Purpose Intention to leave as an outcome of exposure to workplace bullying is well documented in previous studies, yet, research on explanatory conditions for such an association is lacking. Design/methodology/approach The present study investigates the relationship between injustice perceptions, exposure to bullying behaviors and turnover intention, employing a moderated mediation analysis based on a reanalysis and extension of data gathered among a sample of Norwegian bus drivers (N = 1, 024). Findings As hypothesized, injustice perceptions were indirectly related to intention to leave via workplace bullying, however, only under conditions of higher perceived injustice levels. Practical implications The results underscore the importance of preventing workplace bullying and of maintaining ample levels of justice at work, where employees are treated with fairness and respect. Originality/value The study adds important knowledge to the bullying literature by focusing on the role of mechanisms and moderators in bullying situations, investigating how the combination of workplace bullying and injustice perceptions is reflected in employees' intention to leave the organization.
Glambek, Mats; Einarsen, Ståle & Notelaers, Guy (2020)
Workplace bullying as predicted by non-prototypicality, group identification and norms: a self-categorisation perspective
Research and theory on deviance in work groups suggest that non-prototypical members risk devaluation and mistreatment by their peers. Drawing on the self-categorisation theory, we propose and test a contextual model to explain workplace bullying from a target perspective, using non-prototypicality as a predictor and social identification and anti-bullying norms at the work group level as two- and three-way cross-level moderators. Multilevel modelling and a sample of employees from the university sector in the Low Lands (n = 572) was employed. In line with our first hypothesis, we found that risk of exposure to workplace bullying is particularly high for non-prototypical work group members. We also hypothesised that work group social identification would facilitate bullying of non-prototypical members, while anti-bullying norms would buffer it. Results showed, however, that both conditions acted as buffering moderators on the main association. Lastly, the combination of the two also entailed a cross-level three-way interaction effect, showing that non-prototypicality is associated with bullying only in work groups characterised by low levels on both moderators. These novel and partly unexpected results demonstrate the relevance and significance of group level explanations for workplace bullying, holding significant implications for scholars and practitioners.
Glambek, Mats; Skogstad, Anders & Einarsen, Ståle (2020)
Does the number of perpetrators matter? An extension and re-analysis of workplace bullying as a risk factor for exclusion from working life
Based on a nationally representative sample (N = 1,613) and a true prospective design, we show that the link between self‐labelled workplace bullying and exclusion from working life (i.e., becoming a non‐participant in working life) over a 5‐year time lag becomes stronger with increasing numbers of perpetrators involved. The amount of exposure to bullying behaviours could not explain the added effect of multiple perpetrators, indicating that the presence of multiple perpetrators is significant in and of itself. A post hoc descriptive cross‐tabulation analysis also showed that when one or two perpetrators were involved at T1, the rate of exclusion from working life 5 years later did not differ substantially from the normal population's exclusion rate. When three or more perpetrators were involved, on the other hand, the exclusion rate approached 50%, indicating that ≥3 perpetrators could denote a critical cut‐off point for a distinguishable group‐bullying phenomenon, at least with respect to exclusion from working life.
Einarsen, Ståle; Hoel, Helge, Zapf, Dieter & Cooper, Cary L (red.). Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Practice. Third Edition.