Content uploaded by Maaja Vadi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maaja Vadi
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Manpower
Emerald Article: Workplace bullying and organizational culture in a
post-transitional country
Merle Tambur, Maaja Vadi
Article information:
To cite this document: Merle Tambur, Maaja Vadi, (2012),"Workplace bullying and organizational culture in a post-transitional
country", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 33 Iss: 7 pp. 754 - 768
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437721211268302
Downloaded on: 09-11-2012
References: This document contains references to 48 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by TARTU UNIVERSITY
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Workplace bullying and
organizational culture in
a post-transitional country
Merle Tambur
School of Economics and Business Administration,
Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia, and
Maaja Vadi
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of the study is to explore how organizational culture influences occurrences
of workplace bullying in Estonia as a post-transitional country. Another objective is to produce
comprehensive empirical evidence of bullying in the specific cultural context.
Design/methodology/approach – The survey is based on the internationally well-known research
instrument, the Negative Acts Questionnaire Revised (NAQ-R) (Mikkelsen and Einarsen) and the
Questionnaire of Organizational Culture (QOC) (Vadi et al.).
Findings – Victims of bullying: 22 percent – at least one negative act per week; 9.3 percent – at least
two negative acts per week; 0.6 percent – by definition (several times per week or daily); 8 percent – by
definition (occasionally). The results reveal a clear negative relationship between bullying and task
and relationship orientation of organizational culture.
Practical implications – The present study indicates clear factors at the organizational level where
the preventive actions are needed to diminish the negative impact of bullying on employee’s well-being
and encourages a discussion and further studies of workplace bullying in post-transitional countries.
Originality/value – In Estonia and in other post-transitional countries workplace bullying has not
yet been studied closely. This study provides a comprehensive approach of workplace bullying related
to organizational culture in a post-transitional country.
Keywords Workplace bullying, Organizational culture, Task orientation, Relationship orientation,
Post-transitional country, Estonia, Organizational behaviour, Bullying
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Well-being and workplace bullying are interrelated because both touch deep personal
feelings, whereby the research of workplace is based on the concept that primarily
associates bullying risk factors with organizational factors (i.e. organizational culture).
Many surveys refer to specific organizational problems related to bullying, including
poor conflict management and work organization (Leymann, 1996), hectic and
competitive organizational environment (Salin, 2003), stressful working environment
and destructive leadership styles (Hauge et al., 2007; Hoel et al., 2010) and bad
communication and organizational climate (Vartia, 1996). However, the question arises
whether organizational culture as a bonding factor has an impact on the prevalence of
workplace bullying in organizations.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7720.htm
International Journal of Manpower
Vol. 33 No. 7, 2012
pp. 754-768
rEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7720
DOI 10.1108/01437721211268302
This research has received funding from the European Community 7th Framework Programme
(FP7/2010-2.2-1) under grant agreement no 266834 (SEARCH) and the Estonian Ministry of
Education and Research (target funding No. SF0180037s08).
754
IJM
33,7
The political decisions made in the last century led to the formation of some
new states which, having been disrupted in Second World War, were resumed again
in the 1990s. The fate of Estonia, one of the Baltic countries, is an example of the
consequences of those political decisions. Estonia, as with other former Soviet states,
has undertaken far-reaching transition reforms at cultural, individual, institutional and
societal levels during the last decades. When we take the radical change in society as
a criterion, distinct development periods in Estonia can be proposed – transitional
(post-Soviet until 2004) and post-transitional (signs: European Union (EU), NATO and
Euro-zone membership). This is used to distinguish the period of post-communist
transition in eastern Europe until the beginning of this century from the latest
developments, when most of the countries in the region became full members of the EU
but are still experiencing the effects of the transition (Tchalakov et al., 2010). The rapid
reconstructions have still the effect on the society inducing uncertainty among
employees which have a negative effect on well-being. In the organizational context,
especially from the perspective of employees’ well-being, we emphasize the following
characteristics in Estonia:
(1) tensions and fear induced by rapid changes and uncertainty;
(2) underdeveloped regulations of work relationships and according everyday
practices;
(3) changes in the organizational life – understanding of goals and relationships;
and
(4) opened and vulnerable economic and social life, greatly influenced by the
global trends.
In this paper we attempt to shed light on one aspect of this transition process – the
impact of developed organizational culture on the appearance of workplace bullying –
because organizational culture mediates and integrates all the aforementioned factors
in organizational life.
If we accept that an organization is in constant interaction with its environment, it
follows that organizations also have to pursue radical changes when the surroundings
quickly alter. Organizational culture is influenced by the general cultural environment as
the organizational members transfer values into the organization from the external
cultural environment, whereas these values can be very different and thus organizational
culture appears to comply with societal culture. Organizational culture is a complex of
several elements, involving unconscious parts of organizational life and it covers all of an
organization’s functions (Schein, 1992). Organizational culture depends on the sector and
sphere of activity as well as on the economic environment in which the organizations
operate. The question arises as to which aspects factually induce workplace bullying if
we take into account the deepest roots of behavior? Here the concept of organizational
culture would be appropriate because it determines values and norms of organization
and by them tacitly but strongly affects the behavior of employees.
Workplace bullying is so far an unexplored topic in post-transitional countries and
its prevalence and causes are unclear. That proceeds partially from the cultural context
which appears also at the organizational level. In Estonia no open discussions of
bullying at work have been raised and managers have not perceived the risk of
negative behavior in their organizations. The actuality of the topic is also related to the
legal background, indicating whether this area needs special regulations. No laws and
755
Workplace
bullying
practices concerning workplace bullying exist which consider the local situation in
many post-transitional countries. Hence, the aim of the study is to find out how the
organizational culture influences the occurrence of workplace bullying in Estonia as
a post-transitional country. Also, an attempt is made to produce comprehensive
empirical evidence of bullying in the specific cultural context of Estonia.
This paper is organized as follows. The theoretical framework presents the nature
and causes of bullying and connections with organizational culture and focusses on
some specific aspects of post-transitional society. The propositions of the present study
are based on the previous investigations covered also in the theoretical framework. The
method section describes the sample and the instrument of the current study.
The findings of the research are presented in detail in the results section, followed by
the analysis in the discussion section.
Theoretical approach
Organizational culture in a post-transitional country
Every organization has its own organizational culture created collectively by its
members that provides guidelines for the organizational members as to how they
should behave. This is a mutual relationship because on the one hand, a certain type of
organizational culture affects the individual’s performance, and on the other hand, how
organizational members actually perform influences the organizational culture.
The definitions of organizational culture vary from a very short description given
by Deal and Kennedy (1982): “It’s the way we do things around here” to more
sophisticated ones, for example, as proposed by Schein (1992). We refer to Schein’s (1992)
understanding that organizational culture is influenced by two major factors – task and
relationship orientation. Harrison (1995) distinguishes between task- and person-oriented
organizational cultures. Task culture emphasizes the superiority of the goals of the
organization over the member’s personal goals. Person-oriented orientation, like Schein’s
relationship orientation, is based on warm and harmonious interpersonal relationships.
These two orientations – task orientation and relation orientation – are the vital aspects of
organizational culture which can influence employee attitudes.
The organizational culture in Estonia could not remain untouched by the rapid
democratization of politics and modernization of the economic system in the Soviet
period and the early 1990s. Organizational cultures of the Soviet period can be
characterized by general tendencies where formal ideology allowed and facilitated
behavior patterns in the organizations. Two tendencies could be outlined in terms of
the studies of work behavior. First, the importance of interpersonal relationships
(comradeship) is always mentioned, and second, the opposition of a material
motive – salary, and the satisfaction with the content of job is also stressed (Loos, 1974;
Donskaja and Lintshevski, 1979; Kitvel, 1983). At the same time, the planned economy
mixed up organizational goals and tasks because it was based on an exaggeration of
results and irrational feedback, where the ideological criteria often dominated
economic aspects. One specific feature can be outlined here – the organizational goals
had to be in accordance with the state’s goals (Lazarev and Gregory, 2002, for example).
The transitional society created several issues and there were forceful pressures on
Estonian companies from the external environment. Reino and Vadi (2012) have
analyzed how organizational values (a constituent part of organizational culture) affect
and are affected by societal changes and highlight that impacts from transitional
processes may intervene in the way in which industry, organizational size and age
determine organizational values.
756
IJM
33,7
The aforementioned issues trigger a focus on task and relationship orientations of
organizational culture in the post-transitional context, because these reflect important
changes in everyday practices.
Workplace bullying
Workplace bullying is defined as “all repeated actions and practices that are directed
to one or more workers, which are unwanted by the victim, which may be done
deliberately or unconsciously, but clearly cause humiliation, offence and distress, and they
may interfere with job performance and/or cause an unpleasant work environment”
(Einarsen and Raknes, 1997). The bullying behavior is not a one-off incident but an
escalating process and, according to Leymann’s (1996) definition, “hostile and unethical
communication that is directed in a systematic way by one or more persons, mainly
towards one targeted individual who, due to bullying, is pushed into a helpless and
defenceless position.”
The necessity to focus on workplace bullying comes above all from the risk to
employee’s health: there are several studies which have verified the high correlation
between workplace bullying activities and psychological well-being and health (Einarsen
and Raknes, 1997; Zapf et al., 1996; Vartia, 2001). The occurrence of bullying in the
workplace almost doubles the risk of being in the group with a high incidence of sickness
(Kivima
¨ki et al., 2000). A decrease in well-being and increasing occurrence of bullying
leads to more frequent sickness absence, which is closely related to a loss of productivity.
The concept of bullying was developed in Scandinavia over 20 years ago to examine
the unethical and aggressive behavior at work. In Scandinavia many studies have
focussed on the activities, antecedents and frequency of bullying (Einarsen et al., 1994;
Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996; Vartia, 1996, 2001). From Scandinavia studies of bullying
spread quickly to other countries and continents, for example, the UK (Rayner, 1997;
Hoel and Cooper, 2000), Austria and Germany (Niedl, 1996; Zapf et al., 1996), USA
(Brodsky, 1976; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007) and Australia (Sheehan and Jordan, 2003).
Workplace bullying has rapidly become an internationally widespread field of study.
However, in the post-transitional countries in Europe, workplace bullying has not been
explored up to now leading to a lack of relative awareness in these countries. Relevant
studies have so far been conducted in Poland (Durniat, 2010) and Estonia (Tambur and
Vadi, 2009, 2011). Our study attempts to highlight the risk of workplace bullying in
post-transitional countries and to contribute to coping with bullying behaviors in these
cultures.
Bullying degree
The prevalence of bullying behaviors varies in different studies and countries
to a great extent because of cultural differences and differences in definitions
and measurement methods (Agervold, 2007). Nevertheless, the findings of the prevalence
of bullying reflect that in some respects the behavior of respondents is quite similar: self-
labeling is much lower than the prevalence of targets based on exposure to negative acts.
For example, a study conducted among business professionals in Finland (Salin, 2001)
reveals that by definition 8.8 percent labeled themselves as victims of bullying, but
measured by negative acts in the negative acts questionnaire (Mikkelsen and Einarsen,
2001), 24.1 percent of the respondents had been subjected to at least one negative act
weekly. From 2,539 Norwegian employees, 2 percent labeled themselves as victims of
bullying and 14.3 percent were classified as targets of bullying with at least one negative
act per week for a duration of at least six months (Nielsen et al., 2008). However, we are
757
Workplace
bullying
unaware of the behavior of respondents from a post-transitional culture where the
awareness of bullying activities is still low and regulations of work relationships do not
sufficiently control workplace bullying. Consequently, we put forward the following
proposition:
P1. The prevalence of bullying by self-labeling is much lower than that measured
by negative acts.
Workplace bullying and organizational culture. The causes of bullying are mostly
divided into two groups: those related to individual or to organizational antecedents.
A person’s aggressive behavior may cause bullying because a miserable or a worried
worker may not meet expectations and may annoy the other workers (Felson and
Tedeschi, 1993). Brodsky (1976) claims that aggressive conduct may be an individual’s
natural disposition but also maintains that organizational factors have their influence
combined with individual factors, and the incidents of bullying take place in the
environment that allows this kind of behavior. Most of the studies support the concept
that the main causes of bullying are related to organizational factors. Leymann (1996)
has found that basic risk factors of bullying lie in an organization’s work environment:
deficiencies in work-design, deficiencies in leadership behavior, the victim’s socially
exposed position and low departmental morale. Different studies associate the reasons
of bullying with poor conflict management (Leymann, 1996), a hostile, stressful and
unethical work environment (Einarsen et al., 1994; Hauge et al., 2007; O’Moore et al.,
2003), bad communication and organizational climate (Vartia, 1996; Zapf et al., 1996)
and tyrannical and laissez-faire leadership behavior (Hauge et al., 2007; Einarsen et al.,
1994; Vartia, 1996; Hoel et al., 2010). Frequently, workplace bullying is a result of fear of
organizational change (Agervold, 2009) which is directly related to the employee’s
welfare. Reorganizations may carry threats to the employee’s position and work
experience, with adverse effects on health and well-being (Voss et al., 2001).
Organizational causes reveal themselves in the organizational culture that involves
the work environment features. The culture of the organization may allow or favor
bullying behaviors and it is a filter through which behaviors are interpreted (Brodsky,
1976; Einarsen and Skogstad, 1996). The power imbalance and leadership style, as part
of the organizational culture, are risk factors for bullying behaviors. Power differences
and the norms of the organizational culture are mentioned as main factors that
influence the occurrence of victimization (Aquino and Lamertz, 2004). Einarsen (2000)
has highlighted that the predatory bullying risk is higher in the masculine culture
where power distance between the superior and the subordinates is larger. The
leadership style is related to the national culture and expresses the autocratic style
which permits aggressive behavior at work (Einarsen, 2005). The behavior of
employees is determined to a great extent by organizational culture, values and norms
of the organization. Therefore, the focus on the organizational culture in our study
enables the deepest roots of the causes of workplace bullying to be disclosed.
The concept of organizational culture can be characterized by two major factors –
the organizational task and relationship orientations, where the former demonstrates
the understanding of goals, freedom of activities and changes in organization and the
latter indicates interpersonal relationships, knowing and helping each other. The
results of bullying studies have affirmed that a poor social climate at work and
autocratic management can induce the emergence of higher incidences of bullying
(Agervold, 2009; Einarsen et al., 1994; Hoel and Cooper, 2000). A poor information
758
IJM
33,7
flow and lack of mutual conversation about tasks and goals of the work unit can
promote bullying (Vartia, 1996). Social support by supervisors is negatively correlated
with negative behaviors, the victims perceive less criticism, verbal threats and being
shouted at less (Zapf et al., 1996). Bullying can also occur due to job insecurity,
receiving insufficient task-related feedback (Hoel et al., 2002; Notelaers et al., 2010).
Therefore, we conclude that the following correlation exists between task and
relationship orientation and workplace bullying:
P2. Bullying is negatively correlated to relationship orientation.
P3. Bullying is negative correlated to task orientation.
Method
Sample
Our survey was conducted from January to October 2010. The total number of valid
questionnaires that were returned was 1,748 from 59 organizations across Estonia,
which represents a total of over 30,000 employees. The sample consisted of 35.4 percent
men and 64.6 percent women. The mean age was 35.97 years, with ages ranging from
18 to 77. Most of the respondents belonged to the age group of 25-37 (37.9 percent),
followed by 38-50 (27.3 percent) and 18-25 (20.9 percent). Types of respondent
organizations were: 61.0 percent – the private sector, 32.8 percent – the public sector
and 6.2 percent – neither of these. The respondent’s current areas of work were divided
as follows: 17.6 percent – retailing, 14.2 percent – energy/power industry, 12.3 percent –
manufacturing and other industries, 10.2 percent – education, 9 percent – information
technology and telecommunication, 8.1 percent – government department and local
authority, 4.2 percent – travel and hotel industry, 3.7 percent – transport, 3.3 percent –
health service and 17.4 percent – others. A total of 76.7 percent respondents were in a
worker position and 14.9 percent in a middle manager position. Of the respondents,
86.2 percent had a full-time employment status and 92.1 percent were not union
representatives in their workplace.
Measures
The negative acts questionnaire revised (NAQ-R; Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2001) was
used to measure workplace bullying. The NAQ-R is a valid and reliable measure of
exposure to workplace bullying which has recently been translated into a number of
languages (Einarsen et al., 2009) and is currently being tested in studies both within and
outside the Anglo-American world (e.g. Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Nielsen et al., 2008).
The NAQ-R is based on studies of literature and accounts given by victims of long-
lasting harassment. The questionnaire consists of two parts. First, the respondents were
asked via 22 items, each written in behavioral terms with no reference to the term
bullying, how often they had been exposed to particular negative behavior in the
workplace during the last six months. Response categories were: never, now and then,
monthly, weekly and daily. Second, the respondents were asked how often they had been
bullied during the previous six months. The response categories were: no, yes but only
rarely, yes, now and then, yes several times per week and yes almost daily. When
answering that question, the respondents were asked to take into account the following
definition of bullying:
A situation where one or several individuals persistently over a period of time
perceived themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or several
759
Workplace
bullying
persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in defending him/
herself against these actions. A one-off incident is not bullying.
Bullying was measured according to the respondent’s own perception and
subjective feeling. Hence, NAQ-R is an eligible scale for measuring direct and indirect
bulling and consists of personal-related bullying, work-related bullying and physical
intimidation actions.
The English version of the NAQ-R questionnaire was translated into Estonian and
Russian, the content and meaning of the questions were not changed. Before the
present research a pilot study was undertaken to test the instrument (Tambur and
Vadi, 2009). The results confirmed that the negative acts presented in the NAQ-R
method are understandable to the respondents and therefore it was reasonable to
continue using the measurement tool in Estonia.
The questionnaire of organizational culture (QOC; Vadi et al., 2002) was used to
measure the organizational culture of task and relationship orientation. The
advantage of this measurement tool consists of broad scales which are conceptually
related to the factor structure of NAQ-R. The questionnaire consisted of 43 items
which comprise subjects related to interpersonal relationships between the members
of the organization; and understanding an organizational task, issues of leadership
and attitudes toward organization. Respondents were asked to indicate their attitude
to the items on a ten-point scale ranging from “completely disagree” (1) to “completely
agree” (10).
Results
Bullying prevalence
The Cronbach’s awas 0.89 for 22 items of the NAQ-R. This confirms the results of the
earlier studies which have shown the high internal stability of the scale, ranging from
0.87 to 0.93 (Einarsen and Hoel, 2001). To test the validity of the NAQ-R, confirmatory
factor analysis was conducted according to the original questionnaire (Einarsen et al.,
2009). The statistical analysis for testing the NAQ was performed with SPSS Statistics
19, Amos. The factor loadings for three sub-factors were calculated – work-related,
person-related and physically intimidating bullying (Table I).
The analysis confirmed that the workplace bullying measure fits with the
data of the survey. The correlation between the NAQ and sub-factors was
significant and confirmed the model (presented in Table II): between work-related
bullying and personal-related bullying, 0.67; between work-related bullying
and physically intimidating bullying, 0.49 and between personal-related
bullying and physically intimidating bullying, 0.69. The means and standard
deviations of the NAQ are indicated in Table II.
P1 declared that the prevalence of bullying by self-labeling is much lower than that
measured by negative acts. First, the prevalence of bullying is evaluated according to
22 negative acts. According to Leymann’s (1996) criteria, at least one negative act per
week with a duration of at least six months was reported by 22.0 percent (n¼385) of
the respondents. Considering the criteria recommended by Mikkelsen and Einarsen
(2001), two negative acts weekly during the last six months were declared by 9.3
percent (n¼163) of the respondents. Second, the self-reported exposure to bullying
was measured. Respondents were given the definition of bullying and asked whether
they had experienced any bullying. Only 0.6 percent (n¼11) of the respondents defined
themselves as victims of bullying that had a frequency of several times per week or
daily and 8 percent (n¼140) of the respondents labeled themselves as occasionally
760
IJM
33,7
bullied. Altogether, 8.6 percent of the respondents had been bullied according to the
definition of workplace bullying in the last six months. Therefore, the prevalence of
bullying measured by negative acts is much higher than the self-labeling as victims
and the first proposition is valid.
Factors Description of items
Factor
loadings
Work-related
bullying
1. Someone withholding information which affects your
performance
0.51
3. Being ordered to do work below your level of competence 0.56
14. Having your opinions and views ignored 0.64
16. Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets
or deadlines 0.53
18. Excessive monitoring of your work 0.47
19. Pressure not to claim something which by right you are
entitled to 0.47
21. Being exposed to an unmanageable workload 0.52
Personal-related
bullying
2. Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work 0.66
4. Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with
more trivial or unpleasant tasks 0.53
5. Spreading of gossip and rumours about you 0.60
6. Being ignored or excluded 0.64
7. Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person 0.62
10. Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job 0.63
11. Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes 0.60
12. Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach 0.66
13. Persistent criticism of your work and effort 0.70
15. Practical jokes carried out by people you do not get on with 0.52
17. Having allegations made against you 0.61
20. Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm 0.57
Physically
intimidating bullying
8. Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger 0.60
9. Intimidating behavior such as finger-pointing, invasion of
personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way 0.63
22. Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse 0.42
Tabl e I.
Factor loadings
of the NAQ
1234567
1. NAQ 0.89
2. Work-related bullying 0.87** 0.72
3. Person-related bullying 0.94** 0.67** 0.87
4. Physically intimidating 0.72** 0.49** 0.69** 0.49
5. QOC 0.36** 0.36** 0.31** 0.24** 0.92
6. Task orientation 0.35** 0.38** 0.29** 0.23** 0.85** 0.80
7. Relationship orientation 0.30** 0.23** 0.25** 0.21** 0.88** 0.69** 0.79
Mean 1.38 1.58 1.31 1.20 6.44 4.69 6.58
Standard deviation 0.37 0.50 0.39 0.35 1.15 1.67 1.48
Notes: Cronbach’s a’s are shown along the diagonal; **correlations are significant at the 0.01 level
Table II.
Cronbach’s a’s,
correlations and
descriptive statistics of the
NAQ and QOC scales
761
Workplace
bullying
The negative acts which most of the respondents experienced at least once a week,
were the following: first, being exposed to an unmanageable workload (7.8 percent);
second, someone withholding information which affects your performance (6.5 percent);
third, excessive monitoring of your work (4.9 percent); and finally, being ordered to do
work below your level of competence (4.2 percent). The 22 acts presented for evaluation
can be divided into three groups (Einarsen et al., 2009): acts related to work or performing
work tasks (seven acts), acts related to the person-related bullying (12 acts) and acts
related to physically intimidating bullying (three acts). It turned out that the four acts that
the largest number of respondents reported to have occurred “daily” and “weekly” all
belong to the first group, i.e. issues concerning work-related bullying. Results of negative
acts in more detail are provided in Appendix.
Relationship between organizational culture and workplace bullying
P2 and P3 declared that bullying is in negative correlation with organizational culture
relationship and task orientation. The reliability of the QOC was very high, Cronbach’s
afor 43 items of the QOC was 0.92 (Table II) and for sub-factors 0.80 (task orientation)
and 0.79 (relationship orientation). The respondents assessed their organization’s
relationship orientation much higher (mean ¼6.58/SD ¼1.48) than task orientation
(mean ¼4.69/SD ¼1.67).
A correlation analysis was used to find out which kind of relationship existing
between workplace bullying and organizational culture. The Pearson correlation
coefficient was used to describe associations between variables. The correlation
analysis indicated clear negative relationships between bullying and organizational
culture (the results are shown in Table II). The scale of the NAQ correlated negatively
with the scale of the QOC (0.36, po0.01). The analysis indicated that the task-
oriented organizational culture and sub-factors of bullying are related negatively to
each other, the correlation coefficients were between 0.23 and 0.38 (Figure 1). The
relationship-oriented organizational culture and sub-factors of bullying are related
negatively to each other, the correlation coefficients remain between 0.21 and 0.30
(Figure 1). The results revealed that there is negative correlation between workplace
bullying and organizational culture and therefore, P2 and P3 are confirmed.
Discussion
The results showed clearly that workplace bullying represents a very serious problem
in the post-transitional country of Estonia and bullying itself is related to
organizational culture. The following discussion can be divided in two parts. First,
the results of this study are discussed in light of the three propositions and the
Bullying (NAQ-R) Organizational culture (QOC)
Work-related
Person-related
Physically
intimidating
Task-oriented
Relationship-
oriented
–0.30
–0.21
–0.25
–0.36
–0.29
–0.38
–0.23
Figure 1.
Relationships between
bullying and
organizational culture
(based on Pearson’s
correlation coefficient)
762
IJM
33,7
previous empirical studies. Second, we interpret results in light of the characteristics of
post-transitional society and present implications arising from this study.
The findings of this study provide significant support for the argument that self-
labeling of workplace bullying was much lower and revealed different results from
negative acts presented indirectly in the questionnaire. The same tendency has
appeared in other countries too (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Salin, 2001). One
explanation could derive from psychology: it was humiliating or offensive for the
respondents to identify themselves as victims of bullying. However, the reason could
be related to insufficient prior information, bullying as a term was unfamiliar to the
respondents, and they tackled the definition of bullying for the first time.
In the study, the approach to organizational culture used was task oriented and
relationship oriented. If we regard the content of the statements that formed the task
orientation of organizational culture (e.g. “people are proud of their organization,”
“positive changes constantly take place,” “people are rewarded for their good work” and
“people’s well-being is important”), then we can explore the extent of devotion to
organizational functions and the organizational aims that are accepted from employees.
Relationship orientation indicates belongingness and coherence (statements such as,
“people know one another,” “all important matters are discussed with each other,” “people
help each other in job-related situations” and “in tough situations there is a strong feeling
of togetherness”). This aspect of organizational culture emphasizes the importance of
interpersonal relations that may alleviate tensions, completing a certain task. Here the
metaphor “social glue,” explicitly expresses the function of interpersonal relationships.
Focus on the organizational culture enables deeper relationships to be revealed between
contextual and individual factors.
The results reveal that workplace bullying is the result of ongoing changes in
the organizational life, creating vagueness and uncertainty. The negative acts that the
largest number of respondents reported to have experienced weekly or frequently
were all related to work or performing work tasks: unmanageable workload, poor flow
of information, excessive monitoring and incorrect tasks. Hence, it is apparent that
workplace bullying in a post-transitional country is due to negative acts and is
connected primarily with organizational factors. It can be understood in the light of
path dependency, according to which the activities and decisions made in the past
influence subsequent behaviors. The socialist system created a specific context
and certain managerial behavior patterns were introduced and reinforced due to the
ideological pressure. The behavior patterns have a long-lasting impact on a role
model in the society and the path dependency may explain actual relationships and
activities. Estonia as a post-transitional country has experienced necessary but rapid
reconstructions during last decades and these reorganizations in society have induced
uncertainty which have negative effect on well-being. Job insecurity impacts negatively
on employee well-being which could be the one main reason for high level of workplace
bullying.
The results reveal a clear negative link between bullying and task- and relationship-
oriented organizational culture. The negative relationship between bullying and
organizational culture indicates that the strong orientation to tasks and relations in
organizational culture will lead to a decreasing risk of bullying. A stronger negative
correlation was found between bullying behavior and task orientation. It could be
alleged intuitively that negative acts are more related to interpersonal relations inside
the organization than attitudes toward organizational tasks, but the results
demonstrate that the task orientation is even more important in Estonia. It can be
763
Workplace
bullying
influenced by the recent economic crisis where the efficiency dimension was very much
emphasized and it outshone the human aspect of work relations in the Estonian
organizations. The recent global crisis has demonstrated the vulnerability of
organizations to external shocks where practices were targeted on quantitative growth.
Therefore, it may happen that bullying is more related to the organizational task than to
the interpersonal relationships. This leads to the idea that supporting the organizational
goals by employees and rewarding good work by employers creates an atmosphere for
a bullying free environment. Simultaneously, the togetherness and open discussions
between employees contribute to the prevention of the occurrence of bullying.
Organizational culture is a very complicated and multilevel phenomenon which holds
valuable tools how to prevent workplace bullying. Our study confirms that both
substantial orientations of organizational culture have significant relationships with
bullying. This is an important issue for understanding bullying in the context of a post-
transitional country where these problems have not yet been addressed.
Practical implications
The results of the study clearly prove the need to prevent and manage workplace
bullying in post-transitional countries. The low self-labeling by definition of bullying
compared to the indirect method support the activities for raising public awareness of
bullying at work, which could help recognize negative acts and preclude them.
Managing workplace bullying is directly related to employee well-being and employers
need: a reduction in bullying brings economic benefit (Kivima
¨ki et al., 2000) through
raising productivity. The duty of employers to ensure employees are treated fairly at
work has benefits for mental health and well-being (Ferrie et al., 2006).
The present study provides evidence of managing bullying by organizational
culture. To eliminate bullying in the workplace the necessity to change
organizational culture will emerge (Cowie et al., 2002). Workplace bullying is the
combination of individual, organizational and contextual factors. Clear factors at
the organizational level are indicated with a need to direct preventive actions against
workplace bullying in post-transitional cultures. In other words, when considering
activities covered by the statements of organizational culture orientations, it would be
possible to reduce bullying significantly. This is a very practical issue because it may
lead to better performance because task and relationship orientations are also related
to organizational performance (Aidla and Vadi, 2008).
As one of the first large-scale studies in a post-transition country, this research has
explored the prevalence of bullying using the internationally acknowledged
measurement tool NAQ-R, which has enabled comparisons with other countries. The
motivation to study workplace bullying in post-transitional countries proceeds from
the fact that this area has been neglected in these countries.
Altogether, the results of the study support the following recommendations to
prevent and manage workplace bullying in Estonia:
.relevant legal acts currently non-existent in many post-transitional countries (i.e.
Estonia) should be prepared;
.a social marketing campaign about the nature of workplace bullying and
preventive activities will help to raise awareness of the issue;
.training for managers is needed for managing bullying by organizational
culture;
764
IJM
33,7
.preventive programs at organizational and national level should be developed;
and
.the present study encourages the discussion and further studies of workplace
bullying in post-transitional countries.
References
Agervold, M. (2007), “Bullying at work: a discussion of definitions and prevalence,
based on an empirical study”, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 161-72.
Agervold, M. (2009), “The significance of organizational factors for the incidence of bullying”,
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 267-76.
Aidla, A. and Vadi, M. (2008), “Relations between attitudes of school administrations
towards school performance criteria and the national examination results in Estonian
schools”, TRAMES: Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 73-94.
Aquino, K. and Lamertz, K. (2004), “Relational model of workplace victimization: social roles
and patterns of victimization in dyadic relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 1023-34.
Brodsky, C.M. (1976), The Harassed Worker, Lexington Books, Toronto.
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Rivers, I., Smith, P.K. and Pereira, B. (2002), “Measuring workplace
bullying”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 33-51.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A. (1982), Corporate Cultures. The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,
Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Donskaja, L.V. and Lintshevski, E.E. (1979), Psihofisiologitsheskie Aspekto
¨Truda Rabotnikov
Cfero
˜Obslusivanija, St Petersburg (in Russian).
Durniat, K. (2010), “Organizational culture’s mechanism of social exclusion in the process of
workplace bullying”, in Panka, E. and Kwiat Kowska, A. (Eds), The 6th European
Conference on Management, Leadership and Gover nance in Wroclaw, Academic
Publishing Limited, Wroclaw, pp. 127-34.
Einarsen, S. (2000), “Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approach”,
Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 379-401.
Einarsen, S. (2005), “The nature, causes and consequences of bullying at work: the Norwegian
experience”, PISTES, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 1-14.
Einarsen, S. and Hoel, H. (2001), “The negative acts questionnaire: development, validation and
revision of a measure of bullying at work”, paper presented at the Tenth European
Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology, Prague, 16-19 May.
Einarsen, S. and Raknes, B.I. (1997), “Harassment at work and the victimization of men”, Victims
and Violence, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 247-63.
Einarsen, S. and Skogstad, A. (1996), “Bullying at work: epidemiological findings in public and
private organizations”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 185-201.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H. and Notelaers, G. (2009), “Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment
at work: validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the negative acts
questionnaire-revised”, Work and Stress, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 24-44.
Einarsen, S., Raknes, B.I. and Matthiesen, S.M. (1994), “Bullying and harassment at work and
their relationships to work environment quality – an exploratory study”, European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 381-401.
765
Workplace
bullying
Felson, R.B. and Tedeschi, J.T. (1993), Aggression and Violence: Social Interactionist Perspectives,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Ferrie, J.E., Head, J., Shipley, M.J., Vahtera, J., Marmot, M.G. and Kivima
¨ki, M. (2006), “Injustice at
work and incidence of psychiatric morbidity: the Whitehall II study”, Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 443-50.
Harrison, R. (1995), The Collected Papers of Roger Harrison, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San
Francisco, CA.
Hauge, L.J., Skogstad, A. and Einarsen, S. (2007), “Relationships between stressful work
environments and bullying: results of a large representative study”, Work & Stress, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 220-42.
Hoel, H. and Cooper, C.L. (2000), Destructive Conflict and Bullying at Work, University of
Manchester Institute Science and Technology (UMIST), Manchester.
Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (2002), “Workplace bullying and stress”, in Perrewe
´,P.and
Ganster, D. (Eds), Historical and Current Perspectives on Stress and Health, JAI Press,
London, pp. 293-333.
Hoel, H., Glasø, 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.
Kitvel, T. (1983), Psu
¨hholoogia ja To
¨o
¨ssesuhtumine, Valgus, Tallinn (in Estonian).
Kivima
¨ki, M., Elovainio, M. and Vahtera, J. (2000), “Workplace bullying and sickness absence in
hospital staff”, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 57 No. 10, pp. 656-60.
Lazarev, V. and Gregory, P.R. (2002), “The wheels of a command economy: allocating soviet
vehicles”, The Economic History Review, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 324-48.
Leymann, H. (1996), “The content and development of mobbing at work”, Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 165-84.
Loos, V.G. (1974), Promo
˜shlennaja psihologia, Progress, Kiev (in Russian).
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.
Mikkelsen, E.G. and Einarsen, S. (2001), “Bullying in Danish work-life: prevalence and health
correlates”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 393-413.
Niedl, K. (1996), “Mobbing and well-being: economic and personnel development implications”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 239-49.
Nielsen, M.B., Skogstad, A., Matthiesen, S.B., Glasø, L., Aasland, M.S., Notelaers, G. and
Einarsen, S. (2008), “Prevalence of workplace bullying in Norway: comparisons across
time and estimation methods”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 81-101.
Notelaers, G., De Witte, H. and Einarsen, S. (2010), “A job characteristics approach to explain
workplace bullying”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 487-504.
O’Moore, M., Lynch, J. and Dae
´id, N. (2003), “The rates and relative risks of workplace bullying in
Ireland, a country of high economic growth”, International Journal of Management and
Decision Making, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 82-95.
Rayner, C. (1997), “The incidence of workplace bullying”, Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 199-208.
Reino, A. and Vadi, M. (2012), “Industry, organizational age and size as predictors of
organizational values in the context of a transition society: the case of Estonian
organizations”, Journal of East-West Business, forthcoming, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 28-53.
766
IJM
33,7
Salin, D. (2001), “Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a comparison
of two different strategies for measuring bullying”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 425-41.
Salin, D. (2003), “Bullying and organisational politics in competitive and rapidly changing work
environments”, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 35-46.
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass Publishers,
San Francisco, CA.
Sheehan, M.J. and Jordan, P.J. (2003), “Bullying, emotions and the learning organisation”, 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.
Tambur, M. and Vadi, M. (2009), “Bullying at work: research in Estonia using the negative
acts questionnaire revised (NAQ-R)”, Review of International Comparative Management,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 791-805.
Tambur, M. and Vadi, M. (2011), “Bullying at work: do industries differ in the Estonian case?”,
Discussions on Estonian Economic Policy, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 190-205.
Tchalakov, I., Mitev, T. and Petrov, V. (2010), “The academic spin-offs as an engine of
economic transition in Eastern Europe: a path-dependent approach”, Minerva, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 189-217.
Vadi, M., Allik, J. and Realo, A. (2002), “Collectivism and its consequences for organizational
culture”, Working Paper Series No. 12, University of Tartu, Faculty of Economics and
Business Administration, Tartu.
Vartia, M. (1996), “The sources of bullying – psychological work environment and organizational
climate”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 203-14.
Vartia, M. (2001), “Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its
targets and the observers of bullying”, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and
Health, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 63-9.
Voss, M., Floderus, B. and Diderichsen, F. (2001), “Physical, psychosocial, and organisational
factors relative to sickness absence: a study based on Sweden post”, Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 178-84.
Zapf, D., Knorz, C. and Kulla, M. (1996), “On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job
content, social work environment, and health outcomes”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 215-37.
767
Workplace
bullying
Appendix
About the authors
Merle Tambur, born 1974, is Lecturer of Organizational Behavior at Tallinn University of Technology
in Estonia, School of Economics and Business Administration and is a post-graduate at the
University of Tartu. Research interests include workplace bullying and organizational culture. Merle
Tambur is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: merle.tambur@tseba.ttu.ee
Maaja Vadi, born 1955, is Professor and Dean of Faculty of Economics and Business
Administration at University of Tartu in Estonia. Her main areas of research are related to
organizational behavior and organization. She is the author of several books and articles and has
worked as a Visiting Professor in Sweden, Japan, France, and Iceland. She has also delivered
management consultancy in various countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, and Finland).
Never
Now and
then Monthly Weekly Daily
How often have you been subjected to the following negative
acts at work during the six month? % % % % %
1. Someone withholding infor mation which affects your
performance 44.0 41.8 7.7 3.8 2.7
2. Being humiliated o r ridiculed in connection with your work 80.2 16.7 1.7 1.1 0.3
3. Being ordered to do work below your level of competence 56.8 33.6 5.3 2.3 1.9
4. Having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with
more trivial or unpleasant tasks 67.3 26.4 4.2 1.6 0.5
5. Spreading of gossip and rumours about you 69.4 25.7 2.5 1.3 1.1
6. Being ignored or excluded 69.6 26.2 2.7 1.1 0.4
7. Having insulting or offensive remarks made about your person
(i.e. habits and background), your attitudes or your private life 78.6 18.1 2.1 0.8 0.4
8. Being shouted at or being the target of spontaneous anger
(or rage) 64.2 30.1 3.3 1.8 0.6
9. Intimidating behavior such as finger-pointing, invasion of
personal space, shoving, blocking/barring the way 90.7 7.6 1.1 0.3 0.3
10. Hints or signals from others that you should quit your job 87.7 10.5 1.1 0.2 0.4
11. Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes 61.0 32.8 4.3 1.3 0.6
12. Being ignored or facing a hostile reaction when you approach 69.6 25.6 3.0 1.3 0.6
13. Persistent criticism of your work and effort 71.0 24.5 2.6 1.3 0.6
14. Having your opinions and views ignored 47.4 44.7 5.8 1.2 0.9
15. Practical jokes carried out by people you do not get on with 84.2 13.1 2.0 0.5 0.2
16. Being given tasks with unreasonable or impossible targets or
deadlines 60.6 32.4 4.5 1.6 0.9
17. Having allegations made against you 80.0 17.4 1.7 0.7 0.2
18. Excessive monitoring of your work 59.1 30.9 5.0 1.8 3.1
19. Pressure not to claim something which by right you are entitled
to (e.g. sick leave, holiday entitlement, travel expenses) 83.0 14.5 1.7 0.4 0.4
20. Being the subject of excessive teasing and sarcasm 77.5 19.5 1.8 0.7 0.5
21. Being exposed to an unmanageable workload 47.9 38.0 6.4 4.1 3.7
22. Threats of violence or physical abuse or actual abuse 97.3 2.0 0.6 0 0.2
23. Have you been bullied at work? 91.4 6.9 1.1 0.3 0.3
Note: n¼1,748
Table AI.
Percentage of endorsed
items on the NAQ-R by
respondents
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
768
IJM
33,7
