Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

UNRAVELLING THE MYSTERIES OF A HUMAN CONTAGION:

WORKPLACE BULLYING – UNPLUGGED

By

DANA PYNN

Integrated Studies Final Project Essay (MAIS 700)

submitted to Dr. Angela Specht

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

April, 2016

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

ABSTRACT

Workplace bullying is a pervasive phenomenon. In order to foster and sustain a

respectful workplace, it is important to raise awareness about potential causes and impacts

of workplace bullying. Utilizing research from various scholars, this article integrates

findings from the literature utilizing a perspectival interdisciplinary approach that

includes psychology, social psychology, human resources and work/labour industry

disciplines. Findings from this research closely defines workplace bullying, illustrates

novel causes and consequences of it, highlights the prevalence of it, and discusses

possible strategies for diminishing it. The investigation considers predominant theories,

concepts and themes relating to workplace bullying which ultimately serves to provide

insightful analysis into this complex topic, and contributes to our understanding of the

significance of effective leadership. The paper concludes by providing pragmatic

suggestions for eradicating workplace bullying, noting that strong leadership is key.

3

"Most organisations have a serial bully. It never ceases to amaze me how one person's

divisive dysfunctional behaviour can permeate the entire organisation like a cancer.”

(Field, 2016)

Introduction

Bullying is not just something that happens on the playground; it is also a

palpable and penetrating occurrence in the workplace. Workplace bullying can have

devastating effects. It can significantly affect a person’s ability to participate with

dignity in the workplace, and may generate a culture where employees are prevented

from reaching their full potential. Aside from a demoralizing array of emotional and

physical effects, bullying may also inhibit employees from achieving their maximum

productivity while simultaneously rendering an employer vulnerable to claims of

human rights violations. So why, given all of the negative effects imposed on the

victim and the organization, does workplace bullying continue to be such a prevalent

entity? Is it unrecognizable? Are remedies unfathomable? Are the right people

being held accountable? Because of the complexity and proliferation of literature

associated with workplace bullying, an interdisciplinary examination of it is

warranted to understand why it continues to flourish. Exploration of the topic that

not only defines it, but also unravels possible origins of it, highlights venomous

consequences of it, and illuminates themes, concepts and theories related to it reveals

that strong leadership is the primary antidote to workplace bullying.

Rationale

Members of society must learn to live and work together effectively. One of the

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) current

4

themes is “Learning to Live Together.” The UNESCO website explains: At a time of

increasing global challenges and threats, such as inequality, exclusion, violence and

sectarianism worsened by local tensions and conflicts which undermine humanity’s

cohesion, learning to live together among all members of the global community

becomes more topical than ever before (Bokova, 2016). Since a major part of life is

work, a key aspect of learning how to live together is learning how to work together.

With the exception of family, relationships shaped by colleagues at work represent the

most important social network for adults. A person’s self-regard is largely dependent

upon how he/she is treated by managers and fellow employees.

Society is encouraged to embrace the tenets of global citizenship and to acquire

a social conscience, and it is more important than ever to attain aptitudes such as

personal integrity, social responsibility, and cultural literacy. Workplace bullying is a

widespread event that occurs within a wide range of establishments. When it occurs

rampantly within educational institutions, the primary source for delivering and

acquiring the aforementioned skills, it becomes particularly worthy of examination. As

an employee of a post-secondary institute, I have had occasion to question why bullying

might continue to exist.

Research Method and Relevant Disciplines

Textual analysis in the form of grounded theory, historical research, and

empirical data is used throughout this examination. The field of psychology and social

psychology not only help to define workplace bullying, but they perhaps most

poignantly illuminate the affective consequences of this topic. However, providing

definitions, discussing the idea of intent, and noting the relationship between power

5

structures and governance are similarly informed by the fields of management,

leadership and human resources, which also offers strategies and methods that human

resource professionals can implement to help individuals and organizations mitigate the

challenges associated with workplace bullying. The disciplines of management, labour

and industrial relations contribute by suggesting possible causes for workplace bullying,

highlighting popular themes and concepts, and offering theory-based explanations on

the topic. Hoel & Beal (2006) assert that the most substantial contributions on bullying

research comes from the psychology and social psychology domains, but note that an

interdisciplinary approach that includes industrial relations can significantly enhance the

exploration and contribute to the understanding of what comprises workplace bullying.

Prevalence

Research from the disciplines studied confirms workplace bullying is a

ubiquitous situation. One study reports that 97% of respondents experienced bullying in

the workplace within the past five years (Fox & Stallworth, 2005, p. 452). Another

source states “that nearly 95% of employees have had some exposure to general

bullying behaviors in the workplace over a 5 year period” (Samnani & Singh, 2012, p.

582). In a recent sample of 1,137 English students at an American university, 50%

reported they were currently being bullied at work. Furthermore, a study of

mistreatment at work involving 59 workers revealed that 100% who responded to the

questionnaire reported exposure to bullying at their current workplaces (Rayner, 1997

as cited in Parkins, Fishbein, & Ritchey, 2006, p. 2555). Workplace bullying occurs

with alarming frequency.

6

What Workplace Bullying Is

Scholars from various disciplines have distinct definitions for workplace

bullying, and defining this hazard is an important first step in combatting it. The

disciplines within this investigation concur about a few main characteristics: bullying is

persistent, low intensity, recurrent behaviour directed toward an individual. While

research indicates that it happens more frequently for those in a position of inferiority,

this sense of inferiority may be real (i.e. lower rank) or perceived (i.e. lateral rank but

less experience or seniority). Bullying occurs with surprising frequency between

coworkers who are equal in rank and even by employees who are subordinate.

Management and leadership scholars explain that bullying at work means harassing,

offending, socially excluding or negatively affecting someone's work tasks. They

maintain that in order for a bullying label to hold true, it has to occur repeatedly and

regularly (e.g. weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six months) (Einarsen,

Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003; Salin, 2003; Samnani & Singh, 2012). Not surprisingly,

psychologists focus on more acerbic aspects of bullying including “verbal aggression

(e.g., swearing), disrespect (e.g., interruption, public humiliation), and isolation (e.g.,

from important work activities)” rather than frequency and duration (Lim & Cortina,

2005, p. 483). The field of labour and industry note four critical components that are

commonly acknowledged features of workplace bullying across the literature:

frequency and duration, powerlessness of victim, methodical, and aggressive behaviour

(Buttigieg, Bryant, Hanley, & Liu, 2011). For the purpose of this examination, the

definition of workplace bullying is limited to behaviour rather than characteristics of the

7

individuals involved. This is partly because personal characteristics of the bully can be

perplexing. For example, a source from the field of psychology states:

…that bullies are arrogant and yet there is a sense of low self-worth and

vulnerability underneath; they are so tough externally yet seem driven by fear;

they feel persecuted yet demand respect; they are cold and emotionally numb yet

hypersensitive; and they seem so antisocial and rejecting and yet are desperate

for contact and intimacy (Walker & Bright, 2009, pp. 27-28).

Examining the profile of the workplace bully and his/her intended targets is an approach

that would augment the research, but determined to be somewhat irrelevant for this

analysis. Workplace bullying is explained in varying degrees of severity and can be

extremely difficult to prove. It can be concluded that effects of workplace bullying are

individualized – it can be emotional, intellectual, or even physical.

What Workplace Bullying is Not

It is equally important to define what does not constitute workplace bullying and

to make the distinction between prudent disciplinary actions and workplace bullying.

Clarification of the topic redirects the focus from the individual(s) involved to

constructs within an organization that are responsible for its endurance. For example,

as explained from the realm of human resources, standard acceptable practices in the

workplace may include one-off instances of being given menial tasks, or being expected

to meet tight deadlines, or even being excluded from social events. However, these

acts become problematic when they are purposely and frequently employed over a

period of time (Sali, 2003). Canada Occupational Health and Safety likewise provide

insight as to acceptable workplace behaviour. They explain that “exercising managerial

8

authority” should not be mistaken for bullying. For example, unfavorable decisions

relating to the job or workload, feedback and instruction, performance

appraisals/evaluation and even disciplinary actions are all reasonable supervisory

actions (Government of Canada, 2016). With strong leadership, these actions can be

undertaken in a non-offensive manner. A source from labour and industrial relations

explain that bullying and harassing behaviour does not include “expressing differences

of opinion, offering constructive feedback, guidance, or advice about work-related

behaviour (WorkSafeBC, Discussion Paper: Workplace bullying and harassment, 2016).

One of the main challenges of workplace bullying is distinguishing between reasonable

and unreasonable conduct since sometimes ‘managerial authority’ is deployed as a

device to conceal bullying. It is prohibitively challenging for subordinates to allege a

claim of bullying in asymmetrical work relationships. An interdisciplinary look at

workplace bullying definitions provides a comprehensive context for investigation and

removes the emphasis from the perpetrator and victim.

Intent

Some researchers emphasize that the concept of intent must occur within the

definition. For example, from the field of psychology, bullying is defined as “…verbal,

or psychological intimidation that is intended to cause fear, distress, or harm to the

victim” (Baldry & Farrington, 2000, as cited in Parkins, et al., 2006, p. 2554). The

Government of Canada agrees with the inclusion of intent and explain that workplace

bullying is intended to degrade, intimidate, offend or humiliate (Government of Canada,

2016). However, there is divergence among the disciplines regarding intent. One

9

source from human relations explains that it is not so much about what and how it is

done, but rather more about how often and how long it lasts. Salin (2003) defines

workplace bullying specifically as “repeated and persistent negative acts towards one or

more individual(s), which involve a perceived power imbalance, creating a hostile work

environment (p. 1215). A source from a management journal concedes that the idea of

intent may be unclear. They define workplace bullying as “low intensity deviant

behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for

mutual respect” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). An interesting example

demonstrating lack of intent can be found among Dalhousie University’s women hockey

players whose complaint regarding hazing transformed into an administratively

activated bullying situation. Although no clear intent to bully was manifest, victims

nonetheless felt bullied by university officials and their policies (Taber, 2013).

Although the inclusion of intent remains debatable among the disciplines, strong leaders

are able to redirect, eliminate, or at least reduce behaviour that is expressly intended to

degrade or humiliate. Creating awareness about bullying and initiating targeted specific

actions (such as training and workshops) would go a long way to alleviating its

destructive effects.

Complexity of Social Interactions

The social psychology and management disciplines agree that bullying occurs

more frequently in organizations that embody complex social interactions. For

example, Harvey et al. (2007) explain that there is a direct correlation between a

heightened social complexity of organizations and the occurrence of bullying. Their

research has revealed that evolving social/cultural norms may create a fertile

10

atmosphere for offensive behavior to flourish (p. 2577). Likewise, Andersson and

Pearson (1999) explain that the requirement for civility becomes more intense when the

interactions among people increase in both complexity and frequency (p. 452). One

study concludes that bullying is more prevalent in the public sector (e.g. prisons,

schools) and less prevalent in retailing or manufacturing industries (Hoel & Cooper,

Origins of bullying: theoretical frameworks for explaining workplace bullying, 2001).

Organizations with multidimensional communication appear more likely to yield

workplace bullying, yet this need not be the case if the workplace atmosphere

encourages involvement and fosters healthy communication.

Concept-Based Explanations of Workplace bullying

One source cites the concept of individualism as a primary cause for workplace

bullying. Lutgen-Sandvik et al. (2007) explain “employees will typically value their

individual achievement over that of others (e.g. subordinates, colleagues), which may

lead them to engage in bullying behaviors in order to weaken their competitors (e.g.,

coworkers)” (as cited in Samnani & Singh, 2012, p. 585). On the other hand, leadership

researchers theorize that the concept of tolerance is to blame. One scholar explains that

“if the tolerance for bullying increases, the accepted norms of civil behavior gives way

to incivility” (Einarsen, 1999 as cited in Harvey, Treadway & Heames, 2007, p. 2577).

Researchers from the psychology domain concur with leadership scholars suggesting

that managers develop a means for identifying and addressing behaviour that may seen

threatening to others. They maintain that an insightful investigation would include an

examination of the environmental and organizational climate, the innate characteristics

of the bully as well as the disposition of the victim, and witnesses of the bullying act in

11

determining the range of tolerance cultivated within the organization (Harvey,

Treadway, & Heames, 2007, p. 2594). Likewise, management scholars emphasize that

administrators play a significant role in shaping employee behavior because they

“communicate intolerance of employees’ disrespectful behaviors via ethical standards,

establish expectations for appropriate behaviors, and discourage inappropriate actions”

(Lee & Jensen, 2014, p. 418). These disciplinary perspectives offer unique yet

complementary insight to the concepts of individualism and tolerance and the pivotal

role that managers play in propagating their existence in the workplace.

Theory-Based Explanations of Workplace bullying

The social learning theory posits that “[m]ost human behavior is learned

observationally through modeling from observing others, one forms an idea of new

behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide

for action” (Social Learning Theory (Bandura), 2016). Samnani & Singh (2012) suggest

that behavioral modeling and imitation of workplace bullying can perpetuate it (p. 585).

Therefore, it is imperative that managers model the type of behaviour they expect from

their employees.

The social identity theory speculates that “individuals will identify themselves

as belonging to an ‘in-group’ based on some discernable characteristic...[and]

individuals attempt to differentiate their group positively against the ‘out-group’” (as

cited in Buttigieg, Bryant, Hanley, & Liu, 2011, p. 121). Managers who employ

inclusive strategies ensure that there is no “in-group” or “out-group.” These theories,

though disimilar, offer interdisciplinary viewpoints that may help to understand possible

causes of workplace bullying. Buttigieg et al. (2011) explain that power is a key issue

12

in bullying and social identity theory might help explain the source of the power

excercised by perpetrators (p. 134). The perspectives indicate that power structures are

a prominent feature in explanations based on established theories.

Themes across the Literature

Perhaps one of the most salient themes inherent with workplace bullying is that

of power inequality. Empirical research overwhelming confirms that a person with

higher authority often performs workplace bullying. One survey reported that 63% of

respondents were harassed by a person in authority (Dowden, 2016, p. 5). In another

survey, 73% of respondents reported that their perpetrator’s rank was higher (Carden &

Boyd, 2013, p. 58). According to Canada Safety Council, over 72% of bullies are bosses

(Canada Safety Council, 2016). Both the human resources and industrial relations

disciplines note the connection between bullying and power structures. They assert that

powerlessness makes people vulnerable to bullying (Hodson et al., 2003; Salin, 2003).

Buttigieg, et al. (2011) support this idea, and explain that “power imbalances, whether

hierarchically pre-determined or perceived, have also been linked to bullying

behaviours” (p. 120). Although bullying also occurs laterally (i.e. between colleagues)

evidence shows that perpetrators more often have higher status. This proportionality

makes it very difficult to report; managerial complicity thwarts efforts to eradicate

workplace bullying. Everyone is responsible for his/her own behaviour, but research

commands managers to adopt a reflective demeanor applicable to their own practices as

it applies to workplace bullying. Managers need to ask themselves how bullying could

possibly exist under their purview.

13

Workplace environment is another theme associated with workplace bullying.

For example, one source from the business discipline explains that specific conditions

within workplaces may have the capacity to encourage bullying behaviours. The article

states that “…toxic organisational cultures, prioritizing of profit above ethics,

organisational stressors, deviant role models or leaders, and excessive workloads” are

linked with bullying (Appelbaum & Shapiro, 2006, p. 15). Likewise, Liegooghe &

Davey (2001) explain that from a post-structural perspective, workplace bullying is “a

by-product of workplace environments and processes” (p. 385). Leaders should be

cognizant that tentative conditions or even changes in the workplace may yield

seemingly unrelated behaviour such as workplace bullying. Management experts

concur and cite “employee diversity, reengineering, downsizing, budget cuts, increased

pressures for productivity, autocratic work environments, and the use of part-time

employees as causes for the increase in uncivil and aggressive workplace behaviors”

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 453). Sinkkonen et al. (2014) discuss examples related

to workplace environment at the university level. They explain that when resources

become limited, competition increases. Furthermore, the authors suggest that

“bullying may also be reinforced in faculties where the academic culture emphasizes the

freedom and autonomy of the work of professors, lecturers and researchers” (p. 155).

Unfortunately, workplace bullying takes place with alarming frequency at contemporary

Canadian universities. For example, a behavioural contract from one Canadian

university illustrates more of an inclination to protect the reputation of the university

than to protect the rights of a rape victim through its demand for silence. This “gag

order,” explains Crabb (2016), “treats survivors and perpetrators as equals in the

14

‘incident,’ and it treats the person who reports (…) assault in a disciplinary manner” (p.

1). Managers concerned about workplace bullying should consider the role of the

workplace milieu as explained by researchers, and exercise vigilance with respect to

intimidating behaviours that are caused by environmental factors rather than personality

traits of the perpetrator or victim.

Escalation and intensification of incivility are other themes intrinsic among the

disciplines. Surprisingly, bullying begets bullying. As explained by management

scholars Andersson & Pearson (1999), “the most commonly employed means of

releasing negative affect is to reciprocate with further unfairness…thus potentially

resulting in a cycle of injustice” (p. 460). To make matters worse, repeated workplace

bullying can potentially escalate to workplace violence, overt aggression or blatant

discrimination (p. 454). Social psychologists explain that because the relationship

between personality and bullying, and between personality and discrimination are

virtually the same, influenced by identical personality factors, the very real possibility

for escalation exists (Parkins, Fishbein, & Ritchey, 2006, p. 2556). Management

experts argue that workplace incivility left unchecked can spiral into aggressive acts

including bullying. It may begin innocently with one party’s perception of an incivility,

leading to reciprocation, followed by counter incivility, followed by escalated behaviour

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Established sociological research from the 1960s has

shown that when dealing with human nature, there is a positive norm of reciprocity that

stipulates that people should help those who have helped them, and that people should

not harm those who help them (Gouldner, 1960). Extending on this premise, social

psychologists Helm et al. (1972) found that a “negative” norm of reciprocity also exists.

15

They found that unprovoked actions warrant counter aggression for revenge. Finally,

leadership scholars explain that “because individuals in the working world are

dependent on the actions into passive aggressive behavior of so many others, one

person’s spiral into PA behaviors can initiate a rippling flow of negative behaviors that

poison any work interface, creating local to global repercussions” (Johnson & Klee,

2007, p. 141). The investigation into the themes most prevalent in the literature provide

a comprehensive description of potential grounds for workplace bullying to continue to

exist.

Suggestions and Solutions

While labour and industry experts insist that training, development of a positive

organizational climate and involvement of employees, as well as clear policies stating

the unacceptability of bullying behaviour is a practical solution to workplace bullying,

not all scholars agree (Buttigieg, Bryant, Hanley, & Liu, 2011, p. 133). For example, a

study from the field of psychology reports that “school anti-bullying policies per se are

not good indicators of bullying behaviour. In fact, the more detailed the anti-bullying

policy, the higher the rate of relational bullying” (Woods & Wolke, 2003, p. 398). It

appears that more pragmatic approaches may be necessary.

Proximity of supervisor offices has been cited by more than one discipline as a

factor that should be considered by leaders committed to battling workplace bullying.

For example, from the field of Science, scholars report that “physical distance between

a supervisor and a newcomer could moderate the relationship between newcomer affect

and newcomers’ approach-avoidance behavior. Physical distance may make it more

difficult to seek feedback but render avoidance behavior” (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005,

16

p. 295). Similarly, the leadership discipline contends that “managers shape employees’

behaviors and experiences in the workplace due, in part, to their physical proximity and

direct, frequent communication with employees. This proximity and communication

suggests “employees’ rude behaviors may be generally influenced by their manager,

who spends a large amount of time in personal contact with employees” (Bass, From

transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision, 1990, p. 22).

Effective leaders offer repeated opportunities for contact and connection with their

employees. This can be accomplished by casual walk-arounds or even by scheduled

opportunities for meeting over a cup of coffee. Leaders should not underestimate the

power of interaction and physical proximity when considering factors associated with

diminishing workplace bullying.

Transformational Leadership

The overwhelming majority of the disciplinary literature on workplace bullying

suggest that strong leadership is vital to its demise. One study found that “inclusive

leadership, characterized by openness, accessibility, and availability, increases

psychological safety” in the workplace (Carmeli, Palmon, & Ziv, 2010, p. 258).

Workplace bullying represents the antithesis to psychological safety. Distinguished

authorities on the topic of workplace bullying assert that there is a strong correlation

between leadership and bullying (Hoel, Glaso, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2010;

Einarsen et al., 2003). Furthermore, leadership experts contend that “along with

physical working conditions, organizational culture/climate, and policies and

procedures, leadership serves as a critical organizational/social determinant of

interpersonal aggression in the workplace” (as cited in Lee & Jensen, 2014, p. 419).

17

The type of leadership that best fosters employee inclusivity and involvement is

transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Hoel, et al., 2010; Johnson & Klee,

2007; Lee & Jensen, 2014). Management scholars state that transformational leadership

is most effective in terms of actively seeking constructive participation in workplace

matters (Johnson & Klee, 2007). Transformational leadership, explain Bass & Avolio

(1990), “involves transforming and motivating employees by articulating an ideal

vision of an organization, offering a role model consistent with that vision, and

encouraging workers to transcend their own self-interest for the greater good of their

unit and organization” (as cited in Lee & Jensen, 2014, p. 420). The disciplines concur

that one of the best ways to combat workplace bullying is by enacting leadership that

fosters communal goals, that involves employees and that welcomes participation

through involvement and interaction. Furthermore, the ideals of transformational

leadership coincide with goals of global citizenship and social responsibility. The type

of guidance afforded by strong leadership is fundamental to eradicating workplace

bullying and redirects the culpability away from the employees involved to the

management structures that condone or condemn it.

Conclusions

Workplaces thrive when their employees feel they are valued. Robust

leadership is required to direct employees to work together amicably. Transformational

leaders contend with fewer incidences workplace bullying because of the positive and

inclusive atmosphere their management style radiates; that said, in order to foster and

sustain a respectful workplace, it is also important to raise awareness about what

actually comprises workplace bullying and the potential causes and impacts of it. Reio

18

& Ghosh (2009) explain “the rising problem of workplace incivility warrants immediate

attention because uncivil workplace behavior can affect the entire organization

negatively by poisoning workers’ psychological and physical wellbeing, learning

motivation, and productivity” (p. 242). Furthermore, organizations have a lot to gain by

understanding the factors that result in a lack of workplace respect. They also have a lot

to lose when destructive behaviour escalates and spreads among their employees

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 468). As caustic organizational impacts of workplace

bullying are measured in terms of cost, productivity, reputation, legal issues, and

organizational culture among other things, it is a threat that should not be taken lightly

by organizations; it should be dealt with fully and absolutely by administration.

Effective leaders influence employees to work together harmoniously by encouraging

participation, modeling constructive behaviour, making themselves more accessible,

and setting a positive environmental tenor.

Future Directions

One of the biggest challenges associated with this topic is finding a safe and

nonthreatening way to report workplace bullying. It behooves the various disciplines to

extend their scholarship toward the challenge of incorporating innocuous reporting

mechanisms. As explained by Bjorkqvist (1994), “since employees are economically

dependent on their work, they are very reluctant to identify others by name, especially

superior colleagues” (p. 182). Furthermore, because workplace bullying is so subtle in

nature, employees are tentative about taking action. Likewise, managers and

department heads hesitate to admit that it takes place at their workplace because they

see it as a reflection of their own leadership abilities (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, &

19

HjeltBack, 1994). This examination confirms that improvement in leadership is

fundamental to combatting this unfortunate, yet ubiquitous condition.

A good starting point for managers to address this problem is to ascertain the

degree to which bullying actually occurs under their domain. Establishing inclusive

task groups could follow up this identification of bullying and action plans to extend the

dialogue further, and to brainstorm strategies for improvement. Depending on the

severity of the problem, managers and employees could commit to attending conflict

resolution workshops and obtaining leadership training, particularly if the problem is

found to be pervasive in a given workplace. Furthermore, managers could allocate

time and resources toward training about what to do if employees feel they are being

bullied. It is a matter of dedicating themselves and mandating for others attention to the

situation. Ongoing professional development related to the principles of

transformational leadership will assist managers and supervisors in recognizing

precursors to workplace bullying, will contribute to their understanding of their role in

perpetuating it, and will augment their resources and strategies to alleviate it.

Workplace bullying is an entity that should be remedied lest its destructive effects

continue to permeate throughout the fabric of society.

20

Bibliography

Andersson, L., & Pearson, C. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the

workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.

Appelbaum, S., & Shapiro, B. (2006). Diagnosis and remedies for deviant workplace behaviors.

Journal of American Academy of Business, 14-20.

Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.

Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.

Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Hjelt-Back, M. (1994). Aggression among university

employees. Aggressive Behavior, 173-184.

Bokova, I. (2016, 02 01). UNESCO. Retrieved from Learning to Live Together:

http://en.unesco.org/themes/learning-live-together

Buttigieg, D., Bryant, M., Hanley, G., & Liu, J. (2011). The Causes and Consequences of

Workplace Bullying and Discrimination: Results from an exploratory study. Labour &

Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work, 22:1-2, 117-141.

Canada Safety Council. (2016, 03 21). Bullying in the workplace. Retrieved from Canada Safety

Council: Canada's voice and resource for safety:

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/workplace-safety/bullying-workplace

Carden, L., & Boyd, R. (2013). Workplace bullying: Utilizing a risk management framework to

address bullying in the workplace. Southern Journal of Business & Ethics, 58-67.

Carmeli, A., Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive Leadership and Employee involvement in

creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity

Research Journal, 22:3, 250-260.

Crabb, J. (2016, 04 05). 'Behavioural contract' for sex assault victims a mistake:

Brandon U president. Retrieved from CTV News Winnipeg:

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/behavioural-contract-for-sex-assault-victims-

amistake-brandon-u-president-1.2846306

21

Dowden, C. (2016, 03 02). Civility Matters! An evidence-based review on how to cultivate a

respectful federal public service. Retrieved from Association of Professional Executives

of the Public Service of Canada (APEX):

http://www.apex.gc.ca/uploads/key%20priorities/white%20papers/civility%20report%2

0-%20eng.pdf

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in the

workplace: International perspectives in research and practice. London: Taylor and

Francis.

Field, T. (2016, 03 21). Retrieved from Bully OnLine:

http://bullyonline.org/old/workbully/quotes.html

Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological

Review, 25, 161-178.

Government of Canada. (2016, 03 15). Bullying in the Workplace. Retrieved from Canadian

Centre for Occupational Health and Safety:

https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/psychosocial/bullying.html

Harvey, M., Treadway, D., & Heames, J. (2007). The occurrence of bullying in global

organizations: A model and issues associated with social/emotional contagion. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 2576-2599.

Hinds, P., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams:

The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous

communications. Organization Science, 290-307.

Hodson, R., Roscigno, V., & Lopez, S. (2006). Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives

and industrial relations: Towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach.

British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44 (2), 239-262.

22

Hoel, H., & Beale, D. (2006). Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and industrial

relations: towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach. British Journal of

Industrial Relations, 44(2), 239-62.

Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. (2001). Origins of bullying: theoretical frameworks for explaining

workplace bullying. In H.Tehrani, Building a Culture of Respect: Managing Bullying at

Work (pp. 3-19). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Hoel, H., Glaso, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Leadership styles as

predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of

Management, 453-468.

Johnson, N. J., & Klee, T. (2007). Passive-Aggressive Behavior and Leadership Styles in

Organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, (14) 2, 130-142.

Kelloway, E., Sivanathan, H., Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005). Poor Leadership. In J. Barling,

E. Kelloway, & M. Frone, Handbook of Workplace Stress (pp. 89-112). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Lee, J., & Jensen, J. (2014). The effects of active constructive and passive corrective leadership

on workplace incivility and the mediating role of fairness perceptions. Group &

Organization Management, 39 (4), 416-443.

Lim, S., & Cortina, L. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: the interface and

impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 483-

96.

Parkins, I., Fishbein, H., & Ritchey, P. (2006). The influence of personality on workplace

bullying and discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2554-2557.

Reio, T. J., & Ghosh, R. (2009). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace incivility: Implications

for Human Resource Development Research and Practice. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 237-264.

23

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

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

(10), 1213-1232.

Samnani, A.K., & Singh, P. (2012). 20 Years of workplace bulyying research: A review of the

antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 581-589.

Sinkkonen, H.M., Puhakka, H., & Merilainen, M. (2014). Bullying at a university: Students'

experiences of bullying. Studies in Higher Education, 39:1, 153-165.

Social Learning Theory (Bandura). (2016, March 30). Retrieved from Learning-

theories.com:

http://www.learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html

Taber, J. (2013, 03 01). The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from Hazing probe left

Dalhousie women's hockey players feeling 'bullied':

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hazing-probe-

leftdalhousiewomens-hockey-players-feeling-bullied/article9237797/

Walker, J., & Bright, J. (2009). False inflated self-esteem and violence: A systematic review and

cognitive model. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 20, 1-32.

Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2003). Does the content of anti-bullying policies inform us about the

prevalence of direct and relational bullying behaviour in primary schools? Educational

Psychology 23, 381-402.

WorkSafeBC. (2016, 03 20). Discussion Paper: Workplace bullying and harassment. Retrieved

from

http://www2.worksafebc.com/pdfs/Bullying/BK137.pdf?_ga=1.96754207.1618620021.

1457998167.