See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/298790319

Effects of workplace bullying on work engagement and health: the mediating

role of job insecurity

Article  in  The International Journal of Human Resource Management · March 2016

DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1155164

CITATIONS READS

99 4,129

2 authors:

Joon Hyung Park Masakatsu Ono

University of Nottingham Ningbo China University of Southern California
18 PUBLICATIONS   482 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   338 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Recruitment strategies of local Asian firms: Internationalization with junior foreign experts? View project

Abusive Supervision View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joon Hyung Park on 01 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The International Journal of Human Resource
Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Effects of workplace bullying on work engagement

and health: the mediating role of job insecurity

Joon Hyung Park & Masakatsu Ono

To cite this article: Joon Hyung Park & Masakatsu Ono (2016): Effects of workplace bullying on
work engagement and health: the mediating role of job insecurity, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1155164

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1155164

Published online: 16 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 242

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20

Download by: [University of Nottingham] Date: 20 July 2016, At: 20:27

 The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1155164

Effects of workplace bullying on work engagement and

health: the mediating role of job insecurity
Joon Hyung Parka and Masakatsu Onob
a
Department of International Business and Management, Nottingham University Business School
China, Ningbo, China; bSchool of Social Sciences, Politics, & Evaluation, Claremont Graduate University,
Claremont, CA, USA
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study examined the effects of exposure to workplace Health; job insecurity; work
bullying on work engagement and health problems. It is one of engagement; workplace
bullying
the few studies to treat job insecurity as an explanatory factor
of the bullying–outcome relationship. Specifically, we perceive
that job insecurity unfolds through an interpersonal process in
which negative experiences, such as bullying, make employees
feel less valuable in their workplace. By analyzing the data
from employees in Korea using the latent factor approach, the
tested mediation model explained that exposure to workplace
bullying decreased the work engagement of employees and
increased their health problems because of their high level of
perceived job insecurity. The relationship between bullying
and engagement would not be established without the job
insecurity variable, thereby suggesting its indirect effect.
Given the partial mediating effect of health problems, job
insecurity is identified as an additional underlying mechanism
that explains why bullying increases health problems. This
finding does not contradict the widespread arguments
on the health-impairing effect of workplace bullying. This
study contributes to the literature and business practices by
identifying an important underlying mechanism that helps us
understand the association between exposure to workplace
bullying and key work outcomes.

Introduction
An increasing number of studies have investigated workplace harassment and
mistreatment (Tepper, 2000; Harvey, Treadway, & Heames, 2007; Houshmand,
O’Reilly, Robinson, & Wolff, 2012; Wu, Yim, Kwan, & Zhang, 2012). Workplace
bullying is one form of workplace harassment that involves persistent negative
acts, such as humiliation, social exclusion and verbal abuse (Einarsen, 2000).
Previous studies show that 11.3% to 18.1% of employees experience workplace

CONTACT  Joon Hyung Park  joon.park@nottingham.edu.cn

This article was originally published with errors. This version has been amended. Please see Corrigendum
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1172873).
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2    J. H. Park and M. Ono
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

bullying (Nielsen, Matthiesen, & Einarsen, 2010). A few empirical studies have
examined the various antecedents of workplace bullying, such as job demand,
role stressor and leadership style (Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper, & Einarsen,
2010; Baillien, Rodriguez-Muñoz, Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2011; Balducci,
Cecchin, & Fraccaroli, 2012). The consequences of workplace bullying are det-
rimental considering that the victims cannot easily defend themselves from the
negative treatments of their perpetrators. Some researchers show that workplace
bullying is positively related to burnout and turnover intentions and is negatively
related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Nielsen, Matthiesen,
& Einarsen, 2008; Houshmand et al., 2012; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Vie, GlasØ,
& Einarsen, 2012; Trépanier, Fernet, & Austin, 2013).
Given the detrimental consequences of workplace bullying, previous research
has attempted to show managers and employees how they can address bullying in
their organizations and how such act affects the well-being of the workforce (Vie
et al., 2012). For instance, by emphasizing the role of emotions, some studies have
applied Affective Events Theory (AET: Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) as a theoretical
framework to explain the underlying mechanism between workplace bullying and
its outcomes (Glasø, Vie, Holmdal, & Einarsen, 2011a). The emotional experiences
of the victims (i.e. negative affective reactions to bullying events) partially medi-
ated the relationships of bullying with job satisfaction and intention to quit (Glasø
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   3

et al., 2011a). The affective reaction of the bullying victim is determined by how
he or she processes relevant work events. Although AET incorporates the role of
affective processes in shaping the experience, we believe that bullying events can
directly trigger the victims’ cognitive reactions (e.g. reassessment of psychosocial
safety in their work environments). Therefore, aside from the affective process,
we believe that workplace bullying produces negative effects through a cognitive
process. However, the other psychological processes that occur during exposure to
bullying remain unknown (Parzefall & Salin, 2010; Penhaligon, Louis, & Restubog,
2013; Trépanier et al., 2013).
To fill this gap, we propose that individual perception on job insecurity is among
the cognitive mechanisms for explaining the relationship between workplace bul-
lying and its outcomes. In particular, we investigate whether those employees
who are exposed to workplace bullying will perceive high levels of job insecurity,
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

which in turn reduce their work engagement and increase their health problems.
In the following sections, we introduce the constructs of work engagement and
health problems at work as the targeted consequences of workplace bullying. We
then introduce job insecurity as a mediator by discussing the relevant theoretical
frameworks. The following figure describes our proposed model. (see Figure 1).

Consequences of workplace bullying

Workplace bullying is primarily defined as repetitive acts of harassment, such as
social isolation and verbal abuse, which are committed by one or more perpe-
trators over an extended period (six months or more). A related key aspect is the
escalating process of bullying, in which the conflicts between two parties develop
over time and the harassing behaviors become harsher and more frequent and
(Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996). Workplace bullying also involves a power imbalance
between the perpetrator(s) and the victim (Jenkins, Zapf, Winefield, & Sarris,
2012). These characteristics contribute to a series of negative consequences from
workplace bullying.
First, exposure to workplace bullying decreases the level of job attitude.
Drawing from the most commonly studied job attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction
and organizational commitment), a few studies have investigated how bullying
affects work engagement (Rodríguez-Muñoz, Baillien, De Witte, Moreno-Jiménez,
& Pastor, 2009; Trépanier et al., 2013). Work engagement refers to ‘a positive,
fulfilling, work-related state of mind’, which is characterized by vigor, dedication
and absorption (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003, p. 5). Employees with high levels of
work engagement tend to identify themselves with their work and have high
levels of energy (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008). Rodríguez-Muñoz
et al. (2009) claimed that workplace bullying was an antecedent of job-related
(negative) well-being, such that mistreatments at work could wear out the victims
and decrease their work engagement. Based on previous empirical findings (e.g.
 4    J. H. Park and M. Ono

Glasø, Bele, Nielsen, & Einarsen, 2011b; Reio & Sanders-Reio, 2011), we predict
that workplace bullying is negatively related to work engagement.
In addition to the preceding empirical studies, a theoretical rationale from the
Conservation of Resources (COR) theory corroborates the proposed relation-
ship between bullying and work engagement. COR theory suggests that workers
with a greater amount of resources may be less vulnerable to stressors than those
with fewer resources (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). Resources refer to entities that
people value, such as objects (e.g. computer equipment), conditions (e.g. social
support), personal characteristics (e.g. self-efficacy) and energies (e.g. knowledge).
COR theory postulates that individuals strive to obtain, retain and protect their
resources (Gorgievski & Hobfoll, 2008). An individual prevents the further loss
of resources by making additional investments. If the stressful situation becomes
chronic, then the individual’s overall resources will be depleted (Hobfoll & Shirom,
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

2001). Gorgievski and Hobfoll (2008, p. 3) proposed that work engagement was
‘the resultant of the inverted process of real or anticipated resource gain enhanc-
ing energetic resources.’ Following this definition, the absence or depletion of
resources can reduce energetic resources, such as a low level of engagement or
high burnout.
Hypothesis 1: Exposure to workplace bullying will be negatively related to work
engagement.
Second, workplace bullying can also negatively affect the mental and physical
well-being of the victim. Exposure to bullying has been associated with depres-
sion, psychological health complaints and psychosomatic symptoms (Mikkelsen
& Einarsen, 2002; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Vie et al., 2012). The victims also
develop post-traumatic stress disorder over time (Rodríguez-Muñoz, Moreno-
Jiménez, Sanz Vergel, & Garrosa Hernández, 2010). Similarly, Hogh, Hansen,
Mikkelsen, and Persson (2012) revealed that exposure to bullying was significantly
related to psychological reactions to stress, such as hyperarousal (e.g. physiolog-
ical arousal upon reminders and hypervigilance), and could eventually generate
physiological responses (e.g. increased cortisol concentration).
To further understand the bullying–health relationship, we apply the Cognitive
Activation Theory of Stress (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004), which emphasizes how the
victims subjectively interpret a situation in which they determine whether they
are actually victims of bullying. Any stressor or stressful stimulus initiates the
evaluative process of the situation, particularly its controllability. This process
triggers varying responses, such as an increased cognitive arousal or non-arousal.
Theoretically, when the victims evaluate the bullying situation as controllable, the
cognitive arousal can be reduced and thus maintain healthy conditions. However,
the victims experience strain when they cannot control their situations. Bullying
situations are generally considered uncontrollable and described as prolonged
negative situations that may facilitate chronic cognitive and physical activation
(Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). This sustained activation subsequently impairs the
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   5

health and well-being of the victim, which induces sleep deprivation and increases
the cortisol level (Meurs & Perrewe, 2011).
Hypothesis 2: Exposure to workplace bullying will be positively related to health
problems.
Third, we also attempt to investigate the relationship between work engagement
and health (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2010). Following Bakker et al. (2010), we
reviewed a few studies that supported the relationship between work engage-
ment and health (e.g. Demerouti, Bakker, de Jonge, Janssen, & Schaufeli, 2001;
Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006; Peterson et al., 2008; Shirom, 2010). Two
studies (Hakanen et al., 2006; Peterson et al., 2008) found negative correlations
between the dimensions of work engagement and health. Shirom (2010) showed
how vigor, a sub-dimension of work engagement, was linked with self-rated men-
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

tal and physical health. A recent meta-analysis of work engagement revealed a

significant positive population correlation between overall engagement and health
(ρ = .20) (Halbesleben, 2010).
Those victims with high levels of work engagement tend to possess a sufficient
amount of resources to protect themselves from the health impairments that
result from highly demanding job situations (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007). Such initiative may help employees report less mental and
physical health symptoms.
Hypothesis 3: Work engagement will be negatively related to health problems.

Mediating effects of job insecurity

Workplace bullying entails dynamic processes (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Zapf
& Gross, 2001). Although many studies have investigated the relationship between
workplace bullying and its major outcomes, only a few have attempted to examine
the underlying mechanisms of these relationships (Glasø et al., 2011a; Nielsen
& Einarsen, 2012; Vie et al., 2012; Trépanier et al., 2013). These mechanisms
may be understood in various aspects. For instance, one may focus on the role
of the emotions of victims and how their affective reactions toward bullying can
influence their attitudes and behaviors (Glasø et al., 2011a). The current study
focuses on the cognitive appraisal process of how the victims perceive a prolonged
bullying situation as a threat to the most important aspects of their jobs. Using
the transactional model of stress and the meaning making model (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984; Park & Folkman, 1997), we obtain some insights into a potential
mechanism that explains (1) how the victims appraise the prolonged workplace
bullying situation, (2) how the situation conveys meaning to the victims and (3)
how the meaning is interpreted (or translated) as the individual’s perception of
job insecurity.
When individuals face challenges (or stressors) in their lives or workplaces,
they may go through cognitive processes to deal with these challenges (Lazarus
 6    J. H. Park and M. Ono

& Folkman, 1984). For example, upon being diagnosed with a serious type of
cancer, an individual may initiate appraisal processes to evaluate the significance
of the situation (i.e. primary appraisal) and determine the necessary action (i.e.
secondary appraisal). The secondary appraisal processes entail problem-focused
coping, which ‘involves addressing the problem causing distress,’ emotion-focused
coping, which ‘is aimed at ameliorating the negative emotions associated with the
problem’ (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004, p. 751), and meaning making (Park &
Folkman, 1997). Problem-focused coping strategies may also be applied to reduce
the causes of stress and change the situation. If the situation cannot be easily
changed, then one may engage in emotion-focused coping or meaning making
as a coping mechanism by searching for the meaning of his or her situation and
reinterpreting the event in a positive manner (Park, 2010).
We apply this theoretical model to understand the underlying psychological
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

mechanism in the relationship between workplace bullying and its outcomes. We

assume that the victims repetitively go through the appraisal processes because
workplace bullying involves recurring negative incidents. When individuals
encounter bullying events, they may begin to appraise the seriousness of the con-
sequences. One of these consequences may be a potential loss of important job
features. Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) described job insecurity as the combi-
nation of perception of threat and powerlessness. These threats can be manifested
either as losing the job or losing important job features. A prolonged workplace
bullying situation may be perceived as a threat that contributes to the loss of some
important job-related features. For example, the victims may lose their status in
a team, gain limited opportunities for career progress, and lose their community
and resources in the organization (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984).
Workplace bullying can also threaten relationships, such as social acceptance in
a group. People want to maintain positive and meaningful relationships with oth-
ers (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005).
However, bullying inhibits workers from maintaining a sense of belonging in
their groups or organizations. Many bullying cases involve the victims facing
perpetrators who are in supervisory capacities (Hoel, Cooper, & Faragher, 2001).
Third parties who witness the bullying event may also become the victims if the
event perpetrator is also their supervisor. Yang, Van de Vliert, Shi, and Huang
(2008) studied how third parties chose their sides during workplace conflicts and
disputes, and such selection might depend on the potential for a person to return
the favor. If the third parties who observe bullying events are in an unequal power
relationship with the perpetrator, they tend to take side with the perpetrator or
stay outside of the conflict because of fear of retaliation (Kish-Gephart, Detert,
Treviño, & Edmondson, 2009). The bullying victims face mistreatment from the
perpetrators and feel isolated when their co-workers (i.e. third parties) remain
silent. By investigating the employees of a large state-owned coal mining group in
China, Chen and Park (2015) revealed that bystanders who witnessed workplace
bullying tended to assist the bullies than to defend the victims. Therefore, the
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   7

underlying message that the bullying events may convey to the victims can be
social isolation or rejection from the group (Zapf, 1999). Compared with those
who can effectively maintain positive relationships, those individuals who lack or
lose their connections with others may suffer high levels of mental and physical
illness, experience negative emotions, and develop a broad range of behavioral
problems (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Given the negative consequences of bullying, the victims may consider adopting
the necessary steps to stop such event (i.e. secondary appraisal). The victims may
go through secondary appraisal processes repeatedly to identify the best means
of dealing with their bullying situations. Using quantitative and qualitative data,
Zapf and Gross (2001) found that workplace bullying continued to escalate over
time and the victims employed various types of coping strategies. In most cases,
the victims start with problem-focused coping and then frequently change their
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

coping strategies across various conflict stages. However, problem-focused coping

(e.g. direct communication with the perpetrators) may be an unfavorable strategy
because the perpetrators perceive such initiative as direct confrontation, which
may encourage their retaliation. Emotion-focused coping strategies may be det-
rimental to the victims in the long run.
Unsuccessful coping with workplace bullying even increases the vulnerability
of victims and deepens the discrepancies between their desired and actual situa-
tions. As previously mentioned, people want to maintain positive and meaningful
relationships with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Baumeister et al., 2005).
Workplace bullying occurs when the basic desires (or beliefs) of individuals are
violated and when the discrepancies between their desired and actual situations
remain unresolved. The meaning-making model stipulates that individuals may
engage in meaning making by searching for meaning (e.g. why they are bullied)
as a means of reducing the discrepancies between their beliefs and environments
(Park & Folkman, 1997). However, given that exposure to workplace bullying lasts
for more than six months and escalates over time, the victims may not easily make
meaning or reinterpret their negative experiences in a positive manner. Individuals
who cannot reconcile such discrepancies may feel depressed, hopeless and help-
less (Carver & Scheier, 1991; Martin & Tesser, 1989). Therefore, after facing a
relatively long period of mistreatment, the victims may negatively interpret the
bullying event, which will adversely influence their perceived self-worthiness in
the workplace, incite feelings of helplessness and lead them to feel isolated from
the organization.
As previously discussed, workplace bullying may lead to loss of job features and
negatively affect the sense of worthiness and belonging of employees in their work
groups. Bullying can also convey threats of self-unworthiness and social isolation
to the victims (Zapf, 1999). Such negative message informs the victim that he
or she is less valued in the group and is not treated a noble person (Shrauger &
Jones, 1968; Schimel, Arndt, Pyszczynski, & Greenberg, 2001; Penhaligon et al.,
2013). Social isolation and rejection from the group may reduce a sense of identity
 8    J. H. Park and M. Ono

among the group members, which will lead the victims to doubt their worthiness
in the organization and experience an increased threat of potential job loss (i.e. job
insecurity). Job insecurity is described as a perceptual and subjective phenome-
non and is characterized by the feelings of powerlessness and uncertainty about
the future (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Witte, 1999). Therefore, workplace
bullying may influence the perception of the victim toward his or her job security
and subsequently make him or her feel powerless to change the situation and
anticipate the loss of important job features (e.g. self-esteem and belongingness).
By negatively affecting the beliefs of these individuals about their self-worthiness,
exposure to bullying becomes a source of a new negative identity.
Liefooghe (2003) reported that the victims of workplace bullying were pres-
sured to leave their jobs during their bullying experience. Verdasca (2011) revealed
that workplace bullying, regardless of the organizational positions of the perpetra-
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

tor(s), could remove the social identity of individuals and eventually force them
to leave their work. In this manner, mistreatment at work makes the employees
feel that they are regarded as worthless persons who do not contribute to their
workplace (Loh et al., 2010). Therefore, prolonged bullying situations may signify
an overwhelming threat of exclusion from the organization (Hogh et al., 2010),
which will make the victims feel less secure about their jobs.
The suggested role of job insecurity has not typically been examined. However,
a recent longitudinal study finds that exposure to workplace bullying predicts an
increase in job insecurity after six months (Glambek, Matthiesen, Hetland, &
Einarsen, 2014). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Exposure to workplace bullying will be positively related to individual’s
perception of job insecurity.
Job insecurity triggers various outcomes, such as increased emotional exhaustion,
health problems, and turnover intention as well as decreased performance and
work engagement (Staufenbiel & König, 2010; Huang, Niu, Lee, & Ashford, 2012;
Schreurs, Hetty van Emmerik, Günter, & Germeys, 2012; Vander Elst, Van den
Broeck, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2012). Drawing from COR theory, we contend
that workers with high levels of job insecurity have fewer remaining personal
resources (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). In such situations, the victims may be unable
to endure further threats to resource loss or restore their resources to resolve their
situations. This situational difficulty then results in a further loss of job resources,
which subsequently leads to low work engagement and high burnout (Demerouti
et al., 2010).
Our idea is consistent with previous studies on both work engagement and
health problems. The meta-analytic study of Sverke, Hellgren, and Näswall (2002)
revealed that job insecurity exhibited substantial negative bivariate relationships
with job attitudes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and gen-
eral health (both mental and physical). A few studies reveal a negative association
between job insecurity and work engagement (Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen,
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   9

2007; Vander Elst, Baillien, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2010). Some studies also show
that job insecurity may induce depression, anxiety and health problems (Ferrie
et al., 2001; D’Souza, Strazdins, Lim, Broom, & Rodgers, 2003) because those
people who feel insecure about their jobs also experience powerlessness, perceive
a lack of control and undergo psychological contract breaching (De Cuyper & De
Witte, 2007; Vander Elst, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2011). Perceiving a high level of
job insecurity may also activate compensatory effort, which leads to a high arousal
state and long-term fatigue that impairs the physical and mental health of the
individual (Reisel, 2003). A few longitudinal studies also find that job insecurity
predicts well-being over time (Iversen & Sabroe, 1988; Burchell, 1994).
Hypothesis 5a: Individual perception of job insecurity will be negatively related to
work engagement.
Hypothesis 5b: Individual perception of job insecurity will be positively related to
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

health problems.
Based on the theoretical frameworks and the abovementioned findings, we pro-
pose that exposure to workplace bullying decreases the level of work engagement
and increases the level of health problems through an increased perception of
job insecurity.
Hypothesis 6a: Individual perception of job insecurity will mediate the relationship
between exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement.
Hypothesis 6b: Individual perception of job insecurity will mediate the relationship
between exposure to workplace bullying and health problems.

Methods
Participants and procedure
We collected data from the employees of different organizations in various indus-
tries in Korea and contacted the MBA alumni of a Korean university to access a
sample population. The alumni were asked to act as focal employees to whom we
delivered survey packets that included five to seven employee surveys. They were
instructed to fill out one of these surveys and ask five to seven of their coworkers
to fill out the other surveys. The respondents were assured of the confidentiality
of their responses. Those who preferred to take the survey online were given an
online survey link through the focal employees. The survey, whether in online or
physical form, was distributed to approximately 260 eligible participants. In cases
where a physical copy of the survey or an email was used, the acquaintances made
the necessary arrangements for collecting the completed surveys. A cover letter
and an informed consent form were provided at the first page of the survey to
explain the objectives of the study and to seek permission from the respondents. A
total of 239 responses were collected from different industries (yielding a response
rate of roughly 85%), of which 221 were deemed usable. Among the participants,
135 were males and 84 were females (2 respondents did not disclose their gender),
 10    J. H. Park and M. Ono

were aged between 23 and 63 years (M = 33.32; SD = 6.89) (7 respondents did

not disclose their age), and came from various industries, including research
and management (26.7%), health services (16.7%), general government (12.2%),
banking (11.7%), manufacturing (9.5%) and building construction (6.8%).
We performed a missing data analysis using the psychological variables in the
model (i.e. bullying, engagement, job insecurity, and mental and physical symp-
toms) and found that the percentage of missing data in each variable ranged from
.5 to 1.4%. List-wise deletion based on the relevant variables was avoided because
such technique would reduce the entire data-set by approximately 9%. Instead, we
performed expectation maximization (EM) as an appropriate imputation method.
Using EM for inferential statistics is less desirable when more than 5% of data are
missing. Subsequently, we applied a list-wise deletion based on missing demo-
graphic information (i.e. age and gender), which resulted in the deletion of seven
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

cases (214 remaining usable responses).

Before testing our model, we checked each response for its univariate (i.e. skew-
ness and kurtosis) and multivariate normality (e.g. Mahalanobis distance D2). We
identified five outliers according to the criterion of Kline (2011). The severity of
kurtosis and multivariate non-normality was mitigated by removing these outliers.
We ended up with 209 usable responses. We then calculated the intercorrelations
among the indicator variables, descriptives and reliability (Cronbach’s α) of these
responses (see Table 1).

Measures

Workplace bullying
Workplace bullying was measured using the revised version of the Negative Acts
Questionnaire (NAQ; Einarsen & Raknes, 1997). The NAQ-R is a 22-item scale
that measures exposure to bullying over the past six months using a five-point
Likert scale that includes never, now and then, monthly, weekly and daily. The scale
consists of three subscales, namely, work-related bullying, people-related bullying
and physical intimidation. All of the subscales exhibited acceptable reliability
levels (.80 for work-related bullying, .91 for people-related bullying and .70 for
physical intimidation). The reliability of the physical intimidation subscale was
slightly lower than that of the other two subscales. Previous studies did not report
the reliability scores for the NAQ subscales yet reported the reliabilities for all 22
items of NAQ. For instance, Einarsen, Hoel, and Notelaers (2009) reported a .90
reliability for all 22 items. We performed our own calculations and reported a .94
reliability for all these items. Therefore, reliability was not a significant concern in
our study. The aggregated scores for each subscale were used to estimate a latent
construct of workplace bullying. Sample items included ‘someone withholding
information which affects your performance,’ ‘being ignored or excluded’ and
‘threat of violence, physical abuse, or actual abuse.’
 Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

Table 1. Intercorrelations among indicator variables (n = 209).

Variables M SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Age 33.33 6.89 – –                    
2. Sex 61 .49 – .31** –                  
3. Job insecurity 2.45 .6 .78 .08 .04 –                
Work engagement
4. Vigor 3.23 .66 .77 .22** .12 −.21** –              
5. Dedication 3.49 64 .79 .12 .05 −.20** .74** –            
6. Absorption 3.67 .57 .72 .1 −.01 −.20** .54** .70** –          
Workplace bullying
7. Work-related bullying 1.62 .5 .79 −.17* .03 .15* −.11 −.1 −.09 –        
8. Person-related bullying 1.46 .46 .91 −.12 .07 .18** −.09 −.09 −.15* .80** –      
9. Physical intimidation 1.36 .46 .7 −04 .12 .12 −.04 −.06 −.1 .68** .81** –    
Health problems
10. Mental symptoms 3.11 .74 .89 −.20** −.36** .28** −.30** −.25** −.08 .29** .22** .17* –  
11. Physical symptoms 2.68 .79 .88 −.19* −.26** .32** −.36** −.36** −.24** .28** .25* .29** .66** –
*p < .05; **p < .01.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 
 11
 12    J. H. Park and M. Ono

Work engagement
Work engagement was assessed using the UWES-9, a shortened version of the
original Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova,
2006). This nine-item scale is divided into three subscales, namely, absorption,
dedication and vigor, with each subscale representing a dimension of work engage-
ment. The responses are set on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to
5 (always). Each subscale contains three items. In this sample, the scale demon-
strated favorable internal consistencies (Cronbach’s α: .77 for vigor, .79 for dedi-
cation, and .71 for absorption). Sample items included ‘I feel bursting with energy
at work,’ ‘I feel strong and vigorous at my job’ and ‘I am enthusiastic about my job.’

Job insecurity
Job insecurity was measured using the six items in version 2 of the Job Content
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

Questionnaire (http://www.jcqcenter.org/). The respondents were instructed to

indicate the extent to which they agreed with statements on a five-point Likert
scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α for
the scale was .78. Sample items were omitted for proprietary reasons.

Health problems
To assess health problems, we used the revised mental and physical health strain
scales of the Occupational Stress Indicator (Evers, Frese, & Cooper, 2000). Using
a five-point Likert scale, which ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently), each scale
included seven items that focused on mental or physical symptomatology associ-
ated with occupational stress. The participants were asked seven questions with
references to how they felt over the last three months. Sample items for mental
health included ‘During an ordinary working day, are there times when you feel
unsettled though the reasons for this might not always be clear?,’ ‘As you do your
job, have you noticed yourself questioning your own ability and judgment?’ and
‘Do you find yourself experiencing fairly long periods in which you feel melan-
choly for no apparent reason?’ Sample items for physical health included: ‘inability
to get to sleep,’ ‘feeling unaccountably tired’ and ‘feeling as though you do not
want to get up in the morning.’ The internal consistencies for the mental health
(α = .89) and physical health scales (α = .88) were both acceptable.

Data analyses
Given that this study dealt with latent factors (i.e. workplace bullying, work
engagement and health problems) and an observed variable (i.e. job insecurity), we
used SPSS AMOS to examine our hypothesized hybrid structural equation mode-
ling (SEM) (Kline, 2011). The parameters in the proposed model were estimated
using the maximum likelihood method. To reduce the number of parameters, we
used the item-parceling method (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998; Xu, Huang, Lam, &
Miao, 2012) on workplace bullying, work engagement and health problems. For
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   13

each latent factor, a parameter that was linked with a variable (i.e. work-related
bullying, vigor, and mental health) was fixed as one. An observed variable rep-
resenting job insecurity was created by taking the total of the six relevant items.
For the ultimate outcome variable (i.e. health problems), we controlled for the
effects of age and gender.

Results
Given the inclusion of mediating hypotheses, we initially tested our model with
no direct path between workplace bullying and the two outcome constructs. After
examining each fit index, the χ2 value showed a poor fit (83.16 [df = 40], p < .001).
However, the fit to the data was marginally acceptable because the model χ2 to df
ratio was slightly above 2 (2.08). All of the comparative family indexes showed
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

a good fit to the data (CFI = .96 and NFI = .92). RMSEA also indicated that the
model fits the data well (RMSEA = .07, CI.90 Low = .05, CI.90 High = .09). Overall,
the full mediation model provided a good fit to the data. The factor loadings of
all three latent variables in the model were at an acceptable level (all above .70).
Therefore, the indicators were significantly related to the associated latent factors
in the model. By examining the modification indices, we identified that a regres-
sion path from workplace bullying to health problems would improve our model
fit. Given the prevalence of the bullying–health link, the suggested path made
theoretical sense. This path was also in line with our partial mediation model in
which direct paths between workplace bullying and outcome variables were added.
The modified model with an additional direct path between workplace bullying
and health problems indicated good fit to the data (χ2 = 68.13, df = 39, p = .003;
χ2 to df ratio = 1.75; CFI = .97; NFI = .94; RMSEA = .06, CI.90 Low = .04, CI.90
High = .08). We performed a chi-square difference test and found that the addi-
tional path significantly improved our fit to the data (Δχ2 = 15.03, df = 1, p < .001).
Although not suggested in the modification indices, we followed our initial logic
and tested a model with another path between workplace bullying and work
engagement. This model also fit the data well (χ2 = 67.27, df = 38, p = .002; χ2 to df
ratio = 1.77; CFI = .97; NFI = .94; RMSEA = .06, CI.90 Low = .04, CI.90 High = .08).
However, no significant improvement was observed from the previous model
(Δχ2 = .86, df = 1, p = .35). Therefore, we chose the first modified model (i.e. one
additional direct path) as our final model.
Based on the final model, the SEM analyses confirmed most of the pro-
posed hypotheses. Workplace bullying was positively related to health problems
(β  =  .27, p  <  .001) (Hypothesis 2). However, workplace bullying did not pre-
dict work engagement (β = .07, p = .35) (Hypothesis 1, estimated from our last
model). Work engagement negatively predicted health problems (β = .29, p < .001)
(Hypothesis 3), workplace bullying positively predicted job insecurity (β = .18,
p < .01) (Hypothesis 4) and job insecurity negatively predicted work engagement
(β = .22, p < .01) (Hypothesis 5a). The test of indirect effect revealed that job
 14    J. H. Park and M. Ono

insecurity fully and significantly mediated the relationship between workplace

bullying and work engagement (β = .04, p = .003) (Hypothesis 6a), job insecurity
predicted health problems (β = .24, p < .01) (Hypothesis 5b) and job insecurity
significantly mediated the relationship between workplace bullying and health
problems (β = .06, p < .01) (Hypothesis 6b). The results from the bootstrapped
samples are summarized in Table 2.

Common method bias

Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, we tested the effects of common
method bias using Harman’s single-factor test of common variance. This test
examines if the addition of a common variance factor significantly improves the
model fit beyond the original measurement model, which indicates the presence of
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

method bias. We initially tested our measurement model, in which each indicator
was loaded on its associated latent factor. An overall fit of this model was good
(χ2 = 37.88, df = 22, p = .02; χ2 to df ratio = 1.72; CFI = .98; NFI = .96; RMSEA = .06,
CI.90 Low = .02, CI.90 High = .09). In the subsequent model, we added a latent
factor of method variance (i.e. common factor) on which all of the indicators
were loaded. The regression paths from this latent factor were fixed. Based on
the unstandardized estimates of the regression paths, the effect of the common
factor was estimated as 2.25%. The model also indicated a favorable fit (χ2 = 36.56,
df = 21, p = .02; χ2 to df ratio = 1.74; CFI = .98; NFI = .96; RMSEA = .06, CI.90
Low = .02, CI.90 High = .09). However, the test of chi-square difference revealed
no significant improvement in the model fit when compared to the initial meas-
urement model (Δχ2 = 1.32, df = 1, p = .25). Minimal differences ranging from .02
to .06 were also observed after comparing the standardized regression estimates
in the above two models. Overall, common method bias induced a limited effect
on the data (see Figure 2).

Discussion
This study aimed to explore an additional psychological mechanism underlying
the well-established link between workplace bullying and its relevant outcomes.
Our model posited that exposure to workplace bullying negatively affected work
engagement and health by increasing job insecurity. We primarily supported our

Table 2. Results of SEM model’s fit indices.

Model description χ2 df χ2 to df ratio CFI NFI RMSEA (90% CI) Δχ2 Δdf
1. Full mediation model (Initial) 83.16 40 2.08 .96 .92 .07 (.05–.09)    
2. Partial mediation model 67.27 38 1.77 .97 .94 .06 (.04–.08) 15.89*** 2
3. Final mediation model 68.13 39 1.75 .97 .94 .06 (.04–.08) 15.03*** 1
Notes: Δχ2 tests for the model 2 and 3 are tested based on the initial full mediation model. Δχ2 test between model
2 and 3 was not significant, Δχ2 (df = 1) = .86, p = .35.
***p < .001.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   15

Vigor
.77

Work .96
Dedication
Engagement

.72
Absorption

-.22
Work-Related .82

.97 Workplace .18 -.29

People-Related Job Insecurity
Bullying

Physical .84 .24

Intimidation
.27

.79 Mental
Health
Problems .83
Physical
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

-.04 -.36

Age Sex

.31

Figure 2. A tested final SEM model with standardized coefficients.

hypothesized model using a sample of Korean employees. Increased perceptions of

workplace bullying boosted the level of job insecurity, which in turn reduced the
level of work engagement. Similarly, workplace bullying positively predicted health
symptoms through the changes in job insecurity. The direct effect of bullying on
the health of workers remained significant (i.e. partial mediation), whereas the
direct effect of bullying on work engagement was lacking. These results indicate
that job insecurity is an important additional element in linking workplace bul-
lying with its relevant outcome variables.
We treated job insecurity as a key explanatory variable that linked the psycho-
logical experience of bullying with its consequences, specifically by incorporating
theoretical frameworks that accounted for the cognitive processes of the victims.
Some previous studies examined job insecurity as a risk factor that could trig-
ger bullying situations in the workplace (Baillien, Neyens, & De Witte, 2008; De
Cuyper, Baillien, & De Witte, 2009; Baillien et al., 2011). These studies found that
job insecurity, as an antecedent, was positively related to bullying at work. Their
rationale for this effect was that job insecurity functioned as a negative work
environment (i.e. an organizational-level factor) by inciting frustration among the
workers and creating a work climate that encouraged negative behaviors rather
than civil interactions (Baillien & De Witte, 2009). Nevertheless, the present study
focuses on the role of perceptions on job insecurity, which is caused by mistreat-
ment at work. Glambek et al. (2014) recently conducted a longitudinal study over
a six-month time lag and reported that exposure to bullying predicted an increase
in the levels of job insecurity and intention to quit. They also showed that job
insecurity might be developed at an individual level where exposure to bullying
 16    J. H. Park and M. Ono

Table 3.  Mediation test of job insecurity on the relationship between workplace bullying and
outcomes (10,000 bootstrapped samples, using the bias-corrected percentile method).
90% CI
Outcome Point estimate SE Lower Upper
Work engagement −.040** .022 −.082 −.01
Health problems .056** .022 .021 .095
Notes: Standardized values are shown. CI = Confidence Interval; SE = Standard Error.
**p < .01.

would enhance the perception of job insecurity. This approach is directly in line
with our study, thereby supporting how job insecurity can be treated differently.
(see Table 3).
Our hypothesis on the direct negative effect of workplace bullying on work
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

engagement was not supported. Without a mediating variable (i.e. job insecurity),
workers’ perception of bullying could not be linked with the decreased levels of
work engagement, which suggested the indirect effect of bullying on work engage-
ment. By contrast, the direct negative effect of workplace bullying on health was
supported as expected. The significant direct path between bullying and health
problems is consistent with one of the most robust findings in the literature on
stress and health (Kivimaki et al., 2003; Tehrani, 2004; Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012).
As previously discussed, workplace bullying is a situation that the victims cannot
control. Such lack of control activates a high arousal state and induces long-term
fatigue and physical symptoms (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004). Although job insecurity
provides an additional explanatory role in linking bullying with health outcomes,
the former still continues to directly exacerbate the mental and physical health
of workers.
Our hypothesized predictive path between work engagement and health prob-
lems was supported, which suggested that an increased level of work engage-
ment resulted in a decreased level of health problems. This finding contributes to
the literature on the effects of engagement on health (e.g. Hakanen et al., 2006;
Peterson et al., 2008; Shirom, 2010). However, an opposite predictive path might
also be a viable hypothesis, in which increased levels of health problems could
result in reduced levels of work engagement. Given the design of this study (i.e.
cross-sectional), we could not determine such a causal path. Future studies can
investigate this path using a longitudinal design.

Implications for theory, research and practice

This study contributes to the literature by revealing the process by which exposure
to workplace bullying influences the work engagement and health problems of an
employee. Drawing from the transactional model of stress and meaning-making
model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Park & Folkman, 1997), we established the
linkage between the psychological experience of bullying and its consequences
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   17

through job insecurity. Encountering a bullying event provokes an initial appraisal

in the cognition of the victims, who may treat such event as either challenging
(leading to efforts to deal with the situation) or threatening considering that such
mistreatments tend to be prolonged. The victims may not easily interpret or make
meaning of their negative experience in a positive manner. They tend to interpret
the meaning of such event as threats for self-worthiness and social isolation,
which will subsequently prompt them to doubt their importance within a work
group and experience an increased threat of potential job loss. Organizations
must intervene in bullying situations before the victims interpret such incidents
as signals for social isolation or job loss. They must also provide opportunities for
the victims to regain their resources, such as by organizing counseling services
and training programs for managing bullying situations.
The non-significant direct effect of bullying on work engagement may be incon-
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

sistent with previous findings (e.g. Reio & Sanders-Reio, 2011). However, such
finding suggests an important theoretical implication from a COR perspective.
Drawing from COR theory, our rationale for such a direct effect emphasized the
importance of personal resources. Those workers who are threatened by an actual
resource loss tend to become less engaged in their work. This finding suggests that
job insecurity may serve as an indicator of lost psychological resources, which
in turn contributes to their low level of work engagement. In other words, the
relationship between bullying and work engagement will not be complete if the
lost resources are disregarded. If the victims can draw job resources from other
sources (e.g. social support from a trusted colleague or supervisor), then they can
maintain their sense of security and increase their engagement at work. In an early
systematic work on engagement, Kahn (1990) proposed psychological safety as
a key determinant of engagement. Although we did not use a direct measure of
psychological safety, a positive view on job security or future promotion oppor-
tunities may encourage workers to truly feel safe and fully invest themselves in
their job roles.
These findings underscore that bullying behaviors directly and indirectly pre-
dict poor mental and physical health. Workplace bullying challenges an individ-
ual in developing meaningful workplace relations (Trépanier et al., 2013). As an
important practical implication, managers and HR professionals must emphasize
the mitigation of workplace bullying and assure that their current jobs are not at
risk. Workplace bullying may incite a further loss of resources that continually
drains the energy and resources of employees. Employees must build additional
resources to effectively cope with such events (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001; Bakker
& Demerouti, 2007). Organizations must also create environments where people
support one another. Aside from managers and HR professionals, the victims
may also seek social support from their colleagues or team members to enhance
their psychological well-being (Hobman, Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2009). Those
victims who receive lower social support from their coworkers report more symp-
toms of somatization, depression and anxiety (Hansen et al., 2006).
 18    J. H. Park and M. Ono

Limitations and future research

This study is not devoid of limitations. As its major limitation, this study adopts a
cross-sectional design that has inhibited us from drawing causal conclusions about
the relationships between the predictors and outcomes. We acknowledged a possible
reverse causality between workplace bullying and job insecurity and showed that
workplace bullying entailed a complex process that could not be easily and fully cap-
tured using our current model. Workplace bullying can trigger negative consequences
or act as an outcome of organizational change (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012; Baillien &
De Witte, 2009). Various factors may also act as moderators that buffer or exacerbate
the relationships between bullying and its outcomes depending on the organizational
culture or the support that the victims receive from observers in the workplace or
people from outside of the organization (Pilch & Turska, 2015; Sloan, 2012).
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

Furthermore, the unitary use of the survey methodology has potentially pro-
duced biased estimates in our model. We have attempted to address this weakness
by examining the size of the effects of the common method bias. Despite being a
commonly used approach, our technique was not ideal according to Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003). Future studies must examine the effects of
workplace bullying by using different approaches or redesign our study by varying
the data sources to ensure the reliability of the parameter estimates.
As another potential limitation, our participants have all come from Korea.
Therefore, generalizability becomes an issue because of the role of cultural fac-
tors (e.g. collectivist culture) in workplace bullying situations. For example, the
employees in some Asian countries may have a greater tolerance for workplace
mistreatment from their supervisors because of high power distance cultures.
However, the effects of bullying remain robust (Sims & Sun, 2012) even if the
workers have a high tolerance for such mistreatment. Korea is usually described as
collectivist culture that values the establishment and maintenance of relationships
rather than individual achievement (Wasti, Tan, Brower, & Önder, 2007; Hu, Wu,
& Wang, 2011). People in collectivist cultures tend to identify themselves with
a group and value their ability to interact with others at work (Triandis, 1995;
Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Hu et al., 2011). Given their stronger
reliance on group membership, employees in collectivist cultures may be more
affected by bullying than those in individualistic cultures. Future studies may
employ cross-cultural samples to address these issues.
Our snowball sampling approach may also be considered a limitation. We uti-
lized the social network of the MBA alumni to obtain the necessary data, thereby
producing a potentially biased sample (Faugier & Sargeant, 1997; Noy, 2008).
The snowball sampling approach may not capture a representative sample of our
target population because the study relies on workers who share some level of
social interactions. This sampling technique is potentially problematic because
the workers in a shared social network may less likely become targets of bully-
ing. However, in contrast to a few studies that have examined workers in a single
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   19

corporate setting, we have sampled workers from various industries. We contend

that the large variation of work environments may lessen the issues that are caused
by our sampling technique. Further studies on this topic are encouraged to utilize
the random sampling technique and obtain samples from various occupations,
and thus maximize the generalizability of their findings.

Conclusion
Using the survey data from Korea, we demonstrate the mediating role of job inse-
curity in the relationship between workplace bullying and its relevant outcomes.
We provide significant implications by identifying a new underlying mechanism
of job insecurity in understanding the consequences of workplace bullying. We
also reaffirm the importance of minimizing workplace bullying and increasing
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

work engagement to ensure the health of employees. This study has opened a new
path in understanding the consequences of workplace bullying.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Joon Hyung Park PhD is an assistant professor at Nottingham University Business School
China. He completed his PhD in Management at the Bauer College of Business, the University
of Houston. His research interests lie in the following areas: abusive supervision, workplace
bullying, mentoring and expatriate–local relationship.
Masakatsu Ono is a PhD candidate in positive organizational psychology at Claremont
Graduate University and a former pre-doctoral researcher in positive organizational psy-
chology lab at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands. His focal research areas are
work engagement, job stress and flow at work. He also specializes in the experience sampling
method (ESM) using mobile devices.

References
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the
workplace. The Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87.
Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Why is organizational change related to workplace bullying?
Role conflict and job insecurity as mediators. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 30, 348–
371.
Baillien, E., Neyens, I., & De Witte, H. (2008). Organizational, team related and job related risk
factors for bullying, violence and sexual harassment in the workplace: A qualitative study.
International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 13, 132–146.
 20    J. H. Park and M. Ono

Baillien, E., Rodriguez-Muñoz, A., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2011). Do demands
and resources affect target’s and perpetrators’ reports of workplace bullying? A two-wave
cross-lagged study Work & Stress, 25, 128–146.
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Key questions regarding work engagement.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4–28.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An
emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187–200.
Balducci, C., Cecchin, M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2012). The impact of role stressors on workplace
bullying in both victims and perpetrators, controlling for personal vulnerability factors: A
longitudinal analysis. Work & Stress, 26, 195–212.
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion
impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 589–604.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Burchell, B. (1994). The effects of labour market position, job insecurity and unemployment
on psychological health. In C. M. Gallie & C. Vogler (Eds.), Social change and the experience
of unemployment (pp. 188–212). Oxford: University Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. E. (1991). Self-regulation and the self. In J. Strauss & G. R. Goethals
(Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 239–254). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Chen, R., & Park, J. H. (2015). Witnessing workplace bullying and bystanders’ responses: The
role of bystanders’ attributions. Academy of Management Annual Conference, Vancouver,
BC, Canada.
D’Souza, R. M., Strazdins, L., Lim, L. L.-Y., Broom, D. H., & Rodgers, B. (2003). Work and
health in a contemporary society: Demands, control, and insecurity. Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health, 57, 849–854.
De Cuyper, N., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity, perceived employability and
targets’ and perpetrators’ experiences of workplace bullying. Work & Stress, 23, 206–224.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2007). Job insecurity in temporary versus permanent workers:
Associations with attitudes, well-being, and behaviour. Work & Stress, 21, 65–84.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., de Jonge, J., Janssen, P. P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). Burnout
and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment and Health, 27, 279–286.
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough
investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15, 209–222.
Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the scandinavian approach.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 379–401.
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment
at work: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts
Questionnaire-Revised. Work & Stress, 23, 24–44.
Einarsen, S., & Raknes, B. I. (1997). Harassment in the workplace and the victimization of
men. Violence and Victims, 12, 247–263.
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and
private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 185–201.
Evers, A., Frese, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Revisions and further developments of the
Occupational Stress Indicator: LISREL results from four Dutch studies. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73, 221–240.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   21

Faugier, J., & Sargeant, M. (1997). Sampling hard to reach populations. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 26, 790–797.
Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Marmot, M. G., Martikainen, P., Stansfeld, S. A., & Smith, G. D.
(2001). Job insecurity in white-collar workers: Toward an explanation of association with
health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 26–42.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 745–774.
Glambek, M., Matthiesen, S. B., Hetland, J., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Workplace bullying as an
antecedent to job insecurity and intention to leave: A 6-month prospective study. Human
Resource Management Journal, 24, 255–268.
Glasø, L., Bele, E., Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2011b). Bus drivers’ exposure to bullying at
work: An occupation-specific approach. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52, 484–493.
Glasø, L., Vie, T. L., Holmdal, G. R., & Einarsen, S. (2011a). An application of affective events
theory to workplace bullying: The role of emotions, trait anxiety, and trait anger. European
Psychologist, 16, 198–208.
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

Gorgievski, M. J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2008). Work can burn us out or fire us up: Conservation
of resources in burnout and engagement. In J. R. B. Halbesleben (Ed.), Handbook of stress
and burnout in health care (pp. 7–22). Hauppauge, NY: NOVA Science.
Greenhalgh, L., & Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy
of Management Review, 9, 438–448.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495–513.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout,
demands, resources and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement:
A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hansen, Å. M., Hogh, A., Persson, R., Karlson, B., Garde, A. H., & Ørbæk, P. (2006). Bullying at
work, health outcomes, and physiological stress response. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,
60, 63–72.
Harvey, M., Treadway, D. C., & Heames, J. T. (2007). The occurrence of bullying in global
organizations: A model and issues associated with social/emotional contagion. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2576–2599.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resource theory: Applications to stress
and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
behavivor (2nd ed.). (pp. 57–80). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2009). Abusive supervision in
advising relationships: Investigating the role of social support. Applied Psychology, 58,
233–256.
Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great Britain:
The impact of organizational status. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,
10, 443–465.
Hoel, H., Glasø, L., Hetland, J., Cooper, C. L., & Einarsen, S. (2010). Leadership styles as predictors
of self-reported and observed workplace bullying. British Journal of Management, 21, 453–468.
Hogh, A., Hansen, Å. M., Mikkelsen, E. G., & Persson, R. (2012). Exposure to negative
acts at work, psychological stress reactions and physiological stress response. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 73, 47–52.
Hogh, A., Mikkelsen, E. G., & Hansen, A. M. (2010). Individual consequences of workplace
bullying/mobbing. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and
Harassment in the Workplace: Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 107–128).
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
 22    J. H. Park and M. Ono

Houshmand, M., O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S., & Wolff, A. (2012). Escaping bullying: The
simultaneous impact of individual and unit-level bullying on turnover intentions. Human
Relations, 65, 901–918.
Hu, C., Wu, T.-Y., & Wang, Y.-H. (2011). Measurement equivalence/invariance of the abusive
supervision measure across workers from Taiwan and the United States. The Journal of
Psychology, 145, 111–131.
Huang, G.-H., Niu, X., Lee, C., & Ashford, S. J. (2012). Differentiating cognitive and affective
job insecurity: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 752–769.
Iversen, L. & Sabroe, S. (1988). Psychological weil-being among unemployed and employed
people after a company closedown: A longitudinal study. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 141–152.
Jenkins, M. F., Zapf, D., Winefield, H., & Sarris, A. (2012). Bullying allegations from the accused
bully's perspective. British Journal of Management, 23, 489–501.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear:
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior,
29, 163–193.
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 and Environmental Medicine, 60, 779–783.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2003). Employee accounts of bullying at work. International Journal of
Management and Decision Making, 4, 24–34.
Loh, J., Restubog, S. L. D., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2010). Consequences of workplace bullying on
employee identification and satisfaction among Australians and Singaporeans. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 236–252.
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1989). Toward a motivational and structural theory of ruminative
thought. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 306–325). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents
of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 149–171.
Meurs, J. A., & Perrewe, P. L. (2011). Cognitive activation theory of stress: An integrative
theoretical approach to work stress. Journal of Management, 37, 1043–1068.
Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Relationships between exposure to bullying at work
and psychological and psychosomatic health complaints: The role of state negative affectivity
and generalized self–efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 397–405.
Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-
analytic review. Work & Stress, 26, 309–332.
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Sense of coherence as a protective
mechanism among targets of workplace bullying. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
13, 128–136.
Nielsen, M. B., Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The impact of methodological moderators
on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83, 955–979.
Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative
research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 327–344.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin,
128, 3–72.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   23

Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning
making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136,
257–301.
Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of
General Psychology, 1, 115–144.
Parzefall, M.-R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A
social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63, 761–780.
Penhaligon, N. L., Louis, W. R., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2013). Feeling left out? The mediating
role of perceived rejection on workgroup mistreatment and affective, behavioral, and
organizational outcomes and the moderating role of organizational norms. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 43, 480–497.
Peterson, U., Demerouti, E., Bergström, G., Samuelsson, M., Åsberg, M., & Nygren, A. (2008).
Burnout and physical and mental health among Swedish healthcare workers. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 62, 84–95.
Pilch, I., & Turska, E. (2015). Relationships between Machiavellianism, organizational culture,
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

and workplace bullying: Emotional abuse from the target’s and the perpetrator’s perspective.
Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 83–93.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Reio, T. G., & Sanders-Reio, J. (2011). Thinking about workplace engagement: does supervisor
and coworker incivility really matter? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13, 462–478.
Reisel, W. D. (2003). Predicting job insecurity via moderating influence of individual
powerlessness. Psychological Reports, 92, 820–822.
Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., Baillien, E., De Witte, H., Moreno-Jiménez, B., & Pastor, J. C. (2009).
Cross-lagged relationships between workplace bullying, job satisfaction and engagement:
Two longitudinal studies. Work & Stress, 23, 225–243.
Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., Moreno-Jiménez, B., Sanz Vergel, A. I., & Garrosa Hernández, E.
(2010). Post-traumatic symptoms among victims of workplace bullying: Exploring gender
differences and shattered assumptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2616–2635.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. (2003). Test manual for the Utrecht work engagement scale. The
Netherlands: Utrecht University.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66, 701–716.
Schimel, J., Arndt, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2001). Being accepted for who we are:
Evidence that social validation of the intrinsic self reduces general defensiveness. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 35–52.
Schreurs, B. H. J., Hetty van Emmerik, I. J., Günter, H., & Germeys, F. (2012). A weekly diary
study on the buffering role of social support in the relationship between job insecurity and
employee performance. Human Resource Management, 51, 259–279.
Shirom, A. (2010). Feeling energetic at work: On vigor’s antecedents. In A. B. Bakker & M. P.
Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 69–84).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Shrauger, J. S., & Jones, S. C. (1968). Social validation and interpersonal evaluations. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 315–323.
Sims, R. L., & Sun, P. (2012). Witnessing workplace bullying and the Chinese manufacturing
employee. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27, 9–26.
Sloan, M. M. (2012). Unfair treatment in the workplace and worker well-being: The role of
coworker support in a service work environment. Work and Occupations, 39, 3–34.
 24    J. H. Park and M. Ono

Staufenbiel, T., & König, C. J. (2010). A model for the effects of job insecurity on performance,
turnover intention, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,
83, 101–117.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job
insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 242–264.
Tehrani, N. (2004). Bullying: A source of chronic post traumatic stress? British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling, 32, 357–366.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 178–190.
Trépanier, S.-G., Fernet, C., & Austin, S. (2013). Workplace bullying and psychological health at
work: The mediating role of satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness.
Work & Stress, 27, 123–140.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2004). The cognitive activation theory of stress.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29, 567–592.
Downloaded by [University of Nottingham] at 20:27 20 July 2016

Vander Elst, T., Baillien, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2010). The role of organizational
communication and participation in reducing job insecurity and its negative association
with work-related well-being. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 31, 249–264.
Vander Elst, T., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). The role of perceived control in the
relationship between job insecurity and psychosocial outcomes: moderator or mediator?
Stress and Health, 27, 215–227.
Vander Elst, T., Van den Broeck, A., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2012). The mediating role
of frustration of psychological needs in the relationship between job insecurity and work-
related well-being. Work & Stress, 26, 252–271.
Verdasca, A. T. (2011). Workplace bullying, power and organizational politics: A study of the
Portuguese banking sector. SOCIUS Working Papers. Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.
LISBON.
Vie, T. L., GlasØ, L., & Einarsen, S. (2012). How does it feel? Workplace bullying, emotions and
musculoskeletal complaints. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 165–173.
Wasti, S. A., Tan, H. H., Brower, H. H., & Önder, Ç. (2007). Cross-cultural measurement of
supervisor trustworthiness: An assessment of measurement invariance across three cultures.
The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 477–489.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion
of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
Witte, H. D. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature
and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 8, 155–177.
Wu, L.-Z., Yim, F. H.-k., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. (2012). Coping with workplace ostracism:
The roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee psychological distress. Journal of
Management Studies, 49, 178–199.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work behaviors:
The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 531–543.
Yang, H., Van de Vliert, E., Shi, K., & Huang, X. (2008). Whose side are you on? Relational
orientations and their impacts on side-taking among Dutch and Chinese employees. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 713–731.
Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying
at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 70–85.
Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication
and extension. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10, 497–522.

View publication stats