Lewis, D.

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC
SECTOR: UNDERSTANDING THE

RACIAL DIMENSION
DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN
This paper reports the research findings of the experiences of public sector workers
of bullying at work across 13 organizations in South Wales. The study explored the
experiences of White and Ethnic minority respondents and found that there are
significant differences in the type and frequency of bullying behaviours being experienced by the two groups. Ethnic minority respondents are more likely to label
themselves as suffering from bullying behaviours than their White counterparts. The
evidence presented in this paper demonstrates how line managers use different tactics when bullying Ethnic respondents compared to White respondents. Furthermore,
when colleagues bully fellow colleagues, there are subtly different patterns of bullying behaviour towards White and Ethnic victims. Given the specific requirement to
comply with the public duty for promotion of racial equality expected under the Race
Relations Amendment Act (2000), it is important that these findings are recognized
by UK public sector organizations.
INTRODUCTION
In a report on stress, health and ethnicity for the United Kingdom Health and
Safety Executive (HSE), findings indicated that racial discrimination, particularly in combination with gender and ethnicity (HSE Research
Report 2005, No. 308), was a stark influence on work stress. In particular,
workplace discrimination for Black Caribbean women centred on racial abuse,
iniquitous work practices and being felt as valued less by management. Feelings of being devalued and ignored ensued. These facets of discrimination
mirror closely the research evidence for bullying at work where inequalities
of treatment result in feelings of abandonment and isolation (see, for example,
Einarsen et al. 2003; Lewis 2004). This paper takes a novel approach to workplace bullying research by specifically exploring the negative behaviours that
are reported as bullying and linking them directly with the ethnic classification of employees. A second original feature offered in this paper is specific
consideration of the different perpetrators who might instigate bullying behaviours, including different grades of manager and colleagues at different
levels. The aims of this paper are therefore twofold: first, to discover if minority ethnic groups suffer more or less negative behaviour experiences
Duncan Lewis is Acas Professor of Workplace Futures in the Glamorgan Business School and
Rod Gunn is in the Welsh Institute for Competitive Advantage, in the Glamorgan Business School,
University of Glamorgan.
Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665)
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
642
than White counterparts. Second, to explore if there are differences in the

behaviours exhibited by bullies dependent upon their organizational status.
Such an approach would enable us to better understand the experiences of
Ethnic and White employees and also to attain improved understanding of
the behaviours of bullies.
With nearly 30 years of legislative experience of dealing with race relations
at work (Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003), culture
in the UK should be sufficiently experienced in understanding and working
towards eradicating racism and racial discrimination in the workplace. Yet
evidence from UK society still indicates disadvantage for black and minority
ethnic [BME] people. UK national statistics reveal that mixed race adults and
Asian adults were more likely to be victims of crime compared to White
adults (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/). In 2002/03, minority ethnic groups
faced higher risks of being the victim of a racially motivated incident than
White people. Of people who had experienced a crime they thought was
racially motivated in a 12-month period, 4 per cent were mixed race people,
3 per cent were Asians, 2 per cent were Black people and 2 per cent were
from a Chinese or other background. This compares with less than 1 per cent
of White people (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/). Employment rates for
the United Kingdom in 200203 showed that non-White ethnic groups had
18 per cent lower employment compared to White groups; in parts of London,
the levels of lower employment compared to White groups varied between
14 per cent and 39 per cent (Brook 2004). Data collected by Walling (2004)
indicate that the majority of ethnic groups have higher proportions of workingage people living in workless households with Black African groups having
the highest proportion compared to White groups (workless households are
where all adults are unemployed or economically inactive or a mixture of
both). Chakraborti and Garland (2004), in a study of racial harassment in
rural contexts, reported how ethnic minorities regularly experienced racial
harassment. Many respondents had experienced racial harassment on a
daily or weekly basis and in one sample some 70 per cent of respondents
had some experience of racial harassment within a 12-month period. Broad
social and economic indicators such as these paint a bleak landscape for
many black and ethnic minority people. Even so, the disadvantage for BME
groups is often worse in an organizational context.
Institutional racism within some UK public sector institutions has been
shown to continue to have prominence. When Stephen Lawrence, a London
teenager, was murdered in 1993 by a group of White youths, the subsequent
lengthy inquiry revealed clear evidence of institutional racism within the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Macpherson Report (Stephen
Lawrence Inquiry 1999) of the subsequent Inquiry found that institutional
racism played a part in the flawed investigation by the MPS of the murder
of Stephen Lawrence. One of the most notable features of the Lawrence case
was that police officers failed to recognize the murder as a crime that was
racially motivated. The Metropolitan Police were also criticized for a lack of
2007 The Authors. Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
643
urgency and commitment in parts of their investigation. The Inquiry accepted the Commission for Racial Equalitys (CRE) submission that institutional racism exists, not only in the MPS and other police services, but also
in other institutions. The CRE (2003a) also found that in their investigation
of the murder of Zahid Mubarek, a young Asian youth murdered by a White
racist with whom he was forced to share a prison cell, the Prison Service was
guilty of a catalogue of errors in their handling of the two prisoners.
Because of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, legislation introduced
in 2000 aimed to address the race equality agenda in the public sector specifically with the purpose of embracing a more proactive requirement to
deliver enhanced race relations and positive race equality outcomes. As part
of the government agenda to augment race relations in the public sector, the
CRE undertook research to gauge employer responses with the aim of measuring the extent and quality of response to this public duty; a component
of the public duty to promote race equality included employee experiences
across the employment cycle and to gauge employee satisfaction. Findings
from the CRE report entitled Towards Racial Equality (2003b) stated
Progress in implementing the employment duty varied considerably and in
many cases there was little attention in schemes or policies to employment
measures (p. 6). The results also indicated that many institutions needed to
move beyond simply monitoring staff profiles and applicants for jobs and
to move towards addressing human resource (HR) and employment practices of those already in employment (CRE 2003b, p. 12).
The Macpherson Report also highlighted that the occurrence of such institutional discrimination is the reason why the public sector has failed in
the past to provide an adequate and appropriate service to minority groups.
The report subsequently introduced a new definition of a racist incident that
aims to cover all hate crime incidents; these can be classified as any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any person. The definition is important for two reasons. Firstly, if the victim thinks that the incident
is racist but the perpetrator or investigating officer does not, the episode
should still be classified as a racist one. Second, if the victim does not accept
the incident as racist but the investigating officer or witness feels that it was
racist, then it remains classified as a racist occurrence. This definition has
been widely accepted by the majority of Public Sector organizations. The
Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) brought with it an enforceable duty
to promote race equality within public bodies. Some of the specific duties to
be complied with include the publication of a Race Equality Scheme describing their public functions; the monitoring of staff ethnicity; and staff training
to ensure public access for all to their services. Of particular interest is the
publication of ethnic monitoring, where the results will provide an overview
of the status of the minority ethnic employees and whether those from minority ethnic groups are clustered within the lower strata of organizations.
In 2002, the Valleys Race Equality Council (VALREC), based in South
Wales, a voluntary agency funded by local and regional government
644
agencies, published a report (Jones 2002) highlighting that racist incidents

in the workplace were prevalent and, in particular, verbal abuse was the
most common. While verbal abuse is classified as a form of racial harassment, it may also be linked to a catalogue of workplace bullying incidents
suffered by minority ethnic employees.
The link between prejudice and workplace bullying can be made using
Allports (1954) Scale of Prejudice. Allport (1954) identified five stages of
prejudice: prejudicial comments made against individual or societal groups;
avoidance of individuals or groups of people; subtle aggression shown to
the individual; physical attack; and extermination with the killing of an
individual. In each of these five stages, we see parallels with workplace bullying research. Comments and snide remarks, social exclusion, aggressive
behaviour and attack have all been reported in studies of bullying at work
(see, for example, Bjorkvist et al. 1994, Einarsen and Raknes 1995, Vartia 1996;
Archer 1999; Rayner 1999). While it is extremely rare that individuals are
murdered in the workplace, the victim committing suicide because of the
actions of others may also achieve Allports final stage indirectly.
WORKPLACE BULLYING AND RACIAL HARASSMENT
In the last decade or so, organizational scholars and writers have increasingly drawn our attention to the growing interest in workplace bullying and
other forms of interpersonal conflict. Workplace aggression is referred to by
many different synonyms, including, for example, bullying (Adams 1992),
workplace harassment (Bjorkqvist (1992), mobbing (Leymann 1996), and
workplace victimisation (Zapf 1999). As the field of research into workplace
bullying remains relatively underdeveloped (generally considered to be
around 15 years old) much of the foundation for its study has involved the
analysis of cross-sectional data to identify causes of bullying at individual,
social and organizational levels (see, for example, Hoel and Salin 2003; Zapf
and Einarsen 2003). Here researchers have painted a picture of bullying
where the experience impacts negatively on the psychological well-being of
those who experience, witness or are simply bystanders to it (Lewis and
Sheehan 2003). In line with many academic paradigms, there are no universally agreed definitions of workplace bullying although there is agreement
that bullying is best represented as events that are systematically negative,
resulting in social, psychological and psychosomatic problems for the recipient (Einarsen et al. 2003). Salin (2001), Zapf and Gross (2001) and Vartia
and Hyyti (2002) all demonstrate the widespread problem of workplace
bullying by citing numerous international studies in Scandinavia, the UK,
Australia and the USA. A common thread found in studies of bullying is
the significant health effects for all who are exposed to it. Severe psychological distress, self-loathing, heightened anxiety and feelings of depression
are all well documented features. In one of the largest ever studies of workplace bullying, Hoel and Cooper (2000) in a cross-sectional study with over
645
5,000 UK respondents, found that nearly 40 per cent had been exposed to
regular (daily or weekly) negative acts but that only 10.6 per cent had actually
reported being bullied. This draws into question methodological concerns of
self-reporting of negative experiences and labelling oneself as suffering from
bullying at work. It appears in some cases that although individuals experience the same types and frequencies of negative behaviours, there is general
reluctance by some to take on the mantle of victim (Einarsen 2000).
Workplace bullying is found in most organizations, no matter the size,
location or sector (see, for example, Einarsen et al. 2003). The reality in the
UK is that most studies of bullying have taken place in the public sector via
access through trade union membership lists. Previous studies have highlighted various parts of the public sector that have significant experience of
workplace bullying. Zapf et al. (2003) summarize pan-European research
studies where public administration, health, education and social care consistently show higher prevalence of bullying compared to private sector responses. Hoel and Cooper s UK study (2000) showed how bullying was
more prevalent in public sector organizations such as the prison service or
teaching and less prevalent in retailing or manufacturing. Zapf et al. (2003)
attempt to explain why such responses might be better understood, particularly around the concept of emotional labour (Hochschild 1983), something
which is clearly found in many public sector jobs, and not in the instrumental roles of some private sector jobs such as in manufacturing organizations.
What Zapf et al. (2003) does not explain is the very nature of the changing
demands on public sector employees, particularly in the UK. For example,
Lewis (2003) explains, in a study of bullying in further and higher education,
how the changing global landscape of education, coupled with government
pressure to see colleges and universities as autonomously managed organizations, presented pressure-vessel situations where bullying was regarded
as commonplace. In a sizeable UNISON (a large public sector trade union)
study in 1997, Rayner (1997) highlighted that 83 per cent of bullies were in
management grades. When we consider the significant changes taking place
in the public sector through constant restructuring, shifting government
policy, and European legislative change such as working time directives,
managers tend to adopt more autocratic practices to bring about change
(Sheehan 1999). As Salin (2001, p. 435) noted, with the broad European
trend of restructuring of the public sector in the 1990s, issues such as downsizing and increased demands for efficiency may have contributed to increased stress, frustration, and insecurity. Such a changing landscape could
explain why bullying is consistently reported to be more prevalent in the
public sector.
Archer (1999), in a study of the UK Fire Service, showed how bullying was
endemic, partly because of the paramilitary culture of the service but also
because of white male dominance which impacts directly on gender and
race issues. Archer (1999) argued that when a new member of staff joins an
organization which possesses such a culture they may go through some form
646
of initiation ceremony. Any new employee might be expected to be the recipient of initiation, but for some people from different ethnic or cultural
backgrounds, this behaviour may be seen as offensive or hostile behaviour
exclusively shown towards him/her, rather than a universal inaugural ceremony. This experience was reported within the Fire Service (Home Office
Report 1999), where minority ethnic staff stated the difficulty they faced by
the conscious or unconscious actions of their White male colleagues, and
reported their acceptance to the group was only conditional on fitting in
(p. 25). Such a culture has also surfaced within the Police Force who, despite
taking great strides in promoting diversity within their policies and practices, were exposed by a BBC undercover documentary in 2004 entitled The
Secret Policeman. The documentary highlighted high levels of discriminatory beliefs held by new recruits and in particular the determination that
some held to bully one member of staff, from a minority ethnic background,
out of the Police Force. An ethnic minority person, working in an organization in which they are predominately the minority, might explain why they
become easy targets for workplace bullies. While it is accepted that anyone
can become the victim of workplace bullying, Archer (1999, p. 99) notes; if
you are in a minority by either gender or race the likelihood is dramatically
increased.
Specific studies of workplace bullying and ethnicity are rare. In their broad
cross-sectional study, Hoel and Cooper (2000) reported that respondents
from an Asian ethnic background were more likely to be bullied than those
from a White background, with 19.6 per cent of Asian respondents reporting
bullying as compared to 10.5 per cent of White respondents. They also reported that respondents from Asian or Afro-Caribbean origin recounted high
frequencies of insults or offensive remarks and practical jokes carried out
by people you dont get on with. Chinese respondents reported the fewest negative acts. However, in terms of one negative act being ignored,
excluded, or sent to Coventry the Chinese respondents reported the highest prevalence. While these figures provide us with some insight into the
level of workplace bullying aimed at minority ethnic people, it must also be
noted that less than 3 per cent of respondents from the Hoel and Cooper
study came from minority ethnic backgrounds and as such the findings
should be treated with caution. Numerous media articles and small UK
surveys have raised the issue of bullying suffered by minority ethnic people
in the workplace. People Management magazine (2001) reported that around
half of all ethnic minority staff in the NHS reported that they have been
racially harassed in the workplace in the previous year. A report from the
Royal College of Nursing (People Management magazine 2001) highlighted
that nursing is one of the professions at greatest risk from bullying and, in
particular, nurses from ethnic minorities were chiefly at risk, with three out
of ten experiencing bullying in the previous year. In their study of British
nurses, Shields and Wheatley-Price (2002) demonstrated how approximately
40 per cent of ethnic minority nurses had been subjected to racial harassment
647
by work colleagues (compared to 10 per cent of nurses generally) with over

60 per cent of ethnic minority nurses having been subjected to racial abuse
by patients (compared to 20 per cent of nurses generally). However, this
study did not concern itself specifically with bullying. Other organizations that
have been investigated for racially motivated bullying include the automotive manufacturer, Ford, who were ordered to pay 150,000 to a former employee who suffered racist bullying from fellow staff members (Personnel
Today 2002, December). Aside from these largely anecdotal or cross-sectional
accounts, few empirical studies of ethnicity and bullying exist.
Writers such as Adams (1992) are keen to separate the issue of bullying at
work from recognized problems of racism. The difficulty with this disconnection is that it is not nearly so easy to distinguish where harassment or
discrimination because of race or ethnicity differs from bullying because
of race or ethnicity. If ethnicity defines why people are initially targeted for
general workplace bullying (as opposed to being targeted for racial harassment reasons), the issues are nonetheless the same from an organizational
perspective. If employees are targeted for bullying or racial reasons and the
impact on the recipient is seen to be negative or pejorative then, in organizational terms, this must be unacceptable. Similarly, if employees indicate
that they are recipients of negative behaviours, whether the organization
labels these as bullying, racial, sexual or any other classifying label is somewhat meaningless. The reality is that if the behaviours are received as or
perceived to be negative they are therefore detrimental to sound working
practice. It is both stereotyping and prejudice which leads to the stigmatization of employees from minority ethnic backgrounds (Heatherton et al.
2003). The definition of a stigmatized individual also provides an image of
the general profile of a workplace bullying victim. As Heatherton et al. (2003
p. 1) noted: a person who is stigmatised is a person whose social identity,
or membership in some social category, calls into question his or her full
humanity the person is devalued, spoiled or flawed in the eyes of others.
As Zapf and Gross (2001) demonstrated, in a typical bullying scenario, the
continued subjection to negative behaviours over time leads to a process
of stigmatization. Whether such stigmas are caused by racism first and bullying second or bullying first and race second, is largely immaterial. What
should be of concern to public sector organizations is the understanding and
eradication of negative behaviours regardless of the labels applied.
METHODS
The aim of this research, based in South Wales UK, was to investigate if
White British and minority Ethnic employees working across a range of
public sector organizations were being exposed to bullying behaviours. We
were specifically interested in discovering whether the prevalence of bullying was similar or different amongst different ethnic classifications of employees and whether the respondents were subjected to negative behaviours
648
from the same sources in the workplace. Although methodological issues

surrounding race or ethnic categories in health contexts have been raised on
grounds that race is not a valid scientific concept (see, for example, Fullilove
1998; Stolley 1999), writers such as Krieger (2003) argue that failing to study
the health impact of race leaves us with incomplete understanding. We consequently adopt a position that argues that it is critical to understand and
identify whether racial disparities exist within the construct of workplace
bullying within public sector workplaces.
One of the recognized challenges (Lewis 2002) in undertaking research
into workplace bullying is the major difficulty of access to those who perceive that they are suffering from bullying at work. The issues of stigma,
fear, stress, and so on, are often recognized as inhibitors in gaining access to
victims, particularly if those victims are men (Lewis 2002). While qualitative
data can often provide the rich thickness to illustrate meaning and context
for the type of bullying occurrence, accessing those members of the community who in fact represent only 1 per cent of the local population is
extremely problematic.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES
In the 2001 UK census, 96 per cent of the population of Wales described
themselves as White British. The ethnic population of the UK as a whole
stands slightly higher at 7.9 per cent (2001 national census figures). The
population of Wales is clustered into two principal corridors along the southern and northern coastal areas. As with many countries where ethnic peoples are largely located, these include city areas such as Cardiff, Swansea
and Newport in the south and Wrexham in the north. Our study focused on
four counties in the south-east of Wales where the minority ethnic population was relatively small. The population figures for these counties are
shown in table 1.
The reason for choosing these areas in particular is founded on the body
of evidence that states that rural and semi/rural areas with a low minority
ethnic population are those that are most likely to have people who express
views of racism, sexism and other forms of discriminatory beliefs as opposed to more multi-cultural areas (see, for example, Jay 1992; Dhillon 1995,
TABLE 1 Minority ethnic population in the geographic areas being studied
County borough
Total population
Minority ethnic
population
Minority ethnic
population (%)
Rhondda-Cynon-Taf
Bridgend
Caerphilly
Merthyr Tydfil
231,946
128,645
169,519
55,981
2,673
1,767
1,548
564
1.15
1.37
0.91
1.00
Source: National Census Date. 2001. London: National Statistics Office (http://www.statistics.
gov.uk/census).
649
Henderson and Kaur 1999; Jones 2002). Throughout history, the South Wales
valleys, although not strictly classified as rural, have been an area of settlement for people from a range of ethnic backgrounds and for a variety of
different reasons. Most notable groups include Italians and Poles, who escaped persecution during and after the Second World War; Caribbeans in
the 1950s who helped to fill mainly low paid jobs vacated by British servicemen after the Second World War, and Asians throughout the 1960s and 1970s,
who mainly settled into work with the National Health Service or started
businesses. Other flows of immigration into South Wales include Somalis;
East Europeans in the 1990s and Filipinos in recent times following recruitment drives by the National Health Service to fill vacancies in local hospitals.
All of this, plus general migration patterns, has seen South Wales become a
melting pot, albeit a relatively small one, of people from a wide spectrum of
ethnic backgrounds.
This small ethnic population required selective targeting of organizations.
This type of convenience sampling is essential because of factors such as
the availability of certain individuals who are otherwise difficult to contact
or identify (see Bryman 2001). This is extremely appropriate for this study
since there are very few minority ethnic people living in these county borough communities. Furthermore, given the focus of the study to examine
bullying and ethnicity within a public-sector context it was necessary to
identify a broad range of organizations that might predictably employ
higher numbers of minority ethnic employees. This resulted in the following
organizations being sampled for the study:
Four National Health Trusts

The Welsh Ambulance Service
South Wales Fire Service
Two Police Forces
The Prison Service
Three South Wales Universities
Three Further Education Colleges
Four Local Public Authorities
The Royal College of Nursing
HM Revenue and Customs
Three Trade Unions
The majority of these organizations were known to have employees from

a variety or ethnic backgrounds, in particular the National Health Trusts and
the Universities who both employ larger numbers of minority ethnic staff.
Instrument used
In line with many European studies of workplace bullying (see, for example,
Einarsen and Raknes 1995; Hoel and Cooper 2000; Gemzoe-Mikkelsen
and Einarsen 2001; Salin 2001), a revised and adapted version of the NAQ
(Negative Acts Questionnaire) was used. The NAQ questions are a series of
650
statements of negative behaviours which allow respondents to indicate

whether they experienced such behaviours on a daily, weekly, monthly or
rarely basis (see tables 2 and 3). Respondents can also indicate if they never
experienced such behaviours. It is important to note that all items in the
TABLE 2 Negative acts from line managers as experienced by White and Ethnic staff
Statement
Frequency of experience (%)

White respondents
experiences (monthly
or more frequently)
Are you given tasks or jobs

by your line manager that
are demeaning to you?
Do you feel your line manager
excessively and unnecessarily
monitors your work?
Do you feel your work is unnecessarily
criticized by your line manager?
Do line managers withhold information
from you which affects your
performance?
Are you ignored or excluded by your
line manager whilst at work?
Do you feel singled out by your line
manager for any reason?
Does your line manager continually
remind you of your errors or
weaknesses?
Do you face continued criticism of
your work by your line manager?
Are you ever patronized or belittled
at work by your line manager?
Does your line manager undermine
you at work?
Has your line manager ever humiliated
you in front of other people, whilst at
work?
Do you face hostility from your line
manager?
Has your line manager made offensive
remarks or behaviour with reference
to your race or ethnicity?
Does your line manager spread
gossip or rumours about you?
Has your line manager told you to
quit your job?
Are you the subject of practical
jokes made by your line manager?
Do you receive threats of physical
violence against you by your line
manager?
Has your line manager ever written
racist graffiti or racist messages on
your property or equipment?
Ethnic respondents
or more frequently)
10.9
28.2
13.9
19.1
11.7
21.8
15.3
15.5
1.5
20.9
5.8
20
10.9
12.7
11.7
21.8
14.5
7.3
14.5
5.8
8.2
3.6
10.9
5.1
6.4
1.5
8.2
2.9
5.5
5.8
0.9
1.5
1.8
5.1
6.4

651
TABLE 3 Negative acts by colleagues of equal grade or rank as experienced by White and
Ethnic staff
Statement
Frequency of experience (%)

White respondents
or more frequently)
Are you the subject of practical jokes

made by colleagues of equal rank?
Do you feel singled out by colleagues
of equal rank for any reason?
Are you ignored or excluded by colleagues
of equal rank whilst at work?
Are you ever patronized or belittled at
work by colleagues of equal rank?
Have colleagues of equal rank made
offensive remarks or behaviour with
reference to your race or ethnicity?
Do your colleagues of equal rank
undermine you at work?
Do you face hostility from colleagues
of equal rank?
continually remind you of your
errors or weaknesses?
Do you face continued criticism
of your work by colleagues of
equal rank?
Have colleagues of equal rank
told you to quit your job?
withhold information from you
which affects your performance?
Have you ever been humiliated by
colleagues of equal rank in front
of the other people, whilst at work?
Do you feel your work is unnecessarily
criticized by your colleagues of
equal rank?
Do colleagues of equal rank spread
gossip or rumours about you?
Are you given tasks or jobs by colleagues
of the same rank as you that are
demeaning to you?
Do you feel colleagues of the same rank
as you excessively and unnecessarily
monitor your work?
Have colleagues of equal rank ever
written racist graffiti or racist
messages on your property or
equipment?
violence against you by colleagues
of equal rank?
Ethnic respondents
or more frequently)
12.4
6.4
6.6
33.6
8.0
30.9
7.3
28.2
8.8
20.9
5.8
21.8
5.1
20.9
5.1
19.1
2.2
14.5
3.6
33.6
5.8
17.3
5.1
16.4
2.2
14.5
5.1
10.9
2.2
13.6
4.4
9.1
0.7
3.6
0.7
1.8

652
NAQ are described in behavioural terms without reference to the word

bullying. The questionnaire also has one question that asks if the respondents felt they had been bullied at work. This was to identify whether respondents who indicated experience of negative behaviours also indicated
that they felt they had been bullied. In addition to the standard NAQ instrument, we wanted to identify who were the sources of such behaviours and
whether the negative behaviours differed dependent upon who was the
source. We asked respondents to indicate who they experienced any of the
negative behaviours from: senior managers, line managers, colleagues of equal
grade or rank, colleagues of a lower grade or rank, from members of the
public, or from employees of other organizations whom they met as part of
their work role.
The self-completion questionnaires were distributed by post to 1000 potential respondents. Sudman and Bradburn (2001) note that postal questionnaires could be more appropriate than personal interviews because they
dilute the possibility of certain bias and interviewer variability. Sudman and
Bradburn (1982) also note that respondents would be more likely to report
incidences to which there is anxiety or sensitivity attached, which is clearly
the nature of workplace bullying. However, the disadvantages of the selfcompletion questionnaires are the possibility of missing data and that those
respondents whose competency in English is limited will be restricted in
their ability to answer some questions. Other disadvantages might include
low response rates. A covering letter outlining the reasons for the research,
why it was important, and giving guarantees of confidentiality, was included
with the questionnaire as was a reply-paid envelope for returning the
completed instrument.
We obtained 247 completed questionnaires, giving a response rate of
24.7 per cent. The gender balance of responses was 51 per cent males and
49 per cent females. The survey categorized the age groups into the following:
1624 years (7 per cent), 2534 years (36 per cent), 3544 years (32 per cent),
4554 years (16 per cent) and 55 and above (9 per cent). This presents a
normal distribution by age and gender. The distribution between White and
non-White was 56 per cent to 44 per cent respectively. It is important to note
that while we sought sufficient responses in each of the ethnic categories as
outlined by the Commission for Racial Equality, the responses were too few
in many cases to analyse the data by classifications such as Black, Indian and
Pakistani, and so on. As such, it was necessary to adjust the data so that all
Ethnic categories were classified as one group and all White respondents as
another group. Fortunately, our age and ethnic groupings followed each
other well in three of the five age categories as can be seen from figure 1.
RESULTS
Before exploring the responses to the negative behaviours contained in the
NAQ, we found that, of those surveyed, 20 per cent claimed that they are
bullied at work and 80 per cent claimed not to be bullied. However, the level

50
White non White
White
Non White
40
Percent
653
30
20
10
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-70
Age
FIGURE 1 Age and ethnicity of respondents
of bullying is different for males and females, with 24 per cent of females
stating that they had experienced bullying compared to 17 per cent of men.
When this same question is analysed by ethnic group, 9 per cent of all of the
White respondents indicated they had been bullied but some 35 per cent of
all Ethnic respondents reported suffered bullying. This represents a highly
significant difference with c2 = 26.395 and p < 0.001.
Using a grouping variable of gender and the Mann-Whitney significance
test, we obtained the following: (1) that there was a significant difference
between the White males and the non-White males in their experience of
being bullied. Non-White males demonstrated experiencing greater levels
of bullying than White males (U = 1508 with p < 0.05); and (2) the same
experience was true for female respondents except that the experience was
highly significant (U = 1169.5 and P < 0.001).
Our examination of the data revealed very little evidence of negative behaviours from senior managers, from members of the public, or from workers of associated organizations. The two principal sources of negative
behaviours were line managers and colleagues of equivalent grade. We have
re-classified the results into two principal groupings of frequency: negative
behaviours that occur monthly or more frequently, and negative behaviours
that rarely or never occur. Table 2, above, indicates the frequency of negative
behaviours where line managers are cited as the foundation.
The data in table 2 indicate that Ethnic employees perceive themselves to
suffer significantly more negative behaviours from line managers than their
White colleagues. The differences are greatest in behaviours such as demeaning work tasks, unnecessary and continued criticism, exclusion, feeling
654
belittled and rumour spreading. Only practical jokes occur more frequently
for White respondents.
Table 3, above, compares the negative behaviours where colleagues of
equal grade or rank are the perpetrator. The results in table 3 illustrate even
higher frequencies of negative behaviours being experienced by minority
ethnic employees. Negative experiences in areas such as being singled out,
patronized or belittled, excluded and undermined, are four, five or even six
times more likely to be experienced by Ethnic respondents. Once again, only
practical jokes are experienced more by White respondents than Ethnic respondents. These initial results demonstrate that an almost complete range
of negative behaviours are frequently being experienced more often by
Ethnic respondents compared to White respondents. When we explore the
significant differences based on the negative behaviours from colleagues we
find only one significant difference for White respondents but 10 significant
differences for Ethnic respondents. These are shown in table 4. These results
give further credence to the evidence that minority Ethnic employees appear
to endure greater levels of bullying behaviours than their White counterparts.
The data were further examined using the statistical technique of factor
analysis. Factor analysis is a multivariate statistical procedure used to summarize information from a large number of measured variables into a smaller
number of latent variables, sometimes referred to as factors. By adopting this
approach, we could better understand the structure of the 18 NAQ variables
and reduce the dataset to one of manageable proportions. The varimax
orthogonal rotation was considered to be the appropriate approach and this
is also in line with that of many other researchers of conflict and workplace bullying (see, for example, Withey and Cooper 1989; lafsson and
Jhannsdttir 2004).
For each of the 18 NAQs, the five categories of response used were never ,
rarely, weekly, monthly and daily, in line with the standard categorization. When it came to the data analysis, the five response categories were
somewhat sparse for analysis, with too few frequencies in some categories.
These five categories could almost be considered continuous in nature, and,
to overcome such issues, it was decided to regroup the responses into never ,
rarely and more often by merging categories. These three groups can be
seen to be quite discrete and so less subjective in nature. Exploratory factor
analysis was carried out to see whether there were any differences in terms
of factor groups between line managers and colleagues of equal grade, based
on responses from White respondents as one discrete group and Ethnic respondents as another group. By adopting this approach we aimed to discern
whether the behaviours differ further as a result of ethnic classification.
The initial analysis that took place was an exploration of the 18 negative
behaviours towards White respondents from line managers (see table 5). The
resulting three factor solution (with eigenvalues greater than 1) emerged and
accounted for 66 per cent of the variance in the data. Using Cronbachs Alpha
655
TABLE 4 Signicant differences in negative behaviours from colleagues of equal grade

experienced by White and Ethnic respondents
Are you given tasks or jobs

by your colleagues which
are demeaning to you?
Do you face continued criticism
of your work by your
colleagues?
Have your colleagues told
you to quit your job?
Are you undermined at work
by your colleagues?
Do you ever feel singled
out by your colleagues?
Are you the subject of practical
jokes made by your colleagues?
Are you ever patronized or
belittled by your colleagues
at work?
Are you ignored or excluded
at work by your colleagues?
Do you face hostility from
your colleagues?
Do your colleagues make offensive
remarks or behaviour with
reference to your race or
ethnicity?
Have your colleagues ever written
racist graffiti or racist messages
on your property or equipment?
Mann-Whitney U
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
6771.000
P < 0.05
Ethnic respondents
6407.500
P < 0.05
Ethnic respondents
5879.000
P < 0.001
Ethnic respondents
6567.500
P < 0.05
Ethnic respondents
5165.000
P < 0.001
Ethnic respondents
6100.000
P < 0.001
White respondents
6139.000
P < 0.05
Ethnic respondents
5639.000
P < 0.001
Ethnic respondents
6305.500
P < 0.05
Ethnic respondents
6223.000
P < 0.05
Ethnic respondents
6863.000
P < 0.05
Ethnic respondents
coefficients to test for reliability we obtain the following: factor 1 = 0.884,

factor 2 = 0.819, and factor 3 = 0.623.
Table 5 illustrates how the three factors could be classified as bullying
related to the job or work being undertaken (factor 1), personalized bullying
(factor 2) and bullying as social ridicule in the working environment. Factor
1 explains bullying as criticism, excessive monitoring, being reminded of
mistakes and errors, withholding information and being singled out.
Personalized bullying (factor 2) is interpreted as humiliation, exclusion, being told to quit and comments on race/ethnicity. The third factor presents
bullying as a combination of gossip/rumour and practical jokes, making
bullying a more socialized negative experience.
Our next step was to compare the results of line manager behaviours towards Ethnic respondents. Table 6 demonstrates the factor analysis results
in three factors that account for 60 per cent of the variance within the data.
Cronbachs Alpha reliability coefficients indicate: factor 1 = 0.792, factor
2 = 0.808, and factor 3 = 0.408.
656
TABLE 5 A factor analysis of behaviours of line managers towards white respondents

Line managers behaviours towards white
respondents
Components
Do you ever feel your work is unnecessarily

criticized by your line manager?
Do you feel your work is excessively and
unnecessarily monitored by your line
manager?
remind you of your errors or weaknesses?
Do you ever feel singled out by your
line manager?
Are you undermined at work by your
line manager?
Are you given tasks or jobs by your line
manager which are demeaning to you?
Does your line manager with hold
information that affects your performance?
Does your line manager make offensive
quit your job?
Have you been humiliated in front of other
people at work by your line manager?
Are you ignored or excluded at work
by your line manager?
made by your line manager?
Does your line manager spread gossip
or rumours about you?
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax
with Kaiser Normalization
.846
Bullying by
job/work role
Personalized
bullying
Social
bullying
.773
.711
.706
.704
.683
.620
.842
.832
.614
.488
.774
.772
The results for Ethnic respondents show a similar but discretely different
pattern to that of their White colleagues. We find that factor 1 components
are personalized bullying behaviours, factor 2 components are work/role
related bullying behaviours and factor 3 components relate to bullying by
threats.
These two separate analyses yield results that demonstrate that White
and Ethnic respondents experience similar negative behaviours from line
managers, resulting in common factors between both groups. However, Ethnic
respondents suffer greater frequency of personalized bullying than their
White counterparts who experience higher frequency of work- or job-related
bullying. For Ethnic respondents, there is also evidence of bullying by
threats while their White colleagues experience some social bullying
although it is important to note that both of these factor components have
the weakest Cronbachs Alpha coefficients at 0.4 and 0.623 respectively.
657
TABLE 6 A factor analysis of behaviours of line managers towards ethnic respondents

Line manager behaviours
towards ethnic respondents
Components
Personalized
bullying
Does your line manager make offensive

by your line manager at work?
Are you given tasks or jobs by
your line manager which are
demeaning to you?
Have you been humiliated in
front of other people at work
by your line manager?
Are you undermined at work by
your line manager?
Do you ever feel your work is
unnecessarily criticized by
your line manager?
Does your line manager with
hold information that affects
your performance?
remind you of your errors or
weaknesses?
Do you feel your work is excessively
and unnecessarily monitored by
your line manager?
violence against you by your line
manager?
quit your job?
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax
with Kaiser Normalization
a Rotation converged in 6 iterations
Bullying by job/
work role
Bullying by
threats
.824
.769
.743
.600
.770
.694
.672
.621
.601
.900
.424
Our next analysis was to consider the behaviours of colleagues of equal

grade to their White and Ethnic colleagues. Following a similar process of
using exploratory factor analysis, we undertook a first rotation for White
respondents that revealed 4 factors and accounted for 62 per cent of the
variation. Unfortunately, the fourth factor consisted of only one component
and this was deemed to be of limited value. Hence the varimax rotation was
repeated but with an imposed constraint of three factors. The variance that
was now accounted for reduced to 56 per cent but does appear to provide
a more coherent solution, even allowing for the reduction in the variance.
Cronbachs Alpha coefficient of reliability for table 7 are: factor 1 = 0.890; factor
2 = 0.719; and factor 3 = 0.634. Table 7 illustrates how bullying behaviours
658
TABLE 7 A factor analysis of behaviours of colleagues of equal grade/rank towards white

respondents
Behaviour of colleagues of equal
rank towards white colleagues
Component
Have you been humiliated in front

of other people at work by your
colleagues?
Do you ever feel singled out by
your colleagues?
Are you ignored or excluded at
work by your colleagues?
by your colleagues at work?
Do you face hostility from your
colleagues?
Do your colleagues spread gossip
or rumours about you?
remarks or behaviour with
reference to your race or ethnicity?
made by your colleagues?
your colleagues?
your colleagues?
unnecessarily criticized by your
colleagues?
Do your colleagues continually remind
you of your errors or weaknesses?
Do you face continued criticism of
your work by your colleagues
Are you given tasks or jobs by your
colleagues which are demeaning
to you?
Does your colleague withhold
information that affects your
performance?
violence against you by your
colleagues?
Have your colleagues told you to
quit your job?
.795
Personalized or
social bullying
Bullying by job
or work role
Bullying by
threats
.750
.721
.714
.691
.654
.652
.595
.588
.704
.695
.669
.665
.609
.537
.881
.739
.555
of colleagues of equal rank fall into categories of personal/social bullying,

bullying within work or job role and, finally, bullying by threats.
When the data were analysed for negative behaviours from colleagues of
equal rank towards Ethnic colleagues, we achieved a factor analysis of three
659
TABLE 8 A factor analysis of behaviours of colleagues of equal grade/rank towards ethnic

respondents
Behaviour of colleagues of
equal rank towards ethnic
colleagues
Component
Have your colleagues told you to

quit your job?
by your colleagues at work?
Are you ignored or excluded at work
by your colleagues?
Do you ever feel singled out by your
colleagues?
your colleagues?
Have you been humiliated in front
of other people at work by your
colleagues?
your colleagues
unnecessarily criticized by your
colleagues?
Does your colleague withhold
information that affects your
performance?
Do your colleagues spread gossip or
rumours about you?
Are you given tasks or jobs by your
colleagues which are demeaning
to you?
violence against you by your
colleagues?
made by your colleagues?
.876
Personalized
bullying
Bullying by job
or work role
Social and
threatening
bullying
.860
.857
.856
.785
.727
.717
.775
.741
.703
.668
.499
.861
.851
.462
factors that account for 64 per cent of the variance in the data. The Cronbachs
Alpha coefficient scores are: factor 1 = 0.932; factor 2 = 0.741; and factor
3 = 0.656. The results in table 8 demonstrate similar patterns within the factor components as for White colleagues. There are however one or two subtle differences. Ethnic respondents appear to experience greater frequency
of negative behaviours from colleagues of equal rank than their White counterparts. Furthermore, Ethnic respondents suffer a direct threat of being told
660
to quit their job alongside more personalized bullying threats of patronization, being singled out, humiliated, or suffering racist comments. These are
things which do not appear to happen so frequently with White respondents.
Ethnic respondents also appear to suffer fewer social forms of bullying such
as gossip or rumours than their White counterparts who experience gossip
or practical jokes as part of their personalized bullying experience.
DISCUSSION
This study of public sector workers has demonstrated that one in five respondents indicated that they felt they had been bullied at work and this
was higher for women (24 per cent) than for men (17 per cent). These findings are comparable to other studies, where typical prevalence rates fluctuate between 5 per cent and over 30 per cent (see Zapf et al. 2003 for summary
accounts). It is unsurprising that we could find little evidence for bullying
taking place from senior managers, given that senior managers are less likely
to come into direct contact with employees on a day-to-day basis. It is, however, surprising that more evidence was not uncovered for bullying by members of the public or user groups of public services, particularly given the
numbers of NHS respondents, education workers and emergency service
workers taking part in this study.
As with many studies of bullying at work we found clear evidence of
negative behaviours from line managers, the most prevalent of these being
demeaning tasks, excessive monitoring, excessive criticism, withholding information, and exclusion. However, the novel approach taken in this study
also sought to identify the negative behaviours emanating from colleagues
of equal grade or rank and not only to consider the Ethnic differences. To
our knowledge, such an approach is unique in studies of bullying at work.
The negative behaviours from colleagues are quite different from the negative behaviours from line managers. Here we see how jokes, racist remarks,
humiliation and hostility are the most frequently occurring negative behaviours. These are important findings as it enables us to understand how the
negative behaviours differ according to whether managers or colleagues instigate them. With this heightened understanding, organizations and those
tasked with dealing with bullying at work such as human resource managers and trade union officers, can make informed decisions on intervention
strategies and possible diversity awareness programmes. The data in this
study suggests that adopting a blanket approach to tackling bullying is too
simplistic since different groups use different bullying tactics.
When specifically exploring the data by ethnic classification we find a higher
prevalence of bullying amongst non-White groups, with 35 per cent indicating
that they suffer from bullying compared to just 9 per cent of White respondents. The data in tables 2 to 4 demonstrate how minority Ethnic respondents
consistently report experiencing more exposure to bullying behaviours from
both line managers and their work colleagues compared to White respondents.
661
Bullying amongst Ethnic employees is statistically significant for both men

and women, although it is highly statistically significant amongst women
(U = 1169.5, p < 0.001). These findings are comparable to other studies of bullying where gender was the focus (see, for example, Vartia and Hyyti 2002),
although no specific studies have sought to explore the ethnic differences in
gender groups. These results confirm the cross-sectional analysis undertaken
by Hoel and Cooper (2000) where some Ethnic groups were approximately
twice as likely to experience bullying compared to their White counterparts.
This study has shown that line managers use different bullying tactics
towards White respondents compared to Ethnic respondents. When line
managers bully White respondents, the most prominent types of negative
behaviour relate to the work or job role first and personalized bullying second. This order is reversed for Ethnic respondents, with personalized bullying being the most prominent. These findings are extremely important since
they enable us to better understand the negative tactics employed by line
managers towards White and Ethnic respondents. When we look at the
negative behaviour of colleagues, we find less distinct differences when the
victim is from an Ethnic group. When colleagues bully other colleagues,
the focus of the attack is personal first and foremost. Exclusion and being
ignored, humiliation, being undermined and patronized, feature strongly in
the armoury of the bully regardless of whether the victim is White or from
some other Ethnic classification. However, there are some subtle and notso-subtle differences in the behaviour of colleagues towards Ethnic respondents. Most prominent among these is being told to quit the job, something
which occurs with greater frequency for Ethnic respondents. The results
show how social forms of bullying such as gossip or rumour or practical
jokes are more prominently used against White colleagues than Ethnic
colleagues. It is possible that when colleagues bully, their tactics change to
reflect firstly their organizational status and, secondly, the behaviours they
may perceive they can get away with. It is clear from these results that while
Ethnic respondents are continuing to experience bullying tactics by their
colleagues, the more obvious racist actions of practical jokes and graffiti are
masked by more subtle bullying behaviours. This might well be the result
of over 30 years of the raising of racial awareness in British workplaces that
have not eradicated negative behaviours towards Ethnic employees but
merely changed them from being overt to covert.
We already know from existing European studies of bullying at work how
different forms of bullying behaviours can be classified as organizationally
derived or socially orientated (see, for example, Einarsen and Raknes 1995;
Zapf et al. 1996). What we have not known up to this point is how these
negative behaviours have differed based on the perpetrator s position or role
in the organization and the recipients ethnic classification. The data from
this study have clearly illustrated that managers and colleagues use different
bullying behaviours and that these change when the recipient is from an
Ethnic group. As Eriksen and Einarsen (2004, p. 473) noted in their study of
662
bullying amongst male nurses, The risk associated with being different has
been documented by many social and political processes throughout human
history. Although not reported here, we are continuing to analyse the data
for the health effects and intervention strategies adopted by White and
Ethnic respondents who are experiencing bullying in public service organizations. This might provide us with further clues as to how difference
manifests itself in organizations.
Methodological limitations
Although we believe we have obtained a balanced sample of Ethnic and White
respondents, the relatively small sample size of 247 people must be taken into
account. Furthermore, the study contained too few respondents in the different
Ethnic classifications as outlined by the Commission for Racial Equality to
enable us to see whether sub-groups of negative behaviour might exist or not.
For example, do Chinese respondents have a different workplace experience
compared to Indian employees? It is therefore important that further studies
are undertaken using larger datasets where a range of Ethnic and minority
groups are represented. Nevertheless, we believe some valuable information
has been provided by this study. Self reporting measures of issues such as
bullying should always be considered carefully in situations where it is not
possible to control for other measures such as health, personality or other
psycho-social variables that produce artificially high results. Even so, when an
employee feels they are experiencing bullying it is their perception that matters
to them and we have accepted that insight as the basis for this study.
The paper has already recognized the important but constraining issue of
access to victims of bullying in a generic way. Studies of this kind add further
layers of complexity to the access issue, this time on the basis of ethnic classification. Access to qualitative data that provides the richness of meaning
and understanding that workplace bullying requires is extremely important,
but researchers will need to find methods to overcome problems of access,
particularly with groups of individuals who fall outside of norm categories.
CONCLUSIONS
This study reinforces the evidence of other studies conducted globally into
bullying at work, in that incidences rates are comparable. The 20 per cent of
respondents in this study who indicated they were experiencing bullying at
work is relatively high compared to some other studies. This indicates that
further work needs to be undertaken across the public sector with a larger
sample which brings together both qualitative and quantitative data.
A fundamental finding from this study is the use of different negative
behaviours by different bullies dependent upon their position in the hierarchy. We now understand how bullying tactics change dependent upon
whether the person perpetrating the bullying is a line manager or a peer.
663
We also know that clusters of negative behaviours exist and that these are
used to bully in relation to an individuals role; as a personalized attack or
even as a form of social bullying. The evidence indicates that line managers
bully White respondents by attacking their work role while line managers
bully Ethnic respondents by a personalized attack. Peer bullying to White
and Ethnic respondents remains largely one of personalized or social bullying. This is most likely to be because peers do not possess the power to bully
on the basis of work role. These findings have fundamental implications for
strategies of intervention in dealing with bullying at work.
The 1999 Macpherson Report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry defined
institutional racism as The collective failure of an organization to provide
an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour,
culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and
behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice,
ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage ethnic people. This study has demonstrated that ethnic people continue to be
disadvantaged in public sector workplaces. The negative behaviours they
experience clearly constitute bullying at work. This has more fundamental
implications on the public employment duty for racial equality of the 2000
Race Relations (Amendment) Act. While the 1976 Race Relations Act did not
cover racial harassment, by December 2003, racial harassment was an offence
under law. The duty on public sector employers to monitor practices by
ethnic origin (including grievance) and publish their results annually means
that evidence from studies such as ours becomes even more important.
However, particularly significant are the findings of a report into public duty
compliance in Wales (June 2005). In an interview with Chris Myant, Director
of the Commission for Racial Equality in Wales, we were told that none of
the 43 public bodies contacted by the CRE in Wales were compliant and only
8 of these were compliant in part. Results such as these do not augur well
when considering the findings of studies such as ours.
What our study now shows us is that the perpetrators of these bullying
behaviours discriminate clearly on ethnic grounds and adapt their tactics
accordingly. The year 2006 saw the 30th anniversary of the Race Relations
Act in Britain. It would seem that so much more needs to be done.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the respondents and
organizations who enabled this study to take place. Specific thanks are given
to Andrew Jones of the Valleys Race Equality Council.
REFERENCES
Adams, A. 1992. Bullying at Work: How to Confront and Overcome it. London: Virago.
Allport, G. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

664
Archer, D. 1999. Exploring Bullying Vulture in the Para-military Organization, International Journal of
Manpower, 20 1/2, 94105.
Bjorkqvist, K. 1992. Sex Differences in Physical, Cerbal, and Indirect Aggression: A Review of Recent
Research, Sex Roles, 30, 3/4, 17788.
Bjorkqvist, K., K. Osterman and M. Hjelt-Back. 1994. Aggression Among University Employees, Aggressive
Behaviour, 20, 17384.
Brook, K. 2004. Labour Market Data for Local Areas by Ethnicity, Labour Market Trends, October 2004, 40516.
Bryman, A. 2001. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chakraborti, N. and J. Garland. 2004. Englands Green and Pleasant Land? Examining Racial Prejudice in a
Rural Context, Patterns of Prejudice, 38, 4, 38398.
Commission for Racial Equality. 2003a. Racial Equality in Prisons. London: Commission for Racial Equality.
Commission for Racial Equality. 2003b. Towards Racial Equality. London: Commission for Racial Equality.
Commission for Racial Equality (Wales). 2005. Welsh public bodies fail race equality survey (available by
email from CRE Wales), 27 June.
Dhillon, P. 1995. Challenging Rural Racism. London: NCVO.
Einarsen, S. 2000. Harassment and Bullying at Work: A Review of the Scandinavian Approach, Aggression
and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 5, 4, 371401.
Einarsen, S. and B.I. Raknes. 1995. Harassment at Work and the Victimization of Men, paper presented at the
Seventh European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology, Gyor, Hungary, May.
Einarsen, S., H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper. 2003. The Concept of Bullying at Work: the European Tradition, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace:
International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Eriksen, W. and S. Einarsen. 2004. Gender Minority as a Risk of Exposure to Bullying at Work: The Case of
Male Assistant Nurses, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 4, 47392.
Fullilove, M.T. 1998. Comment: Abandoning Race as a Variable in Public Health Research an Idea Whose
Time Has Come, American Journal of Public Health, 88, 12978.
Gemzoe-Mikkelsen, E. and S. Einarsen. 2001. Bullying in Danish Work-life: Prevalence and Health Correlates, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4, 393413.
Health and Safety Executive. 2005. Research Report [RR.308], Ethnicity, Work Characteristics, Stress and Health.
London: HSE Books.
Heatherton, T.F., R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl and J.G. Hull (eds). 2003. The Social Psychology of Stigma. New York:
Guilford Press.
Home Office Reports. 1999. Equality and Fairness in the Fire Service. London: Home Office.
Henderson, P. and R. Kaur. 1999. Rural Racism in the UK. London: Community Development Foundation.
Hochschild, A.R. 1983. The Managed Heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hoel, H. and C. Cooper. 2000. Destructive Conict and Bullying at Work, Report produced by the Manchester
School of Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.
Hoel, H. and D. Salin. 2003. Organizational Antecedents of Workplace Bullying, in S. Einarsen, H. Hoel,
D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in
Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Jay, E. 1992. Keep them in Birmingham Challenging Racism in South-west England. London: Commission for
Racial Equality:
Jones, A. 2002. Racism in the Valleys Perception or Reality? Valleys Race Equality Council: Pontypridd,
South Wales.
Krieger, N. 2003. Does Racism Harm Health? Did Child Abuse Exist Before 1962? On Explicit Questions,
Critical Science, and Current Controversies: An Ecosocial Perspective, American Journal of Public Health,
93, 2, 1949.
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. 2003. Voices in the Social Construction of Bullying at Work: Exploring Multiple Realities in Further
and Higher Education, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4, 1, 6581.
Lewis, D. and M. Sheehan. 2003. Workplace Bullying: Theoretical and Practical Approaches to a Management
Challenge, International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 4, 1, 110.

665
Lewis, D. 2004. Bullying at Work: the Impact of Shame Among University and College Lecturers, British
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 3, 281300.
Leymann, H. 1996. The Content and Development of Mobbing at Work, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5, 2, 65184.
lafsson, R.F. and H.L. Jhannsdttir. 2004. Coping with Bullying in the Workplace: the Effect of Gender,
Age and Type of Bullying, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 3, 31933.
People Management Magazine. 2001. A Painful Issue for the Health Service, 12, 78.
Personnel Today. 2002. Ford forced to pay 150,000 to victim of racist bullying, December.
Race Relations (Amendment) Act. 2000. London: The Stationery Office.
Rayner, C. 1997. Incidence of Workplace Bullying, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 3,
18191.
Rayner, C. 1999. From Research to Implementation: Finding Leverage for Prevention, International Journal of
Manpower, 20 1/2, 2838.
Salin, D. 2001. Prevalence and Forms of Bullying amongst Business Professionals: A Comparison of Two
Different Strategies for Measuring Bullying, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4,
42541.
Sheehan, M. 1999. Workplace Bullying: Responding with some Emotional Intelligence, International Journal
of Manpower, 20 1/2, 5769.
Shields, M. and S. Wheatley Price. 2002. Racial Harassment, Job Satisfaction and Intentions to Quit: Evidence
from the British Nursing Profession, Economica, 69, 295326.
Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, The. 1999. A Report by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. London: The Stationery
Office, February.
Stolley, P.D. 1999. Race in Epidemiology, International Journal of Health Services, 29, 9059.
Sudman, S. and N.M. Bradburn. 1982. Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Vartia, M. 1996. The Sources of Bullying Psychological Work Environment and Organizational Climate,
European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5, 2, 20314.
Vartia, M. and J. Hyyti. 2002. Gender Differences in Workplace Bullying among Prison Officers, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 1, 11326.
Walling, A. 2004. Workless Households: Results from the Spring 2004 LFS, Labour Market Trends, November,
43545.
Withey, M. and W. Cooper. 1989. Predicting Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect, Administrative Science Quarterly,
34, 52139.
Zapf, D. 1999. Organizational, Work Group Related and Personal Causes of Mobbing/bullying at Work,
International Journal of Manpower, 20 1/2, 7085.
Zapf, D., C. Knorz and M. Kulla. 1996. On the Relationship between Mobbing Factors, and Job Content,
Social Work Environment, and Health Outcomes, European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 5,
2, 21537.
Zapf, D. and C. Gross. 2001. Conflict Escalation and Coping with Workplace Bullying: A Replication and
Extension, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 4, 497522.
Zapf, D., S. Einarsen, H. Hoel and M. Vartia. 2003. Findings on Bullying in the Workplace, in S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Zapf, D. and S. Einarsen. 2003. Individual Antecedents of Bullying: Victims and Perpetrators, in S. Einarsen,
H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (eds), Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice. London: Taylor & Francis.
Date received 17 July 2005. Date accepted 30 January 2006.


Lewis, D.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lewis, D.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC

SECTOR: UNDERSTANDING THE

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

than White counterparts. Second, to explore if there are differences in the

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

agencies, published a report (Jones 2002) highlighting that racist incidents

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

by work colleagues (compared to 10 per cent of nurses generally) with over

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

from the same sources in the workplace. Although methodological issues

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Four National Health Trusts

The majority of these organizations were known to have employees from

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

statements of negative behaviours which allow respondents to indicate

Frequency of experience (%)

Are you given tasks or jobs

Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665)

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Frequency of experience (%)

Are you the subject of practical jokes

Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665)

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

NAQ are described in behavioural terms without reference to the word

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

White non White

FIGURE 1 Age and ethnicity of respondents

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

TABLE 4 Signicant differences in negative behaviours from colleagues of equal grade

Are you given tasks or jobs

coefficients to test for reliability we obtain the following: factor 1 = 0.884,

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

TABLE 5 A factor analysis of behaviours of line managers towards white respondents

Do you ever feel your work is unnecessarily

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

TABLE 6 A factor analysis of behaviours of line managers towards ethnic respondents

Does your line manager make offensive

Our next analysis was to consider the behaviours of colleagues of equal

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

TABLE 7 A factor analysis of behaviours of colleagues of equal grade/rank towards white

Have you been humiliated in front

of colleagues of equal rank fall into categories of personal/social bullying,

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

TABLE 8 A factor analysis of behaviours of colleagues of equal grade/rank towards ethnic

Have your colleagues told you to

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Bullying amongst Ethnic employees is statistically significant for both men

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665)

DUNCAN LEWIS AND ROD GUNN

Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665)

WORKPLACE BULLYING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Date received 17 July 2005. Date accepted 30 January 2006.

Public Administration Vol. 85, No. 3, 2007 (641665)

You might also like