Relationships between bullying, psychosocial work environment and individual stress reactions

Abstract

It is frequently assumed that a poor psychosocial working environment will create conditions that encourage bullying. However, few studies have examined this assumption while comparing work environment ratings of bullied and non-bullied employees who work in the same organization and/or department. The objectives of this study were therefore, first, to investigate relationships between bullying and other psychosocial work environment factors within a particular organizational setting and, second, to investigate if bullied employees reported higher levels of stress than non-bullied employees. A total of 186 blue-collar employees from a Danish manufacturing company participated in the study (response rate of 93%). Results showed significant differences in bullied and non-bullied employees' ratings of psychosocial factors such as job control, management style, role clarity, social climate, social contact and work centrality. In order to investigate assumptions that a poor psychosocial work environment creates conditions that encourage bullying, a number of analyses compared the company's manufacturing departments with either high, medium or low levels of bullying. Results showed significant departmental differences. Yet, when bullied employees were removed from the statistical analyses, with regard to the perceived psychosocial environment these same departments could be differentiated only on the basis of rated job demands and management style. The results therefore bring into question the assumption that a generally poor work environment contributes to bullying. None the less, they do suggest that management style may directly or indirectly have contributed to a higher level of bullying. Also, bullied employees reported significantly more symptoms of psychological stress and mental fatigue than non-bullied employees.

The Determinants of Teachers’ Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Mental Fatigue

“…Workload was assessed with one subscale of an adjusted and validated version of the Psychosocial Work Environment and Stress Questionnaire (PWSQ) (AGERVOLD & MIKKELSEN 2004;GUGLIELMI et al 2011). The scale included 5 items referring to the perception of the workload and job pressure (e.g.…”

“…Five items concerning psychological fatigue, work reluctance and mental preoccupation with work were used to assess mental fatigue (AGERVOLD & MIKKELSEN 2004). Mental fatigue was measured with a four-point frequency rating scale ranging from 1 ('never') to 4 ('always').…”

“…In an attempt to explore this psychological mechanism that underlies the relationship between job demands and negative psychological and physical outcomes, the present study focuses on mental fatigue, considering it to be a result of difficulties in recovering after a day's work, and of the lack of coping strategies, meaning a lack of capacity to cope successfully with stressful situations at work (AGERVOLD & MIKKELSEN 2004). …”

State of the art report on bullying at the workplace in the Nordic countries

“…Seven studies addressed poor leadership (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8), three studies addressed personality (9)(10)(11), and 5 studies addressed gender and age (12)(13)(14)(15)(16). Two of these studies were qualitative studies.…”

“…A total of 17 studies concerning risk factors and antecedents of bullying at the workplace were identified. Five of these studies addressed poor leadership (2;3;6;8;12) and management style (8), six studies addressed organizational climate (4;15;21;23) or organizational changes (5;7), two studies addressed conflicts at work (24) (22), two studies addressed personality (9;10) and two studies addressed gender and bullying at the workplace (13;14). Fifteen studies were crosssectional studies.…”