Are Rational Self-Interested Leadership Behaviors Contributing to the Workplace Bullying Phenomenon in Canada and the United States?

doi:10.4236/ajibm.2013.36A004

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 2013, 3, 33-38

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2013.36A004 Published Online October 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajibm) 33

Are Rational Self-Interested Leadership Behaviors

Contributing to the Workplace Bullying Phenomenon in

Canada and the United States?

Lisa M. S. Barrow1*, Sandy Kol berg2, Jim Mirabella3, Annette Roter4

1Goodman School of Business, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada; 2School of Management, Walden University, Minneapolis,

USA; 3Operations Management & Statistics, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, USA; 4Dahl School of Business, Viterbo Univer-

sity, La Crosse, USA.

Email: *[email protected], sandra.kol[email protected], jmirabe@ju.edu, [email protected]

Received September 10th, 2013; revised September 28th, 2013; accepted October 3rd, 2013

cense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT

Workplace bullying is a phenomenon in American and Canadian organizations that has been ignored for many years

and as a result targeted employees are suffering [1-3]. Workplace bullying is at epidemic proportions with little done to

address the issue. The workplace for bullied employees has become an uncivilized and hostile environment [4]. Leaders

who embrace a rational self-interested approach to leading are contributing to the workplace bullying phenomenon.

Using Chi Square tests of independence, the study was conducted to determine the extent to which rational self-inter-

ested leaders rely on bullying behaviors when interacting with employees. Three hundred fifty-five employees were

asked to complete a survey consisting of fifteen bullying behavior statements. The results of the Chi Square tests indi-

cate a significant relationship exists between employee demographics vs. certain bullying behaviors associated with

threats to personal standing, professional status and destabilization. The results further reveal that rational self-inter-

ested leaders are relying on bullying in three areas: threat to personal standing, threat to professional status and destabi-

lization. It was also noted that if the rational self-interest leader did not make changes the problem of workplace bully-

ing would continue to escalate. The recommendation was that rational self-interested leaders could benefit by changing

their perspective on employees to include more personal and humane treatment, rewards, and recognition.

Keywords: Leadership; Bullying; Leaders; Workplace Bullying; Leadership Behaviors

1. Introduction

Workplace bullying is a prevalent phenomenon in Ame-

rican and Canadian workplaces. It is the systemic perse-

cution of employees [4]. Workplace bullying is a coun-

terproductive behavior [5]. An estimated 37 percent of

employees were subjected to ongoing bullying behavior

[6]. With bullying at an epidemic level, the time has

come for organizational leaders to take the necessary

steps to address the issue.

Leaders can begin to address workplace bullying by

examining their personal interactions with employees to

determine if their attitudes and behavior are contributing

to the problem. The leaders can further explore their

adopted leadership approaches to determine if they are

helping to promote bullying behaviors in the workplace.

A review of the literature revealed leaders who embrace

rational self-interest leadership approaches appear more

apt to resort to bullying behaviors than leaders who em-

brace other-oriented leadership approaches [7].

Given the severity of the workplace bullying problem

and the literature finding around rational self-interest

leadership, the research for the current article centered on

the rational self-interest leader behavior and its effect on

employees. Rational self-interest behavior is defined as

“thinking and acting in a manner that is expected to lead

to an optimal or maximum result for a person on the ba-

sis of consideration of the person’s values and risk pref-

erences” (p. 946) [8]. Because relationships are seen as

transactional in nature and void of emotion, rational self-

interested leaders rely on systematic reasoning to ensure

that their personal goals are met. Rational self-interested

leaders tend to concern themselves with organizational

objectives coupled with a self-emphasis [7].

*Corresponding a uthor.

Are Rational Self-Interested Leadership Behaviors Contributing to the Workplace Bullying Phenomenon

in Canada and the United States?

Unlike rational self-interested leaders, other-oriented

leaders focus their attention on organizational objectives

coupled with a human resource emphasis [7]. Other-ori-

ented leaders rely on the internalization, adherence and

enforcement of societal norms rather than systematic

reasoning [9]. Other-oriented leaders embrace prosocial

behaviors that promote and uphold the value of employ-

ees.

2. The Rational Self-interested Leader and

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership is an example of a leadership

approach that projects self-interest by nature. Transac-

tional leadership focuses on the exchange between lead-

ers and followers, with both parties receiving something

of value [10]. The employees perform tasks and leaders

monetarily reward them for their efforts. Transactional

leaders as those leaders who do not focus on the individ-

ual needs of their followers; rath er they look to exch ange

things of value to advance their own and their followers’

agendas [11]. Transactional leaders use positive and

negative motivation. Positive mot ivation focu ses on prai-

se, promise and rewards. Negative motivation focuses on

negative feedback, threats or disciplinary action [12].

Transactional leaders avoid taking positive action as

long as the goals of the organization are being met [13,

14]. They use either contingent awards or management

by exception. Contingent awards focus on the exchange

of rewards for meeting goals or objectives. Management

by exceptio n foc use s on neg ative f eedb ack an d co rr ec tiv e

action, a punitive app roach to management [11]. In other

cases of management by exception, leaders take a hands-

off approach and avoid leading.

With transactional leadership, the transaction becomes

more important than the employees wellbeing. Leaders

are not interested in nurturing and preserving relation-

ships with employees; they are interested in ensuring that

tasks are completed in order to achieve d esired outcomes.

This myopic view of the leader-employee relationship

sets the foundation for toxic interactions, as preserving

the humanness and dignity of employees is not a priority

[1].

3. Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying is a chronic stressor, which nega-

tively affects employees and organizations [15]. Bullying

is the reliance on repetitive hostile or aggressive behaviors,

which offend, humiliate, and harass targeted individuals,

thus causing them significant stress [15]. Workplace

bullying is repetitive, abu sive behavior that devalues and

harms people in the work environment [1]. Workplace

bullying is not limited to one individual but can include

groups, even functioning organizational units [16].

Workplace bullying has a devastating effect on the in-

dividual and the organization [17]. It intimidates and

torments the targeted individual, putting his or her self-

esteem and overall health at risk [1,18]. Workplace bul-

lying i s an extrem e social p henomeno n that is triggered by

social stressors and social defeats that cause negative bio

psychosocial stress reactions and health hazards for the

targeted individuals [19]. It is a form of stress at work

caused by repeated, systematic exposure to negative acts

[20]. Work plac e bul ly ing i s a si gnifi can t h ealt h and safety

issue that occurs between leaders, managers, coworkers

and employees. It is prevalent across industries and at all

levels within the organizational structure. No one is ex-

empt from experiencing workplace bullying.

Bullies often have a desire to dominate their relation-

ships and are controlling and manipulative [21]. Bullies

tend to display little compassion toward targeted indi-

viduals and rely on exploitative behavior as a way of

dominating t he relationshi ps t hey have with others. When

bullying occurs in the workpl ace, it is difficult for targeted

individuals to stop the behavior [22]. Targeted employees

are often not aware of the bullying until an extended pe-

riod of time has passed. They suspect that something is

wrong yet may not understand that what they are experi-

encing is being bullied [1 ].

4. Method

A quantitative method utilizing a correlational design

was used in the study to determine the extent to which

rational self-interested leaders rely on bullying behaviors

when interacting with employees. The participants were

355 American and Canadian employees employed in a

variety of industries such as healthcare, manufacturing,

financial, retail, public service, and education. Data were

collected over an 8-month period using an onlin e survey.

The Research Ethics Board at Brock University approv ed

the study. Participation was voluntary. Due to the sensi-

tive nature of the topic, participants’ identity remained

anonymous. Participants prov ided consent by completin g

and submitting the survey.

Participants indicated their gender, age, employment

status and length of service. These data were collected to

determine to what extent employees may experience

bullying behaviors based on their gender and age [23].

Data were also collected to see if a relationship existed

between demographics and their length of service and

employment status as the literature is devoid of analysis

pertaining to the variables as they relate to workplace

bullying. Eighty percent of the participants were women.

Forty-five percent of the participants were between the

ages of 46 and 65 years old. Forty-one percent were be-

Are Rational Self-Interested Leadership Behaviors Contributing to the Workplace Bullying Phenomenon

in Canada and the United States? 35

tween the ages of 31 and 45 years old and 14% wer e be-

tween the ages of 18 and 30 years old. Eighty-six percent

were full-time employees and 14% were part-time em-

ployees. Fifty-six percent had a length of service between

1and 10 years and 44% had a length of service between

11and 30 ye ars.

A workplace interaction online survey was created us-

ing Freeonlinesurveys.com. The survey consisted of 15

statements (See Table 1) representing common bullying

behaviors [24]. Using a 5-point Likert type scale rating

from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5), par-

ticipants were asked to rate bullying behaviors based on

their experiences. The categories for bullying behaviors

are:

1) Threat to Professional Status: humiliating the per-

son in public or sabotaging the person’s work.

2) Threat to Personal Standing: name calling, spread-

ing malicious rumors about a person, teasing or intimi-

dating a person.

3) Isolation: preventing access to opportunities or iso-

lating the person physically or socially.

4) Overwork: imposing undue pressure to produce

work and setting impossible deadlines.

5) Destabilization: failing to give cred it where it is due,

failure to acknowledge or reward, assigning meaningless

tasks, removing responsibility or settin g the person up for

failure.

Some of the statements refer to co-workers because

employees often mimic the behavior that their leaders

display. Leaders will subtly encourage employees to in-

teract with targeted individuals in the same manner that

they do. The mimicking behavior is known as mobbing,

which occurs when individuals experience harassment by

leaders and colleagues causing them to be socially ex-

cluded at work [25].

Table 1. Fifteen bullying behavior statements.

I have been publicly humiliated and embarrassed by a supervisor o

co-worker.

My boss constantly watches me.

I have been ostracized at work.

I have been regula rly d enied pr omo tions even though I was qualified f o

the position.

I have been teased at work.

I have been physically assaulted or received threats of assault at work.

My work has been sabotaged.

I am not acknowledged nor rewarded for doin g a good job.

I have not received credit for work I have completed.

My boss displays intimidating behavior towards me, such as yelling &

tempers tantrums.

I am regularly assigned meaningless tasks or less desirable tasks.

I am often talked to in a sarcastic manner and often feel “put down”.

I am regularly given unreasonable deadlines.

Abusive or degr ading language is often used by my boss or c o -worker.

I have been the target of malicious rumors.

Source: Workplace Interaction Survey, 2009.

5. Results

To answer the research question, “What is the likelihood

that American and Canadian employees will experience

workplace bullying?” four hypotheses were tested to de-

termine if there is a relationship between having experi-

enced bullying behavior vs. the employee’s age group,

gender, employment status and length of service. A Chi

Square test of independence was performed for each hy-

pothesis. The results of the Chi Square tests indicate a

significant relationship exists between employee demo-

graphics vs. certain bullying behaviors associated with

threats to personal standing, professional status and de-

stabilization.

For the statement “I have been the target of malicious

rumors”, which is a threat to one’s personal standing,

Tables 2-4 show the cross tabulation of the Likert type

responses vs. employee age, gender and length of service.

Table 2. Rumors vs. age cross tabulations.

18 - 30 31 - 45 46 - 65 Total

Strongly Disagree 32 45 56 133

Disagree 11 45 35 91

Undecided 2 17 14 33

Agree 1 20 28 49

Strongly Agree 3 17 27 47

Total 49 144 160 353

Note: Pearson Chi Square = 27.216, Sig. level = 0.001**.

Table 3. Rumors vs. gender cross tabulations.

Male Female Total

Strongly Disagree 29 104 133

Disagree 13 78 91

Undecided 12 21 33

Agree 6 43 49

Strongly Agree 12 34 46

Total 72 280 352

Note: Pearson Chi Square = 10.337, Sig. level = 0.035*.

Table 4. Rumors vs. length of service c r o ss-tabulations.

0 - 1

year 2 - 10

years 11 - 20

years 21+

years Total

Strongly Disagree23 65 25 20 133

Disagree 8 40 27 16 91

Undecided 2 13 13 5 33

Agree 2 23 16 8 49

Strongly Agree 3 18 12 14 47

Total 38 159 93 63 353

Note: Pearson Chi Square = 21.036, Sig. level = 0.049*.

Are Rational Self-Interested Leadership Behaviors Contributing to the Workplace Bullying Phenomenon

in Canada and the United States?

While about one-third of the oldest group agreed with

the statement regarding rumors; one-fourth of the middle

group also agreed, and less than one-tenth of the youngest

group agreed. The results imply that the longer one is in

the workplace, the more likely he/she will experience

being the target of malicious rumors.

Whereas a similar percentage of men and women

agreed that they experienced rumors, a significantly lar-

ger group of women disagreed while more men were

undecided as to whether they experienced malicious ru-

mors (See Table 3). It can be concluded that experienc-

ing malicious rumors is gender-neutral; while men are

more likely to be uncertain or noncommittal as to

whether it is true.

As with age, the employees with a longer length of

service were more inclined to have been the targets of

malicious rumors (See Table 4 ). There was n o indication

when the experience may have occurred during one’s

employment. Given time, an employee’s chances of be-

ing the target of rumors grows, as evidenced by 13% of

the newer employee group agreeing, vs. 26% of the 2 -

10 years group, vs. 30% of the 11 - 20 years group vs.

35% of the 2 1+ years group.

For the statement “I have been publicly h umiliated and

embarrassed by a supervisor or coworkers,” which is a

threat to one’s professional status, Tables 5-6 show the

cross tabulation of the Likert-type responses vs. em-

ployee status and length of service.

Table 5. Public humiliation vs. employment status cross

tabulations.

Full-time Part-time Total

Strongly Disagree 59 10 69

Disagree 77 17 94

Undecided 16 0 16

Agree 83 3 86

Strongly Agree 66 7 73

Total 301 37 338

Note: Pearson Chi Square = 12.816, Sig. level = 0.012*.

Table 6. Public humiliation vs. length of service cross tabu-

lations.

0 - 1

year 2 - 10

years 11 - 20

years 21+

years Total

Strongly Disagree 14 36 11 11 72

Disagree 10 39 28 19 96

Undecided 5 8 4 2 19

Agree 5 44 26 14 89

Strongly Agree 5 32 24 18 79

Total 39 159 93 64 355

Note: Pearson Chi Square = 21.209, Sig. level = 0.047*.

While about half of the full-time employees agreed

with the statement regard ing humiliation , only abou t one-

fourth of the part-time employees also agreed. The im-

plication is that the more time one spends in the work-

place, the more likely he/she will experience public hu-

miliation from supervisors or co-workers. The finding

could also be attributed to the fact that a part-time em-

ployee is not likely to remain with the company as long

as a full-time employee.

Similar to the statement about rumors, the employees

with a longer length of service were more inclined to

have been the targets of public humiliation at the hands

of their bosses and co-workers (See Table 6). The find-

ing makes sense since more time on the job presents

greater opportunities for such bullying. While about one-

fourth of the newer employee group had a public hu-

miliation experience, half of t he 21+ years group also di d.

For the statement “I am not acknowledged nor re-

warded for doing a good job,” which is a destabilization

behavior, Table 7 shows the cross tabulation of the

Likert type responses vs. employee status.

The test results revealed th at full-time employees were

more likely than part-time employees to feel they were

not acknowledged or rewarded for their job performance.

When employees are not acknowledged or rewarded,

employees become demotivated and may not want to

contribute to the organizational efforts. Subsequently,

employees may begin to disengage from the organization,

resulting in a decrease in organizational commitment and

an increase in efforts to exit the company [22,26]. Part-

time employees are not typically eligible for rewards, and

so may be less inclined to feel troubled by not being ac-

knowledged or rewarded for their efforts.

6. Discussion

Evidence from the results of the study support the prem-

ise that American and Canadian employees who interact

with rational self-interested leaders will likely experience

behaviors that are associated with workplace bullying. In

the rational self-interested leaders’ efforts to achieve de-

Table 7. Acknowledgement/reward vs. employment status

cross tabulations.

Full-time Part-time Total

Strongly Disagree 66 11 77

Disagree 79 14 93

Undecided 42 3 45

Agree 76 2 78

Strongly Agree 35 7 42

Total 298 37 335

Note: Pearson Chi Square = 10.283, Sig. level = 0.036*.

Are Rational Self-Interested Leadership Behaviors Contributing to the Workplace Bullying Phenomenon

in Canada and the United States? 37

sired organizational and personal outcomes and to uphold

their personal value, they may seek to devalue employees

by threatening their professional status and personal

standing. The rational self-interested leaders may rely on

public humiliation and rumors to ensure that targeted

employees are not identified as valuable contributors to

the organization. Rational self-interested leaders may

further seek to devalue employees by not acknowledging

and rewarding them for their positive work performance,

which confirms the leaders’ belief that the targeted em-

ployees are of little value to the organization and are not

worthy of receiving positive reinforcement. By adopting

bullying be haviors, th e rational self-interested leaders are

personally contributing to the creation of a hostile work

environment, which will inevitably negatively affect both

the targeted employees and the organization’s overall

effectiveness. Employees most likely to experience bul-

lying are full-time, employees who have been with the

organization for a long period of time as evidenced by

the findings of the study. More likely than not long term

employees’ professional status and personal standing will

be threatened as rational self-interested leaders seek to

harm and devalue them. Regardless of the employees’

positive job performance, their efforts may not be ac-

knowledged or rewarded. Employees who are neither

acknowledged nor rewarded for their efforts may begin

to adopt negative attitudes about themselves and the or-

ganization. The negativity experienced by the targeted

employees could affect their ability to positiv ely contrib-

ute to the organization putting the employees at risk of

disciplinary action and possible job loss. The negative

outcomes could be in alignment with the rational self-

interested leaders’ agenda and could have a devastating

effect on targeted employees and further reduce organ-

izational productivity. Finally, the negative interactions

observed by part-time employees may cause them not to

seek full-time employment status for fear of becoming

targets of workplace bullying. The part-time employees

may further decide not to contribute to the organization

at their fullest potential because th eir efforts are likely to

go unnoticed and unrewarded. Workplace bullying has a

domino negative effect on full-time employees, part-time

employees as well as organizations. Organizations may

lose valuable and talented employees as a result of bul-

lying behaviors that exist. Not only will organizations

lose talented employees, they will carry the financial

burden of replacing such individuals. Employees, who

leave the workplace due to negative interactions, either

involuntarily or voluntarily, cost American companies

billions of dollars per year. Stress, loss in productivity

and replacement of employees are contributing factors to

the indirect and direct costs incurred by organizations.

7. Conclusion

Rational self-interested leaders contribute to the work-

place bullying phenomenon by relying on behaviors that

threaten the employees’ personal standing, professional

status and are destabilizing. The workp lace bullying phe-

nomenon will continue to increase if rational self-inter-

ested leaders continue to embrace attitudes and behaviors

that devalue employees and do not uphold their human-

ness. Rational self-interested leaders seeking to lead

successfully in the 21st century will need to restrain their

bullying behaviors and embrace behaviors that are pro-

social and other-oriented. Bullying behaviors are learned

behaviors indicating that rational self-interested leaders

may need to learn how to incorporate more positive be-

haviors in their interactions with employees. In choosing

positive choices of action, rational self-interested leaders

will need to explore their pre-existing knowledge of

workplace bullying and engage in meaningful learning

that occurs at the conceptual level [27]. Addressing

workplace bullying in a proactive manner will set the

foundation for rational self-interested leaders to adopt

behaviors that are prosocial and other-oriented. Embrac-

ing prosocial and other-oriented behaviors will contribu te

to the eradication of bullying in the workplace and will

promote a safe and healthy work environment for all em-

ployees.

REFERENCES

[1] L. M. S. Barrow, “In Darkness Light Dawns: Exposing

Workplace Bullying,” Purple Crown Publishing, Port

Colborne, 2009

[2] N. Djurkovic, D. McCormack, and G. Casimir, “The Be-

havioral Reactions of Victims to Different Types of

Workplace Bullyi ng,” International Journal of Organiza-

tion Theory and Behavior, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2005, pp. 439-

460.

[3] G. Namie and R. Namie, “The Bully at Work,” 2nd Edi-

tion, Sourcebooks, Naperville, 2009.

[4] F. Bulutlar and E. U. Öz, “The Effects of Ethical Climates

on Bullying Behaviour in the Workplace,” Journal of

Business Ethics, Vol. 86, No. 3, 2009, pp. 273-295.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9847-4

[5] O. B. Ayoko, V. J. Callan and C. J. Härtel, “Workplace,

Conflict, Bullying, and Counterproductive Behavior,” In-

ternational Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11,

No. 4, 2003, pp. 283-301.

[6] Workplace Bullying Institute & Zogby International,

2007.

http://www.workplacebullying.org/research/WBI-Zogby2

007Survey.html

[7] L. M. S. Barrow and J. Mirabella, “An Empirical Study of

Other-Oriented and Rational Self-Interested Leadership

Approaches,” Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3, No.

Are Rational Self-Interested Leadership Behaviors Contributing to the Workplace Bullying Phenomenon

in Canada and the United States?

2, 2009, pp. 44-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jls.20107

[8] B. M. Meglino and M. A. Korsgaard, “Considering the

Rational Self-Interest as a Disposition: Organizational

Implications of Other Orientation,” Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 89, No. 6, 2004, pp. 946-959.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.946

[9] B. M. Meglino and M. A. Korsgaard, “The Role of Other

Orientation in Reactions to Job Characteristics,” Journal

of Management, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2007, pp. 57-83.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206306295308

[10] S. Boerner, S. Eisenbeiss and D. Griesser, “Follower Be-

havior and Organizational Performance: The Impact of

Transformational Leaders,” Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2007, pp. 15-27.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10717919070130030201

[11] P. Northouse, “Leadership: Theory and Practice,” Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007

[12] B. Bass and D. Steidlmeier, “Ethics, Character and Auth-

entic Transformational Leadership Behavior,” Leadership

Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999, pp. 181-217.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8

[13] J. Humphreys, “Transformational and Transactional Lea-

der Behavior,” Journal of Management Research, Vol. 1,

No. 3, 2001, pp. 149-159.

[14] K. Kuhnert and P. Lewis, “Transactional and Transforma-

tional Leadership: A Constructive/Development Analy-

sis,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 4,

1987, pp. 648-657.

[15] S. Einarsen, “The Nature and Causes of Bullying at

Work,” International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 20, No.

1/2, 1999, pp.16-20.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437729910268588

[16] M. Hutchinson, M. Vickers D. Jackson and L. Wilkes,

“Like Wolves in a Pack: Predatory Alliances of Bullies in

Nursing,” Journal of Management and Organization, Vol.

12, No. 3, 2006, pp. 235-251.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2006.12.3.235

[17] M. Vickers, “Bullying as Unacknowledged Organiza-

tional Evil: A Researcher’s Story,” Employee Responsi-

bilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2002, pp.

207-217.

[18] V. Braithwaite, E. Ahmed and J. Braithwaite, “Work-

place Bullying and Victimization: The Influence of Or-

ganizational Context, Shame and Pride,” International

Journal of Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 13, No. 2,

2008, pp. 71-94.

[19] M. K. Strandmark and L. R. Hallberg, “The Origin of

Workplace Bullying: Experiences from the Perspective of

Bully Victims in the Public Service Sector,” Journal of

Nursing Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2007, pp. 332-341.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2007.00662.x

[20] S. A. Bond, M. R. Tuckey and M. F. Dollard, “Psychoso-

cial Safety Climate, Workplace Bullying, and Symptoms

of Post Traumatic Stress,” Organization Development

Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2010, p. 37.

[21] M. Cleary, G. E. Hunt, G. Walter and M. Robertson,

“Dealing with Bullying in the Workplace: Toward Zero

Tolerance,” Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental

Health Services, Vol. 47, No. 12, 2009, pp. 34-41.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20091103-03

[22] P. D’Cruz and E. Noronha, “The Exit Coping Response

to Workplace Bullyi ng,” Employee Relations, Vol. 32, No.

2, 2010, pp. 102-120.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425451011010078

[23] A. Ortega, A. Høgh, J. Pejtersen, J. Hyld and O. Olsen,

“Prevalence of Workplace Bullying and Risk Groups: A

Representative Population Study,” International Archives

of Occupational and Environmental Health, Vol. 82, No.

3, 2009, pp. 417-426.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00420-008-0339-8

[24] C. Rayner and H. Hoel, “A Summary Review of Litera-

ture Relating to Workplace Bullying,” Journal of Com-

munity & Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1997,

pp. 181-191.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199706)7:3<1

81::AID-CASP416>3.0.CO;2-Y

[25] L. Sperry, “Mobbing and Bullying: The Influence of In-

dividual, Work Group, Andorganizational Dynamics on

Abusive Workplace Behavior,” Consulting Psychology

Journal Practice and Research, Vol. 61, No. 3, 2009, pp.

190-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016938

[26] D. Zapf and C. Gross, “Conflict Escalation and Coping

with Workplace Bullying: A Replication and Extension,”

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-

ogy, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2001, pp. 497-522.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000834

[27] B. A. Altman, “Workplace Bullying: Application of No-

vak’s (1998) Learning Theory and Implications for

Training,” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,

Vol. 22, No. 1, 2010, pp. 21-32.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10672-009-9121-7