield, 2013). Recent qualitative work by Agarwal and Rai (2016) on victims of workplace bullying has also explored the silence motives of employees over acts of workplace bullying in Indian organisations. Secondly, Indian organisations lack concrete supportive human resource management (HRM) practices to tackle the issue of workplace bullying, so even if individuals are willing to raise their voice they are constrained by lack of platforms. D’Cruz and Noronha (2010) have discussed about the rhetoric of HRM practices in Indian organisations and have suggested that HRM as a managerial ideology creates an environment in which bullying remains unchallenged, allowed to thrive or actually encouraged in an indirect way (Lewis and Rayner, 2003). Such organisations seem to violate the relational contract with the employees resulting into negative employee outcomes (Agarwal and Gupta, 2016). Thirdly, these negative acts might be so widespread in Indian organisations that they might be perceived as normal and people are accustomed to them and thus, do not raise voice against it. These behaviours may be perceived as an acceptable and effective way of accomplishing tasks and may be considered as a part of the job or as a reasonable managerial practice. Research suggests that employees who interpret these behaviours as a part of the culture can tolerate them and do not raise voice against it (Escartín et al., 2011; Salin, 2003). However, this part needs a thorough research as it promises to open new avenues in the bullying domain of research in the Indian context. The study results also revealed that few employees also helped the victim. This finding can be attributed to a collectivistic culture where employees place more emphasis on interconnectedness with their social groups (Sinha et al., 2000) and are more likely to express and experience other-focused emotions such as sympathy (Markus and Kitayama, 1991) and help each other.

7

Conclusions

The present study contributes to the workplace bullying research by examining its prevalence, sources and bystanders’ reactions towards bullying in a new cultural context. The findings of the study highlight a number of key avenues for future research that will help to extend the current workplace bullying literature.

7.1 Theoretical contributions The present study makes several theoretical contributions. This is the first study examining workplace bullying in Indian organisations employing both the behavioural and self-labelling methods of assessing workplace bullying. The findings of the study ascertain a high prevalence of workplace bullying among Indian managerial employees. The study also highlights the direction of bullying which is mainly directed from someone in authority as well as bystanders’ reactions to bullying. The study suggests that

74


high power culture might relate to the high prevalence of supervisory bullying in Indian organisations. This study also sheds light on the silence motives of employees over the acts of bullying behaviours which have not been yet explored in the extant bullying literature. Given the Indian socio-cultural framework, the silence motives of bystanders over bullying acts can be a very interesting area of research to be explored.

7.2 Managerial implications A large number of studies from the west have shown that bullying behaviours are detrimental for employees as such behaviours affect their well-being and productivity (Hoel et al., 2011). Given the deleterious effects of workplace bullying, it becomes crucial on the part of organisations to promote practices to protect employees from workplace bullying. Policies such as ‘zero-tolerance bullying policy at work’ and ‘managing with respect’ should be strengthened and proper grievances mechanism to handle the cases of bullying within the organisations should be formed. Likewise in most of the anti-bullying policies/ guidelines across the globe, the bullying policies in India should focus on increasing awareness on bullying – its nature, forms, causes and consequences and establishing clear formal and informal procedures for reporting incidents of bullying which are well communicated to all employees. Research suggests that majority of bullying acts are directed from supervisors (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Supervisors must understand that their behaviours reflect on the organisation as a whole given that they are often perceived as legitimate representatives of the organisation. Employees are more likely to develop unfavourable attitudes toward the broader organisation in response to the actions of the supervisor (Eisenberger et al., 2010). Therefore, timely training and workshops of manager and guidelines to increase their competence in dealing with bullying and statement of consequences for not adhering to the norms of acceptable workplace behaviours should be established (Richards and Daley, 2003; Salin, 2008; Vartia et al., 2003). The increased awareness of bullying behaviours, causes, consequences as well as the anti-bullying policies and practices may encourage employees to combat bullying by refusing to accept it, by not taking part in it or by raising their voice against it (Salin, 2008).

7.3 Limitations of the study and future research directions Despite substantive theoretical contributions, this study has some limitations. The first major limitation of the study is its cross-sectional nature, small sample size and self-reported data which does not allow to draw firm conclusions. The second major limitation of the study is that we have also conducted our study in line with ‘black hole’ in bullying domain of research (Rayner and Cooper, 2003) as we have focused only on the targets’ experiences of workplace bullying. Exploring perpetrators’ and bystanders’ perspectives can unfold many new and interesting insights in this domain of research (Rai and Agarwal, 2016). The third limitation is that we have taken a gender blind/neutral perspective to study workplace bullying. Bullying is a gendered phenomenon (Lee et al., 2013). Research suggests that men and women interpret and react to bullying differently (Escartín et al., 2011). While the present sample comprised both men and women, we did not examine differences in bullying across genders. Future research should focus on bullying as a gendered phenomenon.


75

References Adams, A. (1992) ‘The standard guide to confronting bullying at work’, Nursing Standard: Official Newspaper of the Royal College of Nursing, Vol. 7, No. 10, pp.44–46. Agarwal, U.A. and Gupta, R.G. (2016) ‘Examining the nature and effects of psychological contract: Case study of an Indian organization’, Thunderbird International Business Review, in press, DOI: 10.1002/tie.21789. Agarwal, U.A. and Rai, A. (2016) ‘Exploring bullying among Indian managers: a grounded theory approach’, Journal of Asia Business Studies, in press. Agervold, M. (2007) ‘Bullying at work: a discussion of definitions and prevalence, based on an empirical study’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.161–172. ASSOCHAM (2012) ‘Majority of employees quit bosses and not jobs’ [online] http://www. business-standard.com/article/companies/majority-of-employees-quit-bosses-and-not-jobsassocham-112101200173_1.html (accessed 23 May 2015). Ayoko, O.B., Callan, V.J. and Härtel, C.E. (2003) ‘Workplace conflict, bullying, and counterproductive behaviors’, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.283–301. Beale, D. and Hoel, H. (2010) ‘Workplace bullying, industrial relations and the challenge for management in Britain and Sweden’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.101–118. Béteille, A. (2006) Ideology and Social Science, Penguin Books, India. Bhagat, R.S. and McQuaid, S.J. (1982) ‘Role of subjective culture in organizations: a review and directions for future research’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, No. 5, p.653. Bond, G.R. (2004) ‘Supported employment: evidence for an evidence-based practice’, Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4, p.345. Brinsfield, C.T. (2013) ‘Employee silence motives: investigation of dimensionality and development of measures’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp.671–697. Carter, M., Thompson, N., Crampton, P., Morrow, G., Burford, B., Gray, C. and Illing, J. (2013) ‘Workplace bullying in the UK NHS: a questionnaire and interview study on prevalence, impact and barriers to reporting’, BMJ Open, Vol. 3, No. 6, p.e002628. Cavana, D., Delahaye, B.L. and Sekaran, U. (2001) Applied Business Research Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, John Wiley & Sons, Australia. Cortina, L.M. and Wasti, S.A. (2005) ‘Profiles in coping: responses to sexual harassment across persons, organizations, and cultures’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 1, p.182. Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, P.K. and Pereira, B. (2002) ‘Measuring workplace bullying’, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.33–51. Cox, H. (1991) ‘Verbal abuse nationwide, part II: impact and modifications’, Nursing Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.66–69. D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2010) ‘The exit coping response to workplace bullying: the contribution of inclusivist and exclusivist HRM strategies’, Employee Relations, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.102–120. D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2011) ‘The limits to workplace friendship: managerialist HRM and bystander behavior in the context of workplace bullying’, Employee Relations, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.269–288. D’Cruz, P. and Rayner, C. (2013) ‘Bullying in the Indian workplace: a study of the ITES-BPO sector’, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.597–619. Einarsen, S. (2000) ‘Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approach’, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.379–401. Einarsen, S. and Mikkelsen, E.G. (2003) ‘Individual effects of exposure to bullying at work’, Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, pp.127–144, CRC Press, USA.

76


Einarsen, S. and Skogstad, A. (1996) ‘Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and private organizations’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.185–201. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. and Cooper, C. (2003) Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, CRC Press, USA. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. and Notelaers, G. (2009) ‘Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at work: validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts questionnairerevised’, Work and Stress, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.24–44. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (2011) ‘The concept of bullying and harassment at work: the European tradition’, Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, pp.3–39, CRC Press, USA. Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I. and Matthiesen, S.B. (1994) ‘Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: an exploratory study’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.381–401. Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T.E., Gonzalez-Morales, M.G. and Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010) ‘Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: the contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95, No. 6, p.1085. Erdogan, B. and Liden, R.C. (2006) ‘Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational justice: implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.1–17. Escartín, J., Zapf, D., Arrieta, C. and Rodriguez-Carballeira, A. (2011) ‘Workers’ perception of workplace bullying: a cross-cultural study’ [online] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ 10.1080/13594320903395652 (accessed 15 May 2016). Ghosh, A. (2011) ‘Power distance in organizational contexts – a review of collectivist cultures’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.89–101. Giga, S.I., Hoel, H. and Lewis, D. (2008) The Costs of Workplace Bullying, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Giorgi, G. (2012) ‘Workplace bullying in academia creates a negative work environment: an Italian study’, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.261–275. Giorgi, G., Arenas, A. and Leon-Perez, J.M. (2011) ‘An operative measure of workplace bullying: the negative acts questionnaire across Italian companies’, Industrial Health, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp.686–695. Giorgi, G., Leon-Perez, J.M. and Arenas, A. (2015) ‘Are bullying behaviors tolerated in some cultures? Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between workplace bullying and job satisfaction among Italian workers’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 131, No. 1, pp.227–237. Hansen, A.A.M., Hogh, A., Garde, A.H. and Persson, R. (2014) ‘Workplace bullying and sleep difficulties: a 2-year follow-up study’, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp.285–294. Hershcovis, M.S. (2011) ‘Incivility, social undermining, bullying… oh my!’: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.499–519. Hoel, H. (2013) ‘Workplace bullying in United Kingdom’, JILT International Labour Forum on Workplace Bullying and Harassment [online] http://www.jil.go.jp/event/ro_forum/20130228/ resume/uk.pdf (accessed 18 March 2015). Hoel, H. and Cooper, C.L. (2000) Destructive Conflict and Bullying at Work, Manchester School of Management, UMIST Manchester [online] http://sites.google.com/site/qmcmonitor/ Destructiveconflictandbullyingatwork.pdf (accessed 1 June 2016). Hoel, H., Cooper, C.L. and Faragher, B. (2001) The experience of bullying in Great Britain: the impact of organizational status’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.443–465.


77

Hoel, H., Einarsen, S. and Cooper, C.L. (2003) ‘Organisational effects of bullying’, Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, pp.145–161, CRC Press, USA. Hoel, H., Rayner, C. and Cooper, C.L. (1999) Workplace Bullying, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [online] http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1999-02322-006 (accessed 23 May 2015). Hoel, H., Sheehan, M.J., Cooper, C.L. and Einarsen, S. (2011) ‘Organisational effects of workplace bullying’, Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, pp.129–148, CRC Press, USA. Hofstede Center (2014) [online] https://www.geert-hofstede.com (accessed 23 May 2015). Hofstede, G. (1980) ‘Culture and organizations’, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.15–41. Hofstede, G. (1991) Organizations and Cultures: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York. Hofstede, G. (2001) ‘Culture consequences’, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures et Organisations: Nos Programmations Mentales, Pearson Education, France. Jacobson, K.J., Hood, J.N. and Van Buren, H.J. (2013) ‘Workplace bullying across cultures: a research agenda’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 14, pp.147–165. Jain, A.K. (2015) ‘An interpersonal perspective to study silence in Indian organizations: investigation of dimensionality and development of measures’, Personnel Review, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp.1010–1036. Jain, N. (2014) ‘Exploring the right conduct of a manager: insights from Indian management’, International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.55–73. Jennifer, M.I.L., Restubog, S.L.D. and Zagenczyk, T.J. (2010) ‘Consequences of workplace bullying on employee identification and satisfaction among Australians and Singaporeans’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology [online] http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/01/ 04/0022022109354641.abstract (accessed 6 May 2015). Job Portal Career builder (2014) ‘55% employees face bullying at workplace, fins new survey’ [online] http://www.firstpost.com/india/55-employees-face-bullying-workplace-fins-newsurvey-1819055.html (accessed 23 May 2015). Johns, G. (2006) ‘The essential impact of context on organizational behavior’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.386–408. Kakar, S. and Kakar, K. (2007) The Indians, Penguin, New Delhi. Keashly, L. and Jagatic, K. (2003) ‘By any other name: American perspectives on workplace bullying’, Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, pp.31–61, CRC Press, USA. Keashly, L. and Jagatic, K. (2011) ‘North American perspectives on hostile behaviors and bullying at work’, Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, pp.41–71, CRC Press, USA. Kelloway, K., Bryant, M., Buttigieg, D. and Hanley, G. (2009) ‘Poor bullying prevention and employee health: some implications’, International Journal of Workplace Health Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.48–62. Khanna, M. and Karandikar, M. (2013) ‘Impact of relational collectivism on impulse buying for others’, International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.589–604. Khatri, N. and Tsang, E.W. (2003) ‘Antecedents and consequences of cronyism in organizations’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.289–303. Kulkarni, S.P., Hudson, T., Ramamoorthy, N., Marchev, A., Georgieva-Kondakova, P. and Gorskov, V. (2010) ‘Dimensions of individualism-collectivism’, Verslo ir Teisės Aktualijos, p.93, Vol. 5, pp.93–109.

78


Lam, S.S., Chen, X-P. and Schaubroeck, J. (2002) ‘Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures: the moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp.905–914. Lee, R.T., Brotheridge, C.M., Salin, D. and Hoel, H. (2013) ‘Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.235–251. Lewis, D. (2003) ‘Voices in the social construction of bullying at work: exploring multiple realities in further and higher education’, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.65–81. Lewis, D. and Rayner, C. (2003) ‘22 bullying and human resource management’, Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace, p.370, CRC Press, USA. Leymann, H. (1996) ‘The content and development of mobbing at work’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.165–184. Lutgen-Sandvik, P. and Fletcher, C.V. (2013) ‘Conflict motivations and tactics of targets, bystanders, and bullies: a three-told tale of workplace bullying’, The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice, pp.349–376. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S.J. and Alberts, J.K. (2007) ‘Burned by bullying in the American workplace: prevalence, perception, degree and impact’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp.837–862. Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J.C. and Nelson, D.L. (2007) ‘Advances in occupational health: from a stressful beginning to a positive future’, Journal of Management, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp.809–840. Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991) ‘Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation’, Psychological Review, Vol. 98, No. 2, p.224. Matthiesen, S.B. and Einarsen, S. (2010) ‘Bullying in the workplace: definition, prevalence, antecedents and consequences’, International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.202–248. Mehta, N.K. (2014) ‘Revisiting emotional intelligence: from the realms of ancient Indian wisdom’, International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.42–59. Mikkelsen, E. and Einarsen, S. (2002) ‘Relationships between exposure to bullying at work and psychological and psychosomatic health complaints: the role of state negative affectivity and generalized self-efficacy’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp.397–405. Mikkelsen, E.G. and Einarsen, S. (2001) ‘Bullying in Danish work-life: prevalence and health correlates’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.393–413. Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. (2000) ‘Organizational silence: a barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp.706–725. Mulder, R., Bos, A.E., Pouwelse, M. and Van Dam, K. (2016) ‘Workplace mobbing: how the victim’s coping behavior influences bystander responses’, The Journal of Social Psychology, pp.1–14, ahead of print. Mulder, R., Pouwelse, M. and Lodewijkx, H. (2010) ‘Mobbing at work: bystander behavior, perceived responsibility, social contagion and power position’, 7th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment, pp.2–4, Cardiff. Mulder, R., Pouwelse, M., Lodewijkx, H. and Bolman, C. (2008) ‘Emotional and helping responses among bystanders of victims of mobbing’, 6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment, pp.4–6, Montreal, Canada. Namie, G. (2003) ‘Workplace bullying: escalated incivility’, Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 68, No. 2, pp.1–6. Namie, G. and Lutgen-Sandvik, P.E. (2010) ‘Active and passive accomplices: the communal character of workplace bullying’, International Journal of Communication, Vol. 4, p.31. Niedhammer, I., David, S. and Degioanni, S. et al. (2006) ‘Association between workplace bullying and depressive symptoms in the French working population’, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp.251–259.


79

Nielsen, M.B. (2009) Methodological Issues in Research on Workplace Bullying, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Nielsen, M.B. and Einarsen, S. (2012) ‘Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: a meta-analytic review’, Work and Stress, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.309–332. Nielsen, M.B., Matthiesen, S.B. and Einarsen, S. (2010) ‘The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying: a meta-analysis’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp.955–979. Nielsen, M.B., Skogstad, A., Matthiesen, S.B., Glasø, L., Aasland, M.S., Notelaers, G. and Einarsen, S. (2009) ‘Prevalence of workplace bullying in Norway: comparisons across time and estimation methods’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.81–101. O’Moore, M., Lynch, J. and Daeid, N.N. (2003) ‘The rates and relative risks of workplace bullying in Ireland, a country of high economic growth’, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.82–95. Park, J.H. and Ono, M. (2016) ‘Effects of workplace bullying on work engagement and health: the mediating role of job insecurity’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, pp.1–24. Parzefall, M-R. and Salin, D.M. (2010) ‘Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: a social exchange perspective’, Human Relations, Vol. 63, No. 6, pp.761–780. Paull, M., Omari, M. and Standen, P. (2010) ‘Keep your head down and your mouth shut: bystanders in workplace bullying’, 7th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment, Cardiff, Wales, UK. Paull, M., Omari, M. and Standen, P. (2012) ‘When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp.351–366. Petrović, I.B., Čizmić, S. and Vukelić, M. (2014) ‘Workplace bullying in Serbia: the relation of self-labeling and behavioral experience with job-related behaviors’, Psihologija, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp.185–199. Power, J.L., Brotheridge, C.M., Blenkinsopp, J., Bowes-Sperry, L., Bozionelos, N., Buzády, Z. and Chuang, A. et al. (2013) ‘Acceptability of workplace bullying: a comparative study on six continents’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp.374–380. Radford, M.H., Mann, L., Ohta, Y. and Nakane, Y. (1991) ‘Differences between Australian and Japanese students in reported use of decision processes’, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.35–52. Rai, A. and Agarwal, U.A. (2016) ‘Workplace bullying: a review and future research direction’, South Asian Journal of Management, in press. Rayner, C. and Keashly, L. (2005) ‘Bullying at work: a perspective from Britain and North America’ [online] http://psycnet.apa.org/books/10893/011 (accessed 29 June 2016). Rayner, C., Hoel, H. and Cooper, C. (2001) Workplace Bullying: What We Know, Who is to Blame and What Can We Do?, CRC Press. Richards, J. and Daley, H. (2003) ‘Bullying policy: development, implementation and monitoring’, Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, pp.247–258, CRC Press, USA. Salin, D. (2001) ‘Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.425–441. Salin, D. (2003) ‘Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment’, Human Relations, Vol. 56, No. 10, pp.1213–1232.

80


Salin, D. (2008) ‘The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource management: measures adopted and underlying organizational factors’, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.221–231. Samnani, A-K. (2013) ‘Embracing new directions in workplace bullying research a paradigmatic approach’, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.26–36. Saunders, P., Huynh, A. and Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2007) ‘Defining workplace bullying behavior professional lay definitions of workplace bullying’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.340–354. Schat, A.C. and Kelloway, E.K. (2005) ‘Workplace aggression’, Handbook of Work Stress, pp.189–218. Sharma, S.K., Rastogi, R. and Garg, P. (2013) ‘Workplace spirituality and managerial effectiveness among Indian managers’, International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.382–390. Sheehan, K.H., Sheehan, D.V., White, K., Leibowitz, A. and Baldwin, D.C. (1990) ‘A pilot study of medical student ‘abuse’: student perceptions of mistreatment and misconduct in medical school’, Jama, Vol. 263, No. 4, pp.533–537. Sidle, S.D. (2010) ‘Eye of the beholder: does culture shape perceptions of workplace bullying?’, The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.100–101. Sinha, B.K., Willson, L.R. and Watson, D.C. (2000) ‘Stress and coping among students in India and Canada.’, Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, Vol. 32 No. 4, p. 218. Sinha, J.B. (1990) Work Culture in the Indian Context, Sage Publications Pvt. Limited, India. Sinha, J.B. (2009) Culture and Organizational Behavior, Sage Publications, India. Sinha, J.B. and Sinha, D. (1990) ‘Role of social values in Indian organizations’, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 25, Nos. 3–6, pp.705–714. Stouten, J., Baillien, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., De Witte, H. and Euwema, M. (2010) ‘Discouraging bullying: the role of ethical leadership and its effects on the work environment’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95, No. 1, pp.17–27. Thomas, D.C. and Au, K. (2002) ‘The effect of cultural differences on behavioral responses to low job satisfaction’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.309–326. Trépanier, S-G., Fernet, C. and Austin, S. (2013) ‘Workplace bullying and psychological health at work: the mediating role of satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness’, Work and Stress, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.123–140. Trépanier, S-G., Fernet, C. and Austin, S. (2015) ‘A longitudinal investigation of workplace bullying, basic need satisfaction, and employee functioning’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, p.105. Triandis, H.C. (1994) Culture and Social Behavior, McGraw-Hill Book Company [online] http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1993-99058-000 (accessed 9 May 2016). Twemlow, S.W., Fonagy, P. and Sacco, F.C. (2004) ‘The role of the bystander in the social architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1036, No. 1, pp.215–232. Van Heugten, K. (2010) ‘Engaging bystanders as change agents in workplace bullying’, 7th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment, Cardiff, Wales, UK. Van Heugten, K. (2013) ‘Resilience as an underexplored outcome of workplace bullying’, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.291–301. Vartia, M., Korppoo, L., Fallenius, S. and Mattila, M. (2003) Workplace Bullying: The Role of Occupational Health Services, Taylor and Francis, London; New York.


81

Way, K.A., Jimmieson, N.L., Bordia, P. and Hepworth, G. (2013) ‘Self-labelling versus behavioral experience of workplace bullying: differences in sector-and industry-level prevalence and sources’, Journal of Health, Safety and Environment, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.83–102. Zapf, D. and Einarsen, S. (2005) ‘Mobbing at Work: Escalated Conflicts in Organizations.’, available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2004-19514-010 (accessed 6 May 2015). Zapf, D., Escartín, J., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. and Vartia, M. (2011) ‘Empirical findings on prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace’, Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, pp.75–105. Zhu, Y., Nel, P. and Bhat, R. (2006) ‘A cross cultural study of communication strategies for building business relationships’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.319–341.