Download An Antecedent for Unethical Behavior At Work with Reference to

Power Misuse: An Antecedent for Unethical Behavior At Work with Reference to
Workplace Bullying and Harassment.
By
Dr Owoyemi Oluwakemi Ayodeji
Email: [email protected]
Tel : 08056595701 and 018150016
And
Dr Seyi Shadare
Email: seyidare@[email protected]
Department of Industrial Relations and Personnel Management. Faculty of Business Administration.
University of Lagos.
Abstract
The contemporary concept of workplace bullying was introduced by Heinz Leymann (1996) in
Sweden. From this early research, academic interest in workplace bullying has evolved into a
body of literature that has helped to inform practices and ongoing research in many
contemporary organisations. Subsequently, there has been a surge of both academic and nonacademic research, commencing with studies produced by researchers from different countries
such as Australia (McCarthy, Mayhew, Barker & Sheehan, 2003); Austria (Niedl, 1995),
England (Rayner & McIvor, 2006), Finland (Salin, 2004), Germany (Zapf & Einarsen, 2003),
Norway (Einarsen, 2006), the USA (Glendinng, 2001), and Wales (Adewumi-Owoyemi &
Sheehan, 2007).
All these academic research, studies, reports, individual self-reports, work groups and the
government research have contributed to create more awareness of the social problem in the
Western world. However, in the case of Africa, especially in Nigeria, there has not been any
study conducted or reported on this workplace problem that has caused a lot of debate in other
countries and continents. Workplace bullying is a problem facing employees and employers in
Africa, however, little has been said about. This paper is aimed at shedding an insight into the
contemporary concept and to discuss the role that ‘power relations’ play in this type of unethical
behavior at work. It is believed that this paper will stem up further interest in the area and future
empirical research will be reported. The methodology used is based on extant literature review
of existing works of other researchers in various parts of the world. Since this concept is
relatively new in Nigeria, the paper aims at creating an awareness of a social problem at work.
Keywords
Power, Workplace Bullying, Negative Effect, Unethical Behaviour, Organisation.
1
Introduction
The research on workplace bullying has cut across different disciplines, such as psychology,
business management, employee relations, human resource management, legal practice, as well
as sectors, such as private- and public-sector organisations. Before its emergence as a
phenomenon in workplaces in the United Kingdom, workplace bullying was recognised and
studied in the Scandinavian countries (Hoel, 1997, pp.15). Such studies according to Hoel (1997)
were an early recognition of psycho-social issues, which are related to the psychological
development in the context of one’s social environment within the construct of workplace health
and safety. Other research places workplace bullying within the context of business and
management, where researchers focus on the effect on the organisation and on management
styles (see Archer 1999; Lewis 2002; McCarthy, Henderson, Sheehan & Barker, 2004; Rayner,
2000; Vartia, 1996).
Research into workplace bullying has progressed from academic research on the
phenomenon as a workplace problem into the realm of a micro-societal problem that
government, employers, human resource practitioners, non-governmental bodies, voluntary or
non-profit-making organisations all ought to be concerned (Lewis, 2002; Salin, 2007). Evidence
of such concern is noted further in different non-academic reports, media reports and on-going
research on workplace bullying in different parts of the world. The media in advanced societies
such as UK and USA has also invigorated the issue through countless national and local
newspaper articles. They use sensationalist headlines to draw attention to the issue, which has
helped to fuel the debate on workplace bullying all over the world (Lewis, 2002). Thus, the
social problem has moved beyond the organisational level to a societal level and should be of
concern to employers and government at large.
Objective
Specifically, the objectives of this paper are stated below
1. To create an awareness of a workplace problem that has never been discussed or studied
in Africa, especially with reference to Nigeria.
2. To critically examine ‘power mis-use’ as one of the causes of workplace bullying at
work.
2
Workplace Bullying Defined
Workplace bullying according to Owoyemi (2007;2010) is:
“A form of anti-social behaviour in the workplace that occurs as a result of unequal
power between two individuals, or a group of people and another individual and/or a
group of people in the workplace, which can cause distress, discomfort, physical and/or
psychological harm”
Workplace bullying occurs as a result of the interactions of various factors that occur at three
levels. First, the organisational level, which comprises the contemporary cultural context of the
work environment, the organisational structure and job design (following Salin, 2003 and
Sheehan & Jordan, 2000). These are some of the components that can augment the climate for
workplace bullying. For instance, bullying may be prevalent in organisations where
confrontation is part of the working culture or is encouraged, where perpetrators feel there will
be no recriminations for their actions, or even where bullying is unlikely to be abated (Sheehan,
2006). The need to survive in a competitive economy, have facilitated some organisations ability
to develop cultures which are prone to poor working relationships and intense internal
competition (Vartia, 2003).
Second, the individual level comprises the characteristics of the bullies and the victims.
That is, at the individual level, workplace bullying focuses on the personalities and
characteristics of the targets and the perpetrators (see Einarsen, 2003; Vartia, 2003).
Characteristics in terms of demographic factors may help to explain why some individuals are
more subjected to acts of bullying than others. Some of the identified demographic factors
include gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and age (see Lewis & Gunn, 2007; Salin,
2003).
Third, the group level is where interactions occur among the targets, the perpetrators and
the organisation. At the group level, interactions between people may sometimes influence the
type of bullying behaviour experienced within the organisation. Being a sole target or sole
perpetrator, according to Einarsen et al. (2003), may contribute to the bullying process. Since
there is strength in numbers, being a member of a group in a work environment gives the group
an identity and self-categorisation, especially in a situation that is determined by social
identification and consequent behaviour (Capozza & Brown, 2000). Thus, the interactions at
these group levels are important for better understanding of the concept.
3
Power Relations – Use and Misuse
Power relations underpin many of the arguments pertaining to workplace bullying. The inability
of targets to defend themselves from the bully or bullies may be related to a power imbalance
(Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Turney, 2003). Workplace bullying, according to Turney (2003),
does not occur between parties of equal power, but rather arises when conflict occurs between
people with different strengths. Power imbalance is demonstrated through a wide range of
situations such as gender, physical size, age, position and grade within the organisation,
educational qualification, and intelligence. Other parameters, such as the inability to defend
oneself, silence, and being non-confrontational, are some of traits associated with power
relations (Branch, Ramsay & Barker, 2006; Salin, 2003). It is stressed that many different
sources of power exist in an organisation, but in the case of workplace bullying, it rarely comes
as physical strength, but rather as ‘legitimate power’ possessed due to hierarchical positions
occupied by members of the organisations (Salin, 2003; Turney, 2003).
Although power has been criticised as being dysfunctional and negative (Palmer &
Hardy, 2002), nevertheless, organisations need some form of formal power structure that can
provide checks and balances to ensure the proper conduct of the organisation. Power in this
situation is functional and will make organisations more efficient and effective (Foucault, 1977;
Palmer & Hardy, 2002). This paper aims at providing an insight into better understanding of
power relationships and the use and misuse of power in relation to workplace bullying. The most
important issue concerning power relations, according to Turney (2003), is that the organisation
should ensure that power is not abused.
Methodology
The methodology that informs this paper contains the elements of how knowledge was created
and interpreted using past research, reports and existing literature. The underlying
epistemological standpoint of this paper takes a social constructivist knowledge position, whose
view of knowledge suggests that the subjective meaning motivating peoples’ actions are
determined by their understanding of the social world and that their realities are socially
4
constructed (Remenyi et al., 1998:17). This view is based on the assumption that people place
different interpretations on the workplace bullying. These different interpretations are likely to
affect their actions and the nature of their social interactions with others. Given this
philosophical/methodological position, this is a conceptual paper based on past findings, reports
and extant literature review.
The Theory of Power Explored
The increasing concerns about the use and misuse of power in organisations have raised
important epistemological and methodological debates (Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson, 2003),
which are now found in much of the management literature, such as in reports by Buchanan and
Huczynski (2001), French and Raven (1959), Foucault (1977) and Thompson and McHugh
(2002). The structural, technological and cultural changes reported in the workplace suggest
some concern about workplace control, especially with respect to management and how they
acquire and exercise control (Thompson & McHugh, 2002). One form of control evident in some
contemporary organisations is what human resource consultants refer to as ‘knowledge
intensive’ (Palmers & Hardy, 2003). This concept is related to the conception of discipline given
by Foucault (1977), which focuses on the way management sustains its dominance by reducing
the ability of subordinates to dissent by creating reality and managing meanings for them. That
is, individuals or groups become socially inscribed and normalised through the routine aspects of
organisation (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2001; Pfeffer, 1992) which, according to Foucault, are set
rules of the game which management establishes and with which they manage their employees.
Foucault further defined such rules as being either normal or abnormal, that is, bio-power, and
targeted at society as a whole. Such an argument leads us to consider what is normal at the
organisational level. When these rules are considered, it is argued that employees become selfdisciplined and require no more managerial effort to keep them under control (Buchanan &
Huczynski, 2001). The major importance of Foucault’s theory lies in the notion of power, which
he referred to as a semi-stable network of alliances where subjects are constructed by power but
they do not have power (Foucault, 1977).
5
The theory of power is complex and cuts across both historical and philosophical
knowledge (Keltner et al., 2003). Defining power is quite difficult because it has evolved around
different conceptualisations and interpretations, different guiding questions, such as ‘where is it
located?’, ‘how is it distributed?’, and ‘what is the unit of analysis and the outcome of interest?
are the focuses of some of the ongoing debates on power (Keltner et al., 2003). Power, according
to Moskowitz (1994; 2004), is a basic force in social relationships, and it focuses on the actor’s
intentions or actions, such as the treatment of power as dominance (Winter, 1988), influence
(Keltner et al., 2003), stereotyping (Fiske, 1993; Keltner & Robinson, 1997), social reasoning
(Gruenfeld, 1995), social behaviour (Clark, 1995; Kemper, 1991), moral judgment (Fiske, 1993),
nonverbal behaviour (Hall & Halberstadt, 1994), emotional display (Clark, 1995), behavioural
confirmation (Copeland, 1994), aggression (Bugental, Blue & Cruzcosa, 1989) and teasing
(Keltner et al., 2003).
Keltner et al. (2003) defined power in the workplace as an individual’s relative capacity to
modify others by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments. The
resources and punishments can come in different forms such as material punishment (food,
money, economic opportunity, physical harm, or job termination) and social punishment
(knowledge, affection, friendship, decision-making opportunities, verbal abuse and isolation).
All these aspects reflect the dependence of certain individuals on others with the perceived
notion that individuals can hold and deliver power, which according to Keltner et al. (2003) has
affected the way power is used. The beliefs about the exercise of power are embedded in the
cultural or moral values and attitudes of people within personal and social relationships (Howard,
Blumstein & Schwartz, 1989). That is, for those who possess the power, status is the outcome of
the evaluation, and that status determines both the allocation of resources within groups and an
individual’s power (Kemper, 1991).
However, Keltner et al. (2003) argued that it is possible to have power without status or
status without power, but only when a distinction can be made between formal and informal
power. Formal power or authority is derived from institutionalised roles or arrangements, while
informal power can exist in the absence of formal roles (Weber, 1947). Given the formal and
informal possession of power, the management of the organisation and the people within it play a
6
vital part in ensuring that power is used correctly and not abused. The application and
effectiveness of the definition of power is determined by the source as illustrated below. The
sources of power, according to French and Raven (1959), are based on the interpersonal use of
power, which are as follows, legitimate, reward, coercive, expert and referent power.
These sources, according to Thompson and McHugh (2002), reflect genuine and broader
problems in measuring power, especially when the ‘formal’ and ‘non-formal’ and the
‘legitimate’ and ‘non-legitimate’ uses of it are separated. These sources mentioned above are
commonly seen as the traditional form of power held by the manager(s) in an organisation which
comes directly from the position that the manager is occupying in the organisation (French &
Raven, 1959).
The legitimate power is sourced from the position or the role a person performs in the
organisation (Mechanic, 2003). This source of power can be linked with the authority bestowed
as a result of cultural value, the social value and the authority awarded to a person by a
legitimate source (French & Raven, 1959). Authority awarded in this situation is dependent on
what Bacharach and Lawler (1980) referred to as the perception of the subordinates to the right
of power of the manager. Hence, it follows that only the managers that are perceived to be
powerful as a result of the authority awarded to his or her position can bully a subordinate
without being challenged (Branch, 2006).
The reward power is an interpersonal source of power that controls the resources
available (French & Raven, 1959). The level of control of the resources can be determined by the
position held by an individual, the authority awarded to the individual and the legitimate power
bestowed on the individual (Yukl, 1989). Reward power or power to control resources in the
organisation can be influenced by the management of the organisation, who can limit the amount
of resources or reduce the reward power based on the position of the individual within the
organisation (Keltner et al., 2003). Reward power or allocation of resources can be abused by a
manager if used negatively, for instance, the denial or withdrawal of reward and resource can be
tactics used by a manager to bully others in the organisation; especially those who do not posses
legitimate power (Branch, 2006).
7
Coercive power, in contrast to the reward power, can be used to sanction negatively or
punish others within the organisation (French & Raven, 1959). This source of power is
determined by the position of the power holder, and it is usually an authoritative power not
possessed by most of the employees (Porter et al., 2003). Such coercive power can be used to
punish, bully and even harass colleagues, subordinates and even superiors at work.
Expert power is a source of power available to every member of the organisation (French
& Raven, 1959). This source of power is knowledge based, and is determined by the individual’s
possession of knowledge or expertise (Mechanic, 2003). Employees that have expert power are
usually depended on by others within the organisation, for information, problem solving and
decision making (French & Raven, 1959). The overdependence of others on the experts can lead
to a situation whereby the power holder mis-uses such power. However, expert power can be
limited by referent power (French & Raven, 1959). Referent power on the other hand can be
obtained through the personality of an individual (Yukl, 1989) which can assists an individual to
occupy a strategic position within the organisation (French & Raven, 1959). This source of
power is not limited to the leaders within the organisation, but rather it offers those that possess
it, to have access to other positions within the organisation (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980). The
more access an individual gets within the network of the organisation, the more information such
an individual could obtain, resulting in more expert power which can be used either positively or
negatively (Branch, 2006).
Power as an Antecedent of Workplace bullying
The concept of power is important to the study of workplace bullying because it is one of the
areas of convergence in the definition of workplace bullying (see Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996;
Hoel, 2006; Vartia, 2003). Most of the definitions of workplace bullying identify that the
inability to defend oneself is an element of perceived power imbalance and a form of control
(Salin, 2003). The use of power as a means of control can be explained using different
approaches. First is the managerial approach to power that sees power as negative in the hands of
management (Palmer & Hardy, 2003), especially when it is associated with the formal structures
of the work environment. This form of power, according to Salin (2003), is an enabling structure
that has a double significance.
8
That is, power structures can act as a foundation or as a filter that can either enable bullying by
making the work environment conducive to its acceptance or, when such conditions do not exist,
will not allow workplace bullying to occur (Salin, 2003). Perceived imbalances of power, such as
formal power, constitute an enabling process or structure that can establish fertile ground for
bullying to develop. For instance, job design, work organisation and employee relations are all
components that can enhance the use or misuse of power and thus facilitate a culture in which
bullying might occur (see Buchanan & Huczynski, 2001; Salin, 2003; Thompson & McHugh,
2002). Furthermore, workplace bullying can be used as a micro-political behaviour (Salin, 2003)
and when an organisation is characterised by a politicized climate and a political perspective that
rationalises high internal competition and reward systems that makes it appropriate to use
whatever means it takes to outshine other employees at work, bullying among employees might
occur (see Salin, 2003). For instance, the introduction of teamwork and employee involvement
has been successful, but they have now created and imposed increasing psychological pressures
on workers (Rose, 1988). The psychological pressure, however, can reduce the threshold of
tolerance, which can lead to employees acting or reacting in bullying behaviours towards one
another.
Second is the critical approach to power, that sees power as a means of ensuring the
compliance of employees with the values and goals of the organisation by suppressing any form
of conflict that might occur and through the strategic subordination of the activities of the
workers (Palmers & Hardy, 2002). Compliance may occur when employees actively subordinate
themselves to obtain job security, money, meaning, or identity (Deetz, 1992), which are all
aimed at self-gain. When employees subordinate themselves for self-gain, they surrender
whatever power they have to change their conditions and have to cooperate with the organisation
in order to fulfil their needs (Keltner et al., 2003; Palmers & Hardy, 2002). This consent to
domination occurs since the process of the production of the self remains unproblematic and
conflicts which could produce contention have been suppressed (McKinley & Starkey, 1998).
The individual will therefore assume the particular subjectivity since they are considered natural
and unproblematic (Keltner et al., 2003; Palmers & Hardy, 2002).
9
When employees subject themselves to control, there is the probability that they will not resist or
oppose negative behaviours such as bullying in the workplace (see Branch, 2006; Salin, 2003).
For instance fear will not make them oppose actions construed as bullying. Rather, employees
will accept bullying as a norm or way of doing things in the organisation. In this case, negative
behaviour such as bullying can be accepted as part of the culture of the organisation. However,
resistance to any subordination, oppression or even negative behaviour perpetrated by the
dominant group can be affected by what researchers such as Matthiesen and Einarsen (2001) and
Zapf and Einarsen (2003) referred to as personality characteristics or traits. That is, certain
personality traits, such as low self-esteem, submissiveness and the lack of assertiveness, are
associated with victims of bullying (Salin, 2003) and people with these traits are less likely to
defend themselves. The perpetrator(s) are protected in the sense that they are the dominant group
and are therefore not resisted or challenged.
Even though power is felt everywhere, it is important to demarcate the boundaries of
power with some level of control (Keltner et al., 2003). Power in the hands of management can
be expressed through the control of activities in the organisation (McKinley & Starkey, 1998).
The misuse of power by management could lead to resistance by employees, which could have a
counterproductive effect on the organisation, resulting in, for example, low commitment,
absenteeism and sabotage (Hoel & Cooper, 2003; Kivimaki et al., 2003; Rayner et al., 2002;
Sheehan, 2006). The inadequate use of power could lead to loss of control, discipline and
orderliness, which is not a desired outcome (Thompson & McHugh, 2002). Power, according to
a Foucauldian analysis, should be productive (Owen & Powell, 2006). The process of power and
control therefore are both independent and interrelated with respect to workplace bullying
(Branch, 2006). The more power possessed, the higher the likelihood of it being abused and used
negatively (Salin, 2003; Vartia, 2003). The inequality within the networks of power relations,
can lead to a situation whereby a group within the organisation is more powerful than the other,
the convergence of the weaker group can lead to a situation where inter-determinism can later
lead to resistance, although currently, most employer/employee relations are still based on
unequal power relations (Branch, 2006).
10
Conclusions
This paper has used the theory of power to create an enhanced understanding of unethical and
inappropriate workplace behaviour. Power relationships play a vital role in the ways negative
behaviours are perpetrated, resisted and stopped. The theory of power adopted has helped to
create a deeper insight into why negative behaviours such as bullying occurs and the
vulnerability factors that can increase the likelihood of being exposed to such behaviours. The
discussions in the section has identified that workplace bullying commonly happens in
organisations where dominant subordinate hierarchical relationships exist, and that most of the
tactics used by the perpetrators are initially subtle and covert, but intensify over time into overt
behaviours.
The power possessed by individuals at work has created an avenue for bullying to
manifest. The culture of masculinity, organisational division, and role all of which encourage
group identification, have resulted in most organisations being prone to poor working
relationships, and if not well managed, these relationships can lead to unethical behaviours such
as bullying. If power is not used properly it could result in lack of trust by the employees in the
management of the organisation. This paper has conceptualised workplace bullying as a factor of
power relationships. That is, the more power possessed, the higher the likelihood of it being
abused and used negatively. Organisations should ensure that all the policies and procedures
aimed at ensuring that people work in a safe environment are implemented fairly and
consistently, irrespective of the position or level of the parties involved. Acknowledging the
occurrence of workplace bullying in Nigeria workplaces would enable employees and employers
to take positive steps toward addressing the problem. Ongoing awareness and publicity should be
increased so that other organisations that are yet to deal with such problems would be left with
no choice but to address the situation.
Reference
Adewumi, O. Sheehan, M. and Lewis, D (2008) Workplace Bullying in an Emergency Service
Organization (ESO) in the UK: An Exploratory Study of Employees’ Exposure to
11
Bullying Behaviours. A Paper Presented at the 6th International Conference on
Workplace Bullying Sharing our Knowledge, Montreal, Canada.
Archer, D. (1999) Exploring ‘Bullying’ Culture in Para-military Organisation, International
Journal of Manpower, 20 (1-2), pp. 94-105.
Bachrach, S. and Lawler, E.(1980) Power and Politics in organisation, San Francisco. JosseyBass.
BIFU (1996) Bullying in the Workplace, BIFU London.
Branch, S. (2006) Upward Bullying: An Exploratory Study of Power, Dependency and The Work
Environment For Australia. A Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Griffith
Business School, Griffith University.
Branch, S., Ramsay, S., Barker, M., and Sheehan, M (2005) Upwards Bullying: A theoretical
analysis, Paper presented at the 6th Australian Industrial & Organizational Psychology
Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, 30th June- 3rd July.
Branch, S., Sheehan, M., Barker, M., & Ramsay, S. (2004) Upwards bullying: Implications for
How Managers and Organisations Approach Workplace Bullying in the Future, Paper
presented at the British Academy of Management, St Andrews, Scotland, 30th August 1st September.
Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A. (2001) Organisational Behaviour: An Introductory Text,
London: Prentice International.
Capozza, D. and Brown, R (2000) Social Identity Process, London, Sage Publications.
Clark, C. (1995) Emotions and Micro-politics in Everyday Life: Some Pattern and Paradoxes of
‘Place’. In T.D. Kemper (Eds), Research Agendas in the Sociology of Emotions, (pp 305333). Albany, NY, State University of New York Press.
Copeland, J. (1994) Prophesies of Power: Motivational Implications of Social Power for
Behavioural Confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, pp. 264277.
Einarsen, S. (2006) The Way Forward by Looking Backwards, Paper Presented at the Fifth
International Conference on Workplace Bullying, Workplace Bullying- The way forward,
Dublin.
Einarsen, S. and Skogstad, A. (1996a) Prevalence and Risk Groups of Bullying and Harassment
at Work, The European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 5, pp.185-202.
Fiske, S. (1993) Controlling other People: The Impact of Power on Stereotyping. American
Psychologist, 48, pp. 621-628.
12
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
French. J. and Raven, B. (1959) The Bases of Social Power. In D. Cartwright (Ed), Studies in
Social Power (pp. 150-197), The University of Michigan.
Gruenfeld, D. (1995) Status, Ideology and Integrative Complexity on the U.S. Supreme Court:
Rethinking the Politics of Political Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, pp. 5-20.
Hall, J and Halberstadt, A (1994) Subordination and Sensitivity to Non-verbal Cues: A Study of
Married Working Women. Sex Roles, 31, pp. 149-165.
Hoel, H. (1997) Bullying at Work: A Scandinavian Perspective, Institution of Occupational
Safety and Health Journal, 1, pp.51-9.
Hoel, H. (2006). The Limits of Regulations: Assessing the Effectiveness of the Swedish
Regulations Against Workplace Bullying, Paper Presented at the Fifth International
Conference on Workplace Bullying. Workplace Bullying- The Way Forward.
Hoel, H. and Cooper, C. (2003) Organisational Effects of Bullying. In S.Einarsen , H. Hoel, D.
Zapf & C. Cooper (Eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International
Perspective in Research Principles (pp. 145-145). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Howard, J., Blumstein, P and Schwartz, P (1986) Sex, Power and Influence Tactics in Intimate
Relationships, Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 102-109.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.and Anderson, C. (2003). Power, Approach, and Inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, pp. 265–284.
Keltner, D. and Robinson, R. (1997) Defending the Statoquo: Power and Bias in Social Conflict,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, pp. 1066-1077.
Kemper, T. (1991) Predicting Emotions from Social Relations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54,
pp. 330-342.
Kivimäki, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera, J., Virtanen, M and Stansfeld, S. (2003) Association
Between Organisational Justice and Incidence of Psychiatric Disorders in Female
Employees, Psychological Medicine 33 (2), pp. 319–326.
Lewis, D. (2002) The Social Construction of Workplace Bullying: A Sociological Study with
Special Reference to Further and Higher Education, Thesis for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, University of Wales (Cardiff), School of Social Sciences and Education.
Lewis, D. and Gunn, R. (2006) Workplace Bullying in the Public Sector: Understanding the
Racial Dimension, Public Administration, 85, (3), pp. 641-665.
13
Leymann, H. (1996) The Content and Development at Work, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 5 (2), pp. 165-184.
Matthiesen, S. and Einarsen, S. (2001) MMPI-2 Configurations Among Victims of Bullying at
Work, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10 pp.467-84.
McCarthy, P., Henderson, M., Sheehan, M., and Barker, M. (2004/5) CSR and Employment
Practices: Socially Responsible Investment as a Mechanism to Address Workplace
Bullying, New Academy Review, 3(4), 73-95.
McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M., Barker, M., and Henderson, M. (2001) Bullying in The CCH Equal
Opportunity Training Manual (Module 7), Commercial Clearing House (CCH), North
Ryde, pp. 50,001- 62,901.
McCarthy, P., Sheehan, M., Barker, M., and Henderson, M. (2003) Ethical investment and
Workplace Bullying: Consonances and Dissonances, International Journal of
Management and Decision Making, 4(1), pp. 11-23.
Mechanic, D. (2003) Sources of Power of Lower Participants in Complex Organisations. In L.
Porter, H., Angle & R. Allen (Eds), Organisational Influence Processes (2nd Eds) (pp.
349-364), London, M.E Sharpe.
Moskowitz, D. (1994). Cross-situational Generality and the Interpersonal Circumplex. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 921-933.
Moskowitz, D.S. (2004). Does Elevated Power Lead to Approach and Reduced Power to
Inhibition? Psychological Review, 111, pp. 808-811.
Niedl, K. (1996) Mobbing and Well-being: Economic and Personnel Development Implications,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, pp.203-14.
Owen, T. and Powell, J (2006) Trust, Professional Power and Social theory: Lessons From a Post
–Foucauldian Framework, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26 (3/4),
pp.110-120.
Owoyemi, O. (2010) From School Yard to Work Yard- Workplace Bullying: An Undiagnosed
Social Problem in Workplaces in Nigeria. A Paper Accepted for the 6th International
Industrial Relations Association’s African Regional Congress. University of Lagos
Owoyemi, O. and Oyelere, M. (2010) Workplace Bullying: An Undiagnosed Social Problem in
Workplaces in Nigeria. Journal of Management and Organisational Behaviour ( A
Paper Accepted for Publication).
Palmer, I. and Hardy, C. (2002) Thinking About Management: Implications of Organisational
Debates for Practice, Sage Publications.
14
Pfeffer, J. (1992) Managing with Power, Politics and Influence in Organisation, Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Porter, L., Allen, R. and Angle, H. (2003) The Politics of Upward Influence in Organisations. In
L. Porter, H. Angle & R. Allen (Eds), Organisational Influence Processes (2nd Eds), (pp.
394-406), London, M.E. Sharpe.
Rayner, C. (2000) Building a Business Case for Tackling Bullying in the Workplace: Beyond a
Cost-Benefit Approach. In Sheehan, M., Ramsay, S., and Patrick, J. (Eds), Transcending
Boundaries: Integrating People, Processes and Systems, Proceedings of the 2000
Conference, (pp. 26-31), Brisbane, Queensland, September.
Rayner, C. and McIvor, K. (2006) Report to the Dignity at Work Project, Steering Committee
Research Finding, Report, University of Portsmouth Business School.
Rose, M. (1988) Industrial Behaviour: Research and Control, Penguin Business.
Salin, D. (2003) Bullying and Organisational Politics in Competitive and Rapidly Changing
Work Environments, .International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4 (1)
35-46.
Salin, D. (2007) Organisational Responses to Workplace Harassment: An Exploratory Study,
Paper Presented at the European Work and Organizational Psychology Conference
(EAWOP), Stockholm, Sweden.
Sheehan, M. (2006) The Fight at Eureka Stockade: Down with the Tyrant an’ Bully, A paper
presented at the Inaugural Professorial Lecture, Glamorgan Business School.
Sheehan, M., and Jordan, P. (2000) The Antecedents and Implications of Workplace Bullying:
A bounded Emotionality Analysis Paper Presented at the Association Francophone De
Gestion Des Ressources Humaines (AGRH) Congress, Paris 16th - 17th November.
Thompson, P. and Mchugh, D. (2002) Work Organisations: A Critical Introduction, Palgrave.
Turney, L. (2003) Mental Health and Workplace bullying: The Role of Power, Professions
and on The Job Training, Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health
(AeJAMH). 2(2). http://www.auseinet.com/journal/vol2iss2/turney.pdf (Assessed 15
March, 2007).
Vartia, M (1996) The Sources of Bullying: Psychological Work Environment and Organisational
Climate, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, pp.203-14.
Vartia, M. (2003) Workplace Bullying: A Study on the Work Environment, Well-Being and
Health, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Helsinki.
15
Webber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation (A. M. Henderson & T.
Parsons, Trans). New York, Oxford University Press.
Winter, G. (1999) The Power Motive in Women and Men, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, pp. 510-519.
Yukl, G. (1989) Leadership in Organisation, Englewood Cliffs, N.J Prentice Hall.
Zapf, D. and Einarsen, S. (2003). Individual Antecedents of Bullying: Victims and
Perpetrators. In Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D. and Cooper, C. (Eds), Bullying and
Emotional Abuse in the Workplace, International perspectives in Research and Practice,
(pp. 165-184), London, Taylor and Francis.
16