a multilevel approach

7/25/2019 A Multilevel Approach

1/27

This article was downloaded by: [Centro de Investigacin en Alimentacin yDesarrollo, A.C.]On: 15 September 2014, At: 13:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

European Journal of Work and

Organizational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors

and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Interventions in workplacebullying: A multilevel approachNicole J. Saam

a

aUniversitt Erfurt , Erfurt, Germany

Published online: 24 Mar 2010.

To cite this article:Nicole J. Saam (2010) Interventions in workplace bullying: Amultilevel approach, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19:1,

51-75, DOI: 10.1080/13594320802651403

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320802651403

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320802651403http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13594320802651403http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20


2/27

licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Downloadedby[Centrode

InvestigacinenAlimentacinyDesarrollo,

A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


3/27

Interventions in workplace bullying: A multilevelapproach

Nicole J. SaamUniversitat Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

This article investigates intervention strategies in workplace bullying which

have so far received little attention from researchers. Until now the focus hasbeen on approaches to classifying intervention strategies, the appropriatenessof mediation as an intervention strategy and ways different organizationsrespond to workplace bullying. This study prefers a qualitative design andemploys a new empirical approach. Consultants who have specialized inbullying consultation were interviewed and asked which intervention strategiesthey apply and for what reason and to what purpose the strategies areadopted. It is found that consultants apply conflict moderation or mediation,coaching, and/or organization development. This is interesting as thedominating contingency approach to conflict intervention (Fisher & Keasly,1990; Glasl, 1982; Prein, 1984) recommends neither coaching nor organization

development. Based on Heames and Harveys (2006) multilevel model ofbullying, this article therefore suggests a new approach, a multilevel approachof interventions in workplace bullying that considers interventions at thedyadic, group and organizational level.

Keywords: Workplace bullying; Intervention strategies; Mediation; Coaching;Organization.

Bullying at work has been defined as harassing, offending, socially

excluding someone or negatively affecting someones work tasks. . . . 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 (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper,

2003b, p. 15). A conflict cannot be defined as bullying if two parties of

approximately equal strength are in conflict. Workplace bullying is a

Correspondence should be addressed to Nicole J. Saam, Universita t Erfurt,

Staatswissenschaftliche Fakulta t, Nordha user Str. 63, D-99089 Erfurt, Germany.

E-mail: [email protected]

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

2010, 19 (1), 5175

2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320802651403



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


4/27

noteworthy and prevalent issue in organizations around the world

(Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003a). However, American perspectives

apply different concepts than is the case in the European tradition as, for

instance, employee abuse and workplace harassment in research on hostile

workplace behaviours (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). The concept of bullying

has been developed over a period of approximately 20 years (Crowford,

1999; Einarsen, 1999, 2000; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Heames & Harvey,

2006; Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001; Hogh & Dofradottir, 2001;

Leymann, 1996; Leymann & Gustafsson, 1996 [Leymann conducted several

studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s]; Liefooghe & Davey, 2001; Salin,

2003b; Zapf, 1999), as well as methods of measuring workplace bullying (for

an overview see Cowie, Naylor, Smith, Rivers, & Pereira, 2002; Salin, 2001).

Numerous empirical studies have revealed the frequency and duration ofbullying, the number, gender, and status of bullies and victims, and the

distribution of bullying across various sectors and for different countries (for

an overview on the findings in the European context see Zapf, Einarsen,

Hoel, & Vartia, 2003).

The topic of interventions in workplace bullying is important in popular

books (e.g., Peyton, 2003; Schild & Heeren, 2002), but research on

interventions in workplace bullying is still rare. However, interventions

have become an important topic for investigation, since research has

revealed that none of the interpersonal management strategies available tothe targets are effective in preventing a situation in which bullying is

tolerated (Zapf & Gross, 2001).

The aim of this article is to increase our knowledge about intervention in

workplace bullying. Our empirical study explores which intervention

strategies are actually applied by consultants who specialize in bullying

consultation and, if so, to what purpose they are adopted. It is found that

consultants apply conflict moderation or mediation, coaching, and/or

organization development. This is interesting as the dominating contingency

approach to conflict intervention recommends neither coaching nororganization development. This article therefore suggests a new approach,

a multilevel approach of interventions into workplace bullying.

In the following section, the contingency approach to conflict interven-

tion and the state of the art in research on intervention in bullying is

described. Then the design of the qualitative study with 18 semistructured

interviews with consultants who intervene in organizations seeking support

in resolving cases of workplace bullying is explained. Next, quotes from the

interviews are presented. The consultants describe and explain when and

why they apply which intervention strategy. Then, the consultants

statements are interpreted and the use and failure of specific interventions

analysed. As a consequence, this article then suggests complementing the

contingency approach to conflict intervention with a multilevel approach of

52 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


5/27

interventions in workplace bullying. In the Conclusions the results and

outline questions for further intervention studies are discussed.

WORKPLACE BULLYING AND INTERVENTION

Interventions are the efforts of agents acting independently of the disputants

(bully or target) who influence the development of the interaction. Bullying

intervention has received little attention from researchers. They have instead

focused on approaches to classifying intervention strategies, the appropri-

ateness of mediation as an intervention strategy, and ways different

organizations respond to workplace bullying.

Approaches to classify intervention strategies

Two groups of researchers refer to general, theory-based approaches to

conflict intervention to describe and explain the appropriateness and

effectiveness of bullying intervention strategies. Bullying is conceived of as a

particularly escalated form of conflict, as long-lasting and badly managed

conflicts (Zapf & Gross, 2001, p. 499). The conflict perspective on bullying

relies on models of conflict escalation, which define discrete, yet related

stages in the escalation process (e.g., Fisher & Keasly, 1990; Glasl, 1982;

Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994). These models form the basis of thecontingency approach to conflict intervention (Fisher & Keasly, 1990;

Glasl, 1982; Prein, 1984), which assumes that different intervention

strategies are appropriate and effective at different stages of conflict

escalation. Interventions are recommended either to prevent the interaction

from reaching the stage of bullying or to stop the bullying, or at least to

reduce its impact (Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999; Rayner, 1999; Zapf,

1999).

Following Glasls (1982) model of conflict escalation, Zapf and Gross

(2001) suggest that severe bullying should be classified as a conflict at theboundary between the phase in which the relationship between the parties is

severely disrupted and dominated by threats, and the phase in which

destruction of the other individual becomes paramount. In this stage, Glasl

recommends mediation1 as an intervention strategy (see also Hoel et al.,

1999). Although Glasl states that the latter stages of his model may not be

reached in organizations, Zapf and Gross argue that they are in fact reached

1Defined as an intervention strategy in which the mediator tries to negotiate between the

parties and to help them build up trust with regard to the third party. S/he selects information,

observes the tactical moves of the parties, and tries to fulfil those communicative functions theparties can no longer fulfil themselves in direct confrontations. All methods and means of

pressure are available to the mediator to the same extent that they are available to the parties

(Glasl, 1982, p. 134).

INTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING 53



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


6/27

in the more extreme cases of bullying. In these stages, Glasls model

recommends arbitration and power intervention. Intervention strategies for

the early phases of conflict escalationmoderation,2 process consultation,

and sociotherapeutic process consultationare not suitable in the case of

workplace bullying because in these stages the conflict has not yet turned

into bullying.

Fisher and Keashley (1990) developed their four-stage model in the

context of international disputes and transferred it to workplace bullying

(Keashly & Nowell, 2003). The overall strategy is to de-escalate conflict

back down through the identified stages of destruction, segregation,

polarization, and discussion. The recommended de-escalatory sequence of

interventions is peacekeeping (at the destructive stage of the conflict),

arbitration or power mediation, consultation, mediation, conciliation, andnegotiation (discussion stage).

A third group of researchers follows a pragmatic approach. Hubert

(2003) reports on a five-stage model to prevent and overcome undesirable

interaction at the workplace developed in four group discussions with

personnel representatives and representatives of institutions involved with

preventing and overcoming undesirable behaviour. The focus of this model

was on the policies/strategies and the specific responsibilities of various

professional disciplines involved. The stages include prevention, uncovering,

support, intervention, and after-care.

The appropriateness of mediation as an intervention strategy

Mediation is the major intervention strategy that is recommended by the

three approaches presented later. The contingency approaches argue that

mediation is suited because the intensity of the conflict has escalated to a

stage at which mediation is recommended. Mediation by an occupational

welfare worker, an external mediator, or the supervisor is also recommended

as an intervention strategy in the five-stage model by Hubert (2003,p. 308ff.). If the target does not have the courage to talk to the bully, an

occupational welfare worker or an external person should be chosen as a

mediator, and if the bully is not open to mediation by them then the

supervisor should mediate.

Although mediation is the major intervention strategy that is recom-

mended, the appropriateness of mediation is questioned. According to the

contingency approach, the reason for the failure of specific interventions in

particular conflicts may be inappropriate application with respect to the

stage of escalation, or the lack of coordinated follow-up interventions to

2Defined as interventions that clarify misunderstandings and misperceptions and that deal

with other kinds of cognitive and semantic differences (Glasl, 1982, p. 132).

54 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


7/27

deal with elements not addressed by the initial intervention (Fisher &

Keashly, 1990, p. 238; Keashly & Nowell, 2003, p. 349). As applied to

mediation, the first argument states that mediation can fail if the conflict has

reached an even higher level of escalation at which only arbitration or power

intervention are appropriate. The second argument is that mediation can be

unsuccessful if there is no follow-up intervention. In the de-escalating

sequence of interventions the conciliation and the negotiation phase may

have been forgotten.

Additionally, mediation has been criticized for a number of other failings:

In contrast to the basic assumption of mediation, parties involved in

workplace bullying are not equally capable of negotiating with each other.

Mediation does not address or punish past behaviour because it has a focus

on present and future relationships. The concerns for justice and recognitionof the harm done to the victim are ignored. Mediation keeps wrongdoings

beyond public scrutiny. Confidentiality works against the identification of

systematic patterns of conflict associated with a particular party, a

particular unit within an organization, or across the organization (Keashly

& Nowell, 2003; Rayner, 1999). These failings reflect a crucial difference

between the concepts of conflict and bullying. In conflicts parties are equally

able to defend themselves, whereas this is not so in the case of bullying.

There is an imbalance of power among the parties involved in the dispute.

Therefore, Keashly and Nowell (2003, p. 353) argue that mediation may notonly be an inappropriate intervention strategy in workplace bullying, but

that it may even be harmful. They conclude that bullying should not be

described as a conflict. Instead, researchers should rather consider what a

conflict-oriented perspective might offer in terms of understanding work-

place bullying (p. 356).

The imbalance of power argument is also supported by Ferris (2004) and

Hubert (2003). Based on her clinical practice with severe experiences of

bullying, Ferris reports that mediation was frequently unsuccessful due to

power differentials between the target and the bully, inexperience on the partof the person conducting the mediation, and lack of understanding of the

differences between bullying and interpersonal conflict. Extensive counsel-

ling was often required to help the target cope with the lack of help or the

failed mediation (p. 392).

Huberts (2003) concern with mediation of the superior is based on

personal experience. She reports that this increases the risk of escalation.

The situation may easily turn into a winlose fight, arousing feelings of

rancour as well as wishes for revenge on the side of the offender if the target

wins (p. 309).

Similarly, Aquino (2000, p. 189) questions the use of mediation for cases

of workplace victimization (which is defined very similarly to bullying).

Based on a quantitative empirical study, he argues that effective conflict




A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


8/27

management requires the use of both dominating and integrative styles.

Focusing too much on a reconciliatory strategy may even be risky, as the

victim may be perceived as an easy target of exploitation or mistreatment.

Organizational responses

Some authors concentrate on the ways different organizations respond to

workplace bullying. Salin (2009) explores what kind of measures personnel

managers have taken to intervene in workplace harassment. She refers to

characteristics of the organization and of the personnel manager to explain

the applied intervention strategy. The organizations relied heavily on

reconciliatory measures for responding to workplace harassment (operatio-

nalized as discussion with parties involved, potentially with a neutralmediator involved; consulting healthcare services; counselling or other help

for target and/or perpetrator). She finds that the likelihood of transferring

either target or perpetrator and the probability of avoiding dealing with

harassment increases with the size of the organization. Whereas female

personnel managers prefer reconciliatory measures and the transfer of either

target or perpetrator, male personnel managers prefer avoidance.

Based on her clinical practice with severe experiences of bullying, Ferris

(2004) has presented a typology on how different organizations respond to

workplace bullying. She argues that the most helpful organizations do notmerely see bullying as a personality issue to be solved by the parties in

conflict or through mediation. Instead, bullying is seen as an organizational

problem that needs to be addressed through coaching for the bully,

counselling, performance management, and representative training

(p. 393ff.).

Keashley and Neuman (2004) present the case study of an action research

approach in which the researchers recruited employees, leadership, and

union officials from the large organization involved. Although situation-

specific interventions were designed to address particular problematicbehaviours (p. 360), the major intervention was the action research

approach because it launched an organizational development process: The

action research process changed the nature and the character of conversa-

tions within the organization, created an atmosphere of trust, security, and

high quality interpersonal interaction, and engaged the participants in a

continuous cycle of action and reflection (p. 362).

On the whole there is only fragmentary information on intervention in

bullying. In particular, one would like to know reasons other than the

characteristics of the organization or the personnel manager that explain

why a certain intervention method is applied. As Salin (2009) states, there

are many more characteristics that might affect the choice of the

intervention strategy, e.g., perpetrator characteristics and harassment

56 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


9/27

severity. Because of the fragmented state of the issue, this study prefers a

qualitative design and employs a new empirical approach. Consultants who

have specialized in bullying consultation are interviewed and asked which

intervention strategies they apply and for what reason and to what purpose

the strategies are adopted. The findings will not only complement those of

Salin; they will also shed new light on the approaches that classify

intervention strategies and on the appropriateness of mediation as an

intervention strategy.

The Empirical Intervention Study

Based on a qualitative study with 18 semistructured interviews with

consultants who intervene in organizations seeking support to resolve casesof workplace bullying, the focus was on investigating which intervention

strategies are applied by these consultants. The first subsample (Munich

sample; in the following signified by capital letters OE and SB) was collected

between October and December 2005 and consisted of 12 consultants in

southern and western Germany. The second subsample (Erfurt sample;

capital letter E) was collected between May and July 2007 and consisted of

six consultants in eastern and northern Germany. The age group was

between 36 and 60 years, the mean age was 49 years (Munich sample) and 47

years (Erfurt sample); 42% (Munich sample) and 83% (Erfurt sample) werewomen. Both samples were recruited by means of Internet searches on

homepages of consultants who advertised for consultancy work in the case

of workplace bullying. Additional consultants were contacted by a snowball

system starting with consultants who were known on the basis of the

Internet search. All interviews were tape recorded and then literally

transcribed.

The interview manual

The interview manual was based on the organizational consultation manual

developed by Elbe and Saam (2008) and was applied to workplace bullying

consultation. This manual served for structuring interviews, although the

questions were formulated freely. The manual actually consisted of 14

questions which focused on the phases of the consultation process following

Kubrs (1996, p. 22) phase model of consultation processes: entry (first

contacts with clients, preliminary problem diagnosis, consultants definition

of bullying), diagnosis (problem analysis, fact finding, fact analysis and

synthesis, causes of bullying as perceived by the consultant, feedback to

client), action planning (developing solutions, proposals to client),

implementation (assisting with implementation, training), and termination

(criterion of termination). Three further questions focused on the criteria of




A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


10/27

a successful workplace bullying consultation project, the main features of

the consultants consultation concept, and the theoretical background of the

consultant. The manual concluded with five sociodemographic questions

(age, length of work experience as a consultant, general education, training

in bullying consultation, sex).

Method of analysis

The evaluation consisted of a type formation (Kelle & Kluge, 1999). In

this step the relevant comparative dimensions were determined, based on

the statements of the bullying consultants interviewed. The cases were then

grouped according to their comparative dimensions as well as their

characteristics and analysed as to their empirical regularities. The realtypes were then reconstructed following the principles of internal

homogeneity and external heterogeneity. Typical combinations of char-

acteristics were then analysed as to possible contexts of meaning. Finally,

the constructed types were described by a precise description of the

combinations of characteristics and the meaning contexts forming the basis

of each type.

INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

The following categories proved to be the relevant comparative dimensions

for the formation of real types of bullying consultants: The opinion of the

consultant as to the causes of bullying and the stage of conflict escalation in

the actual case; the consultants person-oriented or organization-oriented

intervention strategy; the willingness of the client to accept the procedure

proposed by the consultant; the mandate that the person seeking bullying

consultation has received according to his/her formal position from the

organization affected by bullying.

The causes of workplace bullying

The causes of bullying are important to consultants. Not that they are

interested in the details of the course of the conflict, since its no use at all

to try to reconstruct the entire case in all its details and to determine who has

how much of the blame, or similar issues (SB5: 106108), rather, the goal

is to look and decide what general conditions have to be changed so that

things work better in the future (SB5, 125127). These general conditions

are differently analysed and classified. When I say that we are dealing with

conflicts in organizations then it is clear that in each individual case you

have to look very carefully and see if the conflict is structurally caused or has

more to do with the individual persons (SB4, 47). For consultants, the

58 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


11/27

causes of bullying are important, as they adjust their intervention strategy to

the diagnosed causes. Depending on the diagnosis, the consultant offers

mediation, coaching, or organization development.

The stage in the escalation process

Which intervention strategy is offered additionally depends among some

consultants on which stage the conflict has reached (SB6, 172ff.). One

bullying consultant expressed his opinion that mediation is only effective in

certain stages of conflict escalation: Because I believe that naturally conflict

resolution is at some point principally the responsibility of the superior. I

have a model of stages where I think that a mediator can achieve something

in certain conflict and bullying phases, but from a certain level of escalationin the conflict its up to the superior (SB4, 2832).

The individual versus the organization

Consultants differ in their analysis between person-oriented and

organization-oriented intervention strategies:

In individual cases [a consulting process] is then terminated for the

involved person when the case is resolved to the satisfaction of theperson, which often or very often means that this person resigns or has

him/herself fired, as well as accepts the amount of compensation. The

consulting process is also terminated for the person logically when there

is a suicide. But then for the person, not for the organization, for the

organization consultation begins. (SB2, 195200)

During a person-oriented intervention strategy the conflict case is

discussed only with both parties (SB3, 23ff.). In contrast, the organization-

oriented intervention strategy works on problem areas at all levels of theorganization (SB1, 47).

The client and his mandate

The consultants state that in the end the client decides on the intervention

strategy applied. The client may be sceptical about conflict mediation and/or

organization development. Consultants for example refrain from conflict

intervention and immediately offer organization development if the client

dislikes dealing with the conflict.

. . . we have even also already offered not making the conflict itself the

focus and instead kept everything on a general level and then offer




A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


12/27

workshops. For instance, how can we improve the working atmosphere

in our department or what do we actually need so that we can work

together again without any pressure. (SB6, 167172)

On the other hand, the client may not yet be willing to support an

organization development process. Several consultants suppose that several

cases are needed as well as the confidence of a long-term consultantclient

relationship to receive the support of the client.

. . . to change a mission statement or corporate culture takes many years

and in that situation a single case usually is not sufficient to create a

corresponding shift of attitude with those responsible. And the problem

is really that the management executives who are there at the time arepart of the currently prevailing corporate culture. And that then takes

lots of courage due to. . . . On the part of these management executives

that that caused them to change. It takes more than a single case. So it

then works if you are active in an organization over the longer term,

then there is a possibility of changing a corporate culture. Otherwise

not. (OE4, 8088)

In other cases the client has no authority to negotiate and agree to

mediation or an organization development process because s/he is not amanagement executive. Consultants who offer coaching as an intervention

strategy report that they are often contacted by the works council.

Usually it is the works council that has a problem and cannot get

anywhere with it and then looks for experts who work in consultancy.

Works councils basically want a type of coaching in order to take the

initiative themselves. So it isnt always the case that I then directly take on

the consultancy job, but sometimes that I also give advice to people about

how they can do this for themselves. (OE5, 813)

In the following, the intervention strategies applied are described in more

detail.

From conflict moderation to mediation

Consultants who apply mediation to resolving cases of workplace bullying

restrict their intervention to conflict resolution.

. . . yes, that generally begins with one-to-one consultations when

the parties involved in the conflict are prepared to speak to each

other directly. This is a similar to a straightforward process of

60 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


13/27

mediation. . . . Of course, the aim is that parties in the conflict talk to

each other, that I then moderate these consultations, group discussions or

individual conversations, when each party exchanges views, clarifies their

positions and you try to reach an agreement. (SB3, 3341)

Several consultants indicate that their concept of mediation is very broad.

In fact, they take the role of a mediator or a conflict moderator.

So if it is really about conflict, about mediation, which I find a good term

to use because it also describes how I act a little bit as a mediator, as a

neutral consultant or neutral moderator in a conflict . . . (SB4, 1921)

It seems that these consultants act in the grey area between workplaceconflict and workplace bullying which is reflected in a grey area of the

applied intervention strategies. A statement by consultant E1 illustrates this

situation:

So I have the feeling that many people are quick to mention bullying

because it is a popular idea. Its in the media and is repeatedly used and

also or lets say that very different things are understood when bullying is

mentioned. And I think that most times its a case of normal conflict

situations. I dont mean to devalue the idea of normal, but conflictsituations occur all the time in everyday contact with people and you

dont always immediately need to call it bullying. Yes and thats the

important thing that you really get to the bottom of the situation by

asking: is it really a case of bullying? How far has the whole thing already

escalated? (E1, 6573)

Consultant E2 reports that 20% of her cases prove not to be a bullying

case (E2: 111ff.). One consultant (E6) reports to use a modified version of

the Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terrorization (LIPT) to identifytrue bullying cases.3

In the mediation process, the parties involved in the conflict work out

options as to how to solve their conflict.

All participants are involved in working on suggestions for solutions

which may occur in different stages, but at some stage, all parties are

3The LIPT (and the Negative Acts Questionnaire which today is the most widely used

instrument in the global context) was not developed as a diagnostical tool, but as a researchinstrument to study prevalence rates in large samples. Leymann himself stressed this very much

in his LIPT manual and considered the use of the LIPT for diagnostic purposes as highly

unethical.




A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


14/27

together. This may partly involve me working in an individual session

with the departments manager and to press the point home I get him to

join in and help. But at some stage, everyone is in the same room and at

that stage, these preliminary discussions are introduced and its a matter

of finding solutions, about communication and finding workable steps

and when all that is approved, then an agreement is made about when

everything will be reviewed to see if arrangements were kept, whether the

model worked. This all depends on the commission and whether they

purchased this option. Then it is also part of the job to involve the deputy

manager in everything. Its obvious that you need him on board. Then

the department manager who was included can also gain inside support.

(OE6, 6273)

Mediation is terminated after the immediate problem has been resolved.

So some colleagues do things like coaching, workshops or seminars with

those involved in the organization. But in my view these are very abstract

solutions. These sorts of things can be a consequence, but it is more

unlikely. Instead, it is more about the practical matter of the actual

conflict that the parties began. So if its about space and they are arguing

about who gets which building, then the focus is on the solution of which

department is accommodated in which building, whether a partition isnecessary or not or who has what revenue where, who gets how many

square metres of spaceall of that must be clear and then the problem

they had is solved. And that sets the standardthe last consultation has

to involve producing a solution. (OE6, 7584)

Consultants report that mediation may fail in solving the conflict.

It sometimes happen that the problem can not be solved. I am hardly

allowed in the organization or there are other motives behind theproblem not easily distinguished. (SB3, 7375)

However, during theunsuccessfulmediation process the consultant

may identify the actual causes of the conflict.

So, for instance, once at [international automotive manufacturer]. There

was dissatisfaction with the management in a department. A conflict

broke out between top-level management employees. I then did a conflict-

solving workshop. Of course, beforehand I made precise enquiries about

the cause of the conflict and what the viewpoints were. During the

workshop, however, it then came out that the actual cause of the conflict

was unclear and uninteresting work targets. (SB1, 6672)

62 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


15/27

Coaching superiors, the works council, or the victim

Coaching supports the management executive or the works council official

who is responsible for resolving the conflict in the organization.

This needs to be discussed with a management executive on a case-by-

case basis, whether to analyse the situation together with them and so be

active more in a coaching capacity or whether you support them, for

instance, in conducting conflict discussions with the involved parties, or

whether you advise them by role playing to practise different positions

and help to think through the consequences of individual potential

actions in each case. So that varies depending on what the case looks like.

(OE4, 5358).

Consultants who coach superiors or the works council refer to other

causes of workplace bullying than consultants who apply mediation or

moderation.

Very, very oftennot always and not necessarilybut very often, deficits

in the management behaviour of superiors crystallize. When for example

employees have ill-defined job tasks, when it isnt very clear who is

actually responsible for what, often the management behaviour ofexecutives as relates to management . . . well, that they are not clear

enough themselves, not precise enough themselves, that they often declare

conflicts as a private matter between those affected and simply intervene

too late, because they dont realize there is a conflict or dont know

themselves how to resolve this conflict at all, and then just let it drag on.

(SB6, 125133)

Consultants may also coach the victim. As far as the choice of

intervention strategy is concerned, the causes of workplace bullying areirrelevant for these consultants.

Well, usually there is a first meeting. Its first of all for analysis,

determining the general situation up to clarifying what the person wants

and what is my opinion, what the problem is. In the second meeting we

either start with a training, so that the person will feel more secure. This

will mean role play training or the person has to look where s/he can find

allies, this means planning more in the direction of dealing with the staff

council, works council or going to the union. It depends more or less on

what the person wants. Support is clear, but my goal is always that the

persons are strengthened as much as possible, that they can solve their

problems, where they are their problems. (E2, 6271)




A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


16/27

Organization development

Bullying consulting as organization development is the intervention strategy

that results in a change in the organization. One consultant describes the

explanations used by bullying consultants, when she suggests organization

development:

The cause of bullying in this case was a bad organization, bad procedures,

non-transparent distribution of tasks. That is why the young woman who

resigned could be treated as scum, even including the manipulation of her

computer, so that she could not work there any more. And the executives

were so bad that they didnt even notice, didnt intervene; that was a mistake

by the management. But the cause, the reason that bullying could occur wasa bad organization, thats how it all started. (OE1, 7784)

Employees from the clients organization work out solutions in workshops

that change the general conditions in such a way that future cases of bullying

become improbable (e.g., formulating a vision, bullying conventions,

company agreements, designating someone responsible for conflicts).

Generally, I offer a series of two- to three-day workshops at a time. And

then you see the most varied cases when the people have gained a bit oftrust then they reveal all sorts of things. The workshops are advertised

and anyone who is interested in them can come. In the first row there are

people directly affected by bullying who want to change something and

therefore join in every time. In the context of the workshop, among other

things, interpersonal communication is improved and motivational

training is conducted. (SB1, 105112)

After the workshops I look to see if follow-up is happening, whether the

people in the actual situation really want to change anything. Bullying isa sign of deficits within an organization. So the second part of my

training works in the direction of what can be done to counteract these

deficits. Then I offer workshops to improve the quality within the

organization, organization structure etc. (SB1, 127132)

The organization development measures applied during a case of bullying

can have far-reaching consequences:

Once it happened that in a large company with 2000 employees after a

period of two years 400 people were to leave their jobs. I met the head of

the works council at a seminar about bullying: he was in one of my

seminars and said I should go and see them as they had a problem. And

64 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


17/27

the company management, general head of the works council, head of

personnel and I were actually all sitting together in a foursome around a

table and looked for possibilities, not of preventing the redundancies, as

the works council saidOK, if the other workers then survive, we have to

tryas we have to make the people redundantto make sure that they

are equipped in the best possible way to find another job again. And that

was the subject of our conversation. A side effect was that within the first

year, such a good level of communication was established with the

employees that this subject of redundancy was made transparent and the

cases of bullying reduced. Then the people also sometimes started talking

to each other for the first time, because they knewI dont want to push

the other person out, we can only go ahead together. That new customers

were then obtained so that after two years not a single one of them had tobe made redundant because the people worked so well and the customers

were satisfied. That was really an absolute highlight of my consultancy

work. I followed up this process for two years and then they said to me

that the latest is we dont have to make anyone redundant. And that was

a side effect or really also a primary effect of a communication process

that made the topic of bullying transparent. (SB2, 171192)

Table 1 gives an overview of the types of intervention strategies which

each interviewed consultant applies. There are methodologically specializedas well as methodologically diversified bullying consultants. Four con-

sultants exclusively apply moderation/mediation. Four other consultants

engage in coaching and three in organization development. Four consultants

are diversified and apply at least two intervention strategies.

INTERPRETATION

Among the consultants, two views on bullying can be differentiated: a

conflict view and a multilevel view.

TABLE 1

The types of intervention strategies applied by the consultantsa

Intervention strategy

Consultant is

methodologically specialized methodologically diversified

Moderation/mediation SB3, SB4, OE3, OE6 SB5, SB6, OE2, E6

Coaching OE4, OE5, E2, E3 SB5, SB6, OE2, E1, E6

Organization development SB1, SB2, OE1 SB5, SB6, OE2, E1

aE4 works as a legal consultant in workplace bullying. The answers of E5 could not be

assigned.




A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


18/27

The conflict view: How far has the whole thing alreadyescalated? (E1, 73)

The consultants who favour conflict moderation or mediation conceive of

bullying as a particularly escalated form of conflict. It depends on their

judgement of how far the conflict has already escalated whether they apply

conflict moderation or mediation. Up to this point they are in agreement

with the contingency approach.

However, the consultants report that sometimes they fail because the

actual cause of the conflict was unclear. Uninteresting work targets,

management executive behaviour, or other causes they were not able to

identify were the source of the problem. This supports the theoretical debate

on the appropriateness of mediation (discussed earlier).

The multilevel view: Problem areas at all levels of theorganization (SB1, 47)

The consultants who favour coaching or organization development

conceive of bullying as a multilevel phenomenon. There is a conflict on

a dyadic level between the bully and the target. The conflict, however, is

embedded in the group, and the group is embedded in the organization.

The intervention strategy has to consider the dyadic, as well as group andorganization levels.

And then intervening in the organization works so that first the case is

solved and then using this case as an example you consider what might be

changed in the organization to prevent another new case happening.

(OE4, 7275)

Mediation may be an appropriate way of addressing bullying as a person-

to-person phenomenon; however, the conflict can reverberate to reach thegroup and organizational level that cannot be addressed by mediation. At

first sight, coaching resolves leadership problems on the part of superiors or

the works council. However, as these individuals gain in self-confidence,

social competence, and exercise an adequate degree of authority, the

incentive within the group to acquiesce to the bully will decrease. Group

cohesiveness and support for group members will start to increase again.

Group performance will increase given the reduction in personal and

interpersonal stress experienced in the group due to responsible action by

superiors or the works council. Organization development is appropriate to

address bullying at the organizational level.

This view is not supported by the contingency approach to conflict

resolution. This article therefore suggests complementing the conflict

66 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


19/27

perspective with a multilevel perspective on bullying and intervention in

workplace bullying.

TOWARDS A MULTILEVEL APPROACH TOINTERVENTIONS IN WORKPLACE BULLYING

The main research question of a multilevel approach to interventions in

workplace bullying is the question which intervention strategy is appropriate

and effective at which level. A general theory is not yet available that relates

intervention strategies to levels. However, this research question fits into the

conceptual framework for intervention research in occupational safety and

health that Goldenhar, LaMontagne, Katz, Heaney, and Landsbergis (2001)

have proposed.The multilevel approach to interventions in workplace bullying relies on

the multilevel approach to workplace bullying (Heames & Harvey, 2006)

that considers interventions on the dyadic, group and organizational level.

The multilevel model of bullying

Heames and Harvey (2006, specifically pp. 12191224) have proposed a

multilevel model of bullying relative to three different levels of the

potentially negative consequences of bullying activities. A single bullyingact may have an impact on the individual, the group, and the organization.

These three levels may also affect each other. Heames and Harvey suggest

six propositions that relate to the negative potential impact of bullying for

the dyadic level of the bully and the victim (P1), the mesolevel of the bully

and the group (P2P4), and for the macrolevel of the bully and the

organization (P5P6).

Although bullying is felt across other levels of the organization, the

victim is the immediate target. Negative consequences of bullying activities

on the victim are well-documented (first order externalities; for a recentoverview see Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003). The multilevel perspective also

emphasizes the feedback on other dyads, particularly interactions between

the victim and co-workers. The proposition of Heames and Harvey (2006)

is that the negative interaction between the bully and the bullied will

spill over into the victims personal mental and physical health and

thus, negatively impact other interpersonal relationships with coworkers

(P1; p. 1221).

Second order externalities may arise at group or organization level after

first order externalities are felt. For the purpose of bullying, the group is

defined as the co-workers, managers, or fellow team members who are

potential witnesses (bystanders) to the acts of bullying (Heames & Harvey,

2006, p. 1221). Being exposed to and witnessing bullying may drive peers,




A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


20/27

subordinates, and immediate managers into a mode of silence and

acquiescence or a mode of imitation. The bully may turn on these parties

and make them the next target group. Members of the group are reported to

be frightened and sometimes afraid of retribution from the bully if they try

to intervene. Then, they are hesitant to voice any objection to the bullys

behaviour (Bowes-Sperry & OLeary-Kelly, 2005; Delbecq, 2001). Other

group members will be desensitized. They learn to accept the negative

behaviour and begin to mimic and respond with deviant behaviour of their

own (Robinson & OLeary-Kelly, 1998). Heames and Harveys propositions

are that there will be an incentive within the group to acquiesce to the bully

to reduce the witnesss probability of being a target of the bully in the

future (P2), there will be a reduction in group cohesiveness and support

for group members because of the negative climate in the group due to thebullying activities (P3), and that group performance will be reduced given

the increase in personal and interpersonal stress experienced in the group

due to bullying activities (P4; p. 1222).

Negative consequences of bullying activities at the organizational

level, such as productivity loss, costs regarding interventions by third

parties, increased sick-leave, turnover, compensation claims and liability,

are well documented (for a recent overview see Hoel, Einarsen, &

Cooper, 2003). The multilevel perspective pays attention to the

unfavourable impact on the culture and ultimately the reputation of anorganization that becomes known as a workplace with high degree of

tolerance for bullying. The responsibility lies with the top management as

it shapes the culture of the organization (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001). The

propositions of Heames and Harvey are that organizations with higher

tolerance for bullying will have increased difficulties in attracting and/or

retaining human capital (P5), and the corporate reputation will be

harmed by the occurrence of bullying activities in the organization (P6;

2006, p. 1224).

A multilevel approach to interventions in workplace bullying

It should be noted that Heames and Harvey (2006) based their multilevel

model of bullying on the potential negative dyadic, group, or organizational

consequences of bullying activities and not on the individual, group, or

organizational antecedents of bullying (like severe perceived power imbal-

ances, fierce internal competition, certain forms of reward systems,

dissatisfaction and frustration with the working situation, a politicized

climate, or restructuring, cost-cutting, and reengineering; see Hoel & Salin,

2003; Neuman & Baron, 2003; Salin, 2003a, 2003b; Zapf, 1999; Zapf &

Einarsen, 2003). Taking up this distinction, this article defines intervention

strategies as efforts made by agents independent of the disputants (or bully

68 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


21/27

and target) to remove negative consequences of bullying activities and,

additionally, prevention strategies as efforts to influence antecedents of

bullying.

The multilevel approach of interventions in workplace bullying states

that different intervention strategies are appropriate and effective at different

levels of an organization in relation to bullying activities. The reason for the

failure of particular interventions in bullying may be a lack of coordinated

follow-up interventions dealing with elements that are not addressed by the

initial intervention, especially elements at a group and organizational level.

First of all, an intervention is needed that addresses the dyadic level of the

bully and the target. Depending on the causes of the conflict further

interventions are necessary. If there are antecedents and consequences

outside the bully and the target, further interventions are needed to removenegative consequences of bullying activities at group or organization level. If

there are antecedents or consequences on the group level, the multilevel

approach to interventions in workplace bullying recommends interventions

on the group level. Interventions on the organizational level are

recommended if there are antecedents or consequences on the level of the

organization.

The intervention practices of the consultants and the literature on the

appropriateness of mediation as an intervention strategy (discussed earlier)

shall be used to generate three proposals on the appropriateness ofintervention strategies to be investigated in an intervention research design.

P1: Mediation is an inappropriate intervention strategy in workplace

bullying. Mediation (as defined by Glasl, 1982; see Footnote 1) focuses on

the dyadic level of the bully and the target. It concentrates on reaching a

settlement among the parties involved. However, parties involved in

workplace bullying are not equally capable of negotiating with each other.

Mediation fails on the dyadic level due to power differentials between the

target and the bully. The intervention is terminated after a settlement hasbeen reached. Confidentiality prevents spillover to the group or

organizational level. Mediation fails to address the group and

organizational level.

P2: Coaching is a suitable intervention strategy at the group

level. Executive coaching (Kilburg, 1996) and coaching of the works

council addresses the co-workers, managers, or fellow team members who

are potential witnesses (bystanders) to the acts of bullying.4 Coaching helps

a bystander to remove the antecedents and consequences of bullying on the

group level. The intervention is terminated after group cohesiveness and

4Coaching the victim or the bully (see Conclusions) is not considered here.




A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


22/27

support for group members have increased again due to responsible action

by superiors or the works council. In this indirect way, coaching rebalances

the power relation between the bully and the target.

P3: Organization development is a suitable intervention strategy at the

organizational level. Organization development (French & Bell, 1995)

addresses negative antecedents and consequences of bullying activities at the

organizational level. Organization development also compensates for some

of mediations failings: Mediation keeps wrongdoings beyond public

scrutiny. The confidentiality of mediation is complemented by the

publicity of organizational development. Organizational development sets

new standards for doing things correctly (Grunwald, 2002), which

rebalances the power relation between the bully and the target. Otherfailings of mediation remain beyond the reach of coaching and

organizational development, particularly the concerns for justice and

recognition of the harm and question of punishment.

CONCLUSIONS

This article has investigated intervention strategies in workplace bullying

that have received little attention from researchers. A short review of the

literature has revealed that till now the primary issues have been approachesto classifying intervention strategies, the appropriateness of mediation as an

intervention strategy, and ways different organizations respond to work-

place bullying.

As a result of the fragmented state of the issue, this study has favoured a

qualitative design and has used a new empirical approach. Consultants who

have specialized in bullying consultation were interviewed and asked which

intervention strategies they apply and for what reason and what purpose the

strategies are adopted.

Approaches to classify intervention strategies

It was found that consultants apply conflict moderation or mediation,

coaching, and/or organization development. This is interesting as the

dominating contingency approach to conflict intervention recommends

neither coaching nor organization development. This article therefore

suggested a new approach, a multilevel approach of interventions in

workplace bullying. This article argues that research into interventions in

workplace bullying should complement the conflict perspective with a

multilevel approach that considers interventions at the dyadic, group and

organizational level. The conflict between the bully and the target can

reverberate to the group and organizational level.

70 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


23/27

The appropriateness of intervention strategies

The multilevel approach to interventions in workplace bullying generated

proposals on the appropriateness of mediation, coaching and organization

development as intervention strategies: Mediation is an inappropriate

intervention strategy in workplace bullying. Coaching and organization

development are follow-up interventions at the group and organizational

level that compensate for the failings of interventions that address the

dyadic level only. This article suggests testing these proposals in an

intervention research design. Additionally, it is suggested to research into

alternative intervention strategies on the dyadic level of the bully and the

target.

Organizational responses to workplace bullying

The findings complement our knowledge about the determinants of the

intervention strategy applied. These are the characteristics of the organiza-

tion (e.g., size) and of its personnel manager (Salin, 2009), orif an external

consultant is includedthe causes of workplace bullying as conceived by the

consultant, the stage in the escalation process, the focus of the consultant on

either individual and/or organization, the clients support for the strategy

proposed by the consultant, and the clients mandate vis-a`-vis theorganization.

Discussion

This article has not yet addressed the question of the relation between the

contingency approach and the multilevel approach in interventions in

workplace bullying. Do these perspectives complement each other or do

they compete with each other? Heames and Harvey (2006) describe

bullying as repeated actions and practices of a perpetrator that are directedat one or more workers, which are unwanted by the victim, cause

humiliation, offence, and distress, and generate negative consequences

relative to three different levels. This is a static conception that considers

the context in which workplace bullying takes place. As opposed to this,

Zapf and Gross (2001) conceive of bullying as a particularly escalated

form of conflict, as long-term and badly managed conflicts. Here, this

article adds that the conflict has not only escalated but is also escalating

further. Their conception is inherently dynamic, like Glasls (1982) model

of the escalation of social conflicts. As a consequence a thorough

examination of the relationship between both approaches will have to

discuss the relevance of static and dynamic conceptions, of agency and

structure.




A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


24/27

The results of the empirical study should turn our attention to a closer

inspection of conflict moderation, mediation, and coaching strategies: How

are conflict moderation and mediation used by bullying consultants?

What are the differences that can be observed empirically? In the view

of Glasl (1982, p. 132) moderation is appropriate for low intensity conflicts;

moderation is not suitable for bullying. Might the application of conflict

moderation as opposed to mediation explain the failure of mediation?

What are the causes of the reported lack in methodological skills on the part

of the mediators (Ferris, 2004)? Before considering a response to this

question, it is also advisable to be aware of how often mediation fails.

Coaching emerges as one of the most fascinating intervention strategies

in organizations (Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson, 2001; Kilburg, 1996;

Sperry, 2008; Taffertshofer, 2007). Until this study was carried out,coaching superiors had been previously suggested as a prevention strategy

in the context of bullying (Schild & Heeren, 2002, p. 138). It was found that

in the context of workplace bullying coaching is used as an intervention

strategy that supports superiors and the works council (OE4, OE5, E3, SB5,

SB6, OE2, E1), or the target (E2, E6). Recently, Crawshaw (2006) has

described the coaching of abrasive executives, i.e., of individuals charged

with managerial authority whose interpersonal behaviour causes emotional

distress in co-workers and is capable of disrupting organizational

functioning. An abrasive executive may be a bully. This demonstrates theflexibility of coaching as an intervention strategy. Important research

questions relate to the long-term effects of coaching of either the bully, the

target, the superior, or the works council. Who should be the preferred

candidate for coaching with regard to intervention in or prevention of

workplace bullying?

Finally, this article wants to encourage empirical research into follow-up

interventions. The contingency approach and the multilevel approach each

consider follow-up interventions. The contingency approach focuses on the

coordinated follow-up of a de-escalatory sequence of interventionspeacekeeping, consultation, mediation, and conciliation (Fisher & Keashly,

1990, p. 238; Keashly & Nowell, 2003), whereas the multilevel approach

directs our attention to the coordinated follow-up of interventions at the

dyadic, group, and organizational levelmediation, coaching, and organi-

zation development. What is the empirical evidence in support of these

follow-up interventions?

REFERENCES

Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The

effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26,

171193.

72 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


25/27

Bowes-Sperry, L., & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by

sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30, 288306.

Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Smith, P. K., Rivers, I., & Pereira, B. (2002). Measuring workplace

bullying.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 3551.Crawshaw, L. A. (2006). Coaching abrasive executives: Exploring the use of empathy in

constructing less destructive interpersonal management strategies. Dissertation, Fielding

Graduate University, USA. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Publishing, ProQuest

Information and Learning.

Crowford, N. (1999). Conundrums and confusion in organisations: The ethymology of the word

bully.International Journal of Manpower, 20, 8693.

Delbecq, A. L. (2001). Evil manifested in destructive individual behavior. Journal of

Management Inquiry, 10, 221236.

Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of

Manpower, 10, 1627.

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 371401.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2003a).Bullying and emotional abuse

in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice New York: Taylor &

Francis.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2003b). The concept of bullying at work: The

European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and

emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3

30). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Einarsen, S., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2003). Individual effects of exposure to bullying at work. In

S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the

workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 127144). New York:Taylor & Francis.

Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and

private organizations.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,5, 185202.

Elbe, M., & Saam, N. J. (2008). Mo nche aus Wien, bitte lu ftets eure Geheimnisse: Uber die

Abweichungen der Beratungspraxis von den Idealtypen der Organisationsberatung.

Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 39, 125.

Ferris, P. (2004). A preliminary typology of organisational response to allegations of workplace

bullying: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling,

32, 389395.

Fisher, R. J., & Keasly, L. (1990). Third party consultation as a method of intergroup and

international conflict resolution. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), The social psychology of intergroup

and international conflict resolution (pp. 211238). New York: Springer.

French, W., & Bell, C. (1995). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for

organization improvement (5th ed.). London: Prentice Hall.

Glasl, F. (1982). The process of conflict escalation and the roles of third parties. In G. B. J.

Bomers & R. B. Peterson (Eds.), Conflict management and industrial relations (pp. 119

140). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhof Publishing.

Goldenhar, L. M., LaMontagne, A. D., Katz, T., Heaney, C., & Landsbergis, P. (2001). The

intervention research process in occupational safety and health: An overview from the

National Occupational Research Agenda Intervention Effectiveness Research Team.Journal

of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43, 616622.

Grunwald, W. (2002). Einda mmung von Mobbing durch Organisationsentwicklung: Theore-

tische, empirische und praxeologische Aspekte. In M. von Saldern (Ed.), Mobbing: Theorie,

Empirie, Praxis. Betriebspadagogik aktuell(Vol. 4, pp. 187209). Hohengehren, Germany:

Schneider-Verlag.




A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


26/27

Heames, J., & Harvey, M. (2006). Workplace bullying: A cross-level assessment. Management

Decision, 44, 12141230.

Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The

impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,10, 443465.

Hoel, H., Einarsen, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Organisational effects of bullying. In

S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in

the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 145161). New

York: Taylor & Francis.

Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. International Review of

Industrial Organizational Psychology, 14, 195229.

Hoel, H., & Salin, D. (2003). Organizational antecedents of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen,

H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:

International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 203218). New York: Taylor &

Francis.Hogh, A., & Dofradottir, A. (2001). Coping with bullying in the workplace. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 485495.

Hubert, A. B. (2003). To prevent and overcome undesirable interaction: A systematic approach

model. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional

abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice(pp. 299311). New


Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensive review

of the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53, 205228.

Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives on workplace

bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional

abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 3161). NewYork: Taylor & Francis.

Keashley, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2004). Bullying in the workplace: Its impact and management.

Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8, 335371.

Keashly, L., & Nowell, B. L. (2003). Conflict, conflict resolution and bullying. In S. Einarsen,

H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace:

International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 339358). New York: Taylor &

Francis.

Kelle, U., & Kluge, S. (1999).Vom Einzelfall zum Typus: Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in

der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.

Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 134144.

Kubr, M. (1996). Management consulting: A guide to the profession (3rd rev. ed.). Genf,

Switzerland: International Labour Office.

Leymann, H. (1990). Manual of the LIPT questionnaire for assessing the risk of psychological

violence at work. Stockholm: Violen.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 165184.

Leymann, H., & Gustafsson, A. (1996). Mobbing at working and the development of post-traumatic

stress disorders.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,5, 251275.

Liefooghe, A. P. D., & Davey, K. M. (2001). Accounts of workplace bullying: The role of the

organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 375392.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Social antecedents of bullying: A social interactionist

perspective. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional



74 SAAM



A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014


27/27

Peyton, P. R. (2003). Dignity at work: Eliminate bullying and create a positive working

environment. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Prein, H. (1984). The contingency approach for conflict intervention. Group and Organization

Studies, 9, 81102.Rayner, C. (1999). From research to implementation: Finding leverage for prevention.

International Journal of Manpower, 20, 2838.

Robinson, S. L., & OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of

work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 6,

658672.

Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and

settlement(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

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, 10, 425441.

Salin, D. (2003a). Bullying and organizational politics in competitive and rapidly changingwork environments. Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4, 3546.

Salin, D. (2003b). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and

precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations,56, 1213

1232.

Salin, D. (2009). Organisational responses to workplace harassment: An exploratory study.

Personnel Review, 38(1), 2644.

Schild, I., & Heeren, A. (2002).MobbingKonflikteskalation am Arbeitsplatz: Moglichkeiten der

Pravention und Intervention (3rd. rev. ed.). Mu nchen, Germany: Hampp.

Sperry, L. (2008). Executive coaching: An intervention, role function, or profession? Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 3337.

Taffertshofer, A. (2007).Das Coaching der Organisation: Wozu Organisationen Coaching nutzen.Saarbru cken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Mu ller.

Zapf, D. (1999). Organizational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying

at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 7085.

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,

D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International

perspectives in research and practice(pp. 165184). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Zapf, D., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2003). Empirical findings on bullying in the

workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional



Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A

replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10,

497522.

Original manuscript received December 2007

Revised manuscript received November 2008

First published online January 2009




A.C.]at1

3:3315September2014

a multilevel approach

Documents