Introduction
To reiterate, the research purpose is that of investigating the attributes of workplace bullies. The corresponding research question is therefore articulated as: is there a distinctive set of antecedents, a unique social and psychological profile that distinguishes potential bullies? With respect to antecedents, this study will focus on the possible role of dysfunctional upbringing and present home life and prominent traits of workplace bullies? In the medium and long term, the goal is for organizations to embark on interventions to reduce the great prevalence of intimidation the literature informs us about by strengthening screening procedures for new hires and raising vigilance for those already in the workforce.
Accordingly, the research design should be capable of testing several null hypotheses about such independent variables as abuse in early childhood, childrearing that condoned physically aggressive behavior and a single-parent household. Two other null hypotheses will test for correlation with present domestic violence and productivity at work on the part of both bullies and their victims.
Highlights of the Literature on Bullying
Estimates about the prevalence of adult bullying, chiefly in the workplace of course, vary widely. Matthiesen and Einarsen (2007) report the low end of three to four percent quantified from large-sample studies in Scandinavia, where empirical work first emerged on bullying in the workplace (as opposed to the common schoolyard variety). This may be an underestimate, based on estimates of ten percent arrived at in Finland and the UK (Hoel and Cooper, 2000; Vartia, 1996).
Domestically, the situation seems much more serious: over one-third (37%) of American workers claim to have been bullied at one time or another in the past (Workplace Bullying Institute, 2007). Zeroing in on “currently experiencing” to align more closely with the Scandinavian time frames of at least six months’ sustained bullying experience, the nationwide prevalence of 13% seems more comparable.
The Link with Aggression
Griffin and Gross (2004) maintain that bullying is merely one subset of the entire complex of aggressive behaviors, whether these manifest in the workplace or earlier, in school. Merely saying, as Einarsen (2000) does, that bullying constitutes “negative treatment” (albeit sustained and to a victim who cannot easily defend himself) does not quite do justice to the aftereffects of such treatment. Rather, the essential elements are that the perpetrator displays hostile verbal behavior, coercion, physical contact, and other actions that call into question the competence of a colleague at work and degrade the self-esteem of the latter (Keashly and Jagatic, 2003; Forsyth, 2006).
Certainly, the literature is replete with the implied or empirically-discovered links between aggression and bullying. Those with aggressive predispositions are more likely to engage in the social affronts and physical intimidation that constitutes bullying among adults. Emotional abuse, arising from low frustration thresholds and a propensity for lashing out, is a frequent manifestation of workplace bullying (Geffner, Braverman, Galasso, and Marsh, 2005).
Profile and Antecedents of Bullies
Little exists by way of literature that rigorously profiles the personality characteristics and early childhood experiences of workplace bullies, least of all in the American setting. Instead, researchers have been more likely to offer anecdotal evidence or what must necessarily be viewed as impressionistic descriptions by the victims (Adams, 1992; Bing, 1992; Kile, 1990).
In a European setting, Coyne, Chong, Seigne, and Randall (2003) derived just one insight from employing the 16 PF on a concededly modest base of 288 workers: matching of self-reports by bullies and observations by their peers elicited mental instability as the sole (statistically significant) discriminating factor. On switching to the ICES Personality Inventory and the IBS Clinical Inventory, however, Seigne, Coyne, Randall and Parker (2007) found that those prone to bullying are truly aggressive, besides being hostile, hyper-assertive, selfish, egocentric, highly competitive, and given to acting independently. That these traits also typify those who inevitably rise to positions of leadership reliably explains why the Workplace Bullying Institute (2007) survey found that over two-thirds of bullies in the workplace are the victims’ superiors.
In turn, the research on antecedents has been apt to stay within the confines of the workplace. From the little that had been published till the turn of the century, Zapf and Einarsen (2003) propose that low self-esteem and immature social competency distinctly characterize bullies. The authors point to a third factor, “micropolitical behavior”. However, this seems more like an exogenous stimulus in a stressful work environment and therefore opens another direction for inquiry into the effect of leadership styles, particularly as these neglect the need for team structure and well-defined responsibilities.
Qualitative Research and Mixed-Methods Design
The rationale for mixed methods designs consists partly of the stage at which the research is taking place, especially in relation to prior work in the field. Secondly, there is the matter of whether the qualitative research component informs subsequent quantitative-type research or runs on parallel tracks with the latter.
Trochim and Donnelly (2008) make the case for mixed methods designs being applicable about midway between naturalistic inquiry and experimental testing. In fact, as we have seen previously from a search of the literature, the extant inquiry into the personality traits and family backgrounds of bullies, whether naturalistic, phenomenological or purely qualitative is decidedly sparse. This suggests the need for a mixed-methods approach that incorporates qualitative techniques.
Short of engaging in meta-analysis or pure mathematical modeling, both of which are exclusively quantitative investigative techniques, Creswell (2009) effectively argues for the general applicability of mixed approaches. The mere fact that the preparatory checklist he outlines (p. 205) is almost never completely satisfied in formal research designs opens up the possibility that an investigation benefits from dual or multiple methods. Thus, mixed-methods are very likely in programs that involve a planned sequence of research investigations. In the case of this investigation into the characteristics of bullies, it may well be that exploratory methods like depth interviews and case studies are needed to shape the content of follow-on self-report quantitative checklists. Subsequently, the latter might open up new avenues of inquiry that grounded theory could tackle in greater depth than if immediately employed at the start of the study series. Plainly, mixed-methods research hold out the promise of greater insight than does single-mode investigation.
The first crucial step In this research program is to adapt the paradigm of childhood abuse, other dysfunctional childrearing experiences and overtly aggressive behavior – taken from the domestic violence study field – with those who have had the opportunity to observe, experience and intervene in bullying in the workplace. The brunt of these qualitative interviews will be probes into issues of self-esteem, evidence of emotional maturity, stress levels at work, “micro-politics” and the exogenous uncertainties brought about by disorganized work processes. From ten to twenty such sources in varying organization types and sizes should suffice.
Sampling Method
For the given research question, the researcher needs to:
- Gain access to voluntary participation independent of clinical or industrial “gatekeepers”;
- Minimize ethical issues;
- Profile bullies in industrial settings identified in the literature as rather more prone to instances of bullying;
- Tap a sizeable base of respondents and diversity of organizational environments so as to optimize generalizability; and,
- Enhance the chances of locating three types of protagonists: perpetrators, provocative victims, and targets (Matthiesen and Einarsen, 2007).
Even the briefest scan of the literature demonstrates that bullying has been found in a variety of blue- and white-collar work settings. More specifically, there is empirical support for bullying in primary health care and academic environments. Given that these two work settings have been extensively covered in the literature, this study will cover the broader range of industrial settings by arranging for postal surveys and in-depth interviews with affiliates or “locals” of both the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and the Change to Win Federation in (THE CITY WHERE YOU RESIDE).
To increase the chances of return rates that will satisfy normality assumptions in data analysis later on, the initial survey will extract at least two thousand members by systematic random selection from the combined union rolls within the city. That way, even a return rate of 3% will yield a usable base for the study.
Study Instruments
Operationalizing the criterion variable means that, in addition to the aforementioned verbal and physical manifestations of bullying, both subjective and frequency-/time-based parameters must be incorporated. The former entails asking participants their perceptions about exposure to negative behavior at work while the latter imposes a threshold of two such experiences weekly over a sustained period of six months (Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001; Giorgi, 2009).
The principal postal survey instrument shall be the Workplace Aggression Research Questionnaire (WARQ) developed jointly at the State University of New York in New Paltz and Wayne State University that inventories no less than thirty-three instances of hostile, aggressive and bullying behavior (Keashly and Neuman, 2008). Consistent with the frequency criterion, WARQ warns respondents to check off only those negative behaviors that happen “regularly” to them. For the purposes of this study, the questionnaire introduction should obviously be expanded to say “…have you regularly experienced these or inflicted these on others?”
In the in-depth interviews, the line of questioning will focus on the characteristics and behavior of bullies. This is entirely applicable, as shown by Branch, Ramsay, and Barker (2007). For face validity, the depth interviews will open with general questions about satisfaction with career, work environment, personal strengths and weaknesses before probing about experiences with bullying in the past 6 months to a year.
All depth interviews shall be recorded solely on digital audio tape. Video is completely out of the question for being possibly inhibiting to both perpetrators and bully victims.
After both stages, data analysis shall consist of transcribing the tapes into word-processing files and subjecting the verbatim transcripts to content analysis. This calls for dual-judge manual coding augmented by computer-aided coding programs like General Inquirer or TextPack (Content-analysis.de, 2009).
A vital adjunct to the above questionnaire (and part of the postal survey package) is a self-report checklist for all those who experienced being either perpetrators, provocative victims or targets. Other than querying all three sub-groups about their personal characteristics, the self-report checklist will inventory their separate child-rearing and family environments so that discriminant analysis may test for any significant differences with respect to experiences of abuse, parenting style, being reared in two- or single-parent homes, and exposure to domestic violence if presently married or cohabiting. Since there is no available precedent for this, the self-report checklist will have to be formulated, pre-tested and piloted for internal consistency scores prior to fieldwork proper.
References
Adams, A. (1992). Bullying at work-How to confront and overcome it. London: Virago.
Bing, S. (1992). Crazy bosses: Spotting them, serving them, surviving them. New York: William Morrow.
Branch, S., Ramsay, S. & Barker, M. (2007). Managers in the firing line: Contributing factors to workplace bullying by staff – an interview study. Journal of Management and Organization, 13 (3): 264-81.
Content-Analysis.de (2009). Resources related to content analysis and text analysis. Web..
Coyne, I., Chong, P. S.-L., Seigne, E., & Randall, P. (2003). Self and peer nominations of bullying: An analysis of incident rates, individual differences, and perceptions of the working environment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12 (3): 209-228.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4(5): 379-401.
Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Group dynamics (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Geffner, R., Braverman, M., Galasso, J. and Janessa Marsh, eds. (2005). Aggression in Organizations: Violence, Abuse, and Harassment at Work and in Schools. New York: Routledge.
Giorgi, G. (2009). Workplace bullying risk assessment in 12 Italian organizations. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 2 (1): 34–47.
Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9: 379-400.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Manchester, UK: Manchester School of Management.
Kile, S. (1990). Helsefarlige ledere og medarbeidere [Health-dangerous leaders and their co-workers]. Oslo: Hjemmets bokforlag. (qtd. in) Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Perpetrators and targets of bullying at work: Role stress and individual differences. Violence and Victims, 22 (6) 735-756.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By another name: American perspectives on workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 31-61). London: Taylor & Francis.
Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2008). Aggression at the service delivery interface: Do you see what I see? Journal of Management and Organization, 14: 180-192.
Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Perpetrators and targets of bullying at work: Role stress and individual differences. Violence and Victims, 22 (6) 735-756.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and health correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4): 393-413.
Seigne, E., Coyne, I., Randall, P. & Parker, J. (2007). Personality traits of bullies as a contributory factor in workplace bullying: an exploratory study International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 10 (1); 118-132.
Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. (2008). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage.
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying-Psychological work environment and organizational climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5: 203-205.
Workplace Bullying Institute (2007). Results of the WBI U.S. workplace bullying survey.
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual antecedents of bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 165-184). London: Taylor & Francis.