Running head: LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review
Marcia Campbell
Siena Heights University
December 4, 2015

WORKPLACE BULLYING

Abstract
In recent years, there has been a growing awareness about workplace issues affecting
employees. One of the main issues that is gaining publicity recently deals with the bullying
treatment of employees in the workplace and the possible solutions or resolutions to correct this
type of harassment. In the past, concerns over aggression and sexual harassment resulted in laws
created to protect employees. Today, the growing concern surrounding workplace bullying and
its implications to the employee and organizational health is prompting researchers to gather
information and data in hopes to help minimize or combat the issue. This research will highlight
the health issues associated with the stress of being a bullied employee, those doing the bullying,
the health and financial consequences to the organization, and the preventative measures
available to prevent an epidemic. The research method in this review focuses on evaluating peerreviewed articles, government websites, and scholarly books. This review contains qualitative
research, which reviews the research conducted thus far, and further focuses on the bullied
employee while delving into the affects that this behavior, and consequences thereof, have on the
alleged bully and the organization as a whole.

WORKPLACE BULLYING

Workplace Bullying
There are several definitions available for workplace bullying and the criteria in which
researchers use to define bullying varies from person to person; they do agree that in order for
the behavior to be considered as bullying there needs to be a power differential (Fox &
Stallworth, 2009). Bullying is an outcome of an interpersonal conflict between two parties
(Rhodes, Pullen, Vickers, Clegg, & Pitsis, 2010). Past research has shown that bullying behavior
may have started with the individual's personal history along with the low accountability in the
workplace (Klein & Martin, 2011). An individuals personal background can have a profound
effect on how they treat others. People learn to bully because of their personal and environmental
factors (Brotheridge, 2013). Workplace bullying is a growing phenomenon and shows no signs of
lessening (Samnani, 2013). Victims often state that their employers will not respond adequately,
or at all, to accusations of bullying (Cooper-Thomas, Gardner, ODriscoll, Catley, Bentley, &
Trenberth, 2013).
Literature Review
Workplace bullying is not an isolated incident; it is the repetitive and persistent actions of
a person toward another person or group (O'Moore & Crowley, 2011). Bullying is the act of
harassing or offending a person or persons, which affects the persons ability to perform their job
or interact socially (Godkin, 2015). In order for an act to be classified as bullying, the act must
be committed regularly and repeatedly, usually over a six-month period or more. Bullying can
become more radical when it involves aggressive physical and verbal behavior, or it can be more
subtle with off-handed comments, jokes, or exclusion from information or promotion (Klein &
Martin, 2011). Bullying is the repeated, harmful, psychological violence that takes the form of

WORKPLACE BULLYING

sabotage, intimidation, belittling, threats, invention of mistakes, severe criticism, and humiliation
(Gilbert, Raffo, & Sutarso, 2013; Ashraf & Khan, 2014).
Bullying is subjective and definitions may differ from person to person (Pate &
Beaumont, 2010). Some bullying is subtle and becomes unnoticed or misconstrued (Godkin,
2015). Workplace bullying can be subtle by assigning excessive work, withholding information,
and micromanaging to jokes and gossip. Workplace bullying can be aggressive by using insults,
threats, and sometimes violence. Most workplace bullying is so subtle it makes it hard to
distinguish and is often explained away by the bully (Samnani, 2013).
Restructuring of the organizational structure has led to various reasons why workplace
bullying is becoming a growing phenomenon, such as: the growth of the service market, the
global marketplace demands, decline in union memberships, and diversity of the workplace
(Bible, 2012). Globalization and diversity contribute to the growing number of bullying incidents
(Taneja, 2014). Changes in organizational structures have contributed to the growth of bullying,
such as: a casual dress code, open floor plan offices, and open-door policies. Such changes have
blurred the lines between formal relationships with management and casualness inspiring free
expression (Klein & Martin, 2011). The decline in union organizations in the workplace has
removed the employees' first line of defense (Bible, 2012).
Targeted bullying. Bullies tend to have favorites in the organization, target specific
individuals by using their personal knowledge against them, replacing team members with
handpicked people, lie and misrepresent facts, berating subordinates, and setting people up for
failure (Olive & Cangemi, 2015). The change in gender roles of leaders, which was
predominantly male, is now female and has an impact on workplace bullying (Klein & Martin,
2011). Gender can affect the frequency, duration, and type of bullying. The narrow, acceptable

WORKPLACE BULLYING

behavior that women must adhere to is different from men; it is expected that women will behave
a certain way no matter the situation. If women do not act the social norm, they can be subject to
bullying by other women (Gilbert et al., 2013). Women tend to miss more work due to workplace
violence than their male counterparts (Taneja, 2014).
Men have reported that they are the targeted by other men whereas women state they are
the target of either sex. These results are dependent on the makeup of the organization. Mostly
male or mostly female organizations have significantly more same sex aggressors whereas mixed
organizations target the opposite sex (Lee & Brotheridge, 2011). Ethnic groups are affected by
workplace bullying more than their white (Caucasian) counterparts; Hispanic/Latino experience
higher levels of bullying that are not related to their race (Gilbert et al., 2013).
Getting away with bullying. The reason it is easy for bullies to get away with the act of
bullying is that the traits associated with bullying are the same as being a good businessperson,
such as charisma, risk-taking, and determination. Secondly, bullying takes place subtly and
considered interpersonal conflict. Thirdly, depending on the organizational culture, the bullying
may continue because of perceived organizational support. Some organizations not only create
the conditions in which bullying thrives; the conditions encourage it. The ability to define and
prove that bullying is taking place, along with the fear of retribution or job loss, help to support
the behavior (Olive & Cangemi, 2015). Bullies will often coerce others to carry out the bullying
behavior for them (Klein & Martin, 2011).
Effects and types of bullying. Workplace bullying is a worldwide epidemic in which
there is little support for the victims and often disbelief that the behavior is taking place. The lack
of support harms the organization and leaves employees feeling poorly and betrayed (Vickers,
2014). There are many terms associated with bullying: mobbing, emotional abuse, workplace

WORKPLACE BULLYING

violence, aggression, abuse, and harassment (Ashraf & Khan, 2014). Workplace aggression is
negative behaviors that cause emotional or physical abuse. Aggression may evolve into bullying
if the issue happens repeatedly over a period of time. Aggression can happen directly (face-toface) or indirectly (removing them from their peers or excluding them) (Lee & Brotheridge,
2011). Bullying is the act of conflict with one; mobbing is the act of conflict with a group (Klein
& Martin, 2011). Mobbing is the psychological terror inflicted by someone who gathers others to
help force the victim out of the workplace (Bible, 2012). Moreover, abuse and assaults can take
the form of mobbing (a group against one individual), insults in front of others, blowing things
out of proportion, misplaced blame, and disrespect (Gilbert et al., 2013).
Although bullying happens in a myriad of situations, the negative physical and mental
health effects caused in the workplace are detrimental and mirror the effects of the extreme job
demands of the past (Devonish, 2014; O'Moore & Crowley, 2011). Individual effects of bullying
are low self-esteem, emotional distress, extreme stress that can lead to health issues, and
depression (Cooper-Thomas et al., 2013). A mishandled complaint could have effects on the
alleged bullies health and commitment to the organization (Jenkins, Winefield, & Sarris, 2011).
Victims of bullying may try to share ideas only to have the ideas dismissed which leads to
the victim withdrawing and becoming silent. Furthermore, the lack of communication becomes
detrimental when the supervisor gains new knowledge about a subject but refuses to share that
knowledge with the victim leading to poor performance and a reason to reprimand. Victims
approach supervisors with bated movements in order to gauge their mood before speaking which
usually begins with apologizing for the interruption (Parker, 2014).
Those enduring the bullying become concerned with avoiding blame and humiliation
causing them to be unable to help the organization move forward (Parker, 2014). Victims will

WORKPLACE BULLYING

withdraw as a form of coping (D'Cruz & Noronha, 2010). Victims will feel that having any type
of communication is not worth the result, so they will not communicate at all. Victims are unable
to defend themselves thus staying in the situation while the account of their situation is dismissed
(Parker, 2014). Eventually, the only solution for the victim is to leave the organization (D'Cruz &
Noronha, 2010).
Bystanders
Whistleblowing is the act of reporting a wrongdoing to a person that has the authority to
address the issue. Many individuals do not report issues in fear of retribution, retaliation, or
becoming the object of the bullying themselves (Bjorkelo, 2013). Workplace bullying not only
effects the victim but also third party witnesses causing them to suffer because of the behavior
and the choice to report or ignore the behavior (Vickers, 2014). Those who witness bullying tend
to remain silent in fear that they will become the target (Godkin, 2015).
There are four kinds of bystanders when discussing bullying: the bystander that joins in
on the bullying, the bystander that denies seeing or being involved, the bystander that tries to
help and defuse the situation, and the bystander that feels victimized by witnessing the bullying.
Being a bystander can have the same emotional and physical effects as the victim themselves,
such as low job productivity, increased stress, and fear of retaliation (D'Cruz & Noronha, 2011).
Bullies
Bullies will attack individuals that they feel are low risk and there will not be any
repercussions. If the individual starts to resist the bullying, the bully may perceive this as
justification for the bullying (Samnani, 2013). Some accused of bullying, whether or not they
were found guilty, stated that the investigation was unfair and did not adhere to the company
policy, while others felt that the judgment was too harsh and were not aware of the extent of

WORKPLACE BULLYING

what they had done. In some cases, the organization forced the perpetrator out, even if they were
not guilty of the charges, while mentoring and coaching was an option for others. Not all alleged
bullies are insensitive and unfeeling; the effects of being accused mirror those of the alleged
victims (Jenkins et al., 2011).
Leader and supervisor bullies. Leaders may use their assumed power to intimidate
employees (Godkin, 2015). Subordinates view supervisors as role models so when a supervisor
is the bully, or tolerates bullying behavior, they follow their lead (Mathisen, Einarsen, &
Mykletum, 2011). Supervisors are more likely guilty of bullying than their employees. Internal
conflict changes to workplace bullying when the supervisor neglects or denies the issue.
Supervisor bullies use tactics such as role conflict, role ambiguity, and scapegoating. The use of
scapegoating can make the subordinate look bad while enhancing the supervisor. Bully
supervisors may institute internal competition with goals too hard to reach or have different
standards for different employees, allowing some employees to succeed while the bullied will
fail (Godkin, 2015).
Supervisors may exhibit bullying behavior when they are working to meet the goals of
the organization. Because of this, supervisors may become more abusive when stressed about the
tasks that need completing and the standard in which they perceive it needs to be completed.
Supervisors that are quiet and reserved may be unwilling to give direction to subordinates thus
showing a lack of support that may result in increased conflict. Supervisors may believe that it is
not their responsibility to intervene in conflict and do not stop the abusive behaviors which
allows bullying between their subordinates (Mathisen et al., 2011).
There are several different types of workplace bully leaders. A delusional leader lacks the
ability to lead and make changes while taking the credit for the work done by subordinates. A

WORKPLACE BULLYING

paranoid leader also lacks the ability to lead and make changes, but they are argumentative and
do not trust others. A sociopathic leader possesses the traits that make them good business people
but they disregard others making anyone a target for them. A narcissistic leader possesses the
leadership qualities that make up a good businessperson, but they feel that everyone else is there
to serve them. A fearful leader believes that they are victims themselves. Lastly, the pleaser will
do whatever needs completing in order to complete the project (Olive & Cangemi, 2015).
Victims of bullying have different responses if the bully is a supervisor versus a
coworker. When the bullying is by a supervisor, the negative emotions extended beyond the
individual and incorporate into the organization as a whole; if the bully is a coworker, there is
negative emotions and active responses (Fox & Stallworth, 2009).
Human Resources
Human resource departments have changed from supporting a healthy workplace to
protecting the interests of the organization thus leading the organization to make poor decisions
about employee welfare. Human resource professionals are more in favor of creating policies and
training workshops rather than becoming involved with interventions to combat bullying
behavior. Human resource professionals do not want to upset the organizational culture, or be
involved with confrontation, giving the bullies fuel to continue their behavior (Martin & Klein,
2013).
The degree in which the bully will retaliate depends on the support they receive from
human resources and the organization. If the bully feels that human resources and the
organization are on their side, the bullying will continue and may increase along with retaliation
for trying to report such behavior. Individuals that report bullying to human resources often
receive no support and lead to retaliation from the accused (Samnani, 2013).

WORKPLACE BULLYING

10

Human resource departments are starting to recognize that workplace bullying is become
a growing problem but they are ill equipped to deal with the issue (Klein & Martin, 2011).
Submitting a complaint to human resource personnel may not be in the best interest of the victim
because they may have a conflict of interest (Duffy, 2009). In some instances, the human
resource professionals will state that the bully and the victim are both to blame in order to gain
respect for diffusing the situation (Martin & Klein, 2013).
Due to the inability to diagnose, or becoming overwhelmed with complaints, human
resource professionals are reluctant to follow-up with complaints and often reroute them to the
occupational health department. If the occupational health professionals notice a pattern and
surmise that the issue could be due to bullying, they will direct the individual back to human
resources. Human resources may refer the individual back to the department management
leaving the employee exposed (Martin & Klein, 2013).
Research has shown if victims report bullying to human resources there may not be a
resolution because the human resource professional will not follow-up. After several attempts by
the victim to gain resolution information, human resources will call the victim into a meeting
with the bully. At this stage, it becomes obvious that human resources will support the bully
making the victim feel cornered. This may lead to the need of third-party mediation to ensure
that fair, unbiased decisions are made to correct the problem. Human resources lack of action is
a result of not wanting to cause conflict with the bully or fear of becoming victims themselves
(D'Cruz & Noronha, 2010).
Reporting. Many do not report the incidents because of the fear of retribution (Pate &
Beaumont, 2010). Victims may not report the bullying because bullying needs to happen over a
long period and, because of the length of time, they may question if the bullying really took

WORKPLACE BULLYING

11

place (Brotheridge, 2013). When the victims report the bullying to human resources, the bully
may retaliate thus showing that the organizational culture supported this behavior (Parker, 2014).
Some human resource departments may explain to the victim that there is not a need to file a
formal report; therefore, there will not be documentation or grounds for action and resolution
(Klein & Martin, 2011).
Victims would report instances of bullying only to have human resources do nothing,
state that the victim has done something wrong in order to deserve the behavior, or that the
victim cannot cope with the workplace expectations. Collusion between human resources and the
bullies result in the victim being represented as a troublemaker or emotionally unstable (D'Cruz
& Noronha, 2011). Some organizations have attempted to put policies and training in place to
help combat bullying but there is no evidence to suggest that these approaches work and more
information about how they do not (Rhodes et al., 2010).
Organization
Bullying is a major organizational problem (Parker, 2014). Employees are aware of
workplace bullying but employees and employers are not aware of how widespread the issue is
(Fox & Stallworth, 2009). One way to gauge the effect of this issue in an organization would be
to conduct an anonymous survey (Pate & Beaumont, 2010). Situational factors that contribute to
workplace bullying include leadership and culture (Rhodes et al., 2010). The professionals that
contend with bullying state that they are not aware of the extent of the bullying issue and demand
proof that it is a serious problem (Fox & Stallworth, 2009). Organizational effects of bullying are
absenteeism, reduced performance, and reduced motivation, turnover and retention issues, less
functioning, less productive, and low morale. Other effects to the organization can include

WORKPLACE BULLYING

12

damage to the organizations reputation and performance (Cooper-Thomas et al., 2013; Parker,
2014).
Organizations are promoting individuals into management positions but are not training
them; therefore, the instances of workplace bullying is higher in those organizations than in ones
that take the time to properly train their teams (Kilburg, 2009). Bullying is frequently in
organizations that do not offer training in managing employees and low morale, along with
ignoring issues that arise in order to avoid conflict. If an organization ignores or tolerates bad
management, employees will begin to express anger and depression, which will affect the
organizations bottom line and culture (Gumbus & Meglich, 2012).
Organizational changes and the cultural dynamics play a large part in how bullying
behavior starts due to the increasing requirements of production and deadlines (Klein & Martin,
2011). In organizations that condone bullying behavior, not only the victim, but also the
witnesses feel the abuse. Workplace bullying speaks to the character and behavior of the
individuals within the organization (Rhodes et al., 2010). Workplace bullying damages
organizations making it difficult to implement organizational change, lowering productivity and
performance (Parker, 2014). If bullying results in positive outcomes, the behavior will continue
thus those observing this behavior will begin to repeat it. If these individuals hold leadership
positions high in the organization, their behavior could affect the organizational culture
(Brotheridge, 2013).
One of the reasons that bullying exists in an organization is the lack of understanding of
social and institutional dynamics allowing the behavior to flourish. Several factors lead to
organizational bullying including job design, job stress, power, conflict, and misuse of
procedures that changed processes. Organizations that try to combat bullying rarely look at the

WORKPLACE BULLYING

13

organization as a whole leading to failure fixing individual situations in the future (Rhodes et al.,
2010). If an organization fosters bullying behavior it could lead to employee theft, fewer
potential recruits, and loss of investors. Some companies like Google and Jet Blue, terminate
employees with bad attitudes (Bible, 2012). Organizations should seek zero tolerance policies for
workplace bullying and monitor the bullying in order to improve the culture (Devonish, 2014).
Financial. Bullying can cause issues to the financial health of an organization because of
high turnover, absenteeism, and lawsuits (Gumbus & Meglich, 2012). Organizations need to
consider having anti-bullying programs and policies in place as well as internal conflict
management programs. These programs can help to reduce direct costs (labor, overhead, legal,
workers compensation, health care) and indirect costs (lost productivity, lost revenue,
compensation premiums, and excess capacity). Overall costs to the organization due to bullying
may include performance interruptions, withdrawal and turnover, effects on the organizational
culture, and direct organizational costs (Fox & Stallworth, 2009). All of the costs associated with
bullying can cost an organization millions of dollars. To reduce the costs, the primary concern for
organizations should be reducing this behavior, but bullying is subjective; therefore, enforcement
is an issue and because of this, some organizations may view the victim as the issue (Dumay &
Marini, 2012).
Legal
It is legal in the United States (U.S.) to bully in the workplace as long as the bully is not
singling out someone and violating the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) law (Gumbus &
Meglich, 2012). There are serious ethical and legal concerns when dealing with workplace
bullying (Lavan & Martin, 2008). Victims of bullying do not have any legal protection and must
rely on the organization to help and stop the behavior (Duffy, 2009). The unfair treatment and

WORKPLACE BULLYING

14

reporting process for bullying result in legal actions against the organization for wrongful
termination or mental distress (Jenkins et al., 2011).
There are several legal theories used to address workplace bullying such as retaliation,
Occupational Safety and Health Act, whistleblowing, and workers compensation, to name a few
(Lavan & Martin, 2008). Some tort law gives options for the victims although it is hard to prove
bullying behavior and meet the exact criteria of the law (Bible, 2012). If the workplace becomes
so unbearable that the employee must leave the organization, they can file a constructive
discharge claim. With this sort of claim, the individual must show the court that working
conditions were intolerable to the average worker leaving no other option but to resign. A
constructive discharge claim is not a preferable solution as the bully continues their employment
and the victim does not (Gumbus & Meglich, 2012). Employers can make changes to their
organizations policy without waiting for an anti-bullying law. The change to the organization
can be as simple as expanding the harassment and/or violence policies to include language about
bullying (Gumbus & Meglich, 2012).
Legislation. There is a grassroots movement in the U.S. to introduce the Healthy
Workplace Bill (HWB). Twenty-nine states and two territories have the legislation filed in the
State House of Representatives or Senate to prevent workplace bullying. The HWB is a state
level legislation that will make it possible for victims/targets to file civil suits against the
offenders. The HWB states that there must be proof of a hostile work environment by omission
or witnessed by a co-worker that actions/comments made having caused pain and/or distress due
to verbal abuse, insults, intimidation, and threats. Supporters of this legislation state that it would
help to lessen the instances of bullying in the workplace because employers will have to address

WORKPLACE BULLYING

15

the concerns of the bullied. Those that oppose the legislation state that it goes against at-will
employment and the legislation could lead to frivolous lawsuits (Bible, 2012).
Workplace Policies
Many organizations have policies in place but this does not deter the actions. There is not
literature on the success of such policies so information consists of the number of reported
incidents; while a larger concern is that of the number of incidents that go unreported thus the
magnitude of the issue is unknown (Pate & Beaumont, 2010). Awareness of workplace bullying
can help to lessen the instances, create better work environments and healthy employees
(Gumbus & Meglich, 2012).
There needs to be a way of identifying bullying as an issue in an institution (Dumay &
Marini, 2012). The frequency and severity of the infringement should be defined so that there
can be measures implemented to prevent further incidents. In order for organizations to develop
policies to combat workplace bullying, the organization must decide when a behavior becomes
an act of intent to bully and who will judge if such a behavior has happened. To do so, the
organization will need to create a definition for the act of bullying and the different levels in
which bullying can happen (leader-to-subordinate and coworker-to-coworker) (Van Fleet & Van
Fleet, 2012).
Leadership will have to define what is bullying, what is unacceptable and aggressive
behavior that is not bullying (Van Fleet & Van Fleet, 2012). The absence of a systematic
framework means that intervention processes may do more harm than good as the behavior could
continue instead of being correct. Other issues involve the inability to distinguish between false
accusations with genuine incidents, and the bully claiming that they are the victim (Klein &
Martin, 2011).

WORKPLACE BULLYING

16

Workplace bullying needs defining separately from aggression or harassment because

bullying is the intent to harm as perceived by the victim/target. Bullying is the deliberate and
intentional act over another individual or group in order to gain an advantage in the workplace
(Rhodes et al., 2010). Employers, in an effort to address workplace bullying, should give due
consideration to complaints, provide a safe place to state the complaint, investigate, and
understand the difference between bullying and interpersonal conflict along with offering
training and published materials to help educate and dissuade bullying (Gilbert et al., 2013).
Conclusions and Future Research
A number of researchers would like to use a range of methodologies in order to obtain
comprehensive data such as qualitative and ethnographic approaches (Jenkins et al., 2011).
Research about workplace bullying concentrates on three areas: the nature of bullying, bullying
demographics, stress-related consequences (weight gain, heart disease, absenteeism) (Devonish,
2014).
Most research to date relies on the accuser and bystander but ignores the perpetrator.
There are several studies and literature outlining the effects of bullying on the victim and
bystander but not on the accused (Jenkins et al., 2011). Research is lacking about the
organizational intervention and if the situation can improve. There is a gap in the research
addressing the impact of civility policies and the organization (Gilbert et al., 2013). Even though
the perception that most bullying is between the supervisor and the employee, there are very few
studies that research the correlation between leadership behaviors and bullying (Cooper-Thomas
et al., 2013).
Constructive leadership fosters praise and recognition in the employees that would help
to eliminate the threat of bullying. Perceived organizational support is a supportive work

WORKPLACE BULLYING

17

environment that makes employees feel valued and that their ideas are being heard thus reducing
the likelihood of bullying. If bullying does occur, employees are given more support to help with
reporting and coping along with realizing that the bullying behavior is not part of the
organizations philosophy making the employee more likely to not leave (Cooper-Thomas et al.,
2013).
In order for an organization to develop processes to help with combating this behavior,
the leaders and human resources need to understand the causes, context, and experiences that
need to be evaluated (Klein & Martin, 2011). There have been several programs, training, and
activities organizations can put in place to help combat bullying but with the lack of research,
their effectiveness is unknown. There is little evidence to the effectiveness of training programs
about bullying even though the programs are making people in the organization aware, all it has
really done is increase the instances or reporting (Cooper-Thomas et al., 2013). Resolution for
workplace bullying is low while avoidance and resignation are the more commonplace. Although
individuals try to get resolution, the lack of results leads to the individuals exiting the
organization (D'Cruz & Noronha, 2010). There needs to be a resolution to this phenomenon
therefore, more research needs to be completed about how companies are able to combat this
issue.

WORKPLACE BULLYING

18

References
Ashraf, F., & Khan, M. A. (2014). Does emotional intelligence moderate the relationship
between workplace bullying and job performance? Asian Business & Management, 13(2),
171-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/abm.2013.5
Bible, J. (2012). The jerk at work: Workplace bullying and the law's inability to combat it.
Employee Relations Law Journal, 38(1), 32-51. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1019287791?accountid=28644
Bjorkelo, B. (2013). Workplace bullying after whistleblowing: Future research and implications.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 306-323.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941311321178
Brotheridge, C. (2013). Explaining bullying: Using theory to answer practical questions. Team
Performance Management, 19(3), 185-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TPM-07-2012-0023
Cooper-Thomas, H., Gardner, D., O'Driscoll, M., Catley, B., Bentley, T., & Trenberth, L. (2013).
Neutralizing workplace bullying: The buffering effects of contextual factors. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 28(4), 384-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-12-2012-0399
D'Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2010). The exit coping response to workplace bullying. Employee
Relations, 32(2), 102-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425451011010078
D'Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). The limits to workplace friendship. Employee Relations,
33(3), 269-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425451111121777
Devonish, D. (2014). Job demands, health, and absenteeism: Does bullying make things worse?
Employee Relations, 36(2), 165-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2013-0011

WORKPLACE BULLYING

19

Duffy, M. (2009). Preventing workplace mobbing and bullying with effective organizational
consultation, policies, and legislation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 61(3), 242-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016578
Dumay, J., & Marini, L. (2012). Bullying in context: A risk management perspective. Journal of
Human Resource Costing & Accounting, 16(4), 281-301.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14013381211317257
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. (2009). Building a framework for two internal organizational
approaches to resolving and preventing workplace bullying: Alternative dispute
resolution and training. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3),
220-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016637
Gilbert, J., Raffo, D., & Sutarso, T. (2013). Gender, conflict, and workplace bullying: Is civility
policy the silver bullet? Journal of Managerial Issues, 25(1), 79-98. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1432109553?accountid=28644
Godkin, L. (2015). An epidemiological approach to workplace bullying. Journal of Leadership,
Accountability and Ethics, 12(3), 76-91. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1726796619?accountid=28644
Gumbus, A., & Meglich, P. (2012). Lean and mean: Workplace culture and the prevention of
workplace bullying. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 13(5), 11-20.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1315304221?accountid=28644
Jenkins, M., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2011). Consequences of being accused of workplace
bullying: An exploratory study. International Journal of Workplace Health Management,
4(1), 33-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538351111118581

WORKPLACE BULLYING

20

Kilburg, R. (2009). Sadomasochism, human aggression, and the problem of workplace mobbing
and bullying: A commentary. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
61(3), 268-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016935
Klein, A., & Martin, S. (2011). Two dilemmas in dealing with workplace bullies - false positives
and deliberate deceit. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 4(1), 1332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538351111118572
Lavan, H., & Martin, W. (2008). Bullying in the U.S. workplace: Normative and processoriented ethical approaches. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 147-165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9608-9
Lee, R., & Brotheridge, C. (2011). Sex and position status differences in workplace aggression.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(5), 403-418.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941111139010
Martin, S., & Klein, A. (2013). The presumption of mutual influence in occurrences of
workplace bullying: Time for change. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace
Research, 5(3), 147-155. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1412837614?accountid=28644
Mathisen, G., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2011). The relationship between supervisor
personality, supervisors' perceived stress and workplace bullying. Journal of Business
Ethics, 99(4), 637-651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0674-z
Olive, K., & Cangemi, J. (2015). Workplace bullies why they are successful and what can be
done about it? Organization Development Journal, 33(2), 19-31. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1692916283?accountid=28644

WORKPLACE BULLYING

21

O'Moore, M., & Crowley, N. (2011). The clinical effects of workplace bullying: A critical look at
personality using sem. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 4(1), 6783. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538351111118608
Parker, K. (2014). The workplace bully: The ultimate silencer. Journal of Organizational
Culture, Communication and Conflict, 18(1), 169-185. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1647822725?accountid=28644
Pate, J., & Beaumont, P. (2010). Bullying and harassment: A case of success? Employee
Relations, 32(2), 171-183. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425451011010113
Rhodes, C., Pullen, A., Vickers, M., Clegg, S., & Pitsis, A. (2010). Violence and workplace
bullying: What are an organization's ethical responsibilities? Administrative Theory &
Praxis, 32(1), 96-115. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/518036993?
accountid=28644
Samnani, A. (2013). The early stages of workplace bullying and how it becomes prolonged: The
role of culture in predicting target responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(1), 119-132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1286-6
Taneja, S. (2014). Violence in the workplace: A strategic crisis management issue. The Journal
of Applied Business and Economics, 16(1), 32-42. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1546004147?accountid=28644
Van Fleet, D., & Van Fleet, E. (2012). Towards a behavioral description of managerial bullying.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24(3), 197-215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10672-012-9190-x

WORKPLACE BULLYING

22

Vickers, M. H. (2014). Towards reducing the harm: Workplace bullying as workplace corruption:
A critical review. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26(2), 95-113.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10672-013-9231-0