2. bullying occurred in primary and secondary school, but bullies outgrew their deviant
behavior when they entered the workplace. This now seems counterintuitive, knowing
what we do about human behavior. There is an intriguing lack of research focussing on
why victims of bullying might be considered to be powerless or timid (Olweus, 1993),
lacking the skill or support from others to fend off the bully (Arora and Thompson, 1987).
Bullying is the abuse of power, in its most simple definition (Smith and Sharp, 1994).
Bullying is a common and harmful workplace stress (Zapf et al., 1996), and it can be
upward, downward, and lateral – victimizing anyone in the organization. Bullying has
been found to be an evolving process (cf. Barling et al., 1996; Coyne et al., 2000; Einarsen,
1999; Vartia, 1996). Most research in the area of bullying has only addressed the cognitive
and affective reactions of the victims (Einarsen and Mikkelsen, 2003), thus limiting our
understanding of all of the costs at the workplace. Aquino and Bradfield (2000) suggest
bullying to be the darker side of employee behavior and of concern to organizational
researchers because of the loss of productivity that it engenders within an organization
(cf. Barling et al., 1996; Cascio, 1999; Townend, 2008; Traberg, 2006).
How the bullying victim perceives his or her competence is important to examine
in bullying because it determine the reaction of the victim to the behavior (Spencer and
Spencer, 1993). For example, peers or supervisors with less perceived competence may
bully those they believe to be competent, as job loss threat increases (Salin, 2003); when
competent individuals do not view themselves as competent they become victims.
There is evidence that those who are seen as weak and powerless (i.e. incompetent)
are targets (Clegg, 1990). Therefore, competency of the victim becomes an important
issue in examining this dysfunctional behavior.
This paper delineates the relationship between bullying and competency,
developing a framework for understanding the interaction of these two important
workplace variables. Suggestions for future research directions are discussed.
Bullying
Some argue that large organizations are noxious to humans (Leavitt, 2007). However,
bullying does not happen only in large schools or organizations – it is pervasive
throughout the society. Research on bullying in school contexts has been the most
prevalent, with it being called staggering (Sassu et al., 2004), widespread (Hirschstein et al.,
2007), and “the most prevalent form of violence in American schools” (Ross, 2003, p. 43).
Bullies graduate and turn up in the workplace (Magnuson and Norem, 2009), and they can
cost the firm large amounts of time, productivity, and money (Glendinning, 2001).
Bullying has been examined under multiple names. Those in Europe generally refer to
psychological terrorism, harassment, bullying, or mobbing (Einarsen et al., 2003).
Researchers in the USA call it emotional abuse, incivility, harassment, or bullying
(e.g. Ferris, 2004; Namie, 2003; Rayner et al., 2002; Tracy et al., 2006). However, these refer to
the same basic construct, although varying, perhaps, in intensity (cf. Aquino and Lamertz,
2004; Lapierre et al., 2005; Hershcovis, 2011). The explosion of research in the area
of workplace abuse indicates the importance of recognizing the importance of interpersonal
relationships in organizations (Hershcovis, 2011), particularly in the cost to individuals
and firms. Bullying can become an integral part of the workplace through the effect of
socialization or, as Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly (1998) describes it: monkey see, monkey do.
Bullying, therefore, is a deviation from workplace norms that threaten the organization
(Mayer et al., 2012). Such behaviors cause over 1.7 million violent incidents at work each
year (Vossekuil et al., 2002). Bullying has been estimated to cost the UK over two million
pounds 18 million working days lost (CIPD, 2006), while in Australia, it has been estimated
598
JMP
30,5
3. at $6-13 billion per year (Queensland Government, Department of Industrial Relation,
2002). Opportunity costs – such as the erosion of creative energies or withdrawal of OCB
(CIPD, 2006). Awards from EEOC actions in the area of sexual harassment were $100.2
million for in 2011 (www.EEOC.gov/eeoc/statistics). Awards for race-related harassment
were $27.5 million and for retaliation were $147.3 million for 2011 (www.EEOC.gov/eeoc/
statistics). These figures do not include the awards from litigation, but are only the
awards by EEOC. In the USA, it was calculated that over $180 million in production
days per year are lost (Farrell, 2002). Bullying results in increased employee turnover,
increased absenteeism, lost productivity, diminishing morale, legal fees, and payment for
court awarded damages (cf. Barling et al., 1996; Cascio, 1999; Dacin, 1997; Djurkovic et al.,
2008; Glendinning, 2001; Townend, 2008; Traberg, 2006), as well as lower organizational
commitment and/or increased competitiveness (Lim and Teo, 2009) – a few of the costly
organizational consequences. Costs and consequences may even go beyond the individual
bullying victim, as other may be in fear (Barling, 1996; Sandvik et al., 2007; Heames and
Harvey, 2006).
Bullying can be defined simply as abuse of power (Rigby, 2008; Smith and Sharp,
1994). Precise definitions of workplace bullying are lacking (Hershcovis, 2011), but the
consensus is that it is proactive, repetitive, less favorable treatment, or aggression
toward another person (e.g. Berkowitz, 1993; Dodge, 1991; Einarsen et al., 2003; Olweus,
1993; Sutton et al., 1999). For example, rudeness and discourtesy are uncivil behaviors
that display a lack of regard for other (Burnes and Pope, 2007), and are part of a wider
cluster of deviant behaviors within organizational settings. Olweus (1993), considered
by many to be a leading expert on aggression, suggested that bullying is a repeated
process, where victims are harassed by a bully multiple times, although one severe
instance could also be termed bullying. Roscigno et al. (2009) suggested that bullying
can socially isolate the victim and can be more successful with those who already
perceive themselves to be powerless. It can also be a part of power or hierarchy
preservation issues (Roscigno et al., 2009).
Bullying is sometimes considered a form of aggressive behavior, but Olweus (1999a, b)
and Roland (1989) suggested that, although it may overlap with aggression, it should be
viewed as a different form of violence in itself, although often unspecified (Sutton et al.,
1999). Other researchers have found it to be a proactive form of aggression. In other
words, because the victims are generally considered to be less powerful than the bully
(Olweus, 1993), bullying is not seen as a response to direct threats (Berkowitz, 1993;
Dodge, 1991; Olweus, 1993; Sutton et al., 1999). Since aggression is not a natural human
biological response (Kohn, 1988), then it can be seen as learned behavior. Berkowitz (1962)
suggested that seeing aggression often leads to aggressive behavior in the watchers.
Therefore, in organizations allowing or ignoring aggressive behaviors, some of those
viewing the behavior and the lack of negative consequences will perpetuate it. Although
there are several types and taxonomies of bullying, these are not relevant for the purposes
of this paper. Here, the range of bullying behaviors, from incivility and hostility to
aggressive behaviors and mobbing, are considered to be within the scope of bullying.
Meanings are attached to situations by those participating within it, and individual
reactions are based on these meanings (Rentsch, 1990). Interpretations of actions are
a key in definitions of bullying. Hoel et al. (1999) stated that bullying has only occurred
when the victim sees the situation as unjust and hostile, that is, it is the victim’s
perspective that determines whether the actions are aggressive or bullying behaviors.
The common element in all of these is the harm of the victim’s dignity “by humiliating,
intimidating, tormenting, pressuring, or mocking” (Ehrenreich, 1999, pp. 6-7). Of special
599
Competency
as a factor in
workplace
bullying
4. interest are those involved with public administration, who see work as a particular
calling or as potential to “make a difference” (Box, 2008, p. 3). Doing such work while
being violated adds to the emotional strain already inherent in their work. Because
such workplaces are involved in continual change and improvement as part of the job,
bullying may be more likely (Branch et al., 2007). In healthcare research, MacIntosh
et al. (2010) found that workplace bullying can change the meaning of work, making it
more difficult to sustain the need or ability to “make a difference.”
Unnever (2005) suggested three categories: bullies, aggressive victims, and “pure
victims.” His proposition is that some victims turn into bullies in response to being
bullied. They will then seek out victims of their own (Haynie et al., 2001; Leary et al.,
2003). Examples of these behaviors include those involved in school shootings, where
the victims perceived themselves as victims, but then engaged in bullying themselves
by shooting not only the victims, but also “innocent” bystanders (Vossekuil et al., 2002).
Research on reactions to bullying by victims has outlined several different coping
mechanisms (e.g. Hogh et al., 2001; Olafsson et al., 2004; Zapf and Gross, 2001). Olafsson
and Johannsdottir (2004) suggested three behavioral reactions: seeking help, avoiding
the situation or person, and standing up to the bully (assertiveness). Research studies
have demonstrated that the choice of standing up to the bully is used more often, with
seeking formal help to be the second choice (Hoel and Cooper, 2000; Hogh and
Dofradottir, 2001; Zapf and Gross, 2001). However, Djurkovic et al. (2005) reported
avoidance as the most used behavior in their study. Avoidance can include such things
as transferring to another group or using sick leave on a long-term basis (Zapf et al.,
1996), with the final reaction being turnover (Rayner, 1998; Zapf and Gross, 2001). All of
these are significant costs to the individual and the organization. However, research
does not indicate why one choice is preferred or by whom. The reaction to bullying is
suggested to be based on the victim’s perception of his or her own competence.
Competence
The exhibited and perceived competence of the bullying victim becomes a key matter for
examination in this dysfunctional behavior, because it is a precursor to performance
(Spencer and Spencer, 1993). The need for competence is the basis for self-determination
theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000), which has implications for work behaviors, including
motivation and performance (Gagne and Deci, 2005). Discussion of the competence
construct is enriched by the overview by Elliot et al. (2002), who emphasize the need for
competence in their chapter. These authors believe that competence is highly related to
various forms of motivation. Taking these works into account, we can see that the
presence or absence of competence could be a relevant part of the motivation to take
particular types of actions, both positive and negative. However, Sandberg (2000)
contended that competence has not been researched systematically nor has it been in use
frequently in the context of management.
Competency has been studied for over 30 years in two primary streams. The
first stream identified it as a trait, i.e., a motive, trait, skill, definition of social role
or self-image, or a body of knowledge needed to perform the job (cf. Boyatzis, 1982;
Sandberg, 2000). Arnold’s (1976) work involved the measurement of task competence.
Boyatzis (1982) used competency to identify individual characteristics which
distinguished superior performance. Dunphy et al. (1997) suggested that individual
competency includes knowledge, skills, experiences, and capabilities. Woodruffe (1993)
characterized competency as observable behavior related to job performance,
which Cardy and Selvarajan (2006) suggested could include traditional knowledge,
600
JMP
30,5
5. skills, and abilities, or even motivation. Work competency has been described as
the conception of the task at hand, as well as the knowledge, skills, and other
attributes used in accomplishing it (Kraiger et al., 1993; Sandberg, 2000; Spencer and
Spencer, 1993).
The second, more recent stream of research into competency is an interpretative
approach, which considers competence as a state, meaning that it is determined by the
situation the person is in or by the work that a person is expected to perform (Sandberg,
2000). This stream seems more relevant to an examination of competence in relation to
victimization. Sandberg (2000) described competence as the “meaning work takes on
for workers in their experience of it” (p. 9). In other words, the manner in which work is
conceptualized allows the worker to organize specific knowledge and skills into
distinctive performance competence (Sandberg, 2000). This conceptualization, then, is
what makes the worker considered as poor, good, skilled, or expert. Chi et al. (1988)
define an expert as someone who has acquired domain-specific knowledge through
experience and training.
Because competency is perceptual, it depends upon the context that is being
observed because of the different knowledge, ability, and skill requirements (Bassellier
et al., 2003; Marcolin et al., 2000). Therefore, a person who is considered to be an expert
in one context may not be perceived as an expert in another. To be seen as competent,
these skills, knowledge, and abilities need to be expressed in collaborative work
(Wang and Haggerty, 2009), because working with another individual allows him
or her to view the competence – or lack – within the appropriate context. It is possible
that those who demonstrate competence will perform work activities better than those
who do not (Wang and Haggerty, 2011). From this, it is evident that competence could
have a significant effect on other organizational members’ views of an individual,
and the reverse: bullying could affect an individual’s perception of his or her own
competence.
Competency can affect bullying in several different ways. Those with less
job security may bully competent individuals, as the threat of job loss increases
(Salin, 2003); however, competent individuals may not view themselves as competent
and, as a result, become victims. Individuals may target those who threaten
their “superiority” or who make them feel vulnerable (Yamada, 2000), and there is
significant evidence suggesting that targets are those perceived to be weak or
powerless (Clegg, 1990).
A framework of bullying and competence
In examining the various research streams of bullying and competence, we find that
there is little work on the intertwining of the two. However, it is logical that bullying
would impact competence, or vice versa. Notelaers et al. (2010) pursued job characteristics
as antecedents for victimization, finding that role ambiguity and role conflict were the
most important, and these can create an internal feeling of incompetence. Other
characteristics associated with victimization were lack of feedback, lack of skill use, and
lack of participation (Notelaers et al., 2010), all of which could lead to lower perceptions of
competency by victim and/or the bully. Einarsen (1999) suggested that feelings and
perceptions about others may increase the likelihood of bullying. This can be in the form
of disparagement (Menon and Thompson, 2010); someone who is very competent, but
unsure of their abilities may be bullied by someone disparaging their worthwhile
accomplishments. It can also be a response of the incompetent when the competent gets
601
Competency
as a factor in
workplace
bullying
6. praise for good work; the incompetent may blame the competent for their own failures
(Attribution theory: Baron, 1990) and bully them.
In looking at the research in each area, it is possible that self-perceptions
of competency indicate the type of action that a victim will take when bullied. If
the victim has a wide range of possible actions, with the most drastic to the
organization being absenteeism or turnover, the decision about which avenues to take
would be self-determined. This is not to say that positive organizational support and
other externalities are not important, but the most important determinants are internal.
From the research, we view the interaction between bullying and competence as
illustrated in Figure 1. When there are adequate options for the self-perceived
competent victim, then the outcomes are more likely to be positive than when the victim
does not perceive him/herself to be as competent as peers. However, it does not mean
that the sole outcomes chosen will be positive, but only that they are more likely to try
to obtain positive outcomes. Positive outcomes can include use of internal complaint
processes and/or garnering positive organizational support, which helps encourage
management actions against bullying behaviors. In some cases, the victim might even
ignore the bully or the behavior as irrelevant to the workplace or the task at hand.
Negative outcomes include absenteeism, turnover, violence, legal action, illness, and
even suicide. Therefore:
P1. Victims who perceive themselves to be equally or more competent than their
peers are more likely to view incivility, harassment, bullying, and/or mobbing as
inappropriate and take positive steps to remedy the problem, when there are
positive outcomes available.
P2. Victims who perceive themselves to be less competent than their peers are
(a) less likely to view incivility, harassment, bullying, and/or mobbing as
inappropriate and (b) less likely take positive steps to remedy the problem, even
when there are positive outcomes available.
It should also be noted that, in cases where options are limited, then those are the more
likely outcomes:
P3. In cases of bullying where there are limited and negative outcomes available, all
victims are more likely to choose negative outcomes.
Dysfunctional
Interpersonal
Behavior (Bullying)
Target
Interpretation of
Behavior (Bullying)
Outcomes:
Turnover
Absenteeism
Physical Symptoms
Psychological Symptoms
Retaliation
Legal Action
Target’s Perceived
Competence
Figure 1.
A framework of
competency effects
on outcomes
602
JMP
30,5
7. Conclusion
Examining the various types of bullying and its relationship to competency is a new step
toward a more thorough comprehension of the phenomena of poor interpersonal behavior in
the workplace. In this paper, a model is developed to address the victimization of individuals
by bullies from a competence perspective, thus tying together various streams of literature in
an attempt to suggest some reasons for the development of psychologically hazardous
working conditions that are likely to be expensive for the firm. Although incivility,
harassment, hostile workplace environment, bullying, and mobbing have been discussed and
modeled for several years in education, nursing, and management literature (cf. Aquino
and Lamertz, 2004; Zapf and Gross, 2001; Hershcovis, 2011), the tie between competency and
bullying has not been discussed. As previously discussed, it is also possible that there is a
reverse interaction; those who are bullied may be made to feel incompetent. However, this
preliminary exploration of the concept is from the view of performance effects on the victim.
Victim responses can be more positive if the victim has a self-perception of competence,
given adequate positive responses available within the organization. Therefore,
organizations must consider this when dealing with organizational responses to bullying
behaviors, be it incivility, harassment, or bullying/mobbing. The costs of bullying and of
mismanagement associated with a culture of bullying can be calculated (Cascio, 1999), but
are beyond the scope of this paper. If managers can understand the key determinants that
allow bullying to be accepted a cultural norm, they can reduce bullying and, thereby, the
costs associated with it. When managers know what to look for in the work environment
and the consequence of mismanagement, they are more likely to be able to prevent all
forms of incivility, harassment, bullying, and mobbing. It is the prevention that is essential,
if financial resources are to be spent in achieving organizational goals instead of dealing
with poor performance, low productivity, and fighting lawsuits against such misbehavior.
Limitations of our research include the fact that we have teased out one factor that might
cause particular positive or negative behaviors, but not the strength of these ties. Future
research should look at the strength of the ties between bullying and competence, and then to
the recourses that victims consider taking in response to the bullying. It is likely that the links
between self-esteem, self-determination, and bullying might be a related stream of research.
The idea of social performance might be a good avenue to explore as well (cf. Vickers, 2011).
Another stream of research might be the relationship between competency and perceptions
of power (cf. Clegg, 1990; Hodson et al., 2006; Yamada, 2000), which gives rise to some
interesting questions: If an individual believes that their competence gives them expert power,
are they less likely to be a victim? Would such competency increase job security, thereby
reducing their propensity to be victims (cf. Salin, 2003)? On the other hand, might such expert
power make individuals more likely to be bullies toward those who might be perceived as less
competent? What about relational power and social exchange theory – would those with
higher relational power be less likely to be victimized (cf. Hodson et al., 2006; Parzefall and
Salin, 2010)? There is still a great deal to explore in the intersection of harassment
and competency, but we hope that this paper provides the beginning of the journey.
References
Aquino, K. and Bradfield, M. (2000), “Perceived victimization in the workplace: the role of situational
factors and victim characteristics”, Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 525-537.
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. 1023-1034.
603
Competency
as a factor in
workplace
bullying
8. Arnold, H.J. (1976), “Effects of performance feedback and extrinsic reward upon high intrinsic
motivation”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 275-288.
Arora, C.M.J. and Thompson, D.A. (1987), “Defining bullying for a secondary school”, Educational
and Child Psychology, Vol. 4 Nos 3-4, pp. 110-120.
Barling, J. (1996), “The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence”,
in VandenBos, G.R. and Bulatao, E.Q. (Eds), Violence on the Job: Identifying
Risks and Developing Solutions, American Psychological Association, Washington,
DC, pp. 29-49.
Barling, J., Dekker, I., Loughlin, C.A., Kelloway, E.K., Fullagar, C. and Johnson, D. (1996),
“Prediction and replication of the organizational and personal consequences of workplace
sexual harassment”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 4-25.
Baron, R.A. (1990), “Attributions and organizational conflict”, in Graham, S. and Volkes, V. (Eds),
Attribution Theory: Applications to Achievement, Mental Health and Interpersonal Conflict,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 211-230.
Bassellier, G., Benbasat, I. and Reich, B.H. (2003), “The influence of business managers’
IT competence in championing IT”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 317-336.
Berkowitz, L. (1962), Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Berkowitz, L. (1993), Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Box, R.C. (2008), Making a Difference: Progressive Values in Public Administration, M E Sharpe,
Armonk, NY.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance, Wiley, New York, NY.
Branch, S., Ramsay, C. and Barker, M. (2007), “Managers in the firing line: contributing factors to
workplace bullying by staff – an interview study”, Journal of Management and
Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 264-281.
Burnes, B. and Pope, R. (2007), “Negative behaviours in the workplace: a study of two primary
care trusts in the NHS”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 285-303.
Cardy, R.L. and Selvarajan, T.T. (2006), “Competencies: alternative frameworks for competitive
advantage”, Business Horizons, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 235-245.
Cascio, W.F. (1999), Costing Human Resources, Southwestern College Publishing.
Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R. and Farr, M.J. (1988), The Nature of Expertise, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, London.
CIPD (2006), Bullying at Work: Beyond Policies to a Culture of Respect, Charted Institute of
Personnel and Development, London.
Clegg, S. (1990), Modern Organizations, Sage, London.
Coyne, I., Seigne, E. and Randall, P. (2000), “Predicting workplace victim status from personality”,
European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 335-349.
Dacin, M.T. (1997), “Isomorphism in context: the power and prescription of institutional norms”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 46-82.
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D. and Casimir, G. (2005), “The behavioral reactions of victims to
different types of workplace bullying”, International Journal of Organizational Theory and
Behavior, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 439-460.
Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D. and Casimir, G. (2008), “Workplace bullying and intention to leave:
the moderating effect of perceived organizational support”, Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 405-422.
604
JMP
30,5
9. Dodge, K.A. (1991), “The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression”, in
Pepler, D. and Rubin, K. (Eds), The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 201-218.
Dunphy, D., Turner, D. and Crawford, M. (1997), “Organizational learning as the creation of
corporate competencies”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 232-242.
Ehrenreich, R. (1999), “Dignity and discrimination: toward a pluralistic understanding of
workplace harassment”, Georgetown Law Review, Vol. 88, pp. 1-47.
Einarsen, S. (1999), “The nature and causes of bullying at work”, International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 20 Nos 1-2, pp. 16-27.
Einarsen, S. and Mikkelsen, E.G. (2003), “Individual effects of exposure to bullying at work”, in
Einarsen, S.I., 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. 127-144.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C.L. (2003), “The concept of bullying at work:
the European tradition”, 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. 3-30.
Elliot, A.J., McGregor, H.A. and Thrash, T.M. (2002), “The need for competence”, in Deci, E.L. and
Ryan, E.L. (Eds), Handbook of Self-Determination Research, University of Rochester Press,
Rocherster, NY, pp. 361-387.
Farrell, L.U. (2002), “Workplace bullying’s high cost: $180M lost time productivity”, Orlando Business
Journal, March, p. 18, available at: www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2002/03/18/focus1.html
Ferris, P. (2004), “A preliminary typology of organizational response to allegations of workplace
bullying: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”, British Journal of Guidance and
Counseling, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 389-395.
Gagne, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005), “Self-determination theory and work motivation”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 331-362
Glendinning, P. (2001), “Workplace bullying: curing the cancer of the American workplace”,
Public Personnel Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 269-286.
Haynie, D.L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A.D., Saylor, K., Yu, K. and Simons-Morton, B. (2001),
“Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: distinct groups of at-risk youth”, Journal of Early
Adolescence, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Heames, J. and Harvey, M. (2006), “Workplace bullying: a cross level assessment”, Management
Decision, Vol. 44 No. 9, pp. 1214-1230.
Hershcovis, M.S. (2011), “Incivility, social undermining, bullying […] oh my!: a call to reconcile
constructs within workplace aggression research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 499-519.
Hirschstein, M.K., Edstrom, L.V.S., Frey, K.S., Snell, J.L. and Mackenzie, E.P. (2007), “Walking the
talk in bullying prevention: teacher implementation of variables related to initial impact of
the steps to respect program”, School Psychology Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Hodson, R., Roscigno, V.J. and Lopez, S.H. (2006), “Chaos and the abuse of power: workplace bullying
in organizational and interactional context”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 382-416.
Hoel, H. and Cooper, C. (2000), “Destructive conflict and bullying at work”, unpublished report,
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester.
Hoel, H., Rayner, C. and Cooper, C.L. (1999), “Workplace bullying”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T.
(Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 195-230.
605
Competency
as a factor in
workplace
bullying
10. Hogh, A. and Dofradottir, A. (2001), “Coping with bullying in the workplace”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 485-495.
Kohn, A. (1988), “Make love, not war”, Psychology Today, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 34-38.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K. and Salas, E. (1993), “Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective
theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 311-328.
Lapierre, L.M., Spector, P.E. and Leck, J.D. (2005), “Sexual versus nonsexual workplace
aggression and victims’ overall job satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 155-169.
Leary, M.R., Kowalski, R.M., Smith, L. and Phillips, S. (2003), “Teasing, rejection, and
violence: case studies of the school shootings”, Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 202-214.
Leavitt, H. (2007), “Big organizations are unhealthy environments for human beings”, Academy of
Management Learning & Education, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 253-263.
Lim, V.K.G. and Teo, T.S.H. (2009), “Mind your e-manners: impact of cyber incivility on employees
work attitude and behavior”, Information & Management, Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 419-425.
MacIntosh, J., Wuest, J., Gray, M.M. and Cronkhite, M. (2010), “Workplace bullying in health care
affects the meaning of work”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 1128-1141.
Magnuson, S. and Norem, K. (2009), “Bullies grow up and go to work”, Journal of Professional
Counseling: Practice, Theory, and Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 34-51.
Marcolin, B.L., Compeau, D.R., Munro, M.C. and Huff, S.L. (2000), “Assessing user competence:
conceptualization and measurement”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 37-60.
Mayer, D.M., Thau, S., Workman, K.M., Van Dijke, M. and De Cremer, D. (2012), “Leader
mistreatment, employee hostility, and deviant behaviors: integrating self-uncertainty and
thwarted needs perspectives on deviance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 24-48.
Menon, T. and Thompson, L. (2010), “Envy at work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88 No. 4,
pp. 74-79.
Namie, G. (2003), “Workplace bullying: escalated incivility”, Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 68 No. 2,
pp. 1-6.
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.
Olafsson, R. and Johannsdottir, H. (2004), “Coping with bullying in the workplace: the effect of
gender, age, and type of bullying”, British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 319-333.
Olweus, D. (1993), Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do, Blackwell,
Oxford.
Olweus, D. (1999a), “Norway”, in Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R.F.
and Slee, P. (Eds), The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective, Routledge,
New York, NY, pp. 7-27.
Olweus, D. (1999b), “Sweden”, in Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R.F.
and Slee, P. (Eds), The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective, Routledge,
New York, NY, pp. 28-55.
Parzefall, M.-J. and Salin, D.M. (2010), “Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying:
a social exchange perspective”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 761-780.
606
JMP
30,5
11. Queensland Government, Department of Industrial Relations (2002), “Report of the Queensland
Government workplace bullying taskforce: creating safe and fair workplaces. Strategies
to address workplace harassment in Queensland”, Queensland Department of Industrial
Relations, Brisbane.
Rayner, C. (1998), “Workplace bullying: do something!”, Journal of Occupational Health and
Safety: Australia and New Zealand, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 581-585.
Rayner, C., Hoel, H. and Cooper, C.L. (2002), Workplace Bullying: What We Know, Who is to Blame,
and What can We do?, Taylor and Francis, London.
Rentsch, J.R. (1990), “Climate and culture: interaction and qualitative differences in organizational
meanings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 668-681.
Rigby, K. (2008), Children and Bullying: How Parents and Educators Can Reduce Bullying
at School, Blackwell, Malden.
Robinson, S.L. and O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (1998), “Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of work
groups on the antisocial behavior of employees”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41
No. 6, pp. 658-672.
Roland, E. (1989), “A system oriented strategy against bullying”, in Roland, E. and Munthe, E.
(Eds), Bullying: An International Perspective, David Fulton Publishers, London, pp. 143-151.
Roscigno, V., Lopez, S. and Hodson, R. (2009), “Supervisory bullying, status inequalities, and
organizational context”, Social Forces, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 1561-1587.
Ross, D.M. (2003), Childhood Bullying, Teasing, and Violence: What School Personnel, Other
Professionals, and Parents Can Do, 2nd ed., American Counseling Association, Alexandria, VA.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Salin, D. (2003), “Ways of explaining workplace bullying: a review of enabling, motivating, and
precipitating structures and processes in the work environment”, Human Relations,
Vol. 56 No. 10, pp. 1213-1232.
Sandberg, J. (2000), “Understanding human competence at work: an interpretative approach”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 9-25.
Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. and Alberts, J. (2007), “Burned by bullying in the american workplace:
prevalence, perception, degree, and impact”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 837-862.
Sassu, K.A., Bray, M.A. and Kehle, T.J. (2004), “Behavior problems: bullies and victims”,
Brochure, National Association of School Psychologists, Bethesda, MD.
Smith, P.K. and Sharp, D. (Eds) (1994), School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives, Routledge, London.
Spencer, L.M. and Spencer, S.M. (1993), Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Sutton, J., Smith, P.K. and Swettenham, J. (1999), “Social cognition and bullying: social
inadequacy or skilled manipulation?”, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 435-450.
Townend, A. (2008), “How to tackle workplace bullies”, British Journal of Administrative
Management, No. 64, pp. 26-27.
Traberg, Y. (2006), “Bullying in the workplace”, British Journal of Administrative Management,
No. 54, p. 29.
Tracy, S.J., Lutgen-Sandvik, P. and Alberts, J.K. (2006), “Nightmares, demons, and slaves:
exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying”, Management Communications
Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 148-185.
607
Competency
as a factor in
workplace
bullying
12. Unnever, J.D. (2005), “Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims: are they distinct groups?”
Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 153-171.
Vartia, M. (1996), “The sources of bullying – psychological work environment and organizational
climate”, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 203-214.
Vickers, M.H. (2011), “Bullying targets as social performers in the public administration
workplace”, Administrative Theory and Praxis, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 213-234.
Vossekuil, B., Fein, R.A., Reddy, M., Borum, R. and Modzeleski, W. (2002), “The final report and
findings of the safe school initiative: implications for the prevention of school attacks in the
United States”, US Secret Service and the US Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Wang, Y. and Haggerty, N. (2009), “Knowledge transfer in virtual settings: the role of individual
virtual competency”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 571-593.
Wang, Y. and Haggerty, N. (2011), “Individual virtual competence and its influence on work
outcomes”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 299-333.
Woodruffe, C. (1993), “What is meant by a competency?”, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 26-36.
Yamada, D.C. (2000), “The phenomenon of ‘workplace bullying’ and the need for status-blind
hostile work environment protection”, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 88, pp. 1-48.
Zapf, D. and Gross, C. (2001), “Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying:
a replication and extension”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 10 No. 10, pp. 497-522.
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. 5, pp. 215-237.
Further reading
Aquino, K. (2000), “Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: the effects of
hierarchical status and conflict management style”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 171-193.
Leymann, H. (1990), “Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces”, Violence and Targets,
Vol. 5, pp. 119-126.
Leymann, H. (1996), “The content and development of mobbing”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 165-184.
Phillips, J.S. and Lord, R.G. (1980), “Determinants of intrinsic motivation: locus of control and
competence information as components of Deci’s cognitive evaluation theory”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 211-218.
About the authors
Dr Karen Rogers McDaniel is an Assistant Professor of Management in the College of Business at
the Arkansas State University. She earned a BSBA from the Union University, a MBA from the
Union University, and a PhD in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
from the University of Memphis. Her current research interests include dysfunctional behaviors,
work-family conflict, leadership, and office romance.
Florence Ngala earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration and Management and
Marketing from the Daystar University, in her native Kenya. After college, she moved to the USA to
earn her Master’s Degree in Business Administration from the Indiana University-Purdue University,
Fort Wayne. While in Indiana, Florence was employed by the county as a social worker and
volunteered as a consultant for the Fort Wayne Victim’s Assistance Program and Crime Victim Care
of Allen County. Florence currently resides in Los Angeles, where she works in quality assurance at
One Legacy, a Donate Life Organization.
608
JMP
30,5
13. Dr Karen Moustafa Leonard is a Professor of Management at the College of Business at the
University of Arkansas at Little Rock. She earned a BS from the Arkansas State University, a MPhil in
Commerce from the University of Auckland (New Zealand) and a PhD in Management from the
University of Memphis. Dr Leonard was Manager in various organizations for 26 years, including the
Auckland (New Zealand) Area Hospital Board and Tenet Healthcare System (USA). Her current
research interests center on organizational behavior, including dysfunctional behaviors, accountability,
cross-cultural management, and time orientation in organizations. She publishes in national and
international journals and presents her work at national and international conferences. Dr Karen
Moustafa Leonard is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: kxleonard@ualr.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
609
Competency
as a factor in
workplace
bullying
