The International Journal of Human Resource

Management

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

Climate for conflict management, exposure to

workplace bullying and work engagement: a
moderated mediation analysis

Ståle Einarsen, Anders Skogstad, Erlend Rørvik, Åshild Bjørke Lande &
Morten Birkeland Nielsen

To cite this article: Ståle Einarsen, Anders Skogstad, Erlend Rørvik, Åshild Bjørke Lande &
Morten Birkeland Nielsen (2016): Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace
bullying and work engagement: a moderated mediation analysis, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1164216

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1164216

Published online: 15 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13

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: [RMIT University Library] Date: 19 April 2016, At: 02:06
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1164216

Climate for conflict management, exposure to workplace

bullying and work engagement: a moderated mediation
analysis
Ståle Einarsena, Anders Skogstada, Erlend Rørvika, Åshild Bjørke Landea and
Morten Birkeland Nielsenb
a
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; bSTAMI - National Institute
of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The present study investigates a potential preventive factor in Bullying; harassment;
relation to workplace bullying. Specifically, we examine how engagement; climate;
conflict management;
climate for conflict management (CCM) may be related to
psychosocial safety climate
less bullying, increased work engagement, as well as whether
CCM is a moderator in the bullying engagement relationship.
The study was based on a cross-sectional survey among
employees in a transport company (N  =  312). Hypotheses
were tested simultaneously in a moderated mediation analysis
which showed that bullying and job engagement were
related (H1), CCM was related to less reports of bullying (H2),
CCM was related to work engagement (H3) and that CCM was
indirectly related to job engagement through bullying (H4),
but only when CCM was weak (H5). That is, CCM moderated
the relationship between bullying and work engagement
in that this relationship only existed when CCM was low.
The present study contributes to theory within this research
field by showing that organizational measures may not only
prevent bullying, but may also affect how employees react
when subjected to bullying. Furthermore, the effect of climate
in relation to bullying may be down to the narrow bandwidth
facet of CCM. The study informs employers how they may act
to prevent bullying while also reducing the potential negative
outcomes of those cases of bullying that inevitably will show
up from time to time.

Exposure to bullying in the workplace is not only associated with reduced health
and well-being among those targeted (see e.g. Høgh, Mikkelsen, & Hansen, 2011;
Nielsen, Magerøy, Gjerstad, & Einarsen, 2014), it is also associated with individ-
ual and organizational level outcomes related to performance and productivity,
such as reduced creativity (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2008), increased

CONTACT  Ståle Einarsen  stale.einarsen@psysp.uib.no

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2    S. Einarsen et al.

absenteeism rates (Asfaw, Chang, & Tapas, 2014), increased turnover rates
(Berthelsen, Skogstad, Lau, & Einarsen, 2011; Glambek, Skogstad, & Einarsen,
2015) and reduced work engagement (Rodríguez-Muñoz, Baillien, De Witte,
Moreno-Jiménez, & Pastor, 2009). Hence, employers have an obvious interest in
both preventing bullying from occurring and in reducing its potential negative
outcomes. Even if bullying may be related to the personality of the parties involved
(see e.g. Kant, Skogstad, Torsheim, & Einarsen, 2013; Nielsen & Knardahl, 2015),
the main preventive tool of employers is organizational measures as such measures
are largely under the employers control, be it work design (Notelaers, Baillien,
De Witte, Einarsen, & Vermunt, 2012), the policies and procedures in place for
the management of interpersonal conflicts (Rayner & Lewis, 2011), or the mere
working climate in the organization (see also Skogstad, Torsheim, Einarsen, &
Hauge, 2011).
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

To date, surprisingly few studies have looked at factors that may protect the
organization against bulling either by inhibiting bullying from occurring (see
Hodgins, MacCurtain, & Mannix-McNamara, 2014 for a review), or by prevent-
ing or reducing its potential negative outcomes (see Bond, Tuckey, and Dollard
(2010) for a rare exemption). However, in his seminal work on workplace bullying
and harassment, Brodsky (1976) claimed that for harassment to take place the
victimizing elements must occur within a climate that permits or rewards this
kind of (mis)behavior. In line with this, Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf, and Cooper (2011)
forwarded the hypothesis that if employees perceive the organizational climate
as being characterized by proper procedures and policies to manage interper-
sonal problems, there will both be fewer bullying episodes and a reduction of
the potential outcomes of bullying, e.g. retaining the work engagement of those
targeted. In the present paper, we will investigate this hypothesis using the con-
cept of Climate for Conflict Management (CCM) which refers to the employees’
assessments of the organization’s conflict management procedures, and of how
fair and predictable the interaction patterns between managers and employees are
perceived to be in this regard (Rivlin, 2001). Employing a moderated mediation
analysis we will investigate if perceived CCM moderates the likely relationship
between exposure to bullying and reduced work engagement (see Figure 1 for an
overview of the tested hypotheses).

The nature of workplace bullying

Afflicting some 10% of the working population, exposure to workplace bullying is

a prevalent and serious stressor in contemporary working life with targets on all
organizational levels and all work life sectors (Zapf, Escartin, Einarsen, Hoel, &
Vartia, 2011). Workplace bullying is about interpersonal hostility of a persistent
and frequent nature with some degree of formal or informal power imbalance
between the organization members involved (Samnani & Singh, 2012). Bullying
can therefore be viewed as a particularly serious form of interpersonal conflict at
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   3

Exposure
to bullying (M)

a b
X*M

c (c’) Job
Conflict engagement
management (Y)
climate (X)

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationships between conflict management climate, bullying
and work engagement.
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

work (Zapf & Einarsen, 2005) where the targeted employee over a prolonged time
period is increasingly exposed to hostile social acts from peers or superiors find-
ing it difficult to defend oneself in the actual situation due to a power imbalance
between the parties (Einarsen et al., 2011; Olweus, 1994; van de Vliert, Einarsen,
& Nielsen, 2013). In this, there are two conflicting parties in a workgroup setting,
be they individual group members or subgroups, which experience one-sided or
two-sided obstruction and irritation (van de Vliert et al., 2013). Second, formal
or informal power differences exist or develop between the involved parties in
that the perpetrator can tease, insult and socially isolate the target, who perceives
to have little recourse to retaliate in kind. Third, bullying normally arises from an
escalating conflict process initiated by a perpetrator who persistently and relent-
lessly confronts the target with negative acts, which potentially are fueled by the
often dramatic emotional reactions of the said target (van de Vliert et al., 2013).
The persistent nature and process development excludes one – off incidences as
bullying (Olweus, 1994).
In this context, the term hostile social acts overlaps with the concepts of social
exclusion, incivility and abusive supervision. While incivility has been defined
as rude and discourteous behavior in violation of workplace norms for mutual
respect and with a lack of regard for others (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), abu-
sive supervision is defined as the sustained display by superiors of hostile verbal
or non-verbal behaviors at work (Tepper, 2000). Social exclusion refers to being
excluded from or devaluated from valued others, in our case peers and superiors
at work (MacDonald & Leary, 2005). A number of studies have found such behav-
iors at work to constitute a serious mental strain for those affected, particularly
when exhibited frequently and over a longer period of time as is the case in cases
of workplace bullying (Høgh et al., 2011). The present paper will address the
whole spectrum of experiences from occasional incivility to cases of severe work-
place bullying. Among its many proposed outcomes, the present study focuses on
reduced work engagement among targets.
 4    S. Einarsen et al.

Work engagement as a likely outcome of bullying

The concept of work engagement, first introduced in organizational psychology by

Kahn (1990), refers to a condition in which the personal self and the work role are
merged together. Launched as the antithesis of burnout it has later been defined
as ‘... a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption’ (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002,
p. 74). A number of positive effects of employees’ work engagement have been
found, for example, creativity, job performance and effectiveness (see Halbesleben,
2010, for an overview). Hence, factors that reduce employees’ work engagement
should worry managers on all levels in the organization. Within the Job Demands-
Resources model (JD-R model, see Bakker, Demerouti, and Sanz-Vergel (2014)
for an overview) work engagement has primarily been analyzed as an outcome
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

of perceptions of resources, and less as an outcome of demands. However, the

relationship between demands and work engagement may vary between different
types of job demands. The differentiated job demands-resources model (DJD-R
model) extends the original JD-R model by distinguishing between challenge and
hindrance demands (Crawford, Le Pine, & Rich, 2010). Challenge demands are
related to work engagement via their potential of promoting mastery, personal
growth, triggering positive emotions such as excitement and eagerness and an
active problem-solving style, while hindrance demands tend to be conceived as
potential blockers of personal growth or gain, and are consequently related to
negative emotions such as fear or anger as they threaten to thwart personal growth,
learning and goal attainment. In a meta-analysis, Crawford and colleagues (2010)
found a systematic negative correlation between hindrance demands and work
engagement.
Bullying qualifies as a hindrance demand due to the difficulty of coping with it
and the prolonged mental strain on the person affected. In line with Leary’s (2001)
conceptualization of interpersonal rejection, Power and colleagues (2013) argue
that bullying afflicts work engagement as it signals to employees that they are not
valued and respected. Hence, based on the DJD-R model a negative relationship
between exposure to bullying and work engagement may be expected. Accordingly,
such a relationship has been empirically supported by both Rodríguez-Muñoz,
Baillien, De Witte, Moreno-Jiménez, and Pastor (2009) and Law and colleagues
(2011).

H1: There is a significant negative relationship between exposure to workplace bullying

and work engagement.

CCM may reduce bullying

A consistent finding in the bullying field has been that of the link between inter-
personal conflicts and exposure to workplace bullying (Baillien et al., 2015; Hauge,
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   5

Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2007). While interpersonal conflict may come in the shape
of isolated incidents and one–off instances, even at times with constructive out-
comes, they may also escalate and gradually turn into a case of workplace bullying
where repeated one-sided attacks prevail over a sustained period of time and where
an imbalance in power exist or have developed between the involved parties (see
Baillien et al., 2015 for empirical evidence). Hence, instances of interpersonal conflict
may over time escalate into workplace bullying, particularly so if badly managed
(Baillien et al., 2015; Leymann, 1990; Mikkelsen, Høgh, & Puggard, 2011). Based on
a quasi-experimental process-evaluating study in hospitals, Mikkelsen and colleagues
(2011) concluded that training managers in interpersonal conflict management must
be a basic element in any preventive strategy against bullying. Consequently, a strong
climate for conflict management (CCM), defined as employees′ beliefs that interper-
sonal conflicts are generally managed well and fairly in their organization, and that
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

general procedures for the distribution of benefits and burdens in the organization
are fair (Rivlin, 2001), may play an important role in preventing isolated conflicts
episodes from escalating into persistent bullying.
A range of empirical studies supports this notion. For instance, in a prospective
study, Baillien, Bollen, Euwema, and De Witte (2014) found that not only were
conflicts and bullying at time 1 highly related, the conflict management style of
problem-solving at time 1 was negatively related to being a perpetrator at time
2, underscoring that in a climate where conflicts are handled well there probably
will be less bullying. Furthermore, Leon-Perez, Medina, Arenas, and Mundate
(2015) have shown that conflict escalation predicts reports of bullying and that an
active and problem-solving type of conflict management prevents conflicts from
escalating into bullying situations. Furthermore, Skogstad and colleagues (2011)
found that a positive social climate at the departmental level was associated with
fewer cases of bullying. In relation to school bullying, a climate characterized by
high levels of disciplinary structure and student support among staff has shown
to be related to low levels of victimization (Cornell, Shukla, Konold, & Huang,
2014). The same seems to hold true in cases of sexual harassment, where a con-
sistent finding has been that men are more likely to harass women in working
environments where the management is perceived as tolerating or condoning
of such behavior (Schneider, Pryor, & Fitzgerald, 2011). Even more, employing
the broad bandwidth concept of psychosocial safety climate (PSC), Bond and
colleagues (2010) found that police stations with a strong PSC had fewer reports
of bullying one year later. In line with this, Rivlin (2001) found that CCM at an
organizational level was negatively associated with the number of lawsuits brought
against the organization, also when controlling for previous lawsuits. The expla-
nation for these findings was that employees’ experiences of fair procedures and
social interaction in manager-employee relations reduced the probability of con-
flict escalation. Similarly, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) found a negative correlation
between norms of justice and destructive behavior such as destroying equipment,
the spreading of rumors or wasting time or materials.
 6    S. Einarsen et al.

In the present study, we will examine whether this effect, in relation to work-
place bullying, may be narrowed down to the specific and narrow bandwidth
facet of CCM, that is, the perceived quality of the procedures and roles involved
in handling interpersonal conflicts in the organization. If conflicts are prevented
from escalating, it is reasonable to expect reduced incidences of bullying. In this,
a strong CCM may reduce the risk of perceived exposure to bullying behaviors by
providing employees with safe channels through which they can express frustra-
tion about, e.g. the organization of work and the behavior of their peers. Employees
may also refrain from avoiding low-intensity conflicts and engage themselves in
more problem-solving and reconciliation if they feel safe that the organizational
members will step in constructively if these attempts would fail.
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

H2: There is a significant negative relationship between perceived CCM and exposure
to workplace bullying.
Further, we may expect a link between CCM and work engagement. In general,
climates that are viewed as positive (e.g. being fair and ethical) have systemati-
cally shown to be reliable antecedents of positive attitudes and higher levels of
performance (e.g. Griffith, 2006; Mathisen, Einarsen, Jørstad, & Brønnick, 2004).
Likewise, a meta-study on various psychological climates (Parker et al., 2003)
showed those climates to be systematically related to job satisfaction, other job
attitudes such as organizational commitment and job involvement, as well as
motivation and performance.

H3: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived CCM and work
engagement.
Following from the above line of reasoning we may also expect bullying to medi-
ate the relationship between CCM and work engagement. Hence, when there
are fewer resources available to prevent and manage escalating conflicts, fewer
constraints will be present to inhibit negative conflict behavior by the involved
parties, leading to more cases of bullying, which in the following will influence
work engagement negatively.

H4: Perceived CCM has an indirect relationship with work engagement through work-
place bullying.

CCM as a moderator

The present study will also investigate whether CCM moderates the proposed
relationship between bullying and reduced work engagement, suggesting that
this relationship is weaker when there is a strong CCM. Specifically, we will
investigate whether CCM moderates the already proposed indirect relationship
between CCM, bullying and work engagement, so that when the CCM is strong,
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   7

the proposed indirect relationship from this climate via bullying to work engage-
ment will be weaker.
With their concept of PSC, of which CCM may be seen as a particular sub-
facet, Dollard and Bakker (2010) suggest that a strong PSC reduces both the
occurrence and the consequences of perceived demands, thereby reducing the
connection demands might have with negative outcomes such as lowered work
engagement. Hence, the presence of CCM could, in turn, reduce not only the
number of cases of workplace bullying but also the potential negative outcomes
for those exposed. In line with this, a longitudinal study found that a strong PSC
reduced both the probability of employees reporting unhealthy levels of work
pressure and the extent to which work was emotionally demanding (Dollard &
Bakker, 2010). In a longitudinal study among police officers, Bond et al. (2010)
made a similar finding in that a poor PSC was related to a higher incidence of
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

bullying one year later. This study also found that those who experienced bullying
had a greater probability of developing symptoms of post-traumatic stress if they
were employed at a police station with a weak PSC. In a survey of 805 Finnish
teachers, Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, and Xanthopoulou (2007) not only found
a negative correlation between pupils’ problem behavior and work engagement,
they also found that resources in the form of management support, informational
flow, recognition and a supportive organizational climate had a moderating effect
on this relationship. That is, high levels of these resources weakened the negative
relationship between experienced problem behavior and work engagement.
It is conceivable that the narrow bandwidth facet of CCM works by promoting
predictability and perceived control, as a strong CCM indicates that employees
perceive their management to be motivated and obliged to intervene in conflicts
that arise and that employees perceive the conflict management procedures to be
fair (Rivlin, 2001). Such certainty can result in an increased experience of control
because employees do not have to rely on their own or the other party’s conflict
management strategies. Given a strong CCM, employees will also be likely to
know that they can seek support and advice from colleagues and the manage-
ment in difficult situations, which should further promote perceived control and
available social resources. In turn, it is plausible that the perceptions of control
and available social resources weaken the negative relationship between bullying
and work engagement by reducing the level of experienced stress in the situation.
In addition, active coping, which may result from a strong CCM, can in itself
contribute to increase work engagement and counteract the potential detrimental
effect of bullying.

H5: The indirect association between perceived CCM and work engagement through
workplace bullying is conditionally dependent upon levels of CCM, so that the rela-
tionship between bullying and work engagement is only present when CCM is weak.
 8    S. Einarsen et al.

The hypothesized relationships between CCM, exposure to workplace bullying

and work engagement are graphically presented in Figure 1. The hypotheses will
be tested simultaneously in a moderated mediation analysis.
The presented empirical study has been conducted in Norway, a country with
relatively low levels of workplace bullying, but also a culture with a low accept-
ance of such behavior, as is typical for the Scandinavian countries where a strong
humane orientation prevails in the culture encouraging people to be fair, gener-
ous, caring and kind to others (see also Hofstede, 1980; Power et al., 2013; van
de Vliert et al., 2013). Hence, it is probable that if the hypothesized relationship
between climate, bullying and work engagement exists, it should be found within
this region. Furthermore, research has shown bullying to be detrimental to per-
formance (Mathisen et al., 2008; Power et al., 2013). Hence, it is of the upmost
importance for both exposed individuals and organizations that we seek knowl-
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

edge on preventive measures against bullying and how the effectiveness of these
measures may, or may not, vary between national cultures. So far, studies on
outcomes of bullying and the moderating effect of social climate in this regard
have mainly been conducted in Australian samples (e.g. Bond et al., 2010; Law
et al., 2011). Hence, widening our knowledge on these potential relationships to
other cultures is of high importance and relevance (see Power et al. (2013) and
van de Vliert et al. (2013) for more information on cultural variations regarding
the prevalence and the acceptability of workplace bullying).

Method
Procedure and sample
The participants in this study are employees in a large Norwegian transport com-
pany. In a working environment survey of the company, a questionnaire was
distributed to 495 employees in various departments. Altogether 312 question-
naires were returned (response rate: 63%). This rate is far higher than the average
response rates found in similar studies (Baruch & Holtom, 2008). The average age
of the sample was 47.7 years (SD = 11.40), varying from 18 to 65 years and 76% of
the respondents were men (n = 299). The survey was reported to and approved by
the Privacy Ombudsman for research at Norwegian Social Science Data Services.

Instruments

The questionnaire was composed of a number of standardized inventories, includ-

ing scales measuring work engagement, bullying and CCM. Exposure to bully-
ing was measured using the short version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire
Revised (NAQ-S; Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009; Notelaers & Einarsen, 2008),
consisting of nine core items describing different forms of behavior that can be
experienced as bullying if they occur regularly over a period of time. The items
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   9

can be categorized into direct behaviors (e.g. ‘being shouted at or being the target
of spontaneous anger’) and indirect behaviors such as social isolation and gossip
(e.g. ‘been ignored’). Responses were given on a frequency scale from 1 to 5, where
1 represents ‘never’ and 5 ‘daily’. Internal consistency measured by Cronbach’s α
was .86, which exceeds by a good margin the recommended minimum value of .7
for scales of this type (Pallant, 2005). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the
NAQ in SPSS Amos with all items loading on a single factor provided good fit to
data (χ² = 63.51; df = 25; p < .001; CFI = .97; TLI = .95).
Work engagement was measured using the short version of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES) which consists of 9 items (Schaufeli, Bakker, &
Salanova, 2006). This measure comprises the three dimensions of vigor, dedica-
tion and absorption. The items are scored on a seven-point frequency scale from
1 to 7, where 1 represents ‘never during the last year’ and 7 represents ‘daily’. The
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

Cronbach’s α for the scale was very high (.95). A CFA of the short UWES showed
good fit to data (χ² = 166.55; df = 26; p < .001; CFI = .94; TLI = .92).
CCM was measured by four items developed from the Conflict Management
Climate Scale regarding fairness of dispute resolution (Rivlin, 2001). The word-
ings of the four items are as follows: (1) ‘If I have a serious disagreement with
someone at work, I know who I should talk to about it’; (2) ‘The way we deal with
disagreements between employees in my unit works well’; (3) ‘My superiors deal
with conflicts in a good manner’; (4) ‘We have good procedures and methods for
raising disagreements and conflicts in my workplace’. A five-point Likert scale
from 1 (‘do not agree’) to 5 (‘agree completely’) was used for responses. Internal
consistency of the scale as measured by Cronbach’s α was high (.84). A CFA of
the scale gave good fit to data (χ² = 5.53; df = 3; p > .05; CFI = .99; TLI = .98),
supporting the notion of a coherent, reliable, one-factor scale.
Gender and age were used as control variables in the statistical analyses, as
were two measures of role conflict (5 items, α = .85) and role ambiguity (4 items,
α = .82) from Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970). Role conflict and role ambiguity
was included as control variables because these factors are well-known and strong
psychosocial predictors of workplace bullying and work engagement (Hauge
et al., 2007).

Statistical analyses

All data was analyzed on an individual level of analysis in line with our focus on
exposure to bullying, psychological climate as opposed to organizational climate
(Christian, Bradley, Wallace, & Burke, 2009) and individual work engagement.
Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 and SPSS AMOS
22 (IBM Corp. Released, 2013). Missing data were replaced by the use of the Hot
Deck imputation procedure (Myers, 2011). Hot deck imputation is a method for
handling missing data in which each missing value is replaced with an observed
response from a respondent with similar characteristic on pre-determined anchor
 10    S. Einarsen et al.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s product-moment correlations for the variables of the
study (Cronbach’s alpha in bold along diagonal).
N Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age 234 47.25 11.34 –
2. Gender 273 1.25 .43 –.21** –
3. Job engagement 284 5.37 1.37 .24** –.05 .95
4. Climate for conflict 284 3.46 1.02 .06 –.01 .42** .84
management
5. Exposure to bullying 284 1.42 .50 –.09 –.10 –.33** –.33** .86
6. Role ambiguity 284 2.79 1.02 –.09 –.17* –.40** –.34** .23** .84
7. Role conflict 284 3.53 1.44 –.08 –.17* –.22** –.34** .39** .28** .86
**p < .01 (two-tailed test);
***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

variables. Age, gender and an indicator of job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe,
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

1951) were used as anchor variables in the Hot Deck imputation.

Confirmatory factor analyses in AMOS were used to establish the psychomet-
ric properties of the study scales. The goodness-of-fit of the structural regression
models was evaluated by means of a comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis
Index (TLI) with values in the area of 0.90 to 0.95, as indicators of good fit (Hu
& Bentler, 1999). The hypothesized moderated mediation model was tested by
means of the PROCESS macro developed for SPSS (Hayes, 2013). Due to restric-
tions in degrees of freedom, as determined by the number of observed indicators
and the sample size, a latent variable approach was not appropriate for testing of
moderated mediation. As an alternative method, PROCESS uses an ordinary least
squares (OLS) or logistic regression-based path analytical framework for estimat-
ing indirect effects in both un-moderated and moderated mediation models with a
single or multiple mediators and moderators (Hayes, 2013). Bootstrap methods are
implemented for inference about indirect effects in both unmoderated as well as
moderated mediation models. Bootstrapping is a statistical procedure that allows
you to calculate effect sizes and hypothesis tests for an estimate even when you do
not know the underlying distribution. In most latent variable programs, p-values
are usually derived from the normal distribution rather than a t-distribution. In
small samples, such as the one included in this study, the t-distribution used by
an OLS-regression procedure is more appropriate for the derivation of p-values
for regression coefficients (Hayes, 2013).

Results
Harman’s single-factor test was utilized to investigate potential common method
variance among the study variables. This test is based on the assumption that com-
mon method variance is present if a single factor accounts for the majority (>50%)
of covariance among the study variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). This test was performed by including all study items in a fixed one-factor
un-rotated factor analysis. With a total explained variance of 37.81%, the findings
from the Harman’s single factor test provided no indications of common method
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   11

Table 2. Conditional indirect effect of CCM climate on job engagement through bullying with
CCM as moderator. (N = 284; Bootstrap resamples = 5000, Unstandardized coeffiients).
Predictor b SE 95% SE
Mediator variable model (DV = Bullying)
CCM –.16*** .03 –.22 – –.11
Dependent variable model (DV = Job engagement)
CCM .46*** .08 .31–.61
Bullying –.41* .16 –.73– –.10
CCM*Bullying .46** .15 .17–.75
Conditional indirect effect at different values of the moderator
Values of the moderator b Bootstrapped SE 95% BCa CI
10th percentile .18** .05 .09–.28
25th percentile .12* .03 .07–.19
50th percentile .06* .03 .02–.13
75th percentile .01 .04 –.08–.07
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

90th percentile –.03 .05 –.15–.05

Index of moderated mediation –.08* .03 –.15– –.03
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

variance. A follow-up factor analyses with three separate factors showed that the
items loaded on the correct factors. All factor loadings exceeded .50.
The means, standard deviations and intercorrelations for all included study
variables are presented in Table 1. CCM were positively associated with work
engagement (r = .42; p < .001) and negatively associated with bullying (r = –.33;
p < .001). In the same vein, bullying was negatively related to work engagement
(r = –.33; p < .001). Age and gender had only minor or insignificant associations
with the other variables. Role conflict and role ambiguity were positively associ-
ated with bullying and negatively associated with conflict management climate
and work engagement.

Analyses of mediation and moderated mediation

To test hypotheses H1–H3 on the relationships between CCM, bullying and work
engagement and H4 that CCM has an indirect association with work engagement
through bullying we conducted a simple mediation analysis in line with the pro-
cedures presented by Hayes (2013). Bootstrapping was set to 5000 resamples.
A significant unconditional indirect association was established among the 284
respondents (b = .09; 95% BCa CI = .03 –.12). CCM was negatively associated with
bullying (b = –.16; p < .001) which in turn was negatively associated with work
engagement (b = –.58, p < .001), supporting H2 and H1, respectively. Controlling
for the mediator, the association between CCM and work engagement was reduced
from b = .56 (p < .001) to b = .46 (p > .001), initially supporting H3. In support
of our fourth study hypothesis, the findings indicated an indirect association
between CCM and work engagement through bullying.
To test the hypothesis (H5) that the indirect effect of CCM on work engagement
through bullying is conditioned by the level of CCM, we conducted a moderated
 12    S. Einarsen et al.
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

Figure 2. Interaction between conflict management climate and bullying with regard to work
engagement.

mediation analysis with CCM as a moderator of the relationship between

­bullying and work engagement. Two multiple regression models were generated
(see Table 2). The mediator variable model specified bullying as the dependent
variable, while the dependent variable model specified work engagement as the
dependent variable. In the mediator variable model, CCM (b = –.16; p < .001)
predicted bullying. In the dependent variable model, work engagement was pre-
dicted by CCM (b = .46, p < .001), bullying (b = –.41, p < .05) and the interaction
between CCM and bullying (b = .46, p < .01). The interaction is graphically dis-
played in Figure 2. The index of moderated mediation was significant (b = –.08;
95% BCa CI = –.15–−.03).
Bootstrap confidence intervals with 5000 resamples were calculated to deter-
mine the values of the moderator at which the conditional indirect effect was
significant. As shown in Table 2, the indirect association between CCM and work
engagement through bullying was significant for the 10th, 25th and 50th percentile
of the moderator. This means that CCM has the strongest association with work
engagement through bullying when levels of CCM are low. In cases with a strong
CCM, bullying does not seem to mediate relationships between CCM and work
engagement, thus indicating that a strong CCM protects against bullying as well
as against the potential negative outcomes of bullying on work engagement.
To determine whether the above conditional and indirect relationships were
influenced by control variables, the analyses were repeated with age, gender, role
conflict and role ambiguity as covariates. Although the indirect and conditional
relationships were somewhat attenuated, the findings provided support for sig-
nificant unconditional indirect (b = .04; 95% BCa CI = .01–.11) and conditional
indirect associations (b = –.04; 95% BCa CI = –.09– –.01). Role ambiguity was the
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   13

only covariate that was significantly associated with work engagement in these
analyses.

Discussion
While there are many studies on organizational factors and facets of the psycho-
social work environment as potential risk factors of bullying (Samnani & Singh,
2012; Branch, Ramsay, & Barker, 2013), there are few studies on potential preven-
tive factors, such as the psychological climate. Based on the theoretical models
of Crawford and colleagues (2010); Dollard and Bakker (2010) and Einarsen
and colleagues (2011), and extending earlier empirical findings on interpersonal
conflict, bullying and engagement as well as on bullying and climate (Bond et al.,
2010; Skogstad et al., 2011), the present study shows how the narrow bandwidth
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

climate facet of CCM was related to lower reports of bullying, elevated levels of
work engagement, while also acting as a buffer in the bullying – work engage-
ment relationship. More precisely, the five hypotheses of the present study were
supported as we found a negative relationship between exposure to workplace
bullying and work engagement (H1), a negative relationship between CCM and
exposure to workplace bullying (H2), a positive relationship between CCM and
work engagement (H3) and an indirect relationship between CCM and work
engagement through workplace bullying (H4). Most importantly though, this
latter indirect association between CCM and work engagement through workplace
bullying was conditionally dependent upon the levels of CCM and was only found
when CCM was weak (H5). Hence, the findings indicate that when employees per-
ceive a strong CCM, less bullying is taking place, work engagement is strong and
any exposure to bullying is no longer associated with reduced work engagement.
The simultaneous test of the hypothesis in a moderated mediation analyses puts
the latter hypothesis on a strict test, as do the fact that the study is conducted in
Norway, a country with a low prevalence of bullying combined with a low cultural
acceptance of such behavior (see also van de Vliert et al., 2013; Power et al., 2013).
In line with these findings CCM seems to be an important organizational
resource as it is related to less bullying and thereby maintaining high levels of
work engagement. Furthermore, the results underscore that bullying is related
to reduced work engagement. This finding is in line with the DJD-R model by
Crawford and colleagues (2010) where hindrance demands are seen to reduce
work engagement. According to Crawford and colleagues hindrance demands will
theoretically have this effect because they hamper goal attainment and thereby
trigger negative emotions. Such demands are also often dealt with by using pas-
sive coping strategies, which also affect work engagement negatively (Crawford
et al., 2010). Furthermore, exposure to bullying may be related to lowered work
engagement by signaling that one is not valued and respected (Power et al., 2013).
Yet, our results showed that CCM also had a moderating effect on the relationship
between bullying and work engagement. More precisely, the results show that a
 14    S. Einarsen et al.

high level of CCM weakens the relationship between bullying and work engage-
ment, and that the mediation effect that bullying may have in the relationship
between CCM and work engagement is only present when CCM is weak. Hence,
experiencing that the organization handles interpersonal conflicts well reduces
not only perceptions of being bullying, but also potential negative outcomes of
bullying such as reduced work engagement.
In a cross-sectional study, Law et al. (2011) found that the broad bandwidth
concept of PSC moderated both the relationship between bullying and mental
health problems as well as the relationship between bullying and work engage-
ment. The present study indicates that this effect may be boiled down to the
perceived ability of the organization to handle cases of interpersonal conflicts
well. In accordance with this Dijkstra, De Dreu, Evers, and van Dierendonck
(2009) found that conflicts were particularly related to strains when avoidance and
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

yielding were used as coping strategies. Correspondingly, Zapf (1999) found that
victims of bullying who reported a high level of unassertiveness/avoidance scored
significantly higher on depression and anxiety compared with victims who were
more self-assure in social situations. Employees perceiving a strong CCM will both
trust their managers to act proactively and constructively in cases of conflict and
at the same time feel confident to address a case if necessary, hence reducing the
potential negative outcomes in a bullying scenario. Furthermore, a strong CCM
may secure a high level of interpersonal trust, both between peers and between
subordinates and their superiors, again securing a high level of work engagement.
However, the consequences of a conflict could also be influenced by other factors,
such as the other party’s conflict management strategies (Dijkstra et al., 2009).
It will be difficult, for example, to actively resolve a conflict if the other party is
consistently evasive. However, CCM may constitute a shared frame of reference
that, by contributing to employees’ higher levels of perceived predictability and
control, probably promotes the use of active problem-solving strategies by all
parties, which may reduce the negative consequences of experiencing bullying.
According to the three-way model of workplace bullying by Baillien, Neyens, De
Witte, and De Cuyper (2009) interpersonal conflicts may, if not properly managed,
not only lead to perceptions of being bullied, but also be a breeding ground for
the actual enactment of bullying.

Methodological limitations of the study

The present study is based on data collected using questionnaires with one data
source only, namely individual employees. In methodological terms, this may
result in mono-method bias with artificially high correlations between the investi-
gated variables. Several studies have shown, however, that such a bias is much rarer
than has been assumed (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Spector, 2006). Furthermore,
the hypotheses of the present study in fact relates to intra-psychological factors
and states, namely work engagement, perceived exposure to bullying and the
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   15

perceived climate. Yet, following Podsakoff and Organ (1986) and Podsakoff and
colleagues (2003), we found that no single factor, or a general factor, could account
for the variation in the data, with all items loading on their respective factors in
a rotated condition, leading us to conclude that common method variance is not
a serious problem in the present study.
A more important limitation of the present study is that all the information was
collected at the same time. Causal conclusions can, strictly speaking, therefore
not be drawn on the basis of our empirical findings even though the presented
theories support the assumed directions of relationships. In other words, the
direction of the correlations may differ from what is assumed on the basis of the
theoretical models mentioned above (DJD-R model, the Einarsen and colleagues’
model and the PSC model). For example, it is possible that low work engagement
creates dissatisfaction and frustration among both managers and subordinates,
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

which in turn leads to bullying, or at least increased perceptions of it, which would
be in line with the ‘gloomy perception mechanism’ (de Lange, Taris, Kompier,
Houtman, & Bongers, 2005) which refers to the notion that dissatisfied employees
assess factors at work more negatively than do others. Correspondingly, it could
also be that the presence of bullying contributes to the perception that the CCM is
weak because people experience that they are unfairly treated by colleagues and/
or managers. Equally, the possibility of bi-directionality between the variables
and a vicious circle cannot be excluded, as bullying may lead to reduced work
engagement, which in turn can result in further experiences of bullying. In this
regard, longitudinal studies are necessary in order to confirm the direction of the
relationships between the studied variables. Yet, the findings anyhow show that
the CCM has a bearing on the relationship between the two, a finding not affected
by this potential problem.
In the present study, we addressed and measured psychological climate rather
than organizational climate, that is the individual perceptions of the climate, as
we assumed that it is the individual perceptions of these matters that count and
not the actual procedures of the organization, nor the average perceptions among
ones colleagues. Our data did not provide the possibility to test our hypotheses
at a group level of analysis.

Practical implications

The results of the present study have important practical implications, under-
scoring the importance of preventing bullying by the implementation of proce-
dures that promote the experience of fair conflict management when disputes
and conflicts develop. The present study indicates that a strong CCM may be
important both to prevent bullying but also to mitigate its potential negative
effects, at least as far as work engagement is concerned. Such conflict management
procedures should include directions for whom employees should contact and
which actions they should take if they are involved in disputes and conflicts, as
 16    S. Einarsen et al.

well as how management will act to solve such cases (see also Hoel & Einarsen,
2008). It should also most certainly involve training and education of managers,
HR personnel as well as health and safety representatives. A strong CCM may in
itself have additional positive effects, as the present study also showed that a strong
CCM was directly related to employees’ work engagement. Furthermore, the study
indicates that CCM moderates the bullying – work engagement relationship, so
that even if bullying happens it will not be related to reduced work engagement
among those targeted.

Implications for future research

Our findings open for a range of future studies. The observed interaction effects in
the present study, i.e. that the negative association between a hindrance demand
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

and work engagement can be reduced by resources that are related to that spe-
cific demand, have seldom been studied and should be further examined in the
future, in particular employing longitudinal designs. Hence, we need to know
if these observed effects are generalizable to other outcomes than merely work
engagement, be it the health and well-being of the target or organizational out-
comes such as absenteeism, efficiency and creativity. Furthermore, we need to
know better the mechanisms of how CCM may prevent both bullying as well as
its negative outcomes. In this there are multiple avenues that must be explored,
particularly as it is difficult, and perhaps not even desirable, to avoid all types
of interpersonal conflicts at work (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008). Hence, we must
investigate whether a strong CCM acts to prevent frustration and destructive
conflicts to escalate in to bullying scenarios due to satisfactory procedures and
employees’ perception of fairness and control. A number of studies have shown
that experienced injustice at work is related to interpersonal conflicts, conflict-es-
calating behavior and destructive behavior by managers (Ambrose, Seabright,
& Schminke, 2002; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997).
Another possible mechanism that could be explore is whether the experience of
organizational justice following from a strong CCM leads to a heightened level of
responsibility in the individual employee to treat other organizational members
in a similar fashion, which makes the occurrence of bullying less probable (Bond
et al., 2010). Another mechanism to test is whether a strong CCM may contribute
to enhanced trust in superiors which again lead to more active problem-solving
and enhanced work engagement. Lastly, it is highly relevant to test if CCM leads
to a feeling of safety among employees, increasing their threshold for perceiving
oneself to be bullied.
We should of course investigate these relationships employing longitudinal
designs as well as ‘shortitudinal’ ones, e.g. with the use of diary studies. Above
all, we need to know if CCM also holds and functions similarly on higher levels
of analysis (cf., group, organizational and county levels), an option that was not
available in the present study.
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   17

Conclusion
Studies on the potential causes of bullying tend to focus on enabling and moti-
vating factors, while far fewer studies have been conducted on inhibiting and
preventive factors (see also Salin & Hoel, 2011). The findings of the present study
show that CCM is related to less bullying and thereby also securing high levels
of work engagement among employees. The results, furthermore, indicate that
although the hindrance demand of exposure to bullying is related to reduced
work engagement, perceived CCM acts as a buffer in this relationship in that the
relation only exist when there is a negative perception of how the organization
handles interpersonal conflicts. An important contribution of the present paper is
to show how the effects of climate on workplace bullying found in earlier studies
may be narrowed down to the specific effect of the narrow bandwidth climate
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

facet of CCM. The present study substantiates that the organization and its man-
agers may contribute to maintaining low levels of bullying as well as high levels
of employee work engagement, even in the presence of such bullying, by focusing
on how to deal fairly and effectively with interpersonal tension and conflicts in
the organization. The cost-benefit analysis of such an intervention seems highly
favorable as CCM seems to come as a ‘two for the price of one’ intervention, that
is, acting both as a primary and as a secondary prevention, at least in the case of
bullying and work engagement.
The study has been conducted in Norway, a country with low levels of bullying,
but also with a low acceptance of such behaviors, making it likely that even low
levels of bullying should reduce work engagement. Research on the studied rela-
tionships should, however, also be conducted in cultures with a higher acceptance
of bullying to investigate the cultural relevance of these findings as well as looking
into if proper procedures for conflict management is a relevant preventive measure
across different cultures (see also Power et al., 2013).

Acknowledgments
We thank Stig Berge Matthiesen, Lars Glasø, Trude Remme, Helga Marie Meling, Arne
Magnus Morken and Lars Johan Hauge for their contribution in the collection of the data
employed in the present study.

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

References
Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The
role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89,
947–965. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00037-7
 18    S. Einarsen et al.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effectd of incivility in the
workplace. Acedemy of Management Review, 25, 452–471.
Asfaw, A. G., Chang, C. C., & Tapas, K. R. (2014). Workplace mistreatment and sickness
absenteeism from work: Results from the National Health Interview Survey. American
Journal of Industrial Medicine, 57, 2002–2013. doi:10.1002/ajim.22273
Baillien, E., Bollen, K., Euwema, M., & De Witte, H. (2014). Conflicts and conflict management
styles as precursors of workplace bullying: A two way longitudinal study. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 511–524.
Baillien, E., Camps, J., Van den Broeck, A., Stouten, J., Godderis, L., Sercu, M., & De Witte, H.
(2015). En eye for an eye will make the whole world blind: Conflict escalation into workplace
bullying and the role of distribute conflict behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(1), 1–15.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2563-y
Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). Towards a the three way model of
bullying; A qualitative study. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1–16.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,

1, 389–411. doi:10.1146/031413-091235
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources
boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 274–284. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research. Human Relations, 61, 1139–1160.
Berthelsen, M., Skogstad, A., Lau, B., & Einarsen, S. (2011). Do they stay or do they go?
A longitudinal studiy of intentions to leave and exclusion from working life among
targets of workplace bullying. International Journal of Manpower, 32, 178–193.
doi:10.1108/01437721111130198
Bond, S. A., Tuckey, M. R., & Dollard, M. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate,
workplace bullying, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress. Organization
Development Journal, 28, 37–56. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/
pqdlink?did=1979164161&Fmt=7&clientId=32064&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Branch, S., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general
harassment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 280–299.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00339.x
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 35, 307–311.
Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Oxford: D. C. Heath & Co.
Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A
meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
1103–1127. doi:10.1037/A0016172
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. doi:10.1006/
obhd.2001.2958
Cornell, D., Shukla, K., K., Konold, T., & Huang, F. (2014, July). Authoritan school climate and
peer victimization. Paper presented at XXIst World Meeting of International Society for
Reseaerch on Aggression, Atlanta. To appear in Journal of School Psychology.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational
research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67–76.
doi:10.1037//0021-9010.79.1.67
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   19

Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 95, 834–848. doi:10.1037/a0019364
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). Conflict in the workplace: Sources, functions, and
dynamics across multiple levels of analysis. In C. K. W. De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.),
The psychology of conflict and conflict management (pp. 3–54). New York, NY: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
de Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., Houtman, I. L., & Bongers, P. M. (2005). Different
mechanisms to explain the reversed effects of mental health on work characteristics.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 31, 3–14. doi:10.5271/sjweh.843
Dijkstra, M. T. M., De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., & van Dierendonck, D. (2009). Passive
responses to interpersonal conflict at work amplify employee strain. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 405–423. doi:10.1080/13594320802510880
Dollard, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive
work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 579–599. doi:10.1348/096317909X470690

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. doi:10.1080/02678370902815673
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment
at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Bullying and harassment in the workplace. Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp.
3–41). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.
Glambek, M., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2015). Take it or leave: A five-year prospective
study of workplace bullying and indicators of expulsion in working life. Industrial Health,
53, 160–170.
Griffith, J. (2006). A compositional analysis of the organizational climate-performance relation:
Public schools as organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1848–1880.
doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00085.x
Halbesleben, J. R. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout,
demands, resources, and consequences. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory
and research, 8, 102–117.
Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work
environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress, 21, 220–
242. doi:10.1080/02678370701705810
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analyses. A
regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hodgins, M., MacCurtain, S., & Mannix-McNamara, P. (2014). Workplace bullying and
incivility: A systematic review of interventions. International Journal of Workplace Health
Management, 7, 54–72.
Hoel, H., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Bullying and mistreatment at work: How managers may prevent
and manage such problems. In A. Kinder, R. Hughes, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Employee well-
being support. A workplace resource (pp. 161–173). Chichester: Wiley.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Høgh, A., Mikkelsen, E. G., & Hansen, Å. M. (2011). Individual consequenses of workplace
bullying/mobbing. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and
harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research and practice (pp. 107–128).
Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.
 20    S. Einarsen et al.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
IBM Corp. Released. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows [Version 22.0]. Armonk, NY:
IBM Corp.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. doi:10.2307/256287
Kant, L., Skogstad, A., Torsheim, T., & Einarsen, S. (2013). Beware the angry leader: Trait
anger and trait anxiety as predictors of petty tyranny. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 106–124.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.005
Law, R., Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., & Dormann, C. (2011). Psychosocial safety climate as
a lead indicator of workplace bullying and harassment, job resources, psychological health
and employee engagement. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1782–1793. doi:10.1016/j.
aap.2011.04.010
Leary, M. R. (2001). Interpersonal rejection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

Leon-Perez, J. M., Medina, F. J., Arenas, A., & Munduate, L. (2015). The relationship between
interpersonal conflict and workplace bullying. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 250–
263. doi:10.1108/JMP-01-2013-0034
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims,
5, 119–126.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship
between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223.
Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., Jørstad, K., & Brønnick, K. S. (2004). Climate for work group
creativity and innovation: Norwegian validation of the team climate inventory (TCI).
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 383–392.
Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2008). The occurence and correlates of bullying
and harassment in restaurant sector. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2008, 59–68.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00602.x
Mikkelsen, E. G., Høgh, E. G., & Puggard, L. B. (2011). Prevention of bullying and conflicts
at work. Process factors influencing the implementation and effects of intervntions.
International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 4, 84–100.
Myers, T. A. (2011). Goodbye, listwise deletion: Presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and
effective tool for handling missing data. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 297–310.
Nielsen, M. B., & Knardahl, S. (2015). Is workplace bullying related to the personality traits of
victims? A two year prospective study. Work & Stress, 29, 128–149.
Nielsen, M., Magerøy, N. M., Gjerstad, J., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Workplace bullying and
subsequent health problems. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening [Journal for the Norwegian
Medical Association], 134, 1233–1238.
Notelaers, G., Baillien, E., De Witte, H., Einarsen, S., & Vermunt, J. K. (2012). Testing the strain
hypothesis of the demand control model to explain severe bullying at work. Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 34, 69–87. doi:10.1177/0143831X12438742
Notelaers, G., & Einarsen, S. (2008, June). Short version of the negative acts questionaire (SNAQ).
Paper presented at 6th International Conference on Workplace Bullying and Harassment.
Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school – Basic facts and effects of a school based
intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 1171–1190.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual (2nd ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., LaCost, H. A., & Roberts,
J. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 389–416. doi:10.1002/job.198
 The International Journal of Human Resource Management   21

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. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. doi:10.1177/014920638601200408
Power, J. L., Brotheridge, C. M., Blenkinsopp, J., Bowes-Sperry, L., Bozionelos, N., Buzády, Z.,
… Nnedumm, A. U. O. (2013). Acceptability of workplace bullying: A comparative study
on six continents. Journal of Business Research, 66, 374–380.
Rayner, C., & Lewis, D. (2011). Managing workplace bullying: The role of policies. In S.
Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace.
Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 327–340). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and
Francis Group.
Rivlin, J. N. (2001). Conflict management climate related to employment litigation. Atlanta:
Georgia Institute of Technology.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and role ambiguity in complex
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.

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. doi:10.1080/02678370903227357
Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2011). Organizational causes of workplace bullying. In S. Einarsen, H.
Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace. Developments
in theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–41). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.
Samnani, K., & Singh, P. (2012). 20 Years of workplace bullying research: A review of the
antecedents and consequences of bullying in the workplace. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
17, 581–589. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.08.004
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. doi:10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326
Schneider, K. T., Pryor, J. B., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2011). Sexual harassment research in the United
States. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in
the workplace. Developments in theory, research, and practice (pp. 245–266). Boca Raton,
FL: Taylor and Francis Group.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434
Skogstad, A., Torsheim, T., Einarsen, S., & Hauge, L. J. (2011). Testing the work environment
hypothesis of bullying on a group level of analysis. Psychosocial factors as precursors of
observed workplace bullying. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 475–496. do
i:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00444
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend?
Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. doi:10.1177/1094428105284955
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. The Academy of Management Journal,
43, 178–190.
van de Vliert, E., Einarsen, S., & Nielsen, M. B. (2013). Are national levels of employee
harassment cultural covariations of climato-economic conditions? Work and Stress, 27,
106–122. doi:10.1080/02678373.2013.760901
 22    S. Einarsen et al.

Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying
at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 70–85. doi:10.1108/01437729910268669
Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2005). Mobbing at work: Escalated conflicts in organizations. In S. Fox
& P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets
(pp. 237–270). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zapf, D., Escartin, J., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Vartia, M. (2011). Empirical findings on
prevalence and risk groups of bullying in the workplace. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf,
& C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace. Developments in theory,
research, and practice (pp. 75–105). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 02:06 19 April 2016