Exploring bullying among Indian managers: a grounded theory approach
| Published date | 07 October 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-03-2016-0036 |
| Date | 07 October 2019 |
| Pages | 588-611 |
| Author | Upasna A. Agarwal,Arpana Rai |
| Subject Matter | Strategy |
Exploring bullying among Indian
managers: a grounded theory approach
Upasna A. Agarwal and Arpana Rai
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to explore thephenomenon of workplace bullying –its nature, antecedents,
direct andindirect effects –from victim’s perspective.
Design/methodology/approach –The study adopted groundedtheory approach and centered on the
participants experiences and interpretations of bullying. A total of 23 self-reported victims formed the
sample of our study.Data from interviews were analyzed using thecoding procedure of grounded theory
methodology. To enhance validity of results, in addition to interviews, creative drawings were used for
triangulation.
Findings –The study reveals some similarities and culturally relevant variation in the sources and
outcomes ofbullying. The role of culture on bullying is visible.The study also adds to the limited literature
on underlyingand intervening factors in bullying–outcomerelationship.
Research limitations/implications –The study examined bullying from the victim’s perspective.
Perpetratorand bystander’s perspectives wouldhave added interesting insights into the findings.
Practical implications –Effective identificationof, prevention of and intervention in workplace bullying
are imperative for individualsand organizations. Rich descriptions from victims on enablers of bullying
and how these events have affected their everyday experiences may also boost practitioners’ and
policymakers’willingness to rectify the potentialissues leading to bullying in organizations.
Originality/value –The present study contributes to the workplace bullying research in general and
Indian context in particular by examining contextually relevant antecedents, consequences as well as
underlyingand intervening factors.
Keywords India, Grounded theory, Workplace bullying
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Workplace bullying is considered a serious workplace stressor involving repeated
demeaning or destructive acts or behaviors (Shields and Wilkins, 2009;Simpson and
Cohen, 2004) that may be subtle (e.g. excessive workload, persistent monitoring, personal
jokes and gossip) or explicit and identifiable (e.g. violence, aggression, insults and threats)
(Parzefall and Salin, 2010;Stouten et al.,2010). It can have crippling and devastating effects
on employees and organizations (Hoel and Cooper, 2001;Wilson, 1991). Nielsen and
Einarsen (2012) recently confirmed the debilitating effects of bullying on work-related
outcomes such as job satisfaction, performance and commitment. Additionally, bullying
adversely affects targets’ and their coworkers’ physical and mental health and can re sult in
post-traumatic stress symptoms (Bond et al.,2010;Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002), emotional
exhaustion (Helkavaara et al., 2011;Van Ruysseveldt and Taverniers, 2010) and depression
(Kivima
¨ki et al., 2000;Tuckey et al.,2010). Bullying is detrimental to organizational productivity
(Einarsen et al.,2003;Keashly and Jagatic, 2003;Keelan, 2000) and can become a huge
financial liability (Field, 1996): a case of bullying costs an organization approximately
$30,000-$100,000 annually (Leymann, 1990). It also places a high burden on socie ty as a
whole (Hoel et al.,2001); for example, the annual cost of workplace bullying in the UK is
Upasna A. Agarwal and
Arpana Rai are both based
at the Human Resource
and Orgnization Behaviour,
NITIE, Mumbai, India.
Received 7 March 2016
Revised 24 June 2016
5 August 2016
Accepted 17 August 2016
PAGE 588 jJOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES jVOL. 13 NO. 4 2019, pp. 588-611, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1558-7894 DOI 10.1108/JABS-03-2016-0036
almost £2bn in the form of sickness-related absenteeism, turnover and replacement co sts,
productivity and performance, grievance, compensation and litigation.
Reports on the percentage of employees encountering workplace bullying indicate that it is
widely prevalent, especially in the USA (46.8 per cent; Lutgen-Sandvik et al.,2007), India
(42.3 per cent; D’Cruz and Rayner, 2013),Turkey (over 40 per cent; Bilgel et al., 2006;Yildiz
et al.,2008
), Italy (16 per cent; Giorgi et al.,2011), other parts of Europe (5-10 per cent;
Einarsen et al.,2011) and Scandinavia (3.5 per cent; Leymann, 1996). Given its high
incidence and severe effects on critical organizational outcomes, bullying has emerged as
an important area of research within management studies (Samnani and Singh, 2012), with
seven recent reviews (Bartlett and Bartlett, 2011;Branch et al.,2013;Einarsen, 2000;
Johnson, 2009;Moayed et al.,2006;Samnani and Singh, 2012;Rayner and Hoel, 1997)
and two meta-analyses (Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012;Nielsen et al.,2010) dedicated to the
topic. Despite the impressive body of research on forms (Einarsen et al., 2003), prevalence
(Zapf et al., 2011) and effects of bullying at work (Girardi et al.,2007;Schat and Kelloway,
2005), several limitations continue to exist in the extant literature. It is, therefore,
unsurprising that workplace bullying is considered a “misunderstood, misdiagnosed, and a
mismanaged behaviour in work environments” (Harvey et al.,2009).
Bullying is a socially constructed phenomenon (Lewis, 2003), and cognitive schemas
represented in cultural orientations may shape bullying perceptions (Lutgen-Sandvik et al.,
2005;Salin, 2003), sources and outcomes differently (Chu et al.,1999;Escartı
´net al.,2011;
Power et al.,2013;Radford et al.,1991). What may be perceived as unacceptable behavior
in one culture may be perceived as a managerial prerogative in another (Samnani, 2013),
and what may constitute bullying in one culture may be the norm in another. Moreover, a
country’s political and legal framework plays an important role; for example, the extent of
employment regulation and recognition of human rights affect the extent to which bullying
may be outlawed, discouraged, tolerated, condoned or encouraged by the management
and employers (Beale and Hoel, 2010). Hence, scholars call for a contextually sensitive and
culturally nuanced understandingof bullying (Giorgi et al.,2014;Jennifer et al., 2010;Sidle,
2010); however, such effortsare limited in the extant literature. With the rise in the numberof
diverse, global teams, understanding cross-cultural differences that may impact bullying –
its nature, antecedents and directand indirect effects –are important.
D’Cruz and colle agues (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2009;D’Cruz and Noronha, 2010;D’Cruz and
Noronha, 2015;D’Cruz et al.,2014;D’Cruz and Rayner, 2013) have examined workplace
bullying in India, focusing on the victim’s perspective, their coping, the role of bystanders in
bullying dynamicsand human resource (HR) management practices. They also investigated
depersonalized bullying by examining the role of structural and functional aspects of
organizations. While their contribution is significant, D’Cruz et al. (2014) seem to have
underplayed the role of culture in bullying dynamics. For instance, they did not adequately
examine contextually relevant factors that shape perceptions of organizational bullying, its
effects on employees’ attitudes and behaviors and contextual factors that explain why
bullying has theseeffects in the Indian context,which has unique socio culturalmilieu.
This study attempts to extend the existing work on bullying by adopting a grounded theory
approach to examine the nature, antecedents, outcomes and mediators of workplace
bullying from the victim’s perspective (Burrell and Morgan, 1979;Miles and Huberman,
1994;Romani et al.,2011;Shaw, 1999). In line with the objective of the study, the following
research questions are explored:
RQ1. What is the nature of bullying?
RQ2. What factors enable workplace bullying?
RQ3. What are the consequences of workplace bullying?
RQ4. How does bullying affect various outcomes?
VOL. 13 NO. 4 2019 jJOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES jPAGE 589
To continue reading
Request your trial