Content area
Full text
Conceptualisation
Workplace bullying has no single, agreed definition; however, although the area is still in a state of denotative hesitancy - that is having a lack of clear definitions - (Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012), some key themes have emerged (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011). These themes are associated with repeated, hostile acts that are harmful to the recipient, which, in turn have been used to define bullying in this study (Thirlwall, 2011). A diverse range of acts or behaviours may constitute bullying, including overt examples, such as shouting, rudeness, belittling, and aggressive gestures, through to more covert acts of ostracism and exclusion (Keashly, 1998). Harm is a vital feature of bullying because recipients may interpret the same behaviours in quite different ways, so without harm bullying cannot exist (Lee, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000; Quine, 1999; Randall, 1997). Harm may be both psychological and physical, and typically targets experience symptoms associated with stress, such as distress, headaches, and nausea (Davenport, Schwartz, & Elliott, 1999; Field, 1996; Namie & Namie, 2000; Needham, 2003), insomnia, inability to concentrate, and in some cases post-traumatic stress disorder (Lee, 2000; Leymann, 1990). Persistence is also a defining feature of bullying, so behaviours need to be recurrent and on-going (Einarsen, 1999; Field, 1996; Keashly, 1998; Lee, 2000; Namie & Namie, 2000). Consequently, workplace bullying has been identified as a significant workplace hazard (Bentley, Catley, Cooper-Thomas, Gardener, O'Driscoll, & Trenberth, 2009).
Organisational responses to allegations of workplace bullying have received more limited attention from academics. Process models from Leymann (1990) and Lutgen-Sandvik, 2003 noted that management responses did not address the cause of bullying or resolve the resulting issues, and ultimately the target of bullying would leave the organisation, possibly after long-term sick leave, by dismissal, or some other arrangement, while the perpetrator of the situation would remain and would subsequently bully other targets. Subsequently, a study in Finland, where there is a legislative requirement to remedy workplace bullying, indicated a diverse range of outcomes for both the perpetrator and the target, including discussions with both parties, dismissal or other sanctions for the bully, if allegations are serious and founded, counselling of the target and the bully, and occasionally taking no action at all (Salin, 2009).
Elsewhere, where there is no...