Where appropriate you shall introduce a company, give company data or description and site the communication issue or problem or any communication phenomenon according to the attached document; but also remember;

w12.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Where appropriate you shall introduce a company, give company data or description and site the communication issue or problem or any communication phenomenon according to the attached document; but also remember;

Workplace bullying: the experiences of building and construction apprentices

Darcy McCormack Australian Catholic University, Australia Nikola Djurkovic Swinburne University of Technology, Australia Gian Casimir Kuwait Maastricht Business School, Kuwait

This paper examines the workplace bullying experiences of building and construction apprentices. The aims of the paper are to learn about the types of behaviours to which building and construction apprentices are subjected and to examine the reasons why a significant proportion of them neither confront the perpetrator of the behaviour nor report the behaviour, either within the organisation or externally. Individual semi-structured interviews were used. The results indicate that the appren- tices were subjected to a wide range of negative behaviours. There were several reasons for them neither confronting the perpetrator nor reporting the bullying, including fear of job loss and finan- cial impact.

Keywords: apprentice, building, construction, reporting, workplace bullying

Introduction

The focus of this paper is on the experiences of workplace bullying of building and con- struction apprentices. Despite several anecdotal media accounts of bullying behaviours experienced by apprentices and trainees there is a paucity of academic research that focuses on the bullying experiences of this group. This lack of research is even more notable given that this group of workers has been identified as being particularly at risk of

Correspondence: Dr Nikola Djurkovic, Human Resource Management and Organisation Studies Group, Swinburne University of Technology, Mail H23 (BA Building), PO Box 218, Hawthorn, Vic 3122, Australia; e-mail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication 4 June 2013.

Key points 1 Workplace bullying encompasses a range of targeted negative behaviours that are

repeated and ongoing. 2 Building and construction apprentices reported being exposed to a wide range of

bullying behaviours in their workplaces. 3 Apprentices can be categorised as at high risk of being exposed to bullying and are

unlikely to formally report bullying.

bs_bs_banner

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (2013) 51, 406–420 doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12014

such behaviours (Mathisen, Einarsen and Mykletun 2008; Vickerstaff 2003) due to their relative youth and their lack of hierarchical power and status.

The aims of the paper are to learn about the types of behaviours to which building and construction apprentices are subjected and to examine the reasons why a significant pro- portion of them neither confront the perpetrator of the behaviour nor report the behaviour, either within the organisation or externally. This study was conducted in the state of Victoria, Australia. It is hoped that the information gathered in this study can shed some light on this too-often hidden phenomenon so that policy enhancements may be developed to more effectively counter this insidious and damaging behaviour.

Bullying of apprentices The few studies of the bullying experiences of apprentices that have been undertaken have mostly been set in particular industries and occupational groups. The majority of studies have been in hospitality, although similar research has been conducted among trainees in education (e.g. Maguire 2001) and in the medical profession (e.g. Ahmer et al. 2009; Bairy et al. 2007; Imran et al. 2010).

Within the hospitality sector, it has been observed that this sector has features that make it ‘high risk’ for bullying behaviour including a climate based on behavioural norms and expectations that commonly tolerate bullying (Bloisi and Hoel 2008; Johns and Menzel 1999; Mathisen, Einarsen and Mykletun 2008). In another study of the bullying of apprentices and trainees in personal services (i.e. fitness, hairdressing and beauty), the findings indicate that apprentices in that sector experience a wide array of bullying behaviours and the targets reported suffering psychological and physical symptoms, as well as low self-efficacy and increased intentions to quit their training (McCormack, Djurkovic and Casimir 2012). Within the building and construction industry, which is the focus of this paper, anecdotal evidence and recent media news items (e.g. Ainsworth 2011; Schneiders 2010) suggest that bullying remains a problem and that apprentices are reluc- tant to formally report bullying.

Workplace bullying and types of bullying behaviours There are several definitions of workplace bullying provided in the literature. Einarsen et al. (2011, 22) provide a comprehensive definition:

Bullying at work means harassing, offending, or socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to be applied to a par- ticular activity, interaction or process, the bullying behaviour has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g. weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six months). Bullying is an escalat- ing process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts. A conflict cannot be called bullying if the incident is an isolated event or if two parties of approximately equal strength are in conflict.

The results of several studies of workplace bullying demonstrate many negative effects on both the individual (Hogh, Mikkelsen and Hansen 2011) and their organisation (Hoel et al. 2011). Awareness of the workplace bullying phenomenon was raised in Australia

Darcy McCormack, Nikola Djurkovic and Gian Casimir

following several media reports of apprentices in various industries being harmed phys- ically (Kenway, Fitzclarence and Hasluck 2000). Research into workplace bullying in Aus- tralia became prominent from the mid-1990s (e.g. McCarthy 1996; Sheehan 1996) and has explored several key areas in the workplace bullying phenomenon, such as various causes and consequences of bullying, as well as interventions and economic cost considerations.

There are many forms of workplace bullying noted in the literature. For example, Rayner and Hoel (1997) presented five dimensions of bullying, namely: threat to profes- sional status (e.g. open displays of belittling opinion of the target); threat to personal standing (e.g. teasing); isolation (e.g. deliberate withholding of information); overwork (e.g. undue pressure to produce work), and destabilisation (e.g. repeated reminders of blunders). Various other similar categorisations are also noted in the literature (e.g. Zapf, Knorz and Kulla 1996).

There are several potential antecedents of workplace bullying as noted in the relevant literature, broadly categorised as individual, social, or organisational antecedents. Indi- vidual antecedents include various factors related to both the perpetrator and the target of the bullying, including personality, social skills, and self-concept (Zapf and Einarsen 2011). Social antecedents include factors related to social interactions (e.g. frustration, stress, social norms), which also incorporate organisational justice and fairness (Neuman and Baron 2011). Organisational causes of bullying include factors such as work organisation, organisational culture, leadership, reward systems and organisational change (Salin and Hoel 2011).

The adoption of bullying behaviours in a workplace may also be influenced by several contextual factors, such as the occupational group or industry within which the organisation and its employees operate. For example, studies on bullying in specific set- tings (e.g. fire services: Archer 1999; police: Miller and Rayner 2012) have found that some forms of negative behaviours are tolerated within the work environment and viewed as acceptable rituals, whereas other forms are seen as problematic. Furthermore, it has been suggested that social identity and group norms may have a strong influence on the use of negative behaviours and may also act as a deterrent (Ramsay, Troth and Branch 2011). The informal atmosphere in some organisations may allow rituals and jokes as part of a socialisation process, and problematic scenarios may emerge where the target finds it dif- ficult to defend him/herself (Salin and Hoel 2011). Similarly, some level of ‘general banter’ may be seen as acceptable in workplaces in Australia and elsewhere. The key consideration in all situations is the perspective of the target of the behaviour as opposed to the intent of the perpetrator (Liefooghe and Mackenzie Davey 2003). In a study conducted in Australia, it was noted that bystanders may inadvertently participate in bullying by joining others in ‘normal banter’ without any awareness of the impact of the behaviour on the target (Paull, Omari and Standen 2012).

The way in which organisations attempt to prevent bullying – and deal with bullying when it occurs – is also important. Typical preventative measures include displaying ‘anti- bullying’ policies. In cases where organisations have used a ‘generic’ policy approach (such as mimicking the policy of other organisations) the usefulness of anti-bullying policies has

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51

been found to be limited: It has been suggested that anti-bullying policies are more useful and effective if they have been tailored to meet the specific needs of the organisation (Salin 2008). Such policies, however, have in some cases been found to have a limited pre- ventative impact, so management responses to bullying are also important. In terms of dealing with bullying when such situations arise, it has been suggested that many human resource departments do not deal directly with the problem – rather, immediate super- visors and line managers tend to deal with the issues with little input from their human resource departments (Lewis and Rayner 2003; Salin 2008).

Bullying and power The literature on workplace bullying places a heavy emphasis on the imbalance of power or, more specifically, situations in which the targets find it difficult to defend themselves against the bullying (Einarsen 2000). Five types of social power are outlined by French and Raven (1968) – reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power, and expert power. The first three are powers that stem from a person’s position and are referred to sometimes as ‘positional power’. Referent and expert powers stem from the individual’s characteristics and are referred to as ‘personal power’. Both positional and personal power are relevant to workplace bullying.

The power inherent in the positions that people occupy in organisational hierarchies facilitates the use of bullying behaviours, particularly control over the allocation of work tasks to subordinates, and control over rewards and punishment (Aquino 2000). The results of numerous studies have suggested that bullies are often managers or senior man- agers (Rayner, Hoel and Cooper 2002). It should be noted, however, that bullying may occur between people who possess the same level of formal authority in the organisation and also, although less common, in circumstances where the perpetrator is lower in the organisational hierarchy than the target (Branch, Ramsay and Barker 2007). Upward bul- lying may stem from referent power and/or expert power, or from a dependency in the work relationship (Branch, Ramsay and Barker 2012). Although some conflicts may emerge where the parties involved have an equal balance of power, this balance is unlikely to remain stable over time (Einarsen et al. 2011).

Confronting the bully or reporting the bullying There is evidence that much bullying is not reported by young workers. For example, in a study of undergraduate university students who were employed (Djurkovic, McCormack and Casimir 2005), it was found that targets of bullying were more likely to employ avoid- ance behaviours (e.g. ignore the perpetrator) than to be assertive (e.g. confront the per- petrator) or to seek formal help (e.g. report the perpetrator to the trade union) when exposed to bullying. It has been noted that targets in general are likely to use avoidance in situations when they feel unable to defend themselves (Hogh and Dofradottir 2001), which would arguably often be the case with apprentices.

Although there is evidence as noted above that young workers will tend to use avoid- ance behaviours when exposed to bullying, little is known about the reasons why appren-

Darcy McCormack, Nikola Djurkovic and Gian Casimir

tices do not take a more direct approach in dealing with bullying. This paper will therefore aim to obtain information from current apprentices regarding the reasons why they do not respond to bullying in a more direct manner by using assertive behaviours or seeking formal help.

As noted above, this paper is written with the following overall aims:

1 To learn about the types of behaviours to which building and construction apprentices are subjected; and

2 To examine the reasons why a significant proportion of apprentices neither confront the perpetrator of the behaviour nor report the behaviour, either within the organisation or externally.

Method

The current study examines the workplace bullying experiences of building and construc- tion apprentices and formed a part of a larger cross-sector project examining apprentice/ trainee bullying. Semi-structured interview questions were used in this study. Participants were invited to participate in a study titled ‘Workplace bullying and harassment of apprentices and trainees’. The invitation to participate in an individual interview was announced in classes and placed on noticeboards at the training institutes of the appren- tices. Participants were informed that their participation was entirely voluntary, that the interview would take approximately 40 minutes, that they could withdraw from the project at any stage without needing to provide any reason, and that no individual or their employer would be identified. A total of 10 building and construction apprentices (includes carpenters, plumbers, bricklayers and painters/decorators) were interviewed in metropolitan and regional Victoria, Australia. Although the age of the participants was not recorded as part of the interview data, all 10 of the participants were male, and each was over the age of 18 with the exception of one. Although specific demographic information about the apprentices was not collected in the interviews, all 10 participants were fluent in English. The sample potentially includes targets, witnesses and perpetrators of workplace bullying. The individual interviews were conducted in a private room at the participant’s training institute – and away from their workplace. The interviews were recorded by note- taking: the handwritten notes taken by two researchers were compared at the end of each interview to ensure accuracy. The research was approved by the relevant university human ethics committees prior to the commencement of data collection.

Results

The data presented in this section were analysed manually using the techniques of itera- tions of reading and coding of the interview notes, identifying emerging patterns and themes, and developing concepts. This approach was considered to be the most suitable given the interview method used and the form of data gathered. The quotations provided below are therefore reflective of particular emerging themes as expressed by the partici-

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51

pants during their individual interviews. In some cases, more than one participant pro- vided examples consistent with the relevant theme(s) and similarities in experiences – in such cases more than one quotation is provided on a particular theme. There was some evidence of a convergence in the findings in that common themes emerged from the data provided by the 10 participants. Notwithstanding this, the experiences of this cohort of apprentices are relevant and provide useful insight to the workplace bullying phenomenon – particularly given that so few apprentices have been included in previous research on bullying.

Types of bullying behaviours As noted above, a significant range of behaviours may constitute workplace bullying. Evidence in the data provided by the participants reflects this. The following quotations from the responses of interviewees illustrate some of the bullying behaviours experienced. Responses from each of the 10 participants are included in this section – to protect their identity the interview notes are presented in the form of separate individual quotations.

Some of the behaviours described by the apprentices demonstrate work-related/ organisational bullying in terms of not receiving appropriate entitlements – for example, payments and break/meal times:

Bosses being ‘arseholes’, being stupid. Not paying apprentices for a month at a time. I was 18 at the time and paid fortnightly, but he constantly owed me one month . . . I’d complain and then get paid on time for a while, then the same thing happened again so I left.

I’d be working from 4.30am to 7.30pm with one 15–20 minute break if I was lucky. My boss made me work through the family dinner on my birthday. We had a 7.30 booking and my boss said ‘I don’t care, keep working.’ I was one-and-a-half hours late to my own birthday dinner with my family – they were sitting at the restaurant table and phoned to see where I was.

There was also some evidence of some serious breaches of physical health and safety legislation. For example:

I used to cop ‘shit’ from my boss and subbies [sub-contractors]. Really negative put-downs – really gave it to me. I had tools thrown at me, it got a bit serious . . . I spotted asbestos and was suspicious even though I was told the ceiling was all clear . . . The boss had never been in the ceiling – only apprentices and subbies were sent up . . . Fully sealed-off equipment should be provided but there was never any protective equipment provided and we were not told to wear any.

It is evident from the data in the current study that while general ‘banter’ is seen as acceptable to many apprentices, the banter may lead to further behaviours that are clearly unacceptable – the participants made the following comments on behaviours that they considered to be negative:

There’s always a bit of joking around, but it gets to a point where it gets serious. It’s hard to determine the seriousness of what’s happening, hard to draw the line between when it’s a joke and when it’s serious. You just pay back – you give back what you cop.

Darcy McCormack, Nikola Djurkovic and Gian Casimir

You cop it as an apprentice, you get yelled at if you make a mistake . . . I used to cop it a bit more when I was younger, but now I give it back. You get called names and you give some back, but it’s nothing too serious . . . But I’ve seen a ‘brickie’ [bricklayer] have a trowel thrown at him – it didn’t hit him but if it did it could do damage, I thought that was a bit too much.

Personal harassment in the form of inappropriate teasing was also evident, with some behaviour beyond teasing specifically targeted at individual apprentices. Some participants recounted:

I get teased a bit, called a ‘bong-head’ because of my looks and haircut, but it’s mostly from other tradies on the site. My boss stands up for me and tells them where to go. You hear it every day and you get sick of it.

They called me names both when I was on my own and in front of others; it was worse when I was on my own. One time a bloke stepped in, but mostly no one said anything [to help me]. They’d call me a ‘fat c*nt’, ‘stupid’, ‘dumb’ – they’d yell it in a nasty way. It really gets you down sometimes when you’re trying your hardest, and even though sometimes it might start out in a ‘jokey’ way it would always turn nasty . . . It’s funny how these guys say this stuff to you and then you hear them on the phone saying ‘I love you’ and all that sort of stuff to their wives – they change so quickly. And I did nothing to provoke them, I think I’m pretty well-mannered and I try to help out.

He’d tell me to be on the other side of the city at 6 or 7 in the morning, even though he knew I was too young to drive . . . He told one of the guys to not pick me up, even though it was on his way to work. He made you feel lower than the dirt you’d be digging . . . He’d tell the other guys to get into me . . . it was verbal, yelling, full-on. Swearing. ‘Go home!’ ‘Why are you even here?’

‘Shut up and cop it’ Both formal and informal powers continue to be a central theme in the workplace bully- ing literature and it is evident from the data that power is a relevant factor in the bullying of apprentices and in their reactions to such bullying. In terms of French and Raven’s (1968) typology, apprentices are low in both positional (legitimate, reward, coercive) power and personal (expert, referent) power in comparison to other employees and man- agers in their organisations. In terms of hierarchical status, apprentices may be ranked below low-skilled employees in many organisations (Tanggaard and Elmholdt 2008). As noted above, the role of power in workplace bullying is highlighted by situations in which the targets find it difficult to defend themselves against the bullying (e.g. Einarsen 2000; Hoel, Zapf and Cooper 2002), which is certainly the case with apprentices as revealed in the interview data. The results of numerous studies suggest that bullies are often managers or senior managers (Rayner, Hoel and Cooper 2002). Furthermore, the control that man- agers have over rewards and punishment are seen as key elements of power (Aquino 2000).

Given the types of behaviours to which the participants had been subjected, a signifi- cant issue that arises is the actions taken by the apprentices in response to the bullying. The interview data reveal that in most cases the apprentices did not challenge or confront

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51

the bully, nor did they report the bullying to an appropriate organisation (e.g. regulatory body). These findings are consistent with other findings reported in the literature (e.g. Djurkovic, McCormack and Casimir 2005) that young targets of bullying are more likely to employ avoidance behaviours than to be assertive or seek formal help. Furthermore, as noted earlier, targets are likely to use avoidance when they feel unable to defend them- selves (Hogh and Dofradottir 2001), which might often be the case with apprentices given the aforementioned role of power within the employment relationship.

Several reasons were provided by the participants for not ‘speaking-up’. The responses below typify the reasons expressed by the apprentices. One commonly reported reason was the fear of job loss or the financial impact of leaving the employer. Despite the overall moderately low official unemployment statistics for the state of Victoria around the time of the study (5.5%: ABS 2012), apprentices expressed a real fear of not finding a new employer with whom to continue their apprenticeship if they were to lose their current position. For example:

I was scared to report it – I didn’t want to lose my job. If you stir ‘shit’ up you’d make it worse . . . It was my first apprenticeship and I didn’t want to lose it . . . I really had financial issues and needed the money, so I had to keep working . . . [I] didn’t consider going to [authorities] . . . [but] appreciate that I didn’t want to lose the job.’

Apprentices are all scared of losing their apprenticeships – so you do exactly what you’re told. If I was abused by the boss I’d talk to him. But he has the big stick and it’d be difficult. You’re not going to risk that . . . To get people to speak up you’d need to have a guaranteed other placement. When I was doing construction induction, the guy told us that if anything hap- pened we wouldn’t complain because we’d lose our place. But you’d be more open to doing something about it if you knew there was a place.

If apprentices speak up they might lose their job – there’s the fear of getting judged and the fear of losing your job.

A second reason for non-reporting was the fear of escalation of the bullying. Appren- tices stated that reporting the bullying might make matters worse and further or more intense bullying might be the result:

There’s a fear you’d be treated more harshly.

They’re scared if the boss finds out, scared about how the boss will treat them after that going forward – they’ll make your life hell at work, so people keep it to themselves and hope it works itself out.

They’d be worried it might get back to their boss and it’d be real bad for you. They’re too worried it’d somehow get back to their boss and end up being worse. The boss probably knows other people in the trade and in the community so it might make it worse for the apprentice down the track.

A further reason provided by the participants for non-reporting was not knowing who to report the bullying behaviour to. Who the perpetrator was also influenced the decision of whether or not to report the bullying:

Darcy McCormack, Nikola Djurkovic and Gian Casimir

I told my parents about it. Dad said ‘Have a go at your boss’; [my parents] weren’t happy about it. They didn’t know who to report it to, couldn’t really give me advice on that. So I didn’t know how to report it.

I’d speak up if I saw an apprentice copping it – but not if the bully is the boss. I’d say some- thing if the bully is another employee or an apprentice, but I wouldn’t say anything if the bully was the boss. If it were my boss I’d just aim to get through the apprenticeship and move on [to another employer] when I finished [the apprenticeship].

There’s too much at stake for a kid to confront the boss.

Another reason for non-reporting was that the apprentices did not want to appear ‘weak’. This may be linked to social desirability, as well as the higher levels of tolerance of workplace bullying in ‘male-dominated’ or ‘masculine’ settings (Einarsen and Raknes 1997; Vartia and Hyyti 2002) such as the building and construction industry. The follow- ing responses demonstrate this:

You wouldn’t report bullying because there’s a stereotype of a ‘tradie’, you’re supposed to be a tough bloke. You’re not supposed to be weak and complain and whinge. People tell you to ‘harden-up’ and get over it. It’s [bullying] the sort of stuff that would be reported if it were a ‘softer’ job. You’re not meant to whinge about emotional issues if you’re a ‘tradie’, it’s more about the battle scars. You wouldn’t want to look weak in front of the others at work.

They’ve [authorities] got it so you can speak up, but kids don’t do it; it’s too hard to dob your boss in . . . To dob-in your boss is a sign you’re weak, I don’t wanna be weak.

An additional reason that young apprentices do not report the bullying appears to be that their relative lack of previous work experience may lead to them thinking that such behaviour is ‘normal’ in the work environment. The following quotations are illustrative:

When I started out at 16 I really didn’t expect it and it shocked me. I wasn’t aware of bullying in the workplace – I thought it would stop after school so it hit me really hard when I first started. But after the first six months I just thought it was normal, I got used to it.

I was 17 at the time, just finished year 11 . . . I should’ve quit earlier, but I thought every job must be like this. Now I know that’s not the case.

The data presented above highlight the importance of an individual’s ‘socialisation’ to their employment. The socialisation process and accompanying behavioural norms in workplaces have been highlighted in the literature (e.g. Archer 1999) as significant factors in the potential acceptance and normalisation of workplace bullying in particular settings. Given that apprentices are in a socialisation process, a potential consequence of the socialisation is that they may then carry out bullying behaviours on other apprentices in future (Mathisen, Einarsen and Mykletun 2008), which continues the cycle of the bullying of apprentices (McCormack, Djurkovic and Casimir 2012). It would appear that such socialisation processes are particularly pertinent in cases where the apprenticeship is the first exposure an individual has to an employment relationship.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51

Discussion

Despite significant interest in the bullying of apprentices, few empirical studies have focused exclusively on this group of workers. It has been noted previously (e.g. Mathisen, Einarsen and Mykletun 2008; Vickerstaff 2003) that apprentices have characteristics that make them a ‘risk group’ for being bullied at work, particularly given their low hierarchical status and their relatively young age and lack of experience in the workplace.

The interview data in the current study reveal that building and construction appren- tices are subjected to a range of bullying behaviours. The bullying behaviours to which the participants were exposed include not receiving entitlements, overwork, inappropriate teasing, and in some cases physical violence. Although some of the behaviours are consid- ered by the apprentices as being harmless banter, it appears that such behaviour has the potential to escalate to far more serious and more damaging behaviours if left unchecked. Some of the behaviours experienced could potentially be related to the male-dominated cultures of the building and construction worksites. Organisational culture provides a mechanism through which tolerance (or intolerance) of negative behaviour is applied, with power imbalances being a further enabling process (Salin 2003), so the culture(s) at worksites at which apprentices are employed serve an important purpose in discouraging bullying behaviours.

Despite being subjected to the aforementioned behaviours, the apprentices tend to neither confront the perpetrator nor report the behaviour, either within the organisation or externally. The reasons identified for this inaction include fear of losing their appren- ticeship and the subsequent difficulty of finding a new employer, fear of escalation of the conflict or making matters worse, reliance on the work due to the financial impact of job loss, as well as the need to protect their self-image. The fear of losing the apprenticeship, in particular, seems to be one reason for non-reporting that is unique to this group of workers in comparison to workers with more easily transferrable and generally available job roles. In addition, several apprentices stated that they did not know who to turn to for assistance when faced with bullying at work.

In terms of practical implications, there is an obvious need for vigilance on the part of both employers and apprentices, as well as training and regulatory bodies, regarding the non-acceptability of bullying behaviours. This need is exacerbated by the heightened risk of bullying for a group such as apprentices due to their lack of power in the organisation. Bystanders, such as supervisors and work colleagues, also play an important role in pre- venting bullying and its negative effects (O’Driscoll et al. 2011; Paull, Omari and Standen 2012) and it therefore is important that training programs emphasise the responsibility all members of an organisation play in preventing bullying. The formal induction as well as other related training programs (Luzio-Lockett 1995) of apprentices and other trade workers to their workplaces may be one specific mechanism through which current workers – who may well be the supervisors of present and/or future apprentices – are made aware of issues relating to bullying and its outcomes, as well as the non-acceptability of negative behaviours in the work setting.

Darcy McCormack, Nikola Djurkovic and Gian Casimir

Complaints regarding bullying need to be thoroughly investigated and resolved, either within the organisation or by an external body or consultant where the need arises (Hoel and Einarsen 2011). It has been suggested that sophisticated processes of dealing with bul- lying via a range of human resource policies (e.g. performance management, training) and appropriate action using ‘soft’ (e.g. reconciliatory) and/or ‘hard’ (e.g. punitive) interven- tions are important, as are higher order initiatives (e.g. safety climate) (Salin 2009). Various practical, moral and legal factors must be considered in investigative processes (Hoel and Einarsen 2011). The prevention of negative behaviour depends on apprentices, managers and other staff being made aware of the avenues available to them and their being protected from adverse reactions when they raise concerns about behaviours that they have either experienced or witnessed.

Limitations and future research

It is noteworthy that some apprentices were reluctant to participate in the study. This reluctance may have originated from the following sources: cynicism that the apprentices’ participation would have any real impact on policy development; the sensitive nature of the topic; and fear that the apprentice (or their employer) would be identifiable. The researchers made every attempt to counter such potential problems.

One sampling issue in this study was the difficulty in recruiting participants aged under 18 years due to the ethics requirement that participants aged under 18 years provide written parental/guardian consent prior to their participation in the project. Although the sample in this study did include one participant under the age of 18, researchers in future should consider including more under-18s to ensure a representative sample. Also, there were only 10 participants in this study from the building and construction sector, which could impact upon the generalisability of the findings.

One other limitation was the inability to recruit any apprentices who had quit their training due to bullying. The sample does include apprentices who had left a previous employer because of bullying but subsequently continued their apprenticeship with a dif- ferent employer. Nonetheless, information provided by those who quit their training com- pletely could provide valuable details about such experiences.

Various other contextual and occupational characteristics, such as the ownership and size of the employing organisation, may have an impact on the workplace experi- ences of the apprentices and its inclusion is therefore suggested for future studies. Fur- thermore, although this study does not involve comparisons between groups of apprentices and/or other workers, it would be worthwhile for future studies to use spe- cific methodologies to compare the workplace bullying experiences of apprentices and other workers.

The design of this research was self-report. Although self-report data are essential in this type of research, the use of other sources of data (e.g. from witnesses to alleged events, or official records) to supplement the data provided by the participants might enhance the findings of such research.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51

Concluding comments

Few empirical studies have focused exclusively on apprentices in terms of bullying. This study has sought to address this gap. The data gathered in the individual interviews dem- onstrate that building and construction apprentices are exposed to a wide range of bully- ing behaviours. The main reasons for apprentices not confronting the perpetrator or reporting the bullying either externally or internally include their fear of losing their apprenticeship and the resulting financial impact, and their fear of an escalation of the bullying. Notwithstanding the apprentices’ own ability, or that of their employer, to deal effectively with the bullying, it is apparent that apprentices need to be made more aware of the avenues for seeking help and advice.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support for this study provided by the Higher Edu- cation and Skills Group (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Victoria) and WorkSafe Victoria.

Darcy McCormack (PhD, La Trobe) is an associate professor at the School of Business, Australian Catholic University. He researches in human resource management and management.

Nikola Djurkovic (PhD, La Trobe) is a senior lecturer at the Human Resource Management and Organisation Studies Group, Swinburne University of Technology. He researches in human resource management and organisational behaviour.

Gian Casimir (PhD, Newcastle) is an associate professor of organisational behaviour at the Kuwait Maastricht Business School. He researches in leadership in organisations and organisational behaviour. Gian Casimir was employed at the University of Newcastle while this research was being conducted.

References

Ahmer S, A Yousafzai, M Siddiqi, R Faruqui, R Khan and S Zuberi (2009) Bullying of trainee psy- chiatrists in Pakistan: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Academic Psychiatry 33(4), 335– 339.

Ainsworth M (2011) No jail term for nail gun bully. Herald Sun (Melbourne), 3 Sept. Aquino K (2000) Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of

hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management 26(2), 171–193. Archer D (1999) Exploring ‘bullying’ culture in the para-military organisation. International Journal

of Manpower 20(1/2), 94–105. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2012) State and territory statistical indicators 2012. ABS, Can-

berra, ACT. Bairy K, P Thirumalaikolundusubramanian, G Sivagnanam, S Saraswathi, A Sachidananda and

A Shalini (2007) Bullying among trainee doctors in southern India: A questionnaire study. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 53(2), 87–91.

Darcy McCormack, Nikola Djurkovic and Gian Casimir

Bloisi W and H Hoel (2008) Abusive work practices and bullying among chefs: A review of the lit- erature. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27(4), 649–656.

Branch S, S Ramsay and M Barker (2007) Managers in the firing line: Contributing factors to work- place bullying by staff – an interview study. Journal of Management and Organization 13(3), 264– 281.

Branch S, S Ramsay and M Barker (2012) Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews. Published online 6 June 2012. doi: 10.1111/ j.1468-2370.2012.00339.x.

Djurkovic N, D McCormack and G Casimir (2005) The behavioral reactions of victims to different types of workplace bullying. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 8(4), 439– 460.

Einarsen S (2000) Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggres- sion and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal 5(4), 379–401.

Einarsen S and BI Raknes (1997) Harassment at work and the victimization of men. Violence and Victims 12(3), 247–263.

Einarsen S, H Hoel, D Zapf and CL Cooper (2011) The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf and CL Cooper (eds) Bullying and harass- ment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn, 3–39. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

French JRP and B Raven (1968) The bases of social power. In D Cartwright and A Zander (eds) Group dynamics: Research and theory, 3rd edn, 259–269. Tavistock Publications, London.

Hoel H and S Einarsen (2011) Investigating complaints of bullying and harassment. In S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf and CL Cooper (eds) Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn, 341–357. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Hoel H, M Sheehan, CL Cooper and S Einarsen (2011) Organisational effects of workplace bullying. In S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf and CL Cooper (eds) Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn, 129–147. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Hoel H, D Zapf and CL Cooper (2002) Workplace bullying and stress. In PL Perrewe and DC Ganster (eds) Historical and current perspectives on stress and health, 293–333. Elsevier Science, Oxford.

Hogh A and A Dofradottir (2001) Coping with bullying in the workplace. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 10(4), 485–495.

Hogh A, EG Mikkelsen and AM Hansen (2011) Individual consequences of workplace bullying/ mobbing. In S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf and CL Cooper (eds) Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn, 107–128. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Imran N, M Jawaid, I Haider and Z Masood (2010) Bullying of junior doctors in Pakistan: A cross- sectional survey. Singapore Medical Journal 51(7), 592–595.

Johns N and PJ Menzel (1999) ‘If you can’t stand the heat!’ . . . kitchen violence and culinary art. International Journal of Hospitality Management 18(2), 99–109.

Kenway J, L Fitzclarence and L Hasluck (2000) Toxic shock: Understanding violence against young males in the workplace. Journal of Men’s Studies 8(2), 131–152.

Lewis D and C Rayner (2003) Bullying and human resource management: A wolf in sheep’s cloth- ing? In S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf and CL Cooper (eds) Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, 370–382. Taylor & Francis, London.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51

Liefooghe APD and K Mackenzie Davey (2003) Explaining bullying at work: Why should we listen to employee accounts? In S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf and CL Cooper (eds) Bullying and emo- tional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice, 219–230. Taylor & Francis, London.

Luzio-Lockett A (1995) Enhancing relationships within organizations: An examination of a pro- active approach to ‘bullying at work’. Employee Counselling Today 7(1), 12–22.

Maguire E (2001) Bullying and the postgraduate secondary school trainee teacher: An English case study. Journal of Education for Teaching 27(1), 95–109.

Mathisen GE, S Einarsen and R Mykletun (2008) The occurrences and correlates of bullying and harassment in the restaurant sector. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 49(1), 59–68.

McCarthy P (1996) When the mask slips: Inappropriate coercion in organisations undergoing restructuring. In P McCarthy, M Sheehan and W Wilkie (eds) Bullying: From backyard to board- room, 47–65. Millenium Books, Alexandria, NSW.

McCormack D, N Djurkovic and G Casimir (2012) The workplace experiences of apprentices and trainees: An interview study. Global Business and Economics Anthology 1, 227–233.

Miller H and C Rayner (2012) The form and function of ‘bullying’ behaviors in a strong occupa- tional culture: Bullying in a UK police service. Group and Organization Management 37(3), 347– 375.

Neuman JH and RA Baron (2011) Social antecedents of bullying: A social interactionist perspective. In S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf and CL Cooper (eds) Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn, 201–225. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

O’Driscoll MP, HD Cooper-Thomas, T Bentley, BE Catley, DH Gardner and L Trenberth (2011) Workplace bullying in New Zealand: A survey of employee perceptions and attitides. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 49(4), 390–408.

Paull M, M Omari and P Standen (2012) When is a bystander not a bystander? A typology of the roles of bystanders in workplace bullying. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50(3), 351–366.

Ramsay S, A Troth and S Branch (2011) Work-place bullying: A group process framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84(4), 799–816.

Rayner C and H Hoel (1997) A summary review of literature relating to workplace bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 7(3), 181–191.

Rayner C, H Hoel and CL Cooper (2002) Workplace bullying: What we know, who is to blame, and what can we do? Taylor and Francis, London.

Salin D (2003) Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipi- tating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations 56(10), 1213–1232.

Salin D (2008) The prevention of workplace bullying as a question of human resource management: Measures adopted and underlying organizational factors. Scandinavian Journal of Management 24(3), 221–231.

Salin D (2009) Organisational responses to workplace harassment: An exploratory study. Personnel Review 38(1), 26–44.

Salin D and H Hoel (2011) Organisational causes of workplace bullying. In S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf and CL Cooper (eds) Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn, 227–243. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Schneiders B (2010) Workplace bullying case ‘worst ever seen’. The Age (Melbourne), 29 April. Sheehan M (1996) Case studies in organisational restructuring. In P McCarthy, M Sheehan and W

Wilkie (eds) Bullying: From backyard to boardroom, 67–82. Millenium Books, Alexandria, NSW.

Darcy McCormack, Nikola Djurkovic and Gian Casimir

Tanggaard L and C Elmholdt (2008) Assessment in practice: An inspiration from apprenticeship. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 52(1), 97–116.

Vartia M and J Hyyti (2002) Gender differences in workplace bullying among prison officers. Euro- pean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 11(1), 113–126.

Vickerstaff SA (2003) Apprenticeship in the ‘golden age’: Were youth transitions really smooth and unproblematic back then? Work, Employment and Society 17(2), 269–287.

Zapf D and S Einarsen (2011) Individual antecedents of bullying: Victims and perpetrators. In S Einarsen, H Hoel, D Zapf and CL Cooper (eds) Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Devel- opments in theory, research, and practice, 2nd edn, 177–200. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Zapf D, C Knorz and M Kulla (1996) On the relationship between mobbing factors and job content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy- chology 5(2), 215–237.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51