Literature Comparison Matrix
jtwitl
exemplar_expanded_matrix.docx
College of Doctoral Studies
|
|
Article 1 |
Article 2 |
Article 3 |
|
Title/Author(s) |
“Individual and Situational Predictors of Workplace Bullying: Why Do Perpetrators Engage in Bullying of Others?”
Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, (2009) |
“Does Trait Anger, Trait Anxiety or Organizational Position Moderate the Relationship Between Exposure to Negative Acts and Self-Labeling as a Victim of Workplace Bullying?”
Vie, Glaso, & Einarsen, (2010) |
“Workplace Bullying: The Role of Psychosocial Work Environment Factors”
Tuckey, Dollard, Hosking, & Winefield (2009) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Persistent GCU library link |
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02678370903395568 - .U0NjXY0Zf6I |
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0016841 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purpose of the study What is the author’s rationale for selecting this topic? Does he build a strong case? |
The purpose of the study is to fill a gap in the research around workplace bullying by looking at various factors to determine which, if any, lead to workplace bullying.
Yes, the author presents a good case for pursuing this gap in the literature by answering the research question that will prove or disprove the notion that stressful work environments are thought to be the source of workplace bullying.
|
The purpose of the study is look at whether personality (trait anxiety or trait anger) or one’s position in an organization factor into the self-identification of a person as a victim of bullying when exposed to negative acts in the workplace.
Yes, the author notes that other studies have not delved into whether the personality of a person who is a target of workplace bullying has ever been examined as a contributing factor to self-identifying as a victim of workplace bullying. |
The purpose of the study is to provide prevention strategies to workplace bullying by looking at whether the role of workers in psychosocial settings factor into the bullying.
Yes, the author infers that the person who is thought to be the bully can incur personal and professional consequences and also whether observers of bullying are also impacted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research Question(s) What question(s) does the author present? |
“Do situational factors such as authority, role ambiguity/conflict and interpersonal conflicts feed into the act of bullying?” |
Do personality characteristics such as anxiety and anger or does a worker’s position in an organization affect interactions between exposure to detrimental behaviors and the self-identification as being victimized by bullying in a work environment?
|
Do high demands on the job, low job control and low support in the workplace factor into workplace bullying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Literature Review How is this organized? What are the main themes found in the review? Who are the main authors used? |
Organized by theme, then by study.
Themes Definitions Reasons Impact/Consequences Influencing Factors Models/Theories Evidence
Page 350
Definitions Workplace bullying definitions came from a variety of sources with similar themes such as the persistent, prolonged maltreatment of one worker over another worker who feels powerless against it. The mistreatment spans from tormenting, disparaging, social rejection, marginalization and verbal complaints or offensiveness, where it causes the target extreme duress. (Brodsky, 1976) (Einarsen et al., 2003) (Zapf, 1999)
Page 350 Impact of Workplace Bullying Proven again and again to affect targeted Individuals targeted by workplace bullies are impacted extremely harmful ways. Organizations where workplace bullying prevails suffer negative organizational ramifications. c.f. Aquino & Thau, 2009; Bowling & Beehr, 2006
Page 350 Influencing Factors of Workplace Bullying Being bullied or having been bullied is proposed as a self-protection factor that causes perpetrators to bullying of employees on the job. Aquino & Thau, 2009; Lee & Brotheridge, 2006
Explanations for why workers become perpetrators of workplace bullying span from personality traits to deficient social skills, or as a response to work politics, or as a way for perpetrators to save face or defend him against difficulties or stressors in the work environment. They warn against naming any one of these explanations for a worker becoming a perpetrator (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003).
Page 350
Model “Stressor- Emotion Model of Counterproductive Work Behaviour” Spector & Fox, 2005 Workplace bullying may be attributed to a worker reacting negatively to the stress of the work environment and thus targeting other workers through aggressive or bullying actions.
Page 350 Evidence Exposure to workplace bullying can be linked to work environment circumstances (Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007)
Page 351 Less evidence available that surveyed workers who self-report as perpetrators (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007; Zapf & Einarsen, 2003)
More male perpetrators of workplace bullying than females. DeCuyper, Baillien, & DeWitte, 2009; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Rayner, 1997
More supervisors than subordinate level workers are found to engage in workplace bullying. Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001
Both supervisors and subordinates engage in workplace bullying equally. Zapf, Einarsen, Hoel, & Vartia, 2003
Mixed results, negative relationship or no significant relationship have been shown tying age as a contributing factor in workplace bullying (e.g. DeCuyper et al., 2009; Inness, Barling, & Turner, 2005; e.g. Glomb & Liao, 2003).
UK study using sole self-report measure resulted in a 19.3% prevalence rate compared with a study of self-reports and peer-reports that noted a 2.7% prevalence rate (Coyne, Chong, Seigne, & Randall, 2003) No one identified themselves as a perpetrator as well as a bullying victim in the same study.
Norwegian study surveyed non-involved workers, perpetrators (5.4%) and perpetrators who were previously bullied (2.1%), which produced a 7.5% prevalence rate (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007).
Bully targets, those who bully and are targeted, and who demonstrate anxious behaviors and aggression in their responses to stress may provoke bullying behaviors (cf. Olweus, 2003). Bully targets reported much lower self-esteem, much higher affect from work stress than other perpetrators and non-involved workers (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2007). Bully/Targets – reported way less satisfied with job and high work stress than non-involved workers (Hauge et al., 2007).
|
Organized by theme, then by study.
Themes Definitions Progression of Bullying Stages and Impact Methods from Literature Evidence Descriptions of Study’s Variables Hypotheses
Page 68
Names for workplace bullying mobbing (Leymann, 1996) workplace abuse (Keashley, 1998) workplace harassment (Brodsky, 1976)
Definition When one worker feels helpless against the frequent and persistent mistreatment from one or more workers. (Olweus, 1993; Einarsen, 2000)
Prolonged exposure to bullying can last between fifteen to eighteen months potentially devastating the victim. Leymann, 1996 Einarsen & Skogstand, 1996
67% sampled in a British report bullied for over a year (Hoel, Cooper & Faragher, 2001).
Process and Impact The onset of bullying is marked with less obvious acts of maltreatment which might go unnoticed, but eventually progress to direct attacks of degradation and disparagement that lead to feeling stigmatized and defenseless (Leymann, 1996; Hoel et al., 2001). Some victims of prolonged bullying choose to leave the job, while others are terminated (Leymann, 1990).
It is still not known how, when and to what extent being victimized by targeted mistreatment in the workplace can be categorized as bullying which makes it difficult to measure.
Page 69
Methods from Literature For this reason, a mix of different criteria must be used to measure this phenomenon (Einarsen, et al., 2003). Typically, either the “operational method,” or the 2) “subjective method” have been used in existing studies found in the literature (Nielsen, Skogstad, Matthiesen et al., 2009).
Literature shows significant discrepancies between reports of labeling of workplace bullying and reports of being exposed to consistent negative acts. Danish study: 24% had been exposed to negative treatment, but only 2.9 self-identified as targets of bullying (Salin, 2001). Others in another study (Einarsen et al., 2007) self-identified as targets of bullying, but reported they had not been subjected to bullying at least once a week.
Evidence Discrepancies between self-labeling and reports of bullying calls in to question how pervasive bullying actually is in the workplace. Question arises asking to identify the factors that predict whether a worker will self-identify as a victim. Related question - Whether some workers are more prone to self-label as targets of bullying when exposed to it at work based on individual or situational traits.
Reports of self-identified bullying victims do not always match with high exposure to prolonged bullying. Less research around what causes a worker to self-identify as a victim of bullying such as individual or situational conditions of the bully victim (Hoel et al., 2001).
Page 70
Stress theoretical framework would assume that personal traits would factor into someone perceiving negative acts as bullying. Question would be whether personality traits or a person’s position in their organization influence whether a person identifies as a victim of bullying.
Victim characteristics noted in past studies describe them as less sure of themselves and more prone to anxiety and nervousness (Coyne, Seigne & Randall, 2000; Glaso, Matthiesen, Nielsen et al., 2007; Leymann & Gustafson, 1996; Zapf, 1999).
Page 71
Descriptions of trait anxiety (Spielberger, 1983; Matthiesen & Einarsen (2004)
Descriptions of trait anger (Olweus, 1993; Spielberger, 1996)
Organizational position and NAQ definitions
Three hypotheses are put forth, relating to how the factors of trait anxiety, trait anger, organizational position moderate balance between workers identifying as victims and exposure to behaviors categorized as bullying.
|
Organized by theme, then by study.
Themes Definitions Impacts Aim of the Study Evidence DCS Model
Page 215
Definition Prolonged harassing, offensive, adverse or rejecting behaviors that impact the work of a worker. Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2003
Impacts Tied to high amounts of psychological angst Poorer general health, declining job-related fulfillment, rising number of days out, and less loyalty to the organization. Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002; Vartia, 2001; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Price-Spratlen, 1995
Page 216
Observing negative acts against others may produce similar effects than experiencing bullying personally. Organizational responsibility to implement preventive measures and ward off the legal and financial costs associated with related grievances. Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Vartia, 2001; Comcare, 2006; Earnshaw & Cooper, 1996; Leymann, 1990
Aim of the Study To apply test of Karasek & Theorell’s (1990) Demands-Control-Support (DCS) Model to be able to make recommendations for possible prevention strategies.
Evidence Around Work Environment
Researchers in the literature put forth that a conditions in the work environment directly impact the prevalence of bullying. Vartia, 1996
Targets of bullying often cite difficult working situations that include conflicts around roles, lacking leadership or supervisory skills, information disconnects and a toxic social situation. Coyne, Smith-Lee Chong, Seigne, & Randall, 2003; Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994; Rayner, 1997; Vartia, 1996; Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996
Stress in the workplace commonly reported as a significant explanation for bullying in the workplace (Einarsen et al., 1994; Leymann, 1996; Zapf et al., 1996). Used “DCS model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) as a foundation for theory-driven predictions” to test that relationship (Tuckey, Dollard, Hosking, & Winefield (2009).
DCS theory emphasizes work challenges with work control and social reinforcement to figure out stressors.
High work challenges are tied and lower social reinforcement to workplace bullying. Job requirements and leadership methods differentiated ranges of bullying (Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004).
Targets of bullying cite greater work stressors such as pace, time and amount of work (Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Vartia, 1996; Zapf, 1999) as well as less control over their work (Agervold & Mikelsen, 2004; Vartia, 1996; Zapf, 1999). This information helped form hypothesis 1 (p. 217).
In consistent evidence especially from reports given by observers of bullying. Lots of variables have been tested, but this study chooses two: job demands and job resources to examine relationship of bullying to the interplay between layers of resources and demands (p. 217).
Prior research measures job traits to the health of workers. This research examines links between behavior patterns on the job and the conditions workers operate within.
Page 218.
Extended DCS model assumes that anxious or tense work scenarios result from a worker striving to face job demands without control over in skill or authority to manage them and without the social reinforcement to support their efforts. Three factors in bullying relationships (Hoel & Salin, 2003; Salin, 2003).
To test weather work environment is a factor in the onset of bullying, it is assumed that observers would report the same psychosocial conditions that victims would. There is little data in the literature that came from observer reports, so this study seeks to address that gap. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sample Population(s) What group(s) is/are being studied? |
Consists of data from a previous study by Hauge in 2007 that has been re-analyzed.
Norwegian Workforce Anonymous Self-Report Questionnaires N=2,359 (2539 were returned, but some were missing values, leaving 2359 to be analyzed). The response rate was 56.4%. Males = 48.5% Supervisors = 19.8% Mean age = 43.7 years
|
N=466 Anonymous Self-Report Questionnaires Sea Transport Employees 57.5% of respondents were leaders 42.5% of respondents were followers 86.3% of respondents were males 13.7% of respondents were females Mean age was 45 years with a standard dev. Of 11.7 |
N=716 (615 male; 101 female) Front line police officers Anonymous mail survey
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results/ Conclusions What did the author find through the study? Was the original question answered? |
Page 353 Age and job level / position were left out of the analysis of data because they did not prove to be meaningful influencers as predictors of the perpetration of workplace bullying confirming what was found in the literature.
A lower prevalence rate (2.9% of sample population) resulted from the data collected in this study compared to other studies in the literature that report prevalence rates or workplace bullying perpetrators.
1.9% of those self-reports claimed to be perpetrators who had not been bullied.
The other 1% self-reported perpetrators admitted to having been being bullied, which showed up to be the strongest forecaster of becoming a workplace bully (see logistical regression analysis), especially when their own exposure to being bullied was frequent and persistent.
The relationship between being targeted by bullying and becoming a perpetrator of bullying show a convincing correlation (r. 27) that would make the former a predictor of the latter. (cf. Glomb & Liao, 2003).
The results of the study also indicate that a perpetrator’s role conflict and interpersonal conflicts were revealed to be less significantly associated with engaging in workplace bullying.
Similar to the literature this study concluded that the probability of men being perpetrators of bullying was higher than for women. (OR 2.09).
The data did not confirm that there were ties between decision authority and role ambiguity with the perpetrator of workplace bullying.
Due to the strong correlation between being bullied and being a perpetrator of bullying, the researcher notes the importance of strategies in the workplace to protect against bullying among workers.
Targets of any amount or consistency of bullying have a higher propensity toward engaging in bullying.
Page 355 Consistent, repetitive work conflicts and interpersonal conflicts can result in stress and anxiety that might be turned toward coworkers in aggressive, negative behaviors seen as bullying. (cf. Tedeschi & Felson, 1994; Thylefors, 1987)
The author found that the results of the study were able to recommend prevention methods can be put in place to counter workplace bullying. Since the findings of this study have determined that working under stress and experiencing bullying from others, can lead a worker to perpetrate bullying upon others, the research question was answered.
|
Page 73 64.4% said they experienced at least one negative act during previous six months demonstrating a higher prevalence rate than prior literature.
6.2% of respondents reported exposure to at least one or more negative behavior(s) a week and could be labeled as victims of bullying according to Leymann’s (1996) definition.
More respondents than expected self-labeled as victims of bullying even when they reported only occasional exposure, which would not meet Leymann’s (1996) definition (13.7%).
Page 74 All variables in the study showed significant interactions with the self-labeling as a target of bullying.
Also high relationship between all variables of trait anxiety, trait anger, and organizational position and NAQ (Table 1).
Page 75
All three hypotheses tested through logistic regression analysis (Table 2).
Self-labeling as a victim of bullying can be strongly predicted from exposure to bullying behaviors.
High exposure to negative acts = 4 times per likely to self-label as victim of bullying.
None of the variables (organizational position, trait anger, trait anxiety) impacted the relationship between exposures to bullying and perceiving oneself as a victim. “However, both trait anxiety and trait anger were individual predictors of self-labeling when controlled for NAQ” Vie, Glaso, & Einarsen, (2010).
The author found that his data varied from the literature when a higher percentage of his respondents self-labeled as victims even though they did not fit the criteria set forth for being the target of bullying. The data showed that trait anger and trait anxiety were predictors, separately, of exposure to bullying and someone labeling themselves as a victim of it.
The research question was answered because the data showed that all three hypotheses were proven negative, so the researcher received an answer to each of the three hypotheses. |
Page 222 Positive interaction between job demands and reports of observing and experiencing acts associated with bullying behaviors.
Positive interaction between job control and reports of observing and experiencing acts associated with bullying behaviors.
Positive interaction between social support and reports of observing and experiencing acts associated with bullying behaviors.
Frequency of exposure to bullying: 6.9% often/very often/always within recent 12 month period
Higher-ranking officers were found to be tied to perpetrators of bullying and was corroborated in observer responses.
Comparison of responses from bullying targets with bullying observers shows similarities in responses around job demands, job control and job support (Table 3).
Based on regression analysis of all three psychosocial factors researchers believe the correlation of all three (job demands, job control, and job support) are likely to be predictors of bullying.
The research question was answered and the researcher is able to report findings that support the stated hypotheses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limitations What are the limitations of the study? Why can it only encompass so much? |
It is a re-analysis of a previous study that may have collected data for a different purpose and may call in to question the validity of the responses.
Does the workforce sample represent all levels of worker, i.e., white collar vs. blue collar to determine whether bullying is more prone to occur in specific settings?
Why would anyone self report as a bully in a workplace or even to being bullied? They might worry that the study not be anonymous and will be shared with superiors.
It sounds as if missing data was imputed to maintain a larger sample size and “losing power,” but it is not clear what this means. Any other limitations? |
Only one workforce sector was sampled rather than a range of workforce sectors.
The research could have included other personality traits and other situations that may prove to be impactful.
Any other limitations? |
The sample size was adequate, but a mailed survey would likely produce fewer respondents, if it has to be returned via mail if the respondent’s address is displayed on the return envelope.
It is specific to police workforce which has different hierarchical and power structures in place similar to the military. Therefore, it’s possible that bullying may just be seen as exercise of rank that lower ranks are expected to accept and answer to. There is also the stigma of being open and honest about reporting bullying in a police organization to avoid being regarded as not able to cope or “be tough.”
Other limitations? |
© 2011. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
