EUROPEAN WORK AND ORGANIZATIONIAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 1994,4 (4)', 381-401

Ståle Einarsen, Bjørn Inge RakIlles, and Stig Berge Matthiesen

University of Bergen, Norway

The aim of this study is to explore Jrela1:ionships between organizational andsocial work conditions and the occurrence of bullying and harassment atwork. Bullying and harassment are sit1Jlations where a worker or supervisoris systematically mistreated and victimized by fellow workers or supervisorsthrough repeated negative acts like insulting remarks and ridicule, verbalabuse, offensive teasing, isolation, aI1ld social exclusion, or the constantdegrading of one's work and efforts. A postal questionnaire was distributedto 4200 members of six different labou1r unions, toget her with 500 represen-tatives from the Norwegian Employers:' Federation (NHO). Two thousandtwo hundred and fifteen responded, yjlelding a response rate of 47%. Theresults show that the occurrence of bullying and harassment is significantlycorrelated with all the seven measures of work environment used in the study.Low satisfaction with leadership, work control, social climate, and particu-larly the experience of fole conflict, correlate most strongly with bullying.The results also show that different work conditions are related to bullyingin different organizational settings. OJr11y fole conflict shows a partial cor-relation with bullying in all subsamples. Work conditions account for 10%of the variance in bullying, ranging frlom 7% to 24% in the different sub-samples. The results show that both the: victims of bullying and the observersof bullying report a low-quality work e:nvironment.

During the last 20 years, both sexual harassment in organizations andbullying among schoolchildren have bjeen are as of gre at public interest andresearch (e.g. Brodsky, 1976; Gutek, 1985; Hadjifotiou, 1983; Kreps, 1993;

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Ståle Einarsen, Division of Work andOrganizational Psychology, Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen,

0ysteinsgt. 1, N-5007 Bergen, Norway.This research was supported by a grant from the Norwegian Employers' Association

(NHO). The authors wish to thank Jan Forshin, Gerard Puccio and Geir Kaufmann for theircomments on earlier drafts of this article. An ,earlier draft of this paper has been presentedat the Third European Congress of Psycholog:V, Finland, 1993. The present paper was pre-pared by the senior author during a visit to the Center for Studies in Creativity, Buffalo StateCollege, NY and was thus supported by the scholarly exchange agreement between the

University of Bergen and Buffalo State Colleg;e (SUNY).

@ 1994 Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis Ltd

382 EINARSEN, RAKNES, MA'TTHIESEN

Olweus, 1978, 1990). At work, bullying and harassment with no apparentlink to sexuality or gender conflicts have, however, not received the samedegree of attention. Hostile work environments in the form of repeatedinsulting or offensive remarks" persistent criticism, personal abuse, or evenphysical abuse and threats, are nevertheless a reality for employees in bothpublic and private organizations (Adams, 1992a, b; Leymann, 1990;Wilson, 1991).

The qualities of human relationships at work are of ten seen as animportant factor in people's perceptions of stress and job satisfaction. Inspite of their likely importance, serious interpersonal conflicts and negativesocial interactions in the workplace have received limited attention incurrent research (Appelberg, Romanov, Honlasalo, & Koskenvuo, 1991;Kennan & Newton, 1984; Sørensen, 1992; van der Vliert, 1984). A searchof the literature1 covering the period from 1987 to 1993 revealed about 400keyword references to "harassment" and 44 references to "bullying".However, almost every reference either de alt with sexual harassment orwith bullying among schoolchildren. Some anecdotal clinical accounts ofbullying and nonsexual harassment at work do however exist, and the secomment on the strong negative effects persistent nonsexual harassmentand bullying at work may have upon the victim's health and well-being(Adams, 1992a; Brodsky, 1976; Kile, 1990; Leymann, 1988; Thylefors,1987).

According to Scandinavian research, bullying and harassment at workis a serious problem. At least 5% of the working population are currentlybullied at work (Einarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen, & Hellesøy, 1994).Leymann (1992) even claimed that in Sweden each year about 100--300workers commit suicide as a result of bullying and harassment at work.According to Adams (1992b)" organizations failing to recognize and dealwith bullying in the workplace may in fact be in breach of their legalresponsibilities to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of their employees.Bullying and harassment at work is thus an area that deserves more atten-tion by researchers, managers, and consultants than it has received so far.

BULL VING AND HARASSMENT -DEFINED ANDDESCRIBED

In the Scandinavian countries the term "mobbing" is widely used to referto incidents of nonsexual and nonracial harassment at work, althoughsexual and racial harassment also can be implied in the term. The term"mobbing" or bullying refers to situations where an employee is persist-ently picked on or humiliated by leaders or fellow co-workers. Althoughthe term "mobbing" originally referred to group aggression, the Scandin-

lUsing APA's PsychLit database.

BULL YING AND HARASSMENT 383

avian term also includes situations where a single individual harassesanother person (se e also Olweus, 1990). In this presentation we will usethe terms "bullying" and "harassment" interchangeably when referring tothe Scandinavian term "mobbing".

A person is bullied or harassed when he or she feels repeatedly subjectedto negative acts in the workplace, acts that the victim may tind it difficultto defend themselves against. This definition builds on research on bullyingin the schoolyard (Olweus, 1978, 1990, 1993) and stresses that bullying andharassment imply a difference in actual or perceived power and "strength"between the persecutor and the victim. Typically, a victim of harassmentand bullying is teased, badgered, and in sulte d and perceives that he or shehas littIe recourse to retaliation in kind (Brodsky, 1976). aur definition ofbullying and harassment covers all situations in which one or more personsover a period of time feels subjected to negative acts that one cannot defendoneself against. Although a single serious episode, e.g. physical assault,can be regarded as bullying and harassment, our definition emphasises theterm "repeated negative acts" (Olweus, 1990). Hence, serious conflictsbetween parties of "equal" strength or isolated episodes of conflict are notconsidered bullying.

In research among schoolchildren, Olweus (1978) has distinguishedbetween "direct bullying", with open verbal or physical attacks on thevictim, and "indirect bullying", which takes the form of more subtle acts,as excluding or isolating the victim from his or her peer group. Among137 Norwegian victims of bullying and harassment at work, social isolationand exclusion, devaluation of one's work and efforts, and exposure toteasing, insulting remarks, and ridicule, were the most common negativeacts, as reported by the victims (Einarsen et al., 1994).

THEORETICAL MODEILS OF HARASSMENT ANDBULL YI~~G AT WORK

Different causal models of bullying and harassment at work can be distin-guished. From two decades of research on bullying among schoolchildren,Olweus (1990) concludes that the typical victim of bullying is more anxiousand insecure than other students and is of ten seen as cautious, sensitiveand quiet. The victims react with withdrawal when attacked, and the y havea more negative self-esteem than other students. Bullies, on the otherhand, are self-confident, impulsive and do not suffer from lack of self-esteem. They do, however, showagenerally aggressive re action patternin many different situations. Victims of bullying and harassment at workhave been described as conscientious, literal minded, and somewhatunsophisticated, of ten being overachievers with an unrealistic view of both

themselves and their situation (Brodsky, 1976).

384 EINARSEN, RAKNES, ""ATTHIESEN

On the other hand, Brodsky (1976) also claimed that harassment mayin fact be an inherent characteristic and a basic mechanism within all humaninteraction. A similar vie~N was presented by Thylefors (1987), whoregarded bullying as a scap(~-goating process found in most organizations.However, the causal modell of bullying and harassment at work that hasreceived most public attent:ion in Scandinavia emphasizes the quality ofthe organization's work environment as the main determinant of suchmisconduct. Norwegian latlour union officials, as well as governmentalcampaign agents, have strongly advocated such a situational view of theproblem. According to this view, harassment is primarily caused by workenvironment and social environment problems within the organization.This view has been strongl), supported by Leymann (1992), who stressesthat personality factors are irrelevant to the study of bullying, and thatwork conditions alone are ttke primary cause of such behaviour and experi-ences.

RESI:ARCH QUESTIONS

There has been littie resear(~h testing the work environment hypothesis onbullying and harassment at work so far. The aim of the present paper istherefore to explore the relationship between bullying and harassment atwork and the organization's work environment quality as perceived by theemployees. Work environment quality will be evaluated through aspectsthat are frequently cited as sources of job stress and job dissatisfaction suchas fole conflict and fole ambiguity, under-utilization of skills, work-overioad, resource inadequacy, lack of participation and co-worker inter-action (Cummins, 1989). Interaction with supervisors and factors relatingto leadership practice will also be included. A broad concept of workenvironment was considered most appropriate for this exploratory study,which investigates which of the se factors are most strongly related to theoccurrence of bullying and harassment, and bow important work environ-ment factors are in determining bullying and harassment in the workplace.

To increase the validity lof the results, a wide range of organizationalsettings will be included in the study. This also offers us the opportunityto explore similarities and differences in the relationships between bullyingand work environment quality across organizational settings. The researchquestions raised in this respect are whether work environment has astronger relationship to bullying in some organizational settings than inothers, and whether differeI1lt factors are related to bullying and harassmentin the different settings.

Situations where ODe person (the persecutor) offends, provokes, orotherwise angers a second person (the victim), ofte n involve substantialdiscrepancies between the subjective perceptions and interpretations of the

BULLVING AND HARASSMENT 385

conflicting participants (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Wotman, 1990). Victimsmay, for instance, perceive the work environment as negative as a con-sequence more of their own anger, disappointment, and anxiety, than ofobjective characteristics of their work environment. It is therefore neces-sary to look more closely into differ~~nces between the victims' perceptionsof their work environment and the perceptions of their co-workers. Differ-ences in the perceptions and evaluations of the work environment betweenvictims, observers of bullying, and people without knowledge about harass-ment in their own workplace will therefore also be investigated.

METHOD

Respondents

Respondents were randomly selected from six different samples of labourunion members and members of the Norwegian Employers' Federation(NHO). The labour unions include the Teachers Union, consisting ofprimary and secondary school teachers, the Union of Hotel and RestaurantWorkers, the Union of Trade and Commerce, consisting mainly of em-ployees in shops and the administration of private businesses, the Union ofGraphical Workers, the Union of Electricians, and the Union of Clericalsand Officials, consisting of employees in the city administration of Bergen.The participating unions, all from the geographical area in or aroundBergen on the west coast of Norway, represented a convenient sample toreftect a diversity of work environments and hence increase the validity ofthe results. All samples were studied as part of a more comprehensiveresearch project on bullying and harassment in the workplace (see alsoEinarsen, Raknes, Matthiesen, & Hellesøy, 1990).

A total of 4742 labour union members and employers' representativeswere selected randomly from a total population of 10,611. Table 1 showspopulation, sample, and response rate for each subsample. An anonymousself-administered postal questionnaire was mailed to each participant, atotal of 2215 people responded (a 47% response rate). As shown in Table 1,the response rate varied substantially from sample to sample.

In the total sample 52.6% are men and 47.4% women. All age groupsbetween 17 and 70 are covered, wiith a mean age of 38 years (SD 11.9).While 4.8% of the respondents are aged 60 or above, 12.1% are 25 orless. As many as 80.1 % are employed on a full-time basis. Most of therespondents, 61.5%, are employed in private enterprises. The rest (38.5%)are in public employment. Whereas 19.5% of the respondents work inorganizations with more than 1()()1 employees, 8.7% report working inorganizations with five or fewer employees. The main demographic charac-teristics of each sample are given in Table 2.

386 EINARSEN, RAKNES, MATTHIESEN

TABLE 1Membership Number, Sample8, Number of Responses, and Response Rate

in Each Subsample

Numberof Responses

ResponseRate (%)Organization Members Sample

27002800974800

945940470397

554383265159

S941S640

Teachers UnionTrade and Commerce UnionClerical and Officials UnionGraphical Workers UnionHotel and Restaurant

Workers UnionElectricians UnionEmployers' FederationTotalb

118711001050

10,611

4901020480

4742

172480181

2215

35473847

8These numbers are corrected for questionnaires retumed with "addresses unknown",b21 respondents did not indicatle organizational membership.

TABlE 2Main Demographic C:haracteristics of the Respondents in Each Subsample

Sex Ratio- Age

(Mean & SD)Years ofServic~

In Public

EmploymentOrganization Men Women

Teachers Union :39% 61% 41.6 yrsSD = 9.0

38.0yrsSD = 13.8

41.8 yrsSD = 12.5

41.4 yrsSD = 12.4

32.5 yrsSD = 11.4

33.4 yrsSD = 10.8

42.3 yrsSD = 10.8

10.0 yrs 99.3%

Trade and Commerce Union :Z3% 77% 8.3 yrs 3.7%

Clerical and Officials Union :Z2% 78% 9.0yrs 92.3%

Graphical Workers Union iBS% 15% 14.1 yrs 6.5%

:~.8% 78% 5.8 yrs 3.7%Hotel and RestaurantWorkers Union

Electricians Union 1~7% 3% 9.2 yrs 0.4%

Employers' Federation '79% 21% 12.3 yrs 2.9%

"This reters on ly to the resl>ondent's current employment, not to union membershipseniority or to overall seniority ilr1 protession or work lite.

Questionnaires

The questionnaire usetd in the study consisted of demographic variables,health-related variables, sc:ales on psychological traits, questions and scaleson harassment and bullying, and scales and questions measuring workenvironment. In this study the following scales and measurements wereincluded:

387BULLVING AND HARASSMENT

Bullying and Harassment. A large proportion of the questionnairecovered various aspects of bullying and harassment in the workplace.Before answering these questions the respondents were introduced to thefollowing definition of bullying and harassment.2

Bullying (harassment, badgering, ni!~gling, freezing out, offending someone)is a problem in SOfie workplaces and for som e workers. To call somethingbullying it has to occur repeatedly over a period of time, and the personconfronted has to experience difficu.lty in defending himself or herself. It isnot bullying if two people of appro~:imately equal "strength" are in conftictor the incident is an isolated event.

Three measures of bullying and harassment were used: two single questionsand one index. The single questions addressed, first, whether the respond-ents themselves have been subjected to bullying during the last six monthsand, second, whether they have observed someone else being bullied attheir own workplace the last six months. The question on actual exposureto bullying and harassment was stated as foliows: "Have you been sub-jected to bullying at the workplace during the last six months?", with thefollowing options "no", "seidom", "'now and then", "about once a week",and "many times a week". The second question was stated: "Have youseen others being subjected to bullying at your workplace during the lastsix months?". This question bad the options "yes" and "no".

The third measure of bullying was an index measuring the degree towhich bullying is perceived to be a problem at one's workplace and foroneself personally. This measure, called the "Bergen Bullying lndex", isa global measurement of potential individual and organizational con-sequences of bullying and harassment. Scales and single question measure-ments have both also been used in studies of bUllying among children(Alsaker, 1989; Olweus, 1978, 1990). The index will be used to explorethe relationships between bullying/harassment and work environmentquality. Since the scale does not distinguish between observers and victims,the single questions will be used when investigating differences in workenvironment perceptions between victims, observers, and other workers.

The Bergen Bullying lndex consisted of five items, each scored on afour-point Likert scale from "agree strongly" to "disagree strongly". Theindex bad an acceptable internal stability (Cronbach alpha = 0.86) withall item total correlations above O.()O (using the data of the present study).Table 3 shows the items and item totalloadings on the scale. ..

2The actual term used is the word "ml[)bbing". Mobbing is the Scandinavian term forphenomenon which in English would be latlelled bullying and harassment. Origin and use ofthe term "mobbing" is discussed by OIW4~US, 1990. The definition used is adopted fromOlweus' (1978, 1990, 1993) research on schoolchildren, presented in studies on over 100,000

Scandinavian children.

388 EINARSEN, Rt\KNE:S, MATTHIESEN

TABLE 3Items am:! Corrected Item Total Loadings for the

Bergen Bullying Index

frem

Loadingltem

0.620.740.740.610.73

Bullying is a serious strain in my daily workBullying at my wlorkplace reduces aur efficiencyBullying at my wlorkplace reduces my well-beingBullying is a serious problem at my workplaceBullying at my wlorkplace reduces my work motivation

N = 2190.

Work Environment '~uestionnaire. All participants were asked to rate32 different aspects of their walk environment by stating bow satisfied theywere with each of these aspects. The scale was derived from O'Brien,Dowling, & Kobanoff (1977) and Marek, Tangenes, and Hellesøy (1984),with several new items included for this study. In OUT sample, a factoranalysis with varimax rlDtation revealed five factors with Eigenvalue > 1prior to rotation, accollmting for 57.0% of the variance. The first factoralone accounted for 35"°% of the variance (Eigenvalue 10.84). None ofthe other factors accounted for more than 8% (Eigenvalues from 2.37 to1.28). The five factors 'were labelled Challenge, Social Climate, Leader-ship, Walk Control, and Work-load. Table 4 shows items and factor load-ings for each factor after varimax rotation.

TABLE 4Items and Factor Loadin~~s in the Work Environment Questionnaire After Factor

)~nalysis with Varimax Rotation

HowSatisfiedareYouwith. ..? 1 2 3 4 5

0.600.720.750.74

Factor 1: Challenge1. The possibilities of using yolur abilities and

qualifications?2. The possibilities of learnin~; new things?3. Changes and variation in your joh?4. The possibilities of doing different johs?5. The possibilities of doing something really

useful?6. The possibilities of advanc(~ment and

promotion?7. The possibilities of doing chaIlenging and

interesting work?8. The possibilities of personall growth and

development? 0.70

Continued

389BULLVING AND HARASSMENT

TABLE 4CorJtinued

Bow Satisfied are You with ? 1 2 3 4 5

0.66

0.55

0.75

0.72

0.63

0.63

0.69

0.68

0.61

0.770.74

0.540.45

Factor 2: Social Climate1. The people you tal k to and work with?2. The possibilities of getting to know other

people at work?3. The respect and social support you experience

atwork?4. The co-operation relationship with your closest

coUeagues?5. The co-operation relationship with your

working group?6. The co-operation relationship with any

subordinates?

Factor 3: Leadership1. The quality of guidance and support?2. The clarity of your working instructions?3. The management's organization and

adaptation of the work you are to perform?4. The feedback you receive on the work and the

tasks you perform?5. The recognition you receive for your

performance at work?6. The co-operation relationship with your

closest superior?

Factor 4: Work Control1. The possibilities of deciding the way you do

yourjob?2. The possibilities of doing your joh without

interference from your superior?3. The possibilities of changing the parts you

dislike about your joh?

Factor 5: Work-load1. The possibilities of having sufficient time 1:0

do your joh properly?2. The degree of hustie and bustle at work?3. The equipment and tools you have access to

atwork?4. Logistical and practical conditions at worl~?

All factor loadings below 0.40 are excl\Jlded from the matrix; N = 2190.

Role Conflict and Role Ambigu~ity. This was measured using a scaleoriginally developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtsman (1970), but translated

from Cook, Hepworth, Wall, and Warr (1981). Role conftict, consistingof eight items, measures the degre:e to which one perceives contradictoryexpectations, demands, or values in one's joh. Role ambiguity, consistingof six items, measures the degree 1to which the respondents perceive their

390 EINARSEN, RAKNE~), MATTHIESEN

joh situation as predictable and clarified. Both scales are score d on a seven-point continuum ranging from "totally agree" to "totally disagree". Bothscales bad a satisfactory iinternal stability in this sample (alpha = 0.78 and0.81 for fole conflict and fole ambiguity respectively).

RESULTS

A one-way analysis of variance on the bullying index showed that thedegree of bullying differed significantly between the seven subsamples(F = 15.40, Df 1/1997, P < 0.001). The teachers and the employers' rep-resentatives reported least bullying and the graphical workers and the hoteland restaurant workers reported the highest level of bullying at work. Nosignificant differences were found between men and women.

Pearson's product-mo'ment correlations were then computed betweenthe bullying index and ~~ach of the work environment factors using themean scores of each ind~~x. This was done both for the total sample andfor each subsample. Tabl.e 5 provides an overview of these results. As canbe seen, the degree of bullying perceived by the respondents correlatessignificantly with all seven work environment factors (P < 0.001 for allcorrelations). The direct:ions of the correlations show that a high degreeof bullying is associated \\rith low satisfaction with work-load, work control,social climate, leadership, and challenge, and with a high degree of foleconflict and ro le ambiguity. In the total sample the factors leadership(r = 0.26), work control (r = 0.24), and fole conflict (r = 0.26) are thosemost strongly correlated with bullying.

Both the work environment factors most strongly related to bullyingand the overallievel of relationships between bullying and work environ-ment quality vary between the subsamples (Tab le 5). Among teachers,social climate (r = 0.30, P < 0.001) and leadership (r = 0.27, P < 0.001)are the factors most strongly correlated with bullying, while on ly foleconflict is related to bullying among the the employers' representatives(r = 0.17, P < 0.05). In the sample of graphical workers, leadership(r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and fole conflict (r = 0.39, P < 0.001) are thestrongest correlated variables. The strongest correlations between bullyingand work environment aJ:e also found in this sample. In the group of tradeand commerce workers fole conflict (r =0.30, P < 0.001), leadership(r = 0.34, P < 0.001), and work control (r = 0.33, P < 0.001) were themost important work environment factors according to the correlationalanalyses. Among the ele(;tricians, leadership is the lowest correlated factor(r = 0.13, P < 0.01). A.mong officials and clericals only social climate(r = 0.18, P < 0.01, leadership (i- = 0.21, P < 0.01), and fole conflict(r = 0.26, P < 0.001) correlate with the degree ofbullying that is reportedby the respondents. All other factors bad a non-significant relationshipwith bullying in this sample.

..cQ)

Eco'-'>cw~'-o~"Cc~C)

c~~mcQ)In!

w

Q)

æm

~ ~o'~~~'-8..cQ

)

Eo~.LtJ~"Co'-nocotil'-~~

~~~

~.~

~

~8 ~

.9 ~

.~~

S

Il~

"" ~

~Q~

'...

~~

s'::8~

-:s

'C:

~

S

~

Il

~~

~~

-~

~

~§ ~

c ~~

~

.Q

~~

~

..~

E

s. Il

~a~

"<:

"a!-. .~

tj

~

"'I~

~Q

""

g~~

~

r...\I

S~

f'-I

~

~

Il~

~

!'O~~

~~

.o "'I

u ..

~:§

Il

~

~

~.9 ~ ~

~Q

~'S

~

Il~

~

~ t ~

~.g ~

..9~""

t~

Il~

~~

* *

* *

*************1r\0\f"j0\f--f"j-

N-

0000000

*********************0\0\\C

'ot"'ot"\C-

--NN

-N-

0000000

*********************O

OI'I'O

NN

NM

N-N

NN

0000000

* *

******

****** fl)

~O

~O

\\r\r--.c""N

NN

NN

000000

********************O

\o..,.~\O

o\O-N

~~

N~

-

0000000

* *

***************0\1rI1rIr---~

0\1ON

N~

NN

~N

0'0'0'0'0'0'0'

**

* *

(1)* *

(I) (1)*

(I)=

~O

==

\O=

-N

N00

O *m

m

m

m

m

r-.. m

CC

CC

C~

CO

~Q

J -,-

~Q

.e ~

~Q

J E ,-

C

'O iS

,-co.- .c

a~

=

.c=

'i3~

_s

e~

-;QJ~

~

~-;

'13 og

~

~

å~~

~~

~~

~ov~..~

oov~..

.~

8ov~...=Bc:.~'u;I=o=Ilfl)

=

391

EINARSEN, RAKNES, MA,TTHIESEN

Since the work environment factors considered in this study of tenoverlap to a significant degree (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992; Marek,Tangenes, & Hellesøy, 1984), a stepwise multiple regression analysis wasconducted to investigate which of the factors that were most strongly con-nected to bullying. The bullying index was the dependent variable in thisanalysis. The analyses were computed for both the total sample and foreach subsample. The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 6using standardized beta scores. The multiple regression analysis confirmsthe results reported above, where bullying seems mainly to be associatedwith fole conflict, leadership, and work control, although this patternshows som e variations among the subsamples. Taken together, these workenvironment factors explain 10% of the variation in bullying in the totalsample (R = 0.32, R2 = 0.10, P < 0.001). Among graphical workers 24%of the variation in bullying is explained by the quality of the work environ-ment as measured in this study (R = 0.49, R2 = 0.24, P < 0.001).

The bullying index measures the degree to which bullying is considereda problem for the individual respondent and his or her workplace. It doesnot, however, differentiate clearly between victims of harassment andobservers of harassment. By combining the responses given to the ques-tions "Have you been subjected to bullying at the workplace during thelast six months?" and "Have you seen others being subjected to bullyingat your worksite during the last six months?" it was possible to mnake adistinction among victims, observers, and non-observers of bullying. Outof 2023 respondents a total of 13.0% (N = 262) were rate d as observersof harassment, 7.0% (N = 141) were rated as observers and victims, white2.7% (N = 55) were rate d as victims. The rest of the respondents wereconsidered non-observers (86.9%, N = 1757). The term observers refersto respondents who are not bullied themselves, bul who report knowledgeof others being bullied at their worksite. Non-observers are respondentswho neither report knowledge of others being bullied nor are they bulliedthemselves. Victims/observens are respondents who are victims of bullyingin the last six months and also report knowledge of other victims at theirpresent worksite. The last group, the victims, are presently subjected tobullying bul report no knowledge of other victims at their own worksite.

One-way ANOV A with Least Significant Difference (LSD) were com-puted for the four groups on each of the work environment measures thatwere found to be most strongly related to bullying, namely Leadership,Work Control, Role Conflict, and Social Climate. The analysis showedsignificant and similar results on all four dimensions. The non-observersevaluated their work environment consistently more positively than didboth victims and observers (see Fig. 1).

On work control (overall s1:atistics: F = 35.31, df = 3/1997, P < 0.001),the non-observers rated their work environment significantly more

fJ)

'Uj

~(Oc<tco'Uj

fJ)Q

)I..C

)Q

)C

I:Q)

'Q.

:E~~I..Q)

~+ol

CQ)

EceC

D '>

w

c-JW~

~<

t I..

I- o~'OC(OC

)c~":5a1cQ

)Q

)

!Q)

~fJ)co.~(O

'"G)

I..I..

oU-æ'-2(OC

o.

~~~-!3

"'I-,~

~

"'I

8 ~ ,9 ~

't: §: ~

Il

rjCo...I:'?;

~c~

~

~~

:S~

~

~

] S

t

Il

~~

~~

~~

~

~E

: ~

"'I~

~E

:~~

~

,o

r.'j~

'

..~

E

~

Il

~c.3-..,1~

-I: ~

~

.~

~

~

~~

~c

g~;§~

t.-)

-~;g

s~~

~.~

Il

~:æ

:

~

o-~

t:~-t:

,o &

ri\,j

~~

S

Il~

~

~

0'1~

N~

\ol C

...

.§ ~

Il~

'<

:~ ~

~\I

.~ ~

"" :: "

6'~'"

-..~~

Il~

~'<

:;

>-

~4)

-,-~

o

~

==

C

o o

.-co4)

e .-c

=

=

:sco~

.coo=e

=u~

o_o4)-4)~

~o=

==

-0 4)4)

=

'(3 =

o o

--

O~

~~

~~

~

***

**

'Ot-

cn* *

cn cn* cn

f"I-=

o\N=

=-=

.,

---00dd

O

Il Il

~'C

f. boIl

~

****

* ~

It')

* *

-'"

'" '" r'") '" -'"

,.~ ~

CC

CN

CN

C

00O

O

Il

Il

~~ **

* *

**

* \O

t"--"'N

""""'O'I'"

NO

=-=

==

-=

00O

O

Il

Il

~~*

* *

* *

* *

* *

**

* *

* *

* N

Oon~

\o-~Q

OQ

O

f"I-C

O--O

-O

..O

O

0000001111I I

~~ -r--

..."ft -

""""ft'rl""rI'" 00

CC

~~

C~

C

111100

O

~~ **

* *

* *

O\-.t

'" ",*

'" ",*

'" -.tN

C

C\O

C

cO

C

..

~

N

00

O

O

Il Il

~~

*'" '" '" '" '" \O

'"ccccc~

co

*I"'-r"I-ociciIl

Il

~~

'8oVQ..

*.~

ooVQ..

**8oVQ..

***-cBIC"fo'~

ICocIl(/)c'rÅ-.cQ

Q

"Qj

~~-~,Q'O~N~~'OC~-(/)

(/)~'O~-C~(/)

~~~(/)CO'=~]8~'f~ø.

***

**

\O~

~~

~"'~

'" N

CC

CC

CN

C

OO

Il~

394

'"...~~o]>

~s°::'(J

°>~c

U

~-->

~>-'"s"8(/)

.>m

~o~o-~~~o

~z.gO

'z-~~~~,&

)o

o §

-c>

>-

,&)~

.,;~

co

~

o-S

~

U

",.æ-C

~>

0>O

- ~~

~

=

>-O

-~

...

(/»~

~

~

mE

cO

~~

s 'OC

C

O

~.=

~>

'"C

~

~

...

O~

~z

o~~

o~:I:

~,...:....0

~>

Uo-

395BULL YING AND HARASSMENT

positive ly than both observers and victims (P < 0.05), while the observerswere also significantly more positive than the two groups of victims(P < 0.05). The results were identical on the social climate dimension(F= 40.68, df = 3/1993, P < 0.001). On fole conflict (F= 50.21, df = 3/1976,P < 0.001) it was also found that the non-observers differed significantlyfrom all other groups (P < 0.001). The observers did not differ significantlyfrom the victims on this dimension (P> 0.05). The results revealed thatthe respondents who were both victims and observers bad significantlymore fole conflict in their jobs than the observers, the victims, and the non-observers (P < 0.001). On the leadership dimension we found significantdifferences between all fOUl groups (overall: F = 67.15, df = 3/1992,P < 0.001)..These analyses were computed for the total sample only. A factorialANOV A with a Hierarchical Multiple Classification Analysis showed,however, that the differences found between observers, victims, and non-observers were not distorted by subsample differences. Union membershipdid not affect the mean differences between the groups on any of the fOUlwalk environment measures involved, although the degree of bullyingvaried from union to union.

DISI:USSION

According to Cooper and Payne (1978) and van der Vliert (1984), a widerange of work environment factors may act as precursors to organizationalstress and interpersonal conflict. However, no previous other study hasbeen published which investigates the impact of work environment onbullying and harassment in the workplace. Although exploratory in nature,this study therefore gives the first empirical support to the ro le of workenvironment factors in bullying and victimization in organizations.

The occurrence of bullying and harassment correlates significantly withseveral different aspects of the organizational and social work environ-ment. Both the correlations and the regression analysis show, nevertheless,that leadership, fole conflict, and work control are the most importantfactors in predicting such experiences at work. The quality of the inter-personal relationships within the immediate work group (social climate) isalso of importance in some organizational settings. Role conflict is, how-ever, the only variable which shows a partial correlation with harassmentand bullying within all seven organizational settings. The study also showsthat it is not only the victims who suffer from an ill-conditioned workenvironment; observers of bullying report an elevated level of ro le conflictas well as dissatisfaction with the social climate, the leaders of the organ-ization, and the possibilities of monitoring their own work.

396 EINARSEN, RAKNES, MI~TTI-iIESEN

In a Finnish study, Appelberg et al. (1991) found a relationship betweenwork-related factors (hectic and monotonous work) and the experience ofinterpersonal conflicts and problems at work. Significant relationshipsbetween harassment/buIlying and both work-overload and monotonousand unchaIlenging work are also found in the present study. What ourstudy indicates, however, is that it is not necessarily hectic and monotonouswork in itself that causes serious interpersonal conflicts at work, bul ratherthe Jack of possibilities to monitor and control one's own work and theJack of clear and unconflicting goals as weIl as the Jack of constructiveleadership within this situation.

Both fole conflict and Jack of self-monitoring opportunities are seen asstrong sources of work stress and emotional di stress (Daniels & Guppy,1992; French & Caplan, 1972). The tension, stress, and frustration causedby a joh situation characterized by high fole conflict, Jack of self-monitoringpossibilities, and poor performing supervisors can therefore in itself beperceived as harassment when attributed to hostile personal intentions.Role conflict and Jack of work control can also be related to buIlying andharassment through its creation of elevated tension, stress, and frustrationin the workgroup. This situation, then, can act as a precursor of conflictand poor inter-worker relationships. The experience of high work strainis generally found to have a negative impact on a person's relationshipswith coIleagues (French & Caplan, 1972; Marcelissen, Winnbust, Buunk,& de Wolff, 1988).

Although the impact of both fole ambiguity and fole conflict on stress,frustration, conflicts, and other job-related attitudes and behaviours in awork group is pervasive (Netemeyer, Johnston, & Burton, 1990), in thiscase it is fole conflict that is most strongly related to buIlying and harass-ment. In a study of precursors of organizational frustration it was alsofound that fole conflict contributed more than any other measures of folestress (Kennan & Newton, 1984). This fact was then explained throughfole conflict's production of angry reactions and latent hostility. Since itmay be less obvious that fole ambiguity is a result of someone's behaviour,it may also be less obviously attributed to someone's actions and intentions.Conflicting demands around tasks, obligations, privileges, and priorities asmeasured by fole conflict may therefore be a more notable risk factor forpoor relations among co-workers and between subordinates and super-visors (French & Caplan, 1972). BuIlying and harassment may, then, bebehavioural strategies used in the interpersonal conflicts that can arise fromthese conflicting demands. It is also possible that the victim perceives thesender of conflicting demands as a buIly, in the sense that these demandsare experienced as threatening and difficult to guard against. AIso, a victimcan be harassed as a consequence of the resentment and personal offencethat the rejection of demands could bring.

BULLVING AND HARASSMENT 397

Theoretically, at least two frameworks can account for the relationshipsbetween work environment and bullying found in this study. According tothe revised frustration-aggression hypothesis (Berkowitz, 1989) a high-stress work situation can lead to aggressive behaviour through the pro-duction of negative affect. In the con text of the present study this impliesthat harassment and bullying may flourish in ill-conditioned work environ-ments, most probably through environmental effects on aggressive behavi-our. The fact that observers of bullying report a more negative workenvironment than other respondents yields some support to this position.Alternatively, a social interactionist approach to aggression (FeIson, 1992;Felson & Tedeschi, 1993) would argue that stressful events will indirectlyaffect aggression through its effect on the victim's behaviour. Oistressedpersons may violate expectations, annoy others, perform less competently,and even violate social norms describing polite and friendly interactions(FeIson, 1992) and, hence, elicit aggressive behaviour in others. Sincevictims do report significantly more fole conflict than the observers ofbullying, this explanation of the actual process cannot be ruled out.

A more structured test on the se competing theoretical models requiresthat both bullies/perpetrators and victims participate in a study on bullyingand work environment. According to the social interactionist view, victimsshould report more work stress than bullies and perpetrators. On the otherhand, the frustration-aggression hypothesis would predict that the bulliesshould have the highest level of work stress. Minimally, they should reporta similarly high level of work stress to the observers.

In som e subsamples, the leadership variable is strongly correlated withbullying at work. This may suggest that bullying is a symptom ofinadequateleadership, even when the aggressors are co-workers or colleagues. Whiletwo out of five victims in this study report their immediate supervisor asthe persecutor, 50% see co-workers as the bullies (Einarsen et al., 1994).The relationship between bullying and leadership evaluation can thereforebe a function of workers describing a bull y-supervisor, or it can reflectthat such (mis)behaviour prospers in a group where there is a lack of firmleadership. The results therefore support Brodsky's (1976) view that theharassment elements must exist within a culture that permits and rewardsharassment for harassment to occur. Thus, harassment is inevitably linkedto an organization's leadership system.

Yet, the findings of the present study show that bullying and harassmentare related to different aspects of the work environment in different kindsof organizations. The explanation of these findings may be found both inthe unique characteristics of these organizational settings and in the natureof the work involved. For instance, among electricians the regression ana-lysis shows that bullying is not related to leadership, but relates mainlyto climate and fole conflict; from the nature of their work, this does not

398 EINARSEN, RAKNES, MATTHIESEN

seem unreasonable. Electricians work in pairs or in groups moving aroundbetween different worksites. They have littIe or no daily interaction withtheir supervisors, but interact highly with co-workers and workers in othergroups and organizations. The ability and leadership st yle of their super-visor is therefore in itself of minor importance for the performance andwell-being of the workers. In contrast, many graphical workers areemployed in small businesses, ofte n supervised by the owner. In theseorganizations, leadership is a much more salient factor than among theelectricians. The leadership factor was clearly the strongest predictor ofbullying in that subsample. Among teachers, the social-psychologicalclimate of the work group is a stronger predictor of bullying than areleadership and work control. Traditionally, teachers are very independentin their work, with littIe or no supervision. Thus, the collegial group andthe classroom climate may be more salient factors regarding joh satisfactionand joh stress.

It is beyond the scope of the present paper to discuss in detail thedifferences found between the subsamples. These results, nevertheless,suggest that future research on work environment and harassment mustinclude organizational setting as an important variable. This conclusion isalso made by Knapp, Putnam, and Davis (1988) who claim that organiza-tional setting should be brought to the forefront of research on inter-personal conflicts in organizations.

The results of this study suggest that it is unlikely that bullying andharassment can be explained exclusively in terms of work conditions. Innone of the subsamples did work environment factors account for morethan 24% of the variance in bullying. Overall, only about 10% of thebullying can be explained in terrns of work environment conditions. Theseresults hardly seem to justify Leymann's (1992) position that work environ-ment conditions are the sole causes of bullying and harassment at work.Although research on personality and conflict management has revealedsome mixed results (Utley, Richardson, & Pilkington, 1989), personalityis seen as the prominent factor in a person's capability of operating in hisor her social environment (Appelberg et al., 1991).

In studies on bullying among children, personality traits are found tobe of great importance in bot h predicting aggressive behaviour andbecoming a target of aggression (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Olweus, 1990).AIso, French and Caplan (1972) claim that personality traits are highlyimportant in relationships with fole conflict. The study of work environ-ment conditions and bullying at work should therefore be extended toinclude personality factors. In addition, personality and work environmentshould be studied as interacting variables within a person-environment titperspective (see also Edwards, 1991).

399BULLVING AND HARASSMENT

Methodological Limitations

Som e methodological concerns about the present study must be mentioned.First, the correlational design permits no inferences to the causality of thework environment factors with regard to bullying and harassment. It couldbe argued that bullying may cause a deterioration of the workers' trust intheir supervisor and a high degree oftension and conftict in the work group,combined with a low degree of trust and respect, which could account forthe results found in this study. A vicious circle of events and conduct mayalso account for the relationships found. In a climate with pOOl inter-worker relationships and a poor-performing supervisor, serious inter-personal confticts and harassment may occur more of ten than in othergroups. This may the n cause an even worse relationship between co-workers and perhaps expose the supervisor's inability to handle inter-personal problems and confticts. Longitudinal or experimental studies mustbe conducted before conclusions can be made on the causality betweenwork environment and bullying and harassment in the workplace.

Perhaps the most interesting and important results in the study concernsthe work environment perceptions made by the observers of bullying andharassment. The observers are employees who are not harassed them-selves, but acknowledge that others are bullied in their workplace. Theresults show that, although to a lesser degree than the victims, the observersalso experience a high degree of fole conftict and express dissatisfactionwith their work environment. These results therefore give us som e evid-ence that low work environment quality is a prevailing characteristic ofworkplaces where bullying and harassment prosper.

However, as the individual was the level of analysis in this study, theresults cannot be straightforwardly interpreted as expressions of the workenvironment quality on an organizational level. As the victims and theobservers may very well come from different organizations, and evenregard different conduct and situations as bullying, the results must stillbe considered preliminary.

Hence, studies that allow the aggregation of individuallevel results toorganizational or workgroup level, studies that include observer/victimreliability investigations and studies with a longitudinal design must beconducted in this field before conclusions can be drawn on the relationshipsbetween work environment and the occurrence of bullying and harassmentwithin organizations.

REFERENCESAdams, A. (1992a). Bullying at work: How to confront and overcome it. London: Virago

Press.Adams, A. (1992b). Holding out against workplace harassment and buUying. Personnei

Management, 24, 48-50.

400 EINARSEN, RAKNES, MATTHIESEN

Als~ker, F.D. (1989). Perceived social competence, global self-esteem and peerdependenceIn early adolescence. In B.H. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel & R. Weissberg (Eds.), Socialcompetence in developmental perspective. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Appelberg, K., Romanov, K., Honlasalo, M., & Koskenvuo, M. (1991). Interpersonal con-flicts at work and psychosocial characteristics of employees. Social Science Medicine, 32(9),1051-1056.

Baumeister, R.F., Stillwell, A., & Wotman, S.R. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accountsof interpersonal conflicts: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 59, 994-1005.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). The frustration-aggression hypothesis: An examination and reform-ulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73.

Brodsky, C.M. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath & Co.Cook, J.D., Hepworth, S.J., Wall, T.D., & Warr, P.B. (1981). The experience ofwork: A

compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. London: Academic Press Inc.Cooper, C.L., & Payne, R. (1978). Stress at work. London: John Wiley & Sans.Cranny, C.J., Smith, P.C., & Stone, E.F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel abDul

their jobs and how it affects their performance. New York: Lexington Books.Cummins, R. (1989). Locus of control and social support: Clarifiers of the relationships

between job stress and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(9),772-778.

Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1992). The dimensionality and well-being related correlates ofwork locus of control. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 2(4), 319-330.

Dodge, K.A., & Coie, J.D. (1987). Social information-processing factors in reactive andproactive aggression in children's peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho-logy,53, 1116-1158.

Edwards, J .R. (1991). Person-joh fil: A conceptual integration, literature review andmethodological critique. In C.L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International reviewof industrial and organizational psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sans.

Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I., Matthiesen, S.B., & Hellesøy, O.H. (1990). Mobbing iarbeidslivet: Utbredelse-ytringsformer-konsekvenser: En prosjektbeskrivelse.[Bullying at work: Prevalence-modes of expressions-<:onsequences: Description of aproject.] Nordisk Psykologi, 42(4), 294-298.

Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I., Matthiesen, S.B., & Hellesøy, O.H. (1994). Mobbingogperson-konflikter: Helsefarlig samspill på arbeidsplassen. [Bullying and personified conflicts:Health-endangering interaction at work.] Bergen, Norway: Sigma Forlag.

Feison, R.B. (1992). "Kick 'em when they're down": Explanations of the relationshipsbetween stress and interpersonal aggression and violence. Sociological Quarterly, 33(1),1-16.

Feison, R.B., & Tedeschi, J. T. (Eds.). (1993). Aggression and violence: Social interactionistperspectives. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

French, J.R.P., & Caplan, R.D. (1972). Organizational stress and individual strain. In A.J.Marrow (Ed.), Thefailure of success. New York: Amacom.

Gutek, B.A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Hadjifotiou, H. (1983). Women and harassment at work. London: Pluto Press.Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., & Snoek, J.D. (1964). Organizational stress:

Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.Kennan, A., & Newton, T.J. (1984). Frustration in organizations: Relationships to fole

stress, climate and psychological strain. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57,57-65.Kile, S.M. (1990). Helsefarlige ledere og medarbeidere. [Health injurious leaders and co-

workers.] Oslo, Norway: Hjemmets Bokforlag.Knapp, M.L., Putnam, L.L., & Davis, L.J. (1988). Measuring interpersonal conflicts in

organizations: Where do we go from here? Management Communication Quarterly, 1(3),414-429.

401BULL YING AND HARASSMENT

Kreps, G.L. (Ed.) (1993). Sexual harassment: Communication implications. Cresskill, NJ:Hampton Press Inc.

Leymann, H. (1988). Innen annan utveg: Om utslagning og sjalvmord som foljd av mobbningi arbeIdslivet. [No other way: On exclusion and suicide as a consequence of bullying inworking life.] Stockholm: Wahlstrom & Widstrand.

Leymann, H. (1992). Från mobbning til utslagning i abeidslivet. [From bullying to exclusionfrom working life.] Stockholm: Publica.

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims,5, 119-126.

Marcelissen, F.H.G., Winnbust, A.M., Buunk, B., & de Wolff, C.J. (1988). Social supportand occupational stress: A causal analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 26, 365-373.

Marek, J., Tangenes, B., & Hellesøy, O.H. (1984). Organizational and social aspects ofjohs. In O.H. Hellesøy (Ed.), Work environmentStatfjordfield: Workenvironment, healthand safety on a North Sea oil platform. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget AS.

Netemeyer, R.G., Johnston, M.W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis ofrole conftict and foleambiguity in a structural equations framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2),148-157.

O'Brian, G.E., Dowling, P., & Kobanoff, B. (1977). Work, health and leisure. (Reportno. 1). Department of Social Security, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC:

Hemisphere (Wiley).Olweus, D. (1990). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of

a school based intervention program. In K. Rubin & D. Pepler (Eds.), The developmentand treatment of children's aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullyingatschool: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: BlackwellPublishers.

Rizzo, J., House, R.J., & Lirtsman, S.I. (1970). Role conftict and ambiguity in complexorganizations. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 15, 150-163.

Sørensen, A.B. (1992). Evaluering av norsk arbeidslivs-og aksjonsforskning. [Evaluationof Norwegian worklife-and action research.) Oslo, Norway: NORAS.

Thylefors, I (1987). Syndbockar: Om utstøtning og mobbning i arbetslivet. [Scapegoats: Onexclusions and bullying in work life.] Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.

Utley, M.E., Richardson, D.R., & Pilkington, C.J. (1989). Personality and interpersonalconftict management. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(3), 287-293.

van der Vliert, E. (1984). Conftict-prevention and escalation. In P .J.D. Drenth, H.K.Thierry, P.J. Willems, & C.J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizationalpsychology. London: John Wiley & Sans Ltd.

Wilson, C.B. (1991). US businesses suffer from workplace traurna. Personneljournal, July,47-50.