The prospective relationship between role stressors and new cases of self‐reported workplace bullying

Abstract

In line with the "Work environment hypothesis," role stressors have been proposed as important antecedents of bullying in the workplace. Only a few longitudinal studies on the relationship between role stressors and bullying exist, however, and earlier studies have largely been cross-sectional. The aim of the present prospective study was to determine whether role stressors at baseline predict new cases of workplace bullying at follow-up. A total of 2,835 Norwegian employees participated at both baseline and follow-up, with an interval of two years between the measurements. The study supports the hypotheses that role ambiguity and role conflict, independently, contribute to subsequent new reports of workplace bullying. However, there was a weak reverse effect: reporting being bullied at work at baseline predicted reporting increased levels of role ambiguity and role conflict at follow-up. Even though the results may indicate a circular relationship between the variables at hand, the weak reverse relationship seems to have little practical impact compared to the stronger relationship from role stressors to bullying. Hence, the results mainly support the hypotheses stating that role ambiguity and role conflict, independently, predict subsequent exposure to workplace bullying.

Psychological and Social Work Factors as Predictors of Mental Distress: A Prospective Study

“…However, these factors may interact in complex causal processes influencing mental distress. For instance, non-supportive leadership [58], role conflict [58], [59], and role ambiguity [59] have been related to increased prevalence of workplace bullying. In the present study, role conflict, supportive leadership, and bullying were predictors of mental distress.…”

Change in psychological distress following change in workplace social capital: results from the panel surveys of the J-HOPE study

“…Conceptually, workplaces with higher social cohesion/social capital are associated with a greater exchange of social support between coworkers, as well as between supervisors and subordinates. Social support can take the form of the exchange of health-relevant information, and mutual respect between workers (as in the absence of discrimination, bullying and harassment) 27. However, in addition to social support, workplace social capital might promote health via other pathways—such as the ability to enforce healthy norms (such as safety climate).…”

Friend or foe? The impact of high‐performance work practices on workplace bullying

“…Similarly, Kilroy et al (2016) found that HPWPs decreased role conflict and role clarity among health care professionals. Role stressors, both role ambiguity and role conflict, have been shown to be associated with a higher risk of bullying (Reknes, Einarsen, Knardahl, & Lau, 2014). In fact, of all the work environment characteristics, role conflict has been found to be one of the strongest predictors of workplace bullying and harassment (Bowling & Beehr, 2006;Hauge et al, 2007).…”

“…The former suggests that HR practices need to be designed in ways that clarify expectations and empower employees to proactively define their own role within the organization (cf. Evans & Davis, 2005), because lower levels of role conflict are associated with less bullying (e.g., Hauge et al, 2007;Reknes et al, 2014).…”