Paper

“Is this bullying?” Understanding target and witness reactions

Al-Karim Samnani School of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, Canada

Abstract

Purpose – This paper seeks to theorize the interpretations and reactions of targets and witnesses to subtle forms of bullying.

Design/methodology/approach – A theoretical approach was used to understand target and witness interpretations and reactions. Learned helplessness theory and social influence theory are drawn upon.

Findings – This paper revealed that subtle forms of bullying behaviors will be more likely to induce confusion from both targets and witnesses. Targets will tend to be more confused in response to subtle bullying and attribute environmental factors for the behaviors. This will decrease their likelihood to react against the bullying. Witnesses will also experience greater confusion and will tend to side with the perpetrator, particularly when the perpetrator is an important organizational member (e.g. supervisor). Witnesses may internalize the behaviors, leading to greater permeability of the bullying through the organization.

Originality/value – This paper sheds light on two important and under-researched aspects of workplace bullying, i.e. subtle bullying behaviors and witnesses of bullying. This paper counter-intuitively suggests that subtle bullying behaviors may in fact be more harmful to targets than explicit bullying behaviors. Also, witnesses may represent a “dark side” of bullying in which they enable the bullying to be increasingly difficult to defend against. This contributes to our understanding of the intensification of bullying.

Keywords Workplace bullying, Subtle bullying, Witness reactions, Witnesses, Behaviour

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction Over the past 20 years, research on workplace bullying has increased considerably. Prevalence studies revealing the widespread nature of bullying in the workplace has played a critical role in fueling this research. For instance, a study in the USA reported a prevalence rate of workplace bullying at approximately 47 percent of employees (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). In addition, Fox and Stallworth (2005) found that over 95 percent of employees have experienced some form of general bullying at work over the past five years. In contrast, studies in Europe have generally reported lower prevalence rates (5-10 percent) (Einarsen et al., 2011), which may be partially accounted for by the use of varying definitions and estimation methods, as well as national culture (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Loh et al., 2010). Nonetheless, these studies reveal that bullying is a significant problem in the workplace.

While researchers often conceptualize workplace bullying as explicit behaviors (Einarsen et al., 2011), when closely examining the survey data in research on bullying (e.g. Bulutlar and Unler Oz, 2009; Fox and Stallworth, 2005) the findings reveal that the vast majority of bullying behaviors are relatively subtle (Lee and Brotheridge, 2006). This has important implications for target and witness/bystander (used interchangeably) interpretations and reactions. Indeed, with legislation having been

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP 28,3

290

Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 28 No. 3, 2013 pp. 290-305 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946 DOI 10.1108/02683941311321196

passed in three Canadian provinces (Power et al., 2011) and proposed in over 15 states in the USA (Levitt, 2009) to protect employees from bullying, subtle forms may become even more prevalent as they replace explicit acts. In fact, similar developments transpired in relation to racial discrimination in the workplace. As laws were passed to protect workers from racial discrimination, explicit forms of racism transformed into more subtle forms, labeled “modern racism” (Brief et al., 2000).

As a result of these developments and the existing prevalence of subtle bullying, I focus specifically on these forms and the implications for targets and witnesses. In doing so, this paper fills an important research void. The focus on targets and witnesses sheds light on a critical group who are often indirectly affected by bullying. Indeed, witnesses outnumber targets while also experiencing similar outcomes, albeit to a lesser degree (Einarsen et al., 1994; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007). Importantly, D’Cruz and Noronha (2011, p. 269) contend, “Bystanders, while being important constituents of the bullying scenario, have received very little research attention”. Therefore, this paper makes two important contributions to the field while making the case for greater attention to these two under-researched aspects (subtle forms of bullying and witnesses of bullying).

In this paper, I first provide an overview of the workplace bullying literature while discussing the consequences of bullying for targets and witnesses. Second, I focus on subtle bullying behaviors and theorize targets’ interpretations and reactions. Third, I theorize the potential consequences of subtle bullying on witnesses. Finally, I discuss the theoretical and practical contributions of this paper and offer areas for future research.

Workplace bullying: an overview Conceptualizing workplace bullying Definition. Einarsen et al. (2011, p. 22) provide a definition of workplace bullying that has been commonly used in the literature:

Bullying at work means harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks. In order for the label bullying (or mobbing) to be applied to a particular activity, interaction or process it has to occur repeatedly and regularly (e.g. weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six months). Bullying is an escalated process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts.

Four broad features of workplace bullying can be derived from this definition. First, these negative acts must occur on a regular basis, generally once a week. Second, these negative acts must occur over a certain period of time, generally at least six months. Third, a power imbalance must exist between the perpetrator and the target whereby the target finds it increasingly difficult to defend him or herself. Fourth, these negative acts must be systematic and planned, suggesting the presence of negative intent of the perpetrator. If the negative acts meet these four criteria, researchers generally agree that such behaviors would constitute bullying (Hoel et al., 1999).

Furthermore, two other important factors can be cited that have been strongly associated with bullying. First, workplace bullying has been associated with detrimental effects on targets’ health (e.g. Djurkovic et al., 2006; Giorgi, 2010; Hoel et al., 2004; Lee and Brotheridge, 2006). More specifically, health-related consequences for targets include stress, anxiety, insomnia, a lower self-image, and poorer mental ill health (Vega and

Target and witness reactions

291

Comer, 2005). Second, the environment can often play a critical role in stimulating and facilitating bullying (Hoel et al., 1999). Bullying has been found to be more prevalent in certain industries (e.g. manufacturing; hospitality) (Einarsen et al., 1994), work environments (e.g. call centers) (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2010, 2011), work cultures (Collinson, 1988), and when laissez-faire leadership is present (Skogstad et al., 2007).

The estimation methods used to measure workplace bullying have been subjected to criticism (Einarsen et al., 2011). In particular, while the Negative Acts Questionnaire measures frequency, its ability to capture other important features of workplace bullying such as persistency, power imbalance, and negative intent is debatable (see Hershcovis, 2011). Furthermore, the emergence of cross-cultural issues in bullying (e.g. Giorgi, 2010; Loh et al., 2010) raises further questions. For instance, employees from high power distance countries may view bullying behaviors from supervisors as acceptable and normal (Loh et al., 2010). Therefore, the definition of bullying and the wide variances found in prevalence studies should be viewed with some caution.

Subtle bullying behaviors can include, but are not limited to: . withholding important information; . excessive monitoring; . persistent criticism; . excessively high workloads; . social ostracism; . gossip; . shouting and yelling; . personal jokes and insults; and . taking credit for an employee’s work (Fox and Stallworth, 2005).

When using the term “subtle bullying”, this paper refers to bullying acts that are not immediately obvious and can be interpreted in various ways. Acts of incivility in the workplace (Andersson and Pearson, 1999) when repeated and prolonged also constitute bullying. Indeed, a number of researchers have contended that bullying can be difficult to detect (e.g. Hoel et al., 2010), misinterpreted (e.g. Hoel and Beale, 2006), and implicit/hidden (e.g. Leymann, 1996). Consistent with this, Hoel and Beale (2006, p. 242) suggested that “the presence of bullying behavior may exist independently of how these behaviors are being interpreted and construed”. Subtle bullying behaviors also have important implications for targets’ and witnesses’ sense-making processes (Weick, 1995). For instance, some employees may re-enact their environments by cognitively re-structuring events, such as subtle bullying, to be construed as normal (Weick, 1995). When conceptualizing subtle bullying, a number of key distinctions can be identified.

Interpersonal versus depersonalized bullying. One important distinction is between interpersonal and depersonalized bullying. While interpersonal bullying has received far more attention in the literature, depersonalized bullying refers to the contextual and structural elements of organizational design, which in effect bully the employee (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2009). This can be differentiated from interpersonal bullying, whereby the latter entails malicious personal intentions (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2009). A few studies have similarly examined the way in which work conditions itself can represent bullying (e.g. Liefooghe and Davey, 2001; D’Cruz and Noronha, 2010).

JMP 28,3

292

In this paper, both forms are described. To explain, some employees may perceive the work environment as a bully, while other employees subjected to these same behaviors may ascribe a supervisor or co-worker as the perpetrator. This could be interpreted based on the findings presented by D’Cruz and Noronha (2010) wherein certain employees attributed the oppressive work environment as the bully, while other employees attributed their team leader as the bully. This raises an important question about the role of subjective assessments by the target.

Objective versus subjective assessments of the bullying. There is debate in the literature on the distinction between objective versus subjective assessments of bullying (Einarsen et al., 2011). While much of the European-based research on workplace bullying has emphasized the importance of subjective assessments by the target (Einarsen et al., 2011), North American research has focused more heavily on perpetrator intentionality and objective behaviors (Keashly and Neuman, 2005). The perspective taken in this paper, particularly since the focus is on subtle bullying, is that bullying may occur without the target necessarily recognizing the behaviors as bullying. In other words, bullying can occur beyond the subjective assessments by the target. Nevertheless, we deem it important to also understand how employees attribute these behaviors.

This perspective is adopted based on findings from various qualitative studies (e.g. Baillien et al., 2009; D’Cruz and Noronha, 2010) that have revealed instances in which targets were bullied but did not initially realize it. Because perpetrators may be driven by a number of possible motives to mask their bullying behaviors (e.g. to hide it from management because of possible repercussions), they often engage in subtle bullying whereby the behaviors may not be overtly apparent to the target. Nevertheless, both overt and subtle forms of bullying have been associated with several consequences.

Consequences of workplace bullying The consequences that workplace bullying can have on targets are numerous. In relation to work-related consequences, researchers have found that targets have a higher intent to leave (Djurkovic et al., 2008), lower levels of commitment (McCormack et al., 2006), and higher levels of absenteeism (Hoel et al., 2003). Moreover, Lutgen-Sandvik et al. (2007) found that both targets and witnesses of bullying had lower levels of job satisfaction, job rating, and higher levels of stress. In addition, Einarsen et al. (1994) also found detrimental consequences for both targets and witnesses when revealing that both types reported a lower quality work environment.

In relation to physiological and psychological consequences, targets suffer lower physical and mental health (Giorgi, 2010; Hoel et al., 2004), while experiencing higher levels of depression (Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002), negative affect (Djurkovic et al., 2006), alcohol abuse (Rospenda, 2002), and even suicide (Rayner et al., 2002). Finally, D’Cruz and Noronha (2011) found that witnesses also reported deterioration in their own physical and mental health including guilt and fear, insomnia, headaches, and fatigue. Subtle bullying can also have key implications for sense-making processes. To explain, such behaviors will tend to be more difficult to interpret and defend against. This will lead to diverse sense-making processes across employees, since subtle bullying can be interpreted in a number of ways. This perspective will now be described in more detail.

Target and witness reactions

293

The implications and consequences of subtle bullying In this section, two important factors are explored in relation to subtle bullying behaviors. First, the implications of subtle bullying on target interpretations and reactions are explored. Second, the influence of subtle bullying on witnesses is examined.

Target interpretations and reactions Target interpretations and work environment. Targets who were able to halt bullying behaviors were often those who reacted strongly towards the perpetrator (Leck and Galperin, 2006). Conversely, targets who fail to recognize the bullying often find that the bullying intensifies (Baillien et al., 2009). Subtle bullying behaviors are more likely to induce weaker reactions and greater misinterpretation from targets. This is because such behaviors are often difficult to identify.

Based on a review of qualitative studies, and particularly studies in which the bullying behaviors were relatively subtle, I found a number of interesting findings. Most importantly, employees often looked to the work environment to explain the negative behaviors they were experiencing. This, at first glance, would be in line with the social interactionist framework, which suggests that situational and external factors play a key role in stimulating certain behaviors from others (Felson, 1992). Indeed, workplace bullying researchers have used the social interactionist perspective to understand bullying (Hoel et al., 1999). However, researchers should be careful when measuring the role of the environment, because:

. employees may misattribute the environment as the key driver of negative behaviors; and

. employees who are bullied may be more likely to view the environment in a negative manner.

This review reveals that employees often failed to recognize bullying behaviors when experienced and even misattributed these negative acts. For instance, D’Cruz and Noronha (2010: 109) found that:

Participants maintained that it was only in retrospect that they were able to identify when the experience of bullying began. During the initial onset period, being immersed in their work, they did not realize that they were being bullied [. . .] When they did become aware of the change in the bully’s behavior towards them, they attributed it to the oppressive work environment.

The bullying was often perpetrated by a supervisor (team leader) and characterized by verbal attacks towards the employee and his/her work. Employees, in turn, often felt that the work environment was to blame for the bullying as a result of working in a busy call-center firm. This limited their ability and willingness to react towards the perpetrator. In an earlier study, Liefooghe and Davey (2001, p. 381) found that targets often blamed the work environment for bullying. For instance, one employee had stated “For me it’s [bullying] not really an individual bullying. I don’t ever feel bullied on a one-to-one it’s more the environment”.

These findings are interesting, because they reveal the possibility that employees may not perceive bullying behaviors as bullying. If employees do not perceive such behaviors as bullying, they may be less likely to develop serious health-related consequences. While the form of bullying (i.e. subtle) provides one explanation for why

JMP 28,3

294

targets may be less likely to recognize bullying when it occurs, cultural and environmental factors may also provide important insights (Giorgi et al., 2011). For instance, Giorgi (2010) suggests that Japanese employees, due to their collectivistic culture, may be less likely to perceive negative behaviors as harmful. Moreover, these employees may have more effective collective coping strategies as a result of their cultural values (Giorgi, 2010). Therefore, having certain cultural values may in fact represent a positive attribute in protecting against bullying behaviors (e.g. more adaptive group coping mechanisms).

Nevertheless, target interpretations can allow subtle bullying to persist and intensify over time. In these instances, employees’ sense-making processes (Weick, 1995) enabled them to enact their environment in a way that blamed the work conditions or other environmental factors rather than the actual perpetrator. In several cases, both the interpretations and reactions towards the bullying were influenced by the form of bullying (i.e. subtle) and the work environment, which had key implications for sense-making processes due to the confusion and ambiguity that these behaviors elicited.

While the interpretations above may have been influenced by intense work environments, Baillien et al. (2009, p. 7) reported a case in which the target initially believed that the negative behaviors reflected increased comfort levels from co-workers:

Tim is pleased with the colleagues’ interest in non-work-related issues such as his hobbies and his family status. Tim notices that making jokes is very important too, and he feels accepted when he is the object of these jokes. Gradually, these jokes become more personal [. . .] When the colleagues soil his keyboard, Tim cannot handle it anymore [. . .] All cases are similar [. . .] The bullying stops as soon as they find another victim.

In this case, Tim’s sense-making processes played an important role in his attribution about the bullying behaviors. In fact, Tim had made a positive attribution about the behaviors. To explain, he initially felt that the personal jokes were important and felt accepted when these jokes were made. However, when these acts intensified over time, Tim recognized that he was being bullied. This case also reveals the potential for subtle bullying to be misinterpreted, which results in targets believing that such behaviors represent an aspect of the climate or culture.

Subtle bullying also tends to exist in certain work environments that are described as “tough” (Salin, 2003), which affect targets’ sense-making processes whereby they may interpret and rationalize these behaviors as normal (Collinson, 1988). Similarly, employees who experience forms of ostracism in the workplace (Williams, 2007) may make sense of these experiences based on the work environment. For instance, while some employees may feel malicious intent from others when experiencing ostracism, other employees may attribute that they themselves do not fit in with the group culture as a rationale for why co-workers do not interact with him/her. In these cases, targets may find it easier to blame the culture of the workgroup rather than actively confront the perpetrator:

P1. Employees who experience subtle forms of bullying will be more likely to blame the climate or culture of the workgroup or organization.

Target interpretations and learned helplessness. While much of the above discussion has focused on target interpretations of subtle bullying, these interpretations will have

Target and witness reactions

295

implications for how targets subsequently react. Employees who interpret the bullying as environmentally driven will be less likely to actively react. In fact, employees may even make positive attributions while feeling that being subjected to these behaviors (e.g. personal jokes) signals that they “fit in” with their workgroup (see Baillien et al., 2009). Hence, there may be a range of positive and negative reactions towards the received bullying behaviors while the target fails to recognize the bullying.

There are a number of important factors that will influence how a target reacts. As mentioned, the way that targets conceptualize the behaviors will play an important role. Tied with this, the conceptualization of power represents another critical factor. From a cultural perspective, employees with high power distance will be more limited in the possible ways in which they can react towards bullying (Hofstede, 1980). For example, high power distance employees may view bullying behaviors from a supervisor to be justified due to the greater degree of power they accept as legitimate in organizations.

Targets may also have different ways of coping with bullying. To date, Hogh et al. (2011) contended that “research on targets’ coping with bullying is far from abundant”. In one of the few studies that did examine targets’ coping strategies, Djurkovic et al. (2005) found that most targets cope with bullying through avoidance-based reactions, rather than reacting with assertiveness or seeking further help. Furthermore, Baillien et al. (2009) suggested four types of coping responses towards bullying:

(1) exit (leaving the organization);

(2) voice (discussing the problems):

(3) loyalty (optimistically waiting for the bullying to stop); and

(4) neglect (passively ignoring the situation).

Because subtle bullying is characterized by behaviors that are difficult to detect, targets may be more likely to engage in avoidance forms of coping (exit, loyalty, or neglect). This is because they may be unsure of the perpetrator’s intent. Moreover, they would not want to create conflict situations whereby others view the targets’ reactions as unnecessary and inappropriate.

In many organizations, employees are not accustomed to a bounded emotionality framework whereby employees control and regulate their emotions (Sheehan and Jordan, 2003). In fact, Sheehan and Jordan (2003, p. 362) assert that organizations often “overlook” the development of these abilities. When this form of personal mastery is overlooked (Senge, 1992), targets will more likely struggle with how to best cope with the bullying. This will often result in targets’ inability to recognize the impact of the bullying on them and make less likely to identify the appropriate steps needed to address the situation (Sheehan and Jordan, 2003).

Finally, employees may differ in their causal attributions about the bullying. The locus of control (i.e. internal versus external attributions) is important (Hershcovis and Barling, 2010). Internal attributions refer to perceptions that dispositional factors played a significant role in causing an event. Conversely, external attributions refer to perceptions that broader environmental factors, such as organizational culture, were responsible for the occurrence of an event (Heider, 1958). When employees make external attributions, they may become less likely to react towards the perpetrator because of perceptions that the behaviors are beyond the perpetrator’s control

JMP 28,3

296

(e.g. work climate). Because subtle bullying is often difficult to detect, targets may often ascribe the broader environment as a driver of bullying (e.g. Liefooghe and Davey, 2001).

Learned helplessness theory can be particularly useful to understand the potential consequences associated with external attributions of bullying. Learned helplessness theory (Seligman, 1975) suggests that when an individual experiences a negative situation or event that he/she perceives as uncontrollable, he/she is likely to believe that his/her efforts will be unrelated to subsequent outcomes (i.e. being bullied) and will feel a sense of helplessness. This theory is useful because targets who believe that bullying is driven by broader environmental factors will tend to feel more helpless towards the behaviors because of lower perceived control over the events (Hershcovis and Barling, 2010). Moreover, avoidance forms of coping, which were associated with subtle bullying, can also increase the potential for targets to experience learned helplessness.

Abramson et al. (1978) suggest that three deficits will be encountered when one perceives that an event is beyond his/her control. First, individuals will experience motivational deficits through their resulting expectation that outcomes will also be uncontrollable in the future. Second, individuals will experience cognitive deficits by learning that events are uncontrollable and encounter challenges in learning appropriate responses to future events. Third, an individual will experience emotional deficits such as depressed affect through their perception that outcomes are beyond control. Thus, this illustrates how employees’ helplessness during bullying situations can generate cognitive and emotional deficits, which further makes the target unlikely to retaliate:

P2a. Employees who blame bullying on the broader environment (i.e. making an external attribution) will be less likely to react to bullying situations.

P2b. Employees who fail to react to bullying situations in its early stages experience increased cognitive and emotional deficits.

Witness interpretations and reactions With the exception of a few studies (e.g. D’Cruz and Noronha, 2011; Einarsen et al., 1994; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007), limited attention has been devoted to witnesses of bullying. Witnesses can play a number of important roles in a bullying situation. Three types of witness roles are explored in this analysis. First, witnesses may support the target. Researchers have reported instances in which witnesses overtly supported the target (Leck and Galperin, 2006; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006). When this occurred, the perpetrator was more likely to stop his/her bullying behaviors. Second, witnesses may support the perpetrator. Third, witnesses may become silent spectators. With respect to the latter two witness roles, D’Cruz and Noronha (2011) found that witnesses who fear becoming the next target tend to either support the perpetrator or maintain a more neutral position (i.e. silent spectator).

Social influence theory can help explain witness interpretations and reactions to bullying situations. Social influence theory suggests that as a result of direct or indirect pressures to conform, individuals may often learn aggressive behaviors “either by reinforcement histories or modeling” (Tedeschi, 1983, p. 142). Tedeschi (1983) focuses primarily on coercive and aggressive behaviors as a form of social influence; however, this conceptualization can have key implications for witnesses. In addition to learning processes, Tedeschi (1983) also discusses the importance of fear. Extending this

Target and witness reactions

297

theoretical framework, I posit that such social influence processes will cause witnesses to fear punishment if they do not engage in or support certain behaviors that other members, who are perceived as influential, exhibit. Consequently, these pressures will tend to shape subsequent behaviors of the witness. Social influence theory will be used as a basis for theorizing witness behaviors.

Witness appraisals and support. When employees experience bullying, the closest individuals to whom they may turn to are their co-workers (Coyne et al., 2004). Furthermore, when the bullying behaviors are subtle, this may provoke targets to turn towards their social context (e.g. team members) to understand whether they are interpreting the behaviors correctly. Indeed, D’Cruz and Noronha (2011, p. 276) asserted: “It was to participants [team members] that targets first turned to when the latter realized that there was something amiss”. However, researchers have found that witnesses do not often realize the severity of the issue (Tracy et al., 2006). Moreover, common responses to a target’s experience of bullying may often be: “She’s just a disgruntled employee” (Tracy et al., 2006, p. 149). In the qualitative literature, researchers have found that bullying behaviors are often disregarded by co-workers, while targets felt they received little support (e.g. Baillien et al., 2009; Strandmark and Hallberg, 2007).

While researchers have suggested that bullying can be difficult to detect for targets (Hoel and Beale, 2006), one may expect that subtle bullying would be even more difficult to detect for witnesses. Researchers have suggested that perpetrators, in an attempt to mask their true intentions, may engage in more subtle forms of bullying that make such behaviors difficult to identify for others (Parzefall and Salin, 2010). Moreover, Parzefall and Salin (2010) argue that when perpetrators blend subtle bullying behaviors with demands for work efficiency and work goals, these behaviors can evoke strong levels of confusion for the target. Witnesses may be even more likely to convey disbelief that such behaviors represent bullying. As a result, witnesses who do not believe that an employee is experiencing bullying will be less likely to lend support to him/her.

D’Cruz and Noronha (2011) found that witnesses who were friends of the target were fearful that their support may lead to negative consequences for themselves. This often led them to maintain a distance from the target and not overtly show support. As described, social influence theory can provide a potent explanation for these pressures on the witness to withhold support for the target (Tedeschi, 1983). Because the bullying was subtle, HRM often took the perpetrator’s side, which made witnesses even more fearful to demonstrate support. Furthermore, subtle bullying is more likely to create doubts in observers’ minds about whether the target is actually being bullied. Therefore, subtle bullying is more likely to result in witnesses becoming silent spectators or supporters of the perpetrator than supporters of the target.

Leck and Galperin (2006) found that targets who were able to halt the bullying successfully were those who reacted strongly against the behaviors and who received support from co-workers. Some witnesses had indeed defended the target and stood up against the perpetrator. Similar findings were reported in a study by Lutgen-Sandvik (2006). Several employees collectively supporting each other will tend to represent a stronger form of resistance than resistance from a single employee, and especially stronger than a single non-retaliating employee. Nevertheless, subtle bullying will more likely invoke disbelief amongst witnesses that bullying is occurring; thus, making them less likely to support the target. This lack of support will be particularly likely when the perpetrator is a manager or supervisor.

JMP 28,3

298

Social influence theory suggests that employees often fear punishment when they do not adhere to the influence exerted (Tedeschi, 1983). Interestingly, D’Cruz and Noronha (2011) found that witnesses often kept a distance from both the target and supporters of the target in order to remain in the perpetrator’s favor. Through sense-making processes, witnesses may rationalize that the target is unnecessarily complaining and risking team cohesion. Consequently, the blame may be placed on the target. In this scenario, the target may feel that his/her co-workers, by siding with the perpetrator, are in fact participating in the bullying.

Heames and Harvey (2006) argued that bullying behaviors can come to be viewed and rationalized as normal in an organization. This would make witnesses resistant towards those who complain, which also represents a social influence force. Hence, when the perpetrator is an important organizational member (i.e. supervisor or manager), this will increase the likelihood that a witness sides with the perpetrator. Witnesses may take the perpetrator’s side based on their own sense-making processes. For instance, witnesses may have political reasons for supporting the perpetrator (Salin, 2003), which can include the expectation of future reciprocity in the form of advancement or favors in the organization. Furthermore, witnesses may believe that supporting the target will be a losing battle, since the perpetrator’s hierarchical status will attract the favor of senior management. Thus, supporting the perpetrator may be seen as a “safe” strategy.

Alternatively, witnesses may feel that the perpetrator, because of his/her hierarchical status in relation to the target, is more likely to be justified in his/her actions. Culture can play a particularly telling role. Employees from high power distance countries will often feel obligated to support their manager because of the latter’s authority (Hofstede, 1980). Moreover, employees from high power distance countries may be less likely to view bullying behaviors as bullying when perpetrated by a manager (Hoel et al., 1999). Because employees from high power distance cultures ascribe greater levels of power and authority to their managers, they will view a wider variety of behaviors from their manager as normal and justified. Therefore, power distance can moderate the role between subtle bullying and perpetrator status:

P3a. Perpetrator status will moderate the relationship between subtle bullying and witness type, whereby witnesses of subtle forms of bullying will more likely become supporters of the perpetrator, rather than supporters of the target, when the perpetrator is a supervisor or manager of the target.

P3b. Power distance will moderate the relationship between subtle bullying and perpetrator status, whereby witnesses from high power distance cultures will more likely support perpetrators who are managers or supervisors of the target.

Witnesses’ internalization of bullying behaviors. Workplace bullying has the potential to penetrate across employees, workgroups, and departments in an organization (Salin, 2003). Social influence theory can help explain this permeability of bullying. According to this theory, witnesses may fear that if they do not engage in similar behaviors they may also be targeted (D’Cruz and Noronha, 2011). Empirical research has supported this notion of imitating negative behaviors and the resulting spiraling effects of negative acts (Cortina et al., 2001). Moreover, Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998) found that employees who engaged in antisocial behaviors were more likely to have coworkers who also engaged in antisocial behaviors.

Target and witness reactions

299

In seminal social influence research, Kelman (1958) found that employees may respond to social influence with internalization. This process of internalization may be particularly prevalent in workgroups (Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). For instance, employees who regularly bully other team members may come to accept these behaviors as a normal aspect of the workday (Collinson, 1988). Moreover, when employees do not internalize such behaviors, they may fear that others will view them as an outsider (Kelman, 1958). Finally, subtle bullying will more likely be internalized, since these behaviors can be more easily rationalized to one’s own self and others. For instance, personal jokes may be rationalized as part of the group’s culture; thus, not actually harmful to anyone.

Earlier discussion had proposed contexts in which employees are more likely to support the perpetrator. That is, subtle bullying perpetrated by a supervisor or manager was posited to less likely result in witnesses supporting the target. Witnesses who support the perpetrator, as opposed to silent spectators or supporters of the target, will be more likely to internalize the perpetrator’s bullying behaviors. This is because such supporters will want to demonstrate their support for the perpetrator, which may often be driven by political reasons (Salin, 2003). This support can be easily demonstrated through joining the perpetrator in exhibiting such behaviors towards the target:

P4. Witnesses who support the perpetrator will be more likely than silent spectators to internalize bullying behaviors in the workplace.

Discussion In this paper, I explored the potential interpretations and reactions of targets and witnesses towards subtle forms of bullying. Moreover, I proposed that targets will often attribute bullying to broader aspects of the environment such as the intense work environment or the culture of the workgroup. When targets fail to recognize that they are experiencing bullying, they are less likely to retaliate. The longer targets stay idle without resisting, the more difficult it will become for them to halt the bullying. While subtle bullying can be difficult for targets to identify, witnesses will often be even less likely to recognize that such behaviors constitute bullying. Perpetrators may often behave very differently in front of others and hide their bullying (Tracy et al., 2006). Social influence theory was used to explain witness interpretations and reactions. The hierarchical position of the perpetrator can shape witnesses’ likelihood to support the target. When the perpetrator is a supervisor or manager, witnesses will be less inclined to support the target overtly. According to social influence theory, witnesses may be more likely to side with the perpetrator to avoid their own possible victimization. Finally, witnesses may potentially internalize bullying behaviors and assume that such behaviors are acceptable. Theoretical contributions, directions for future research, and implications for practice are offered.

Theoretical contributions and directions for future research This paper makes a number of theoretical contributions. First, it advances an important perspective on subtle bullying. The subtlety of bullying may help explain why targets often fail to recognize that they are being bullied. In addition, targets may be less likely to gain support from co-workers, who often experience disbelief that the behaviors represent bullying. Future research should further investigate the

JMP 28,3

300

differential consequences associated with subtle bullying and its duration. It is quite possible that subtle bullying is found to be more detrimental for targets than overt bullying. Future research should trace the effects of subtle bullying in the same work site on both targets and witnesses over time to investigate the relationship between behavioral responses and health outcomes (e.g. Lovell and Lee, 2011).

This paper has shed light on the vital role of witnesses in the bullying process. This paper theorizes the potential for witnesses to internalize such behaviors, particularly when subtle. This analysis contributes a potential “dark side” of witnesses to bullying. This may help explain why bullying tends to become increasingly difficult for the target to defend against. Future research should further explore the decisions made by witnesses and the rationale underlying such decisions.

Finally, this paper theorizes how subtle bullying behaviors can be misinterpreted, which represents a theoretical perspective that has received little attention. Interpretations and reactions towards bullying may indeed be influenced by subtlety, which implies adverse consequences. These relationships should be tested in future research to understand target reactions to subtle forms of bullying and how their reactions affect their physical and psychological well-being. Moreover, the role of cultural and environmental factors on target perceptions should also be further explored in future research. Cultural factors may play a significant role in influencing employees’ interpretations of bullying and may lead to various collective coping strategies (Giorgi, 2010). While I focused predominantly on power distance, other cultural dimensions should also be investigated in future research.

Implications for policy and practice There are two important practical contributions that emerge from this analysis. First, employees should receive training that provides them with greater awareness about bullying. As bullying may become increasingly subtle with further legislation, these behaviors will be difficult to identify. Targets should be made aware of such types of behaviors and encouraged to report them when experienced. Second, potential witnesses should also be sensitized towards bullying. Importantly, witnesses should understand that they can play an important role in the bullying process and that such behaviors should be reported when observed. Witnesses should not feel political pressures to partake in bullying or fear that they may be victimized if they do not partake. Training and socialization processes can be critical.

Conclusion This paper investigated subtle forms of bullying and the influence these forms can have on target and witness interpretations and reactions. Subtle bullying can have many effects on these two types of employees. Specifically, targets experience greater confusion and become less likely to react, while witnesses (particularly those who support the perpetrator) may find internalizing such behaviors easier to rationalize. This paper advocates further inclusion of witnesses into the study of workplace bullying while suggesting that subtle bullying may have differential consequences for targets.

References

Abramson, L., Seligman, M. and Teasdale, J. (1978), “Learned helplessness in humans: critique and reformulation”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 49-74.

Target and witness reactions

301

Andersson, L. and Pearson, C. (1999), “Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 452-71.

Baillien, E., Neyens, I., Witte, H.D. and Cuyper, N.D. (2009), “A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: towards a three way model”, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Brief, A.P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R.R., Pugh, S.D. and Vaslow, J.B. (2000), “Just doing business: modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 72-97.

Bulutlar, F. and Unler Oz, E. (2009), “The effects of ethical climates on bullying behavior in the workplace”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 273-95.

Collinson, D.L. (1988), “‘Engineering humour’: masculinity, joking and conflict in shop-floor relations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 181-99.

Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Williams, J.H. and Langhout, R.D. (2001), “Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-80.

Coyne, I., Craig, J. and Chong, P.S.L. (2004), “Workplace bullying in a group context”, British Journal of Guidance Counselling, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 301-17.

D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2009), “Experiencing depersonalized bullying: a study of Indian call centre agents”, Work Organization, Labour and Globalization, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 26-46.

D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2010), “The exit coping response to workplace bullying: the contribution of inclusivist and exclusivist HRM strategies”, Employee Relations, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 102-20.

D’Cruz, P. and Noronha, E. (2011), “The limits to workplace friendship: managerialist HRM and bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying”, Employee Relations, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 269-88.

Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D. and Casimir, G. (2005), “The behavioral reactions of victims to different types of workplace bullying”, International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 439-60.

Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D. and Casimir, G. (2006), “Neuroticism and the psychosomatic model of workplace bullying”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 73-88.

Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D. and Casimir, G. (2008), “Workplace bullying and intention to leave: the moderating effect of perceived organizational support”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 405-22.

Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I. and Matthiesen, S.B. (1994), “Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: an exploratory study”, European Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 381-401.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (2011), “The concept of bullying and harassment at work: the European tradition”, in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 3-40.

Felson, R.B. (1992), “‘Kick ’em when they’re down’: explanations of the relationship between stress and interpersonal aggression and violence”, Sociologist Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Fox, S. and Stallworth, L.E. (2005), “Racial/ethnic bullying: exploring links between bullying and racism in the US workplace”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 438-56.

Giorgi, G. (2010), “Workplace bullying partially mediates the climate-health relationship”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 727-40.

JMP 28,3

302

Giorgi, G., Arenas, A. and Leon-Perez, J.M. (2011), “An operative measure of workplace bullying: the negative acts questionnaire across Italian companies”, Industrial Health, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 686-95.

Heames, J.T. and Harvey, M. (2006), “Workplace bullying: a cross-level assessment”, Management Decision, Vol. 44 No. 9, pp. 1214-30.

Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY.

Hershcovis, M.S. (2011), “Incivility, social undermining, bullying . . . oh my! A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 499-519.

Hershcovis, M.S. and Barling, J. (2010), “Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 874-8.

Hoel, H. and Beale, D. (2006), “Workplace bullying, psychological perspectives and industrial relations: towards a contextualized and interdisciplinary approach”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 239-62.

Hoel, H., Einarsen, S. and Cooper, C.L. (2003), “Organisational effects of bullying”, in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 399-411.

Hoel, H., Faragher, B. and Cooper, C.L. (2004), “Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behavior is not necessarily equally damaging”, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 367-87.

Hoel, H., Rayner, C. and Cooper, C.L. (1999), “Workplace bullying”, International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 195-230.

Hoel, H., Glaso, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C.L. and Einarsen, S. (2010), “Leadership styles as predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 453-68.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E.G. and Hansen, A.M. (2011), “Individual consequences of workplace bullying/mobbing”, in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 107-28.

Keashly, L. and Neuman, J.H. (2005), “Bullying in the workplace: its impact and management”, Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 335-73.

Kelman, H.C. (1958), “Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 51-60.

Leck, J.D. and Galperin, B.L. (2006), “Worker responses to bully bosses”, Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 85-97.

Lee, R. and Brotheridge, C. (2006), “When prey turns predatory: workplace bullying as a predictor of counter aggression/bullying, coping and well-being”, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 352-77.

Levitt, H. (2009), “When does a robust leader become a bully?”, Financial Post, May 13, available at: www.financialpost.com/careers/story.html?id¼1590364

Leymann, H. (1996), “The content and development of mobbing at work”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 165-84.

Target and witness reactions

303

Liefooghe, A.P.D. and Davey, K.M. (2001), “Accounts of workplace bullying: the role of the organization”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 375-92.

Loh, J., Restubog, S.L.D. and Zagenczyk, T.J. (2010), “Consequences of workplace bullying on employee identification and satisfaction among Australians and Singaporeans”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 236-52.

Lovell, B.L. and Lee, R.T. (2011), “Impact of workplace bullying on emotional and physical well-being: a longitudinal collective case study”, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 344-57.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006), “Take this job and . . .: quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 406-33.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S.J. and Alberts, J.K. (2007), “Burned by bullying in the American workplace: prevalence, perception, degree, and impact”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 837-62.

McCormack, D., Casimir, G., Djurkovic, N. and Yang, L. (2006), “The concurrent effects of workplace bullying, satisfaction with supervisor, and satisfaction with co-workers on affective commitment among schoolteachers in China”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 316-31.

Mikkelsen, E.G. and Einarsen, S. (2002), “Basic assumptions and post-traumatic stress among victims of workplace bullying”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 87-111.

Parzefall, M.-R. and Salin, D.M. (2010), “Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: a social exchange perspective”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 761-80.

Power, J., Lee, R. and Brotheridge, C. (2011), “Workplace bullying: consequences and remedies for employers”, HR Professional Magazine, January, pp. 29-30.

Rayner, C., Hoel, H. and Cooper, C.L. (2002), Workplace Bullying: What We Know, Who Is to Blame, and What Can We Do?, Taylor & Francis, London.

Robinson, S.L. and O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (1998), “Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 658-72.

Rospenda, K.M. (2002), “Workplace harassment, service utilization, and drinking outcomes”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 141-55.

Salin, D. (2003), “Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 10, pp. 1213-32.

Seligman, M.E.P. (1975), Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.

Senge, P. (1992), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Random House Australia, North Sydney.

Sheehan, M. and Jordan, P. (2003), “Bullying, emotions and the learning organization”, in Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 359-69.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M.S. and Hetland, H. (2007), “The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 80-92.

JMP 28,3

304

Strandmark, M.K. and Hallberg, L.R.M. (2007), “The origin of workplace bullying: experiences from the perspective of bully victims in the public service sector”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 332-41.

Tedeschi, J. (1983), “Social influence theory and aggression”, in Geen, R.G. and Donnerstein, E.I. (Eds), Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical Reviews, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 135-62.

Tracy, S.J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P. and Alberts, J.K. (2006), “Nightmares, demons, and slaves: exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 148-85.

Vega, G. and Comer, D.R. (2005), “Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your spirit: bullying in the workplace”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 101-9.

Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Williams, K.D. (2007), “Ostracism”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 425-52.

About the author Al-Karim Samnani is a PhD candidate in the School of Human Resource Management at York University. He received his Master’s degree from the London School of Economics. He has published research on topics such as workplace bullying and strategic human resource management. Other areas of interest include abusive supervision, cultural diversity, and the integration of immigrants into the workplace. Al-Karim Samnani can be contacted at: [email protected]

Target and witness reactions

305

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.