Antecedents and developmental pathways to workplace bullying : The role of individual, situational and contextual factors

Abstract

Det overordnede målet med denne avhandlingen er å fylle noen av hullene i den eksisterende litteraturen om hvorfor mobbing på arbeidsplassen oppstår. Mobbing på arbeidsplassen refererer til gjentatte, uønskede og skadelige atferder rettet mot enkeltpersoner i en arbeidssituasjon. Disse atferdene kan ta ulike former og kan bli utført av kolleger, overordnede eller til og med av underordnede. Mobbing på arbeidsplassen beskrives ofte som "en eskalerende prosess der den konfronterte personen ender opp i en underlegen posisjon og blir målet for systematiske negative sosiale handlinger" (Einarsen et al., 2020, s. 26). Siden mobbing på arbeidsplassen forstås som en eskalerende prosess, er det viktig å forstå dens forløpere og utvikling for også å forbedre forståelsen av hvordan det kan forebygges. Selv om det har vært en økende mengde forskning på forløpere til mobbing på arbeidsplassen de siste tiårene, er det fremdeles mangel på mer komplekse studier som undersøker hvordan potensielle risikofaktorer fra ulike organisatoriske nivåer samhandler og forårsaker en risiko for å bli utsatt for mobbing på jobben. Denne avhandlingen omfatter tre empiriske studier som alle undersøker hvilken rolle ulike situasjonelle-, kontekstuelle- og individuelle faktorer spiller i mobbeprosessen på arbeidsplassen, ved å anvende gruppenivå- og innen-person-forskningsdesign.

The overall aim of this thesis is to fill some of the gaps in the existing literature regarding why workplace bullying occurs. Workplace bullying refers to repeated, unwelcome, and harmful behaviours directed toward an individual in a workplace setting. These behaviours can take various forms and may be perpetrated by colleagues, supervisors, or even subordinates. Workplace bullying is often described as “an escalating process in the course of which the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts” (Einarsen et al., 2020, p. 26). Since workplace bullying is understood as an escalating process, understanding its antecedents and developmental pathways is key to also better our understanding of how it can be prevented. Although there has been an increasing amount of research investigating antecedents of workplace bullying during the last couple of decades, there is still a lack of more complex studies investigating how potential risk factors from different organizational levels interact in causing a risk for being exposed to bullying at work. This thesis comprises three empirical studies that all examine the role some situational-, contextual-, and individual factors play in the workplace bullying process, applying group-level and within-person research designs.

Paper 1 reports on data from a cross-sectional convenience sample of Norwegian employees working in a marine transport company. The data had a hierarchical structure where respondents were nested within teams, enabling us to apply multilevel analysis. The aim of Paper 1 was to investigate whether team-level perceptions of conflict management climate moderate the relationships between three well-established work-related situational risk factors (role conflict, workload, cognitive demands) and perceived exposure to bullying behaviours in the workplace, respectively. The findings showed role conflict and cognitive demands, but not workload, to be substantial predictors of exposure to bullying behaviours at the individual-level. Further, the findings showed that team-level conflict management climate moderated the relationship between role conflict and exposure to bullying, as well as the relationship between cognitive demands and exposure to bullying. More specifically, the positive relationships between the two predictors and exposure to bullying behaviours were stronger for employees working in teams with a weak, versus a strong, conflict management climate. The findings of Paper 1 contribute to the bullying research field by showing that conflict management climate may buffer the impact of stressors on bullying, most likely by preventing interpersonal frustration from escalating into bullying situations.

Paper 2 reports on data from a cross-sectional convenience sample of employees at a European university. The data had a multilevel structure where respondents were nested within departments, enabling us to apply group-level and multilevel analysis. The aim of Paper 2 was to investigate whether department-level perceptions of hostile work climate moderate the relationship between two work-related situational risk factors (role conflict and workload) and exposure to bullying behaviours in the workplace, respectively. The findings showed positive relationships between the presence of role conflict and workload and exposure to bullying behaviours at the individual-level. Further, the findings showed a strengthening effect of department-level hostile work climate on the relationship between role conflict and exposure to bullying behaviours at the individual-level. More specifically, the positive relationship between role conflict and exposure to bullying behaviours was stronger among employees working in departments characterized by a pronounced hostile work climate. In contrast to our predictions, a positive relationship existed between workload and exposure to bullying behaviours, yet only among individuals in departments with low hostile work climate. The findings of Paper 2 contribute to the bullying research field by showing that hostile work climate may strengthen the impact of stressors on bullying behaviours, most likely by posing as an additional distal stressor, which may fuel a bullying process and weaken the social resources available to targets-to-be.

Paper 3 reports on data from a quantitative diary study. The aim of the study was to investigate the possible moderating role of trait anger and trait anxiety in the link between daily interpersonal conflicts and daily exposure to bullying behaviours in the initial phase of a potential escalation. The sample consisted of naval cadets from the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy, who participated in a sea voyage on board a tall ship sailing from Northern Europe to North America. The cadets responded to a general questionnaire prior to the voyage, as well as a daily questionnaire over a period of 30 days. The hierarchical structure of the data enables us to nest the daily measurements within persons, applying multilevel analysis investigating both day-level and person-level predictors. The findings showed that daily interpersonal conflicts predicted next-day interpersonal conflicts and same-day exposure to bullying behaviours. Further, the findings showed that trait anger, but not trait anxiety moderated the relationship between daily interpersonal conflicts in the prediction of next-day interpersonal conflicts as well as same-day exposure to bullying behaviours. The findings of Paper 3 implies that interpersonal conflicts persist and have an immediate effect on exposure to bullying behaviours, and that this is particularly the case for individuals high, versus low, on trait anger.

In conclusion, the findings of this thesis contribute to shed light on several aspects of the initial phases of the complex bullying process and how it is affected by various risk factors at different levels. Interpersonal conflict, role conflict, workload, and cognitive demands are all situational factors experienced at the individual level found to be decisive factors in predicting reports of exposure to workplace bullying. At the same time, the present findings show how both contextual factors and individual factors can influence the role that these situational risk factors potentially play in relation to bullying. The findings from Paper 1 and 2 highlight the importance of contextual factors at the group-level as moderators in the antecedent–bullying relationship, as the organizational climate is found to play a critical role in both accelerating and preventing workplace bullying, at least in relation to some antecedents. The findings from Paper 3 bring about new insight regarding the short-time dynamic in the relationship between interpersonal conflicts and exposure to bullying behaviours, as it is found to exist already within the same day. Further, the findings from Paper 3 also show how individual factors may intervene in the antecedent–bullying relationship, as employee trait-characteristics are found to influence the relationship between interpersonal conflicts and exposure to bullying, here on a daily level. Future research aimed at explaining why workplace bullying occurs is also likely to benefit from implementing multilevel approaches and to simultaneously investigate situational-, contextual-, and individual factors. Obtaining a better understanding of the risk factors, possible protective factors and how these different factors may interact with each other in predicting exposure to workplace bullying, have important implications both for theoretical and applied reasons.