NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

The Impact of Bullying on Observers and Targets

Helena Cooper-Thomas, School of Psychology, The University of Auckland

h.cooper-thomas@auckland.ac.nz

Tim Bentley, New Zealand Work Research Institute, AUT University

Bevan Catley, School of Management, Massey University, Albany

Dianne Gardner, School of Psychology, Massey University, Albany

Michael O’Driscoll, School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton

Linda Trenberth, Business School, Griffith University, Australia

Abstract: Workplace bullying is known to be a psychosocial stressor for targets. Meanwhile, the effects

of bullying on observers have received scant attention. This study investigated whether greater exposure

to bullying, through observation as well as direct experience, was associated with a poorer work

environment, and poorer individual wellbeing and work attitudes. Data were collected from 1733

employees, with 586 of these identified as suitable for further analyses. From the total, 13% (225) had

neither experienced nor ever observed bullying, 3% (53) were categorized as observers, 13% (228) were

identified as targets, and 5% (80) as both observers and targets. Planned statistical data contrasts across

the four groups showed that non-bullied employees had the most positive perceptions of the work

environment followed by observers, then targets, and finally those who had been both observers and

targets. Broadly similar results were found for individual wellbeing and work attitudes. These results

support the negative impact of observing bullying, with greatest impact for those who are both observers

and targets.

Keywords: workplace bullying, witness, observer, stress, wellbeing.

INTRODUCTION

Workplace bullying is the experience of aggressive and negative behaviours towards one or more

employees that results in a hostile work environment (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, & Cooper, 2011;

O'Moore, Seigne, McGuire, & Smith, 1998). Negative behaviours may involve open verbal or

physical attacks, or may be covert and discreet, such as failing to pass on information or spreading

rumours (Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994). It is the negative, unwanted and enduring nature

of the behaviour that forms the essence of bullying, alongside power disparities (including formal

and non-formal sources of power) between perpetrator and target (Einarsen, 2000; Einarsen et al.,

2011).

A common operationalisation of workplace bullying used in prevalence studies is reported

exposure to negative behaviour that occurs regularly (at least weekly) and persistently (continuing

for at least 6 months) (Einarsen et al., 2011). Studies of bullying at work have reported prevalence

levels ranging from 5% (Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001), to 18% (O’Driscoll et al., 2011), to levels

as high as 28% (Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, & Alberts, 2007). Hence, across international studies

there is considerable variation in levels of reported exposure to bullying behaviours at work.

Prevalence rates for observing bullying at work also vary widely. In research involving Norwegian

employees, 13% of respondents self-identified as observers of bullying, nearly 3% were classified

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 82

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

as targets, and 7% were classified as both observers and targets (Einarsen et al., 1994). Vartia

(2001) reported that 9% of Finnish respondents had observed bullying, and Hoel, Cooper, and

Faragher (2001) found 46.5% of British respondents had been observers. Even acknowledging that

these proportions may be high due to self-selection, the figures suggest that a significant portion of

the workforce has observed workplace bullying.

In spite of this, there has been little research on the impact and role of observers in the workplace

bullying literature. Instead, the workplace bullying literature largely focuses on targets, bullies,

and organisations: investigating the work environment and work-relevant outcomes to understand

what is distinctive about bullying, as well as its broader nomological network. This is in stark

contrast to the school bullying literature where bystanders are acknowledged to be an important

part of bullying events and outcomes (Rayner & Bowes-Sperry, 2008). Indeed observers can play

an important role in preventing or halting bullying in school settings (Rayner & Bowes-Sperry,

2008). This suggests that observing bullying is an important, yet heretofore relatively neglected,

aspect of workplace bullying. While there is some useful recent workplace research on observers

of bullying, it largely aims to understand and theorise possible impacts (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2011;

Parzefall & Salin, 2010; Samnani, 2013). As Hoel, Sheehan, Cooper, and Einarsen, (2011) noted,

“although it is assumed that witnessing or observing bullying would have a negative effect on

third parties, evidence that such is the case is relatively scarce” (p. 136). Given that workplace

bullying is a dynamic process, it has the potential for “ripple effects” that reach out beyond the

immediate protagonists to negatively impact other employees (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007).

Following Einarsen et al.’s (1994) approach, we compared data from observers, targets, and those

who have been both observers and targets with data from employees who have not reported

experiencing or observing bullying at work. Our study therefore provides important potential

evidence of such a ripple effect, investigating the impact of observing workplace bullying.

Observing Workplace Bullying

A number of terms have been used to describe the observation of bullying and other negative acts,

including observers, witnesses, bystanders, onlookers, co-victims and indirect victims (Janson &

Hazler, 2004; Porath & Erez, 2009). Witnessing negative behavioural actions at work between

organisational members can lead to increased negative emotions, which may be due to concern for

oneself, for the well-being of others, and due to empathy (Porath & Erez, 2009). In terms of

actions, bystanders may avoid the situation, offer support, try to stop the bullying, or even support

the bully, depending on their perceptions of power, exchange relationships, their own safety, and

future outcomes (Parzefall & Salin, 2010; Rayner & Bowes-Sperry, 2008; Samnani, 2013;

Twemlow, Fonagy, & Sacco, 2004). There is also evidence that bullying is sometimes not

identified as such until later, either by observers or targets (D’Cruz & Noronha, 2011).

In studies examining the role of the psychosocial work environment, targets and observers of

bullying assessed their work environment more negatively than their non-involved colleagues

(e.g., Hauge, Skogstad, and Einarsen, 2007). Einarsen et al. (1994) investigated four factors: Work

control, social climate, role conflict and leadership and compared those who were neither targets

nor observers (“non-bullied”), to observers, targets, and those who had been both targets and

observers. The authors reported that employees with more exposure to bullying – in the order of

the four groups outlined above – reported the worst work environment. Similarly, Skogstad,

Torsheim, Einsarsen, and Hauge (2011) found that work groups with higher levels of bullying also

had a poorer psychosocial work group environment, comprised of unfair leader behaviour, high

role conflict, high role ambiguity, and a conflictual and unco-operative social climate.

Perceptions of leader behaviour and a cohesive work climate are key elements of the work

environment, yet there has been little research into how perceptions of these work factors differ in

relation to experiences of bullying. Laissez-faire leadership, in which leaders are absent or avoid

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 83

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

showing leadership, is a risk factor for bullying (Bass, 1990). Laissez-faire leaders may

overlook or ignore issues that should be dealt with, their lack of interest may be

experienced by others as a negative act, and interpersonal tensions can be left unresolved which

may escalate into bullying (Einarsen, 1999; Leymann, 1996). Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim,

Aasland, and Hetland (2007) found that those who reported laissez-faire leadership were more

likely to report experiencing bullying. Likewise, we anticipated that more bullying would be

experienced and observed in relation to higher levels of laissez-faire leadership.

Unlike laissez-faire leadership, constructive leadership focuses on achieving necessary change

with a focus on tasks and employees (Ekvall & Arvonen, 1991; Skogstad et al., 2007).

Constructive leadership is associated with lower levels of workplace stressors such as role

ambiguity and role conflict (Zaccaro & Dobbins, 1989). Previous research has either included

constructive leadership as a control variable (Skogstad et al., 2007) with a moderate negative

relationships with bullying; or has investigated related constructs such as transformational

leadership, authentic leadership and participative leadership which are also moderately negatively

related to bullying (Nielsen, 2013; Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen, 2010).

The third element we examined is cohesive social climate, which is the extent to which employees

perceive that they have a good atmosphere, co-operation and sense of community at work

(Kristensen & Borg, 2003). Bullying is often associated with social environments characterised by

chaos, interpersonal conflict and competition between employees (Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004;

Hauge et al., 2007; Roscigno, Lopez, & Hodson, 2009). While leaders influence local cultural

norms, such norms are reinforced via interactions and reproduced in the socialisation of new

members (Hoel, Giga, & Davidson, 2007). There is ample evidence that stressed workers are more

aggressive to others (Einarsen, 2000) and that a negative social climate is associated with more

bullying.

It is worth emphasising that other research has shown that these psychosocial elements differ

between bullied and non-bullied employees (Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004; Bentley et al., 2012;

Vartia, 1996). This paper examines how increased exposure to bullying, including observers, is

related to these psychosocial aspects of work (Einarsen et al., 1994), akin to the dose-response

relationship found in medicine, biology, and associated fields where higher exposure to an agent

(chemical or behavioural) is associated with a more potent effect, in this case greater harm

(Altshuler, 1981; Chen et al., 2010). Based on this prior research and using Einarsen et al.’s (1994)

classification, we propose:

Hypothesis 1: Successively greater exposure to bullying (none < observer < target <

observer and target) will be associated with poorer perceptions of the work environment in

terms of a) laissez-faire leadership, b) constructive leadership, and c) cohesive social

climate.

Consequences of bullying for individuals and organisations

The consequences of bullying are severe for individuals and organisations. Targets experience

lower self-esteem, more negative emotion, anxiety, stress, fatigue, burnout, depression, post-

traumatic stress disorder, and changes in daily cortisol levels compared with non-targets (see for

example, Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004; Djurkovic, McCormack & Casimir, 2006; Einarsen,

Matthiesen & Skogstad, 1998; Kudielka & Kern, 2004; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2001; Vartia,

2001). Moreover, bullying has been associated with suicidal ideation, absenteeism and

presenteeism, and early retirement (Hogh, Mikkelsen, & Hansen, 2011; Moayed, Daraiseh, Shell,

& Salem, 2006). Bullying can have enduring impact, with those who have past experiences of

bullying within the previous 5 years having worse self-reported health than those who have never

been bullied (Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, 2004; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002).

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 84

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

Although there is less research on the consequences of observing bullying, similar trends are

evident for observers as for targets, with observers reporting health and work satisfaction at a level

between that of targets and non-bullied employees. More specifically, observers have poorer

physical and mental health (Hoel et al., 2004; Niedhammer et al., 2009), report more stress

(Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007; Vartia, 2001), as well as lower satisfaction with work and a more

negative experience of work (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007) than those who have not been exposed

to bullying. These findings challenge narrow conceptualisations of bullying as a purely

interpersonal problem affecting only those directly involved, instead indicating a “ripple effect”

that reaches out to potentially poison the broader workplace (Fevre, Lewis, Robinson, & Jones,

2012).

Past research has included a range of outcomes. We confirm and extend these to focus on

outcomes that reveal whether bullying has a negative impact on individual wellbeing, including

psychological wellbeing and strain, and also on outcomes that affect both the individual employee

and the organization, namely affective commitment, performance, and turnover intention. Based

on past findings, we hypothesise:

Hypothesis 2: Greater exposure to bullying will be associated with successively poorer

experiences of work (none < observer < target < observer and target) in terms of a) wellbeing, b)

strain, c) affective commitment, d) performance, and e) turnover intention.

In summary, prior research suggests that the ripple effect does exist, and is associated with a

poorer work environment for observers and worse outcomes. However, no study has followed up

on Einarsen et al.’s (1994) four categories of successively greater exposure (non-involved,

observer only, target only, observer and target) to confirm whether the effect of both witnessing

and experiencing bullying is associated with a worse work environment. Moreover, only one study

(Niedhammer et al., 2009) has investigated whether being both a target and an observer has more

severe consequences than bullying alone, with that study confirming an effect for sleep

disturbance.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 1733 employees from 36 organisations across four service-based industries:

Health, education, hospitality, and travel. Previous research has indicated that these sectors are

likely to have employees who have either observed or experienced bullying (see Zapf et al., 2011,

for an overview).

Of the total sample of 1733, we identified 586 employees comprising the four groups of non-

bullied (225, 13%,), observer (53, 3%), target (228, 13%), observer and target (80, 5%); see below

for more detail on how the groups were derived). Of these 586 employees, 76% percent (447)

indicated their gender as female and the mean age was 43 years. Respondents had an average of 7

years in their current job.

Procedure

Participants completed a computer-based survey, either online or on a laptop. Laptops were set up

in a central location at each organisation, with each laptop screened for privacy.

Measures

Frequency or Likert-type scales were used for all items, and included a “no opinion” or equivalent

option which was coded as missing data where applicable.

Bullying and observing bullying. Bullying was measured with the 22-item revised version of the

Negative Acts Questionnaire (NAQ-R) constructed by Einarsen and his associates (Einarsen, Hoel,

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 85

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

& Notelaers, 2009; Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007). This measure lists 22 negative

behaviours that may be displayed toward a person by another individual in their work

environment, with the respondent asked to indicate how often they had experienced each of these

behaviours over the previous 6 months. Responses can range from 0 (never) to 4 (daily).

Following previous researchers (Hauge et al., 2007; Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007), the criterion for

defining bullying was experiencing at least two of the negative behaviours at least weekly over the

past six months. To assess observing bullying, we presented a definition of bullying and asked a

single question on the frequency with which employees had observed other people being bullied at

their workplace over the past six months. The scale ranged from 0 (no bullying observed) through

to 4 (yes, almost daily; α = 94).

Leadership. Laissez-faire leadership was measured with eight items from the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1990; e.g., “fails to interfere until problems become

serious”). Constructive leadership was measured with six items from Ekvall and Arvonen’s (1991)

measure of change-oriented leadership (e.g., “is flexible and ready to rethink his/ her point of

view”). For both scales, respondents rated their immediate manager on a 6-point scale from 1 (not

at all) to 6 (always) (laissez faire leadership α = .96; constructive leadership α = .93).

Cohesive social climate. We used three items from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire

(Kristensen & Borg , 2003; Kristensen, Hannerz, Hogh, & Borg, 2005) to measure social climate

(e.g., is there a good atmosphere between you and your work colleagues?) Ratings were on a five

point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always) (α = .88).

Wellbeing. Participants rated their wellbeing on Warr’s (1990) adjective checklist. This comprises

15 adjectives, such as “tense”, “uneasy”, “enthusiastic”, and “optimistic”. Ratings were for

experiences in the job over the previous six months, ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (all the time).

Negatively-worded adjectives were re-coded so that a high score indicated greater well-being (α =

.97).

Psychological strain. We used the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12)

to measure strain (Goldberg, 1972). Respondents indicated how often they had experienced each

of twelve psychosocial symptoms in the previous 6 months (e.g., “lost much sleep over worry?”),

on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (much more than usual). We recoded positively worded

items such that a higher score indicated more strain (α = .91).

Affective commitment. This was measured with six items from Meyer and Allen’s (1997) scale.

Example items are “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own”, and “This

organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me”. Ratings were on a 7-point Likert scale

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (α = .84).

Performance. We used three items to assess individuals’ perceptions of their own job performance

compared to others (Kessler et al., 2003). An example item is “How would you rate your own

usual job performance over the past 6 months?” Ratings were on a 10-point scale, from 1 (the

worst performance anyone could have at your job) to 10 (the performance of a top worker) (α =

.74).

Turnover intention. We measured turnover intention with three items from O’Driscoll and Beehr’s

scale (1994). An example item is “Thoughts about quitting this job cross my mind”. Ratings were

on a 6-point scale from 1 (never) to 6 (all the time) (α = .92).

Data analysis

For all items, “no opinion,” “not applicable,” and “do not know” responses were re-coded as

missing data. Following this, a mean average score was computed for each scale. To produce our

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 86

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

four groups for analysis, we used the bullying criterion as applying to respondents who had

experienced at least two negative acts (NAQ-R) towards them each week for the last six months.

Similarly, the criterion for observing bullying was that the participant had observed bullying

either several times per week or almost daily over the last six months. The largest proportion of

our sample were those who had neither observed nor been targets of bullying at a high rate. In

order to obtain a smaller sample of this last category for analysis that would be more comparable

in size to the other groups, we selected only those who had not experienced or observed any

bullying (i.e.,omitting from further analysis those who had experienced low levels of negative

acts).

RESULTS

Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics and correlations. Note that the four groups are not

evenly represented in this data. Observing and experiencing bullying are strongly correlated (r =

.49); these two bullying variables show similar relationships with the other variables investigated,

although experiencing bullying shows consistently stronger relationships. This suggests a stronger

impact of bullying relative to observing bullying. However in both cases the correlations show

that bullying has negative associations with the work environment and individual wellbeing and

attitudes.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of study variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Laissez-faire

leadership

1.65 1.54

2 Constructive

leadership

2.65 1.53 -.67**

3 Cohesive

work climate

4.00 .94 -.51** .50**

4 Wellbeing 3.76 1.19 -.65** .61** .62**

5 Strain 1.41 .67 .60** -.55** -.55** -.83**

6 Affective

commitment

4.29 1.62 -.44** .45** .51** .57** -.48**

7 Turnover

intention

7.66 1.38 -.25** .25** .32** .40** -.37** .22**

8 Performance 3.22 1.79 .54** -.53** -.49** -.72** .62** -.60** -.32**

9 Experiencing

bullying

1.73 .82 .59** -.53** -.52** -.72** .68** -.44** .60** -.35**

10 Observing

bullying

2.28 1.39 .41** -.37** -.36** -.45** .38** -.32** .40** -.16** .49**

11 Age 42.92 12.44 .11** -.02 .03 .04 .05 .05 -.14** .11** -.03 .03

12 Gender 1.24 .43 .00 -.05 -.03 -.02 .00 .01 .03 -.06 -.01 -.10* -.02

Note. n = 586; gender is coded 1 = female, 2 = male; * p < .05, ** p < .01.

The Levene’s statistic was significant for every ANOVA, indicating heterogeneity of variances for

each variable across the four groups. Hence we used robust Welch and Brown-Forsythe F statistics,

which showed each ANOVA to be significant. We investigated the differences between groups

using three planned contrasts for each variable. The first comparison was for those neither

observing nor experiencing bullying against the other three groups. The second comparison was

those observing but not experiencing bullying against the two groups of those experiencing

bullying, and those both experiencing and observing bullying. The third comparison was those

experiencing bullying and those both experiencing and observing bullying. The results are shown

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 87

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and comparisons of study variables across the four employee groups.

Non-bullied

Observer

Target

Observer &

Target

Total

Welch F

(df)

Brown-

Forsythe F

Significant

differences ________________________________ ________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _____________________________________

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD (df)

100.66(3,

165.51)

79.648 (3,

285.28)

Laissez-faire

leadership

0.53 0.78 1.73 1.50 2.26 1.43 2.95 1.48 1.65 1.54 132.26

(3, 156.44)

89.23

(3, 231.35)

N < O < T < O&T

Constructive

leadership

3.75 1.22 2.49 1.38 1.97 1.25 1.63 1.27 2.65 1.53 98.47

(3, 171.07)

91.25

(3, 278.17)

N > O > T > O&T

Cohesive work

climate

4.65 0.57 3.81 0.74 3.58 0.91 3.48 0.96 4.00 0.94 100.66

(3, 165.51)

79.648

(3, 285.28)

N > O > T, O&T

Wellbeing 4.83 0.59 3.82 1.05 3.08 0.84 2.65 0.88 3.76 1.19 295.97

(3, 160.97)

197.98

(3, 206.47)

N > O > T > O&T

Strain 0.86 0.39 1.34 0.51 1.78 0.55 1.95 0.58 1.41 0.67 181.14

(3, 166.53)

151.25

(3, 278.18)

N < O < T < O&T

Affective

commitment

5.30 1.27 4.15 1.74 3.62 1.42 3.45 1.48 4.29 1.62 71.59

(3, 166.63)

56.76

(3, 233.70)

N > O > T, O&T

Performance 8.26 1.13 7.75 1.22 7.19 1.41 7.29 1.41 7.66 1.38 29.04

(3, 168.16)

27.39

(3, 306.05)

N > O > T, O&T

Turnover

intention

1.81 1.11 3.39 1.64 4.12 1.50 4.47 1.56 3.22 1.79 148.55

(3, 164.41)

112.45

(3, 245.77)

N < O < T, O&T

Note. All F statistics are significant at p < .001. M = Mean, SD = standard deviation, N is not-bullied, O is observer, T is target, O&T is observer and target.

In the significant comparisons column, “>” and “<” indicate a significant difference at p < .05.

The Impact of Bullying on

Observers and Targets

Page | 88

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

in Table 2 (the planned contrasts are available from the first author).

Hypothesis 1 (a-c) proposed that greater exposure to bullying (none, observer, target, observer

and target) would be associated with successively poorer perceptions of the work environment

in terms of laissez-faire leadership, constructive leadership and cohesive social climate

respectively. The results are generally supportive, with the significant comparisons showing that

with increased exposure to bullying, individuals reported higher levels of laissez-faire

leadership, lower levels of constructive leadership, and poorer social cohesion. Significant

differences were found between

the four groups for all variables, with the exception of cohesive work climate, for which there

were no differences in the perceptions of those who were targets and those who were both targets.

Hypothesis 2 (a-e) proposed that increased exposure to bullying (none, observer, target, observer

and target) would be associated with successively poorer outcomes in terms of wellbeing, strain,

affective commitment, performance and turnover intention. The planned contrasts generally

support this, with higher exposure to bullying associated with lower wellbeing, higher strain,

lower affective commitment, lower self-rated performance, and higher intentions of leaving.

However, while being both a target and observer was associated with worse wellbeing and higher

strain relative to being a target alone, there were no significant differences between these groups

for the remaining three outcomes of affective commitment, performance, and turnover intention.

These results support Hypotheses 2a and 2b and provide partial support for Hypotheses 2c, 2d, and

2e.

DISCUSSION

This research makes several contributions to the workplace bullying literature. Firstly, it confirms

Einarsen et al.’s (1994) finding that observers of workplace bullying experience a poorer work

environment than non-bullied employees, although not as poor as that experienced by targets.

Further, it extends the work environment variables associated with bullying to include two types

of leadership – laissez-faire and constructive – as well as the general cohesiveness of the work

climate. While the act of observing negative behaviours towards one’s work colleagues is

associated with a poorer work environment, causality is not proven and it may be that bullying

creates a worse work environment, or that bullying is enabled in chaotic work environments or

both (Cooper-Thomas et al., 2013). Bullying was associated positively with laissez-faire

leadership and negatively with constructive leadership, suggesting that leadership may be key to

reducing bullying (see Practical Implications).

Secondly, our research shows that successively greater exposure to bullying is associated with

poorer outcomes across a range of measures. These results confirm the compounding effects of

being an observer and target of bullying for well-being and strain, as well as experiencing poorer

leadership overall, specifically greater laissez-faire leadership and less constructive leadership.

Moreover, for those who were solely observers of bullying, this was associated with negative

outcomes at a level between not experiencing any bullying and being a target. These results for

observers confirm that the ripple effect does occur, and that bullying has impacts at work beyond

those experienced directly by targets (Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2007).

It is also interesting to consider prevalence rates compared to past studies. Eight percent of our

sample either observed or were both observers and targets of bullying. While still confirming that

a significant minority of the workforce was exposed to bullying, this figure is actually lower than

in reported research, which ranges from 9% (Vartia, 2001), to 20% (Einarsen et al., 1994), and up

to 46.5% (Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001) for either observing or both observing and

experiencing bullying. Even though there is only a small amount of research on observing

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 89

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

bullying, the findings indicate that this should be a cause for concern additional to the direct

experience of being bullied.

Limitations

While we propose that a poor psychosocial work environment supports the occurrence of bullying,

the reverse might equally be true in that those who experience bullying provide a more negative

assessment of their work environment (Vartia, 1996). In addition, those exposed to bullying may

find it harder to interact with colleagues in general. That is, bullying may have indirect effects on

perceptions of the work environment, in that bullied employees may not wish to engage with

others and this in turn may lead to perceptions of a poor psychosocial work environment

(Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004). Longitudinal research may help to address these questions of

causality, although causal relations can only truly be confirmed with experimental designs

(Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002) which are ethically fraught when investigating bullying. In

the meantime, while imperfect, cross-sectional research can contribute to our knowledge of

bullying.

With regard to our classification of the four groups, we used the checklist of negative acts to

identify bullied employees, and self-reported observation of bullying alongside a definition of

bullying to identify observers. These methods are not equivalent. However self-reporting of being

bullied is problematic in that targets may be unwilling to self-identify as bullied if they do not

wish to be labelled as victims (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010), and this may be true for

observing bullying also. To make these methods more comparable we could have asked about

witnessing negative acts, although the 22 items on the Negative Acts Questionnaire would have

added to the length of the survey and potentially reduced the response rate (Rogelberg & Stanton,

2007). These issues should be considered in future research.

All of our data are self-report which can alter relationships between variables; although research

has shown that such relationships may be largely unaffected, as the inflationary effects from

common method bias are largely offset by the deflationary effect of measurement error (Lance,

Dawson, Birkelbach, & Hoffman, 2010). Moreover, in our analysis we were looking at differences

across groups; the gradations we found cannot be explained as method effects.

Practical Implications

The pernicious effects of bullying on observers, combined with the evidence on prevalence,

indicate the potential benefit of interventions that improve the work environment to impact a high

proportion of employees, rather than just focusing on interpersonal relations between bullies and

targets. Given research showing that observers can themselves either promote or prevent bullying,

clarifying observers’ responsibilities may be crucial (Salin, 2009; Samnani, 2013). Beyond this,

leadership is revealed as a key factor in our research as elsewhere (Hoel et al., 2010). Laissez-faire

leadership is associated with higher exposure to bullying, while the reverse is true for constructive

leadership. This suggests that leader training to deal with workplace misbehaviour as it occurs will

be effective in the long run and conducive to a positive work environment (Wu, Hu, & Yang,

2012). Finally, Beirne and Hunter (2013) emphasise the importance of engaging with employees

and managers to implement and sustain anti-bullying initiatives to suit each specific context.

CONCLUSION

Our research set out to investigate whether observing bullying was associated with a worse work

environment, and whether there was an additional impact of observing bullying in addition to

being a target. Eight percent of our sample reported either observing bullying only, or being an

observer and a target; a further 13% reported levels of negative acts that classified them as targets.

For the work environment, laissez-faire leadership, lack of constructive leadership and low

workplace social cohesion were associated with higher levels of bullying, consistent with the

importance of relationship-oriented aspects of the work context (Skogstad et al., 2011). Moreover,

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 90

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

those who experienced higher levels of exposure to bullying reported poorer workplace outcomes

in terms of wellbeing, strain, affective commitment, self-reported performance and turnover. The

results largely confirmed that greater exposure to bullying across the four groups of non-bullied,

observer, target, observer and target, was associated with a poorer interpersonal work climate and

worse outcomes. Negative experiences have more durable impacts than positive ones (Baumeister,

Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001). Hence the injurious effects of bullying at work,

including those people directly involved and indirectly as observers, are likely to endure.

Acknowledgement

Funding and support for this research was provided by the New Zealand Health Research Council

and the New Zealand Department of Labour (now the Ministry of Business, Innovation and

Employment). We gratefully acknowledge their support of this project.

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 91

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

REFERENCES

Agervold, M., & Mikkelsen, E. (2004). Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work

environment and individual stress reactions”. Work and Stress, 18(4), 336-351.

Altshuler, B. (1981). Modeling of dose-response relationships. Environmental Health

Perspectives, 42, 23-27.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the

multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than

good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.

Beirne, M., & Hunter, P. (2013). Workplace bullying and the challenge of pre-emptive

management. Personnel Review, 42(5), 595-612.

Bentley, T., Catley, B., Cooper-Thomas, H. Gardner, D., O’Driscoll, M. P., Dale, A., & Trenberth,

L. (2012). Perceptions of workplace bullying in the New Zealand travel industry: Prevalence

and management strategies. Tourism Management, 33, 351-360.

Chen, C., Chiu, W. A., Crump, K. S., Louis, T. A., Portier, C. J., & Subramaniam, R. P. (2010).

What role for biologically based dose-response models in estimating low-dose risk?.

Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(5), 585-589.

Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Gardner, D., O’Driscoll, M. P., Bentley, T., Catley, B., & Trenberth, L.

(2013). Neutralizing workplace bullying: The buffering effects of contextual factors. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 28(4), 384-407.

D’Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). The limits of workplace friendship: Managerialist HRM and

bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations, 33, 269-288.

Djurkovic, N., McCormack, D., & Casimir, G. (2006). Neuroticism and the psychosomatic model

of workplace bullying”. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(1), 73-88.

Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of

Manpower, 20 (1/20), 16-27.

Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach.

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379-401.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment at

work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts

Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23(1), 24-44.

Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment

at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. H. Zapf. & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying

and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.)

(pp. 3-40). London: Taylor & Francis.

Einarsen, S., Matthiesen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1998). Bullying, burnout and well-being among

assistant nurses. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand,

14(6), 563-569.

Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their

relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Work &

Organizational Psychologist, 4(4) 381-401.

Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1991). Change-centred leadership: An extension of the two-

dimensional model. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 7(1), 17-26.

Fevre, R., Lewis, D., Robinson, A., & Jones, T. (2012). Trouble at work. London: Bloomsbury.

Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Hauge, L .J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work

environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work and Stress, 21, 220-

242.

Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain: The

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 92

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(4),

443-465.

Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying

behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance and

Counselling, 32(3), 367-387.

Hoel, H., Giga, S. I., & Davidson, M. J. (2007). Expectations and realities of student nurses’

experiences of negative behaviour and bullying in clinical placement and the influences of

socialization processes. Health Services Management Research, 20(4), 270-278.

Hoel, H., Glasø, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Leadership styles as

predictors of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of Management,

21, 453-468.

Hoel, H., Sheehan, M. J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Organisational effects of

workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H. H. Zapf. & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and

harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.) (pp.

129-148). London: Taylor & Francis.

Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E.G., & Hansen, A M. (2011). Individual consequences of workplace

bullying/mobbing. In S. Einarsen, H. H. Zapf. & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and

harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.) (pp.

107-128). London: Taylor & Francis.

Janson, G. R., & Hazler, R. J. (2004). Trauma reactions of bystanders and victims to repetitive

abuse experiences. Violence and Victims, 19, 239-256.

Kessler, R. C., Barber, C., Beck, A. L., Berglund, P. A., Cleary, P. D., McKenas, D., . . . Wang, P.

S. (2003). The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire

(HPQ). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 45(2), 156-174.

Kristensen, T., & Borg, V. (2003). Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ) 2003

edition. Copenhagen: National Institute of Occupational Health.

Kristensen, T. S., Hannerz, H., Høgh, A., & Borg, V. (2005). The Copenhagen Psychosocial

Questionnaire - a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work

environment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 31(6), 438-449.

Kudielka, B. M., & Kern, S. (2004). Cortisol day profiles in victims of mobbing (bullying at the

work place): Preliminary results of a first psychobiological field study. Journal of

Psychosomatic Research, 56(1), 149-150.

Lance, C. E., Dawson, B., Birkelbach, D., & Hoffman, B. J. (2010). Method effects, measurement

error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 435-455.

Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of

Work & Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165-185.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American

workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree and impact. Journal of Management Studies,

44(6), 837-862.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and

application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2001). Bullying in Danish work-life: Prevalence and health

correlates. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 393-413.

Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Basic assumptions and symptoms of post-traumatic stress

among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,

11(1), 87-111.

Moayed, F. A., Daraiseh, N., Shell, R. L., & Salem, S. (2006). Workplace bullying: A systematic

review of risk factors and outcomes. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(3), 311-

327.

Niedhammer, I., David, S., Degioanni, S., Drummond, A., Philip, P., Aquarone, D., …Vital, N.

(2009). Workplace bullying and sleep disturbances: Findings from a large scale cross-sectional

survey in the French working population. Sleep, 32(9), 1211-1219.

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 93

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

Nielsen, M. B. (2013). Bullying in work groups: The impact of leadership. Scandinavian Journal

of Psychology, 54, 127-136.

Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological .oderators on

prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 83, 955-979.

O’Driscoll, M.P., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Bentley, T. A., Catley, B. E., Gardner, D. H., &

Trenberth, L. (2011). Workplace bullying in New Zealand: Work attitudes and performance,

coping and organisational responses. Asia-Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 390-

408.

O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviours, role stressors and uncertainty as

predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15,

141-155.

O’Moore, M., Seigne, E., McGuire, L., & Smith, M. (1998). Victims of bullying at work in

Ireland. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand, 14(6), 569-

574.

Parzefall, M.-R., & Salin, D.M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A

social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63, 761-780.

Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2009). Overlooked but not untouched: How rudeness reduces

onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 109, 29-44.

Rayner, C., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (2008). Mobilizing bystanders to intervene in workplace bullying.

Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment,

Montreal, 4-6 June. Abstract downloaded from http://eprints.port.ac.uk/10353/.

Rogelberg, S.G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with

organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 195-209

Roscigno, V. J., Lopez, S. H., & Hodson, R. (2009). Supervisory bullying, status inequalities and

organizational context. Social Forces, 87(3), 1561-1589.

Salin, D. (2009), Organisational responses to workplace harassment: An exploratory study.

Personnel Review, 38(1), 26-44.

Samnani, A.-K. (2013). Is this bullying? Understanding target and witness reactions. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 290-305.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental

designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The

destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

12(1), 80-92.

Skogstad, A., Torsheim, T., Einarsen, S., & Hauge, L. L. (2011). Testing the work environment

hypothesis of bullying on a group level of analysis: Psychological factors as precursors of

observed workplace bullying. Applied Psychology, 60, 475-495.

Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2004). The role of the bystander in the social

architecture of bullying and violence in schools and communities. In J. Devine, J. Gilligan, K.

A. Miczek, R. Shaikh & D. Pfaff (Eds.), Youth violence: Scientific approaches to prevention

(pp. 215-232). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.

Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying - psychological work environment and organisational

climate. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 203-214.

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 & Health,

27(1), 63-69.

Wu, T.-Y., Hu, C., & Yang, C.-C. (2012). Abusive supervision and workload demands from

supervisors: Exploring two types of supervisor-related stressors and their association with

strain. Stress and Health, 29, 190-198.

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 94

NZJHRM 2014: Volume 14(2) - Workplace Bullying Special Issue

NZJHRM, 14 (2) 82-95

Zaccaro, S. J., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Contrasting group organizational commitment: Evidence

for differences among multilevel attachments. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(3), 267-

273.

The Impact of

Bullying on

Observers and

Targets

Page | 95