Workplace bullying: an examination of power and perpetrators
| Date | 04 March 2019 |
| Pages | 324-341 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2018-0057 |
| Published date | 04 March 2019 |
| Author | Helen De Cieri,Cathy Sheehan,Ross Donohue,Tracey Shea,Brian Cooper |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
Workplace bullying:
an examination of
power and perpetrators
Helen De Cieri, Cathy Sheehan, Ross Donohue, Tracey Shea and
Brian Cooper
Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to apply the concept of power imbalance to explain workplace and
demographic characteristics associated with bullying by different perpetrators in the healthcare sector.
Design/methodology/approach –All 69,927 members of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
(Victoria) were invited to participate in an online survey in 2014; 4,891 responses were received (7 per cent response
rate). Participants were asked about their exposure to workplace bullying (WPB) by different perpetrators.
The questionnaire addressed demographic characteristics and perceptions of workplace characteristics
(workplace type, leading indicators of occupational health and safety (OHS), prioritisation of OHS, supervisor
support for safety and bureaucracy). Analysis involved descriptive statistics and regression analyses.
Findings –The study found that the exposure of nurses and health workers to bullying is relatively high
(with 42 per cent of respondents experiencing WPB in the past 12 months) and there are multiple perpetrators
of bullying. The research revealed several demographic predictors associated with the different types of
perpetrators. Downward and horizontal bullying were the most prevalent forms. Workplace characteristics
were more important predictors of bullying by different perpetrators than were demographic characteristics.
Research limitations/implications –There are limitations to the study due to a low response rate and the
cross-sectional survey.
Practical implications –Practical implications of this study emphasise the importance of focussed human
resource strategies to prevent bullying.
Originality/value –The key contribution of this research is to draw from theoretical explanations of power
to inform understanding of the differences between perpetrators of bullying. The study highlights the
workplace characteristics that influence bullying.
Keywords Quantitative, Occupational health and safety, Workplace bullying, Power, Perpetrators,
HR strategies
Paper type Research paper
Workplace bullying (WPB) has been recognised as an important social problem for over
four decades (Einarsen et al., 2011; Nielsen and Einarsen, 2012; Salin and Notelaers, 2017).
Between 10 and 15 per cent of workers experience WPB (e.g. Keashly and Jagatic, 2011) and
health workers such as nurses and personal carers experience much higher rates of WPB
than do workers in other industries. An international review by Spector et al. (2014) found
that on average 37 per cent of nurses have experienced WPB.
WPB is defined as:
[…] a situation in which one or more persons systematically and over a long period of time perceive
themselves to be on the receiving end of negative treatment on the part of one or more persons, in a
situation in which the person(s) exposed to the treatment has difficulty in defending themselves
against this treatment. (Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2007, p. 735)
WPB is costly to the organisation and to the individual (Einarsen et al., 2011; Nielsen and
Einarsen, 2012), and it is one of the most difficult areas for human resource (HR)
professionals to manage (Catley et al., 2017; Cowan and Fox, 2015). The key contributions of
the present research are: first, a focus on prevention of WPB, as prioritised by Catley et al.
(2017). Second, we investigate the relatively under-researched area of perpetrators of
Personnel Review
Vol. 48 No. 2, 2019
pp. 324-341
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-02-2018-0057
Received 15 February 2018
Revised 5 June 2018
Accepted 23 August 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
324
PR
48,2
bullying (Samnani and Singh, 2012). A small stream of studies (e.g. Baillien et al., 2011;
Balducci et al., 2012; Hauge et al., 2009; Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2007) has made important
contributions by investigating WPB from the perspective of the perpetrators themselves.
However, while it is known that a target may be victimised by a range of perpetrators
(Zapf and Einarsen, 2011), little is known about the sources of bullying perpetrators and
their interactions with targets of bullying. Finally, our research addresses Nielsen and
Einarsen’s (2012) call for a clearer theoretical foundation in the WPB research. Specifically
our study first examines the impact of power imbalance in organisational relationships to
explain associations between perpetrators and those who experience bullying. Second our
study considers the impact of the broader workplace context and draws on Clegg’s (1989)
circuits of power argument that individuals are socially influenced by the surrounding
systems of power that “control actions and fix rules”(Hutchinson et al., 2010, p. 38).
Theoretical perspective: power in organisations
The concept of power is central to the definition of WPB (Einarsen et al., 2011; Samnani and
Singh, 2012), which identifies a power imbalance between the bullying perpetrator and the
target (Branch et al., 2013). Hutchinson et al. (2010, p. 25) have noted: “It is not possible to
understand bullying without considering the concept of power, and yet power has received
little systematic attention in the literature on bullying”. However, the literature that has
examined power and bullying has largely been conceptual, with relatively few empirical
studies (Branch et al., 2013; Hutchinson and Jackson, 2015).
Hoel and Salin (2003) discussed power dynamics as organisational antecedents to
bullying, arguing that bullying relationships should be understood within the social work
context. WPB may arise from legitimate, or formal, sources of organisational power but may
also emerge from perceptions of powerlessness generated from informal sources of
organisational power that are social, physical or psychological. Drawing on the argument
that power imbalance in social relations is a central mechanism in the experience of
bullying, the first section of the literature revi ew examines interpersonal power
explanations for the impact of different perpetrators of WPB, as well as the impact of the
demographic characteristics of those who experience bullying. The second section of the
literature review shifts focus away from an examination of interpersonal explanations of
bullying to consider the workplace context. The discussion incorporates Hutchinson et al.’s
(2010) argument that explanations of interpersonal conflict have to consider surrounding
systems of power, as outlined in Clegg’s (1989) circuits of power argument.
Perpetrators of workplace bullying
Although Samnani and Singh (2012) noted in their review of 20 years of WPB research that
there is a critical need for research to improve understanding of bullying perpetrators, there
has been relatively little theoretical development or empirical study of bullying by different
perpetrators within a work context.
Downward bullying
Applying the theoretical perspective of power imbalance, Hutchinson and Jackson (2015)
have argued that imbalance connected with formal power can explain downward bullying
where a supervisor bullies a worker. From this perspective, managers have legitimate power
arising from the formal power structure of the organisation and downward bullying can be
viewed as an abuse of this power by a manager (Einarsen et al., 2011). Downward bullying
has been shown to be particularly acute in the health sector and specifically among nurses
(Castronovo et al., 2016).
325
Workplace
bullying
To continue reading
Request your trial