305

Business and Leadership

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Dr. Simons is Assistant Professor and Dr. Mawn is Professor and PhD Program Director, Depart- ment of Nursing, University of Massachusetts Lowell. The authors disclose that they have no signifi- cant financial interests in any product or class of products discussed directly or indirectly in this activity, including research support. Address correspondence to Shellie R. Simons, PhD, RN, 8 Marie Avenue, Sharon, MA 02067. E-mail: [email protected]. doi:10.3928/08910162-20100616-02

Bullying in the Workplace—A Qualitative Study of Newly Licensed Registered Nurses

by Shellie R. Simons, PhD, RN, and Barbara Mawn, PhD, RN

Bullying in the workplace is associated with negative job satisfaction and retention. It has also been found to have adverse effects on the health of employees. Using a qualitative descriptive design, this study examined the stories of bullying among nurses based on actual or witnessed experiences. One hundred eighty-four newly licensed U.S. nurses responded to an open- ended question on a survey about bullying mailed to their homes. Four major themes emerged that related to varying types of bullying behaviors, perceived causes of bullying, and the impact of bullying behaviors. The themes included structural bullying; nurses “eating their young”; being out of the clique; and leaving the job. Bullying is experienced firsthand and secondhand by nurses, and particularly by vulnerable, newly graduated nurses. Workplace bullying must be explored fully to develop effective strategies to eliminate it.

I t has long been acknowledged that some nurses engage in hostile behaviors toward other

nurses, as evidenced by the often re- peated expression, “Nurses eat their young” (Bartholomew, 2006; Meiss- ner, 1999; Rowe & Sherlock, 2005). This behavior has been reported pre- dominately through anecdotal stories among nurses and has only recently appeared in the research literature.

Bullying in health care workplaces has been identified in U.S. and inter- national research reports.

Various terms have been used to describe the interpersonal hostility that can occur in the nursing work- place, including bullying (Quine, 2001), horizontal violence (Duffy, 1995; McKenna, Smith, Poole, & Coverdale, 2003), and verbal abuse (Ferns & Meerabeau, 2008; Johnson, Martin, & Markle-Elder, 2007). Al- though the terms are often confused, subtle differences distinguish these behaviors.

Cox (1991) defines verbal abuse as any form of communication that nurses perceive to be harsh, con- demnatory attacks on them, pro- fessionally or personally. Bullying behavior in the workplace is a form of aggression that occurs when em-

ployees perceive negative actions directed at them from one or several individuals over time; employees have difficulty defending themselves against these actions (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001). An incident cannot be categorized as bullying unless there is a power gradient, perceived or actual, between the individuals involved (Zapf & Gross, 2001). Bul- lying is distinct from harassment in that it is not distinguished by sexual or racial motives (Pryor & Fitzger- ald, 2003).

Bullying differs from horizontal or lateral violence in several ways. Horizontal or lateral violence can occur as a single isolated incident, without power gradients between the individuals involved (i.e., the interaction occurs between peers in a culture that they share) (Duffy, 1995). In contrast, bullying is repeat- ed over at least 6 months. Horizontal or lateral violence and bullying do, however, share behaviors such as sabotage, infighting, scapegoating, and excessive criticism.

This descriptive study originated from a survey study that explored workplace bullying among U.S. nurses and the relationship of bul- lying to nurses’ intent to leave the workplace (Simons, 2008). These nurses had compelling stories to tell that exemplified the phenomenon of bullying in the workplace and its im- pact on nurses.

AAOHN JOURNAl • VOl. 58, NO. 7, 2010

306 Copyright © American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Inc.

Business and Leadership

BAckgROUnd Workplace bullying has signifi-

cant implications for nurses work- ing in the occupational health set- ting because workplace bullying has profound negative health effects on individuals. Research has also demonstrated that bullying results in considerable economic conse- quences for organizations (Einarsen & Mikkelsen, 2003; Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, 2004). In a 2001 study of nurses in the United Kingdom, Quine reported that 8% of those experienc- ing bullying had used their sick time to deal with the problem. The direct costs to the employer included a low- er quality of work, higher turnover rates, and increased absenteeism. Indirect costs include those opportu- nity costs related to lowered employ- ee commitment, lack of individual discretionary effort, and time spent talking about the problem rather than working. Kivimaki, Elovainio, and Vahtera (2000) attempted to quantify the cost of bullying to the organiza- tion. They studied two Finnish hos- pitals and estimated that the annual cost of increased absenteeism as a consequence of bullying was close to £125,000 (approximately $191,489 U.S. dollars).

Recent studies have found that targets of bullying showed a variety of symptoms indicative of posttrau- matic stress disorder (Balducci, Al- fano, & Fraccaroli, 2009; Tehrani, 2004). Kivimaki et al. (2000) found that workplace bullying was associ- ated with a significant increase in sickness absenteeism. A 2003 study found a strong association between workplace bullying and subsequent depression, suggesting that bullying is an antecedent factor for mental health issues (Kivimaki et al.).

In 1976, Brodsky published the seminal work on bullying in the workplace, but it was not until 1990 that Swedish researcher Heinz Ley- mann (1990) began the systematic study of workplace bullying, con- ceptualizing it as “psychological terrorization.” Recently, published studies have explored workplace bul- lying from an international perspec- tive, including studies from Australia

(Hutchison, Jackson, Vickers, & Wil- kes, 2006), New Zealand (McKenna et al., 2003), Norway (Nielsen, Mat- thiesen, & Einarsen, 2008), and the United Kingdom (Lewis & Orford, 2005).

In the United States, Lutgen- Sandvik, Tracy, and Alberts (2007) studied the prevalence of workplace bullying among workers in several industries, including health and so- cial services, education, and finance. Only a few of the international stud- ies examined the effects of workplace bullying on nurses (McKenna et al., 2003; Quine, 2001). More recently, researchers have examined bullying among nurses in the United States (Felblinger, 2008), but a paucity of research related to bullying among nurses in this country exists (Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Lewis, 2006; Lut- gen-Sandvik et al., 2007).

Simons (2008) surveyed newly licensed U.S. nurses to measure the frequency and intensity of workplace bullying. The theory of oppressed group behavior served as the theoret- ical framework for the study (Fanon, 1963; Freire, 2000). One thousand surveys were mailed to a random list of U.S. nurses licensed in the state of Massachusetts. Five hundred eleven nurses responded. Although some studies using postal questionnaires have reported a response rate as low as 10% to 20% (Curtis & Redmond, 2009), this response rate of 54.4% was higher than the reported average response rate of 49.6% in a recent meta-analysis (Van Horn, Green, & Martinussen, 2010). The survey used the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Re- vised (NAQ-R) (Einarsen & Hoel, 2001), which contained 22 items re- lated to bullying and a 3-item scale that measured intention to leave the job from the Michigan Organiza- tional Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1981). In addition, the survey included the definition of bullying and then asked if the respondent had experienced or witnessed bullying at work during the past 6 months.

The results of the Simons (2008) survey revealed that 31% of the sample had experienced at least

two bullying behaviors on a weekly or daily basis from another nurse during a 6-month period based on the criteria of the NAQ-R bully- ing scale. The data revealed that as bullying scores increased, so did nurses’ intention to leave the orga- nization (Simons, 2008). However, the survey questions could not as- certain how bullying impacted their intention to leave. At the end of that survey, respondents were offered an open-ended section to add any com- ments related to the topic of bully- ing. One hundred eighty-four nurses shared their stories of bullying in their workplaces, which provided the qualitative data for this article.

RESEARcH dESign This article presents the quali-

tative findings from a survey study (Simons, 2008) examining work- place bullying among newly li- censed nurses. The analysis of the open-ended responses in the sur- vey followed the methods used in qualitative description to examine previously undescribed aspects of an experience (Kearny, 2001). The Institutional Review Board at the University of Massachusetts Boston approved this study. No names or other identifiers were used in ana- lyzing the results. In appreciation for participation, respondents who completed the survey were eligible to win one of five $50 raffle prizes.

Participants The population of interest was

newly licensed nurses in the United States. In accordance with Benner’s (2001) model of novice to expert, which indicates that 3 years is need- ed for a nurse to attain competence, the population included registered nurses licensed from 2001 to 2003 in the state of Massachusetts who had graduated from a diploma, asso- ciate degree, baccalaureate, or direct entry master’s program. Nurse man- agers and supervisors were excluded from the study. One hundred eighty- four of 511 registered nurses who responded to the mail survey wrote narratives at the end of the survey. One hundred thirty-nine wrote of

307

Business and Leadership

being bullied at work and 14 oth- ers wrote of witnessing other nurses being bullied. The remaining par- ticipants wrote narratives that were not related to bullying. Respondents were predominately female (92%), with ages ranging from 22 to 61 years (M = 35.8 years). Forty-three percent of respondents had an asso- ciate degree and 37% had a bacca- laureate degree in nursing. The re- maining 20% had earned a diploma, a baccalaureate or a master’s degree in another field, or a direct entry master’s degree. The majority (85%) were staff nurses. The Table reveals similar demographics between the subsample who responded to the open-ended comment section and the entire sample of survey respon- dents. Seventy-one percent of the nurses who wrote of being bullied reported that they worked in hos- pitals and 12% worked in nursing homes.

Data Collection Data were collected via a

mailed survey during 6 weeks using the Tailored Design Method (Dill- man, 2000). This method consists of specified preparation and distribu- tion of survey materials to increase response rate. As noted, 36% (n = 184) of the original 511 survey par- ticipants shared their stories related to their personal and witnessed ex- periences of bullying.

Analysis The written narratives at the

end of the survey were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using con- tent analysis (Sandelowski, 2000). Content analysis “refers to the set of techniques that are used to identify patterns, categories and themes in recorded language” (Waltz, Strick- land, & Lenz, 2005, p. 239). After reading and rereading the narra- tives, the transcripts were entered into NVivo 7, a software package for qualitative research. Data reduc- tion was completed by writing in the margins and counting the frequency of similar comments. Two research- ers trained in qualitative research, one of whom is an expert in bully-

ing among nurses, independently re- viewed the comments to ensure that the stories fit the defining criteria of bullying. They then conducted a the- matic content analysis making com- parisons, noting patterns and expla- nations. The data were then coded according to themes and patterns that were found. Data saturation was noted by both researchers after ana- lyzing the first 100 responses; how- ever, all responses were included in the analysis.

FindingS Four themes describing different

aspects of bullying were identified from the analysis of the transcripts: structural bullying, nurses eating their young, feeling out of the clique, and leaving the job.

Structural Bullying The term structural bullying was

developed by the researchers to rep- resent perceived unfair and punitive actions taken by supervisors. These actions included scheduling, patient assignments and workload, or use

of sick and vacation time. Seventeen nurses wrote of consistently being given an unmanageable workload. For example, one respondent com- mented, “The only factor that may cause me to seek another job while still practicing as a registered nurse would be the unsafe staffing situation that exists consistently. Any time the acuity and patient load is so high that patients may be at risk, it creates strife among me and my coworkers.”

Others wrote of unfairness relat- ed to use of earned time. One wrote, “My manager yelled at me about my sick time in front of six other nurses.” Another wrote, “Being single with no children, I’m expected to take a holiday and mandatory shifts.” A 23-year-old nurse wrote, “My hos- pital is understaffed and I’m usually the first to be asked to work extra hours or overnight double because ‘I’m young’ and ‘I don’t need a lot of sleep.’”

Nurses Eating Their Young Nineteen nurses wrote com-

ments that included the phrase

AAOHN JOURNAl • VOl. 58, NO. 7, 2010

Table

comparison of Study Participants Original Survey

Study Qualitative Responses

Number of participants 511 184

Gender

Female 93.3% 92%

Male 6.7% 8%

Mean age (years) 33.1 35.8

Age range (years) 22-64 22-61

Educational background

Associate degree 38% 43%

Bachelor’s degree 45.2% 37%

Other 16.8% 20%

Primary practice role of staff nurse 93% 85%

Primary practice setting

Hospital 76% 71%

Nursing home 10% 12%

Other 13% 17%

Not reported 1%

308 Copyright © American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Inc.

Business and Leadership

“nurses eat their young.” For exam- ple, one respondent commented, “In my first job as a registered nurse, I experienced such extreme hostility; it was like working in a pool with a pack of barracudas that ate their young.” Others shared similar sto- ries without using the actual phrase. A new graduate wrote, “Working as a new nurse is scary on its own. Add to this being afraid to ask questions for fear of being ridiculed and now you get one very unhappy nurse.” Similarly, another wrote, “In my first year as a nurse, I saw the major- ity of senior nurses were much too happy to keep information to them- selves and would rather see a new registered nurse fall flat on her face rather than give him or her the infor- mation to prevent it.”

The concept of nurses eating their young was noted by several nurses to begin in the formative years of the respondents’ education as a nurse. Several nurses wrote of their negative experiences as student nurs- es. One commented, “When I was in nursing school, we spent most of our time doing clinical work in a small community hospital. I found so much negativity in this environment that I considered quitting nursing school.” Another wrote, “Nursing school was a very different experience. I wit- nessed many registered nurses treat my classmates horribly, and that al- most prevented me from practicing.”

Feeling Out of the Clique Some of the respondents re-

lated bullying experiences to their feelings of alienation and not feel- ing part of the group. These nurses wrote of having difficulty fitting in when they perceived that they were different in any way. Differences may have been related to ethnic- ity, education, or the nurse not be- ing part of that group (i.e., being a per diem float or travel nurse). One nurse commented, “During my first pregnancy, because the charge nurse did not like me, I was assigned the most infectious patients (HIV, tu- berculosis, and hepatitis). When I complained, I was ridiculed and told, ‘Sorry, this is your assignment.’

When pregnancy complications de- veloped, I was put on light duty but nobody would help me. I was told, ‘Do your job or leave.’”

A 50-year-old new graduate wrote, “There were negative behav- iors in my first nursing experience, which was at a long-term care center: clique groups, rumors, sarcasm, and nurses not helping me with things I hadn’t encountered before. I was left alone with 40 patients constantly.” A 27-year-old Asian nurse wrote, “My pronunciation and English often gets ridiculed. I am one of the nurses from the Philippines who were hired 3 years ago.”

Leaving the Job Nurses wrote of leaving their

jobs as a result of being targets of bullying behaviors. Some talked of leaving their jobs and others wrote of leaving the profession. The ori- entation period seems to be a time when newly graduated nurses are particularly vulnerable to bullying. Thirty-eight nurses wrote of nega- tive experiences during the orien- tation period. A 24-year-old staff nurse in the operating room lament- ed, “During my 3 months of orienta- tion, I was bullied quite often. It was seen as proving yourself to your fel- low employees. I was often set up to fail purposely. I considered leaving almost daily.”

Another wrote, “This survey al- lowed me to share my experiences of my first years in the work force as a registered nurse. I worked in a hos- pital for 10 months. After that expe- rience, I seriously considered never working as a nurse again.”

A 28-year-old nurse wrote of her first year, “I currently work in an emergency room but recently left a cardiac floor in the same hospital be- cause of most of the nurses I worked with. The gossip and bullying made me leave. Many other new graduates have left this particular unit as well. The nurse manager was fully aware of the actions and attitudes on her unit but chose not to do much about them. It is a shame that new nurses are treated so badly. Every nurse was a new nurse once!”

diScUSSiOn The qualitative findings in this

study served as a method of trian- gulation for the survey data in the original study. The original study design did not aim to use a mixed- methods approach to examine bul- lying. At the outset of the study, it was not anticipated that 36% of the survey respondents would provide such rich narratives. However, de- spite these limitations in the original study design, the researchers chose to analyze the rich narratives us- ing qualitative methods, sharing the profound stories of experienced and witnessed bullying among nurses. The four major themes identified from the narratives clarified some of the suffering experienced and wit- nessed by nurses.

Simons (2008) reported an inter- esting finding in the original quan- titative analysis of the survey: 31% of the respondents met the criteria for experiencing bullying based on the responses to the NAQ-R scale, whereas only 21% responded that they had been bullied when asked and given the definition. This sug- gested a discrepancy in nurses’ un- derstanding of the construct of bul- lying and its impact on their work lives. Perhaps some of the nurses had the common perception of bully- ing as involving verbal taunts as op- posed to negative actions by those in positions of power over time. Many of those who shared their stories, however, reflected an awareness of this aspect of the definition. One of the four major themes captured the essence of these stories—structural bullying. Nurses wrote of unfair and punitive scheduling and pressure placed on them not to use earned sick or holiday time.

The theme of structural bully- ing has significant implications for nurses in general and occupational health nurses in particular. Nurses need to be aware that this type of subtle bullying (i.e., inequitable pa- tient assignments, shift allocations, or vacation allotments) needs to be prevented, identified, and dealt with fairly. Nurses who feel powerless in the workplace need to find their

309

Business and Leadership

voice and recognize how to identify and resolve this issue. Occupational health nurses can provide nursing staff with the knowledge and actions to stop the perpetuation of this nega- tive culture.

The survey questions focused on a descriptive analysis of the preva- lence of bullying and its impact on leaving the profession. The two themes identified in the narratives— nurses eating their young and feeling out of the clique—helped to clarify how bullying can emerge in the work setting. The former is unfortunate and was expressed by many of the re- spondents. They experienced and wit- nessed this phenomenon as nursing students and as newly licensed nurs- es. In addition, many attributed their experience of bullying to not quite fitting in with the perceived clique. Racial and ethnic differences were identified within this theme, as were factors such as being pregnant or a float nurse. Implications for nurses in the educational setting as well as for nurses in the occupational health set- ting are evident in terms of preparing new nurses to address and deal with this potential form of workplace bul- lying and educating those in positions of power to prevent bullying and be aware of its potential impact.

The fourth theme identified in these narratives was related to the perceived impact of bullying on job retention. Although the survey tool measured bullying and intention to leave the job, it could not capture the direct impact of bullying and could not control for other factors that would impact leaving the job. Those participants who chose to write their stories commonly discussed the im- pact of bullying on their choice to leave a job and, in some cases, the profession. Occupational health nurses must be aware of the direct impact that bullying can have on job retention, in both the nursing pro- fession and other job sectors. When faced with such powerlessness, many employees choose to resign the posi- tion. Occupational health nurses can provide a vehicle to educate and sup- port those who are oppressed in the workplace.

None of the nurses wrote of actions that they employed to ame- liorate or eliminate the bullying be- havior. With the exception of one study (Griffin, 2004) that tested cognitive rehearsal as a strategy to deal with the negative effects of lat- eral violence, a paucity of research is available to assist administrators and nurses in occupational health with this problem that affects all as- pects of nursing. Both nursing staff and administrators need to be better educated about bullying so that they can more clearly identify the behav- ior both in themselves and in oth- ers. Future qualitative study designs need to specifically address this as- pect of the bullying cycle.

Although these qualitative find- ings shed light on a poorly understood phenomenon, several limitations of this study were identified. The major limitation of this study is that it was not designed originally with the rigor of a qualitative study that includes prolonged engagement in the field, in-depth personal interviews, or an avenue for member checking (Cre- swell, 2007). The authors acknowl- edge that the analysis of these data relied on qualitative methods, but the study was not designed with the stan- dards of a rigorous qualitative study.

Creswell (2007) suggests that at least two means of validation be incorpo- rated into qualitative analysis. Two measures used for this analysis in- cluded peer review or debriefing by the two authors of this report and the inclusion of data that provided a writ- ten rich description that could allow the reader to evaluate whether the findings are transferable to nurses in other settings.

A second limitation is that the open-ended section of the survey did not define bullying or ask for responses related to this definition. However, two researchers indepen- dently analyzed the data to ensure that the narratives included in the analysis did meet the criteria. Al- though the 184 respondents to the open-ended section of the survey had demographics similar to those of the entire survey respondent group, it cannot be implied that this group represented all of the survey partici- pants. In addition, another limitation is that the sample was drawn solely from nurses licensed in one state; it is unknown whether these results are typical of nurses in other parts of the country. Self-selection bias is a possible limitation to this study as well. Those with bullying expe- riences may have been more likely

AAOHN JOURNAl • VOl. 58, NO. 7, 2010

Bullying in the Workplace A Qualitative Study of Newly licensed Registered Nurses

Simons, S. R., & Mawn, B.

AAOHN Journal 2010; 58(7), 305-311.

1 Substantial research has shown that workplace bullying has profound negative effects on the health and well-being of individuals. These effects translate into considerable economic consequences for the organization.

2 Occupational health nurses can intervene directly to affect the health of employees and the profitability of the company. Through educa- tion and counseling, occupational health nurses develop programs to prevent bullying and provide support to those who experience it.

3 Occupational health nurses promote healthy working environments and positive organizational changes to ensure that bullying is not an accepted part of the culture.

i n S U M M A R Y

310 Copyright © American Association of Occupational Health Nurses, Inc.

Business and Leadership

to respond to the survey in the first place and may not represent all new- ly licensed registered nurses in the United States.

Although additional future sur- veys can well serve to document the prevalence and incidence of bullying in varying settings among nurses with diverse levels of experience and edu- cation, rigorous qualitative research needs to be conducted to understand the roots of the phenomenon and its impact on nurses. In addition, inter- vention studies need to be designed to evaluate best practices and poli- cies to improve reporting and reduce the impact and existence of bullying among nurses.

cOnclUSiOnS This survey provided these

nurses an opportunity to share their personal stories about workplace bul- lying. The four themes identified put a new lens on the survey findings and expanded the understanding of bul- lying among the nursing work force. Several recent studies have validated that bullying exists in nurses’ work- places. These studies have shown that bullying is associated with job satisfaction, performance, and reten- tion, but little has been documented to examine these relationships in- depth. Additional research is needed to expand the knowledge about the factors that precipitate this noxious behavior and how to effectively treat and eradicate it.

Occupational health nurses can intervene in these issues that direct- ly affect the health of employees. Through research, educational pro- grams, and counseling, occupational health nurses can support and assist targets of bullying through difficult conflict situations. Bullying has been part of workplace culture since the beginning of professional nurs- ing and has been tacitly accepted by nurses for too long. Nurses are only just beginning to understand the root of this unfortunate phenomenon. Although this study adds to the un- derstanding of workplace bullying among nurses, additional research is needed to fully understand the phenomenon and develop effective

interventions to ultimately eliminate the behavior.

REFEREncES Balducci, C., Alfano, V., & Fraccaroli, F.

(2009). Relationships between mobbing at work and MMPI-2 personality profile, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and sui- cidal ideation and behavior. Violence and Victims, 24(1), 52-67.

Bartholomew, K. (2006). Ending nurse to nurse hostility: Why nurses eat their young and each other. Marblehead, MA: HCPro, Inc.

Benner, P. (2001). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto: D.C. Heath.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins D. Jr., & Klesh, J. R. (1981). Intention to turn over. In J. D. Cook, S. J. Hepworth, T. D. Wall, & P. B. Warr (Eds.), The experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use (p. 95). New York: Academic Press.

Cox, H. C. (1991). Verbal abuse nationwide: Part I. Oppressed group behavior. Nursing Management, 22(2), 32-35.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five ap- proaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curtis, E., & Redmond, R. (2009). Survey postal questionnaire: Optimizing response and dealing with non-response. Nurse Re- searcher, 16(2), 76-88.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet sur- veys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Duffy, E. (1995). Horizontal violence: A co- nundrum for nursing. Collegian Journal of the Royal College of Nursing Australia, 2(2), 5-17.

Einarsen, S., & Hoel, H. (2001). The Negative Acts Questionnaire: Development, valida- tion and revision of a measure of bullying at work. Paper presented at the 10th An- nual European Congress on Work and Or- ganizational Psychology, Prague.

Einarsen, S., & Mikkelsen, E. G. (2003). In- dividual effects of exposure to bullying at work. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emo- tional abuse in the workplace (pp. 127- 144). London: Taylor and Francis.

Fanon, F. (1963). The wretched of the earth. New York, NY: Grove Press,

Felblinger, D. M. (2008). Incivility and bul- lying in the workplace and nurses’ shame responses. Journal of Obstetric, Gyneco- logic, and Neonatal Nursing, 37(2), 234- 242.

Ferns, T., & Meerabeau, L. (2008). Verbal abuse experienced by nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61(4), 436- 444.

Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the US workplace.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 438- 456.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Griffin, M. (2004). Teaching cognitive re- hearsal as a shield for lateral violence: An intervention for newly licensed nurses. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nurs- ing, 35(6), 1-7.

Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviors are not neces- sarily equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 32, 367- 387.

Hutchison, M., Jackson, D., Vickers, M. H., & Wilkes, L. (2006). They stand you in a corner; you are not to speak: Nurses tell of abusive indoctrination in work teams dom- inated by bullies. Contemporary Nurse, 21, 228-240.

Johnson, C. L., Martin, S. D., & Markle-El- der, S. (2007). Stopping verbal abuse in the workplace. American Journal of Nursing, 107(4), 32-34.

Kearny, M. (2001). Levels and applications of qualitative research evidence. Research in Nursing and Health, 24, 145-153.

Kivimaki, M., Elovainio, M., & Vahtera, J. (2000). Workplace bullying and sickness absence in hospital staff. Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 57(10), 656- 660.

Kivimaki, M., Virtanen, M., Vartia, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera, J., & Keltikangas- Jarvinen, L. (2003). Workplace bullying and the risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. Occupational & Environmen- tal Medicine, 60(10), 779-783.

Lewis, S. E. (2006). Recognition of workplace bullying: A qualitative study of women tar- gets in the public sector. Journal of Com- munity & Applied Social Psychology, 16, 119-135.

Lewis, S. E., & Orford, J. (2005). Women’s ex- periences of workplace bullying: Changes in social relationships. Journal of Com- munity & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 29-47.

Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psycho- logical terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims, 5, 119-126.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, percep- tion, degree and impact. Journal of Man- agement Studies, 44(6), 837-862.

Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2 configurations among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 467-484.

McKenna, B. G., Smith, N. A., Poole, S. J., & Coverdale, J. H. (2003). Horizontal vio- lence: Experiences of registered nurses in their first year of practice. Journal of Ad- vanced Nursing, 42(1), 90-96.

Meissner, J. E. (1999). Nurses: Are we still eating our young? Nursing, 29(2), 42-44.

Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Sense of coherence as a protec-

311

Business and Leadership

AAOHN JOURNAl • VOl. 58, NO. 7, 2010

tive mechanism among targets of work- place bullying. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(2), 128-136.

Pryor, J. B., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2003). Sexual harassment research in the United States. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace (pp. 79-100). Lon- don: Taylor and Francis.

Quine, L. (2001). Workplace bullying in nurses. Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 73-84.

Rowe, M. M., & Sherlock, H. (2005). Stress and verbal abuse in nursing: Do burned out

nurses eat their young? Journal of Nursing Management, 13(3), 242-248.

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing and Health, 23, 334-340.

Simons, S. R. (2008). Workplace bullying experienced by Massachusetts registered nurses and the relationship to intention to leave the organization. Advances in Nurs- ing Science, 31(2), E48-E59.

Tehrani, N. (2004). Bullying: A source of chronic post traumatic stress. British Jour- nal of Guidance & Counseling, 32(3), 357- 366.

Van Horn, P. S., Green, K. E., & Martinus- sen, M. (2009). Survey response rates and survey administration in counseling and clinical psychology. Educational and Psy- chological Measurement, 69, 389-403.

Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (2005). Measurement in nursing and health research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escala- tion and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy- chology, 10, 497-522.

Copyright of AAOHN Journal is the property of SLACK Incorporated and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Cyberbullying: The New Face of Workplace Bullying?

Carmel Privitera, MPsych and Marilyn Anne Campbell, Ph.D.

Abstract

While the subject of cyberbullying of children and adolescents has begun to be addressed, less attention and research have focused on cyberbullying in the workplace. Male-dominated workplaces such as manufacturing settings are found to have an increased risk of workplace bullying, but the prevalence of cyberbullying in this sector is not known. This exploratory study investigated the prevalence and methods of face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying of males at work. One hundred three surveys (a modified version of the revised Negative Acts Questionnaire [NAQ-R]) were returned from randomly selected members of the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU). The results showed that 34% of respondents were bullied face-to-face, and 10.7% were cyberbullied. All victims of cyberbullying also experienced face-to-face bullying. The implications for organizations’ ‘‘duty of care’’ in regard to this new form of bullying are indicated.

Introduction

The information and communication technology(ICT) revolution over the last decade has heralded a rapid growth in the number of people interacting using modern technologies such as the Internet and mobile phones. In 2005, there were over 1 billion Internet users and 2 billion mobile phone users worldwide.2 This widespread access to modern communication devices has provided an alternative medium for bullies to target their victims.3 Various terms are used to describe this new phenomenon, including cyberbullying, elec- tronic bullying, e-bullying, SMS bullying, mobile bullying, online bullying, digital bullying, and Internet bullying.4 As in the case of face-to-face bullying, this relatively new field of study has initially focused on children and adolescents, with investiga- tions of cyberbullying in the workplace slow to commence.

Definitions

Workplace bullying is repeated behavior that offends, humiliates, sabotages, intimidates, or negatively affects some- one’s work when there is an imbalance of power.5,6 Both face- to-face bullying and cyberbullying are about relationships, power, and control.7 Workplace bullying is considered to occur when one or more individuals perceive themselves to be the target of repeated and systematic negative acts on at least a weekly basis8 over a period of 6 months or longer.8,9

There is also an imbalance of power between the perpetra- tor and the target of bullying in addition to the victim’s at- tribution of the perpetrator’s intent to cause harm.10 Because of this imbalance of power, victims’ ability to cope with the exposure to systematic negative acts becomes severely im-

paired11 because they may not perceive themselves to be in a position to effectively protect themselves or to be able to re- move themselves from the negative situation.11

Prevalence

Research in Scandinavian countries has reported work- place bullying prevalence rates from 3.5% to 16%.9,12 How- ever, studies conducted in the United Kingdom have found higher prevalence rates. Incidence rates have been estimated from international studies13 to be between 400,000 and 2 mil- lion employees.

Large organizations with a higher ratio of male-to-female employees in the manufacturing sector have also been shown to have an increased risk of exposure to workplace bully- ing.9,12 Furthermore, male workers and supervisors have been found to be exposed to higher frequencies of negative behavior14 due to the often hostile and authoritarian culture of male-dominated work environments.

Consequences

The experience of workplace bullying can have negative consequences on victims physical health and emotional well- being.15–18 The impact of workplace bullying can also extend into the victim’s social and family relationships.16,19–22 In addition, future career advancements such as job promotion can be threatened or damaged21 because of victims taking long-term or recurring sick leave as a result of ill health from being bullied at work.22

The psychological well-being of employees who witness bullying in the workplace can also be compromised,16,23–26

School of Learning and Professional Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY & BEHAVIOR Volume 12, Number 4, 2009 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089=cpb.2009.0025

395

producing low staff morale,21,27 reduced commitment,21,27,29

lowered job satisfaction,21,28 and the breakdown of work re- lationships and teams.25

The impact at the organizational level is an increased rate of absenteeism,16,21,30,31 which in turn negatively impacts ef- ficiency, productivity, and profitability.21,27,32 High staff turnover due to low workplace morale and the resignation of staff is costly and time consuming, requiring recruitment and the retraining of new staff.16,21,27 The reputation of the organization may also suffer because of a poor public image as a difficult place to work.16 These consequences could be exacerbated even more by the new form of workplace cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying techniques use modern communication technology to send derogatory or threatening messages di- rectly to the victim or indirectly to others, to forward personal and confidential communication or images of the victim for others to see, and to publicly post denigrating messages.7,33,34

The two main electronic devices through which bullying from a distance occurs are online computers, providing access to e-mail and Web sites, and mobile phones, including calls and Short Message Service (SMS).

The emerging literature on research with children and adolescents indicates that cyberbullying is a serious and es- calating concern at a global level.10,33–36 Cases have also emerged of bullying at work via e-mail.16,37 While cyberbul- lying in school and at work has become a recent topic in the media,39 research into workplace cyberbullying is still in progress.

Research aims

The primary aim of this exploratory study was to ascertain the prevalence of face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying in the manufacturing workplace. In addition, organizational size (small, medium, large), type of organization (private or public sector), and hierarchical job status (worker or super- visor) were investigated to ascertain whether there were any differences in types of negative acts used to bully. Both a behavioral inventory and a self-report measure of workplace bullying were used.

Methodology

Participants

Participants were male employees belonging to the Aus- tralian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), Queens- land, Australia. A total of 145 questionnaires were returned, of which 84 (57.9%) were from the mail-out and 61 (42.1%) were from the online survey, an overall response rate of 7.3%.

However, 42 (29%) of these respondents were excluded from the analysis on the basis of missing data. The total sample for analysis consisted of 103 individuals, of whom 63.1% were recruited via mail-out and 36.9% via e-mail.

The average age for the sample was 43.2 (SD¼ 9.81), ranging from 20 to 60 years. All respondents were employed on a full-time basis. Two respondents did not indicate the type of organization for which they worked. Table 1 presents the main characteristics of the respondents included in the sample.

Although there was a significant difference in age between the sample obtained from mail-out and the online survey (t¼ 2.55, df¼ 101, p¼ 0.012), with the Internet responders being younger, on average, than the mail responders, there were no significant differences in regard to size of orga- nization (w2¼ 1.03, df¼ 2, p¼ 0.599), employment sector (w2¼ 0.43, df¼ 1, p¼ 0.510), or hierarchical status at work (w2¼ 0.07, df¼ 1, p¼ 0.797). It was therefore decided to com- bine the data of the two groups.

Procedure

Participants were randomly selected by computer from the AMWU Queensland members’ register comprising of ap- proximately 13,000 individuals from within four divisions (Metal & Engineering; Technical, Supervisory and Adminis- trative (TSA); Printing; and Vehicle). Initially, a paper version of the questionnaire was posted to the home address of 1,000 participants. Included with the questionnaire was a letter from the Union endorsing the research, an information sheet informing voluntary participation and confidentiality of re- sponses, and a self-addressed stamped envelope to facilitate the return of the questionnaire. Due to a low response rate, another 1000 members, selected on the basis of having an e-mail address on the AMWU Queensland member’s register, were e-mailed. The e-mail contained the hyperlink to an on- line version of the survey, an electronic version of the Union- endorsed letter, and the information sheet.

Measure of workplace bullying

The Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R)1 com- prises 22 items referring to particular behaviors in the workplace that may be perceived as bullying as well as a self- report item on victimization. The behaviors or negative acts are descriptive without labeling the actions as bullying. The behaviors include being shouted at, being humiliated, having opinions ignored, being excluded, repeated reminders of er- rors, intimidating behavior, excessive monitoring of work, and persistent criticism of work and effort. The researchers modified the NAQ-R to also incorporate cyberbullying mo- dalities of e-mail, SMS, and mobile or landline telephone calls in addition to the original face-to-face modality.

Table 1. Main Characteristics of the Respondents Included in the Sample (N¼ 103)

Job tenure (%) Organizational size (number of employees) Sector (%) Hierarchical status1 (%)*

< 5 yrs > 5 yrs Small Medium Large Private Public Worker Supervisory

43.69 56.31 < 101 101–500 > 500 58.25 39.81 62.14 37.86

*The last two categories were aggregated to form one supervisory role category for the purposes of analysis.

396 PRIVITERA AND CAMPBELL

Participants were asked to complete a 5-point Likert scale on how often they had been subjected to these behaviors over the last 6 months: 1, never; 2, now and then; 3, monthly; 4, weekly; and 5, daily. To estimate the frequency of exposure to both face-to-face and cyberbullying, Leymann’s8 opera- tional definition of workplace bullying of one incident per week over a period of at least 6 months was employed.

In addition to indicating the frequency of any negative act experienced in the workplace face to face, by e-mail, by SMS, and=or by phone over the previous 6 months, respondents were asked to report if they had been bullied, according to the following definition of workplace bullying, modified from the NAQ-R, to include both face-to-face bullying and cyber- bullying:

We define bullying as: a situation where one or several indi- viduals persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions (whether in person, by email, by SMS and=or by phone), from one or several persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in defending him or herself against these actions. We will not refer to a one-off incident as bullying.

Participants indicated, according to this definition, if they had been subjected to bullying over the past 6 months. The six possible responses were (a) no; (b) yes, very rarely; (c) yes, now and then; (d) yes, several times per month; (e) yes, several times per week; and (f ) yes, almost daily.

In this study, the internal consistency of the NAQ-R, as measured by Cronbach’s a, was found to be 0.94 overall.

Results

Perceived exposure to negative behaviors in the workplace

Of the 103 respondents, 89.3% (n¼ 92) reported experi- encing at least one negative act either face-to-face or by

e-mail, SMS, or telephone on at least a ‘‘now-and-then’’ basis over the previous 6 months. Of these respondents, 5.8% (n¼ 6) reported experiencing a single type of negative act, while 83.5% (n¼ 86) reported two or more types of nega- tive acts. On average, participants reported exposure to 8.9 (SD¼ 6.6) different types of negative acts on an now- and-then or more frequent basis. The incidence of negative acts on a now-and-then basis via modern technology was 8.7% (n¼ 9) by e-mail, 8.7% (n¼ 9) by SMS, and 34% (n¼ 35) by telephone.

In accordance with Leymann’s8 criterion of bullying, 34% (n¼ 35) of all respondents could be classified as victims of bullying behavior because they reported experiencing at least one negative behavior on at least a weekly basis in the last 6 months. Furthermore, 25.2% (n¼ 26) of these respondents reported weekly exposure to multiple negative acts. Of all the respondents who experienced negatives acts via modern technology (10.7% [n¼ 11]), 7 participants were from the online survey sample and 4 were from the mail-out sample. All respondents who perceived themselves as having been exposed to negative behaviors via modern technology also perceived that they were exposed to face-to-face victimiza- tion. This consisted of 8.7% (n¼ 9) by e-mail, 7.8% (n¼ 8) by telephone, and 5.8% (n¼ 6) by both e-mail and telephone. No respondents had experienced at least one negative act on a weekly basis by SMS.

Bullying and type of negative acts

Table 2 presents the prevalence of perceived exposure to negative acts, bullying, and victimization for each negative act as per Leymann’s8 operational definition.

Using Leymann’s8 operational definition of workplace bullying of one negative behavior on at least a weekly basis in the last 6 months, all 22 acts were reported by one or more respondents, who could identify then as victims of

Table 2. Prevalence of Perceived Exposure to Negative Acts, Bullying, and Victimization for Each Negative Act as per Leymann’s (1996) Operational Definition

Negative act Face-to-face (N¼ 35) Via modern technology (N¼ 11)

Ordered to do work below your level of competence. 17 (48.6%) 4 (36.4%) Information withheld affecting your performance. 14 (40.0%) 6 (54.5%) Opinions and views ignored. 14 (40.0%) 2 (18.2%) Being ignored, excluded, or being ‘‘sent to Coventry.’’ 11 (31.4%) 2 (18.2%) Key areas of responsibility removed. 10 (28.6%) 2 (18.2%) Excessive monitoring of your work. 10 (28.6%) 2 (18.2%) Insulting=offensive remarks. 10 (28.6%) 1 (9.1%) Exposed to an unmanageable workload. 9 (25.7%) 3 (27.3%) Given tasks with unreasonable targets=deadlines. 9 (25.7%) 1 (9.1%) Spreading of gossip and rumors about you. 8 (22.9%) 3 (27.3%) Humiliated=ridiculed in connection with your work. 6 (17.1%) 1 (9.1%) Being shouted at=the target of anger or rage. 6 (17.1%) 1 (9.1%) Ignored=facing a hostile reaction when you approach. 6 (17.1%) 0 Persistent criticism of your work and effort. 6 (17.1%) 0 Repeated reminders of your errors or mistakes. 5 (14.3%) 1 (9.1%) Pressure not to claim your entitlements. 5 (14.3%) 1 (9.1%) Intimidating behavior. 5 (14.3%) 0 Allegations made against you. 4 (11.4%) 3 (27.3%) Hints=signals from others to quit your job. 3 (8.6%) 1 (9.1%) Practical jokes from people you don’t get on with. 3 (8.6%) 0 Threats of violence or physical abuse. 2 (5.7%) 0 Excessive teasing and sarcasm. 1 (2.9%) 0

CYBERBULLYING IN THE WORKPLACE 397

face-to-face bullying. However, only 16 of the 22 items presented in the NAQ-R were reported by victims of cyber- bullying.

The most frequently reported negative act via modern technology was ‘‘someone withholding information’’ by e-mail 55.6% (n¼ 5) and=or by telephone 37.5% (n¼ 3) (this included 2 respondents reporting both methods). The spreading of gossip by telephone was reported by 37.5% (n¼ 3) of respondents cyberbullied. Being subjected to alle- gations made against them by e-mail and being exposed to an unmanageable workload by e-mail were each reported by an equal number of cyberbullied respondents, 37.5% (n¼ 3). As mentioned earlier, no respondents indicated experiencing cyberbullying by SMS as per Leymann’s criteria.

Bullying and organizational demographics

To analyze whether the size (small, medium, or large), type of organization (public or private), and hierarchical status of the employee (worker or supervisory role) impacted bullying (bullied or not bullied), Chi-square tests were applied. There were no significant relationships found between the size or type of organization and being a victim of workplace bully- ing: w2¼ 0.688, df¼ 2, p¼ 0.709 and w2¼ 1.413, df¼ 1, p¼ 0.234 respectively. This suggests that there exists an equal chance of being bullied regardless of whether respondents were em- ployed in small, medium, or large organizations or within the private or public sectors. Similarly, there were no statistically significant relationships found between the employees’ hier- archical status in the organization and the reporting of face- to-face bullying (w2¼ 1.946, df¼ 1, p¼ 0.163). Therefore, those in supervisory roles as general workers were as likely to re- port perceived exposure to face-to-face bullying.

Due to the small sample size, it was not possible to sta- tistically test whether an association existed for the same variables and cyberbullying.

Comparing reported perceived negative acts and self-reported bullying

After indicating the frequency of negative acts experienced in the workplace on the behavior inventory section of the NAQ-R, respondents were asked to report, according to the given definition, if they considered themselves to have been subjected to face-to-face bullying and=or cyberbullying. The frequency of respondents reporting experiencing victimiza- tion in the workplace in the total sample is shown in Table 3.

By combining the frequencies in the ‘‘Yes, several times per week’’ with the ‘‘Yes, almost daily’’ categories, 18.7% (6) re- spondents could be classified as victims of workplace bully- ing according to Leymann’s8 criteria.

Of the 35 respondents who reported being subjected to negative acts on a daily or weekly basis on the behavior inventory section of the NAQ-R, only 17.1% (n¼ 6) self-

reported being subjected to victimization according to the given definition. However, all of the respondents who self- reported experiencing victimization also indicated via the NAQ-R that they had experienced bullying. Therefore, all respondents who identified themselves as being victimized fit Leymann’s8 criteria used in the operational definition.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to ascertain the preva- lence of face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying in the man- ufacturing workplace. The results suggest that negative acts via technology are emerging alongside those enacted face-to- face in the workplace and may represent the new form of bullying, though to a much more limited extent.

Overall, the results revealed that one third of the respon- dents reported being recipients of at least one negative act weekly over the previous 6 months. Using Leymann’s8 op- erational definition of workplace bullying, these respondents could be considered to have experienced workplace bullying. A quarter of these respondents reported having experienced more than one negative act toward them weekly with the average number of negative acts experienced weekly being nearly nine. Furthermore, the majority of respondents re- ported experiencing some form of negative act on a now-and- then basis over the same period.

All 34% of victims of workplace bullying had been sub- jected to face-to-face bullying. Nearly one third of these re- spondents also experienced negative acts via modern technologies, by e-mail, telephone, or both, on at least a weekly basis. This represented 1 in 10 of all respondents, suggesting that when applying Leymann’s8 operational def- inition of workplace bullying, 11% of all respondents could be considered to have experienced some form of cyberbullying. This figure increased to over half of all respondents when the criteria for cyberbullying were relaxed to include respondents who were subjected to a negative act on a now-and-then basis. Every respondent who reported negative acts by e-mail had been subjected to cyberbullying as per Leymann’s criteria of workplace bullying. The negative acts reported by SMS were not experienced frequently enough to fit Leymann’s criteria of workplace bullying. It is interesting to note that at this time, victims who were considered to have experienced cyberbullying were also bullied face-to-face, contrary to re- cent preliminary findings with children who reported expe- riencing cyberbullying without face-to-face bullying.37

There were no significant differences found when the prevalence of face-to-face bullying was compared across several organizational types. This demonstrated an equal risk of exposure to face-to-face bullying regardless of the size and type of organization and the hierarchical status held within the workplace by the respondent. Because cyberbul- lying could not be statistically analyzed in this sample, it was

Table 3. Frequency of Respondents’ Self-Reporting Having Experienced Bullying in the Workplace

No Yes, very

rarely Yes, now and

then Yes, several

times per month Yes, several times

per week Yes, almost

daily Total bullied

N 71 12 10 4 5 1 32 % 68.9% 37.5 31.3% 12.5% 15.6% 3.1% 31.1%

398 PRIVITERA AND CAMPBELL

not possible to determine whether this held true for cyber- bullying.

The self-report question on the NAQ-R asking participants to respond to the given definition of bullying provides an opportunity to capture respondents who identify themselves as victims of workplace bullying even though they were not identified as such due to the limits of the operational definition in the behavior inventory section of the NAQ-R. Nonetheless, all respondents who self-reported as victims of workplace bullying were also identified in the behavioral inventory. Of the 35 workers who reported being subjected to negative acts on a daily or weekly basis, 29 did not self-report as victims of bullying.

The higher prevalence rates found using the behavioral inventory compared with the self-report of being a victim of workplace bullying confirms the findings of previous stud- ies.12 This disparity may be explained by factors relating to culture. Shopfloor culture, especially in male-dominated or- ganizations, may impact on self-reporting of workplace bul- lying if negative behaviors are accepted as the norm.38

Awareness that negative acts may constitute bullying be- haviors may therefore be low among respondents who were subjected to negative acts, and=or men may be reticent to label themselves as victims. This may be due to male ste- reotypes within the wider culture.

This exploratory study was limited by several factors. The sample size was small with a response rate of only 7.3%, and it was Queensland based, which prevents the findings being generalized to the overall experience of members of the AMWU or extended to include all employees working in manufacturing as a whole. Additionally, only males partici- pated, which also limits these results. It is also possible that individuals who had experienced negative acts in the work- place may have been more motivated to respond and were subsequently overrepresented.

In addition, the survey did not include information about the respondents’ levels of access to e-mail or to fixed-line or mobile telephones. Workers in manufacturing may not have continual access to modern technologies, which may have impacted on the frequency of cyberbullying. Subsequently, it could not be verified that every respondent was at equal risk of exposure to cyberbullying or whether cyberbullying by telephone was on a fixed-line telephone or a mobile tele- phone. It remains for future research to undertake further study with a different population. Another limitation could be that some negative acts are easier to imagine happening face-to-face than by technology.

There are significant benefits, however, in incorporating online surveys into future research on workplace cyberbul- lying, such as the potential to improve response rates, elimi- nate missing data, minimize human data-input error, and maximize cost effectiveness.

Conclusion

The present study contributes to the literature of workplace bullying through the exploration of prevalence rates of both face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying in the workplace, particularly in the manufacturing sector in Queensland, Australia. The results suggest that the ICT revolution has the potential to change the face of bullying, which now in- cludes victims being subjected to negative behaviors via

modern communication technologies such as e-mail and telephones.

As many countries impose a duty of care to protect the health, safety, and welfare of employees, organizational management need to be aware that cyberbullying exists in the workplace. Codes of practice need to be updated to ensure that workplaces implement policies and procedures to ad- dress this issue. Future research into this relatively new field of study, cyberbullying, is essential in order to further un- derstand the extent of the phenomenon and impact on em- ployees, organizations, and society, as well as to establish preventative measures for cyberbullying in the workplace.

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

1. Einarsen S, Hoel H. The Negative Acts Questionnaire: de- velopment, validation and revision of a measure of bullying at work. Paper presented at the 10th European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology, Prague, Czech Re- public, May 2001.

2. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2007) The world fact book. www.cia.gov=cia=publications=factbook=geos=as.html# Comm (accessed April 10, 2007).

3. Keith S, Martin M. Cyberbullying: creating a culture of re- spect in a cyberworld. Reclaiming Children & Youth 2005; 13:224–8.

4. Hinduja S, Patchin J. (2007) Cyberbullying. www.cyber bullying.us (accessed February 16, 2007).

5. Barron O. (2003) Workplace violence and bullying: your rights, what to do and where to go for help. Melbourne, Australia: Jobwatch & WorkSafe Victoria.

6. Zapf D, Einarsen S. Bullying in the workplace: recent trends in research and practice—an introduction. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 2001; 10: 369–73.

7. Belsey B. (n.d.) Cyberbullying: an emerging threat to the ‘‘always on’’ generation. www.cyberbullying.ca (accessed March 10, 2007).

8. Leymann H. The content and development of mobbing at work. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psy- chology 1996; 5:165–84.

9. Einarsen S, Skogstad A. Bullying at work: epidemiologi- cal findings in public and private organisations. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 1996; 5:185– 201.

10. Hinduja S, Patchin J. (2005) Cyberbullying: factsheet. www.cyberbullying.us (accessed February 16, 2007).

11. Einarsen S. Harassment and bullying at work: a review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression & Violent Behaviour 2000; 5:379–401.

12. Mikkelsen E, Einarsen S. Bullying in Danish work-life: prevalence and health correlates. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 2001; 10:393–43.

13. Beyond Bullying Association (BBA). (n.d.) Bullying facts & figures. www.connectqld.org.au=asp=index.asp?pgid¼19973 (accessed June 9, 2007).

14. Hoel H, Cooper C, Faragher B. The experience of bullying in Great Britain: the impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 2001; 10:443– 65.

15. Hoel H, Faragher B, Cooper C. Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily

CYBERBULLYING IN THE WORKPLACE 399

equally damaging. British Journal of Guidance & Counsel- ling 2004; 32:367–87.

16. Kieseker R, Marchant T. Workplace bullying in Australia: a review of current conceptualisations and existing research. Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Beha- viour 1999; 2:61–75.

17. Leymann H, Gustafsson A. Mobbing at work and the de- velopment of post-traumatic stress disorders. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 1996; 5:251– 75.

18. Sheehan M. (1998) Restructuring—rhetoric versus reality. In McCarthy P, Sheehan M, Wilkie S, et al, eds. Bullying— causes, costs and cures. Nathan, Australia: Beyond Bullying Association, pp. 153–66.

19. Adams A (1992) Bullying at work: how to confront it and overcome it. London: Virago Press.

20. Bennett E. Commentary II. Journal of Community & Ap- plied Social Psychology 1997; 7:245–7.

21. Richards H, Freeman S. (2002) Bullying in the workplace: an occupational hazard. Pymble, Australia: Harper Collins.

22. Thomson C. (1997) Workplace bullying project. Adelaide, South Australia: Working Women’s Centre.

23. Hoel H, Cooper C. (2000) Destructive conflict and bullying at work. Unpublished report. University of Manchester, Ins- titute of Science & Technology. www.csren.gov.uk=UMIST reporttHelgelHoel1.pdf (accessed December 19, 2005).

24. Björkqvist K, Osterman K, Hjelt-Bäck M. Aggression among university employees. Aggressive Behavior 1994; 20: 173–84.

25. Lewis SE, Orford J. Women’s experiences of adult workplace bullying: a process model of changes in social relationships. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 2005; 15:29–47.

26. Vartia M. Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the well-being of its targets and the observers of bullying. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 2001; 27:63–9.

27. Gandolfo R. MMPI-2 profiles of worker’s compensation claimants who present with complaints of harassment. Journal of Clinical Psychology 1995; 51:711–5.

28. Quine L. Workplace bullying in NHS community trust: staff questionnaire survey. British Medical Journal 1999; 318: 228–32.

29. Niedl K. Mobbing and well-being: economic and personnel development implications. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology 1996; 5:239–50.

30. Kivimäki M, Elovainio M, Vahtera J. Workplace bullying and sickness absence in hospital staff. Occupational & En- vironmental Medicine 2000; 57:656–60.

31. O’Moore M, Seigne E, McGuire L, et al. Victims of bullying at work in Ireland. Journal of Occupational Health & Safety, Australia & New Zealand 1998; 14:569–74.

32. The State of Queensland Department of Employment, Training & Industrial Relations (DETIR). (2004) Prevention of workplace harassment code of practice. www.detir .qld.gov.au=hs=legisl=whsact=d7056r03.pdf (accessed De- cember 19, 2005).

33. Bamford A. (2004) Cyberbullying. AHISA Pastoral Care National Conference. Melbourne, Australia. www.coc.edu .au=site=_documents=ahisaconferencebamfordcyberbullying .Pdf (accessed September 22, 2005).

34. Campbell MA. Cyber bullying: an old problem in a new guise? Australian Journal of Guidance & Counseling 2005; 15:68–76.

35. Dyrli OE. (2005) Cyberbullying: online bullying affects every school district. The Online Edge. www.districtadministration .com (accessed September 22, 2005).

36. Covell K. (2005) Violence against children in North America. North American Regional Consultation for the United Nations Secretary-General’s Study on Violence. Toronto, Canada: UNICEF.

37. Joseph R. (1998) Electronic mail and petty tyranny. In McCarthy P, Sheehan M, Wilkie W, et al. eds. Bullying: causes, costs and cures. Nathan, Australia: Beyond Bullying Association, pp. 115–31.

38. Salin D. Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals: a comparison of two different strategies for measuring bullying. European Journal of Work & Organi- zational Psychology 2001; 10:425–41.

39. Meadows B, Bergal J, Helling S, et al. The Web: the bully’s new playground. People 2005; 63:152.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Marilyn Anne Campbell

School of Learning and Professional Studies Queensland University of Technology

Kelvin Grove Brisbane, Queensland 4059

Australia

E-mail: [email protected]

400 PRIVITERA AND CAMPBELL